Trump Pleads Not Guilty - What Happens Now?

It was pitiful, It was an abusive power, it was partisan, and I got to say my biggest sentiment from yesterday was that it was underwhelming. You and I have been talking now for a week about this impending indictment, and we laid out the grounds on which the indictment was expected, and I got to say, a bunch of lefties on Twitter were coming after us saying, well, how can Cruz No, this can't possibly be the case. There the indictment is seen,

there's more there. It reminded me of the breathless apprehension that the left had for the Muller Report. The Mulla Report was going to prove everything. I still remember you remember the S and L episode where Robert de Niro played Robert Mueller, and they ask you, you know, do you have the goods? He's like, I got I got him, I got him, And oh, every Democrat heart went pitter patter, pitter patter. It's got to be there. It's got to

be there, it's got to be there. Well, for the last week, as you and I have been analyzing what was expected in this indictment, lefties on Twitter we're saying, no, no, no, you haven't seen the indictment. You don't know what's there. Well, you know what we've seen. Now we've seen the indictment, and there ain't nothing there. It was so utterly and

completely underwhelming. In fact, I gotta say one of the more amusing things so on Twitter, you know what's trending, even CNN, the words even CNN, because even CNN said, all right, this is underwhelming. This ain't nothing. The entire indictment consists of thirty four counts of the same thing, and the same thing is what we've been telling you for a week it was going to be, which is a violation of New York penal law one seventy five

one zero. Now, as you recall New York penal law makes it a misdemeanor to create a false business record. That misdemeanor has a two year statute of limitation. So Alvin Bragg had charged Trump on the misdemeanor, the case would be thrown out immediately because more than two years has passed since twenty sixteen. So he had to instead proceed under a different New York penal law, section one seventy five point one zero. To do that, he had to allege that it was a false business record in

furtherance of another crime. That is the bootstrap through which he can elevate under New York law a misdemeanor into a felony and get a longer statute of limitations. Well, that's, in fact, exactly what he did. All thirty four counts, same thing, over and over and over again. But I got to say the amazing thing. The indictment doesn't specify what the other crime is that this was allegedly in

furtherance of. In other words, it just repeats false business record, false business record, false business record, and it has the boilerplate language in furtherance of another crime. But it's almost like the district attorney said, never mind, we don't know what that other crime is. Look, you and I had speculated on this podcast what the other crime could be. It might have been. The most likely candidate was a federal campaign finance violation, which raises all sorts of problems,

but that was the most likely alleged crime. Well, Alvin Bragg didn't allege that, he didn't specify what the crime is. That's truly amazing. It's underwhelming. This case is nothing but politics, and the result is it's going to be thrown out. You know. One of the interesting things that you just mentioned was the shock of how this indictment was so absurd, to the fact that he's saying, well, there was a crime that was committed, possibly, but we won't tell you

what the crime is. Well, the whole point of an indictment is so that the accused knows what they're being accused of. Donald Trump went home not knowing what he was accused of, and even his lawyers when they walked out of that courtroom, they seemed to be dumbfounded at the idea that we were even at a point where you would have an indictment, a thirty four count indictment, and you still wouldn't know what the actual crime is that they're accusing of committing. And Alan Bragg's like, well,

you know it could be. Well, we'll let you know. We didn't list it. We don't have to list it. Here's his attorney's trumps of trains with their own words that just happen to somebody who was the president of the United States, and UM, on the one hand, On the one hand, there's not really any surprises. UM. I know there was a lot of talk over the past several weeks, in the past several days about what's going to be in this indictment and what's going to be

there that UM, we don't know. There must be something besides what we've been talking about for the past, um four or five years. There wasn't, there's nothing. The indictment itself is boiler plate. It doesn't allege, UM, any federal crime, any state crime that's been violated. It doesn't allege what the false statement is, UM. And it's really disappointing. It's sad, and we're gonna fight it. We're gonna fight it. Were

you surprised, Were you surprised by anything in the adictment? No, how about you, Joe, I was surprised there were no faction there. I mean normally in an indictment have alleged facts. So they said that this was a false business record entry to the agent, but another crime. We're not seeing

what the other crime was. I mean, the last thing that he said there was it's aiding ebetting another crime, and they don't list with the other crime is have you ever seen something that is basically this incomplete to charge someone, especially at the level of the President of the United States of America. Yeah, Look, maybe on a half assed indictment of someone convicted of shoplifting or joy riding in a car, but not in a high profile,

serious case. Listen, the district attorney knew that everyone on earth would fly suspect this indictment. They would read it. This indictment. To be honest, a first year law student could cut and pace and produce this indictment Number one, the thirty four counts. I have to admit I was kind of curious, Okay, what are the thirty four things he's done? I didn't know about thirty four things he

