President Trump is convicted. What does it mean? How did it happen? The legal Johnny Girardi breakdown right here for you. All right, So let's talk about this. And I think the first thing I want to discuss is the Grand Democrat plan with all of this. What was the plan? I think it was pretty transparent based on the timing of everything. Is all this different? These different charges all got dropped at very similar times. Here was
the timing, here was the idea. Basically, I think the Biden folks, the pro Biden folks, who were overseeing the filing of these charges. And let's understand that the people overseeing the filing of these charges are all Democrat political people. They're either Democrat political appointees or Democrat Democrat elected officials. These are people who are political Okay. These are not like, this isn't John Roberts, Okay, this isn't a judge who is outside of the political branches
of government. Okay. These are elected political officials or political appointees. And those two people are Merrick Garland, the Attorney General, a political appointee, and Alvin Bragg, an elected partisan Democrat, a guy who ran as a Democrat in Manhattan for the District attorney seat, and their thought process was basically, this, the twenty twenty four election is coming up. It's in November of twenty twenty four, so the Republican primary process begins at this time,
once the primaries start. We want Donald Trump to be Joe Biden's opponent in the primary. All the conventional wisdom was that Trump would be a weak opponent for Joe Biden in twenty twenty four, and especially if there was something they could get Trump for legally, some kind of crime that they could plausibly charge now at the federal level, Merrick Garland overseeing it. That was the mar A Lago documents case, stuff surrounding January sixth, That was the main thing.
Also, you have Fanny Willis, the District Attorney of Fulton County, Georgia, another partisan elected Democrat official. Okay, so they all file their charges against Trump at roughly the same time, around the time of the Republican primaries starting. Republican primaries get kicked off. Ronda Santis is in the race. Ronda Santis is the new hot young thing. Everyone's oh, what does
Ronda Santis have to say? Oh, he's launching his campaign on Twitter with Elon Musk Andla Ronda Santis is like, you know, mister, everyone's very enthusiastic for Ronda Santis. And it's almost immediately after Ronda Santis gets into the
race that these charges start coming down against Trump. The January sixth charges, the mar A Lago charges, the Manhattan charge, and the Manhattan The Manhattan DA's case was the first one to come in, and the Manhattan DA's case is, of all of the cases that Donald Trump is facing, I think, objectively speaking, the weakest. His indictment it wasn't even complete. He didn't even state, and the judge ultimately throughout the trial never ever specified what
exactly the crime was. It was. He was charged with thirty four counts of falsifying business records in furtherance of a felony. What felony It wasn't specified in It wasn't specified in the original charging documents. And the judge himself and his instructions to the jury said, well, you might think that the felony, you might think that the other crime was a violation of federal election law. You might think that the other crime was a violation of New York election
law. Or you might think that the other crime was the filing of more fraudulent business records, and forgers could think one thing, and forgers could think another, and the forgers could think the third. It doesn't matter. According to the judge, it did not matter. Now I think according to the law, it pretty darn well matters what it is this other thing that you're charging. It mattered as far as the statute of limitations for the relevant New
York law at issue. It mattered as far as from a constitutional perspective, Trump's defense being able to prepare for the defense. You're being charged with falsifying business records in furtherance of another crime. Well, what's the other crime that we were allegedly falsefying business records for? That needs to be specified so that
we can defend our client. And instead it was this sort of mishmash of, well, maybe he violated New York election law, with no definitive ruling that Trump had violated New York election laws, maybe he violated federal election laws, no ruling ever that Trump had violated federal election law. And in fact, both the Southern District of New York the federal prosecutors in Manhattan and the Federal Elections Commission had examined Trump to see if he violated federal election law and
