Trump Indictment - What Are Trump's Options Legally, To Fight Back!

it would be on Tuesday. Obviously that could change, but we're being told that's what they're working with a secret service right now. Right So, what we know is the New York Grand Jury has returned in an indictment and that it has thirty four counts to the indictment. As we sit here today, we don't know the specific counts. That's still underseal. I assume that's going to be made public at some point, but we haven't seen what specifically

the thirty four counts are. We also know from public news reporting that Trump is expected to be arraigned on Tuesday at two fifteen pm Eastern Standard time. So assuming that it's correct, we will see concurrent with the arraignment, we will see Trump come in we will see him surrender himself to the authorities in New York. From the public reporting, they're saying there's not going to be a perp walk, that Trump is not going to be in handcuffs.

We've also seen public reporting that Secret Service has informed New York they will not allow them to handcuff Donald Trump, so he will come in, presumably of his own volition, without handcuffs. When he comes in, he'll be booked, he'll be fingerprinted, he will be that there will be a

mug shot. Interestingly enough, based on some of the reporting, the New York authorities are suggesting the mug shot may not be available to the public, whereas Trump is saying he wants the mug shot to be available to the public. We know that Trump's presidential campaign has raised millions of dollars within the first twenty four hours of the indictment. I think the Trump campaign thinks that that mug shot

is probably worth millions more dollars in campaign fundraising. We've talked about how this indictment is likely to boomerang and backlash, and that it already is, but all of that will play out on Tuesday. We will, I believe, see the mug shot, and as I predicted on this podcast already, I think you'll see Trump in a beautiful dark blue suit, a Chris White shirt, and a red shiny Donald J. Trump tie, smiling ear to ear in the mug shot.

How abnormal is it to not release some mugshot of somebody because the fact that they're playing this much politics and I think that does go to politics and you're not going to go over procedure. Then you're playing politics. You want to arrest the guy, but you don't want people to see the mug shot that screams dripping a political motivation. It'll be released. That will be the end outcome.

He will come in, he will plead not guilty. He will be released, presumably on some form of bail, given that New York they believe in in cashless bail, they'll release murderers. I don't know, maybe they'll say no, we won't release Donald Trump. Now. They will release him and then they'll move forward towards a trial. So how does the bail process work and how much time from when he gets out of that car walks in there with

his attorneys. Secret Service will be around, they say. The entire time there was there was reporting that everybody in that court day. It basically Tuesday's gonna be shut down. Around that time. It'll be empty. It'll be just for this situation with Donald Trump. So how do you post bail? How fast does that happens? That come from a bank account before he even gets there? How does that work? Look,

they're not going to drag it out. It's not going to be long and extended, in part because the New York City officials they're concerned about protests, they're concerned about violence. They're setting up barricade, so they're not gonna want it. In an ordinary case, someone could be there for hours and hours and hours. I mean, it's not typically a smooth,

efficient process. In this case, I expect it will be relatively quick that he will go in, he will take the mug shot, they'll take his fingerprints, and he'll go and appear before a judge and bail will be set. Typically they'll turn to the prosecution and ask what's the prosecution seeking. In the prosecution will suggest a bail amount. It wouldn't surprise me if they release him on his own recognisance. It's not like they're worried about Yeah, yeah,

it's not like he is a flight risk. So and it will be the judge ultimately who decides what the standard is for bail within the parameters of New York law. Will he be in a courtroom with a judge or will this be done by video? We saw a lot of that in COVID, where there was technology us right where you would go before a judge basically with you know, through a video camera when he walks in there, Will they take him into an actual courtroom or how does

that work? Well, let me be clear, I've never practiced law in a New York state courtroom or certainly a New York criminal courtroom, so I don't have first experience with how Manhattan handles it. But I would absolutely expect that we will see this in a courtroom and front of a live judge, with a real court reporter in bailiff and the rest. All right, so let's ask and this is my first question I want to ask you. And crazy things have happened in and around Donald Trump.

What if Donald Trump decides I don't want to go to New York, I don't want to deal with this, I don't want to show up for this. What would happen then? So that's actually an interesting legal question and it implicates a lot of different legal factors. The Constitution speaks to it. So the Constitution, there is a clause

in the Constitution called the extradition Clause. The extradition clause provides, quote, a person charged at any state with treason, felony, or other crime, who shall flee from justice and be found in another state, shall, on demand of the executive authority of the state from which he fled, be delivered up

to be removed to the state having jurisdiction of the crime. Now, if you look at the Constitutional Convention, which is where the Constitution was drafted, and if you looked at the notes, for example, on August twenty eighth, seventeen eighty seven, James Madison notes that during the constitutional editing process of Article four, which is where the extradition clause is found, that the words high misdemeanor were struck out and instead the words

