Welcome.
It is verdict with Senator Ted Cruz Ben Ferguson with you and Senator it is the trial of the century, is how they were selling it on TV today. The jury and the Donald Trump trial is going to have an awful lot of power on his future.
Well, that's exactly right. We had yesterday, we had closing arguments from the defense from the prosecution, and today the judge will give jury instructions to the jury and the jury will begin to deliberate and deliberate until they reach a verdict. And so this is what it all comes down to. The witnesses are done, the evidence is done, and it now comes down to the judge and the jury,
and we're going to find out the outcome. So we're going to explain what to expect, what the jury's options are, what is critical in the jury instructions, and then we're also going to talk about yet another trial, which is the Hunter Biden trial, which is about to begin, and we're going to talk about the rather astonishing thing that right before the Hunter Biden trial, Joe Biden decided a little witness tampering is a good way to start that trial.
We're going to compare and contrast these two trials, these two presidents, and the very different standards of justice that have applied to both of them.
Yeah, one's the trial of the century. The other one no one's talking about at all. Let me tell you real quick about our friend's over at Patriot Mobile. I tell you what I love knowing that every day when I use my cell phone, I'm making a difference in standing up for what I believe in. And I love knowing that I'm no longer giving my money to woke
companies that are fighting against my values. Now, if you have a cell phone, technology now has changed everything in twenty twenty four, you don't have to worry about having spotty coverage when you switch cell phone providers because you're going to use the same exact towers you're using right now, meaning you get the same exact coverage. But the difference is you're not with Big Mobile, who gets big donations.
When you switch Patriot Mobile, you're going to give donations to conservative causes organizations and instead of being with Big Mobile, where they're giving big donations a democratic car CAU and candidates in organizations including Planned Parenthood. That is why I want you to switch to Patriot Mobile. You don't even have to go to a store to switch. You can literally call them nine to seven to two Patriot With twenty twenty four technology, you can.
Switch over the phone.
You can keep your same phone number you have now your same phone you have in your hand, are upgrade to a new one and it's all now done over the phone.
Plus, when you pay.
Your bill every month, five percent of your bill, at no extra charge to you, goes back to support causes. It support our First and Second Amendment rights, the rights of unborn children, and at Patriot Mobile, they support our wounded warriors, our veterans, and our first responder heroes. I love giving my money to company that's aligned with my value. So join me today, make the switch and make a difference.
With every phone call nine seven to two Patriot or Patriotmobile dot com slash vert use a promo code verdict and you'll also get free activation Patriotmobile dot com slash verdict. Use the promo code verdict or nine to seven to two Patriot Senator. This has been a trial the media has been obsessed with with Donald Trump in New York. We've also been kind of looking at them hedging their bets, and I'm referring to the media. They've started to say, well,
you know, Michael Cohen didn't work very well. Maybe this thing won't happen the way we thought it was. There is a chance he could not be convicted. So let's go through what is now happening with the jury. They get their instructions from the judge. That'll take about an hour. They then have to go deliberate, and at that point there's nothing left from the outside world but for us to wait. So what is the jury's options. The Democrats
want Trump to go to jail. They've been throwing these stories out there, the Secret Service talking to jail about maybe him. If he goes to jail, then there's the other possibility of a hung jury or not guilty. Tell me and explain each one of these scenarios.
Well, as you noted, the judge is going to start the day by giving the jury instructions. The jury instructions matter enormously, and we're going to find out just how wildly biased this judge is. Those jury instructions are going to set up what the task is. It's the judge's job to tell the jury what the law is and depending on what the judge instructs. That could well be putting a finger on the scale and leaning in against
Trump and in favor of the prosecution. As we've talked about on this pod, there are many aspects of the prosecution that did not go well for the prosecutor. Michael Cohen was a disaster of a witness. He admitted to lying on the stand. He admitted to being a thief on the stand. That really is a first. I don't know of another trial where the star witness admits and breaks news. Oh, by the way, I stole a bunch of money from you too.
That.
As we talked about this on this podcast that had CNN crying in their beer, I got to say, I do feel a little bad for CNN. I don't know what they're actually going to cover when this trial is over. They're certainly not going to cover the Hunter Biden trial because that would entail saying something negative about the White House, So they won't do that.
