Speaker 1: Center. Nice to see you. This is going to be
Speaker 1: a really interesting show because you put out a tweet
Speaker 1: asking people for questions they may have about what is
Speaker 1: going to happen with Donald Trump. We're going to go
Speaker 1: through a lot of those questions for this show. But
Speaker 1: let's start with kind of laying what this week's going
Speaker 1: to look like. What is going to happen this week
Speaker 1: with Donald Trump and this arraignment. We're being told tenively
Speaker 1: it would be on Tuesday. Obviously that could change, but
Speaker 1: we're being told that's what they're working with a secret
Speaker 1: service right now. Right So, what we know is the
Speaker 1: New York Grand Jury has returned in an indictment and
Speaker 1: that it has thirty four counts to the indictment. As
Speaker 1: we sit here today, we don't know the specific counts.
Speaker 1: That's still underseal. I assume that's going to be made
Speaker 1: public at some point, but we haven't seen what specifically
Speaker 1: the thirty four counts are. We also know from public
Speaker 1: news reporting that Trump is expected to be arraigned on
Speaker 1: Tuesday at two fifteen pm Eastern Standard time. So assuming
Speaker 1: that it's correct, we will see concurrent with the arraignment,
Speaker 1: we will see Trump come in we will see him
Speaker 1: surrender himself to the authorities in New York. From the
Speaker 1: public reporting, they're saying there's not going to be a
Speaker 1: perp walk, that Trump is not going to be in handcuffs.
Speaker 1: We've also seen public reporting that Secret Service has informed
Speaker 1: New York they will not allow them to handcuff Donald Trump,
Speaker 1: so he will come in, presumably of his own volition,
Speaker 1: without handcuffs. When he comes in, he'll be booked, he'll
Speaker 1: be fingerprinted, he will be that there will be a
Speaker 1: mug shot. Interestingly enough, based on some of the reporting,
Speaker 1: the New York authorities are suggesting the mug shot may
Speaker 1: not be available to the public, whereas Trump is saying
Speaker 1: he wants the mug shot to be available to the public.
Speaker 1: We know that Trump's presidential campaign has raised millions of
Speaker 1: dollars within the first twenty four hours of the indictment.
Speaker 1: I think the Trump campaign thinks that that mug shot
Speaker 1: is probably worth millions more dollars in campaign fundraising. We've
Speaker 1: talked about how this indictment is likely to boomerang and backlash,
Speaker 1: and that it already is, but all of that will
Speaker 1: play out on Tuesday. We will, I believe, see the
Speaker 1: mug shot, and as I predicted on this podcast already,
Speaker 1: I think you'll see Trump in a beautiful dark blue suit,
Speaker 1: a Chris White shirt, and a red shiny Donald J.
Speaker 1: Trump tie, smiling ear to ear in the mug shot.
Speaker 1: How abnormal is it to not release some mugshot of
Speaker 1: somebody because the fact that they're playing this much politics
Speaker 1: and I think that does go to politics and you're
Speaker 1: not going to go over procedure. Then you're playing politics.
Speaker 1: You want to arrest the guy, but you don't want
Speaker 1: people to see the mug shot that screams dripping a
Speaker 1: political motivation. It'll be released. That will be the end outcome.
Speaker 1: He will come in, he will plead not guilty. He
Speaker 1: will be released, presumably on some form of bail, given
Speaker 1: that New York they believe in in cashless bail, they'll
Speaker 1: release murderers. I don't know, maybe they'll say no, we
Speaker 1: won't release Donald Trump. Now. They will release him and
Speaker 1: then they'll move forward towards a trial. So how does
Speaker 1: the bail process work and how much time from when
Speaker 1: he gets out of that car walks in there with
Speaker 1: his attorneys. Secret Service will be around, they say. The
Speaker 1: entire time there was there was reporting that everybody in
Speaker 1: that court day. It basically Tuesday's gonna be shut down.
Speaker 1: Around that time. It'll be empty. It'll be just for
Speaker 1: this situation with Donald Trump. So how do you post bail?
Speaker 1: How fast does that happens? That come from a bank
Speaker 1: account before he even gets there? How does that work? Look,
Speaker 1: they're not going to drag it out. It's not going
Speaker 1: to be long and extended, in part because the New
Speaker 1: York City officials they're concerned about protests, they're concerned about violence.
Speaker 1: They're setting up barricade, so they're not gonna want it.
Speaker 1: In an ordinary case, someone could be there for hours
Speaker 1: and hours and hours. I mean, it's not typically a smooth,
Speaker 1: efficient process. In this case, I expect it will be
Speaker 1: relatively quick that he will go in, he will take
Speaker 1: the mug shot, they'll take his fingerprints, and he'll go
Speaker 1: and appear before a judge and bail will be set.
Speaker 1: Typically they'll turn to the prosecution and ask what's the
Speaker 1: prosecution seeking. In the prosecution will suggest a bail amount.
Speaker 1: It wouldn't surprise me if they release him on his
Speaker 1: own recognisance. It's not like they're worried about Yeah, yeah,
Speaker 1: it's not like he is a flight risk. So and
Speaker 1: it will be the judge ultimately who decides what the
Speaker 1: standard is for bail within the parameters of New York law.
Speaker 1: Will he be in a courtroom with a judge or
Speaker 1: will this be done by video? We saw a lot
Speaker 1: of that in COVID, where there was technology us right
Speaker 1: where you would go before a judge basically with you know,
Speaker 1: through a video camera when he walks in there, Will
Speaker 1: they take him into an actual courtroom or how does
Speaker 1: that work? Well, let me be clear, I've never practiced
Speaker 1: law in a New York state courtroom or certainly a
Speaker 1: New York criminal courtroom, so I don't have first experience
Speaker 1: with how Manhattan handles it. But I would absolutely expect
Speaker 1: that we will see this in a courtroom and front
Speaker 1: of a live judge, with a real court reporter in
Speaker 1: bailiff and the rest. All right, so let's ask and
Speaker 1: this is my first question I want to ask you.
Speaker 1: And crazy things have happened in and around Donald Trump.
Speaker 1: What if Donald Trump decides I don't want to go
Speaker 1: to New York, I don't want to deal with this,
Speaker 1: I don't want to show up for this. What would
Speaker 1: happen then? So that's actually an interesting legal question and
Speaker 1: it implicates a lot of different legal factors. The Constitution
Speaker 1: speaks to it. So the Constitution, there is a clause
Speaker 1: in the Constitution called the extradition Clause. The extradition clause provides, quote,
Speaker 1: a person charged at any state with treason, felony, or
Speaker 1: other crime, who shall flee from justice and be found
Speaker 1: in another state, shall, on demand of the executive authority
Speaker 1: of the state from which he fled, be delivered up
Speaker 1: to be removed to the state having jurisdiction of the crime. Now,
Speaker 1: if you look at the Constitutional Convention, which is where
Speaker 1: the Constitution was drafted, and if you looked at the notes,
Speaker 1: for example, on August twenty eighth, seventeen eighty seven, James
Speaker 1: Madison notes that during the constitutional editing process of Article four,
Speaker 1: which is where the extradition clause is found, that the
Speaker 1: words high misdemeanor were struck out and instead the words
Speaker 1: other crime were inserted, which which comprehended quote all proper cases.