other crime were inserted, which which comprehended quote all proper cases. In other words, they didn't want the state where a person was to be found making a determination as to the nature of the crime. In the states seeking extradition. Now that's in the Constitution. There's a federal statute called the Federal Extradition Act, and that's eighteen USC. Section thirty one eighty two. It follows very closely to the Constitution's

extradition Clause. It says, whenever an executive authority of any state or territory demands any person as a fugitive from justice, and it goes on to say, the executive authority of the state to which the person has fled shall cause him to be arrested and secured, and notify the executive authority making such a demand or the agency of such authority appointed to receive the fugitive, and shall cause the fugitive to be delivered. And so under the terms of

the federal statute, it's a mandatory obligation. There's also a law called the Uniform Criminal Extradition Act, which is a uniform criminal law that forty eight states have adopted, including Florida. So there's a Florida state law that puts the obligation on the governor quote to have arrested and delivered up to the executive any other state of the United States, any person charged in that state with trees and felony

or another crime. Now, it's more than a little interesting given that the executive of the state where Donald Trump is found, and he said it, made it very clear in his statement he would not work with New York City. So Rohn de Santis tweeted out the following quote. The weaponization of the legal system to advance a political agenda

turns the rule of law on its head. It is an American the Soros backed Manhattan District attorney has consistently bent the law to downgrade felonies and to excuse criminal misconduct. Yet now he is stretching the law to target a political opponent. Florida will not assist in an extradition request given the questionable circumstances at issue with this Soros backed Manhattan prosecutor at his political agenda, So de Santis is

suggesting that he would fight extradition of Donald Trump. Now, at the end of the day, if Trump refused to show up and DeSantis fought, I think it is likely that you would end up seeing Trump extradited. New York would likely seek a mandamus and federal district court in Florida to order that Trump be extradited. Presumably Florida would fight that, but I think given the Constitution, given the federal statue, given the Florida statute, it is likely that

the courts would say that. Well, for example, here's what the Supreme Court said in a case that was called the Mexico versus Read. Supreme Court said, quote, what actually happened in the demanding state, the law of the demanding state, and what may be expected to happen in the demanding state that's New York when the fugitive returns are not issues that must be tried, or rather are issues that must be tried in the courts of that state and

not in those of the asylum state. So I think given the state of the law, if Trump tried to fight, if De Santis fought alongside him, they could delay extradition. Yeah, but I think at the end of the day, it is like you would see extradition happen now assuming Trump does what he said, which is that he's going to surrender, And I think that's probably the right decision. To go and fight it and beat and beat it in court.

We won't find it out. But but if if Trump were to refuse to show up, it would create a brand new legal challenge that that that would be fascinating and difficult something like that if it did happen and played out that way. Is that something that could possibly go all the way that spring Court to go ruling? It could? Sure, Sure it could, And given the nature of a presidential campaign, it's entirely possible that it would.

As I said, I think it's likely not to be teed up because Trump has said he's going to turn himself in, and at the end of the day, I'm not sure it's in Trump's interest or to Santas's interest to drag this out for six months and then lose and be forced to do the same thing that that at the end of the day, that calculus, it's gonna be Trump that makes the decision. If you and show up,

that'll tee this up. But given the state of the law, I assume Trump's lawyers are advising him, You're not likely to win the argument that I get to be a fugitive from justice because I don't like the indictment. You're on much stronger grounds going and fighting the indictment and saying this is a political witch hunt, rather than being in fact a fugitive from justice. I think that both legally and politically is a bad look, which is why

I don't expect Trump to do that. It's very interesting to think about it, and it's when it doesn't not a Trump. You never know exactly what's going to happen. Yet you never know. And I will say sometimes history has a sense of humor. You know. I'm reminded back in two thousand and as you know, I was a baby lawyer, was part of the George W. Bush campaign, met Heidi on the campaign, and I was part of the legal team in Tallahassee and Bush versus Gore and

the entire presidency came down to that. Those legal proceedings also five hundred and thirty seven votes for George W. Bush over al Gore. One of the bizarre aspects of it is the governor of the state that the entire presidency hinged upon was Jeb Bush, the brother of one of the two governors. I remember laughing saying, you know, if you wrote this as a novel, no one would

publish it. They say, come on, this is stupid. If you submitted a screenplay, they laugh at You know, you don't get to make the governor of the key state the brother of one of the candidates. It's kind of similar here. No, you don't get to make the governor of the state that would decide what to do on extradition the leading Republican rival of the guy presumably being extradited and sometime make history. You can't make it up. It's amazing. I want to get some of these questions

on Twitter, A lot of really good questions. We're responding when we said, hey, we'll answer these questions. Before we get that, I want to tell you about our friends over at Patriot Mobile. You've got bills every month that you're going to pay, and the question is when you choose who you're gonna go with with your cell phone provider, are you king with a company that actually stands with your values or is fighting against what you believe in.

