Cider. Always a pleasure to be with you in studio.
There is so much this Trump indictment that needs to be broken down. That's going to be the goal today for people to understand this indictment. Let's walk through exactly what they have charged Donald Trump with and also your overview how serious is this in your opinion scale one to ten. We've seen like in New York there was not a lot of people worried about that indictment. They thought it was frivolous, they thought it was kind of absurd.
Sachul limitations. There's gonna be a lot of problems in court.
Is this different?
Well, the last podcast we did on Friday, we did it right after news of the indictment broke, but the indictment wasn't public. What has changed between then and now is we now have the indictment so we can see specifically what they brought. I will say now having reviewed the specific indictment, it's pretty underwhelming. There's not a lot of there there. We talked quite a bit before the indictment about how it was extremely likely that the Department
of Justice was going to indict Donald Trump. That Merrick Garland I believe wants to indict Donald Trump. I think he came into office wanting to indict and to prosecute Donald Trump. But we also talked about the problem that he couldn't just base it on the classified documents because it so happened just that everyone else did the same damn thing. And so we discussed on this podcast how I believe they would really build their case as an
obstruction case. What's interesting is they did that, but the bulk of the indictment focuses on the classified documents. So if you look at the indictment, there are thirty seven
counts in the indictment. It starts with criminal offenses concerning the willful retention of national defense information, with holding a doctorument of record, corruptly concealing a document of record, concealing a document in a federal investigation, a scheme to conceal, and if you look at it, all right, so counts one through thirty one to the bulk of the indictment are multiple counts of willful retention of national defense information, and by the text of it, the terms of that
crime are serious. Whoever having unauthorized possession, of access to, or control over any document, writing codebooks, sign signal books, sketch, photograph, photographic, negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, or note relating to the national defense, or information relating to the national defense, which information the possessor has reason to believe could be used to the injury of the
United States or the advantage of any foreign nation, willfully communicates, delivers, transmits, or causes to be communicated, delivered to try transmitted, or attempts to communicate, delivered or transmitted, or caused to be communicated, delivered or transmitted the same to any person not entitled to receive it, or willfully retains the same, and fails to deliver it to the officer employee of the United States entitled to receive it, whoever being entrusted with or
having lawful possession of, or control of any document writing, codebooks, signal book, sketched, photograph, photographic, negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, note,
or information relating to the national defense. Through gross negligence, permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody, or delivered to anyone in violation of his trust, or to be lost, stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, or having knowledge that the same has been illegally moved from its proper place of custody, or delivered to anyone in violation of its trust, or lost or stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, and fails to make prompt report of such loss, theft, abstraction,
or destruction to his superior officer. The consequence of all of that is that you face a maximum fine of two hundred and fifty thousand dollars an imprisonment of not more than ten years, or both. Now the thirty one counts of that. If those thirty one counts, if Trump were convicted of it, and if they ran consecutively, he could be sentenced to three hundred and ten years in prison. Now on the face of that, all that sounds serious, Yeah, except for the problem that this is a president of
the United States. This is a president of the United States, and every president of the United States has taken papers from his time as president that goes back, I suspect, back to George Washington. This is a general statute that if you or I are working in government, we have a classified document and we shove them down our underwear. Like Sandy Berger, who was the National Security Advisor to Bill Clinton did. That's the kind of statute that can
be used to go after you. In this instance. The press has been breathless about the allegation that Trump stored classified documents in his bathroom, in his shower, and the Biden Department of Justice Media Production office helpfully took a picture, which they conveniently released to the world because this is a media production. And I say that tongue in cheek. It should not be a media production. But they are
engaged in politics here. We've all seen the picture of the boxes stacked up in the marble bathroom with the chandelier, and there's something titillating about that. That's an odd place to store classified documents in a shower. Although I have to ask you something. Number one, every president has taken records. So just saying, oh, if you have a national security record,
you're obviously a felon. Well, if we're going to lock up all our former presidents, you know, I'm not sure Jimmy Carter is going to last long in doing hard time. Bill Clinton, on the other hand, could do quite well behind bars. But secondly, okay, fine, you've got an embarrassing place for documents to be which is a bathroom and shower. Is that any more embarrassing than in a cardboard box in a garage next to an antique corvette. Yeah, that would be where Joe Biden kept his documents.