Speaker 1: In other words, they didn't want the state where a
Speaker 1: person was to be found making a determination as to
Speaker 1: the nature of the crime. In the states seeking extradition.
Speaker 1: Now that's in the Constitution. There's a federal statute called
Speaker 1: the Federal Extradition Act, and that's eighteen USC. Section thirty
Speaker 1: one eighty two. It follows very closely to the Constitution's
Speaker 1: extradition Clause. It says, whenever an executive authority of any
Speaker 1: state or territory demands any person as a fugitive from justice,
Speaker 1: and it goes on to say, the executive authority of
Speaker 1: the state to which the person has fled shall cause
Speaker 1: him to be arrested and secured, and notify the executive
Speaker 1: authority making such a demand or the agency of such
Speaker 1: authority appointed to receive the fugitive, and shall cause the
Speaker 1: fugitive to be delivered. And so under the terms of
Speaker 1: the federal statute, it's a mandatory obligation. There's also a
Speaker 1: law called the Uniform Criminal Extradition Act, which is a
Speaker 1: uniform criminal law that forty eight states have adopted, including Florida.
Speaker 1: So there's a Florida state law that puts the obligation
Speaker 1: on the governor quote to have arrested and delivered up
Speaker 1: to the executive any other state of the United States,
Speaker 1: any person charged in that state with trees and felony
Speaker 1: or another crime. Now, it's more than a little interesting
Speaker 1: given that the executive of the state where Donald Trump
Speaker 1: is found, and he said it, made it very clear
Speaker 1: in his statement he would not work with New York City.
Speaker 1: So Rohn de Santis tweeted out the following quote. The
Speaker 1: weaponization of the legal system to advance a political agenda
Speaker 1: turns the rule of law on its head. It is
Speaker 1: an American the Soros backed Manhattan District attorney has consistently
Speaker 1: bent the law to downgrade felonies and to excuse criminal misconduct.
Speaker 1: Yet now he is stretching the law to target a
Speaker 1: political opponent. Florida will not assist in an extradition request
Speaker 1: given the questionable circumstances at issue with this Soros backed
Speaker 1: Manhattan prosecutor at his political agenda, So de Santis is
Speaker 1: suggesting that he would fight extradition of Donald Trump. Now,
Speaker 1: at the end of the day, if Trump refused to
Speaker 1: show up and DeSantis fought, I think it is likely
Speaker 1: that you would end up seeing Trump extradited. New York
Speaker 1: would likely seek a mandamus and federal district court in
Speaker 1: Florida to order that Trump be extradited. Presumably Florida would
Speaker 1: fight that, but I think given the Constitution, given the
Speaker 1: federal statue, given the Florida statute, it is likely that
Speaker 1: the courts would say that. Well, for example, here's what
Speaker 1: the Supreme Court said in a case that was called
Speaker 1: the Mexico versus Read. Supreme Court said, quote, what actually
Speaker 1: happened in the demanding state, the law of the demanding state,
Speaker 1: and what may be expected to happen in the demanding
Speaker 1: state that's New York when the fugitive returns are not
Speaker 1: issues that must be tried, or rather are issues that
Speaker 1: must be tried in the courts of that state and
Speaker 1: not in those of the asylum state. So I think
Speaker 1: given the state of the law, if Trump tried to fight,
Speaker 1: if De Santis fought alongside him, they could delay extradition. Yeah,
Speaker 1: but I think at the end of the day, it
Speaker 1: is like you would see extradition happen now assuming Trump
Speaker 1: does what he said, which is that he's going to surrender,
Speaker 1: And I think that's probably the right decision. To go
Speaker 1: and fight it and beat and beat it in court.
Speaker 1: We won't find it out. But but if if Trump
Speaker 1: were to refuse to show up, it would create a
Speaker 1: brand new legal challenge that that that would be fascinating
Speaker 1: and difficult something like that if it did happen and
Speaker 1: played out that way. Is that something that could possibly
Speaker 1: go all the way that spring Court to go ruling?
Speaker 1: It could? Sure, Sure it could, And given the nature
Speaker 1: of a presidential campaign, it's entirely possible that it would.
Speaker 1: As I said, I think it's likely not to be
Speaker 1: teed up because Trump has said he's going to turn
Speaker 1: himself in, and at the end of the day, I'm
Speaker 1: not sure it's in Trump's interest or to Santas's interest
Speaker 1: to drag this out for six months and then lose
Speaker 1: and be forced to do the same thing that that
Speaker 1: at the end of the day, that calculus, it's gonna
Speaker 1: be Trump that makes the decision. If you and show up,
Speaker 1: that'll tee this up. But given the state of the law,
Speaker 1: I assume Trump's lawyers are advising him, You're not likely
Speaker 1: to win the argument that I get to be a
Speaker 1: fugitive from justice because I don't like the indictment. You're
Speaker 1: on much stronger grounds going and fighting the indictment and
Speaker 1: saying this is a political witch hunt, rather than being
Speaker 1: in fact a fugitive from justice. I think that both
Speaker 1: legally and politically is a bad look, which is why
Speaker 1: I don't expect Trump to do that. It's very interesting
Speaker 1: to think about it, and it's when it doesn't not
Speaker 1: a Trump. You never know exactly what's going to happen.
Speaker 1: Yet you never know. And I will say sometimes history
Speaker 1: has a sense of humor. You know. I'm reminded back
Speaker 1: in two thousand and as you know, I was a
Speaker 1: baby lawyer, was part of the George W. Bush campaign,
Speaker 1: met Heidi on the campaign, and I was part of
Speaker 1: the legal team in Tallahassee and Bush versus Gore and
Speaker 1: the entire presidency came down to that. Those legal proceedings
Speaker 1: also five hundred and thirty seven votes for George W.
Speaker 1: Bush over al Gore. One of the bizarre aspects of
Speaker 1: it is the governor of the state that the entire
Speaker 1: presidency hinged upon was Jeb Bush, the brother of one
Speaker 1: of the two governors. I remember laughing saying, you know,
Speaker 1: if you wrote this as a novel, no one would
Speaker 1: publish it. They say, come on, this is stupid. If
Speaker 1: you submitted a screenplay, they laugh at You know, you
Speaker 1: don't get to make the governor of the key state
Speaker 1: the brother of one of the candidates. It's kind of
Speaker 1: similar here. No, you don't get to make the governor
Speaker 1: of the state that would decide what to do on
Speaker 1: extradition the leading Republican rival of the guy presumably being
Speaker 1: extradited and sometime make history. You can't make it up.