declined to press any charges or take any actions against him. So, regardless, Bragg's indictment was the weakest of all the indictments Trump is faced. I think, and a lot of other legal observers think similarly. But he drops this indictment right when the primary starts, and what does it do. It naturally angers the Republican primary voting base and makes them say they want to take
Trump out. Screw them, We're going to stick with our guy. And I don't think the Republican there are some people in the Republican base who maybe are a little don't like DeSantis, but DeSantis is still a very popular Republican figure. It wasn't so much people hating DeSantis. It was people saying, well, you know what, I'm sticking with Trump. He's the known factor. When he was president, things were pretty good in this country. I'm
sticking with him. And so as every new indictment that came down against Trump, his poll numbers would bump, his fundraising would bump, and Trump cruised to an easy primary win over DeSantis and Nikki Haley and all the rest. So that was I think precisely what the Democrats wanted. They wanted to press the charges during the primary system anger Republicans so much that they actually pick Trump to be the nominee. And now that he's locked in as the nominee and
we can't really change course at this point, get him convicted. So now that we're stuck with Trump, he's convicted and we can't we don't have the opportunity to bring in run to Santis. Now Trump's already locked in as the nominee. We're done. We're done in the sense that it's not like we
can pick anyone else at this point. And so what Democrats are banking on is now that Republicans are stuck with Trump, Trump will be a convicted felon and there is no way that Donald Trump can win the election as a convicted felon. And that's maybe where the calculus by the left may go astray. I think Trump can still win. I think he very well might still win. I've gotten a lot of questions from people basically asking, like, you know, can Trump, you know, can Trump still run? Is?
What does this mean? Practically? Practically? Trump can still run for president. It's not like being convicted of this felony in New York that does not bar him from running for president of the United States. So he still can run. And all of the intelligent things, all the intelligent attorneys I'm hearing who are looking at this. It's actually kind of an interesting YouTube video.
One of my law school professors sent it to me. A woman who's a public defender in New York, and she was talking about, like, what are the odds of Donald Trump actually serving any jail time? And her best guess, Now, this is a New York public defender, so I'm gonna go out on a limb and guess that she's not a Trump voter. But her assessment of it, and what I've heard from people, is that Trump is unlikely to go to jail in spite of the fact that these are felonies
that could carry the max sentences you can get are very very high. Okay, So I mean these are He was convicted of thirty four felonies for which the max sentence for all thirty four it's four years apiece, So four four six carry the one we're talking one hundred and thirty six years in jail. He's not gonna do that. He's not going to spend the rest of his
life in prison. He may not go to jail at all. So it has to do with the fact that these are non violent felonies, and according to how they're classified in New York law, it's the fact that Trump has no prior criminal record. He may not even get probation. Honestly, now, sentencings coming up in July, and this judge who has overseen this trial and who has been so unbelievably biased the whole time against Trump and I And by the way, in case you're just thinking, you know, talk radio
power talk, John Gerardi is just being a chill for Trump. Listen, I'm gonna call and strikes here. I've called balls and strikes with Trump's legal woes the whole time. I have always said I thought that the mar a Lago indictment had a lot of weight to it. I think it's pretty clear that Trump was misusing, you know, storing inappropriately all those documents that he kept in mar Lago, and that he didn't actually declassify them, and that
he didn't have a right to have them at his house. I have always said I thought that was very strong, and I've been critical of various other Trump legal escapades before. I think that a lot of the stop the steel stuff after the November twenty twenty was flimsy, and he had his stuff that was being said in press conferences didn't match up with the stuff that his lawyers
were actually saying in court. Look, I'm not just a shill for Trump here, I'm not just carrying water, but I will say this, I think the conduct of the judge, Judge Murchon was unbelievably biased and unbelievably inappropriate. I think it's highly likely, frankly, that Trump's conviction is going to be overturned on appeal. But that again brings us back to the politics, the big broad scheme of this. What does Biden really want out of all