Or classified documents on his server, in Hillary Clinton's basement, her bathroom.
At the end of the day, the biggest problem the Department of Justice has is the screaming hypocrisy. This breathlessly says, my god, he had a classified document off with his head. And it doesn't say a word about why. They have no concerns at all about Joe Biden about all of the documents he had, not in one place, not in two places, multiple places, left with no security, left stacked in the garage, unlocked garage. This is so obviously a double standard. This is a double standard driven by a
Department of Justice that's blinded by hatred. I think they've convinced themselves that Trump actually is Adolf Hitler, and so nothing else matters. If you're going after Hitler, everything is justified and well, yes, Joe Biden did the same thing, well yes Hillary Clinton did the same thing. But they're not Hitler. This is how they're thinking goes, They're not Hitler. So it's fine. We like them. They're on our team,
so it's not a crime if they do it. But boy, isn't this a good excuse to go after the devil? Looking at this indictment, I think the same thing today that I thought last week when it was announced. This is garbage. It's not the same kind of garbage that Alvin Bragg's New York indictment is. That's just legally frivolous. It's legally frivolous. On the face of it, It's.
Go to one to ten. How concerned are you over that indictment? One ten?
The brag one? Yeah, one point five?
And what about this one?
Four point five?
What's the biggest difference in.
There are several things. Number one, this is the Department of Justice.
Unlimited funds, unlimited lawyers, unlimited time.
When the Department of Justice comes after you, it is a lot more serious. It just is DOJ has resources, has power, It has the ability to devote massive resources and typically far more talented prosecutors than Alvin Bragg has at his disposal. Alvin Bragg, on the face of it, the indictment is really reaching. It's trying to create crimes where none exists in this instance. What they allege is arguably criminal for someone who's not the president of the
United States. The problem with it is the double standard and the political persecution, rather than whether or not this is in fact a violation of law. The pundits on CNN will all say, ah, they've shown a violation of law. My response is great, Explain to me, why if you want to prosecute Trump, are he and Biden going to be cell mates? If you bring twin prosecutions for the same thing and put Hillary in, have the three of them you want to prosecute all three of them. We
can talk about that. Now. That would be absurd, sure, but that would at least be consistent to say, okay, any of you who had a classified document, we're going to prosecute all of you, all right, that I could understand this is so serious, off with all their heads.
But that's not what they're saying with zero explanation. They say, when the guy we don't like who used to be president of the United States, who is a leading candidate to be the next president of the United States, when he does it, we will come after him and try to put him in jail. When our boss does it? Who? What? Never heard Joe Biden? Who's that guy?
So you go to court on this, let's paint that picture of what this looks like going forward. Is there going to be a jury trial? I think it's pretty queer. There's not going to be.
A plea deal here.
And before we explain how that would actually go down, we'll even get to see it will be allowed there to be, you know, cameras in that courtroom. I want to tell you about our friends ever, Patriot Mobile. If you're sick and tired of woke companies, We've seen this with what's gone on with Budweiser, We've seen this with Target.
The list now goes, unfortunately on and on. And if you're just sick and tired of having your money go to companies that don't allie with your values, there is a choice now with your cell phone.
It's called Patriot Mobile.
They're the only conservative Christian cell phone provider in the country. You get the best coverage, the same coverage you're used to right now, except when you pay your bill, you're actually standing and supporting causes that you believe in the First and the Second Amendment, the rights of unborn children, protecting and supporting our veterans and those that served this country. That's what Patriot money does. Patriot Mobile does with your
money every month when you pay your bill. So make the switch and stand with people that stand with what you believe in eight seven eight Patriots the number that's eight seven eight Patriot or online at patriotmobile dot com, slash verdict, Patriot mobile dot com slash verdict or eight seven eight Patriot use the promo code Verdict and you'll also get free activation and the best deals of the year center. If this thing moves forward, which I think is going to, are we going? Is he preparing for
a jury truck? And it's in Florida. Some you have asked a question, why is it in Florida? Why didn't it happen somewhere else? How did they pick Florida and what will that look like?