Speaker 1: It's amazing. I want to get some of these questions
Speaker 1: on Twitter, A lot of really good questions. We're responding
Speaker 1: when we said, hey, we'll answer these questions. Before we
Speaker 1: get that, I want to tell you about our friends
Speaker 1: over at Patriot Mobile. You've got bills every month that
Speaker 1: you're going to pay, and the question is when you
Speaker 1: choose who you're gonna go with with your cell phone provider,
Speaker 1: are you king with a company that actually stands with
Speaker 1: your values or is fighting against what you believe in.
Speaker 1: Patriot Mobile was created as the only conservative Christian cell
Speaker 1: phone coming to us because they wanted to make a
Speaker 1: difference every time. If you remember, you pay your bill now,
Speaker 1: they actually take a portion of your bill every month
Speaker 1: and they give it back to conservative causes and organizations.
Speaker 1: We're talking about defending your First Amendment rights, your Second
Speaker 1: Amendment rights, the rights of unborn children. They even help
Speaker 1: with adoptions. This is why I love Patriot Mobile. Now
Speaker 1: you get the same cell phone number you're using right now,
Speaker 1: so it's easy to switch, and you're using the same towers,
Speaker 1: the same coverage you're used to right now. The only
Speaker 1: difference is when you make the switch, you're standing up
Speaker 1: for what you believe in. So check them out. Go
Speaker 1: online to Patriot Mobile dot com slash verdict that's Patriot
Speaker 1: Mobile dot com slash verdict, or you can call them
Speaker 1: eight seven eight Patriot that's eight seven eight Patriot use
Speaker 1: a promo code Verdict for the best deals of the
Speaker 1: day center. I want to get some of these questions
Speaker 1: because they're really good, and this is the first one,
Speaker 1: and I think it's a great one. It says, does
Speaker 1: Trump have any recourse if after his walk of shame
Speaker 1: slash mug shot, the case fizzles out. It's a great
Speaker 1: question because it's like, it seems so biased, it seems
Speaker 1: so political, it seems so unfair. Does he have any
Speaker 1: recourse that this thing doesn't work out for brack So,
Speaker 1: his recourses are very limited and they're primarily political. Legally,
Speaker 1: his principal resource would be under a law called forty
Speaker 1: two USC. Section nineteen eighty three, so section nineteen eighty
Speaker 1: three and enables it says, every person who undercover undercolor
Speaker 1: of any statute, ordinance, regulation, customer usage, in other words,
Speaker 1: undercolor of state law causes the deprivation of any rights, privileges,
Speaker 1: or immunities secured by the Constitution or laws, shall be
Speaker 1: liable to the party injured in inaction at law. What
Speaker 1: in section nineteen eighty three enables you to do is
Speaker 1: that if a state or local official violates your constitutional rights,
Speaker 1: you can sue that state or local official for violating
Speaker 1: your constitutional rights. Section nineteen eighty three is the primary
Speaker 1: vehicle of most civil rights lawsuits. Section nineteen eighty three
Speaker 1: is actually part of what was called the ku klux
Speaker 1: Klans laws, which were passed in the wake of the
Speaker 1: Civil War and in the wake of the Fourteenth Amendment.
Speaker 1: Section nineteen eighty three was one of the enforcement mechanisms
Speaker 1: of the Fourteenth Amendment. After the Civil War, there were
Speaker 1: three landmark amendments that were adopted. The Thirteenth Amendment, which
Speaker 1: ended slavery, the Fourteenth Amendment, which ensures due process of
Speaker 1: law and equal protection of law, and was their designed
Speaker 1: to protect the rights principally of the slaves who had
Speaker 1: just been freed, but also of everyone else. It applied
Speaker 1: across the board. And then the fifteenth Amendment guaranteed the
Speaker 1: right to vote couldn't be denied based on race, and
Speaker 1: so the three were adopted together following the Civil War.
Speaker 1: Trump could bring in nineteen eighty three lawsuit, there'd be
Speaker 1: a number of challenges. Number one, if he tried to
Speaker 1: sue Alvin Bragg personally, he'd be extremely unlikely to succeed.
Speaker 1: The courts interpret seems unfair by the way I understand,
Speaker 1: but the courts interpret prosecutorial immunity very very broadly. It's
Speaker 1: been referred to in numerous instances as absolute. And you
Speaker 1: know you can say it seems unfair. But I will
Speaker 1: give you the flip side of that, which is every
Speaker 1: day people are prosecuted all across the country. And if
Speaker 1: you could sue the DA for every prosecution they brought,
Speaker 1: every murderer, every drug dealer, you would face an unlimited
Speaker 1: number of lawsuits. And you got to think about it,
Speaker 1: Ben Ferguson, would you serve as DA? Now if every
Speaker 1: murderer you you prosecuted, could sue Ben Ferguson personally and
Speaker 1: take your house and take your car. You've got a
Speaker 1: fancy to a car parked outside you don't want Yeah, yeah,
Speaker 1: I knew you were gonna take that shot. Well played. No,
Speaker 1: it's but it's true. You would not take that job.
Speaker 1: You would say, I can't afford this, I can't afford
Speaker 1: the legal I can't afford the time it takes. So
Speaker 1: that does make sense. So there's a reason prosecutors and
Speaker 1: judges both have been given absolute immunity with very very
Speaker 1: few exceptions because of that proposition. What you can do, though,
Speaker 1: is you can sue the office. So you could sue
Speaker 1: the District Attorney in the official capacity, not your personal capacity,
Speaker 1: which means that judgment would not be paid out of
Speaker 1: District Attorney Ben Ferguson's personal bank account, but rather out
Speaker 1: of the day the District attorney for Manhattan. The challenges
Speaker 1: of suing the office, though, are quite significant, and I
Speaker 1: actually litigated a case where we were dealing with exactly this.
Speaker 1: It's a case called Conic versus Thompson, and it dealt
Speaker 1: with an individual named John Thompson who was prosecuted for
Speaker 1: murder in New Orleans and he was convicted of capital
Speaker 1: murder and he was sent to death row, and it
Speaker 1: was a wrongful conviction. John Thompson was innocent of the murder,
Speaker 1: and the District Attorney's office in New Orleans they had
Speaker 1: blood evidence that could have exonerated him, and they never
Speaker 1: gave that blood evidence to John Thompson. There's a Supreme
Speaker 1: Court decision called Brady, which which requires that prosecutors have
Speaker 1: to give the defendants any exculpatory evidence, any evidence they
Speaker 1: have that could prove their innocent, they have to hand
Speaker 1: it over in the DA's office. It didn't do it,
Speaker 1: and so they convicted him. They sent John Thompson to
Speaker 1: death row. And ultimately his lawyers actually through like pricking
Speaker 1: his fingers, they took a DNA test, they got access
Speaker 1: to the blood evidence, and they proved he was innocent.
Speaker 1: And so John Thompson was released from death row, but
Speaker 1: he'd spent fourteen years on death row for a crime
Speaker 1: he didn't commit. Well after he was released, I wasn't
Speaker 1: part of the criminal trial. I got involved. After he
Speaker 1: was released. He filed a lawsuit against the District Attorney
Speaker 1: in New Orleans and he won. He won fourteen million dollars,
Speaker 1: a million dollars for every year of the fourteen years
Speaker 1: he was wrongfully incarcerated. That case went up to the
Speaker 1: Supreme Court, and I was in private practice at the time.