Patriot Mobile was created as the only conservative Christian cell phone coming to us because they wanted to make a difference every time. If you remember, you pay your bill now, they actually take a portion of your bill every month and they give it back to conservative causes and organizations. We're talking about defending your First Amendment rights, your Second Amendment rights, the rights of unborn children. They even help

with adoptions. This is why I love Patriot Mobile. Now you get the same cell phone number you're using right now, so it's easy to switch, and you're using the same towers, the same coverage you're used to right now. The only difference is when you make the switch, you're standing up

for what you believe in. So check them out. Go online to Patriot Mobile dot com slash verdict that's Patriot Mobile dot com slash verdict, or you can call them eight seven eight Patriot that's eight seven eight Patriot use a promo code Verdict for the best deals of the day center. I want to get some of these questions because they're really good, and this is the first one, and I think it's a great one. It says, does Trump have any recourse if after his walk of shame

slash mug shot, the case fizzles out. It's a great question because it's like, it seems so biased, it seems so political, it seems so unfair. Does he have any recourse that this thing doesn't work out for brack So, his recourses are very limited and they're primarily political. Legally, his principal resource would be under a law called forty

two USC. Section nineteen eighty three, so section nineteen eighty three and enables it says, every person who undercover undercolor of any statute, ordinance, regulation, customer usage, in other words, undercolor of state law causes the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution or laws, shall be

liable to the party injured in inaction at law. What in section nineteen eighty three enables you to do is that if a state or local official violates your constitutional rights, you can sue that state or local official for violating your constitutional rights. Section nineteen eighty three is the primary

vehicle of most civil rights lawsuits. Section nineteen eighty three is actually part of what was called the ku klux Klans laws, which were passed in the wake of the Civil War and in the wake of the Fourteenth Amendment. Section nineteen eighty three was one of the enforcement mechanisms of the Fourteenth Amendment. After the Civil War, there were

three landmark amendments that were adopted. The Thirteenth Amendment, which ended slavery, the Fourteenth Amendment, which ensures due process of law and equal protection of law, and was their designed to protect the rights principally of the slaves who had just been freed, but also of everyone else. It applied across the board. And then the fifteenth Amendment guaranteed the right to vote couldn't be denied based on race, and so the three were adopted together following the Civil War.

Trump could bring in nineteen eighty three lawsuit, there'd be a number of challenges. Number one, if he tried to sue Alvin Bragg personally, he'd be extremely unlikely to succeed. The courts interpret seems unfair by the way I understand, but the courts interpret prosecutorial immunity very very broadly. It's been referred to in numerous instances as absolute. And you know you can say it seems unfair. But I will give you the flip side of that, which is every

day people are prosecuted all across the country. And if you could sue the DA for every prosecution they brought, every murderer, every drug dealer, you would face an unlimited number of lawsuits. And you got to think about it, Ben Ferguson, would you serve as DA? Now if every murderer you you prosecuted, could sue Ben Ferguson personally and take your house and take your car. You've got a fancy to a car parked outside you don't want Yeah, yeah,

I knew you were gonna take that shot. Well played. No, it's but it's true. You would not take that job. You would say, I can't afford this, I can't afford the legal I can't afford the time it takes. So that does make sense. So there's a reason prosecutors and judges both have been given absolute immunity with very very few exceptions because of that proposition. What you can do, though,

is you can sue the office. So you could sue the District Attorney in the official capacity, not your personal capacity, which means that judgment would not be paid out of District Attorney Ben Ferguson's personal bank account, but rather out of the day the District attorney for Manhattan. The challenges of suing the office, though, are quite significant, and I actually litigated a case where we were dealing with exactly this.

It's a case called Conic versus Thompson, and it dealt with an individual named John Thompson who was prosecuted for murder in New Orleans and he was convicted of capital murder and he was sent to death row, and it was a wrongful conviction. John Thompson was innocent of the murder, and the District Attorney's office in New Orleans they had blood evidence that could have exonerated him, and they never

gave that blood evidence to John Thompson. There's a Supreme Court decision called Brady, which which requires that prosecutors have to give the defendants any exculpatory evidence, any evidence they have that could prove their innocent, they have to hand it over in the DA's office. It didn't do it, and so they convicted him. They sent John Thompson to

death row. And ultimately his lawyers actually through like pricking his fingers, they took a DNA test, they got access to the blood evidence, and they proved he was innocent. And so John Thompson was released from death row, but he'd spent fourteen years on death row for a crime he didn't commit. Well after he was released, I wasn't part of the criminal trial. I got involved. After he was released. He filed a lawsuit against the District Attorney

in New Orleans and he won. He won fourteen million dollars, a million dollars for every year of the fourteen years he was wrongfully incarcerated. That case went up to the Supreme Court, and I was in private practice at the time. I was at a firm called Morgan Lewis, one of the biggest law firms in the country, and I was leading their Supreme Court practice and their national pellet practice.