Well, they picked Florida because they allege that's where the crimes occurred, that they occurred at mar Lago. That that's where Trump, they alleged, illegally stored the classified documents. That's where he refused to turn over the classified documents. That's where they allege he engaged in obstruction of justice, and so you bring the crime where the alleged crime. You
bring the case where the alleged crime occurred. Look, I think being in Florida is better than being in d C. If this goes to a jury trial, Trump is likely to get a more fair jury in Florida than he would in d C. D C would be hopelessly stacked against him. You know, looking at this indictment, the double standard is a massive problem for DOJ and right now Merrick Garland and Jack Smith have done nothing to address this. That being said, the obstruction claims are where the greatest
legal peril is. But let's start on the double standard. Listen to Jack Smith when he's laying out this indictment, and listen to what he has to say.
Today, an indict moves unsealed, charging Donald J. Trump with felony violations of our national security laws, as well as participating in a conspiracy to obstruct justice. This indictment was voted by a grand jury of citizens in the Southern District of Florida, and I invite everyone to read it in full to understand the scope and the gravity of the crimes charged. The men and women of the United States Intelligence Community and our armed forces dedicate their lives
to protecting our nation and its people. Are laws that protect national defense information are critical to the safe and security of the United States, and they.
Must be enforced.
Violations of those laws put our country at risk. Adherence to the rule of law is a bedrock principle of the Department of Justice, and our nation's commitment to the rule of law sets an example for the world. We have one set of laws in this country and they apply to everyone applying those laws, collecting facts. That's what determines the outcome of an investigation, nothing more and nothing less.
So those remarks literally need a laugh track. Yeah, like a studio audience would start laughing at that, because he could give the exact same speech substituting the word Joe Biden for the word Donald Trump. Yeah, he could give the exact same speech substituting Hillary Clinton for Donald Trump. Now, obviously he's not why because they like those guys, they're on the team, and so all the moralizing we have one set of laws for all people who are enemies of the White House.
Why it's propaganda.
It is demonstrably absurd. I'm actually he's a pretty good actor. I'm impressed that he said that with a strange face like like that you stand up and say, oh, we apply this fairly and uniformly to everyone, as long as we don't like you.
Yeah.
It's like, well, if that's true, then why isn't the Special Counsel having a press conference right now with Joe Biden and the classification of documents?
Classified documents? Hey at his house next to his corvette.
Do you expect that will put any pressure on them now to have the same press conference?
No, we're not going to. I think they're shameless. I think they're so bought in that they don't care that they believe they are hunting the devil. They're hunting Hitler, and everything has justified the name of it now where the legal exposure is more significant concerns obstruction of justice. And we talked about this before that that if they're going to distinguish Trump from Biden, their best talking point as well, once it was discovered, Biden handed it over.
Trump didn't. So that's why it's different. And I will say in the indictment there are two exchanges that are not great that we're going to hear about a lot on the TV.
So prepare for it.
Prepare for it if there are if there's a trial, we will hear about it on trial. One exchange is this was caught on tape where he's talking about the documents, and Trump says, quote, all sorts of stuff, pages long. Wait a minute, let's see here I just found. Isn't it amazing? This totally wins my case, except it's like highly confidential secret. This is secret information. Look look at this,
he points out. In another section of the transcript, he said, you know, when I was president, I could declassify this, but I can't now, And a Trump aid on the tape says that's a problem. That exchange will be played in court as evidence of wilfulness. What Biden would argue is that he didn't know he had the documents, that he wasn't aware, that he didn't willfully violate the statute.
And once he found out he had them, he gave them back.
