YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@VerdictwithTedCruz
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
Welcome.
Speaker 2 (00:00):
It is verdict with Senator Ted Cruz, Ben Ferguson with
you and Senator we now know the White House. They
know how to celebrate when it comes to Donald Trump
being convicted.
Speaker 3 (00:11):
Well, that's exactly right. We have seen now the smirk
heard around the world, Joe Biden, jubilant, gleeful, celebrating and
spiking the football in the end zone at this political prosecution.
And it's not just a prosecution. It is a persecution
which Democrats believe will yield dividends. In November, we're going
(00:33):
to break down the fallout from the convictions in New
York and we're going to go into detail about precisely
why this was an abuse of power, the jury instructions
that were given in this trial, how this was rigged,
and the Democrats do not want anyone to acknowledge how
it was rigged. Well, we're going to give you the facts.
(00:54):
We're going to break it down.
Speaker 2 (00:56):
It was shocking to see how gleeful the President of
the United States of America was at knowing that his
political opponent is now an official political prisoner.
Speaker 3 (01:05):
Well, look, it is sad watching Joe Biden utterly gleeful
and not even pretending to hide it. You know, I
have to say, if you're going to do a kangaroo trial,
if you're going to go after your political opponents and
try to attack them and abuse the justice system, usually
people pretend they're not doing that. Well, not with Joe Biden.
(01:26):
Take a look at how we reacted when he was asked.
Speaker 4 (01:27):
About it, mister president. Can you tell us, sir, Donald
Trump prefers to himself as a political prisoner and blames
you directly. What's your response to that, sir? Do you
think the condition will have an impact on the campaign.
We'd love to hear.
Speaker 3 (01:45):
Your thoughts, sir. Should you be on the ballot? Sir?
Speaker 1 (01:50):
That's damning. I mean it's obvious he's saying, yeah, and
I did that.
Speaker 3 (01:55):
Look it is disgusting. And I will say for those
of you all listening to the audio, as you know,
in this podcast, we do three shows a week that
are on audio. One of them typically is on video.
This is one of the video shows. So if you're
on audio, i'd encourage you go over to YouTube and
watch the video because you actually need to see see
the expression on his face. He's gleeful, He's not hiding it.
(02:17):
He is spiking the football and just shameless it is.
I'm abusing power. I'm reminded of of mel Brooks history
of the world. It's good to be the king. That's
actually what I thought. I could almost hear Biden saying,
I'm abusing my power, damn it, and I'm proud of it.
(02:37):
I will say this, the Trump campaign saw that and
immediately turned it around. They put together an ad. I
got to say, it's a heck of a powerful ad.
It's the same thing you've seen, you just saw, but
with a little bit of music, a little bit of context.
Take a look at this Trump ad.
Speaker 5 (02:53):
Just was done. Guy.
Speaker 6 (02:54):
The Biden administration order a boon or an opponent to
political appone, mister.
Speaker 4 (03:01):
President, can you tell us, sir, Donald Trump prefers himself
as a political prisoner and blames you directly. What's your
response to that, sir?
Speaker 2 (03:10):
Now, before I get your response, I want to tell
you about our friends over at Freedom Gold USA. At
Freedom Gold USA, they are a company that I recommend
when it comes to gold and silver for one main reason.
They typically charge twenty to thirty percent less than other
major gold firms when it comes buying gold or silver
(03:30):
and with inflation where it is right now, it is
a time to watch what's happening. With the price of
gold continuing to hit all time highs, inflation is heavily
eroding your purchasing power, putting your savings and your retirement
accounts and future legacy at risk. And with more taxes,
the continued threat of war, a national debt now exceeding
(03:52):
thirty four trillion, and the push for a central bank
digital currency, your financial freedom is at stake and that
is why to know about Freedom Goold USA. They are
here to help you be empowered when it comes to
buying gold and silver, and the team at freedom Goold
USA is ready to answer all of your questions about
preserving your wealth and provide stability in uncertain times. Freedom
(04:16):
Gold USA will never take you to put all your
money in a gold or silver ira. They understand diversification,
but part of safeguarding your wealth can be used with
physical gold and silver to take control of your financial
future today. So call the team that I use and trust,
the team that charges between twenty to thirty percent less
(04:37):
than other major gold companies out there. That means you're
getting twenty to thirty percent more gold or silver in
your account day one one eight hundred sixty five five
eight eight four three one eight hundred sixty five five
eight eight four to three, or visit freedom goold USA
dot com slash verdict. That's freedom gold USA dot com
(05:01):
slash verdict and see if you qualify for up to
ten thousand dollars in free silver.
Speaker 1 (05:07):
Senator, that ad was a brilliant ad. Y.
Speaker 2 (05:10):
I also think we can see that America saw that
smirk for what it was, a threat to our freedom
and democracy and our way of life in this country,
trying to imprison your political opponents. But even more than that,
people went to donate to Trump like never before. They're angry.
Speaker 3 (05:28):
Fifty three million dollars in the first twenty four hours.
It was stunning. And by the way, I will say,
I think Republicans across the board saw that. I can
tell you in terms of my campaign website, we saw
a surge of donations there as well. I assume others
did as well. I think people saw what happened in
the campaign and they were pissed off, and they were
(05:49):
pissed off, and they had the reaction They're like, this
is wrong. We need to stand up and fight back.
You know, I got to say, watching that smirk, it's
in furiating. But it was a moment when the mask slipped.
And so the Democrats are playing a game. This political
prosecution was all about calling Trump a convicted felon. They
(06:15):
can now do that. They're going to do that every
single day until election day. Now, there's kind of a
script that you play when you're doing a kangaroo court.
When the court is over, what you say is is
all right to quote south Park, respect my authority. That's
supposed to be the line. Well Joe Biden managed when
(06:38):
he wasn't caught smirking through giving his genuine reaction to
read the script and say, we now have the verdict,
we must respect the authority. Give a listen to this
press conference of Joe Biden telling everyone shut up and
accept the results. Trump is a bad guy.
Speaker 5 (06:58):
Just checking this afternoon, good afternoon. Before I began, Mary Marx,
I just wanted to say a few words about what
happened yesterday in New York City. The American principle that
no one is above the law was reaffirmed. Donald Trump
was given every opportunity to defend himself. It was a
(07:21):
state case not a federal case, and it was heard
by a jury of twelve citizens, twelve Americans, twelve people
like you, Like millions of Americans who served on jurys.
This jury is chosen the same way every jury in
America is chosen. It was the process that Donald Trump's attorney.
Speaker 3 (07:42):
Was part of.
Speaker 5 (07:44):
The jury heard five weeks of evidence, five weeks after
careful deliberation, the jury reached a unanimous verdict. They found
Donald Trump guilty on all thirty four felon accounts not
only be given the opportunity as he should to feel
that decision, just like everyone else has that opportunity. That's
(08:07):
how the American system of justice works. And it's reckless,
it's dangerous. It's irresponsible for anyone to say this was
rigged just because they don't like the verdict. Our justice
system is endured for nearly two hundred and fifty years,
and it literally is a cornerstone of America. Our justice system,
(08:30):
the justicystem should be respected and we should never allow
anyone to tear it down. It's as simple as that.
That's America, that's who we are, and that's who will
always be. God will he.
Speaker 2 (08:44):
He says, it's irresponsible to say that this verdict was rigged,
that this jury was rigged, that all of this was rigged.
But then he smirks, basically saying, yeah, it was rigged,
and you should respect the system that we just rigged.
Speaker 3 (08:58):
Look, I got to say listening to that, watching that,
it is infuriating. It makes my blood boil. He says,
it's reckless to do this, and we need to not
tear down the justice system. Nobody has torn down our
justice system more than that man, Joseph Robin at Biden
jor he has presided over number one, politicizing the Department
of Justice in a way that is utterly shameful, that
(09:20):
targets his political enemies, that protects his own corruption, and
at the same time he says, well, we got to
respect this system. He ignores the fact that Alvin Bragg
is a viciously partisan prosecutor, a Democrat who campaigns saying
I'm the guy to get Donald Trump. I'm the one
to get Donald Trump. I know how to get Donald Trump.
I'm the one to get Donald Trump. Joe Biden doesn't
(09:42):
acknowledge any of that. He doesn't acknowledge the fact that
the number three person at his own Justice department, left
the Department of Justice to go join the prosecution. He
has a line in there. This was a state case,
not a federal case, except for the fact that one
of the lead lawyers was your number three lawyer at
the Department of Justice. He doesn't ignore knowledge the fact
that this judge was a joke, was a rabid partisan,
(10:05):
was a donor to Joe Biden. He's one of his donors.
And you know what he behaved. You know, the man
should have been he should have taken off his black
robe and he should have put on a Biden hat
because it was a campaign. You want to talk about
an unacknowledged campaign contribution, how about every day Judge Merchamp
showed up to work. That was a campaign contribution. And
(10:28):
by the way, under their theory, it was clearly intended
to influence the outcome of the election. Alvin Bragg every day.
Apparently Joe Biden needs to disclose Alvin Bragg's salary on
his campaign finance reports because this is entirely intended to
influence the outcome of an election. It is Look, the
rule of law matters. What happened this week. It's infuriating,
(10:53):
and it's disappointing.
Speaker 1 (10:56):
He's also premeditated.
Speaker 3 (10:58):
Yes, they knew what they were doing by the smirk.
The smirk was the honesty that whole riff was. The
planned defense, by the way, was planned at the beginning.
They knew what they were going to say. It was
all about we do a kangaroo court. It's all over. Now.
Listen to the court. Listen to the court. No, no, no,
you can't call it a kangaroo court. Never mind the
kangaroo jumping up and down, ignore the facts, ignore the law.
(11:21):
We have someone who is wearing a robe who says
him bad. Okay, you got to keep us in power.
And by the way, that's all we care about that
Democrats stay in power.
Speaker 2 (11:30):
They pre planned this and you can literally go back
years to see it. One of the Soros family members,
and I want to pull this tweet up because I
think it's an important point that you just made.
Speaker 1 (11:40):
This was all orchestrated by design.
Speaker 2 (11:42):
George Soros went out there and said, I want to
find people that are friendly to me. I'm going to
get them elected around the country. I'm going to weaponize
the court system, and then I'm going to get the
outcomes from weaponizing the court system. Alvin Bragg was the
first part of this master plan. You had to have
a prosecutor that was willing to say, I'm not going
to follow the law all and I'm going to do
egregious acts of partisanship to get us to a point
(12:05):
where we might be able to get to a court
And look at the tweet from Soros's son explaining that
we have won.
Speaker 1 (12:13):
We are successful.
Speaker 2 (12:14):
Quote Democrats to refer to Trump as a convicted felon
at every opportunity. Repetition is the key to a successful message.
And we want people to wrestle with a notion of
hiring a convicted felon for the most important job in
the country. And then the New York Times headline Trump
(12:35):
guilty on all counts. They plan this, yes, and it
was years in the making that.
Speaker 3 (12:42):
They're all on the same team. Now. Alex Soros is
George Soros's son. By many reports, George Soros is he's
he's very elderly, and apparently he has diminished significantly, much
like Joe Biden, and so it is widely reported that
Alex Soros is running things now. Alex Soros is the
young hard leftist who is distributing billions of dollars funding
(13:06):
it all. And so how did Alvin Bragg get elected
with money from Soros? Massive money from Soros. By the way,
Soros is doing this all across the country, investing millions
and millions of dollars in electing left wing DA's who
let criminals out of jail, who won't prosecute murderers, And
it really is striking. They're not hiding it. No, look
(13:30):
at this tweet. Democrats should refer to Trump as a
convicted felon at every opportunity. As we said on Friday's pod,
the entire purpose of this was for them to be
able to call him a convicted felon. Repetition is the
key to a successful message. This is all about message.
This is all about politics. They're not hiding it. It's
(13:50):
why Joe Biden's smirking, which is our political plan, worked.