Speaker 1: I was at a firm called Morgan Lewis, one of
Speaker 1: the biggest law firms in the country, and I was
Speaker 1: leading their Supreme Court practice and their national pellet practice.
Speaker 1: And two of my law partners had been representing John
Speaker 1: Thompson for years pro bono, doing it for free, and
Speaker 1: so they brought me in to assist on the Supreme
Speaker 1: Court case, and I spent a lot of time working
Speaker 1: with my partners on the Supreme Court case. We went
Speaker 1: to the court, I was at the argument seating at
Speaker 1: Council chamber. My partner argued the case. Unfortunately, we lost
Speaker 1: five four and five four. The Supreme Court throughout the
Speaker 1: judgment because they said there was not a pattern in
Speaker 1: practice that was so pervasive in the office of refusing
Speaker 1: to hand over Brady materials that they were not going
Speaker 1: to hold the office liable all of just to say,
Speaker 1: Trump could presumably sue, but the chances of succeeding in
Speaker 1: a civil lawsuit afterwards are very slim. There would be
Speaker 1: serious legal impediments to winning interesting, especially if you are
Speaker 1: on death row for fourteen years. You can't win that one. Yeah,
Speaker 1: this is obviously seems a much lower level of chance
Speaker 1: of success. Let's go to another question, and again everybody's
Speaker 1: in these end. You guys are amazing with us. Another
Speaker 1: one is are the charges that Trump was indicted for
Speaker 1: politically based or based on actual evidence? Does the indictment
Speaker 1: warrant further investigation? And what legal options does Trump have
Speaker 1: for responding to the indictment. Well, look, the indictment I
Speaker 1: believe is wholly political. I think it is baseless. We
Speaker 1: don't know the exact terms. But what we do know
Speaker 1: is we know what we think the case is based on, right,
Speaker 1: and I think the case is based on a specific
Speaker 1: New York law. It's New York Penal Law one seven
Speaker 1: five dot zero five. Now that's a law that makes
Speaker 1: it a misdemeanor to essentially create a false business record.
Speaker 1: It defines it a little more legal ease, but it's
Speaker 1: creating a false business record. Now there's an obvious problem
Speaker 1: with this, which is a misdemeanor. The misdemeanor under New
Speaker 1: York law has a two year statute of limitations. The
Speaker 1: conduct here occurred in twenty sixteen and The conduct, as
Speaker 1: we understand it, that this is all based on, is
Speaker 1: an alleged payment of one hundred and thirty thousand dollars
Speaker 1: made by Michael Cohen, then Donald Trump's personal attorney, to
Speaker 1: Stormy Daniels, the porn star who alleges she had an
Speaker 1: affair with Donald Trump and that the money was hush
Speaker 1: money for her to keep quiet. And this is in
Speaker 1: the middle of the presidential campaign Trump is running against Hillary.
Speaker 1: It obviously would have been not good politically for a
Speaker 1: scandal to break right in the middle of this of
Speaker 1: an affair with a porn star. It's not illegal under
Speaker 1: New York law to have an affair with a porn star.
Speaker 1: It's not even illegal under New York law to pay
Speaker 1: hush money to a porn star. All of that. You
Speaker 1: can decide what you like about the underlying alleged conduct,
Speaker 1: but it's not illegal in New York. What is allegedly
Speaker 1: illegal is that when Michael Cohen delivered one hundred and
Speaker 1: thirty thousand dollars to Stormy Daniels, it was recorded on
Speaker 1: the records for Trump as legal fees, when it was
Speaker 1: not in fact legal fees. It was hush money payments
Speaker 1: to the porn star. Now I said this was a misdemeanor,
Speaker 1: So how is Alvin Bragg bringing it it's beyond two years. Well,
Speaker 1: there's a second statute. It's New York Penal law one
Speaker 1: seven five one zero. That makes it a felony with
Speaker 1: a longer statute of limitations. If the false business record
Speaker 1: was created in order to aid in the commission of
Speaker 1: another crime, so to get it from misdemeanor to felony,
Speaker 1: to get the statute of limitations longer, Alvin Bragg has
Speaker 1: to somehow bootstrap that this allegedly false business record was
Speaker 1: done to facilitate another crime. We don't know what other
Speaker 1: crime he's going to claim. Presumably the most likely other
Speaker 1: crime is some sort of federal campaign finance violation that
Speaker 1: it was hiding what the money was being spent for.
Speaker 1: We don't know exactly sure. We do know that the
Speaker 1: Department of Justice the Southern District of New York investigated
Speaker 1: a federal campaign finance violation on this and decided not
Speaker 1: to prosecute. We also know that the Federal Elections Commissions
Speaker 1: investigated the conduct underlying this to see if there was
Speaker 1: a violation and decided not to prosecute. So at this point,
Speaker 1: Alvin Bragg is presumably taking a federal crime that no
Speaker 1: federal official thinks is sufficient to prosecute, and using that
Speaker 1: to try to bootstrap a state crime into a felony
Speaker 1: to go after Donald Trump. I think the entire thing
Speaker 1: is crap and one of the most important points, and
Speaker 1: it's one I've made a couple of times on this podcast.
Speaker 1: If this is a crime, if this is a felony
Speaker 1: that someone should go to jail four, then Hillary Clinton
Speaker 1: committed the exact same crime because at the exact same time,
Speaker 1: Hillary Clinton's campaign paid over a million dollars. You're an
Speaker 1: exaggerating to see exact same twenty sixteen presidential campaign. Her
Speaker 1: campaign was making the Steel dossier. The Democrat Natural Committee
Speaker 1: was helping pay for this, She was paying for this
Speaker 1: out of the campaign finance, you know, their campaign. She
Speaker 1: had lawyers involved that we're doing this and trying to
Speaker 1: sell this. Literally it's exact same time frame. So her
Speaker 1: campaign spent over one million dollars to create the Steel dossier.
Speaker 1: The Steel Dossier, you remember, is this scurlous and scandalous
Speaker 1: dossier assembled in Europe that that alleged all these things
Speaker 1: that Trump had done, including the famous pe tape, all
Speaker 1: of which was fiction, all of which was false. It
Speaker 1: was made up, brought to you, paid for by the
Speaker 1: Democratic Party and Hillary for president. It was and Hillary
Speaker 1: Clinton campaign recorded that over million dollars as legal fees.
Speaker 1: So if recording something as legal fees that is not
Speaker 1: legal fees in the context of a presidential campaign is
Speaker 1: criminal in Manhattan, then Hillary Clinton, a resident of New York,
Speaker 1: committed the same crime at the exact same time twenty
Speaker 1: sixteen in the exact same place, Manhattan, New York. There
Speaker 1: is no coherent way, all right. If Alvin Bragg wants
Speaker 1: to indict Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump side by side,
Speaker 1: then they can both. Then he can lose both cases.
Speaker 1: But that at least is marginally consistent. If he only
Speaker 1: indicts Donald Trump, everyone gets the joke. He hates Trump.