And Biden will argue then that he didn't obstruct. There's another portion of testimony from Trump's former lawyer, who says Trump, in responding to the subpoena, advised his two attorneys, and he was talking about Hillary Clinton's lawyer and he says, quote, he was great. He did a great job. You know
what he said. He said that it was him that he was the one who deleted all her emails, the thirty thousand emails, because they basically dealt with her scheduling or going to the gym and are having beauty appointments. And he was great, and he and she didn't get into any trouble because he said he was the one who deleted them. And according to Trump's lawyers, he said that several times during the day. Quote related that story
more than once during that day. Now, look on obstruction, Hillary Clinton is someone else who engaged I believe in obstruction of justice, who engaged in the willful destruction of evidence, who deleted thirty thousand emails, who used bleach bit to erase the evidence of it, who use hammers to smash cell phones. Yeah, Hillary Clinton's conduct is serious. This DOJ happily ignores it because she's on the team and they're on her team.
The argument, I'm sure is gonna be I was joking.
I was talking about the double standard of Hillary Clinton with that play in court, in that kind of say, I'm clearly talking about how ridiculous this subpoena. Is I'm talking about how absurd it is. They're coming after me wanting all these documents. Hillary Clinton, this is what she was doing and know one bad than I. So I was remarking on that.
He might presumably that is what he would say. There's another portion from his lawyers where they said that Trump suggested that they just pluck out the classified documents. The prosecution will argue that the jury should conclude from that that Trump was instructing them to destroy evidence in violation of a subpoena. I want to be clear, I think all of this is garbage. But look, when you're representing a client, it helps when a client speaks carefully and precisely.
So how does this play in court?
I mean, we saw that he called for an expedited he wants to move quickly with this going to a trial. How much say so does a DOJ have in that? Who ultimately will decide? How are they going to choose the judge?
Here?
Which court does this go to? And we're we going to watch this on TV like we watched OJ Simpson. Is the whole world going to stop and we're going to see cameras? And is Trump gonna have to be there every day, sitting there as a defendant at that table.
Look, that is certainly possible. This could proceed quickly. I think it's likely to take a long time. It's going to take in a minimum months, it could take years. Part of it depends on what the pre trial motions are, what litigation arises out of trying to exclude evidence. They are all sorts of preach trial steps that could delay a trial for years. It's possible we see a trial quickly. I think that's pretty unlikely. But it depends on the
initial reporting. Is this was assigned to Judge Eileen Cannon, who is a judge that Trump appointed. Assuming that's true, that's a good development for him, not to have a judge who is predisposed to be antagonistic and hostile to him.
Can the DOJ immediately say, well, he appointed her, so she should be taken out of this, out of the courtroom for this, we win another judge. Is that something they could fight for.
They could try to do that. I don't think that motion would succeed.
Is that because most people think, well, it'd be simple to say, hey, this woman's biased.
He appointed her legally. How does that work.
So instead you should have a judge that was appointed by Biden and to be biased against him. Look, we're in untreaded territory. Yeah, because no Department of Justice has ever prosecuted a president before, so we've got reason we haven't been in this circumstance before. I think as a matter of law, it is not the case that every judge appointed by a president is naturally biased to be predisposed to support that president. Particularly with district court nominations.
You often see instances where Republicans appoint district judges who the Democrat senators in that state pushed, who can be very, very liberal. You see case instances where Democrats appoint district judges where you have particularly Republican senators from those states, where the judges are relatively conservative. And so as a legal matter, it's not a straight up proxy that whoever appointed the judge, they're just a partisan for that that president.
And by the way, they're not supposed to be They're supposed to be fair and impartial. The overwhelming problem here is the obvious double standard. And here listen to Trump explaining and actually explaining quite accurately, the double standard.
Every time I fly over a blue state, I get a subpoena. It's no coincidence they indicted me the very same day that it was revealed that the FBI hit explosive evidence that Joe Biden took a five million dollar illegal bribe from Ukraine. Next Hunter will probably be charged with some very minor offense so that the FBI and dooj can pretend that they're fair. They want to pretend they're fair.
We got Hunter for jaywalking.
As far as it's the joke of an indictment, it's a horrible thing. It's a horrible thing for this country. I mean, the only good thing about it is it's driven my poll number's way up.