Although I'm not convinced it worked. I actually think it
think it may well backfire. They think people are stupid.
They think repetition is the key. If we say it
a lot, people will be stupid and just believe it.
I think people have some real common sense. I think
people understand this was a sham.
Speaker 2 (14:13):
You look at the sham and you see the media respond.
We could play fifty clips the media. Most people that
are listening, they know what was said. But there's also
this psychotic gleefulness over the idea now that they're saying,
not only we're gonna call him a convicted felon, but Donald
Trump can't travel outside the country to many other countries.
Do you really want that got to be your president?
(14:35):
I mean this is they obviously knew what they were
gonna say long before he was convicted, and play it
out for this campaign, knowing that the appeal wouldn't happen
in time.
Speaker 3 (14:46):
Look, this is all about politics. The appeal will succeed,
this will be reversed on appeal, But this is all
about attacking Trump. And I will say this. Trump came
out and gave a press conference, and I want you
to listen to the point he made. This is very brief,
but it is a fundamental point that ought to scare
the hell out of everybody.
Speaker 6 (15:05):
Give a listen a case where if they can do
this to me, they can do this to anyone.
Speaker 2 (15:11):
I think that's incredibly powerful reminder. If the Democrats line
is remind him and say it over and over again.
He's a convicted felon. Donald Trump's line should be over
and over again. If they can do this to me,
a former president United States of America, they can do
it to any one of you.
Speaker 3 (15:26):
And let's let's use an example. Ben. You're you're an
influential guy. You're well known, You've got a very popular podcast.
You are on the radio. You've been on the radio
since you were twelve years old. Who long time? Let
me ask you something. Are you a billionaire? No? Do
you have a billion dollars in the bank.
Speaker 4 (15:42):
No?
Speaker 3 (15:43):
Do you have a team of lawyers on retainer?
Speaker 4 (15:44):
No?
Speaker 3 (15:45):
Were you president of the United States?
Speaker 4 (15:46):
No?
Speaker 3 (15:47):
Do you have universal name idea across the globe?
Speaker 6 (15:49):
No?
Speaker 3 (15:50):
Do you have a jet with your name on the
side of it. If they can do it to him,
it's a hell of a lot easier to squash he
Ben Fergus than it is a Donald J.
Speaker 4 (16:01):
Trump.
Speaker 3 (16:03):
If they can do it to him, whoever is listening,
there's nobody listening. They could do it to me. They
could do it to you. They can do it to anybody.
They are grinning. We can destroy you and we don't care.
It is all about power. Look We talk a lot
on this podcast about Marxism, and as you know, I
wrote a whole book, my last book, Unwoke, how to
(16:25):
defeat cultural Marxism in America. For me, Marxism is very
real because my family has suffered and been imprisoned and
tortured by Marxists. They care about power, the same thugs
that will throw you in prison. They're trying to do
the same thing to Donald Trump right now because all
they care about is power.
Speaker 2 (16:47):
Let's talk about the step forward for Trump and using
not just a smirk, but also using this court case
to explain the American people just how rigged it is.
I think that's an important point for him. He's gonna
have to go out there and explain this is how
all this went down, this is how corrupt it was.
Speaker 1 (17:06):
How much into the weeds does he need to go
into that?
Speaker 3 (17:09):
I don't think he needs to get into the weeds
a lot. I think think we're going to provide details
in just a few minutes that will give you give
you some backup on that. But look, I think people
know you look at this. Everyone involved in this is
obviously a partisan. It's why I get so angry at
Joe Biden saying it's reckless to tear down our justice
system because he's the one tearing down the justice system.
(17:31):
I watched that that press conference, and it reminds me
of like an arsonist holding cans of gasoline with with
matches in his hands, saying, stop complaining about me lighting
buildings on fire. He's the one burning our justice system
to the ground, and their real consequences to it. There
are real consequences to people losing faith. What he actually
(17:54):
said about our system of justice is a cornerstone of America.
That is correct. Look, if you contrast America to Banana republics,
the difference is you have the rule of law. The
difference is you don't do this. And these democrats they
hate Trump so much they don't care. They're willing to
destroy it. And all right, let let's get to Alvin Bragg.
(18:15):
Alvin Bragg minds you, he's suddenly tough on crime. Yeah,
this is a guy who if you murder people, if
you rate people, you walk down the street and you
punch a little old lady in the face, Alvin Bragg
will let you go.
Speaker 2 (18:27):
Three the illegal immigrants attacked a police officer on camera.
Speaker 1 (18:30):
Let him walk out.
Speaker 3 (18:31):
The same day, the same day, the same day. Let
him go. This is a man who was elected to
let violent criminals go. That's what Soros wanted. Let violent
criminals go. New York will be better with more murderers
on the street. New York will be better with more
rapists on the street. That is their view. Now I
want you to listen to what Donald Trump said, because
(18:51):
he made a very powerful point on exactly this.
Speaker 6 (18:54):
We had a DA who is a failed DA. Crime
is ramped into New York. Violent crime, that's what he's
really supposed to be looking at. Crime is ramp into
New York. Yesterday and McDonald's you had a man hitting
him up with machetes a machete. Whoever can imagine even
(19:17):
a machete being wielded in a store in a place
where they're eating and they's going rampant, and Bragg is
down watching a trial on what they call.
Speaker 3 (19:30):
Crimes crimes.
Speaker 1 (19:32):
He's got a great point.
Speaker 2 (19:34):
This guy shouldn't be in this court with Donald Trump
when this is what he's dealing with, machete wielding individuals
in New York.
Speaker 3 (19:40):
So literally, on the day of the trial, there was
a lunatic with a machete in a McDonald's threatening people.
Now you would think, what is a district attorney supposed
to be doing? I would think pretty high on the
list is protecting me from machetes. Like if some guy
brings out a machete and is trying to hurt people,
the DA ought to arrest him and prosecute him. But no,
(20:01):
you know, what's a decapitated person or two. When you're
talking about Democrats, they're willing to look the other way
at that. What was Alvin Bragg doing? He had a
political objective to be in that courtroom because he's trying
to bloody Donald Trump, he's trying to reelect Joe Biden,
he's trying to stay in power. And I want to
break down some of the materials so that There's a
(20:22):
very interesting article that was written in The Intelligencer, and
it's by Elie Honik, who is a CNN legal commentator,
not a conservative, but he is a real lawyer, and
he analyzes and and breaks down a lot of the
enormous legal problems with what happened in this trial. Let
me read read briefly what he said. He said the
District Attorney's press office and its flax often proclaim that
(20:46):
falsification of business records charges, which is what they went
after Trump on, are quote commonplace, and indeed the office
is quote bread and butter. That's true only if you
draw definitional lines so broad is to render them meaningless.
Of course, the DA charges falsification quite frequently. Virtually any
fraud case involves some sort of fake documentation, so it's
(21:10):
often an add on to some other case. It's one
of the additional crimes that's committed. But let me continue
from elihonik. But when you impose meaningful search parameters, the
truth emerges. The charges against Trump are obscure and nearly
entirely unprecedented. Now listen to this next sentence. In fact,
(21:36):
no state prosecutor in New York or Wyoming or anywhere
has ever listened to that word, ever charged federal election
laws as a direct or predicate state crime against anyone
(21:57):
for anything, none ever, Even putting aside the specifics of
election law, The Manhattan DA itself almost never brings any
case in which falsification of business records is the only charge,
so that starts off of the front end. This is unusual.
(22:20):
They had to get incredibly creative.
Speaker 1 (22:22):
Not just unusual, never been done before.
Speaker 3 (22:25):
Yeah, that's true. Yeah, I mean we.
Speaker 2 (22:27):
Literally said, no one's been super enough to do it.
But we packed this court. We got the judge we want,
We got the da we want. We got a guy
that the majority of the people in this area actually hate.
They knew this. You couldn't have planned this any better.
And it goes back to the George Soros money. We
got the money to get the guy we want elected.
We got the judge. He gave money to Joe Biden.
We've set up this kangaroo court from beginning to end
(22:49):
exactly how you'd have to do it to get this
to happen.
Speaker 3 (22:52):
That's right now. One of the things that we have
today that we did not have we did the last
podcast is we actually have the jury instruction. So I've
gotten written jury instructions, been able to read them before.
I was relying on news reports of what the judge said,
but I didn't actually have them in front of me.
So understand that the sort of Rube Goldberg machine that
they invented to try to get anything to get Trump
(23:13):
the cl The crime is falsifying business records. That's a misdemeanor.
By the way, a misdemeanor. Do you know the definition
of a misdemeanor with the different differences between a misdemeanor
and a felony. A misdemeanor is a crime that is
punishable by less than a year in jail. The definition
of a felony is a crime that is punishable by
a year or more in jail, So that's the cutoff. Felonies,
understandably are more serious.
Speaker 2 (23:36):
Speeding ticket, parking ticket all misdemeanors because you don't go
to jail for over a year.
Speaker 3 (23:40):
Fright jaywalking, those are misdemeanors. Murder is a felony. Rape
is a felony. Burglary is a felony. Crimes that are serious,
so falsification of business record, it is a misdemeanor. It's
punishable by less than a year, and it has a
two year statute of limitations, which means the prosecutor has
two years to bring the case. All of this happened
years go back in twenty sixteen, so the statute of
(24:01):
limitations expired years ago. So every one of the charges
that Alvin Bragg brought you can't bring now under the
plain text because two years is passed. So New York has, however,
a mechanism to elevate that crime to a felony if
the falsification of business record is done with the intent
(24:24):
to conceal another crime. And so I want to break
down these jury instructions because it's going to show just
how absurd this was. One thing linked upon another, linked
upon another. So page twenty nine of the jury instructions
herees what the judge told the jury intent to commit
or conceal another crime for the crime of falsifying business
records in the first degree, the intent to defraud must
(24:45):
include an intent to commit another crime or to aid
or conceal the commission thereof. Under our law, though the
people must prove an intent to commit another crime or
to aid or conceal the commission thereof, they need not
prove that the other crime was in fact committed, aided
or concealed. So understand this other crime, which is the
(25:11):
magic ticket that elevates these these misdemeanors to felonies and
extends the statutal limitationcy you can suddenly prosecute them. The
prosecutor quote need not prove that the other crime was
in fact committed, aided or concealed. So it's a crime
that doesn't have to have happened, all right, So let's
(25:31):
read some more New York election Law section seventeen one
to fifty two predicate. Here's what the judge instructed the jury.
The people alleged that the other crime the defendant intended
to commit aid or conceal is a violation of New
York election Law section seventeen one fifty two. Okay, that's
some clarity that we didn't have through much of the trial.
But the judge actually specifies, all right, this is the
(25:52):
quote other crime. What is section seventeen one to fifty
two of New York election law provides, Well, it provides
that quote, any two or more persons who conspire to
promote or prevent the election of any person to a
public office by unlawful means, and which conspiracy is acted
upon by one or more parties, there too, shall be
(26:12):
guilty of conspiracy to promote or prevent on election. And
so the keywords there are unlawful means, two or more
persons who conspire to promote or prevent the election of
any person to a public office by unlawful means. So
those two words unlawful means are the entire foundation on
(26:36):
which this whole case is built. Now, what does unlawful
means mean? And this is the most important jury instruction.
This will be the basis for reversal when this case
is appealed, it will be There are lots of reasons
to reverse it, but this is the easiest and clearest.
Here's what unlawful means means. And it's just two paragrass
(26:57):
It's very short quote. Although you must conclude unanimously that
the defendant conspired to promote or prevent the election of
any person to a public office by unlawful means, you
need not be unanimous as to what those unlawful means were.
(27:20):
In determining whether the defendant conspired to promote or prevent
the election of any person to a public office by
unlawful means, you may consider the following one violations of
the Federal Election Campaign Act otherwise known as FICA, two
the falsification of other business records, or three violation of
(27:42):
tax laws. So we've talked about how the US Supreme
Court has long made clear in order to convict someone
of a crime, you must prove beyond a reasonable doubt
every element of the crime, and the jury must found
find unanimously that you are guilty. You have committed every
element of the crime. What the judge just said, there
is no no number one. This unlawful means means anything unlawful,
(28:07):
like whatever, like. We're not going to define it, but
I'm going to give you three jurors choice, your pick.