And two of my law partners had been representing John Thompson for years pro bono, doing it for free, and so they brought me in to assist on the Supreme Court case, and I spent a lot of time working with my partners on the Supreme Court case. We went to the court, I was at the argument seating at Council chamber. My partner argued the case. Unfortunately, we lost

five four and five four. The Supreme Court throughout the judgment because they said there was not a pattern in practice that was so pervasive in the office of refusing to hand over Brady materials that they were not going to hold the office liable all of just to say, Trump could presumably sue, but the chances of succeeding in a civil lawsuit afterwards are very slim. There would be serious legal impediments to winning interesting, especially if you are

on death row for fourteen years. You can't win that one. Yeah, this is obviously seems a much lower level of chance of success. Let's go to another question, and again everybody's in these end. You guys are amazing with us. Another one is are the charges that Trump was indicted for politically based or based on actual evidence? Does the indictment warrant further investigation? And what legal options does Trump have for responding to the indictment. Well, look, the indictment I

believe is wholly political. I think it is baseless. We don't know the exact terms. But what we do know is we know what we think the case is based on, right, and I think the case is based on a specific New York law. It's New York Penal Law one seven five dot zero five. Now that's a law that makes it a misdemeanor to essentially create a false business record. It defines it a little more legal ease, but it's creating a false business record. Now there's an obvious problem

with this, which is a misdemeanor. The misdemeanor under New York law has a two year statute of limitations. The conduct here occurred in twenty sixteen and The conduct, as we understand it, that this is all based on, is an alleged payment of one hundred and thirty thousand dollars made by Michael Cohen, then Donald Trump's personal attorney, to Stormy Daniels, the porn star who alleges she had an affair with Donald Trump and that the money was hush

money for her to keep quiet. And this is in the middle of the presidential campaign Trump is running against Hillary. It obviously would have been not good politically for a scandal to break right in the middle of this of an affair with a porn star. It's not illegal under New York law to have an affair with a porn star. It's not even illegal under New York law to pay hush money to a porn star. All of that. You can decide what you like about the underlying alleged conduct,

but it's not illegal in New York. What is allegedly illegal is that when Michael Cohen delivered one hundred and thirty thousand dollars to Stormy Daniels, it was recorded on the records for Trump as legal fees, when it was not in fact legal fees. It was hush money payments to the porn star. Now I said this was a misdemeanor, So how is Alvin Bragg bringing it it's beyond two years. Well, there's a second statute. It's New York Penal law one seven five one zero. That makes it a felony with

a longer statute of limitations. If the false business record was created in order to aid in the commission of another crime, so to get it from misdemeanor to felony, to get the statute of limitations longer, Alvin Bragg has to somehow bootstrap that this allegedly false business record was done to facilitate another crime. We don't know what other

crime he's going to claim. Presumably the most likely other crime is some sort of federal campaign finance violation that it was hiding what the money was being spent for. We don't know exactly sure. We do know that the Department of Justice the Southern District of New York investigated a federal campaign finance violation on this and decided not to prosecute. We also know that the Federal Elections Commissions investigated the conduct underlying this to see if there was

a violation and decided not to prosecute. So at this point, Alvin Bragg is presumably taking a federal crime that no federal official thinks is sufficient to prosecute, and using that to try to bootstrap a state crime into a felony to go after Donald Trump. I think the entire thing is crap and one of the most important points, and it's one I've made a couple of times on this podcast.

If this is a crime, if this is a felony that someone should go to jail four, then Hillary Clinton committed the exact same crime because at the exact same time, Hillary Clinton's campaign paid over a million dollars. You're an exaggerating to see exact same twenty sixteen presidential campaign. Her campaign was making the Steel dossier. The Democrat Natural Committee was helping pay for this, She was paying for this

out of the campaign finance, you know, their campaign. She had lawyers involved that we're doing this and trying to sell this. Literally it's exact same time frame. So her campaign spent over one million dollars to create the Steel dossier. The Steel Dossier, you remember, is this scurlous and scandalous dossier assembled in Europe that that alleged all these things that Trump had done, including the famous pe tape, all

of which was fiction, all of which was false. It was made up, brought to you, paid for by the Democratic Party and Hillary for president. It was and Hillary Clinton campaign recorded that over million dollars as legal fees. So if recording something as legal fees that is not legal fees in the context of a presidential campaign is criminal in Manhattan, then Hillary Clinton, a resident of New York, committed the same crime at the exact same time twenty

sixteen in the exact same place, Manhattan, New York. There is no coherent way, all right. If Alvin Bragg wants to indict Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump side by side, then they can both. Then he can lose both cases. But that at least is marginally consistent. If he only indicts Donald Trump, everyone gets the joke. He hates Trump. He's a left wing Democrat, and by any means necessary as his approach. I want to tell you about our friends at Augusta Precious Metals. It is crazy what's happening