Can you believe there? So I will say that right there, that legal analysis is exactly spot on. What's interesting is a lot of what Trump is saying there is what we've been saying on Verdict for months. Yeah, with regard to Hunter Biden, I believe they're going to indict Hunter Biden. I think they'll do it soon, and it may not be for jaywalking, but it's going to be for something personal and small that can be explained. He's a poor, troubled soul with a substance abuse problem.
It doesn't connect him to his father.
That's the critical point. Build that wall to protect Joe Biden and just make Hunter Biden the scapegoat. And that's going to let Jack Smith, that's going to let Merrick Garland say, look, how even handed we are. We indicted a Trump and A Biden's sea were fair and nobody who's paying attention at all will buy that. But for some people who are not paying attention, that may sound persuasive.
Look the point Trump made also there was really important, which is this indictment came literally the day that we learned that there's an informant, an informant that the FBI has relied upon, an informant that the FBI has trusted in previous cases, who came forward and alleged that Joe Biden received a five million dollar bribe from Barisma, the Ukrainian natural gas company that was paying Hunter Biden a million dollars a year, and that we know Joe Biden
took official acts to benefit. He bragged the infamous Son of a Bitch exchange, He bragged about holding a billion dollars an American aid hostage to force Ukraine to fire the prosecutor who was going after the corrupt oligarch who owned Barisma. So if you look at bribery, you need to quit pro quo. We know there's a quote. We know that Joe Biden took official action that benefited Bearisma. If in fact he deposited five million dollars from Barisma,
Joe Biden should be charged and prosecuted for bribery. To be honest, that is the most grave allegation against a president that we've seen in our lifetimes. That is literally being on the take and being bribed. It's like abscam. It's showing up with a paper bag full of cash. Here's the favor we want. Will you do it? If it is correct, and by the way, it may be false. This is at this point an allegation from an anonymous informant to the FBI that the FBI is trying mighty
lead a stone wall and cover up. If it's false, then Joe Biden not a clear his name. If it's false, Joe Biden not to say release it, bring the witness forward, hav him testify. Joe Biden should be angry. I am angry that you are impugning my character by saying I took a bribe. The fact that he's not doing that, that he says where's the money? That is incredibly troubling
in the fact that it's literally the same day. Look, these are the same goons that sent the irs to Matt Taebe's house the day he was testifying in front of the House of Representatives on Twitter censorship at the behest of the federal government. Jack booted thugs behave this way. Yeah, this is not behavior that demonstrates integrity, that demonstrates respect for law, that demonstrates all those great things Jack Smith talks about the speech.
Say it all you want to, but it's just not true.
And the proof is the fact they're coming after him for everything, and everyone else gets to walk around and even like we heard, there was.
By the way, to any reporter, look, there are no reporters who actually do their jobs any more in the corporate media. But to any reporter, the next time you talk to any Democrat senator, ask the following question, if it has proven true that Joe Biden received a five million dollar bribe personally from Ukraine in exchange for government policy, should he be impeach Yes or no? I don't think
any reporter will ask a Democrat senator that question. I will say, for a Democrat senator, I don't know how the heck they'd answer it, because they'd backpedal and they'd think hypotheticalsals. Yeah, look, that's easy. Anyone who is convicted of bribery, who's guilty of bribery, yes, they should be in peached. And it doesn't have to be a high crime or misdemeanor. Remember the Constitution said bribery trees and
are other high crimes and misdemeanors. Bribery is explicitly laid out if you have a corrupt public servant who was on the take. That is why impeachment exists. If Joe Biden received five million dollars from Maurisma, Joe Biden I go to prison.
And that five million is separate from the five million his Sun got. A lot of people in the media have not covered that at all. This isn't five million that went into a bunch of bank accounts divided up the allegation, right, Joe directly five million and Hunter got another five million.
I don't know if it's five He got a million a year over several years. I'm not sure it's fully five, but it is millions.
Yeah, Separate cash for the two men, Separate payoffs for the two men, not co mingled ten percent for the big guy, which is when the media loves to make sure they overlook.
I want to tell you about our friends. They got the precious metals real quick.