The way you just insulted beer drinkers, I don't think they drink beer at Cena.
I think it's more like a white claw. I'm just gonna be honest with you.
Hey, don't knock white claws. I had white claws thrown at me, two of them. It's you know, that's where you need catike reflexes. If someone throws a white claw, you gotta duck.
You gotta duck.
I will say you and I had a white claw at one of the shows after that happened.
Can we both agree that might be one of the worst drinks you've ever had in your touch.
Last y I've had precisely one white claw in my life, and I didn't finish mine.
I didn't finish money there. It was like seventy five percent still in the bottle. It was disgusting. But then at CNN, I'm sure they drink that stuff.
I you know, probably with a little pink umbrella. But CNN is they're worried, the media is worried that Trump will be acquitted. We'll find out. Look, the jury has not been sequestered. So they're all in New York. They all went over a Memorial Day weekend. They were surrounded by their friends and family, presumably, and my guess is a whole lot of them were saying, you got to
convict this guy. You got to convict this guy. They're not supposed to discuss the case with anybody, but the jury really should have been sequestered, and the jury instructions are going to matter a lot. And by the way, if Trump is convicted, one of the many things that could lead to an appeal is what's in the jury instructions. And I'm going to break down in particular an issue
on that in a second. But you ask what will happen. Look, they're thirty four counts of falsifying business records, and so the jury has to reach a verdict on each of the thirty four counts, and the options are guilty or not guilty. Now to find the defendant guilty. To find Trump guilty, the jury has to be unanimous of all
twelve jurors have to conclude he's guilty. Now, they don't have to reach the same result in every one of the counts, So they could conceivably find him guiltlty on some and not guilty on others, but it has to be unanimous in order to find him guilty. If they can't reach an outcome, if they're deadlocked, then you could have a hung jury, and a hung jury leads to a best trial, and they could start the whole thing all over again, And in terms of timing, we don't know
how quick this could be. That we could see a verdict today, we could see a verdict tomorrow, or they could spend a week or two deliberating and end up being deadlocked. All of those are possibilities, and we don't really know what the time he'll be.
Can we go back to hung jury just for a second and explain that a little bit more? Is that a positive if you're the person he accused? Obviously in this scenario that would be Donald Trump, And then you mentioned appeal. Play that out for us, and what would that look like in the timeline.
Well, look, for a criminal defendant, a hung jury is a victory. It's certainly a lot better than a guilty verdict. So a hung jury means the prosecution failed to convict you, but it's not a verdict of innocence of not guilty. And so the result of a hung jury is that the judge is forced to clar abyss trial and you can go to the trial all over again. And so, but a criminal defendant in normal circumstances, and not a
thing about this is remotely normal. But in normal circumstances, a criminal defendant is pretty durned happy with the hung jury. It means the prosecution failed, and with some frequency the prosecution does not chooses not to try it a second time. And so a hung jury is at least a partial victory for the defense. But as I said, it can
all happen again, which truly would be a nightmare. But CNN may be rooting for that because, as I said, they got to cover something for the next couple of months, and they're not going to cover the failures of the Biden White House, so this is all that's left to them.
If this goes that scenario where someone holds out and they say, hey, I'm not going to convict, and then you look at the timeline down the road, could this still Would this be after a election day before election day? And if Donald Trump wins reelection, right, he gets elect this second time? The question I've been asked, and I said, I'm not a legal scholar, so I'm going to ask you. Could the president in theory pardon himself?
No, okay, Now, the president can pardon himself from federal offenses. And so the indictments from the Department of Justice, there are two different indictments from the Special Council Jack Smith. There is the one that is the Document's case that's down in Florida for his alleged possession and legal possession of classified documents at Marlago. There is the second one that is the indictment in DC for January sixth. Both of those the president could pardon himself because those are
federal claims. He wouldn't actually need to pardon himself because he could just direct the Department of Justice to dismiss the cases. And so if Trump is elected, both of those cases will go away. What he can't pardon himself of is the state offenses. So he can't part himself of the New York criminal charges. He can't pardon himself for the Georgia criminal charges because neither of those are federal charges. They're both state charges, and so only the
governor can pardon. Actually, in Georgia, the governor can't pardon until after the trial. So even in that circumstance, it's not subject to a pardon until after the trial.