It's like mix and match, choose your own adventure. A
couple people say, I think it was federal campaign finance law.
Someone else. You know, it was violation of the tax laws.
By the way, they don't specify what about the tax laws?
Did you violate the tax laws?
Speaker 4 (28:24):
Yep?
Speaker 3 (28:25):
Okay. Then suddenly this is a felony. Then suddenly the
statute of limitations is extended. Then suddenly, instead of less
than a year, you can sentence Donald Trump to over
one hundred years.
Speaker 2 (28:36):
Is it fair to say that the judge basically gave
instructions to the jury that almost put them in a
position where there's no way to not find them guilty
because there's such ambiguity.
Speaker 3 (28:44):
The way they define this. The judge knew damn well
it was all but forcing the jury to render a
guilty verdict now, I still think a juror should have
said no. And by the way, there is a long
tradition in our juris prudence of what's called jury nullification,
which is there are times when this has happened repeatedly
(29:05):
where a juror says, you know what, you may give
me instructions that I've got to do X, Y and Z,
but this is garbage, this is bs no, this is
a miscarriage of justice. And that's part of the reason
our system has a jury system, is to have twelve
ordinary people as a check on the prosecution and on
(29:27):
the justice system. It's why I held out hope for
a hung jury that someone would say this is so
obviously garbage. I won't play a part, but I will
say I feel some sympathy for the jurors because reading this.
Here's the instruction that the judge gave about the Federal
Election Campaign Act. The terms contribution and expenditure include anything
(29:50):
of value, including any purchase, payment, loan, or advance, made
by any person, for the purpose of influencing any election
for federal office. Under federal law, a third party's payment
of candidate's expenses is deemed to be a contribution to
the candidate unless the payment would have been made irrespective
of the candidacy. So in this instance, the focus was
(30:10):
on the money that Michael Cohen paid to Stormy Daniels,
the so called hush money to keep her quiet about
the alleged affair. Now, under this instruction, the judge is
basically told the jury that is a campaign finance violation.
He says any payment, any payment of candidate's expenses is
(30:31):
deemed to be a contribution unless the payment would have
been made irrespective of the candidacy. Now, the judge did
not allow Brad Smith, the chairman former chairman of the
Federal Elections Commission, to testify, and that instruction on federal
campaign finance law is woefully incomplete. So Brad Smith put
(30:52):
out a tweet thread that actually explained federal campaign finance law.
I want to read it and walk through that because
it will show why the judges jury instructions were so deficient.
Speaker 2 (31:04):
Before we do that, I want to talk to you
about one of my commitments, and that is I am
sick and tired of giving my money to companies that
do not stand with my values. And in the coffee business,
there are a lot of liberal companies out there. You
probably had two or three pop into your brain right
when I said that. Well, I start my day every
morning at seven am on the radio. I've got to
be awake and I want a premium cup of coffee
(31:26):
to start my day that, honestly I can look forward to.
Speaker 1 (31:29):
And that is why I switched to Blackout Coffee.
Speaker 2 (31:32):
Now, Blackout Coffee is one hundred percent America and zero
percent woke. They are committed to conservative values from sourcing
the beans to the roasting process, customer support and shipping,
and they embody true American values and they accept no
compromise on taste or quality. Now, Blackout Coffee is a
(31:52):
premium cup of coffee.
Speaker 1 (31:54):
It's not average, and I want you to try it.
Speaker 2 (31:56):
I'm going to give you a discount to give it
a shot, because when you do, you're never going to
switch back. Go to Blackoutcoffee dot com, slash verdict. That's
Blackoutcoffee dot com slash verdict and use the coupon code
Verdict for twenty percent off your first order. That's Blackoutcoffee
dot com slash verdict.
Speaker 1 (32:16):
Be awake, not woke.
Speaker 2 (32:19):
Try Blackout Coffee at Blackoutcoffee dot com slash verdict and
use that promo code verdict for twenty percent off your
first order centata. I want you to go over what
you were just describing, because it's amazing that the guy
that should have been able to go before the court
and explain these laws and how they work to the
jury was barred from testifying, and that's why apparently he
(32:40):
decided to put out this long tweet.
Speaker 3 (32:42):
Now, so this is this is a tweet thread. I'm
just gonna read it. Let's take a stab. False Falsefying
business records under New York law is a misdemeanor unless
it is done to hide a crime. Bragg says that
crime was a violation of Federal Election Campaign Act FIICA,
or of a New York statute making it illegal to
inflight LUNs an election by unlawful means. But if the latter,
(33:04):
what is the quote unlawful means? That's what we were talking
about a minute ago, an alleged violation of FICA. So
it comes down to FICA. There are two potential violations here.
One is the acceptance of an unlawful contribution by the campaign.
The other is incorrect reporting of a contribution by the campaign.
Either way, we have to have a campaign contribution that
(33:28):
allegedly occurred when Cohen advanced money to pay the Stormy
Daniel settlement. FIKA defines a contribution as a payment made
quote for the purpose of influencing an election. The twenty
sixteen max legal contribution was twenty seven hundred dollars. This
looks bad for Trump. It's pretty easy to conclude the
payment was made to influence an election by buying Daniel's silence, right,
(33:49):
and Cohen paid Daniels one hundred and thirty thousand dollars,
way over the limit. Well, it's not so simple. First,
let's clear something up. Cohen just loaned them, he was
paid back, and then some So where some ask is
the contribution. But this is not a winner for Trump.
Under the law, a contribution includes a loan unless made
(34:11):
in the ordinary course of business EGA bank. So that's
not a good argument. But for context, note that there
is no limit on how much Trump can pay can
contribute to his own campaign. By October twenty seventh, when
Daniels was paid, Trump had already spent over sixty million
dollars of his own money on the campaign. It would
have been easy for him to toss in another one
(34:32):
hundred and thirty thousand dollars. Now back to the definition
of contribution. If they bought Daniels's silence to quote influence
an election, what the prosecution is alleged. Isn't that a
contribution and also a campaign expenditure which mirrors the contribution definition.
First common sense, we know that a campaign expense is
(34:55):
not literally any payment made quote for purpose of influencing
an election, and reading the statute that way would be
way too broad. For example, in nineteen ninety nine, Bill
and Hillary Clinton bought a house in New York. One
reason they did so was so that Hillary could run
for US Senate from New York. In other words, the
expenditure was clearly done in part quote for the purpose
(35:20):
of influencing an election. Is it a campaign expenditure underfeaka?
Of course not common sense. How about if a would
be candidate pays a lawyer to seal old divorce records
because he's afraid that, if revealed, they would be damaging
to his candidacy campaign expense, No, clearly not, even though
(35:42):
done quote for the purpose of influencing an election. Or
suppose a business owner wants to settle pending lawsuits against
his businesses before running for Congress. He thinks the lawsuits
are bs, but he's afraid the press will make a
big deal of the allegations. Can he pay the settlements
with campaign funds? The answer obviously is no, even though
(36:03):
there is no legal obligation to pay them, and the
settlements would be paid specifically quote to influence an election.
In fact, in each of these examples, it would be
unlawful to make the payments with campaign funds. I'm gonna
take a pause here. Understand what Alvin Bragg's argument is.
(36:24):
He's saying Trump had to use campaign funds to pay
off Stormy Daniels. That's an idiotic rule. And by the way,
it's a rule that says every candidate for public office,
if you're paying to settle a lawsuit dealing with whether
you had an affair, you must use your campaign funds
to do so. That's absurd. And what Brad Smith is
saying is if you did that, the Federal Election Commission
(36:47):
would go after you. Let me go back to what
Brad Smith, because he explains it a little bit more.
This is because and this is the part that the
judge left out of the jury instruction didn't tell the jury,
so they didn't know this. There's another part of that.
The judge just said, ignore this part because it shows
that Trump hasn't violated the law. Rat Smith, former chairman
of the FEC charged with enforcing this law. Quote. This
(37:10):
is because FIICA also prohibits using campaign funds for quote
personal use. So you got to ask is it personal use?
If yes, you can't use campaign funds aka Hillary Clinton
buying a house right in New York? Exactly what is
quote personal use? Under Federal Election Commission regulations, and the
FEC has primary authority for interpreting the law. It is
(37:34):
any obligation that would exist irrespective of the candidacy. Indeed,
the FEC regulations make clear that a mixed motive doesn't
make something a campaign expense. If the obligation would exist
irrespective of the campaign, paying it with campaign funds is
personal use and therefore illegal. Certainly, Daniels used the campaign
(37:59):
to push or Trump and for the most money she could.
The timing affected the value of the allegations, but the
obligation didn't exist because Trump was a candidate. It predated
his candidacy, and it was not created by his being
a candidate. She could have shut him, shook him down
for hush money at any point, whether or not he
(38:21):
was running for president. Brad didn't say that. I said that.
Brad continues, Let's use common sense. Is it a campaign
expense to pay a non disclosure agreement for something arising
out of events ten years earlier and not caused by
the act of being a candidate. Is paying hush money
(38:43):
a campaign expense? Duh, No, And we wouldn't want it
to be. This is really important. We wouldn't want it
to be. We don't want candidates using campaign funds to
pay personal expenses, whether new clothes, a weight loss program,
or a gym member purchase, to help the candidate look better.
And therefore, quote for the purpose of influencing an election,
(39:06):
you can't use campaign finance funds for that.
Speaker 2 (39:08):
So when you're running for office, just to be very
clear on his point, you can't say I'm going to
take a fifty thousand dollars wardrobe for all these campaign
events because it's still technically closed for you personally.
Speaker 3 (39:18):
Yeah, you can't do that at all. You can't buy
your clothes using cap I.
Speaker 1 (39:21):
Need a haircut or and I'm gonna get one every day.
Speaker 3 (39:24):
You can't do any of that. You can cannot do,
and they'll go after you for it. If you do it,
they will go after you for personal use. Let me
finish what he said. He only had a couple more
and certainly not to pay non disclosure agreements to keep
embarrassing info hidden In summary, for the purpose of influencing
an election is an objective standard. The motive of the
(39:46):
donor of the spender doesn't matter. So what are expenditures?
Paying campaign staff? Are expenditures? Are a campaign expenditure? Buying
ads for the candidate, paying fundraising costs, paying a cant
paign accountant, paying for polling, travel to campaign events. Basically
all the obligations you incuraged solely because you were running
(40:09):
for office. The FEC's approach is consistent with the US
Supreme Court, which is consistently held in every case in
Speaker was passed fifty years ago that its definition of
contribution and expenditure must be objective, not subjective, to avoid
being unconstitutionally vague. None of that went to the jury,
so the jury was just told, well, if it could
(40:32):
influence the election, you got to find it's a violation
of law that has flat out false, and they were
not told. If Trump had done what Alvin Bragg said
he needed to do, the FEC would have charged him
with a personal use violation with using campaign funds illegally.
The jury didn't know that because the judge didn't want
(40:54):
him to know.
Speaker 2 (40:54):
That, and that's why they said you can't come and testify.
Speaker 3 (40:58):
Yes, and he also vented the lawyers from arguing this.
But by the way, so that was one ground. The
other two grounds that could be unlawful means. And you
could have three jurors on one and five on another,
and four other like they could mix and match the
other ground.
Speaker 1 (41:13):
Have you ever heard of a jury where that was it? Okay,
this thing, you understand.
Speaker 2 (41:17):
It's weird that Usually it's you either got to be
all in lockstep, yeah, or you're not. So it's either
your innocent or guilty because a twelve agree, and or
if they disagree, one of them disagrees.
Speaker 1 (41:28):
Were done.
Speaker 3 (41:28):
Find the elements of the crime.
Speaker 1 (41:30):
He said, find your own path too.