Speaker 1: He's a left wing Democrat, and by any means necessary
Speaker 1: as his approach. I want to tell you about our
Speaker 1: friends at Augusta Precious Metals. It is crazy what's happening
Speaker 1: in our economy right now. It's crazy what's happening with
Speaker 1: many people's retirement accounts. And if you want to have
Speaker 1: diversification of your financial portfolio. You need to check out
Speaker 1: august of Precious Metals A gust of Precious Medals will
Speaker 1: sit down with you, actually do a live web conference
Speaker 1: with you, talk about where you are, how close you
Speaker 1: are to retirement, and if you're close to retirement, you
Speaker 1: know how important is to preserve your wealth because you
Speaker 1: don't have time to make up losses. That's where Augusta
Speaker 1: comes in. They'll look over what you're doing now, They'll
Speaker 1: look over your IRA you're four one k and see
Speaker 1: if you can diversify in gold and silver. Check them
Speaker 1: out online Augusta Precious Medals dot com. Also you can
Speaker 1: call them as well eight seven seven four the number
Speaker 1: four Gold IRA eight seven seven four Gold IRA. Call them,
Speaker 1: sit down with them, take back and get rid of
Speaker 1: all that nervousness by looking at gold and silver to
Speaker 1: see if it's right for your retirement account eight seven
Speaker 1: seven four Gold IRA SNA. I want to get to
Speaker 1: another question real quick that it came in. What are
Speaker 1: the chances of dismissal? And if found innocent, can the
Speaker 1: d A face being disbarred? So I think the chances
Speaker 1: of dismissal are high. It will depend on what trial
Speaker 1: court they get there are some partisan Democrat trial judges
Speaker 1: in New York, so it is possible they get a
Speaker 1: high highly partisan trial judge who refuses to dismiss the claims.
Speaker 1: If they have a trial judge who follows the law,
Speaker 1: I think this ought to be dismissed at trial court.
Speaker 1: If not, it should be thrown out on appeal. But
Speaker 1: if it's not dismissed at the trial court, there will
Speaker 1: almost assuredly be a motion to dismiss the indictment, a
Speaker 1: fight early on in the trial court. If it's not
Speaker 1: dismissed in the trial court, I expect an appeal and
Speaker 1: any appellate court following the law I think will throw
Speaker 1: this out. I think this will ultimately be rejected. How
Speaker 1: long does this last? Then? That's I mean, you've got
Speaker 1: a presidential campaign here. Look, it depends, but you know,
Speaker 1: prosecutions can drag on for months and years. It depends
Speaker 1: how quickly the New York courts operate. But it is
Speaker 1: easy to see this lasting for many months, and it
Speaker 1: could conceivably last beyond election Day twenty twenty four, which
Speaker 1: brings me to a question I have to ask as
Speaker 1: a follow up, Donald Trump, let's say gets elected, he
Speaker 1: becomes president United States of America again for another four years. Yeah,
Speaker 1: January twentieth, he's scorn in January twenty first he is convicted.
Speaker 1: What happens then? Look if he's convicted, and let's assume
Speaker 1: for a second he's convicted and sentenced to jail. I
Speaker 1: don't think that's going to happen. Let's be clear. This
Speaker 1: is a hypothetical that I think is falls but there
Speaker 1: is nothing in the Constitution to prevent a president from
Speaker 1: serving while in jail. So for anyone who thinks, is
Speaker 1: that because they never could have imagined the scenario that
Speaker 1: we're living in right now. Yes, yes, Look, I think
Speaker 1: that's a significant part of it that they didn't. In division,
Speaker 1: the legal system being weaponized, I mean, as you know,
Speaker 1: I wrote an entire book just a few months ago
Speaker 1: on this topic, Justice Corrupted, How the Left is weaponized
Speaker 1: the legal system. Haven't bought the book? Go by the
Speaker 1: book because it talks about Alvin Bragge, It talks about
Speaker 1: DJ it talks about the FBI. It lays out this problem.
Speaker 1: The reason I wrote the book I saw what Obama
Speaker 1: had done, what the deep Stata had done against Trump.
Speaker 1: I saw what Joe Biden and Merritt Garland were doing.
Speaker 1: I saw what Alvin Bragg had done. This has been
Speaker 1: coming a long time. The Framers never envisioned the system
Speaker 1: being used by that. But in terms of so, there's
Speaker 1: some people who are saying, well, gosh, does the indictment
Speaker 1: mean Trump can't run? Let me tell you. Article two
Speaker 1: of the Constitution specifies the grounds to serve as president.
Speaker 1: They're three. What Constitution says is no person except a
Speaker 1: natural born citizen, which Trump is, shall be eligible to
Speaker 1: the office of the President. Neither shall any person be
Speaker 1: eligible to that office who shall not have attained the
Speaker 1: age of thirty five years. Trump is over thirty five
Speaker 1: and been fourteen years a resident within the United States.
Speaker 1: Those are the three criteria under the Constitution. You gotta
Speaker 1: be a natural born citizen, at least the five years old,
Speaker 1: and have been fourteen years a resident in the United States.
Speaker 1: Trump meets all three of those, so he is eligible
Speaker 1: to run for president. He's eligible to serve as president. Now,
Speaker 1: there is potentially one other ground that could make someone
Speaker 1: ineligible to serve for president. That is under the Fourteenth Amendment.
Speaker 1: Under Section three of the Fourteenth Amendment, it provides no
Speaker 1: person shall be a senator, representative in Congress, or elector
Speaker 1: of the President or Vice president, or hold any office
Speaker 1: under the United States, who, having previously taken an oath
Speaker 1: to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have
Speaker 1: engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given
Speaker 1: aid and comfort to the enemies thereof. So this is
Speaker 1: something in the fever swamps of the left, the Democratic side,
Speaker 1: they get great joy of. Okay, Trump will be barred
Speaker 1: from running for serving as president under section three of
Speaker 1: the fourteenth Amendment, and is at least conceivable there will
Speaker 1: be lawsuits arguing Trump is ineligible under section three of
Speaker 1: the fourteenth Amendment and arguing that under that what happened
Speaker 1: on January six qualified as to use the constitutional language
Speaker 1: on insurrection or rebellion. That's why Democrats use the word
Speaker 1: insurrection so much, over and over and over again. That's
Speaker 1: not going to succeed. I think it is highly unlikely
Speaker 1: to succeed. We might see a prosecution from the Biden
Speaker 1: Justice Department, the special prosecutor that's investigating Trump might bring
Speaker 1: a prosecution for insurrection or rebellion or giving aid in
Speaker 1: comfort to the enemies thereof. But there has been no prosecution.
Speaker 1: So excluding that if he if he was convicted of
Speaker 1: another crime, that does not mean that he is ineligible.