So let's talk about if the jury goes in there is what has to take place for them to find him either guilty or innocent. Does that have to be unanimous in these state cases.
So it does have to be unanimous.
It has to be unanimous as to each of the counts, if any, on which he's found guilty. Now, this is where the jury instructions really matter, though, because it depends on what the judge asks them to find. Remember these claims that these charges are all for bookkeeping offenses. They're therefore thirty four allegedly false entries of a bookkeeping Now, under New York law, those books keeping offenses or misdemeanors and misdemeanors on which the statute of limitations has run.
And so the whole trick of this very creative and frankly frivolous prosecution is they're trying to bootstrap a misdemeanor, and a misdemeanor is a crime that is punishable by less than a year in jail, and a misdemeanor typically as a short statute of limitations. They're trying to bootstrap
it by focusing on another crime. And so if the book keeping offense is in furtherance of another crime, it can be elevated to a felony, which gives you a longer statute of limitations and longer a longer potential jail sentence. But what is really going to be critical is what the judge tells the jury they have to find about this so called other crime. And I will say there was a really good article that was written by Byron York and the Washington Examiner entitled Judgment Week how prosecutors
will use the quote other crime against Trump? And in it he points out that the bookkeeping offenses are misdemeanors, but that the theory that they're using is that in addition to the bookkeeping offenses, Trump violated a New York state election law barring the quote conspiracy to promote or prevent election by unlawful means. Now, that is a misdemeanor
as well. But what the Manhattan DA is arguing is that the two misdemeanors, when taken together, add up to thirty four felony charges and a maximum sentence of one hundred and thirty six years in prison for Trump. And so which is really I mean, it's a bootstrap strap that is an extraordinary bootstrap. But what is even more amazing is it's not clear what the judge is going to instruct the jury about the so called object crime. In other words, do they have to agree on what
the object crime is. And first of all, what is the object crime? Is there only one? Are there more than one? Does the object crime require an object crime of its own? What level of proof do the prosecutors have to have to reach before they can find Trump guilty? Remember, ordinarily in a criminal case you have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt. Well, do they have to prove the object crime behind a reasonable doubt? And does the object crime even have to be a crime? And all of
these were argued about before the judge. So last Tuesday, both sets of lawyers met with a judge and there was a lot of discussion about the most frequently mentioned object crime, which is the New York State election law, outlawing the promotion of an election by unlawful means. And the question is what does unlawful means? Now, the prosecutors cite an alleged violation of the Federal Election Campaign Act.
And remember we talked about in a previous pot how the judge would not allow Brad Smith, the former chairman of the Federal Election Commission, to testify about the Federal Election Campaign Act. Now, typically violations of that act are a civil matter. Would a civil matter be an object to crime. Well, there was a back and forth about whether it could be a civil offense or if it had to be actually a crime, and that also led
to a discussion. And we'll see what the jury instructions say about the men's raya and in particular whether it has to be a willful violation the Trump The Trump lawyers wanted the judge to tell the jury that they must find that Trump willfully violated the law, which means that he specifically knew what he was doing was a crime,
and that he did it anyway. And so here's what Andrew McCarthy, who's a very very experienced federal prosecutor and commentator and a good friend, here's what he wrote about that. He wrote, quote, whenever a crime is alleged, prosecutors must prove criminal intent. Wilfulness is the most burdensome intent standard in the criminal law. Prosecutors to prove that the defendant was aware of a legal duty and intentionally violated that duty. So those questions, and by the way, what did DOJ say.
DOJ came in and argued, no, no, no, no, we don't have to prove any of that. Instead, they said that the underlying crime. The unlawful means doesn't have to be a crime. It doesn't have to be a criminal matter. And DOJ argued, quote, by its plain meaning, unlawful doesn't mean criminal, it means violation of law. That's what Michael Colangelo, who was one of the top officials at the Biden Justice Department and who left to join this rabid partisan DA's legal team.
