BHS - 8A – Historic Trump Criminal Trial | ‘Do They Have a Case’ with Wayne Resnick

Opening statements begin today in historic Trump criminal trial. Public pressure is mounting. State legislators are finally getting serious about stopping thew surge of shoplifting. ‘Do They Have a Case’ with Wayne Resnick.

Episode Transcript

(00:00):
You're listening to KFI AM six fortythe Bill Handles Show on demand on the
iHeartRadio app. You are listening tothe Bill Handle Show. And this is
KFI Bill Handle. Here. Itis a Monday morning, April twenty two.

(00:26):
It's the first day of passover today. Opening statements. I guess they
already started because we're now at eleveno'clock on the East coast. Opening statements
in the Trump trial. And manfirst time in history, and I thank
Donald Trump for his position as anex president in a criminal trial. This

(00:48):
is brand new for him. Matterof fact, in a criminal trial period.
Donald Trump is looking at not hispower, but his fate is in
the hands of prosecutors. He's thejudge and twelve people which he has no
control over other than his attorneys.And here we are. You've got a
guy whose lifelong operating assumption is becauseof who he is, not just a

(01:14):
president, because of Donald Trump,he's immune from accountability and he's always been
able to get out of it.Well, you know, all of what
Donald Trump is about doesn't have alot of currency inside this courtroom. He's
going to be in court four daysa week. They're off on Wednesdays.
He can't do anything about it.I mean, he still has his bully

(01:38):
pulpit, and he does that inthe morning when he walks into court,
a bunch of reporters, lots ofthem sitting outside and he's behind this barrier
like you see at demonstrations outside inthe street. Reporters are screaming at him,
asking questions, and what he endsup saying is same thing every day.
This is a witch hunt. Thisis the weaponization of the system.

(02:04):
This is Joe Biden that's put allthis Together'll keep in mind that this is
the prosecutor in Manhattan, right,This is a local prosecutor, having nothing
to do with the Feds. Butyou know, so be it. But
people buy that. People his people, his Maga Republicans absolutely buy that.
But here is the difference. Andthis is where what's going to happen with

(02:27):
this trial, I think is goingto really show where the American people are,
where Donald Trump is, where ourjudicial system is. And that's outside
the conspiracy stuff. If we setaside the conspiracy stuff, now we're looking
at the reality. As far asthe Maga Republicans, there is a conspiracy.
That's it. The government, thedeep State, the prosecutors, the

(02:51):
Democratic Party, the Biden administration areall out to get Donald Trump, and
this is this shows it, thisproves its dominating in these trials, and
he is the savior of the peopleand the people are getting nailed. You
know, I think it's fair tosay, even though he doesn't call himself
that under any circumstances, but thereis a Jesus like aura about Donald Trump

(03:16):
where he says, I am thevictim of what's happening to you. They're
attacking you through me, and Iam being punished for you, not your
sins, but certainly your position,your philosophy, your politics. So he

(03:39):
does that in the morning, hedoes that at breaks, he does that
at lunch time, and he doesthat when he leaves the courtroom and the
reporters are out there, We're notgoing to see what happens in the courtroom.
New York is one of a coupleof jurisdictions that do not allow cameras

(04:00):
into the courtroom. If this wereLA, remember the LA Remember the OJ
trial. It was wall to wall. Every single minute of the OJ trial
was telecast, and in Los Angeleswe just kept it going. In fact,
I don't think it was anyplace elseother than the Los Angeles where it
went minute to minute, where fromthe minute opened up every morning until the

(04:24):
minute it shut down in the afternoon, we were carrying it. Other places
in the country was not. Sohe's going to be there four days a
week and he is not happy aboutthat. Why because he's campaigning and it
gets in the way of the campaigning. Oh that's the other thing is all
of this is not only going afterhim personally, because everybody hates Donald Trump,

(04:45):
and by connection, everybody hates you, Maga Republicans, those in power
hate you, and look what they'redoing to you through me. But also
simply the political fallout of this isthey're not letting me campaign. They're stopping
me from campaigning. And what's reallyinteresting is three of the four case,

(05:12):
though two of the four cases haveto do directly with the interference with the
election in twenty sixteen and in twentytwenty, that is the same argument and
as a matter of fact, thathe is arguing against. What's going on
these trials are interference with the electionbecause they're not letting him go out and

(05:36):
campaign. So the people that areguilty of interfering with the election. Wasn't
me, It wasn't my followers,it wasn't the January sixth people, who,
by the way, are patriots andwill be pardoned day one, as
he said. And on top ofthat, those who were involved in the
investigation in January sixth, the Congresspeople who voted his impeachment, they will