in our economy right now. It's crazy what's happening with many people's retirement accounts. And if you want to have diversification of your financial portfolio. You need to check out august of Precious Metals A gust of Precious Medals will sit down with you, actually do a live web conference with you, talk about where you are, how close you are to retirement, and if you're close to retirement, you know how important is to preserve your wealth because you

don't have time to make up losses. That's where Augusta comes in. They'll look over what you're doing now, They'll look over your IRA you're four one k and see if you can diversify in gold and silver. Check them out online Augusta Precious Medals dot com. Also you can call them as well eight seven seven four the number

four Gold IRA eight seven seven four Gold IRA. Call them, sit down with them, take back and get rid of all that nervousness by looking at gold and silver to see if it's right for your retirement account eight seven seven four Gold IRA SNA. I want to get to another question real quick that it came in. What are the chances of dismissal? And if found innocent, can the d A face being disbarred? So I think the chances

of dismissal are high. It will depend on what trial court they get there are some partisan Democrat trial judges in New York, so it is possible they get a high highly partisan trial judge who refuses to dismiss the claims. If they have a trial judge who follows the law, I think this ought to be dismissed at trial court. If not, it should be thrown out on appeal. But if it's not dismissed at the trial court, there will almost assuredly be a motion to dismiss the indictment, a

fight early on in the trial court. If it's not dismissed in the trial court, I expect an appeal and any appellate court following the law I think will throw this out. I think this will ultimately be rejected. How long does this last? Then? That's I mean, you've got a presidential campaign here. Look, it depends, but you know, prosecutions can drag on for months and years. It depends

how quickly the New York courts operate. But it is easy to see this lasting for many months, and it could conceivably last beyond election Day twenty twenty four, which brings me to a question I have to ask as a follow up, Donald Trump, let's say gets elected, he becomes president United States of America again for another four years. Yeah, January twentieth, he's scorn in January twenty first he is convicted. What happens then? Look if he's convicted, and let's assume

for a second he's convicted and sentenced to jail. I don't think that's going to happen. Let's be clear. This is a hypothetical that I think is falls but there is nothing in the Constitution to prevent a president from serving while in jail. So for anyone who thinks, is that because they never could have imagined the scenario that we're living in right now. Yes, yes, Look, I think

that's a significant part of it that they didn't. In division, the legal system being weaponized, I mean, as you know, I wrote an entire book just a few months ago on this topic, Justice Corrupted, How the Left is weaponized the legal system. Haven't bought the book? Go by the book because it talks about Alvin Bragge, It talks about DJ it talks about the FBI. It lays out this problem. The reason I wrote the book I saw what Obama had done, what the deep Stata had done against Trump.

I saw what Joe Biden and Merritt Garland were doing. I saw what Alvin Bragg had done. This has been coming a long time. The Framers never envisioned the system being used by that. But in terms of so, there's some people who are saying, well, gosh, does the indictment mean Trump can't run? Let me tell you. Article two of the Constitution specifies the grounds to serve as president.

They're three. What Constitution says is no person except a natural born citizen, which Trump is, shall be eligible to the office of the President. Neither shall any person be eligible to that office who shall not have attained the age of thirty five years. Trump is over thirty five and been fourteen years a resident within the United States.

Those are the three criteria under the Constitution. You gotta be a natural born citizen, at least the five years old, and have been fourteen years a resident in the United States. Trump meets all three of those, so he is eligible to run for president. He's eligible to serve as president. Now, there is potentially one other ground that could make someone ineligible to serve for president. That is under the Fourteenth Amendment.

Under Section three of the Fourteenth Amendment, it provides no person shall be a senator, representative in Congress, or elector of the President or Vice president, or hold any office under the United States, who, having previously taken an oath to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid and comfort to the enemies thereof. So this is something in the fever swamps of the left, the Democratic side,

they get great joy of. Okay, Trump will be barred from running for serving as president under section three of the fourteenth Amendment, and is at least conceivable there will be lawsuits arguing Trump is ineligible under section three of the fourteenth Amendment and arguing that under that what happened on January six qualified as to use the constitutional language on insurrection or rebellion. That's why Democrats use the word insurrection so much, over and over and over again. That's

not going to succeed. I think it is highly unlikely to succeed. We might see a prosecution from the Biden Justice Department, the special prosecutor that's investigating Trump might bring a prosecution for insurrection or rebellion or giving aid in comfort to the enemies thereof. But there has been no prosecution. So excluding that if he if he was convicted of another crime, that does not mean that he is ineligible.

Because the United States could commit murder. Joe Biden could walk into the office of his chief of staff and kill his chief of staff on national television. Joe Biden could be prosecuted and sentenced to life in prison, and if nothing else happened, Joe Biden would remain the President of the United States. Wow. Now, the natural step that would happen in that hypothetical is the House of Representatives would impeach Joe Biden for having committed high crimes and misdemeanors.