Colangelo argued, quote, the plain text of the statute provides that election law conspiracy occurred when the intended results are executed through unlawful means. Because it doesn't need to be criminal unlawful means, there's no need to add the word wilful into the jury's instructions. So the prosecution's position in the object crime is it doesn't have to be a crime, and he doesn't They don't have to prove that he intended to commit a crime, and that it doesn't have
to be even a criminal act. It could be a civil violation of the Federal Election Campaign Act. Now, Trump's lawyers came back and said, I think quite sensibly, for this to be a criminal conspiracy, there has to be a criminal object Otherwise, quote, we just have a civil conspiracy, that it can't be used to elevate this into a felony. The judge said he was reserving decision on the willfully issue. So what the standard of intent is is going to be a big deal. Now, there were separately a debate
about whether there has to be one object crime. Does the jury all have to agree on one object crime or could there be several, which with each juror finding a different object crime and say I like that one, so I'll use it to elevate it to a fellow. No, No, I like that one. And what are the prosecutors have to have to prove? Now, Colangelo argued, quote, the people weren't required to identify any object crime, so you could
be have it be whatever you want it. Trump lawyers responded that, quote, the jury cannot infer that the unlawful means is established just by the fact that there was an agreement to promote Presidents Trump's election in twenty sixteen. Of course there was, he won. They have to establish some kind of unlawful means to make that a crime. So these questions are a big, big deal. And as we sit here today, we don't know how the judge
is going to resolve it. But if the judge sends it to the jury and says the prosecution doesn't have to prove beyond reasonable doubt the object crime, it doesn't have to be a crime at all. You don't have to decide what the object crime is. Each one of you can pick a different object crime. That really illustrates how the jury instructions can stack the deck for the prosecution.
My strong suspicions is we're going to see some pretty messed up jury instructions today, but we'll find out when the judge gives them.
So you look at all these counts, and I've seen this really pick up steam on seeing NMSNBC and the others, and it's the look, we don't have to basically get Trump on everything. We just need to get him on something, and with so many charges against him, the jury will probably this is my words, what they were pontificating about is that they're going to find something to convict him on. And that's all we really want here. Is that a real strategy, Like hey, throw the book at him and
eventually like there's enough smoke, there's fire. They don't like him, and they're like, all right, we'll let him go on a lot of this stuff, but we're going to nail at least on something.
Yeah, look, that is possible. I don't think that's likely. I think it's likely to be binary. I think you're either going to have one or more jurors that say this is all crap, this is garbage, no, or it's going to be a partisan jury that says we hate Donald Trump and he's guilty on everything. I think it is likely to be one or the other. So actually, really one of three that you could get guilty on all of them, you could get not guilty on all of them, or a hung jury.
If you get the hung jury and you get the appeal, So there's no appeal from hung jury. Okay, So no appeal from hung jury, just okay. So hung jury is a victory by default. Yes, but the prosecution can bring the case again. It could literally start all over.
And that could and that can happen how quickly.
As quickly as the judge wants to. The judge would have to panel a different jury. So a hung jury means, okay, we didn't get to a result, thank you jurors for serving, and you know, the judge could say, all right, next week we're gonna start vardire and we're going to bring in potential jurors and get going again. I doubt it would happen that fast, but it conceivably could.
If you're trying to influence the outcoming election and tying Trump up in office, and that's your goal, then it would make sense. Right you would want to do it pretty quickly, and seven weeks can turn into fourteen weeks, fifteen weeks where you can't campaign. What would be the political fallout of this? And this is where I want you to put on a different hat. I look at this and I think they're messing with fire here. I think that this is a There could be massive political fallout.
Democrats are obviously hoping for a conviction so they can then and this has been reported now in leak the White House that they're preparing for the president to make a statement from the White House. So will quote look non political being at the White House. If Trump is convicted, if it is a hung jury, or if he is innocent, innocent, found innocent, how do the politics of all those three scenarios play out for them?
Well, this is all politics, This is not law, This is not a real criminal offense. There's no human being on planet Earth who would besecuted for these boloney charges if they were not named Donald J.
Trump.