(06:00):
be and I'm going to quote now, they will be investigated and they will
be put in prison for voting againstTrump. But I want to go a
little bit beyond that, because,as I mentioned, this is absolutely historical.
This has never happened in the historyof United States. A former president
of the United States running for president, will be the nominee for the presidency

(06:25):
and is being tried in a criminalcourt. Matter of fact, there'll be
four of these puppies and so ona federal level if he wins, it's
over. On a state level,not so much. And one of his
arguments is is that this one isscarier to me than you can imagine,

(06:46):
and that is once he becomes president. He has said that, he will,
of course pardon, as I said, pardon all of the January sixth
seditionists because they were patriots. They'rebeing held hostage those in prison, those
that are being tried are being heldhostage, and those people that voted in
favor of the impeachment will be andwe're talking about Congress people will be investigated

(07:10):
and will be put in prison.If that's not scary enough. And then
his argument, and it's going upto Supreme Court. Spreme Court is going
to hear this that anything he doesas president he has total immunity and cannot
be prosecuted. And if that's thecase, then not even him losing the
presidency the race is going to affectwhat he did at all. And his

(07:34):
argument was, and the really interestingpart, and I've never heard this argument,
but they're pushing it, and theSupreme Court is hearing it, that
anything a president does during his presidencyhe cannot be prosecuted. And Alana Kagan,
Supreme Court justice, in a casethat went down again and will be

(07:56):
heard again, asked his attorney,does that mean that a president can order
the execution of a rival and heis immune from prosecution. And his lawyer
said absolutely. Now, I can'timagine the Supreme Court upholding that concept because

(08:22):
that means that a president could,for example, disband the Supreme Court and
he is immune from being prosecuted,could order the execution of a political rival.
Per the conversation one of his lawyershad with Elena Kagan on the Court.

(08:43):
One of the questions that was askedby her, and when you talk
about historical precedence, which doesn't exist, I mean, I, in your
wildest dreams ten years ago, ifI were to say that a former president
or a sitting president is being investigatedfor criminal activity, and I were to

(09:05):
even bring up the concept of thepossibility of the president being above the law,
that the president can do anything heor she wants during the course of
the president, because there's no suchthing as a criminal act. For example,
let's say deciding to forego elections,that's it presidential decree and has enough

(09:33):
followers where elections are hereby prohibited,he certainly can do that. Because a
president is immune from any kind ofprosecution. You would think that'd be against
the law, wouldn't you. Nope, not as so far as his position
is, and as the Supreme Courtgoing to go in his direction on that.

(09:58):
Again, in my wild imagination,I cannot see that happening. And
maybe it's just political tact that heis taking. I certainly hope. So
do his lawyers really believe that.I don't know. The Other thing that's
going on is he said he isgoing to testify in a criminal trial.
You never let a defendant testify.Why is that? Because that blows open

(10:20):
anything that the defendant said any timein terms of credibility. One of the
arguments being made is, once Trumphas denied, for example, I never
had sex with Stormy Daniels, dothey bring up the fact that he did
have sex and bring in all thewitnesses on all the proof they have.

(10:45):
Normally they couldn't because it's irrelevant towell as far as story me Daniels is
involved. But otherwise you wouldn't beable to bring that up. You wouldn't
bring in prior acts. In anothersituation, you couldn't do it. Now
you can bring in anything to refutewhat he says, not to prove the

(11:07):
case, but just to refute whathe says. And he is a liar.
Therefore, your front of a jury, he lied here, he lied
there, he lied here, Andthe jury is looking at some of those
that bit of evidence or that pieceof evidence being brought in. So is
he going to testify? He says, he will. He's not going to
testify. He can't. His lawyerswon't let him. I mean, maybe

(11:28):
he overrides his lawyers. I don'tknow. Maybe he does. He's crazy,
he's crazy to do so. Butthen again, here's a guy who
knows a lot more than his lawyersdo, because he is the smartest person
in the room. He's the smartestperson in the country and may very well
be the smartest person in the world. Just ask him that's going on right

(11:54):
now, and does he testify simplyto use that witness box as a political
soapbox. He certainly does this outsidethe court every day, and come hell
or high water, and he can'tpardon himself on the state charges. And

(12:16):
if he is convicted and the judgegives him jail time, we don't know
right now. This judges this notlike him. Not a good idea.
To call the judge a thief,to call the judge a liar, to
call the judge politically motivated, that'snot the best idea in the world.
And he certainly does that. Thisis just astounding, is what it is,

(12:41):
Just utterly astounding. And there aretwelve people. And then if he
loses, that's the scary part whatif he loses the race for president in
some really bizarre, crazy way.Part of me says, I hope he
wins. Why because if he loses, it's rigged. We know that democracy