of this? What do Biden's political operatives? Who did this? And I'm not saying that Biden openly connived with Garland to get Trump convicted. I'm sure he made sure there was a buffer. I'm sure Biden didn't directly communicate with Alvin Bragg about this. I'm sure there was a buffer. Maybe they didn't even need to discuss it, they just Bragg just knows what's politically helpful for Biden, and he just does it. What they want is the ability between
now an election day. Trump might Is Trump going to go to jail? Probably not. It seems like if things follow suit for how most of this stuff is handled in New York law most of the time. No, I don't think he will. What Biden wants is the ability, is the ability between now an election day for the next five months to say, Donald Trump
convicted felon, Donald Trump convicted felon, Donald Trump, convicted felon. Donald Trump's new name, according to the media, will be Donald Trump convicted felon, Donald Trump, a convicted felon, the former president of the United States who was convicted of thirty four felam accounts of blah blah blah. That will be how Donald Trump is referred to in every news story from now until election day. That is how Joe Biden will refer to Donald Trump every single time
he opens his mouth. His handlers will train him to say that. And that's what this is all about. It doesn't matter how inappropriately the Judge ac did. It doesn't matter how I think unconstitutionally the Judge Act, the Constitutional problems with not affording Trump's defense a legitimate opportunity to defend itself by not even specifying the crime that Trump committed. It doesn't matter the number of things that merited a mistrial during the case that the judge allowed in. None of that
matters. How it doesn't matter the high likelihood that this thing will be overturned on appeal. It won't be overturned on appeal for another year. The election will be over. If Trump appeals this and wins his appeal, it won't be till twenty twenty five. The important thing is Biden's ability from now until November to say Donald Trump convicted felon, and that's the Democrat's whole strategy.
File these indictments right as the Republican primary start tick off. If all the Republicans so much that they all vote for Trump, ensure that Trump wins the primary, then have the trials in twenty twenty four before election day, get Trump convicted and throw the republic and throw the election into chaos, maybe by putting Trump actually having Trump actually being physically incarcerated or limited in his movement. And if not that at the very least to be able to say for five
months, Donald Trump convicted felon. That's what they want and that's what they got. When we return, is Donald Trump convicted felon actually going to change the minds of the electric very much. That's next on The John Girardi Show. Twitter dot com, slash Fresno Johnny at Fresno Johnny on Twitter if you want to check me out and my short form thoughts and ramblings and rants.
I posted a video I retweeted a video there from Eliza Orleans, who's a public defender in New York, talking about the likelihood of Trump being said, the likelihood of whether Trump will actually serve any time in jail, and one way or another, her her opinion is that he will not serve even a day in jail, that he probably won't even get probation. So check out her opinion. She's, you know, a public defender from New York. I'm gonna guess she's not. You know, she doesn't have a MAGA hat
in her closet. So I thought it was a pretty pretty interesting perspective from someone who is more neutral about this than you know, your average Joe Republican would be. Now, as I've been saying, I think the big plan
throughout for the Democrats was indict Trump right after the Republican primary start. And I say that, by the way, because they could have brought a lot of these indictments years ago, or you know, they could have brought a lot of these indictments in twenty twenty two or late in twenty twenty one. They chose to bring them in late twenty twenty three so that the trials would take place here in twenty twenty four, so that the timing thing was clearly
a strategic thing to have maximal impact on the election. The idea was indict Trump at the start of the Republican primary season, tick off Republicans enough that they all vote for Trump, lock him in as the nominee, then have the trials in twenty twenty four in the midst of the election cycle. Trump
gets convicted and either maybe he's incarcerated again. Sounds like there's a very decent argument that Trump won't be incarcerated, won't serve any jail time, or at the very least that Biden will be able to say, Donald Trum, I'm convicted felon from now until election day, and that will cause Donald Trump to lose because the American people would never vote for someone who's a convicted felon.