Speaker 3 (41:33):
Guilty, Yeah, whatever you want. The objective is guilty. You
come up with however you want to get there, all right,
So one was the Federal campaign Finance on his instructions
are wonefully deficient. He only includes part of the rule.
He leaves out the other half, which is explains why
Trump shouldn't have done so. And it would have been
a mistake to do it the way the prosecutor wanted
him to do, and he would have been charged with it.
(41:54):
I mean it would have been he would have been
violating the law to do what Alvin Bragg is saying
he should have done. Another supposed basis of unlawful means
was falsification of other business records. The second of the
people's theories. This is from the jury instruction. The second
of the people's theories of unlawful means, which I will
(42:16):
define for you now, is the falsification of other business
records for purposes of determining whether falsifizing business to records,
and the second degree was an unlawful means used by
a conspiracy to promote or prevent election. Here you may
consider the bank records associated with Michael Cohen's account formation,
the bank records association with Michael Cohens wired to Keith Davidson,
the invoice from Investor Advisory Services, and the ten ninety
(42:39):
nine MISK form of the Trumpet Organization issued to Michael Cohenes. So,
in other words, they're thirty four counts of false business records.
They're all the identical charge. They just occur thirty four
different times, thirty four different entries in the bookmarks. What
he's saying is, you know what, every one of these
is a misdemeanor. But if you say you made one
(43:02):
of these entries to assist in another of these entries,
then they're all felonies. Wow, Like it is the most
circular reasoning that just makes no sense. And by the way,
let's go to the third one, because the third one
just makes me laugh out loud. The people's third theory
(43:23):
of unlawful means, which I will define for you now,
is a violation of tax laws. Under New York State
and New York City law, it is unlawful to knowingly
supply or submit materially false or fraudulent information in connection
with any tax return. Likewise, under federal law, it is
unlawful for a person to willfully make any tax return, statement,
or other document that is fraudulent or false as at
(43:43):
any material matter, or that the person does not believe
to be true and correctest to every material matter. I
listened to this last sentence. Under these federal, state, and
local laws, such conduct is unlawful even if it does
not result in the underpayment of taxes. So, in other words,
he told the jury, by the way, you can find
(44:03):
a violation of tax laws even if you paid you
didn't pay any less taxes, even if you didn't defraud anyone,
even if you're not using it to cheat on your taxes,
if you think there's something in the tax laws. And
by the way, there is no person on planet Earth
who understands all of the tax laws. You know, there
was a book that was written years ago called three
Felonies a Day, and it argues that all of us
(44:24):
living in this complex world commit three felonies a day
between tax laws and environmental laws. There's just so much regulations.
If you are doing anything, if you're filling out a
credit card application, an aggressive prosecutor can find three felonies
a day that Ben Ferguson has committed in this instance.
That jury instruction says, well, if you can figure out
(44:45):
if you think there was any.
Speaker 1 (44:47):
Lime up with your own theory, basically.
Speaker 3 (44:48):
Come up with your own theory. And by the way,
the violation of tax law, doesn't have to have taken
a penny of taxes from New York City, New York
State of the federal government. And if you think there
was some amorphous violation of tax law that didn't result
in any underpayment of taxes, suddenly, presto chanjoh. These misdemeanors
(45:11):
that we can't prosecute the statute of limitations that extended.
They're now felonies, and we can sentence Donald Trump to
one hundred years in jail. One hundred and thirty four
years in jail.
Speaker 2 (45:20):
In other words, orange man bad, find your way to
figure out how to say he's guilty.
Speaker 3 (45:25):
That's exactly what this was all about. This is politics.
It'll get reversed on appeal, but the judge doesn't care.
He knows that The purpose is what Alex Soro said.
The purpose is what Joe Biden said. The purpose is
all the Democrats at all the media get to call
him a felon over and over and over again between
(45:49):
now an election day. This is a five month battle.
It's not a five year battle. The purpose is not
to put Donald Trump in jail. They know that's not
gonna happen.
Speaker 1 (45:57):
Cost the election.
Speaker 3 (45:59):
They are trying to win. This is about keeping Joe
Biden to the Democrats in power because it's all they
care about, and they're willing to burn the justice system
to the ground to keep the Democrats in power.
Speaker 2 (46:12):
One more question I want to ask of you, and
it deals with what's next for Trump. But before we
do that, I want to say thank you to so
many of you that are listeners and watchers of this
podcast for getting involved with the International Fellowship of Christians
and Jews. Since a tear attack on October seventh, anti
Semitism has been on the rise, not just in Israel
(46:33):
but here at home, in the US and around the world.
And that is why I've partnered with the International Fellowship
of Christians and Jews to make a difference for the
needs of those in Israel right now. They are asking
for help when it comes to actually giving and putting
up bomb shelters as well as the supplies you need
while you were in that bomb shelter. For the month
(46:56):
of June. We're asking Christians to sign this pledge will
deliver to the President of Israel to show that Christians
in America are not only standing in solidarity, but they
are speaking up as well. So let's take a stand
today with the International Fellowship of Christians and Jews and
let the Jewish people know that they are not alone.
(47:17):
They need your help. And if you're ready to pledge
to stand side by side with your Jewish brothers and
sisters to never be silent, to show the Jewish people
that they're not alone, that they have God and Christians
standing by their side. To sign the pledge, Go to
SUPPORTIFCJ dot org. That is support IFCJ dot org to
(47:41):
take a stand today. Help the people in Israel again.
Sign the pledge and stand with our brothers and sisters
in Israel. Go to support if CJ dot org. That's
support if CJ dot org to take a stand today.
Send her final question for you, and this goes back
to the last podcast. You were conflicted on what Trump's
(48:06):
plan should be Next. Do you go to the Supreme Court?
Do you try to get there quickly? Or is there
a way to force this case moving forward? Now knowing
the jury instructions and what they were given and most importantly,
what they had admitted from them, does this open up
any different legal pathway for the Trump team to say, Okay,
(48:28):
we need to get this scene even quicker. So it
isn't Hey, we got what we wanted. We get to
say you're a convicted felon all the way through election day.
Can this speed up the process?
Speaker 1 (48:37):
Or no?
Speaker 3 (48:38):
So let me answer that. But let me answer that
in connection to a question that people ask quite a bit,
which is what's the sentence going to be? We've got
the sentence, we know that is just a few days
before the Republican Convention, and a lot of folks are asking,
is the judge going to sentence Trump to jail time?
I think there's a very real chance the judge sentence
Trump to jail time. I think this is a vicious partisan.
(49:00):
I think he hates Donald Trump. I think he's willing
to abuse his power. But I will wager large sums
of money regardless of what he sentences him to jail
time or something else, that if there is incarceration, he
will suspend it pending appeal. I think that I could
see the judge at sentencing saying I sentence you to
(49:20):
four years in jail or no, No, I don't think
he would. I do think you've got four years for
each of these thirty four counts. Is the maximum amount
typically they would run concurrently, which means they would all
run at the same time. You could run him consecutively,
which is how you get over one hundred years in
any ordinary circumstance. Number One, a judge of Trump's age
(49:42):
that does not have any prior offenses in New York
would never serve a day of jail time in any
other case. I mean, look, you can physically assault someone,
you can repeatedly violently beat people up, you can engage
in all sorts of crimes and not serve jail time
in New York. That being said, I think it's that's
entirely possible. This judge is enough of a partisan to say,
(50:04):
you're the president, what you did mattered, I'm sentencing you
to four years in jail. I could see him. He
would love that. That would be the crowning moment of
his life to utter those words.
Speaker 2 (50:15):
It also be useful politically, because then not only can
you say he's convicted felon, but then you say, do
you want a guy going to the White House, it's
about to go to jail.
Speaker 1 (50:23):
Yeah.
Speaker 3 (50:24):
So what I do not think he will do is
sentenced him to jail and say take him into custody.
And put him there right now. He could, but I
think if he did that, it would prompt an immediate
emergency appeal and he would get reversed. I assume this
guy is smart enough to know that he doesn't want
to get reversed, and he especially does not want to
(50:47):
get reversed before election day. He's engaged in politics, so
he's not going to do something I think that will
prompt an immediate reversal because that undermines the political value
of the charai that he's conducting. So if the sentences
in prisonment or it could be home confinement. If the
(51:09):
sentence is something like that, I think he'll suspend it
pending the resolution of the appeal. In that case, I
think the odds are quite high. This appeal will have
to go through the New York state system. First. We
talked about in Friday's pod, and by the way, you
should go back and listen to Friday's pod. We did
Friday's pod late Thursday night. We did it on the
(51:29):
road as I was driving from Dallas to Houston. It
was right after the verdict came down, and it was
analyzing the next steps and in much greater detail than
we have in this pod, and so you ought to
listen to the two pods together. But the ordinary course
of appeal would be to appeal from the trial court
to the intermediate appellate court in New York in the
(51:49):
state court system, and then if you lose in the
intermediate appellate court, to appeal to the top appellate court
in New York called the New York Court of Appeals.
And then finally, if you lose there, then you could
appeal to the U. S. Supreme Court. That's normally how
a criminal case would proceed. It is possible you can
file an extraordinary writ to ask the US Supreme Court
(52:13):
to intervene right now, but it is very very very rare.
There is a chance, and I'm sure the Trump legal
team is debating this right now. There's a chance the
court would say yes. But I think it's probably unlikely.
I think the court's instinct, particularly if a sentence is suspended,
if the judge order Trump put in jail, the Supreme
(52:35):
Court would say yes. It would force the court to
say yes. So if the sentence is suspended and Trump
is free to campaign, fore to debate, for you to
go to the convention, I think the justice's instincts will
be you know what, The New York state courts might
correct this. The Court of Appeals might reverse this, The
Intermediate Court of Appeals might reverse this. They might get
(52:57):
it right. And there's a long ethos that the Court,
which is, if we don't need to act, we don't
need to act. If someone else can fix this, if
another level of the justice system can fix this, the
US Supreme Court doesn't need to step in. That's their
general approach. If they were to deny the extraordinary writ
I suspect you would have some justices right and say
(53:19):
something like there are lots of reasons to be concerned here,
but right now the sentence is suspended. The verdicts can
be overturned on appeal, and so will allow the state
proceedings to go forward. If there was an order of
immediate incarceration, it would force their hands. I think the
whole game here from the DA and from the judge
(53:42):
is the political advantage not actually sending Trump to jail.
They know these jury instructions will never survive an appeal.
If you had anything resembling fairness in the judicial system,
the New York Court's Appeals should reverse it. I got
to say, based on the absolute disgrace we just saw
play out, I have no confidence of that. The New
(54:04):
York justice system is I suspect forever a global laughing stock.
And you put this on top of the prior civil
case where they took a half billion dollars that they're
trying to take a half billion dollars from Trump. The combination.
The message New York has said is if we don't
like you, if you are politically disfavored, welcome to communist Cuba.
We will treat you the same and you have the
(54:25):
same rights as you would have locked into Gulac.
Speaker 2 (54:30):
This is gonna be interesting that it plays out. It's
gonna be interesting to see what the poll numbers say
this week. We're gonna cover it all. Don't forget we
did this show Monday, Wednesday, Friday. Hit that subscribe or
auto download button, and on those in between days there's
a lot of breaking news. Grab my podcast as well,
the Ben Ferguson podcasts, and I will keep you up
to date on those in between days. Make sure if
you didn't get to watch this on YouTube, watch it
(54:51):
on YouTube. You'll get to see those clips and this
famous smirk of Joe Biden and the Senate, and I
will see you back here in a couple of days.
Welcome.
Speaker 2 (00:00):
It is verdict with Senator Ted Cruz, Ben Ferguson with
you and Senator we now know the White House. They
know how to celebrate when it comes to Donald Trump
being convicted.
Speaker 3 (00:11):
Well, that's exactly right. We have seen now the smirk
heard around the world, Joe Biden, jubilant, gleeful, celebrating and
spiking the football in the end zone at this political prosecution.