Speaker 1: Because the United States could commit murder. Joe Biden could
Speaker 1: walk into the office of his chief of staff and
Speaker 1: kill his chief of staff on national television. Joe Biden
Speaker 1: could be prosecuted and sentenced to life in prison, and
Speaker 1: if nothing else happened, Joe Biden would remain the President
Speaker 1: of the United States. Wow. Now, the natural step that
Speaker 1: would happen in that hypothetical is the House of Representatives
Speaker 1: would impeach Joe Biden for having committed high crimes and misdemeanors.
Speaker 1: And in that instance, presumably the Senate would convict him
Speaker 1: and remove him from office. But that's how you remove
Speaker 1: a president from office, is It's not it's not the conviction,
Speaker 1: it's what you do afterwards in Congress that would make
Speaker 1: you ineligible to be president. Simply a murder conviction, simply
Speaker 1: a life life imprisonment sentence would not automatically remove you
Speaker 1: from from the office. It would take the Senate convicting
Speaker 1: in an impeachment. Interesting, let's get to another question here,
Speaker 1: another one that came through. When are we going to
Speaker 1: see indictments against the Clintons slash Bidens. I mean, the
Speaker 1: whole world has seen the evidence. What more is needed?
Speaker 1: I think this goes back to Hunter Biden, James Biden,
Speaker 1: that the Biden crime family continues to expand. People see
Speaker 1: the laptop, they see the money, they see the suspicious
Speaker 1: activity reports, and there does seem to be two different
Speaker 1: systems of justice in this country. If you're a Democrat,
Speaker 1: you get a pass if your Republican will make up
Speaker 1: crimes against you to shut you up. I mean, how
Speaker 1: we had somebody that went to jail the other day
Speaker 1: there was convicted because they made a meme of Hillary
Speaker 1: Clinton about Hillary Clinton. And people see that and they say,
Speaker 1: we're not safe in this country if you're a Republican
Speaker 1: and the system can come after you. But Democrats, it's
Speaker 1: good to go do whatever you want to do. Look,
Speaker 1: if you look at the conduct Hillary Clinton committed, it
Speaker 1: was all together different from this sort of conduct, and actually,
Speaker 1: as it concerns false business records, it was identical and
Speaker 1: ten x worse. In other words, Trump is alleged to
Speaker 1: have done so with one hundred and thirty thousand. Hillary
Speaker 1: Clinton is admitted to have done so with over a
Speaker 1: million dollars the Bidens. We've talked at great length on
Speaker 1: this podcast about the evidence of corruption by the Biden family.
Speaker 1: It is significant. I believe the Biden DOJ wants to
Speaker 1: get nowhere near it. I don't believe they're investigating it.
Speaker 1: I don't believe they're looking at it. I Merrick Garland's
Speaker 1: plan was to indict Donald Trump for improperly having classified
Speaker 1: documents at Marlago. I think they were very excited. I
Speaker 1: think they were. They had started, they had leaked. They
Speaker 1: were going to indict Hunter Biden for drug and tax issues,
Speaker 1: which don't implicate his father or the family corruption, just
Speaker 1: say poor troubled soul with a substance abuse problem. I
Speaker 1: think Merrick Garland wanted to do that in order to
Speaker 1: show how even handed he was. Look, I'm indicting a Biden,
Speaker 1: I'm inditing a Trump. See it's right in the middle.
Speaker 1: Then a funny thing happened on the way to the forum,
Speaker 1: which as we discovered that Joe Biden had classified documents
Speaker 1: stored seemingly in every mode the orifice he had, Like,
Speaker 1: I don't understand why Biden leaves classified documents everywhere. It
Speaker 1: started to become almost a comedy of error as one
Speaker 1: after the other after the other was discovered. What it
Speaker 1: created was a legal and even more significantly, a political
Speaker 1: problem for Merrick Garland in that Now, now I think
Speaker 1: Garland understands if DOJ indicts Donald Trump for classified documents
Speaker 1: at Marlago, it is indefensible not to indict Joe Biden
Speaker 1: for the same thing, and so I think they feel
Speaker 1: just stuck. Right now, we've talked about the special counsel
Speaker 1: who's been appointed to investigate the Biden classified documents. The
Speaker 1: real question that will indicate whether that special counsel is
Speaker 1: fulfilling his oath is whether he's willing to investigate and
Speaker 1: does in fact investigate the connections of corruption back to
Speaker 1: Joe Biden himself, or whether he seals him off and
Speaker 1: doesn't look at the corruption. I hope they do. I
Speaker 1: have to say, my level of optimism that the Biden
Speaker 1: DOJ will investigate or prosecute the Biden family corruption is extremely,
Speaker 1: extremely low. I want to get to one other question
Speaker 1: before we get to my orchist because I want to
Speaker 1: make sure we leave time for that and what he
Speaker 1: had to say on sixteen minutes. But the last one.
Speaker 1: Here's a thread and I kind of want you to
Speaker 1: go through it so people understand, and this is an
Speaker 1: important one. So this is an individual. So we had
Speaker 1: when we put out on Twitter said you have questions
Speaker 1: about the Trump indictment. We had a lot of good questions,
Speaker 1: a number of which we went through in this podcast.
Speaker 1: We also had trolls on the left who just kind
Speaker 1: of had fun, and that's fine. I enjoyed trolls. I
Speaker 1: have to admit Twitter would be more bully boring without
Speaker 1: the trolls. I enjoy jousting with lefties. It's it's you know,
Speaker 1: it's usually like shooting fish in a barrel. But in
Speaker 1: this instance, this person, presumably from the left, sent sent
Speaker 1: out a tweet that is copying an earlier tweet I
Speaker 1: had sent that said elected officials, no matter how high
Speaker 1: their position, should be held accountable for criminal conduct. The
Speaker 1: rule of law matters. And this individual says, my question
Speaker 1: is this you haha lefty? Yeah, yeah, yeah, I got him. Well,
Speaker 1: this was actually part of a threat of tweets that
Speaker 1: I had sent about Hillary Clinton. So if you look
Speaker 1: at the thread, the first email, this was on October
Speaker 1: twenty eight, twenty sixteen, which is Americans already know Hillary
Speaker 1: Clinton a lifelong pattern of corruption, and I linked to
Speaker 1: a detailed summary of that lifelong pattern. The second tweet
Speaker 1: was it's abundantly clear her handling of classified info and
Speaker 1: a private email server was grossly negligent, as the FBI
Speaker 1: admitted this summer. You remember James come at his press
Speaker 1: conference admitting she'd violated the law and it was grossly negligent.
Speaker 1: And then the third tweet was elected officials, no matter
Speaker 1: how high their position, should be held accountable for criminal conduct.
Speaker 1: The rule of law matters. Every bit of that is
Speaker 1: absolutely right. And with Hillary Clinton, you saw a repeated
Speaker 1: pattern of criminal behavior. And you also saw a repeated
Speaker 1: pattern of the destruction of evidence, including wiping hard drives,
Speaker 1: including using hammers to smash cell phones to destroy the evidence.