was alleged to have done. Well, it turns out the thirty four counts are just thirty four individual entries in the bookkeeping. So it is the same basic crime alleged to have occurred month by month by month. Also, Alvin Bragg did something quite unusual, so he released the indictment and then he released an additional document called a statement of facts. Now, usually an indictment includes some pretty specific

factual allegations. This one doesn't at all. It just has the boiler plant language about false bookkeeping records in furtherance of another crime. Doesn't specify what the other crime is. The statement of facts is intended to be more of a narrative. It frankly as a media document. It was meant for media consumption, and it describes what the prosecutors think went on, and it talks about several things. One of the things that talks about is the National Inquirer

and the National Enquirer their publisher David Pecker. By the way, I will say, as an aside, talk about someone named out of Charles Dickens. I'm not a fan of this particular individual. It is God has a sense of humor. But the indictment describes how Trump met with David Pecker and had a plan that the National Inquirer was going to assist in Trump's presidential campaign. Now you might like that,

you might not like that, but it's not criminal. And let me be clear, I don't exactly have an absence of sentiments on this because when the National Inquirer got in bed with the Trump campaign, the first target they directed their enmity at was me. Yeah, and they ran multiple stories, the most ludicrous of which was alleging that my father had killed JFK. Look, that is part of what David Pecker made a decision. He was essentially tried

to do everything he could to elect Donald Trump. So that's part of this indictment, not concerning me, thankfully, but concerning attacks on Donald Trump and people who came forward with allegations against Donald Trump, where the National Enquirer agreed to work to try to quash those stories. Now, listen, whether you like or dislike media outlets deciding they want to support a particular candidate and help them. That happens

in politics all the time. Yeah, unless you're prepared to indict abcnbccbs CNN, AN MSNBC for crawling in bed and spooning with Joe Biden, then that is not in fact criminal conduct. Whether you agree or disagree with the political decision that particular media outlet makes. So the statement of facts also details a couple of different payments. Want a payment that went to Karen mc dougal for one hundred and fifty thousand dollars. Secondly, a payment that went to

Stormy Daniels for one hundred and thirty thousand dollars. Now, those are both women who alleged that they had had affairs with Donald Trump. I don't know if that's true or false, but that's what they alleged, and the indictment alleged that Trump paid them one hundred and fifty thousand dollars one hundred thirty thousand dollars respectively. As we've discussed on the podcast, whether that's true or false, that's not illegal. There's no law in New York state against an individual

having an affair. There's no law in New York State against an individual paying anyone involved in an affair not to talk about it publicly. That is all entirely legal. What is alleged in this statement of fact is that Michael Cohen, the personal attorney to Donald Trump, paid one hundred and thirty thousand dollars to Stormy Daniels, and that

Trump then reimbursed Michael Cohen and we now know. So the math that's laid out in the State of Facts is that Cohen paid one hundred and thirty thousand dollars to Stormy Daniels and then apparently fifty thousand dollars for quote, another expense, and it doesn't tell us what this other

expense is. So that's one hundred and thirty thousand plus fifty thousand, that's one hundred and eighty thousand, and apparently what happened is they took that one hundred eighty thousand, they doubled it to three hundred and sixty thousand, because when Michael Cohen was paid back, he would have to pay taxes federal taxes and state taxes for the money

being paid. So the basic math was, if you pay him three hundred and sixty thousand dollars and he pays fifty percent taxes, he would recoup his one hundred and eighty thousand dollars. And then they decided to pay him an additional sixty thousand dollars on top of that, which the Statement of Facts calls a supplemental year end bonus. So all in he was paid four hundred and twenty thousand dollars. And that was paid in a series of payments of thirty five thousand dollars a month. And by

the way, what are the thirty four counts. It's each of those payments. It's each of the record keeping. It's literally entering it into the books. That's account writing, the check, that's account, and that's account in the month of January, it's account in the month of February, it's account in the month of March, April, May, June, July. That's how they get to their thirty four counts. So in translations, the same damn thing over and over again, and that's

how they got to it's each month's payment. Yes, so each month's payment. Wow. And when you hear it that way, it makes you even more angry at what has happened here and the fact that Donald Trump is even having to send in this scenario. And there were even people in the media that were asking questions about this, like, are you sure this is a really good idea? There was an NBC News reporter that confronted Brag about the previous da and the Feds not pursuing these exact charges