And it's not just a prosecution. It is a persecution
which Democrats believe will yield dividends. In November, we're going
(00:33):
to break down the fallout from the convictions in New
York and we're going to go into detail about precisely
why this was an abuse of power, the jury instructions
that were given in this trial, how this was rigged,
and the Democrats do not want anyone to acknowledge how
it was rigged. Well, we're going to give you the facts.
(00:54):
We're going to break it down.
Speaker 2 (00:56):
It was shocking to see how gleeful the President of
the United States of America was at knowing that his
political opponent is now an official political prisoner.
Speaker 3 (01:05):
Well, look, it is sad watching Joe Biden utterly gleeful
and not even pretending to hide it. You know, I
have to say, if you're going to do a kangaroo trial,
if you're going to go after your political opponents and
try to attack them and abuse the justice system, usually
people pretend they're not doing that. Well, not with Joe Biden.
(01:26):
Take a look at how we reacted when he was asked.
Speaker 4 (01:27):
About it, mister president. Can you tell us, sir, Donald
Trump prefers to himself as a political prisoner and blames
you directly. What's your response to that, sir? Do you
think the condition will have an impact on the campaign.
We'd love to hear.
Speaker 3 (01:45):
Your thoughts, sir. Should you be on the ballot? Sir?
Speaker 1 (01:50):
That's damning. I mean it's obvious he's saying, yeah, and
I did that.
Speaker 3 (01:55):
Look it is disgusting. And I will say for those
of you all listening to the audio, as you know,
in this podcast, we do three shows a week that
are on audio. One of them typically is on video.
This is one of the video shows. So if you're
on audio, i'd encourage you go over to YouTube and
watch the video because you actually need to see see
the expression on his face. He's gleeful, He's not hiding it.
(02:17):
He is spiking the football and just shameless it is.
I'm abusing power. I'm reminded of of mel Brooks history
of the world. It's good to be the king. That's
actually what I thought. I could almost hear Biden saying,
I'm abusing my power, damn it, and I'm proud of it.
(02:37):
I will say this, the Trump campaign saw that and
immediately turned it around. They put together an ad. I
got to say, it's a heck of a powerful ad.
It's the same thing you've seen, you just saw, but
with a little bit of music, a little bit of context.
Take a look at this Trump ad.
Speaker 5 (02:53):
Just was done. Guy.
Speaker 6 (02:54):
The Biden administration order a boon or an opponent to
political appone, mister.
Speaker 4 (03:01):
President, can you tell us, sir, Donald Trump prefers himself
as a political prisoner and blames you directly. What's your
response to that, sir?
Speaker 2 (03:10):
Now, before I get your response, I want to tell
you about our friends over at Freedom Gold USA. At
Freedom Gold USA, they are a company that I recommend
when it comes to gold and silver for one main reason.
They typically charge twenty to thirty percent less than other
major gold firms when it comes buying gold or silver
(03:30):
and with inflation where it is right now, it is
a time to watch what's happening. With the price of
gold continuing to hit all time highs, inflation is heavily
eroding your purchasing power, putting your savings and your retirement
accounts and future legacy at risk. And with more taxes,
the continued threat of war, a national debt now exceeding
(03:52):
thirty four trillion, and the push for a central bank
digital currency, your financial freedom is at stake and that
is why to know about Freedom Goold USA. They are
here to help you be empowered when it comes to
buying gold and silver, and the team at freedom Goold
USA is ready to answer all of your questions about
preserving your wealth and provide stability in uncertain times. Freedom
(04:16):
Gold USA will never take you to put all your
money in a gold or silver ira. They understand diversification,
but part of safeguarding your wealth can be used with
physical gold and silver to take control of your financial
future today. So call the team that I use and trust,
the team that charges between twenty to thirty percent less
(04:37):
than other major gold companies out there. That means you're
getting twenty to thirty percent more gold or silver in
your account day one one eight hundred sixty five five
eight eight four three one eight hundred sixty five five
eight eight four to three, or visit freedom goold USA
dot com slash verdict. That's freedom gold USA dot com
(05:01):
slash verdict and see if you qualify for up to
ten thousand dollars in free silver.
Speaker 1 (05:07):
Senator, that ad was a brilliant ad. Y.
Speaker 2 (05:10):
I also think we can see that America saw that
smirk for what it was, a threat to our freedom
and democracy and our way of life in this country,
trying to imprison your political opponents. But even more than that,
people went to donate to Trump like never before. They're angry.
Speaker 3 (05:28):
Fifty three million dollars in the first twenty four hours.
It was stunning. And by the way, I will say,
I think Republicans across the board saw that. I can
tell you in terms of my campaign website, we saw
a surge of donations there as well. I assume others
did as well. I think people saw what happened in
the campaign and they were pissed off, and they were
(05:49):
pissed off, and they had the reaction They're like, this
is wrong. We need to stand up and fight back.
You know, I got to say, watching that smirk, it's
in furiating. But it was a moment when the mask slipped.
And so the Democrats are playing a game. This political
prosecution was all about calling Trump a convicted felon. They
(06:15):
can now do that. They're going to do that every
single day until election day. Now, there's kind of a
script that you play when you're doing a kangaroo court.
When the court is over, what you say is is
all right to quote south Park, respect my authority. That's
supposed to be the line. Well Joe Biden managed when
(06:38):
he wasn't caught smirking through giving his genuine reaction to
read the script and say, we now have the verdict,
we must respect the authority. Give a listen to this
press conference of Joe Biden telling everyone shut up and
accept the results. Trump is a bad guy.
Speaker 5 (06:58):
Just checking this afternoon, good afternoon. Before I began, Mary Marx,
I just wanted to say a few words about what
happened yesterday in New York City. The American principle that
no one is above the law was reaffirmed. Donald Trump
was given every opportunity to defend himself. It was a
(07:21):
state case not a federal case, and it was heard
by a jury of twelve citizens, twelve Americans, twelve people
like you, Like millions of Americans who served on jurys.
This jury is chosen the same way every jury in
America is chosen. It was the process that Donald Trump's attorney.
Speaker 3 (07:42):
Was part of.
Speaker 5 (07:44):
The jury heard five weeks of evidence, five weeks after
careful deliberation, the jury reached a unanimous verdict. They found
Donald Trump guilty on all thirty four felon accounts not
only be given the opportunity as he should to feel
that decision, just like everyone else has that opportunity. That's
(08:07):
how the American system of justice works. And it's reckless,
it's dangerous. It's irresponsible for anyone to say this was
rigged just because they don't like the verdict. Our justice
system is endured for nearly two hundred and fifty years,
and it literally is a cornerstone of America. Our justice system,
(08:30):
the justicystem should be respected and we should never allow
anyone to tear it down. It's as simple as that.
That's America, that's who we are, and that's who will
always be. God will he.
Speaker 2 (08:44):
He says, it's irresponsible to say that this verdict was rigged,
that this jury was rigged, that all of this was rigged.
But then he smirks, basically saying, yeah, it was rigged,
and you should respect the system that we just rigged.
Speaker 3 (08:58):
Look, I got to say listening to that, watching that,
it is infuriating. It makes my blood boil. He says,
it's reckless to do this, and we need to not
tear down the justice system. Nobody has torn down our
justice system more than that man, Joseph Robin at Biden
jor he has presided over number one, politicizing the Department
of Justice in a way that is utterly shameful, that
(09:20):
targets his political enemies, that protects his own corruption, and
at the same time he says, well, we got to
respect this system. He ignores the fact that Alvin Bragg
is a viciously partisan prosecutor, a Democrat who campaigns saying
I'm the guy to get Donald Trump. I'm the one
to get Donald Trump. I know how to get Donald Trump.
I'm the one to get Donald Trump. Joe Biden doesn't
(09:42):
acknowledge any of that. He doesn't acknowledge the fact that
the number three person at his own Justice department, left
the Department of Justice to go join the prosecution. He
has a line in there. This was a state case,
not a federal case, except for the fact that one
of the lead lawyers was your number three lawyer at
the Department of Justice. He doesn't ignore knowledge the fact
that this judge was a joke, was a rabid partisan,
(10:05):
was a donor to Joe Biden. He's one of his donors.
And you know what he behaved. You know, the man
should have been he should have taken off his black
robe and he should have put on a Biden hat
because it was a campaign. You want to talk about
an unacknowledged campaign contribution, how about every day Judge Merchamp
showed up to work. That was a campaign contribution. And
(10:28):
by the way, under their theory, it was clearly intended
to influence the outcome of the election. Alvin Bragg every day.
Apparently Joe Biden needs to disclose Alvin Bragg's salary on
his campaign finance reports because this is entirely intended to
influence the outcome of an election. It is Look, the
rule of law matters. What happened this week. It's infuriating,
(10:53):
and it's disappointing.
Speaker 1 (10:56):
He's also premeditated.
Speaker 3 (10:58):
Yes, they knew what they were doing by the smirk.
The smirk was the honesty that whole riff was. The
planned defense, by the way, was planned at the beginning.
They knew what they were going to say. It was
all about we do a kangaroo court. It's all over. Now.
Listen to the court. Listen to the court. No, no, no,
you can't call it a kangaroo court. Never mind the
kangaroo jumping up and down, ignore the facts, ignore the law.
(11:21):
We have someone who is wearing a robe who says
him bad. Okay, you got to keep us in power.
And by the way, that's all we care about that
Democrats stay in power.
Speaker 2 (11:30):
They pre planned this and you can literally go back
years to see it. One of the Soros family members,
and I want to pull this tweet up because I
think it's an important point that you just made.
Speaker 1 (11:40):
This was all orchestrated by design.
Speaker 2 (11:42):
George Soros went out there and said, I want to
find people that are friendly to me. I'm going to
get them elected around the country. I'm going to weaponize
the court system, and then I'm going to get the
outcomes from weaponizing the court system. Alvin Bragg was the
first part of this master plan. You had to have
a prosecutor that was willing to say, I'm not going
to follow the law all and I'm going to do
egregious acts of partisanship to get us to a point
(12:05):
where we might be able to get to a court
And look at the tweet from Soros's son explaining that
we have won.
Speaker 1 (12:13):
We are successful.
Speaker 2 (12:14):
Quote Democrats to refer to Trump as a convicted felon
at every opportunity. Repetition is the key to a successful message.
And we want people to wrestle with a notion of
hiring a convicted felon for the most important job in
the country. And then the New York Times headline Trump
(12:35):
guilty on all counts. They plan this, yes, and it
was years in the making that.
Speaker 3 (12:42):
They're all on the same team. Now. Alex Soros is
George Soros's son. By many reports, George Soros is he's
he's very elderly, and apparently he has diminished significantly, much
like Joe Biden, and so it is widely reported that
Alex Soros is running things now. Alex Soros is the
young hard leftist who is distributing billions of dollars funding
(13:06):
it all. And so how did Alvin Bragg get elected
with money from Soros? Massive money from Soros. By the way,
Soros is doing this all across the country, investing millions
and millions of dollars in electing left wing DA's who
let criminals out of jail, who won't prosecute murderers, And
it really is striking. They're not hiding it. No, look
(13:30):
at this tweet. Democrats should refer to Trump as a
convicted felon at every opportunity. As we said on Friday's pod,
the entire purpose of this was for them to be
able to call him a convicted felon. Repetition is the
key to a successful message. This is all about message.
This is all about politics. They're not hiding it. It's
(13:50):
why Joe Biden's smirking, which is our political plan, worked.
Although I'm not convinced it worked. I actually think it
think it may well backfire. They think people are stupid.
They think repetition is the key. If we say it
a lot, people will be stupid and just believe it.
I think people have some real common sense. I think
people understand this was a sham.
Speaker 2 (14:13):
You look at the sham and you see the media respond.
We could play fifty clips the media. Most people that
are listening, they know what was said. But there's also
this psychotic gleefulness over the idea now that they're saying,
not only we're gonna call him a convicted felon, but Donald
Trump can't travel outside the country to many other countries.