And if you are close to retirement or you are in retirement, you know know how important is to protect your wealth, especially when we've seen the ups and downs the economy, interest rates where they are, some bank failures, and that is where gold can come in to help you with your IRA, your four one K.
You need a company that you can trust.
And the company that I use as a gust of Precious Medals now our Gusta Precious Metals will sit down with you.
And talk to you to see if gold's even right for you.
If you are in retirement, if you have saved one hundred thousand dollars or more, ask them about their free guide to gold and the web conference they will do with each and every person. They will sit down with you, talk about your finances personally, not in general, and you'll get the peace of mind of knowing that you are protecting your hard earned assets. Call them eight seven seven the number four Gold IRA. You're gonna get the free
Investor's Guide on Gold. You're also gonna get that web conference for free eight seven seven the number four Gold IRA, or a visit Augusta Precious Metals dot com. That's Augusta Precious Metals dot Com. I got to ask you a question about election interference here the idea of a presidential front runner having to go to court, having to go into a jury trial. This charade, which I would say is probably gonna be bigger than the oj Simpson trial in all reality, especially if we get to watch it,
is that its on its face not election interference. That you're trying to put a guy at a defense table and you know, and tie him up in courts.
I would assume this court case could last.
Weeks, if not months, easily, while he's also trying to leave and go run for president at the very same time. How I mean for Democrats to obsessed election interference in Russian collusion, which was a lie and they knew it was a lie. But this is actual election interference, is it not?
Of course it is, and it's blatant and in your face. That's why the Department of Justice has standards that that that it does not typically bring a prosecution on the eve of a campaign, to not interfere with the campaign. It's why the standard should be exceptionally high for when you would prosecute a former president or a candidate for president. Doesn't mean it should never be met. It just means it should be exceptionally high. Now, look, Jack Smith has
some experience in this. Jack Smith prosecuted Bob McDonald was the governor of Virginia. He brought the case against Bob McDonald and, by the way, McDonald at the time was a plausible candidate for president. He wasn't a front runner, but he was one of the plausible candidates for president. He was governor of Virginia at the time. He was
popular in Virginia. Jack Smith brought a case, he got a conviction, conviction went to the US Supreme Court, and the Supreme Court unanimously vacated the conviction, threw it out, concluded it was contrary to law. Now the damage was done. You know what Jack Smith had interfered in that election. He had accomplished the real purpose.
And ear in a man's life and changed the outcome of election, and he.
Has charge yes, and the Supreme Court unanimously threw it out. But they threw it out years later, when all the damage had been done. For a president to be indicted, the threshold should be exceptionally high. It shouldn't be jaywalking. It shouldn't be keeping books that wrongfully reflects how hush money was paid, as Alvin Smith has in his ridiculous indictment, and it shouldn't be possessing presidential records just like every other president has done. The threshold needs to be significant
because there's an obligation to respect the electoral process. There's an obligation to respect democracy. This indictment shows contempt for democracy. They're not indicting him because they think he's going to lose the election in November. They're indicting him because they're
afraid he's going to win the election in November. That means they are perfectly happy to say, we have power, and we're going to use power to stop the damn voters from putting someone we don't want into the White House.
Same thing they try to do in twenty sixteen. Yes one, Yes, we're going to overthrow the will of the people. We're going to use documents we know aren't real.
And it's what doj and FBI did throughout the Trump presidency from within the date deep state. They waged war on him. They're now doing it openly and brazenly at press conferences. And this is designed to be politics. I'll tell you the kind of allegation that would merit this.
If you have an allegation that Donald Trump received a five million dollar bribe from Ukraine or China or anyone else, and you can demonstrate that he received the bride in exchange for official conduct, that's the kind of case that should be brought. But they don't have that allegation. They don't have that evidence. They do have the allegation about
Joe Biden. That is the type of crime that would clear the threshold for what should be brought against a president or a former president or a major presidential candidate. The irony is they announce this political persecution on the same day that news breaks about Joe Biden. It's not complicated to understand the magic act going on, paying no attention to what's over here, watch over here, watch the fuzzy rabbit.