And so of course the Biden White House is salivating now. They're fairly clottish and announcing, Oh, the President's going to do it addressed from the White House. He's hoping to be reveling in. You know, Donald Trump is a felon. We now know that. Who knows how gleeful he will be. But it's all about politics, you know. I do think Democrats are dismayed. They really had hoped this trial would drag Trump through the mud and his numbers would plummet,
and his numbers continue to be strong. He's leading in virtually every swing state. So I think democrats, you know, there was a big story this week about Democrats panicking about how badly Biden's doing. I will say, if there's a hung jury and the prosecution says, okay, we're going to go do it again, I think there will be a lot of exasperation expressed politically. But I think at the end of the day, this trial has not accomplished
what the rabid partisans wanted it to accomplish. But I don't even know that they can see that Trump derangement syndrome is real. There are people who's mind has melted. Let's give it an example. Robert de Niro decided, you know what this country really needs is an angry left wing Hollywood actor outside the trial, and he kind of lost it. He had a meltdown. Give a listen to what de Niro said outside the trial.
Under Trump, this kind of government will perish from the earth.
I don't mean to scare you.
No, no, wait, maybe I do mean to scare you. If Trump returns to the White House, you can kiss these freedoms goodbye that we all take for granted, and elections forget about it. That's over, that's done. If he gets in, I can tell you right now he will never leave. He will never leave.
You know that he will never leave. By the way, isn't that what they said last time?
If Donald Trump got elected, he would never leave and he wasn't gonna leave office, And yet he did.
I gotta say what I'm most happy listening to it is he stands there and goes forget about it, Like yo, I'm in New York. I'm playing a muchstance. He gonna leave forget about it.
Yeah, yeah, that's that's that's de Niro for you. And I love how they roll out these stars like they're trying to bring attention to this, hoping that it's their best political wet dream they've ever had, which is Donald Trump is convicted. And then that brings me to my final question on this. Let's say Trump is convicted. It's been leaked that the Secret Service has been talking with the prison system about how they would incarcerate Donald Trump.
Can you run from prison if you're incarcerated, if hypothetically that happened, how does that work?
Well, look, there is no legal bar, there's no constitutional bar uh to a felon being elected president. There's no legal or constitutional bar to someone in jail being elected president. Now, I do not believe Donald Trump will go to jail. That will not be the outcome. I think even this rabbid partisan judge would allow him to be be free while the appeal was pending. And I think if they tried to put him in jail, you would see an emergency appeal. And I do not think he is going
to jail. So I think that is is in the rabbit fantasies of left wing delusions. But I think if they did actually put him in jail, I mean I said this on a previous pod. If they did actually put him in jail, I think he'd win the presidency with three hundred and more electoral votes.
Yeah.
And the crazy thing is, we've been talking so much about this case. There's another very big case that starts with Hunter Biden. I want to get into that, but first I want to take a moment and say thank you. So many of you that are Verdict listeners have gotten involved with an incredible organization called Preborn. Preborn is helping save the lives of countless unborn babies. They're doing it by allowing mothers to hear their baby's heart on ultrasound.
You may not realize this, but the heart of a child begins to form a conception and adjust it three weeks, it's already beating. At five weeks, a baby's heartbeat can be heard on that vitally important ultrasound. That's why we partner with Preborn, because we need to help these precious babies. And every day Preborn's networks of clinics rescues two hundred babies from abortion. When a mother whether an unplanned pregnancy, meets her baby on ultrasound and hears their baby's heartbeat.
It is a divine encounter that literally doubles a baby's chance at life. By six weeks, a child's eyes eyes are forming. By ten weeks, a baby is able to suck his or her own thumb, And for just twenty eight dollars, you could be the difference, for just twenty eight dollars between the life or death of a child. All gifts to Preborn or tax deductible. You can donate easily by just dialing pound two fifty. That's pound two fifty and say the keyword baby. That's pound two fifty,
say the keyword baby. Or you can also donate securely online at preborn dot com slash verdict. That's preborn dot com slash verdict. Into all you that have already gotten involved, thank you so much for being involved in fighting back against the radicals at Planned parenthood. All right, Senator, I want to get to the other big case, and it is a very big case. It is a case that
apparently is so nerve wracked in the White House. It looks like the President could have been involved in witness tampering. Ahead of the trial of his son, Hunter Biden. Let's talk about that.