Do you really want that got to be your president?
(14:35):
I mean this is they obviously knew what they were
gonna say long before he was convicted, and play it
out for this campaign, knowing that the appeal wouldn't happen
in time.
Speaker 3 (14:46):
Look, this is all about politics. The appeal will succeed,
this will be reversed on appeal, But this is all
about attacking Trump. And I will say this. Trump came
out and gave a press conference, and I want you
to listen to the point he made. This is very brief,
but it is a fundamental point that ought to scare
the hell out of everybody.
Speaker 6 (15:05):
Give a listen a case where if they can do
this to me, they can do this to anyone.
Speaker 2 (15:11):
I think that's incredibly powerful reminder. If the Democrats line
is remind him and say it over and over again.
He's a convicted felon. Donald Trump's line should be over
and over again. If they can do this to me,
a former president United States of America, they can do
it to any one of you.
Speaker 3 (15:26):
And let's let's use an example. Ben. You're you're an
influential guy. You're well known, You've got a very popular podcast.
You are on the radio. You've been on the radio
since you were twelve years old. Who long time? Let
me ask you something. Are you a billionaire? No? Do
you have a billion dollars in the bank.
Speaker 4 (15:42):
No?
Speaker 3 (15:43):
Do you have a team of lawyers on retainer?
Speaker 4 (15:44):
No?
Speaker 3 (15:45):
Were you president of the United States?
Speaker 4 (15:46):
No?
Speaker 3 (15:47):
Do you have universal name idea across the globe?
Speaker 6 (15:49):
No?
Speaker 3 (15:50):
Do you have a jet with your name on the
side of it. If they can do it to him,
it's a hell of a lot easier to squash he
Ben Fergus than it is a Donald J.
Speaker 4 (16:01):
Trump.
Speaker 3 (16:03):
If they can do it to him, whoever is listening,
there's nobody listening. They could do it to me. They
could do it to you. They can do it to anybody.
They are grinning. We can destroy you and we don't care.
It is all about power. Look We talk a lot
on this podcast about Marxism, and as you know, I
wrote a whole book, my last book, Unwoke, how to
(16:25):
defeat cultural Marxism in America. For me, Marxism is very
real because my family has suffered and been imprisoned and
tortured by Marxists. They care about power, the same thugs
that will throw you in prison. They're trying to do
the same thing to Donald Trump right now because all
they care about is power.
Speaker 2 (16:47):
Let's talk about the step forward for Trump and using
not just a smirk, but also using this court case
to explain the American people just how rigged it is.
I think that's an important point for him. He's gonna
have to go out there and explain this is how
all this went down, this is how corrupt it was.
Speaker 1 (17:06):
How much into the weeds does he need to go
into that?
Speaker 3 (17:09):
I don't think he needs to get into the weeds
a lot. I think think we're going to provide details
in just a few minutes that will give you give
you some backup on that. But look, I think people
know you look at this. Everyone involved in this is
obviously a partisan. It's why I get so angry at
Joe Biden saying it's reckless to tear down our justice
system because he's the one tearing down the justice system.
(17:31):
I watched that that press conference, and it reminds me
of like an arsonist holding cans of gasoline with with
matches in his hands, saying, stop complaining about me lighting
buildings on fire. He's the one burning our justice system
to the ground, and their real consequences to it. There
are real consequences to people losing faith. What he actually
(17:54):
said about our system of justice is a cornerstone of America.
That is correct. Look, if you contrast America to Banana republics,
the difference is you have the rule of law. The
difference is you don't do this. And these democrats they
hate Trump so much they don't care. They're willing to
destroy it. And all right, let let's get to Alvin Bragg.
(18:15):
Alvin Bragg minds you, he's suddenly tough on crime. Yeah,
this is a guy who if you murder people, if
you rate people, you walk down the street and you
punch a little old lady in the face, Alvin Bragg
will let you go.
Speaker 2 (18:27):
Three the illegal immigrants attacked a police officer on camera.
Speaker 1 (18:30):
Let him walk out.
Speaker 3 (18:31):
The same day, the same day, the same day. Let
him go. This is a man who was elected to
let violent criminals go. That's what Soros wanted. Let violent
criminals go. New York will be better with more murderers
on the street. New York will be better with more
rapists on the street. That is their view. Now I
want you to listen to what Donald Trump said, because
(18:51):
he made a very powerful point on exactly this.
Speaker 6 (18:54):
We had a DA who is a failed DA. Crime
is ramped into New York. Violent crime, that's what he's
really supposed to be looking at. Crime is ramp into
New York. Yesterday and McDonald's you had a man hitting
him up with machetes a machete. Whoever can imagine even
(19:17):
a machete being wielded in a store in a place
where they're eating and they's going rampant, and Bragg is
down watching a trial on what they call.
Speaker 3 (19:30):
Crimes crimes.
Speaker 1 (19:32):
He's got a great point.
Speaker 2 (19:34):
This guy shouldn't be in this court with Donald Trump
when this is what he's dealing with, machete wielding individuals
in New York.
Speaker 3 (19:40):
So literally, on the day of the trial, there was
a lunatic with a machete in a McDonald's threatening people.
Now you would think, what is a district attorney supposed
to be doing? I would think pretty high on the
list is protecting me from machetes. Like if some guy
brings out a machete and is trying to hurt people,
the DA ought to arrest him and prosecute him. But no,
(20:01):
you know, what's a decapitated person or two. When you're
talking about Democrats, they're willing to look the other way
at that. What was Alvin Bragg doing? He had a
political objective to be in that courtroom because he's trying
to bloody Donald Trump, he's trying to reelect Joe Biden,
he's trying to stay in power. And I want to
break down some of the materials so that There's a
(20:22):
very interesting article that was written in The Intelligencer, and
it's by Elie Honik, who is a CNN legal commentator,
not a conservative, but he is a real lawyer, and
he analyzes and and breaks down a lot of the
enormous legal problems with what happened in this trial. Let
me read read briefly what he said. He said the
District Attorney's press office and its flax often proclaim that
(20:46):
falsification of business records charges, which is what they went
after Trump on, are quote commonplace, and indeed the office
is quote bread and butter. That's true only if you
draw definitional lines so broad is to render them meaningless.
Of course, the DA charges falsification quite frequently. Virtually any
fraud case involves some sort of fake documentation, so it's
(21:10):
often an add on to some other case. It's one
of the additional crimes that's committed. But let me continue
from elihonik. But when you impose meaningful search parameters, the
truth emerges. The charges against Trump are obscure and nearly
entirely unprecedented. Now listen to this next sentence. In fact,
(21:36):
no state prosecutor in New York or Wyoming or anywhere
has ever listened to that word, ever charged federal election
laws as a direct or predicate state crime against anyone
(21:57):
for anything, none ever, Even putting aside the specifics of
election law, The Manhattan DA itself almost never brings any
case in which falsification of business records is the only charge,
so that starts off of the front end. This is unusual.
(22:20):
They had to get incredibly creative.
Speaker 1 (22:22):
Not just unusual, never been done before.
Speaker 3 (22:25):
Yeah, that's true. Yeah, I mean we.
Speaker 2 (22:27):
Literally said, no one's been super enough to do it.
But we packed this court. We got the judge we want,
We got the da we want. We got a guy
that the majority of the people in this area actually hate.
They knew this. You couldn't have planned this any better.
And it goes back to the George Soros money. We
got the money to get the guy we want elected.
We got the judge. He gave money to Joe Biden.
We've set up this kangaroo court from beginning to end
(22:49):
exactly how you'd have to do it to get this
to happen.
Speaker 3 (22:52):
That's right now. One of the things that we have
today that we did not have we did the last
podcast is we actually have the jury instruction. So I've
gotten written jury instructions, been able to read them before.
I was relying on news reports of what the judge said,
but I didn't actually have them in front of me.
So understand that the sort of Rube Goldberg machine that
they invented to try to get anything to get Trump
(23:13):
the cl The crime is falsifying business records. That's a misdemeanor.
By the way, a misdemeanor. Do you know the definition
of a misdemeanor with the different differences between a misdemeanor
and a felony. A misdemeanor is a crime that is
punishable by less than a year in jail. The definition
of a felony is a crime that is punishable by
a year or more in jail, So that's the cutoff. Felonies,
understandably are more serious.
Speaker 2 (23:36):
Speeding ticket, parking ticket all misdemeanors because you don't go
to jail for over a year.
Speaker 3 (23:40):
Fright jaywalking, those are misdemeanors. Murder is a felony. Rape
is a felony. Burglary is a felony. Crimes that are serious,
so falsification of business record, it is a misdemeanor. It's
punishable by less than a year, and it has a
two year statute of limitations, which means the prosecutor has
two years to bring the case. All of this happened
years go back in twenty sixteen, so the statute of
(24:01):
limitations expired years ago. So every one of the charges
that Alvin Bragg brought you can't bring now under the
plain text because two years is passed. So New York has, however,
a mechanism to elevate that crime to a felony if
the falsification of business record is done with the intent
(24:24):
to conceal another crime. And so I want to break
down these jury instructions because it's going to show just
how absurd this was. One thing linked upon another, linked
upon another. So page twenty nine of the jury instructions
herees what the judge told the jury intent to commit
or conceal another crime for the crime of falsifying business
records in the first degree, the intent to defraud must
(24:45):
include an intent to commit another crime or to aid
or conceal the commission thereof. Under our law, though the
people must prove an intent to commit another crime or
to aid or conceal the commission thereof, they need not
prove that the other crime was in fact committed, aided
or concealed. So understand this other crime, which is the
(25:11):
magic ticket that elevates these these misdemeanors to felonies and
extends the statutal limitationcy you can suddenly prosecute them. The
prosecutor quote need not prove that the other crime was
in fact committed, aided or concealed. So it's a crime
that doesn't have to have happened, all right, So let's
(25:31):
read some more New York election Law section seventeen one
to fifty two predicate. Here's what the judge instructed the jury.
The people alleged that the other crime the defendant intended
to commit aid or conceal is a violation of New
York election Law section seventeen one fifty two. Okay, that's
some clarity that we didn't have through much of the trial.
But the judge actually specifies, all right, this is the
(25:52):
quote other crime. What is section seventeen one to fifty
two of New York election law provides, Well, it provides
that quote, any two or more persons who conspire to
promote or prevent the election of any person to a
public office by unlawful means, and which conspiracy is acted
upon by one or more parties, there too, shall be
(26:12):
guilty of conspiracy to promote or prevent on election. And
so the keywords there are unlawful means, two or more
persons who conspire to promote or prevent the election of
any person to a public office by unlawful means. So
those two words unlawful means are the entire foundation on
(26:36):
which this whole case is built. Now, what does unlawful
means mean? And this is the most important jury instruction.
This will be the basis for reversal when this case
is appealed, it will be There are lots of reasons
to reverse it, but this is the easiest and clearest.
Here's what unlawful means means. And it's just two paragrass
(26:57):
It's very short quote. Although you must conclude unanimously that
the defendant conspired to promote or prevent the election of
any person to a public office by unlawful means, you
need not be unanimous as to what those unlawful means were.
(27:20):
In determining whether the defendant conspired to promote or prevent
the election of any person to a public office by
unlawful means, you may consider the following one violations of
the Federal Election Campaign Act otherwise known as FICA, two
the falsification of other business records, or three violation of
(27:42):
tax laws. So we've talked about how the US Supreme
Court has long made clear in order to convict someone
of a crime, you must prove beyond a reasonable doubt
every element of the crime, and the jury must found
find unanimously that you are guilty. You have committed every
element of the crime. What the judge just said, there
is no no number one. This unlawful means means anything unlawful,
(28:07):
like whatever, like. We're not going to define it, but
I'm going to give you three jurors choice, your pick.
It's like mix and match, choose your own adventure. A
couple people say, I think it was federal campaign finance law.
Someone else. You know, it was violation of the tax laws.