(13:03):
has been destroyed, We know thatthe constitution has been totally upended. We
know that because there's no way hecould lose without it being rigged. And
then he calls on his followers likehe did January sixth, show them that
we're a democracy, show them thatyou are patriots. All right, that's

(13:31):
scary enough. I just wanted toruin your life because I just ruined mine.
Usually I am delighted to ruin yourlife, but this time I'm talking
about my life up in the airtoo. And I know a lot of
people say, come on, Bill, you can't be that anti but you
know, yeah, that's who Iam. I get a lot of flak

(13:52):
for taking aside this this forcefully,but hey, you know what, you
can all always listen to Kiss becausethere's Ryan who does a great job with
Kiss right now, and listen toTaylor Swift. All right, guys,
it is time for do they havea case with Wayne. We do it
every single Monday morning. The lasttwo segments of the show, Wayne,

(14:16):
Good morning and do they have acase? Yes, good morning, Bill.
Did you clear all the bag Xout of your house for passover?
Actually not, But I am goingto eat on Levin bread tonight and then
right afterwards I'll have a sandwich becauseyeah, that sounds like you. Yeah,

(14:37):
it's good. I mean, I'mgonna do this, Ater, you
know, I'm gonna do it allright. Put on your theft of government
money hat, Bill. This isan interesting case of a woman who is
convicted of twenty one counts of stealinggovernment money because she was a government employee.
She was the trustee of Wabash Township. This is in Indiana, where

(14:58):
the state constitution requires that you mustlive in the township where you hold office
or you forfeit your office. Andwhen she was elected, she did,
and then came COVID nineteen and shedecided what she was going to do is
get an RV and go all overthe place wherever she wanted and work remotely,
which the other people in the officefacilitated her doing. Eventually they came

(15:24):
to her and said, hey,you really can't have this job because you're
not living here. And she said, well, I legally am living here.
My address is still in the township. I'm just not physically here.
And they said, all right,here's what we're going to do with you.
We're going to charge you with twentyone counts of theft for each of
the paychecks that you got while youwere out and around in your RV.

(15:48):
And she got convicted of it andappealed the conviction and said, number one,
as a matter of law, Inever legally changed my residence from this
town, regardless of where I mighthave been sleeping every night. And number
two, I never had intent tosteal the money. I was doing the

(16:10):
job, and you should not havecharged me with crimes. What you should
have done is something, and youcan help me with this bill. I
think it's called quo warranto. It'syeah, but I I you know that.
I vaguely remember that, but Ithink that day in law school,
I was pretty stoned. So Idon't day you are. Yeah, that

(16:30):
articular day just happened where you haveto prove on what legal basis you hold
the position that you hold, Okay, if there's a challenge, but in
any of it, she said,you shouldn't have gone criminal. You should
have done this other thing and triedto throw me out of office. So
up she goes to the Federal Courtof Appeals. Does she have a case?

(16:52):
Should she have been charged for theft? No, she should not have
been charged for theft, because theftto first fall is an intent. You
have to intend to steal, andthis is in theft at all. There's
an argument as to whether she hasshe had her position and whether she should
not have, and then they canargue you owe all the money back in

(17:15):
a civil matter. But I don'tthink so. But you know, her
argument that my address was within thedistrict even though I wasn't living there.
Richard Allercon tried that as a citycouncil person and that did not work.
He was tossed out of office forthat one, in addition to some other

(17:36):
things. So that doesn't fly.Otherwise, you can have as long as
my address is legally there. Youcan live any place. You can live
in the Bahamas and do your workremotely. So her argument is I did
the work and the only issue ismy address. That's it, and I
cannot be charged criminally at all.So the real argument is should she have

(18:03):
lost her position? I would sayyes, they had the basis of tossing
her because of the address issue,and should she have to forfeit all the
money she has. And her argumentis, but I did all the work.
But that is a different issue,and that is what should have gone
to court, not this criminal business. It makes no sense. Everything you

(18:26):
said is what they said. Althoughbecause they went after her criminally and it
ended up going all the way tothe Indiana Supreme Court, they may have
screwed themselves on doing what you suggested, which is going back after her civilly,
because as part of this process,the Indiana Supreme Court said, because
she never really settled anywhere else,she never established a domicile outside of the

(18:52):
city. Oh that's interesting. Soif she had, if she had established
a domicile then and they would havegotten her on that the richer alacarn alercon
issue where he had an address wherehe actually lived outside of the district,
yet kept an address inside of thedistrict which he once in a while would

(19:14):
come in there and toast some baguettesin the toast rubbin. Okay, let's
finish up. Do they have acase Wayne? All right? So we
have a guy here who's on paroleafter being convicted of assault with a deadly
weapon on a peace officer and he'sdriving around and two cops out in Coachella
see him and the front windows ofhis car look a little too darkly tinted,

(19:36):
so they pull him over, asthey are allowed to do, and
they found out he's on parole.And one of the officers says, hey,
you got your phone here, andthe guy goes, yeah, it's
in the little pocket here in thedoor, and the cop says, give
it to me, and then theguy says, oh, it's not my
phone. So the cop gets thephone. He says, how does he
get half wait a second, howdoes he get the phone? Does?