Would they would they That's the that is the gamble that Democrats are hinging this whole election cycle on that there's no way a convicted felon can get elected president. There's no way that anyone with a felony conviction could convince enough Americans to vote for him to get two hundred and seventy Electoral College votes. There's just no way it can happen. I wonder, I am just not sure that that is true. I don't know that that is the case, and it's
because of the unique weakness of Joe Biden. Biden has just been a terrible president, and the economy is really rough on a ton of people right now under his watch. And even if the economy is doing better in some factors, maybe the stock market's getting better, maybe the rate of inflation is slowed, I mean, the fact remains that everything's still way more expensive than it
was four years ago. And we're not like getting a reversal. It's not like the price of ground beef is going to go back down to the price that it was four years ago. It's never gonna go back down. We're stuck here at this unsustainably high cost of living. People are still feeling the pinch all over the place. The cost of everything is too much. And Biden ranks terribly when you do opinion polling of Americans. Biden does worse on
every single issue, with the exception of abortion. Trump is beating Biden on who do you think handled the economy better? Trump? Who do you think handled foreign policy better? Trump? Who do you think handled this better? Trump? Who do you think handled that better? Trump? Trump is kicking Biden's butt on every single issue, with the exception of abortion. And I don't know that this conviction changes that. I don't think it changes any of
that. If people are still going to vote with the economy high on their mind, how does this conviction change it. It's also this that you know, is anyone really coming up with a novel idea of what they think about Joe Biden or Donald Trump? Like, does anyone think, well, this is it? Like like this is the breaking point for someone's Trump support? No. I think, if anything, there's enough media coverage or indications out there of how biased this trial was to make people even more hardened to vote
for Trump. I saw there was a you know, Fox News polls, or you know, Fox News polls aren't necessarily always accurate, but they did a poll of Republican voters. Eighty seven percent. It was basically something like sixty something percent of people their opinion on Trump was unchanged. Sixteen percent said it made them more likely to vote for him, sixteen percent made it less likely to vote for him. I mean, I don't know that it's changing.
I don't think it's moving the needle all that much. I mean, everything I have thought about Trump, good or bad, remains the same. After this trial. It doesn't affect me at all. I think the whole trial was a complete sham. I'm not affected. So and I guess I just wonder, is there really anyone left in the United States of America after the last nine years of talking about Donald Trump pretty much non stop, is there anyone in the United States of America who has failed to formulate yet their
opinion of Donald Trump. I don't know that that is the case. When we return, we'll talk a little bit more about the details of the case, what it was about, what it was presented that it was about, how people misunderstood it, including the jury. Why I blame the judge far more than the jury. That's next on the John Drardy Show. So Trump
was convicted today, What was he actually charged with? This is an interesting question and one I think where the judge's instructions to the jury were highly unclear the whole time. What was Trump actually charged with? Was he charged with illegal hush money payments? New he was charged with falsifying business records in furtherance of another crime. So let's talk about that. Because the way the media portrayed this throughout, and frankly, the way the judge portrayed it to the
jurors, you would think that this trial is about hush money payments. I'm here to tell you that hush money payment is not a thing. It's not a crime, certainly, So what do we mean by a hush money payments? Specifically? In this case, we're talking about Donald Trump, he's running for president, and Stormy Daniels, a former playboy model with whom it seemed allegedly Trump had an affair with this woman. Now, did Trump actually have
an affair with her or not? Unclear? Trump continues to maintain he did not, which, frankly I don't know that that helped him too much, because I think he looked like a liar to the jury saying that he didn't. A lot of the evidence would seem to indicate that he did. And I think the jury, you know, hearing Trump and his legal team, and clearly his legal team was doing this at Trump's insistence, was still acting
as though Trump had never had a sexual relationship with this woman. And I think the jury was probably rolling their eyes at this, as you know, a lot of America is that, you know, hey, maybe Trump is innocent, but there's a lot of evidence kind of point towards the distinct possibility
that he did, in fact have an affair with this woman. Now, so Trump denies it regardless, Stormy Daniels goes to Trump's people and says, I want to go public with this story that I had an affair with you, and Trump is trying to get her to not tell this story in the midst of the twenty sixteen election cycle, and also not only could it be
damaging to him politically, but also for his marriage. I mean, it's because the allegation is that she had an affair with him right after his son Baron was born, it would probably be quite disruptive and destructive to his marriage if this story became public. So Trump has this setup with the publisher of the National Inquirer, who's a friend and an ally, and with Michael Cohen, who was Trump's personal attorney represented Trump in a number of things over the
years. Basically that Trump would pay to secure non disclosure agreements from these women saying that they would not tell their story publicly, that they would sell the rights to their story exclusively to the National Inquirer. Trump would reimburse National Inquirer. National Inquirer would pay the person coming forward with this embarrassing story. Okay, and I will concede to you that this whole setup is sleazy as hell. This is Trump trying to kill negative stories about him, as sleazy as
it all is. Though, this isn't illegal. Non disclosure agreements aren't illegal. Non disclosure agreements to cover up embarrassing stories about you are not illegal. Non disclosure agreements to cover up embarrassing stories about you during an election are not illegal. The argument is, well, well, it's a it was a campaign expense, and he never he never reported it as a campaign expense.