And in that instance, presumably the Senate would convict him and remove him from office. But that's how you remove a president from office, is It's not it's not the conviction, it's what you do afterwards in Congress that would make you ineligible to be president. Simply a murder conviction, simply a life life imprisonment sentence would not automatically remove you from from the office. It would take the Senate convicting in an impeachment. Interesting, let's get to another question here,

another one that came through. When are we going to see indictments against the Clintons slash Bidens. I mean, the whole world has seen the evidence. What more is needed? I think this goes back to Hunter Biden, James Biden, that the Biden crime family continues to expand. People see the laptop, they see the money, they see the suspicious activity reports, and there does seem to be two different

systems of justice in this country. If you're a Democrat, you get a pass if your Republican will make up crimes against you to shut you up. I mean, how we had somebody that went to jail the other day there was convicted because they made a meme of Hillary Clinton about Hillary Clinton. And people see that and they say, we're not safe in this country if you're a Republican and the system can come after you. But Democrats, it's

good to go do whatever you want to do. Look, if you look at the conduct Hillary Clinton committed, it was all together different from this sort of conduct, and actually, as it concerns false business records, it was identical and ten x worse. In other words, Trump is alleged to have done so with one hundred and thirty thousand. Hillary Clinton is admitted to have done so with over a

million dollars the Bidens. We've talked at great length on this podcast about the evidence of corruption by the Biden family. It is significant. I believe the Biden DOJ wants to get nowhere near it. I don't believe they're investigating it. I don't believe they're looking at it. I Merrick Garland's plan was to indict Donald Trump for improperly having classified documents at Marlago. I think they were very excited. I

think they were. They had started, they had leaked. They were going to indict Hunter Biden for drug and tax issues, which don't implicate his father or the family corruption, just say poor troubled soul with a substance abuse problem. I think Merrick Garland wanted to do that in order to show how even handed he was. Look, I'm indicting a Biden, I'm inditing a Trump. See it's right in the middle.

Then a funny thing happened on the way to the forum, which as we discovered that Joe Biden had classified documents stored seemingly in every mode the orifice he had, Like, I don't understand why Biden leaves classified documents everywhere. It started to become almost a comedy of error as one

after the other after the other was discovered. What it created was a legal and even more significantly, a political problem for Merrick Garland in that Now, now I think Garland understands if DOJ indicts Donald Trump for classified documents at Marlago, it is indefensible not to indict Joe Biden for the same thing, and so I think they feel just stuck. Right now, we've talked about the special counsel

who's been appointed to investigate the Biden classified documents. The real question that will indicate whether that special counsel is fulfilling his oath is whether he's willing to investigate and does in fact investigate the connections of corruption back to Joe Biden himself, or whether he seals him off and doesn't look at the corruption. I hope they do. I have to say, my level of optimism that the Biden DOJ will investigate or prosecute the Biden family corruption is extremely,

extremely low. I want to get to one other question before we get to my orchist because I want to make sure we leave time for that and what he had to say on sixteen minutes. But the last one. Here's a thread and I kind of want you to go through it so people understand, and this is an important one. So this is an individual. So we had when we put out on Twitter said you have questions about the Trump indictment. We had a lot of good questions, a number of which we went through in this podcast.

We also had trolls on the left who just kind of had fun, and that's fine. I enjoyed trolls. I have to admit Twitter would be more bully boring without the trolls. I enjoy jousting with lefties. It's it's you know, it's usually like shooting fish in a barrel. But in this instance, this person, presumably from the left, sent sent out a tweet that is copying an earlier tweet I had sent that said elected officials, no matter how high

their position, should be held accountable for criminal conduct. The rule of law matters. And this individual says, my question is this you haha lefty? Yeah, yeah, yeah, I got him. Well, this was actually part of a threat of tweets that I had sent about Hillary Clinton. So if you look at the thread, the first email, this was on October twenty eight, twenty sixteen, which is Americans already know Hillary Clinton a lifelong pattern of corruption, and I linked to

a detailed summary of that lifelong pattern. The second tweet was it's abundantly clear her handling of classified info and a private email server was grossly negligent, as the FBI admitted this summer. You remember James come at his press conference admitting she'd violated the law and it was grossly negligent. And then the third tweet was elected officials, no matter how high their position, should be held accountable for criminal conduct. The rule of law matters. Every bit of that is

absolutely right. And with Hillary Clinton, you saw a repeated pattern of criminal behavior. And you also saw a repeated pattern of the destruction of evidence, including wiping hard drives, including using hammers to smash cell phones to destroy the evidence. By the way, as a legal matter, if you destroy evidence, you are entitled to presume that that is because the

evidence would have implicated you in a crime. In this instance, the alleged crime that Alvin Bragg is bringing of a book keeping error is number one trivial, number two past the statute of limitations, and number three obviously pretextual to