(19:57):
Well? The guy finally hands itover. Got it okay? You know,
he should have just said no,I don't have a phone, right,
but he didn't. So then thecop says, what's your past code?
And the guy says, I'm nottelling you, and then the cop
there's what they do. He's handcuffedin the back of the car. They
grab his thumb and they use theguy's thumb to unlock the phone and they

(20:21):
find on the phone a video thathad just been taken that day of a
room in a house where they canclearly see a money counter and some cash
and some big bags of blue pillsthat look a lot to them like fentanyl.
So they decide, oh, you'reinvolved in some fentanyl. And they
go to his house and they goin there to do a security sweep to

(20:45):
make sure nobody dangerous is in there, and they happen to see guess what,
a scale and the money counter andthe blue bags of pills, and
the bottom line is it's a bunchof fentanyl. And so he gets convicted
possession with intent to distribute fedanol.But now he goes to the appeals court
and he says, oh, allof this should be suppressed because you had

(21:07):
no right to use my thumb tounlock my phone Number one. It's a
Fourth Amendment violation unreasonable search because atthe time you were talking to me,
the only thing you knew is maybemy windows were too darkly tinted. And
also it's a Fifth Amendment violation youin essence forced me to testify against myself

(21:30):
by using my thumb to unlock thephone. So the state says, look,
guy number one, you have conditionsthat allow cops to search you anytime,
anywhere because you are on parole,and you have less rights than a
person who's not on parole. Numbertwo, your thumb cannot testify against you,

(21:56):
and your thumb being pressed against thephone is not testimony, So you're
wrong there too, And he comesback with, look at the condition regarding
phones. The parole condition says youhave to surrender your cell phone to a
cop, and if you don't,you can be arrested for further investigation,

(22:17):
and or they can confiscate the phone. It doesn't say you can grab my
thumb and press it against the phone. You weren't allowed to do it,
And the stake says yes. Butthere's another condition you have that everybody has.
That you can be searched at anytime for any reason. More generally,
and under that rubric, it's totallyfine to grab your phone and put

(22:40):
it on the phone. A lotof moving pieces on that one, no
kidding. First of all, theargument about the thumb that it's not evidence
and therefore you can't use it,you can because it's not considered testifying against
yourself. They can take hair samples, they can take semen, they can
take samples and cheek swabs, andthat is handwriting analysis. They can use

(23:07):
all of that. The courts haveallowed that to happen, So that argument
is gone now and probable cause isgone. As to two areas. Number
one, the tinting they can stopanybody probable cause. Number two is if
he is a felon on probation,he is allowed to be stopped and buy
any cop under any condition. Sohis argument being stopped is completely irrelevant.

(23:33):
Now. The argument is he didnot want to turn over the phone,
and that's what is going to behis argument is that basically he was forced
to turn over the phone. Hewas coerced in turning over the phone.
They went beyond the scope. Theother thing that I would argue, how
did they know that was his house? Were they able to connect the house?
Is there enough there for a searchwarrant? Yeah, because I didn't

(24:00):
get into it because I want tosave time. But he has a car
registered to him and it was parkedat the house. Oh okay, And
because he did try to say howdo you know that I lived there?
But his own car was parked there. And the video that he took with
his own voice on it saying here'smy office talking about his little drug Ben
was the same room that they foundat the house. Okay, I think

(24:25):
the search was good. I thinkusing his thumb that I have some problems
with the handcuffing and forcing the thumbto be used, because I don't think
if you're taking a sample, forexample, of a cheek swab and you
say no and close your mouth,can they jam your mouth open for the

(24:47):
swab? I don't know about that. I think that there is an issue
as to that. But the bottomline, putting all that together, I
think he loses. Yeah, heloses big time. And all the things
you mentioned, the swab and inthe air samples and writing exemplars, those
are the things that the court pointedto in saying making your thumb press against

(25:07):
the phone is like that is morelike that than it is forcing you to
admit something. Okay, So boy, I was right on today. Today
was a good one. Wait aboutokay, we will talk to you next
Monday when we use this again.You have a good week, and we
are done. Tomorrow morning it startsagain with Amy wake up call, and

(25:30):
the rest of us are here rightuntil well, right now. This is
KFI AM six forty live everywhere onthe iHeartRadio app. You've been listening to
the Bill Handle Show, Catch MyShow Monday through Friday six am to nine
am, and anytime on demand onthe iHeartRadio app