No federal election law that defines the kinds of things that are campaign expenses and the kinds of things that are not campaign expenses, and the kinds of things you have to report to the Federal Elections Commission as campaign expenses. This is not a campaign expense in the traditional sense. Okay, paying for campaign adds on TV, that's a campaign expense. Paying for internal polling, paying for you know, polling data to help you with your campaign, that's an election
expense. Stuff that would only exist, that does not exist, but for the campaign, that is a campaign expense. And it's noteworthy because the judge in this case very strongly indicated to the jury that almost as if it were established fact that a campaign finance violation happened here, and that just is not established. Trump was not convicted, let alone. He wasn't even charged with
any elections violations. And this is after the Federal Elections Commission and the federal prosecutors in New York both investigated Trump and declined to charge him with anything. So no, it has not been established that Trump committed any kind of elections violations whatsoever. So I agree it's sleazy as hell to pay off a porn star to ensure that she doesn't tell an embarrassing story about the affair that you, guys head right after your wife just gave birth to your son. Pretty
sure missus Girardi would be pretty ticked about it, understandably. So not a thing I've ever done, not a thing I ever want to do, not not good Christian living by any extent. And if you think that that speaks to Donald Trump's character in a way that is politically disqualifying, I guess I'd have a hard time arguing with you. At the same time, it's not a crime, it's not illegal. You can you can you can say it's sleazy and bad till the cows come home. You can say he deceived the
American people. He didn't allow the evidence of this story to come out before the election, you know, as if people didn't know that Donald Trump was a philanderer, As if that would have changed the outcome of New York's statewide election for president. Let's remember that the presidential election is on a state by state basis. Okay, it's not one big national popular vote. It's a state by state thing. Donald Trump lost New York handily in twenty sixteen.
This revelation wouldn't have changed the outcome of things. And yet it's New York's elections that Alvin Bragg as the DA of Manhattan has any kind of jurisdiction over all. Right, so Trump wasn't actually charged with hush money payments, which he is allowed to give. He was charged with falsifying business records. Why well, because Trump basically here was the chain of things. Michael Cohen pays Stormy Daniels. Stormy Daniels signs a non disclosure agreement with the National Inquirer,
gives National Acquirer exclusive rights to her story. She signs the National, she signs the non disclosure agreement. Michael Cohen pays Stormy Daniels under thirty thousand bucks. He takes out a one himself. He pays her. So Trump's got to reimburse Cohen. And in Trump's books they call it payment of legal fees, when really, the argument goes it should have been labeled loan reimbursement.