Speaker 1: By the way, as a legal matter, if you destroy evidence,
Speaker 1: you are entitled to presume that that is because the
Speaker 1: evidence would have implicated you in a crime. In this instance,
Speaker 1: the alleged crime that Alvin Bragg is bringing of a
Speaker 1: book keeping error is number one trivial, number two past
Speaker 1: the statute of limitations, and number three obviously pretextual to
Speaker 1: say the rule of law matters. Look, there's a concommit
Speaker 1: and aspect to it, which is, when you are prosecuting
Speaker 1: a government official, particularly a government official of the opposing party,
Speaker 1: there is an obligation that you have a standard that
Speaker 1: this really mattered, that this be a real and significant violation,
Speaker 1: that it not be some tikie tack. Aha. I got
Speaker 1: video of you going fifty six miles an hour and
Speaker 1: a fifty five we're coming to put you away. That
Speaker 1: principle is absolutely true, and listen. I'm not advocating that
Speaker 1: Biden be prosecuted for tikie tack irrelevant issues. I'm interested
Speaker 1: in whether he was engaged in actual corruption with the
Speaker 1: government of the Chinese Communist government that was enriching himself
Speaker 1: and his family to the tune of millions of dollars.
Speaker 1: That's classic public corruption. It is significant, it is consequential,
Speaker 1: and the corporate media and the Democrats desperately want to
Speaker 1: avoid any inquiry to that. I don't expect the DOJ
Speaker 1: to get into it. I do expect the House of
Speaker 1: Representatives to continue to press forward with oversight and make
Speaker 1: those facts public and decided if someone's going to try
Speaker 1: to troll you, they should at least read the whole
Speaker 1: Twitter thread before they do it. Public service announcement there,
Speaker 1: you know. Oddly enough, trolls are rarely known for their
Speaker 1: diligence and attention to detail. Yeah, I want to talk
Speaker 1: about Americus real quick. The border. It's a really important issue.
Speaker 1: You had a bunch of back and forth with Americus
Speaker 1: when he was testifying recently, we've talked about in the pot.
Speaker 1: If you missed it, go back and listen to that.
Speaker 1: Before we get that, I want to tell you about
Speaker 1: our friends at Chalk. If you're a guy and you're
Speaker 1: getting older and you feel like you're losing some of
Speaker 1: your edge, you need to check out Chuck c dot com.
Speaker 1: Check them out because they can help boost your testosterone
Speaker 1: levels up to twenty percent over ninety days. By taking
Speaker 1: Chalk's mail Vitality Stack, you can maximize your masculinity and
Speaker 1: you can do it right now. By going to chalkhoq
Speaker 1: dot com. Now use the code been You're gonna get
Speaker 1: thirty five percent off any Chuck subscription for life. I'm
Speaker 1: taking the Vitality Stack. I can tell you it has
Speaker 1: made a difference. It's actually really cool. Check them out.
Speaker 1: Don't feel like you're just getting older. Fight back and
Speaker 1: check out what they can do for you. Chuckhoq dot
Speaker 1: com use the codeben for thirty five percent off. That's
Speaker 1: chuckhoq dot com Center. Let's talk about what's been happening
Speaker 1: with my artist of the border. You talk to him
Speaker 1: about what was going out the border. It's now becoming,
Speaker 1: I think a political liability for the Biden administration when
Speaker 1: you see the media asking questions that they refuse to answer.
Speaker 1: One of those happened on sixty minutes, and I won't
Speaker 1: people to see what was said to take a look.
Speaker 1: The chief of the Border Patrol Role Ortiz, testified with
Speaker 1: poor Congress that some areas of the border are in
Speaker 1: a crisis situation. Do you agree? I think that we
Speaker 1: face a very serious challenge in certain parts of the border.
Speaker 1: Do you view what's happening right now and the border
Speaker 1: is a crisis? I view it as a significant challenge.
Speaker 1: Why won't you say the word crisis? You know what?
Speaker 1: Because I have tremendous faith in the people of the
Speaker 1: Department of Homeland Security, and a crisis speaks to me
Speaker 1: of a withdrawal from our mission. And we are only
Speaker 1: putting more force and more energy into it. I don't
Speaker 1: believe him. I think you would probably agree that. I
Speaker 1: also think at some point you just look like an
Speaker 1: idiot when you won't admit what everybody's watching. You know,
Speaker 1: we're looking at now over six million illegal immigrants have
Speaker 1: crossed under his watch. Under Joe Biden's presidency, It's the
Speaker 1: worst illegal immigration in our nation's history. We have had
Speaker 1: also massive spikes in the number of illegal grants dying
Speaker 1: on the border under his watch. We had the highest
Speaker 1: rate of drug overdoses last year in our nation's history.
Speaker 1: Over one hundred thousand Americans died of drug overdoses, the
Speaker 1: vast majority from Chinese fentinol flooding across the border. And
Speaker 1: he doesn't consider any of that a crisis. Look, what
Speaker 1: he's doing is obvious. It's political. He is engaging in
Speaker 1: political spin. Someone is giving him a talking point that
Speaker 1: if you say the word crisis, it's bad politics, and
Speaker 1: so he engages an absolute denial of reality. You know,
Speaker 1: it really was striking sixty minutes. Their cross examination is
Speaker 1: almost word for word the cross examination I did a
Speaker 1: week earlier in the Senate Judiciary Committee. Here, take a look,
Speaker 1: is there a crisis at our southern border. Senator, there
Speaker 1: is a very that's a yes or no. Is there
Speaker 1: a crisis? Senator, there's a very significant channel. I think
Speaker 1: your microphone is not on. There is a very significant
Speaker 1: challenge that we are face. Yes or no, there are
Speaker 1: a crisis. I believe I've addressed that question. So you're
Speaker 1: refusing to answer, center, there is a very significant challenge,
Speaker 1: and will you answer if there's a crisis. Therefore we
Speaker 1: are dedicating the resource. Okay, So you're refusing to answer.
Speaker 1: It reminds me of my kids arguing with Siri when
Speaker 1: they're trying to get Siri to do something for them.
Speaker 1: He refused five times, so five times in a row.
Speaker 1: I ask him, as there are a crisis, now no,
Speaker 1: he won't say no yeah, and he won't say yes yeah.
Speaker 1: When you ask is there a crisis, he says there's
Speaker 1: a significant challenge. It was clear some little pip squeak
Speaker 1: political staff or gave a talking point when everyone asks
Speaker 1: a crisis, say there's a significant challenge. I think it's
Speaker 1: a mistake not to answer questions. He's a horrible witness,
Speaker 1: but it says something that even the press sixty minutes.
Speaker 1: I mean, I mean to see sixty minutes, laughing, saying
Speaker 1: why would you admit it's a crisis like Look later
Speaker 1: in my questioning is as you know, I got very
Speaker 1: angry with Mayorcas, and I am very angry with Mayorcas
Speaker 1: because for me this is personal. Look, I represent thirty
Speaker 1: million Texans. I'm down on the border. I see the
Speaker 1: people in South Texas that are suffering. I've seen the
Speaker 1: children who are physically assaulted. I've seen the women who've
Speaker 1: been raped. I've seen the human carnage. I've seen dead
Speaker 1: bodies floating in the rio. Grand the wristbands that you
Speaker 1: showed at the hearing the other week, which he didn't
Speaker 1: know what they were, yeah, I have to say in
Speaker 1: the entire hearing, that was the moment that stunned me
Speaker 1: the most. When I put up the wristbands. That wasn't
Speaker 1: meant to be a gotcha question. I was going to
Speaker 1: ask him about how tragic it was that the cartels
Speaker 1: are putting color coded wristbands on the wrists of almost
Speaker 1: every illegal immigrant to correspond to how many thousands of
Speaker 1: dollars they owe. That they treat them like human cattle.