The insane part of this conversation is this is all could happen this trial before we vote? What if it is delayed till after What if, hypothetically Donald Trump wins the primary and then it's the general and then they say, okay, now we're going to go to a court case. Or even worse, what if he wins the general he's now
the president of the United States of America. Could they haul him down to Florida for a jury trial and you could see the President of the United States of America, Well, he's supposed to be doing the job at the White House, sitting on a jury trial.
What happens then.
So we're in an uncharted territory. Then the Department of Justice has an existing legal opinion from the Office Legal Council that says that DOJ will not indict a sitting president.
But they've already indicted him and he's not the sitting president.
That's why you're getting into uncharted legal territory. I don't know what DOJ would conclude if he's already been indicted and the trial is proceeding.
I can't even believe we're having this conversation.
So insane, it would be utterly insane. The fact that he's indicted as a legal matter, does nothing to prevent him from running for office, doesn't disqualify him from the ballot, doesn't make him ineligible. You can be indicted. Sadly, left uses indictments as political weapons quite frequently. You could even end up with his being convicted. I don't think that's gonna happen. But if he were convicted and sentenced to jail,
he's still not ineligible to be president. Being convicted of a crime does not remove your eligibility to be president. I don't think we will see that scenario because much like the Bob McDonald case that Jack Smith brought, I mean, they literally brought in a guy who had been engaged in political prosecutions before that were absolute failed disasters. They brought him in and said, hey, can you come do it again?
Unanimous failure by the Supreme Court standards.
Yes, and unanimous means including the lefty justices right like the justice is appointed by Democrats on the far left. All of them agreed, no, this, this conviction cannot stand.
So you could have a president that is convicted and it could work its way all the way up to the Supreme Court.
Yeah.
So then the other question if he is the president.
And by the way, that's why Gerald Ford pardon Richard Nixon. We might have found this out. Richard Nixon, I believe committed multiple crimes. As you know. I write about this at length in my last book, Justice Corrupted, How the Left has weaponized the legal system. The whole first chapter walks through the criminal conduct of the Nixon White House, of the Nixon Department of Justice, and in many ways Barack Obama succeeded in doing what Nixon tried to do,
and now Biden does so openly and brazenly. But after Nixon resigned in disgrace, there was a very real possibility he would be prosecuted. John Mitchell is Attorney General, was prosecuted and served I think twenty two months in jail. If Nixon had been prosecuted, the scenario you're talking about of the entire country watching TV like the oj trial and seeing the present dragged through this garbage, it would have been a nightmare. And it's why Gerald Ford stepped
forward and pardoned him. And I think pardoning him was an act of real courage because it probably single handedly ensured that Ford would lose the election and Jimmy Carter would be elected, and he knew that. He knew that when he was signing the pardon, he was likely dooming his own election to be president, that he was going to cost himself the job he was in. But he did it, I believe, because he believed it was better for the country to spare the country the nightmare of
the president going through an extended criminal trial. We've come a long way from that moment to now Biden and Merrick Garland and Jack Smith gleefully hoping and praying they can drag the country through a criminal trial directed at the former president and a leading candidate to be the next president.
Can a president, a sitting president, pardon himself.
That is an unclear question. Also, it has been debated. There are differing views. History has never tested it. Uh and uh who knows. We may find out if Joe Biden decides to pardon himself for taking a five million dollar bribe, that he could do.
He could Uh.
Probably, As I said, it's untested, he could try. He could certainly try. I'll point out that if Joe Biden were to pardon himself for taking a five million dollar bribe, even the tiny at times not very reliable House majority in the House would be forced to impeach him.
Then what about his son? They indict Hunter Biden, Hunter Biden gets some indictments to come down. Can you just say it's my son, I love him, he's the smartest guy I know.
Yes, and impeach him. And is that something the House could do teach?