Now what does that matter. That's a very good question. The charge Trump is facing here was fraudulently falsifying business records in furtherance of some other crime. That word fraud is important. Fraud doesn't just mean any kind of dishonesty. Fraud means basically a good shorthand for this is lying for money. All right, I'm applying for a home loan. I lie about my income to make it look like I make much more than I do. I get a nice,
big, fear favorable loan based on the fact that I lied. That's fraud, Okay, lying for money, lying for money or property or something like that. Lying for money. What money did Trump get by lying? First of all, there's also a good threshold question whether it was a lie at all. Was it actually fair to classify this as legal fees? Trump was doing other legal stuff for Trump. There were other things that Trump was
reimbursing him before that that would maybe more classically fit into legal fees. Was it actually even what was he actually were the Was this actually a misstatement of what this was? There was also like practical factual questions about like the kind
of QuickBooks esque system that the Trump corporation was using. They've had the same system since the nineties, had a kind of limited range of drop down options for how to classify some of these payments, which, by the way, having Trump convicted of thirty four counts, it was like the check itself well, plus the invoice over the course of a year's worth of monthly installment payments, and somehow that that's how they got to thirty four felony counts for basically
one act really of Trump reimbursing Cohen for one hundred thirty thousand bucks. So was it even was it even inaccurate? Unclear? Was it fraudulent? Also unclear? Who was bilked out of money? What extra money did Trump get out of this? Actually Trump had to spend way more because, basically, because they labeled attorney's fees rather than debt reimbursement, Cohen was going to have
to pay taxes on it. Okay, if I loan you fifty thousand dollars and you give it back to me, well, that fifty thousand dollars I get back, I don't get taxed on that. But if I just make fifty thousand dollars an income, I get taxed on it. So, because it was coming to Cohen as legal fees, Cohen and said, hey, I'm gonna have to pay taxes on this. You got to gross me up so that I'm not losing money here. So Trump actually wound up paying Cohen
double. So it's not like the taxpayers got built. The taxpayers actually got more revenue out of this whole thing. So was it falsified business records? No, I don't think so. Was it fraudulent falsification of business records, No, I don't think so. Was it in furtherance of some other felony, No, I don't think so. I don't think there was a federal
elections violation. I don't think there was a New York elections violation. I don't think I think it's circular to say it was in furtherance of other falsified records. I just think every step of the way this was not a case that should have been brought, and it's not a case where Trump should have
been convicted. But I think the instructions that the judge gave to the jury, the kind of evidence he let in, the kind of evidence he excluded, the kind of prejudicial evidence that he allowed in, was so biased that I think the jurors almost were forced to no other conclusion than to convict Trump because the judge so badly misstated the law didn't allow in evidence that was exculpatory to Trump. I think I honestly don't even blame the jurors for this.
I think the judge was so out of bounds that I mean, I don't even know what I would have done on I think if I were on the jury, I might have voted to convict if I was receiving all the same jury instructions, etc. From this judge. All right, when we returned, maybe the big picture question what does this mean for the country? That's next on the John Girardi Show, What does Trump's conviction mean for the country.
I don't know that I have a great big picture question other than I think it's just open law, fair season, and I think we've crossed a
line that we're never going to be able to uncross again. You know what, I've read a lot about the Roman Revolution, and the Roman Revolution was basically the one hundred year or so transition of Rome from a republic to a monarchical form of government, from the Roman Republic to the Roman Empire, and how basically the beginning of that change was the new precedent setting violations of the most majorum as the Romans called it, the way of the ancestors. The
Roman Constitution was not a written constitution. It was sort of oral tradition and the tradition of how we've always done things the most mayorum, the habits of our elders, the habits of our ancestors, the way of our ancestors. That was how their system worked. And you had a couple of politicians in the late second century AD who started doing things differently, who tried to do things by bypassing the Senate. The Roman Senate was kind of a different thing
from the US Senate. How it worked was much more complicated and sort of different, but basically they sort of buck tradition in order to get legislation passed. Some of the Graky brothers, who were this very ambitious pair of aristocratic brothers, were trying to get legislation passed of various kinds and were stymied by the Senate, and so tried to bypass the Senate in a way that was
counter to the normal way that things were done. And this resulted in people responding to the Gracqy brothers violently and introducing violence into Roman politics, which would never leave Roman politics ever again. Once violence was introduced as a possible solution for political problems, it was impossible to get it out. I think now that we've introduced law fair that we prosecute our political enemies. I think this is going to be with us to stay. Trump's the first American president to
be convicted of a felony. He is not going to be the last that'll do it. John Jilady Show, See you next time on Power Talk.