Speaker 1: They treat them like cargo. They trapped the teenage boys
Speaker 1: and working for the drug dealers and cities across America
Speaker 1: they trapped the teenage girls and sex slavery. All of
Speaker 1: that is horrific, which I intended to ask him about,
Speaker 1: but I was stunned when he said, I don't know
Speaker 1: what those risk bands are like you have literally not
Speaker 1: even pretended to do your job. If that's the case,
Speaker 1: because it means when you stand on the banks of
Speaker 1: the Rio Grand you see them covering the grass, You
Speaker 1: look down and just see hundreds, you see thousands of them.
Speaker 1: You see little ones that are clearly on little kids,
Speaker 1: that are on four or five six year old kids.
Speaker 1: When you talk to border patrol agents. What it means
Speaker 1: if he was telling the truth, if he wasn't lying.
Speaker 1: I don't know if he was lying when he said
Speaker 1: he didn't know what those were, But if he was
Speaker 1: telling the truth, it means he hasn't bothered in two
Speaker 1: years on the job to sit down with his agents
Speaker 1: say hey, what's happening? And I got to say his
Speaker 1: defense in sixty minutes. Well, I won't say it's a
Speaker 1: crisis because it's I believe in in my agents. What
Speaker 1: a steaming pile of crap. I gotta tell you, his
Speaker 1: agents don't believe in him. I talk to his agents,
Speaker 1: They'll all tell you it's a crisis. Every one of
Speaker 1: them will tell you it's a crisis, and it's a
Speaker 1: crisis because of him, and it's a crisis because of
Speaker 1: Joe Biden. I'm going to make a prediction within six months,
Speaker 1: may Orchis will be out of his job. Really, I
Speaker 1: don't know if he'll resign or if Biden will fire him,
Speaker 1: but I think the Democrats have decided to make Mayorcis
Speaker 1: the scapegoat, even sending him out on sixty minutes. And
Speaker 1: it looks like the media is clearly kind of starting
Speaker 1: to become done with him. And I want to show
Speaker 1: this last clip because it proves that point. Look, but
Speaker 1: the DHS estimates another six hundred thousand people evaded agents
Speaker 1: and entered the US illegally, the highest number in over
Speaker 1: a decade. What the American people see is a border
Speaker 1: that looks to be chaotic, that looks to be porous. Well,
Speaker 1: let's I mean, the number of people that are arriving
Speaker 1: at our border is at an extraordinary height, There's no
Speaker 1: question about that. But that is not unique to the
Speaker 1: southern border. Of the United States. There is a tremendous
Speaker 1: amount of movement throughout the hemisphere and in fact throughout
Speaker 1: the world. The fact that even sixty minutes would show
Speaker 1: those images tells you that the tide is turning. But
Speaker 1: then also the fact that he's got such a terrible
Speaker 1: response to their question with video evidence tells you something else. Well, look,
Speaker 1: it's the talking point of the Democrats. We saw this
Speaker 1: at the hearing with Mayorchis and Judiciary where they also
Speaker 1: this is not Biden's fault. There was illegal immigration before Biden,
Speaker 1: and it's a problem elsewhere in the world. It's all
Speaker 1: part of It's not our fault, not our fault. We
Speaker 1: didn't do anything wrong except for one very inconvenient fact.
Speaker 1: In twenty twenty, the last year of Trump's presidency, we
Speaker 1: had the lowest rate of illegal immigration in forty five years.
Speaker 1: The instant Joe Biden became president, the rates skyrocketed that week, Yeah, skyrocketed.
Speaker 1: We now have the highest rate ever recorded. We went
Speaker 1: from the lowest rate in forty five years to the
Speaker 1: highest rate ever recorded. We went instantaneously because of Joe
Speaker 1: Biden and Alhandro, may Orcus's decisions and I told you
Speaker 1: the moment at the Judiciary hearing when I really realized, Wow,
Speaker 1: the Democrats have decided they found their scapegoat, and he's
Speaker 1: a bald Cuban in the cabinet. Which is when may
Speaker 1: Orcus was getting pummeled by me and he looked to
Speaker 1: Dick Durban, the chairman of the committee, and said, mister chairman,
Speaker 1: will you help me? And Durban I've spent eleven years
Speaker 1: tangling with Durban. He loves to argue with me. I
Speaker 1: actually love to argue with them. We have been in
Speaker 1: there pounding on each other many times. He just looked
Speaker 1: and kind of shrugged and was like, didn't say a word,
Speaker 1: and I was like, start what you were expecting it? Durbin?
Speaker 1: All right? If it had been Merrick Garland, who done
Speaker 1: the exact same thing, Durban would have jumped in and
Speaker 1: started arguing with me, which is what he always does. There.
Speaker 1: You can google and find a dozen videos of Durban
Speaker 1: jumping in and arguing with me when I'm questioning a
Speaker 1: witness and it's a Democrat witness, a Biden cabinet member
Speaker 1: or Obama cabinet member, and they're taking on water. It's
Speaker 1: not going well for them. Durban like clockwork will jump
Speaker 1: in and try to protect them, and the fact that
Speaker 1: he just kind of shrugged and it's like nope, you're
Speaker 1: on your own, buddy. It's said to me, Wow, Okay,
Speaker 1: they've made a decision. He's their guy. This is a problem,
Speaker 1: and he's the fall guy. Within six months, I think
Speaker 1: may Orcus is gone. It's gonna be a big week
Speaker 1: in political history. It's gonna be very interesting to see
Speaker 1: what happens, how this plays out in New York. I
Speaker 1: can promise you this. We will be covering it on Verdict,
Speaker 1: So make sure that subscribe button, hit that auto download button.
Speaker 1: Remember if you're watching this, we do two audio only versions,
Speaker 1: so subscribe wherever you get your podcasts. You can tell
Speaker 1: Syria or Alexa play Verdict with tech Cruz. It will
Speaker 1: play it for you automatically. We will be on top
Speaker 1: of it all this week. We even did a podcast
Speaker 1: on Thursday night, so that's Friday morning, like two in
Speaker 1: them morning. Now this week when all this hits, so
Speaker 1: we will be doing this for you. And subscribe on
Speaker 1: YouTube too, So subscribe to the audio podcast but also
Speaker 1: YouTube so you get the videos once a week and
Speaker 1: get the audios three times a week BINGO, So we'll
Speaker 1: see you guys on our video and audio all week long.
Speaker 1: We'll see you then, Thanks for watching and listening as always,