I mean he can pardon Hunter, Yes, he can, unquestion pardon Hunter of federal offenses. He can't pardon him of state offenses. So there may be state offenses in addition to federal offenses. I will say, if he were to pardon Hunter in a way that was pardoning him of corruption that involved corruption implicating Joe Biden, you're getting into murky legal territory here. But that is the sort of thing that the Democrats for years said concerning Donald Trump
was obstruction of justice. That when Trump talked about pardoning different players, they argue that substruction of justice if you use the pardon power to prevent our investigation. If Joe Biden were to do that for Hunter in such a way as to block or to try to block investigation into Joe Biden's own corruption, that could be arguably characterized as Obstruction of Justice by Joe Biden.
I got one more question, want to ask you about the political campaign. Before we do that, let me tell you about our friends at Chalk. If you're a guy and you're dealing with a real issue that a lot of guys are dealing with, and that's low testosterum, you need to check out Chalk choq dot com.
They can help you get your edge back.
If you feel like you've got weakness and you're just kind of sitting around and you've just lost some of that edge, that is where Chalk comes in.
Now.
Chalk is here to help guys just like you boost your testosterum up to twenty percent over ninety days. Now there's a male Vitality stack and go to Chalk choq dot com.
I've been taking now for several months. I can tell you it works.
You're if you feel like you've got fatigue after workouts, or you just don't feel like you can work out the way you used to, check out Chalk choq dot com.
Go there, use the promo code Ben.
You're gonna get thirty five percent off any Chalk subscription for life. So check them out choq dot com Promo code Ben thirty five percent off any chop subscription for life. See dot com Total Political Question. To end this on, every time that Donald Trump gets indicted, he said in his video, his poll numbers go up. It seems that the country, at least conservative voters are rallying behind him.
When these things happen. The more they keep coming after them, is it is it almost helping solidify his ability to get the nomination. That's totally different in general election. You've run for president, you know this. But in a primary, it seems like when they do this, he raised more money. Yeah, and more people are like, all right, you know what,
screw it. The system's rigged, and I'm going to stand by someone that's being persecuted by the Democratic Party, by the DOJ of this and this administration of Joe Biden.
Look, that's clearly playing out. When Alvin Bragg brought his indictment, I said on this podcast, this will be worth ten points in the polls for Trump. That prediction proved exactly right, and within a week he was up ten. In this instance, this latest indictment, I think it probably will prove good for Trump in the polls, particularly in the primary. Yeah, I don't know. In the general. Democrats are hoping this
will hurt Trump in the general, and it might. I think the data are unclear right now in terms of how it would impact him in the general. But in the primary. Look, if you're a Republican, whether you like Trump or don't like Trump, you look at this and this is such obvious garbage. It's such a double standard. You see virtually all of Trump's opponents in the primary being forced to go defend him. Yeah, because it's such an obvious double standard that you can't you can't credibly
say anything else. Look, they don't like defending Trump. His opponents don't like it at all. It pisces them off that they have to go out on TV and defend him. But that dynamic and listen, at least with Brad. More than a few observers have suggested that was one of the reasons Bragg brought the indictment was that he wants Trump to be the nominee. The Democrats believe Trump cannot win the general, and so they're quite open about their strategy. Do everything they can.
To give him the nominee, and then we'll beat him in the general.
Right with a candidate who can't tie his shoes, who will lock in the basement and will never let speak, but will run a whole campaign on how much we hate Donald Trump, and so that dynamic. I suspect it will continue to play out this way. I don't think you'll see the same bump from this indictment that you saw from the Alvin Bragg indictment, mostly because I think that it.
Just solidifies the base, it doesn't expand it.
This yeah, I think that distance has already been traveled, that the people who popped up because of the Brag thing they're still there. They're still there. But I think as a short term political matter for Trump is a good development. Longer term, that's that's murkier to figure out.
It's gonna be interesting. Thank you for answering all these questions. I know so many of you had questions. We're gonna keep answering them. Don't forget hit that subscribe or auto download button or follow button. If you're listening to the show on Apple, you can hit the follow button there on Apple and you'll get every single episode, especially when there's breaking news. We've been doing a lot of episodes
after midnight lately. It seems like because of the breaking news, so make sure you hit that subscribe, auto download, or follow button. We published Monday, Wednesday, and Friday, and also you can follow the Center and us on social media as well.
We'll see you back here in a couple of days