say the rule of law matters. Look, there's a concommit and aspect to it, which is, when you are prosecuting a government official, particularly a government official of the opposing party, there is an obligation that you have a standard that this really mattered, that this be a real and significant violation, that it not be some tikie tack. Aha. I got video of you going fifty six miles an hour and a fifty five we're coming to put you away. That

principle is absolutely true, and listen. I'm not advocating that Biden be prosecuted for tikie tack irrelevant issues. I'm interested in whether he was engaged in actual corruption with the government of the Chinese Communist government that was enriching himself and his family to the tune of millions of dollars. That's classic public corruption. It is significant, it is consequential, and the corporate media and the Democrats desperately want to

avoid any inquiry to that. I don't expect the DOJ to get into it. I do expect the House of Representatives to continue to press forward with oversight and make those facts public and decided if someone's going to try to troll you, they should at least read the whole Twitter thread before they do it. Public service announcement there, you know. Oddly enough, trolls are rarely known for their diligence and attention to detail. Yeah, I want to talk

about Americus real quick. The border. It's a really important issue. You had a bunch of back and forth with Americus when he was testifying recently, we've talked about in the pot. If you missed it, go back and listen to that. Before we get that, I want to tell you about our friends at Chalk. If you're a guy and you're getting older and you feel like you're losing some of your edge, you need to check out Chuck c dot com. Check them out because they can help boost your testosterone

levels up to twenty percent over ninety days. By taking Chalk's mail Vitality Stack, you can maximize your masculinity and you can do it right now. By going to chalkhoq dot com. Now use the code been You're gonna get thirty five percent off any Chuck subscription for life. I'm taking the Vitality Stack. I can tell you it has made a difference. It's actually really cool. Check them out. Don't feel like you're just getting older. Fight back and check out what they can do for you. Chuckhoq dot

com use the codeben for thirty five percent off. That's chuckhoq dot com Center. Let's talk about what's been happening with my artist of the border. You talk to him about what was going out the border. It's now becoming, I think a political liability for the Biden administration when you see the media asking questions that they refuse to answer. One of those happened on sixty minutes, and I won't people to see what was said to take a look.

The chief of the Border Patrol Role Ortiz, testified with poor Congress that some areas of the border are in a crisis situation. Do you agree? I think that we face a very serious challenge in certain parts of the border. Do you view what's happening right now and the border is a crisis? I view it as a significant challenge. Why won't you say the word crisis? You know what? Because I have tremendous faith in the people of the Department of Homeland Security, and a crisis speaks to me

of a withdrawal from our mission. And we are only putting more force and more energy into it. I don't believe him. I think you would probably agree that. I also think at some point you just look like an idiot when you won't admit what everybody's watching. You know, we're looking at now over six million illegal immigrants have crossed under his watch. Under Joe Biden's presidency, It's the

worst illegal immigration in our nation's history. We have had also massive spikes in the number of illegal grants dying on the border under his watch. We had the highest rate of drug overdoses last year in our nation's history. Over one hundred thousand Americans died of drug overdoses, the vast majority from Chinese fentinol flooding across the border. And he doesn't consider any of that a crisis. Look, what he's doing is obvious. It's political. He is engaging in

political spin. Someone is giving him a talking point that if you say the word crisis, it's bad politics, and so he engages an absolute denial of reality. You know, it really was striking sixty minutes. Their cross examination is almost word for word the cross examination I did a week earlier in the Senate Judiciary Committee. Here, take a look, is there a crisis at our southern border. Senator, there is a very that's a yes or no. Is there

a crisis? Senator, there's a very significant channel. I think your microphone is not on. There is a very significant challenge that we are face. Yes or no, there are a crisis. I believe I've addressed that question. So you're refusing to answer, center, there is a very significant challenge, and will you answer if there's a crisis. Therefore we are dedicating the resource. Okay, So you're refusing to answer.

It reminds me of my kids arguing with Siri when they're trying to get Siri to do something for them. He refused five times, so five times in a row. I ask him, as there are a crisis, now no, he won't say no yeah, and he won't say yes yeah. When you ask is there a crisis, he says there's a significant challenge. It was clear some little pip squeak political staff or gave a talking point when everyone asks a crisis, say there's a significant challenge. I think it's

a mistake not to answer questions. He's a horrible witness, but it says something that even the press sixty minutes. I mean, I mean to see sixty minutes, laughing, saying why would you admit it's a crisis like Look later in my questioning is as you know, I got very angry with Mayorcas, and I am very angry with Mayorcas because for me this is personal. Look, I represent thirty million Texans. I'm down on the border. I see the people in South Texas that are suffering. I've seen the

children who are physically assaulted. I've seen the women who've been raped. I've seen the human carnage. I've seen dead bodies floating in the rio. Grand the wristbands that you showed at the hearing the other week, which he didn't know what they were, yeah, I have to say in the entire hearing, that was the moment that stunned me the most. When I put up the wristbands. That wasn't