against Trump. I want to play that. Before I get that, I want to tell you about our friends that guests the Precious Medals. You have seen what's been going on in the economy, and if you are close to retirement, planning for retirement, or in retirement, you know how important it is to preserve your wealth. Right now, I've been using a Gust of Precious Metals. They are a awesome conservative company and if you want to understand what a gold IRA can do for you diversifying in gold or silver,

then you need to call them. I trust them, I use them. Now. Here's what they do that's different. A Gust of Precious Medals is all about protecting iras and four oh one ks in this crazy economy. And they do a one on one web conference with you so that you understand how gold and silver can work for you. What does that cost nothing. You can sit down with them, talk about your financial future, your retirement, your four oh one K and see if gold or silver is right

for you. They'll also send you their free gold IRA info guide as well, So give them a buzz seven seven four the number four Gold Ira age seven seven the number four Gold Ira or online at Augusta Precious Metals Dot com. That's Augusta Precious Metals dot Com. Use the promo code Ben and you will get ten years of fees covered up to ten years, which is pretty awesome.

Augusta Precious Meals dot Com centator. I want to play for you this NBC News reporter because I think the media was also honestly shocked at how weak this indictment, This thirty four count indictment was for quote felonies out of thin air, and NBC News called brag out for this, saying like, hey, did you screw up basically listen, reservations, readiness, What was the questions in your mind that needed to be up screw I'm not going to go chapter and

verse into many thinking. What I will say is I believe the time period you're talking about, I'd been in office for a couple of months. The investigation, in my view, was not concluded into the conduct in particular, that is the base for the charges Today. Since that time, we've had more evidence made available to the office and opportunity to meet with additional witnesses. So, as I said earlier, I've been doing this for twenty four years. I don't

bring cases prior to author and rigorous investigation. Now having done so, the case has been brought Rad Garrett Hayker, NBC News. Your predecessor took a hard look at this case and decided not to charge it. Federal prosecutors took a hard look at this case and decided not to charge it. Do you believe you have new evidence that led you to decide to charge this for why? Now, as I just mentioned, we had available to the office additional evidence that was not in the office's possession prior

to my time here. And as to you you're part of your question about the federal we have a strong, i would say profound independent interests in New York State. This is the business capital of the world. We regularly do cases involving false business statements. The bedrock, in fact, the basis for business integrity and a well functioning business marketplace is true and accurate record keeping. That's the charge of thought here, falsefying New York State business records. So, Senator,

he's making up two different things here. One is when we have the new evidence, doesn't have to share that with Donald Trump and this indictment. Wouldn't you have to say what that new evidence is? Number one and two then then he basically doesn't tell you what it is and goes back to the original statement. Yeah, there's virtually no new evidence in this indictment or this statement of fact.

This is all based on allegations that have been around for years, have been around for many years that prosecutor after prosecutor of look and concluded that there was not a crime they could prosecute. Where are we now? Trump came into court, he pleaded not guilty, he left. It ended up the DA made an interesting decision. They didn't do the mug shot. And by the way, the decision not to do the mug shot was entirely political. You

and I predicted on this podcast. By the way, I want to take a moment of victory lap on this podcast on Monday, I said Trump will come in wearing a Chris blue a beautiful blue blue suit, a Chris white shirt, and a bright red Donald J. Trump tie.

That is exactly what he was wearing. The only piece I did not accurately predict is I didn't realize that that Alvin Bragg would be so political he'd decide, Okay, we now have the first defendant in the history of New York City who doesn't get a mug shot, So they skipped the mugshot because they didn't want to give

the picture to Trump. So instead we have pictures from him in the courtroom in exactly the attire that we predicted on this podcast that let's go to scream to the politics of this though, that's so political that you didn't even give the mug chat because I didn't want him to use it. Yes, can you use that? As they realize the mug shot. Well, so the next step Trump is scheduled to go back to court December fourth. Now, listen, it's early April. December fourth is a really long time away.

That's weird. That's weird that it's dragging along that slowly. In the meantime, it is a virtual certainty that Trump's legal team will file a motion to dismiss, and they might file emotion to smiss on multiple grounds. One ground they could file is is that the indictment is deficient. The entire basis for getting around the statute of limitations and making it a felony is that that the false business records allegedly were in furtherance of another crime. They

don't specify what that crime is. That's One of the first grounds on which you'd file emotion is to say, if you don't specify what the crime is, you have not pleaded the crime under New York state law. I think that a motion to dismiss on that basis is quite likely. I think you're also likely to see a motion to dismiss, maybe the same motion, maybe a different motion based on vindictive or selected prosecution. Alvin Bragg ran for office, and on his campaign, on the campaign trail,