By the way, they don't specify what about the tax laws?
Did you violate the tax laws?
Speaker 4 (28:24):
Yep?
Speaker 3 (28:25):
Okay. Then suddenly this is a felony. Then suddenly the
statute of limitations is extended. Then suddenly, instead of less
than a year, you can sentence Donald Trump to over
one hundred years.
Speaker 2 (28:36):
Is it fair to say that the judge basically gave
instructions to the jury that almost put them in a
position where there's no way to not find them guilty
because there's such ambiguity.
Speaker 3 (28:44):
The way they define this. The judge knew damn well
it was all but forcing the jury to render a
guilty verdict now, I still think a juror should have
said no. And by the way, there is a long
tradition in our juris prudence of what's called jury nullification,
which is there are times when this has happened repeatedly
(29:05):
where a juror says, you know what, you may give
me instructions that I've got to do X, Y and Z,
but this is garbage, this is bs no, this is
a miscarriage of justice. And that's part of the reason
our system has a jury system, is to have twelve
ordinary people as a check on the prosecution and on
(29:27):
the justice system. It's why I held out hope for
a hung jury that someone would say this is so
obviously garbage. I won't play a part, but I will
say I feel some sympathy for the jurors because reading this.
Here's the instruction that the judge gave about the Federal
Election Campaign Act. The terms contribution and expenditure include anything
(29:50):
of value, including any purchase, payment, loan, or advance, made
by any person, for the purpose of influencing any election
for federal office. Under federal law, a third party's payment
of candidate's expenses is deemed to be a contribution to
the candidate unless the payment would have been made irrespective
of the candidacy. So in this instance, the focus was
(30:10):
on the money that Michael Cohen paid to Stormy Daniels,
the so called hush money to keep her quiet about
the alleged affair. Now, under this instruction, the judge is
basically told the jury that is a campaign finance violation.
He says any payment, any payment of candidate's expenses is
(30:31):
deemed to be a contribution unless the payment would have
been made irrespective of the candidacy. Now, the judge did
not allow Brad Smith, the chairman former chairman of the
Federal Elections Commission, to testify, and that instruction on federal
campaign finance law is woefully incomplete. So Brad Smith put
(30:52):
out a tweet thread that actually explained federal campaign finance law.
I want to read it and walk through that because
it will show why the judges jury instructions were so deficient.
Speaker 2 (31:04):
Before we do that, I want to talk to you
about one of my commitments, and that is I am
sick and tired of giving my money to companies that
do not stand with my values. And in the coffee business,
there are a lot of liberal companies out there. You
probably had two or three pop into your brain right
when I said that. Well, I start my day every
morning at seven am on the radio. I've got to
be awake and I want a premium cup of coffee
(31:26):
to start my day that, honestly I can look forward to.
Speaker 1 (31:29):
And that is why I switched to Blackout Coffee.
Speaker 2 (31:32):
Now, Blackout Coffee is one hundred percent America and zero
percent woke. They are committed to conservative values from sourcing
the beans to the roasting process, customer support and shipping,
and they embody true American values and they accept no
compromise on taste or quality. Now, Blackout Coffee is a
(31:52):
premium cup of coffee.
Speaker 1 (31:54):
It's not average, and I want you to try it.
Speaker 2 (31:56):
I'm going to give you a discount to give it
a shot, because when you do, you're never going to
switch back. Go to Blackoutcoffee dot com, slash verdict. That's
Blackoutcoffee dot com slash verdict and use the coupon code
Verdict for twenty percent off your first order. That's Blackoutcoffee
dot com slash verdict.
Speaker 1 (32:16):
Be awake, not woke.
Speaker 2 (32:19):
Try Blackout Coffee at Blackoutcoffee dot com slash verdict and
use that promo code verdict for twenty percent off your
first order centata. I want you to go over what
you were just describing, because it's amazing that the guy
that should have been able to go before the court
and explain these laws and how they work to the
jury was barred from testifying, and that's why apparently he
(32:40):
decided to put out this long tweet.
Speaker 3 (32:42):
Now, so this is this is a tweet thread. I'm
just gonna read it. Let's take a stab. False Falsefying
business records under New York law is a misdemeanor unless
it is done to hide a crime. Bragg says that
crime was a violation of Federal Election Campaign Act FIICA,
or of a New York statute making it illegal to
inflight LUNs an election by unlawful means. But if the latter,
(33:04):
what is the quote unlawful means? That's what we were talking
about a minute ago, an alleged violation of FICA. So
it comes down to FICA. There are two potential violations here.
One is the acceptance of an unlawful contribution by the campaign.
The other is incorrect reporting of a contribution by the campaign.
Either way, we have to have a campaign contribution that
(33:28):
allegedly occurred when Cohen advanced money to pay the Stormy
Daniel settlement. FIKA defines a contribution as a payment made
quote for the purpose of influencing an election. The twenty
sixteen max legal contribution was twenty seven hundred dollars. This
looks bad for Trump. It's pretty easy to conclude the
payment was made to influence an election by buying Daniel's silence, right,
(33:49):
and Cohen paid Daniels one hundred and thirty thousand dollars,
way over the limit. Well, it's not so simple. First,
let's clear something up. Cohen just loaned them, he was
paid back, and then some So where some ask is
the contribution. But this is not a winner for Trump.
Under the law, a contribution includes a loan unless made
(34:11):
in the ordinary course of business EGA bank. So that's
not a good argument. But for context, note that there
is no limit on how much Trump can pay can
contribute to his own campaign. By October twenty seventh, when
Daniels was paid, Trump had already spent over sixty million
dollars of his own money on the campaign. It would
have been easy for him to toss in another one
(34:32):
hundred and thirty thousand dollars. Now back to the definition
of contribution. If they bought Daniels's silence to quote influence
an election, what the prosecution is alleged. Isn't that a
contribution and also a campaign expenditure which mirrors the contribution definition.
First common sense, we know that a campaign expense is
(34:55):
not literally any payment made quote for purpose of influencing
an election, and reading the statute that way would be
way too broad. For example, in nineteen ninety nine, Bill
and Hillary Clinton bought a house in New York. One
reason they did so was so that Hillary could run
for US Senate from New York. In other words, the
expenditure was clearly done in part quote for the purpose
(35:20):
of influencing an election. Is it a campaign expenditure underfeaka?
Of course not common sense. How about if a would
be candidate pays a lawyer to seal old divorce records
because he's afraid that, if revealed, they would be damaging
to his candidacy campaign expense, No, clearly not, even though
(35:42):
done quote for the purpose of influencing an election. Or
suppose a business owner wants to settle pending lawsuits against
his businesses before running for Congress. He thinks the lawsuits
are bs, but he's afraid the press will make a
big deal of the allegations. Can he pay the settlements
with campaign funds? The answer obviously is no, even though
(36:03):
there is no legal obligation to pay them, and the
settlements would be paid specifically quote to influence an election.
In fact, in each of these examples, it would be
unlawful to make the payments with campaign funds. I'm gonna
take a pause here. Understand what Alvin Bragg's argument is.
(36:24):
He's saying Trump had to use campaign funds to pay
off Stormy Daniels. That's an idiotic rule. And by the way,
it's a rule that says every candidate for public office,
if you're paying to settle a lawsuit dealing with whether
you had an affair, you must use your campaign funds
to do so. That's absurd. And what Brad Smith is
saying is if you did that, the Federal Election Commission
(36:47):
would go after you. Let me go back to what
Brad Smith, because he explains it a little bit more.
This is because and this is the part that the
judge left out of the jury instruction didn't tell the jury,
so they didn't know this. There's another part of that.
The judge just said, ignore this part because it shows
that Trump hasn't violated the law. Rat Smith, former chairman
of the FEC charged with enforcing this law. Quote. This
(37:10):
is because FIICA also prohibits using campaign funds for quote
personal use. So you got to ask is it personal use?
If yes, you can't use campaign funds aka Hillary Clinton
buying a house right in New York? Exactly what is
quote personal use? Under Federal Election Commission regulations, and the
FEC has primary authority for interpreting the law. It is
(37:34):
any obligation that would exist irrespective of the candidacy. Indeed,
the FEC regulations make clear that a mixed motive doesn't
make something a campaign expense. If the obligation would exist
irrespective of the campaign, paying it with campaign funds is
personal use and therefore illegal. Certainly, Daniels used the campaign
(37:59):
to push or Trump and for the most money she could.
The timing affected the value of the allegations, but the
obligation didn't exist because Trump was a candidate. It predated
his candidacy, and it was not created by his being
a candidate. She could have shut him, shook him down
for hush money at any point, whether or not he
(38:21):
was running for president. Brad didn't say that. I said that.
Brad continues, Let's use common sense. Is it a campaign
expense to pay a non disclosure agreement for something arising
out of events ten years earlier and not caused by
the act of being a candidate. Is paying hush money
(38:43):
a campaign expense? Duh, No, And we wouldn't want it
to be. This is really important. We wouldn't want it
to be. We don't want candidates using campaign funds to
pay personal expenses, whether new clothes, a weight loss program,
or a gym member purchase, to help the candidate look better.
And therefore, quote for the purpose of influencing an election,
(39:06):
you can't use campaign finance funds for that.
Speaker 2 (39:08):
So when you're running for office, just to be very
clear on his point, you can't say I'm going to
take a fifty thousand dollars wardrobe for all these campaign
events because it's still technically closed for you personally.
Speaker 3 (39:18):
Yeah, you can't do that at all. You can't buy
your clothes using cap I.
Speaker 1 (39:21):
Need a haircut or and I'm gonna get one every day.
Speaker 3 (39:24):
You can't do any of that. You can cannot do,
and they'll go after you for it. If you do it,
they will go after you for personal use. Let me
finish what he said. He only had a couple more
and certainly not to pay non disclosure agreements to keep
embarrassing info hidden In summary, for the purpose of influencing
an election is an objective standard. The motive of the
(39:46):
donor of the spender doesn't matter. So what are expenditures?
Paying campaign staff? Are expenditures? Are a campaign expenditure? Buying
ads for the candidate, paying fundraising costs, paying a cant
paign accountant, paying for polling, travel to campaign events. Basically
all the obligations you incuraged solely because you were running
(40:09):
for office. The FEC's approach is consistent with the US
Supreme Court, which is consistently held in every case in
Speaker was passed fifty years ago that its definition of
contribution and expenditure must be objective, not subjective, to avoid
being unconstitutionally vague. None of that went to the jury,
so the jury was just told, well, if it could
(40:32):
influence the election, you got to find it's a violation
of law that has flat out false, and they were
not told. If Trump had done what Alvin Bragg said
he needed to do, the FEC would have charged him
with a personal use violation with using campaign funds illegally.
The jury didn't know that because the judge didn't want
(40:54):
him to know.
Speaker 2 (40:54):
That, and that's why they said you can't come and testify.
Speaker 3 (40:58):
Yes, and he also vented the lawyers from arguing this.
But by the way, so that was one ground. The
other two grounds that could be unlawful means. And you
could have three jurors on one and five on another,
and four other like they could mix and match the
other ground.
Speaker 1 (41:13):
Have you ever heard of a jury where that was it? Okay,
this thing, you understand.
Speaker 2 (41:17):
It's weird that Usually it's you either got to be
all in lockstep, yeah, or you're not. So it's either
your innocent or guilty because a twelve agree, and or
if they disagree, one of them disagrees.
Speaker 1 (41:28):
Were done.
Speaker 3 (41:28):
Find the elements of the crime.
Speaker 1 (41:30):
He said, find your own path too.
Speaker 3 (41:33):
Guilty, Yeah, whatever you want. The objective is guilty. You
come up with however you want to get there, all right,
So one was the Federal campaign Finance on his instructions
are wonefully deficient. He only includes part of the rule.
He leaves out the other half, which is explains why
Trump shouldn't have done so. And it would have been
a mistake to do it the way the prosecutor wanted
him to do, and he would have been charged with it.