Yeah, that's right. So this trial begins on Monday, June third. Hunter Biden is going to face a federal trial for his gun crimes and one of the key witnesses is going to be Halle Biden. Now who is Halle Biden. Halle Biden is the widow of Bo Biden, Hunter's older brother who tragically passed away of cancer, and also the ex girlfriend of Hunter Biden, and Halle Biden is expected to be a key witness. And Sunday night, Joe Biden stopped by Halle's house. It was about eight pm on
Sunday night. Joe Biden came by and Halle was dating Hunter at the time of the crimes, and she's one of the expected witnesses. She was married to Bo Biden. He died in twenty fifteen of brain cancer, and the prosecutors alleged that Hunter lied about his drug use on the gun purchase forms and then that he illegally possessed at least one gun, which Hallie is alleged to have
thrown in a public dumpster in twenty eighteen. So she's the one who allegedly got rid of the evidence, and so she's not just a witness, she is a central witness in the case. And the White House spokesman when asked about, gosh, why is Joe Biden visiting one of the key witnesses in the case against his son eight days before the trial, they said, no, no, no, he visited
her because of the approaching ninth anniversary of Bo's passing. Now, I got to say that is that strikes me as a highly dubious explanation, naturally raises the question, gosh, did he did he visit Hally before the eighth anniversary? Before the seventh anniversary is sixth, fifth, fourth, third, second, first,
And if he did, I'm unaware of it. And you certainly would think the White House if if that was their line and he had visited her at any time previously, you sure do think the White House would have pointed it out. But they didn't. And and I got to say, for the President of the United States, listen, when the president travels, the president never travels quietly. It's not subtle. You come in with a motorcade with secret service, and so for him to go it's it's brazen.
It is Joe.
Biden and the Biden family feels that they are not bound they behave as if they feel that they're not bound by criminal law, by any any restrictions, that that he's entitled to go. And the natural presumption is that he had a conversation with her about what she was going to say whence she testifies.
Yeah, right, it would be important. Hey we want to know what you're going to say, or Hey, here's what we need you to say. If anyone else was in this scenario, what traditionally would happen when before a trial if everyone found out about the same way we did, regardless of an alibi, If Trump would have done this, if I was on trial or you were on trial and we were going to meet with somebody that's about to be a witness and testimony for a kid, like, what would happen.
Well, you would expect the judge to make an inquiry of why were you Why were you meeting with this person? Who expect the prosecutor to make an inquiry as to why were you meeting with this witness? Did you discuss did you discuss what her testimony was going to be? So witness temp tampering is attempting to improperly influence or change the testimony of a witness within criminal proceedings. And it we don't know that that happened. But the United States,
a federal crime a witness tamper. It's decided defined by statute. It's eighteen USC. Section fifteen twelve, which is entitled quote tampering with a witness, victim, or an informant, and it describes witness tampering is a crime even if the proceedings not pending, and it is a criminal offense even if you are unsuccessful in your attempt to tamper. In other words, if you try to convince the witness, hey, you know, it really help if you testify to X, even though
X isn't the case. The witness might not do what you said, but it is still witness tampering. And and that's a natural question. Now I'm quite confident the Department of Justice is not going to inquire of Joe Biden, what conversation did you have with a witness? They might ask her, It is possible they ask her, but I think there's no indication that the DOJ or the trial court is got to even ask what Joe Biden said to her.
Yeah, and the media was silent on this, excluding Fox News, which broke this story.
Here's how they reported it.
President Biden also made a surprise, unannounced stop at Hallie Biden's house in Delaware last night. She is bo Biden's widow and Hunter Biden's ex girlfriend, who was also set to testify in Hunter Biden's gun trial in Delaware that begins next week. White House officials are saying this presidential visit to her house had nothing to do with that testimony. They say it has to do with the upcoming ninth anniversary of bo Biden's passing.
Jillian all Right, by the way, how often does the President United States of America make a surprise, unannounced visit in and around Washington, d C. In a massive motorcade. That has not happen very often.