he promised to quote get Trump. That is, on its face, it's screams of selective prosecution. That this is a political left wing Democrat who wanted to go after a political opponent that he hated, and that's what was going on here. I think we will see that issue litigated early on at the outset. I think another issue that you're likely to see raised the entire basis of the crime, alleged crime,

is that these were false business records. It's not clear that the records that issue are business records at all. Donald Trump paid these funds from his personal accounts or the blind trust that was erected to hold his assets while he was president. In other words, it wasn't from the Trump corporation. It wasn't a business entity. Now, the statement of facts refers to some personnel in the Trump organization who were involved in cutting the checks. But the

checks they cut, we're not business checks. They were checks from Trump's personal funds. And so listen, if Ben Ferguson writes a check to somebody, that is not a business record under the ordinary interpretation of it. So that's another ground on which I would expect this to be litigated and challenged. And I think all of those are series grounds. This indictment was not brought to get a conviction. This indictment was not brought to try to actually put Trump

in jail. This indictment was brought to be a political smear. And the irony is in that one regard as a political smear. It is horrendously inept. In other words, listen, I'll be surprised if next week Trump is not at sixty percent in the GOP primary. I've already described how this is the single greatest in kind contribution to the Trump twenty twenty four campaign that I've ever seen, brought by Alvin Bragg, the left wing George Soros Democrat DA.

So if their purpose was a political smear. It titilated the excitement of the left who hates Trump, but I don't think it succeeded in the purpose that they hoped it would. Yeah, I don't think it did either. But I also think that there's a problem now for this president that is the political side of can he get this dismiss senator before December or are his hands literally tied and his legal team's hands tied until December, which you know means then this is gonna this is going

to be an issue well into this election cycle. Look, this is going to be an issue into this election cycle. There was no getting around that the Democrats hate Trump, and so they were going to argue about indicting him, potentially indicting him, wanting to indict him right up until election day, that that was going to happen. Regardless, I would like to see this resolved quickly. I don't know if the New York state courts will operate quickly. I

do think there's another whole set of issues. The judge admonished Trump about his rhetoric. I gotta say so, there's not a gag order in place, but if the judge tried to put a gag order in place. I think that would raise very significant First Amendment issues. Trump is not an ordinary defendant. He is a leading candidate for

president of the United States. And the idea that a New York State judge would try to impose legal penalties on one of the leading candidates for president of the United States, who happens to be a former president from speaking his mind about just about any issue of public concern is really an astonishing and an unprecedented notion. And so I don't think the judge will try to enter a gag order, because it really is To say that's

playing with dynamite would be an understatement. But I was more than a little concerned by the judge admonishing rhetoric because it's none of his damn business. This is not a mob boss who is threatening retaliation against a prosecutor. This is, in fact, a partisan prosecutor who ran promising retaliation against a political opponent whom he hates. And so I think that there's a whole world of potential problems that could rise, but they haven't risen yet, and I

actually don't think they will. I don't know this judge, but I would be surprised if the judge, were that foolish, because any effort to silence a leading contender for president, I think would be doomed a failure. I want to ask you about another shock, and that was the media spreading what I would refer to as fake news about some of these charges. And before I play that, I want to tell you about our friends of her Chalk.

If you're a guy and you're getting a little bit older and you feel like you're losing a little bit of that edge, you're losing some of that strength and vitality, and you want to figure out how to fight back, you can do it now with the patriots at Chalk. They are here to help real American men take back their right to proudly maximize your masculinity by boosting testosterum

levels up to twenty percent over ninety days. I've been taking Chalk, you can check him out chalk choq dot com for now almost two months, and I've been taking the Male Vitality Stack. It works. You should look at it. If you feel like you're losing a little bit of that edge, then check it out and see what Chalk can do for you. Manufactured right here in the USA, Chalk's natural supplements are clinically proven to have game changing

effects on your energy and your focus as well. Maximize your masculinity today go to chalkcoq dot com use the code Ben for thirty five percent off any Chalk subscription for life. Cancel Anytimehoq dot com use promo code Ben for thirty five percent off. Senator, the media was also out there and they were obsessed. It was almost like the word was sent out to everybody in the media ABCNBCCNN, MSNBC.