(41:54):
I mean it would have been he would have been
violating the law to do what Alvin Bragg is saying
he should have done. Another supposed basis of unlawful means
was falsification of other business records. The second of the
people's theories. This is from the jury instruction. The second
of the people's theories of unlawful means, which I will
(42:16):
define for you now, is the falsification of other business
records for purposes of determining whether falsifizing business to records,
and the second degree was an unlawful means used by
a conspiracy to promote or prevent election. Here you may
consider the bank records associated with Michael Cohen's account formation,
the bank records association with Michael Cohens wired to Keith Davidson,
the invoice from Investor Advisory Services, and the ten ninety
(42:39):
nine MISK form of the Trumpet Organization issued to Michael Cohenes. So,
in other words, they're thirty four counts of false business records.
They're all the identical charge. They just occur thirty four
different times, thirty four different entries in the bookmarks. What
he's saying is, you know what, every one of these
is a misdemeanor. But if you say you made one
(43:02):
of these entries to assist in another of these entries,
then they're all felonies. Wow, Like it is the most
circular reasoning that just makes no sense. And by the way,
let's go to the third one, because the third one
just makes me laugh out loud. The people's third theory
(43:23):
of unlawful means, which I will define for you now,
is a violation of tax laws. Under New York State
and New York City law, it is unlawful to knowingly
supply or submit materially false or fraudulent information in connection
with any tax return. Likewise, under federal law, it is
unlawful for a person to willfully make any tax return, statement,
or other document that is fraudulent or false as at
(43:43):
any material matter, or that the person does not believe
to be true and correctest to every material matter. I
listened to this last sentence. Under these federal, state, and
local laws, such conduct is unlawful even if it does
not result in the underpayment of taxes. So, in other words,
he told the jury, by the way, you can find
(44:03):
a violation of tax laws even if you paid you
didn't pay any less taxes, even if you didn't defraud anyone,
even if you're not using it to cheat on your taxes,
if you think there's something in the tax laws. And
by the way, there is no person on planet Earth
who understands all of the tax laws. You know, there
was a book that was written years ago called three
Felonies a Day, and it argues that all of us
(44:24):
living in this complex world commit three felonies a day
between tax laws and environmental laws. There's just so much regulations.
If you are doing anything, if you're filling out a
credit card application, an aggressive prosecutor can find three felonies
a day that Ben Ferguson has committed in this instance.
That jury instruction says, well, if you can figure out
(44:45):
if you think there was any.
Speaker 1 (44:47):
Lime up with your own theory, basically.
Speaker 3 (44:48):
Come up with your own theory. And by the way,
the violation of tax law, doesn't have to have taken
a penny of taxes from New York City, New York
State of the federal government. And if you think there
was some amorphous violation of tax law that didn't result
in any underpayment of taxes, suddenly, presto chanjoh. These misdemeanors
(45:11):
that we can't prosecute the statute of limitations that extended.
They're now felonies, and we can sentence Donald Trump to
one hundred years in jail. One hundred and thirty four
years in jail.
Speaker 2 (45:20):
In other words, orange man bad, find your way to
figure out how to say he's guilty.
Speaker 3 (45:25):
That's exactly what this was all about. This is politics.
It'll get reversed on appeal, but the judge doesn't care.
He knows that The purpose is what Alex Soro said.
The purpose is what Joe Biden said. The purpose is
all the Democrats at all the media get to call
him a felon over and over and over again between
(45:49):
now an election day. This is a five month battle.
It's not a five year battle. The purpose is not
to put Donald Trump in jail. They know that's not
gonna happen.
Speaker 1 (45:57):
Cost the election.
Speaker 3 (45:59):
They are trying to win. This is about keeping Joe
Biden to the Democrats in power because it's all they
care about, and they're willing to burn the justice system
to the ground to keep the Democrats in power.
Speaker 2 (46:12):
One more question I want to ask of you, and
it deals with what's next for Trump. But before we
do that, I want to say thank you to so
many of you that are listeners and watchers of this
podcast for getting involved with the International Fellowship of Christians
and Jews. Since a tear attack on October seventh, anti
Semitism has been on the rise, not just in Israel
(46:33):
but here at home, in the US and around the world.
And that is why I've partnered with the International Fellowship
of Christians and Jews to make a difference for the
needs of those in Israel right now. They are asking
for help when it comes to actually giving and putting
up bomb shelters as well as the supplies you need
while you were in that bomb shelter. For the month
(46:56):
of June. We're asking Christians to sign this pledge will
deliver to the President of Israel to show that Christians
in America are not only standing in solidarity, but they
are speaking up as well. So let's take a stand
today with the International Fellowship of Christians and Jews and
let the Jewish people know that they are not alone.
(47:17):
They need your help. And if you're ready to pledge
to stand side by side with your Jewish brothers and
sisters to never be silent, to show the Jewish people
that they're not alone, that they have God and Christians
standing by their side. To sign the pledge, Go to
SUPPORTIFCJ dot org. That is support IFCJ dot org to
(47:41):
take a stand today. Help the people in Israel again.
Sign the pledge and stand with our brothers and sisters
in Israel. Go to support if CJ dot org. That's
support if CJ dot org to take a stand today.
Send her final question for you, and this goes back
to the last podcast. You were conflicted on what Trump's
(48:06):
plan should be Next. Do you go to the Supreme Court?
Do you try to get there quickly? Or is there
a way to force this case moving forward? Now knowing
the jury instructions and what they were given and most importantly,
what they had admitted from them, does this open up
any different legal pathway for the Trump team to say, Okay,
(48:28):
we need to get this scene even quicker. So it
isn't Hey, we got what we wanted. We get to
say you're a convicted felon all the way through election day.
Can this speed up the process?
Speaker 1 (48:37):
Or no?
Speaker 3 (48:38):
So let me answer that. But let me answer that
in connection to a question that people ask quite a bit,
which is what's the sentence going to be? We've got
the sentence, we know that is just a few days
before the Republican Convention, and a lot of folks are asking,
is the judge going to sentence Trump to jail time?
I think there's a very real chance the judge sentence
Trump to jail time. I think this is a vicious partisan.
(49:00):
I think he hates Donald Trump. I think he's willing
to abuse his power. But I will wager large sums
of money regardless of what he sentences him to jail
time or something else, that if there is incarceration, he
will suspend it pending appeal. I think that I could
see the judge at sentencing saying I sentence you to
(49:20):
four years in jail or no, No, I don't think
he would. I do think you've got four years for
each of these thirty four counts. Is the maximum amount
typically they would run concurrently, which means they would all
run at the same time. You could run him consecutively,
which is how you get over one hundred years in
any ordinary circumstance. Number One, a judge of Trump's age
(49:42):
that does not have any prior offenses in New York
would never serve a day of jail time in any
other case. I mean, look, you can physically assault someone,
you can repeatedly violently beat people up, you can engage
in all sorts of crimes and not serve jail time
in New York. That being said, I think it's that's
entirely possible. This judge is enough of a partisan to say,
(50:04):
you're the president, what you did mattered, I'm sentencing you
to four years in jail. I could see him. He
would love that. That would be the crowning moment of
his life to utter those words.
Speaker 2 (50:15):
It also be useful politically, because then not only can
you say he's convicted felon, but then you say, do
you want a guy going to the White House, it's
about to go to jail.
Speaker 1 (50:23):
Yeah.
Speaker 3 (50:24):
So what I do not think he will do is
sentenced him to jail and say take him into custody.
And put him there right now. He could, but I
think if he did that, it would prompt an immediate
emergency appeal and he would get reversed. I assume this
guy is smart enough to know that he doesn't want
to get reversed, and he especially does not want to
(50:47):
get reversed before election day. He's engaged in politics, so
he's not going to do something I think that will
prompt an immediate reversal because that undermines the political value
of the charai that he's conducting. So if the sentences
in prisonment or it could be home confinement. If the
(51:09):
sentence is something like that, I think he'll suspend it
pending the resolution of the appeal. In that case, I
think the odds are quite high. This appeal will have
to go through the New York state system. First. We
talked about in Friday's pod, and by the way, you
should go back and listen to Friday's pod. We did
Friday's pod late Thursday night. We did it on the
(51:29):
road as I was driving from Dallas to Houston. It
was right after the verdict came down, and it was
analyzing the next steps and in much greater detail than
we have in this pod, and so you ought to
listen to the two pods together. But the ordinary course
of appeal would be to appeal from the trial court
to the intermediate appellate court in New York in the
(51:49):
state court system, and then if you lose in the
intermediate appellate court, to appeal to the top appellate court
in New York called the New York Court of Appeals.
And then finally, if you lose there, then you could
appeal to the U. S. Supreme Court. That's normally how
a criminal case would proceed. It is possible you can
file an extraordinary writ to ask the US Supreme Court
(52:13):
to intervene right now, but it is very very very rare.
There is a chance, and I'm sure the Trump legal
team is debating this right now. There's a chance the
court would say yes. But I think it's probably unlikely.
I think the court's instinct, particularly if a sentence is suspended,
if the judge order Trump put in jail, the Supreme
(52:35):
Court would say yes. It would force the court to
say yes. So if the sentence is suspended and Trump
is free to campaign, fore to debate, for you to
go to the convention, I think the justice's instincts will
be you know what, The New York state courts might
correct this. The Court of Appeals might reverse this, The
Intermediate Court of Appeals might reverse this. They might get
(52:57):
it right. And there's a long ethos that the Court,
which is, if we don't need to act, we don't
need to act. If someone else can fix this, if
another level of the justice system can fix this, the
US Supreme Court doesn't need to step in. That's their
general approach. If they were to deny the extraordinary writ
I suspect you would have some justices right and say
(53:19):
something like there are lots of reasons to be concerned here,
but right now the sentence is suspended. The verdicts can
be overturned on appeal, and so will allow the state
proceedings to go forward. If there was an order of
immediate incarceration, it would force their hands. I think the
whole game here from the DA and from the judge
(53:42):
is the political advantage not actually sending Trump to jail.
They know these jury instructions will never survive an appeal.
If you had anything resembling fairness in the judicial system,
the New York Court's Appeals should reverse it. I got
to say, based on the absolute disgrace we just saw
play out, I have no confidence of that. The New
(54:04):
York justice system is I suspect forever a global laughing stock.
And you put this on top of the prior civil
case where they took a half billion dollars that they're
trying to take a half billion dollars from Trump. The combination.
The message New York has said is if we don't
like you, if you are politically disfavored, welcome to communist Cuba.
We will treat you the same and you have the
(54:25):
same rights as you would have locked into Gulac.
Speaker 2 (54:30):
This is gonna be interesting that it plays out. It's
gonna be interesting to see what the poll numbers say
this week. We're gonna cover it all. Don't forget we
did this show Monday, Wednesday, Friday. Hit that subscribe or
auto download button, and on those in between days there's
a lot of breaking news. Grab my podcast as well,
the Ben Ferguson podcasts, and I will keep you up
to date on those in between days. Make sure if
you didn't get to watch this on YouTube, watch it
(54:51):
on YouTube. You'll get to see those clips and this
famous smirk of Joe Biden and the Senate, and I
will see you back here in a couple of days.
Host
Ben Ferguson
Popular Podcasts
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com
On Purpose with Jay Shetty
I’m Jay Shetty host of On Purpose the worlds #1 Mental Health podcast and I’m so grateful you found us. I started this podcast 5 years ago to invite you into conversations and workshops that are designed to help make you happier, healthier and more healed. I believe that when you (yes you) feel seen, heard and understood you’re able to deal with relationship struggles, work challenges and life’s ups and downs with more ease and grace. I interview experts, celebrities, thought leaders and athletes so that we can grow our mindset, build better habits and uncover a side of them we’ve never seen before. New episodes every Monday and Friday. Your support means the world to me and I don’t take it for granted — click the follow button and leave a review to help us spread the love with On Purpose. I can’t wait for you to listen to your first or 500th episode!