So, look, it is certainly possible. Presidents do have family, they visit their family. So I don't know the frequency with which Joe Biden visits other members of the family
and that presidents do that. What they don't do with great frequency is do it right before you do it when you're meeting with a key witness who is about to testify in the trial against your son that that is a dramatically different context, and it raises obvious questions, questions that the media seems completely uninterested in asking, and that I expect the Biden Department of Justice is completely uninterested in asking.
I was asked this question the other day and I hadn't actually thought about it yet. And I was asked this question when I was on Fox and they said, if Hunter Biden is convicted at either of these trials, will it have any impact on the presidential election? My personal opinion, I said, is instantly, I was like, no, I don't think so. I think most people know who Hunter Biden is. They know he clearly has been trading
off the family's name. They know he's a drug He was a drug addic and did a lot of really bad things. We've seen the laptop. It's pretty darn clear. Well, it does believe it's going to make a difference. So in the presential action, do you believe that it will or won't.
Yeah, And there's a second trial that is set to begin in September. It's in Los Angeles and it's for allegedly failing to pay more than one point four million dollars in federal taxes from twenty sixteen to twenty nineteen, so you'll have two different trials that are scheduled. Listen, if the president's son is convicted. And now remember, initially DOJ tried to give him a sweetheart deal where he wouldn't go to jail, and ultimately that that fell apart.
Hunter originally agreed to a probation only deal to both the gun and tax crimes in June, but he walked away from the sweetheart deal at a July court hearing where his attorneys demanded broad immunity a past conduct of all past conduct, including violations of the Foreign Agents Registration Act, which could implicate his father, And so he walked away from a deal that would have gotten him largely scott free,
but it wasn't. And remember, I think that the judge may well have signed off on that deal, but there was enormous public scrutiny on it, and I think that the judge decided, now, we can't do this.
Well, and even then he was gonna admit he was guilty in that deal. So there's also it's been out there in the media like, hey, he was going to to get the deal. He's a many he was guilty of these two crimes, which in many ways insulate his father. So if he's convicted this time, I'm not sure with a lot of Democratic voters it'll matter. Yeah.
Look, I don't think that that Hunter Biden is guilty of gun crimes and tax evasions. Any rational person knows that already. That's kind of maked into the cake. I agree with you, it doesn't alter the election. What this has always been about is protecting Joe and the relevance. We've talked about this a lot, although it's been a while since we've talked about on the podcast. Look, Hunter Biden is not someone of public interest separate and apart
from his father. You know, he is a troubled soul who seems to have struggled his whole life, which is the entire White House defense that he has substance abuse problems and he's just had a hard time, And I don't have no reason to doubt that. That surely seems to be the case. But the reason it is a public import is that the evidence at this point keeps piling up that his entire business model was selling favors
from his father, was corruption. The reason this matters is Joe Biden, not Hunter Biden, and these two trials are designed to insulate and protect Joe Biden, not to bring him in at all. And as long as Joe Biden is not directly implicated, I don't think Hunter's being convicted will have any material effect on the election. Listen, if his son goes to jail, that may be a very difficult thing personally for Joe Biden and emotionally for Joe Biden.
But at the end of the day, the Biden DOJ succeeded in what I think its principal goal was, which is protecting the big guy and ensuring that there's no investigation into corruption by the sitting president.
Final question on this, what is the possibility of pardons for Hunter Biden by his father.
Before the election? I think zero. After the election, I think if Trump wins, I would wager large sums of money before he leaves off as Joe Biden pardons his son.
And there'd be no political fallout for him because he's not running for reelection again.
Yeah, if he's leaving, it would be it would be a Bill Clinton Midnight pardon special. And I think, particularly if he loses, it's almost a no brainer that Joe Biden would do it. He might even do it if he wins, but there it's a more costly decision because he'd pay a political price for it, even if as he was starting a second term.
Yeah, it's going to be very interesting to see how this plays out. We're going to keep you up to date on it. Don't forget we do the show Monday, Wednesday and Friday. Hit that subscribe auto down with button in on those in between days, make sure you grab my podcast, the Ben Ferguson Podcasts, and I will keep you up to date on the breaking news in both of these cases, in between and the Center. I will see you back here on Friday morning.