meant to be a gotcha question. I was going to ask him about how tragic it was that the cartels are putting color coded wristbands on the wrists of almost every illegal immigrant to correspond to how many thousands of dollars they owe. That they treat them like human cattle. They treat them like cargo. They trapped the teenage boys and working for the drug dealers and cities across America

they trapped the teenage girls and sex slavery. All of that is horrific, which I intended to ask him about, but I was stunned when he said, I don't know what those risk bands are like you have literally not even pretended to do your job. If that's the case, because it means when you stand on the banks of the Rio Grand you see them covering the grass, You look down and just see hundreds, you see thousands of them.

You see little ones that are clearly on little kids, that are on four or five six year old kids. When you talk to border patrol agents. What it means if he was telling the truth, if he wasn't lying. I don't know if he was lying when he said he didn't know what those were, But if he was telling the truth, it means he hasn't bothered in two years on the job to sit down with his agents say hey, what's happening? And I got to say his defense in sixty minutes. Well, I won't say it's a

crisis because it's I believe in in my agents. What a steaming pile of crap. I gotta tell you, his agents don't believe in him. I talk to his agents, They'll all tell you it's a crisis. Every one of them will tell you it's a crisis, and it's a crisis because of him, and it's a crisis because of Joe Biden. I'm going to make a prediction within six months,

may Orchis will be out of his job. Really, I don't know if he'll resign or if Biden will fire him, but I think the Democrats have decided to make Mayorcis the scapegoat, even sending him out on sixty minutes. And it looks like the media is clearly kind of starting to become done with him. And I want to show this last clip because it proves that point. Look, but the DHS estimates another six hundred thousand people evaded agents and entered the US illegally, the highest number in over

a decade. What the American people see is a border that looks to be chaotic, that looks to be porous. Well, let's I mean, the number of people that are arriving at our border is at an extraordinary height, There's no question about that. But that is not unique to the southern border. Of the United States. There is a tremendous amount of movement throughout the hemisphere and in fact throughout the world. The fact that even sixty minutes would show

those images tells you that the tide is turning. But then also the fact that he's got such a terrible response to their question with video evidence tells you something else. Well, look, it's the talking point of the Democrats. We saw this at the hearing with Mayorchis and Judiciary where they also this is not Biden's fault. There was illegal immigration before Biden, and it's a problem elsewhere in the world. It's all

part of It's not our fault, not our fault. We didn't do anything wrong except for one very inconvenient fact. In twenty twenty, the last year of Trump's presidency, we had the lowest rate of illegal immigration in forty five years. The instant Joe Biden became president, the rates skyrocketed that week, Yeah, skyrocketed. We now have the highest rate ever recorded. We went from the lowest rate in forty five years to the

highest rate ever recorded. We went instantaneously because of Joe Biden and Alhandro, may Orcus's decisions and I told you the moment at the Judiciary hearing when I really realized, Wow, the Democrats have decided they found their scapegoat, and he's a bald Cuban in the cabinet. Which is when may Orcus was getting pummeled by me and he looked to Dick Durban, the chairman of the committee, and said, mister chairman, will you help me? And Durban I've spent eleven years

tangling with Durban. He loves to argue with me. I actually love to argue with them. We have been in there pounding on each other many times. He just looked and kind of shrugged and was like, didn't say a word, and I was like, start what you were expecting it? Durbin? All right? If it had been Merrick Garland, who done the exact same thing, Durban would have jumped in and started arguing with me, which is what he always does. There.

You can google and find a dozen videos of Durban jumping in and arguing with me when I'm questioning a witness and it's a Democrat witness, a Biden cabinet member or Obama cabinet member, and they're taking on water. It's not going well for them. Durban like clockwork will jump in and try to protect them, and the fact that he just kind of shrugged and it's like nope, you're on your own, buddy. It's said to me, Wow, Okay, they've made a decision. He's their guy. This is a problem,

and he's the fall guy. Within six months, I think may Orcus is gone. It's gonna be a big week in political history. It's gonna be very interesting to see what happens, how this plays out in New York. I can promise you this. We will be covering it on Verdict, So make sure that subscribe button, hit that auto download button. Remember if you're watching this, we do two audio only versions, so subscribe wherever you get your podcasts. You can tell Syria or Alexa play Verdict with tech Cruz. It will

play it for you automatically. We will be on top of it all this week. We even did a podcast on Thursday night, so that's Friday morning, like two in them morning. Now this week when all this hits, so we will be doing this for you. And subscribe on YouTube too, So subscribe to the audio podcast but also YouTube so you get the videos once a week and get the audios three times a week BINGO, So we'll see you guys on our video and audio all week long.

We'll see you then, Thanks for watching and listening as always,