The list goes on to use a big word to make this sound like Donald trumpson deep you know what, And the word they were obsessed with today was the word conspiracy. I'm going to play this montage for you and I want to get your reaction. Trump pleaded not guilty in the Manhattan courtroom again to thirty four counts

of falsifying business records and conspiracy. Conspiracy is a very effective tool used by prosecutors to charge someone, charge groups of people, and hold them accountable for all acts in furtherance of the conspiracy. But the big question now rises, who is the conspiracy? Thirty four counts of falsifying records and conspiracy is thirty four counts of falsifying business records and conspiracy. More information. We need to see what was the purpose of the conspiracy, who was in the conspiracy,

what were the so called overt acts? You actually have to take a step in for servants for the resiance of that conspiracy. You don't actually have to complete the conspiracy. You don't actually have to go through with it. You can just intend to go through living now, now, center, I've got a whole another minute of this type of talk. I'm not gonna I think everybody gets the point here. They were obsessed with this word conspiracy. Was the president

charge with conspiracy today? No? Ok, Look, listening to that montage, you want to know the definition of fake news. You just saw it. You can read the indictment. They're thirty four counts. They're thirty four counts of all the same thing, which is a fraudulent business record in furtherance of another crime. There is no conspiracy count. You know, one of those commentators said a conspiracy count can be a very powerful tool. That's actually accurate, But that's not what Alvin Bragg brought.

There was no conspiracy charge, and every one of those commentators, assuming every one of them is talking after the indictment came out. Those news organizations should all issue retractions or corrections because there is no conspiracy charge and any news organization saying to the contrary is lying to the American people. Let's talk about another aspect of this, and that is how do you move forward if you're running for president with this hanging over your head? And also, I think

it's pretty clear now that other indictments could happen. We may have mug shots of the president and the next couple of months, depending on these other cases. This is a distraction. It's going to be a big distraction. It's going to take time, energy, money, focus away. And they're trying to place it out in the voters heads that you can't vote for Donald Trump because if you do vote for a guy like Donald Trump, he might go

to jail and therefore you're wasting your vote. That's obviously what the media is trying to do here and what the Democrats are hoping is going to happen. So how do the American people look at this moving forward? And if it grows? Senator, is that a reason to bail on? Say? All right, they've done their damage, Fine, we'll figure out something else. Look, this is blatant election interference by rabid Democrats, whether it is alvit Bragg, whether it is the Biden

White House and the Biden Department of Justice. And we've talked at great length about how I believe Merrick Garland desperately wants to indict Donald Trump, or whether it is a left wing Georgia prosecutor with a grand jury who is a self described which all of these I believe are partisan efforts to use the criminal justice system to subvert the will of the voters. If you're a Democrat and you don't want Donald Trump to win, there's an obvious avenue to pursue, which is try to beat him

in an election. If you're a Republican, and there's certainly some Republicans who don't want Donald Trump to win, the obvious answer is to beat him in a primary election. That's actually how our political process works. We're going to have primaries to select the Republican nominee in the Democrat nominee, and we should be debating who the best nominee is, who has the best record, who is the most likely to win, who would make the best president. That's the

essence of politics. What is happening as these left wing Democrats they don't trust the voters. They don't want to have the voters make that determination. They don't actually want to have to make their case to the voters. Instead, they're trying to end run the will of the voters by pursuing bogus and abusive prosecutions. I think that is an endeavor doomed to fail, And ironically, the more they do it, the more they end up politically benefiting and

boosting Donald Trump. And I'd like to see all these ridiculous prosecutions stop and let the voters decide. Let's have a real and meaningful debate about the right direction for the country, not a partisan witch hunt driven by Democrats who ultimately are angry with the voters in twenty sixteen for having dared to elect Donald Trump in the first place. I want to ask you one other question politically about this.

And there was a lot of conservatives I saw today that we're saying, Okay, if this is how the game's going to be played, then there needs to be conservative das around the country that go ahead and jump in and start charging Democrats with crimes. Hunter Biden James Biden, Joe Biden, Hillary Clinton. The list goes on on to show them, if they're going to do it, we'll do it too. What is your reaction to that strategy where they're saying, all right, they want to go to the mattresses.

We can't just keep sitting back. You're acting like we're statesman. If they want to play by these rules, let's play by these rules. Look at some level, it may be inevitable. We talked about when Verdict launched. The first night this podcast came into existence was the first night of the

very first impeachment of Donald Trump. One of the things that we said in the opening days of Verdict is the Democrats are crossing a rubicon and they are creating a new environment where whenever you have a House representatives from one party and a president from the opposing party, the odds of impeachment being used as a means of

political warfare have risen dramatically. Now, I wish the Democrats had not crossed that line, and I think our country is worse off when you have the impeachment of the president as a routine matter of political battle. But I think the Democrats have pushed us in that direction. I think what Alvin Bragg has done, and I think what Merrick Garland wants to do would push us dramatically more in that direction, where it's not just impeachment, which the

American people do understand, it's politicians attacking politicians. There is inevitably some element of politics to it. An indictment and a prosecution is meant to be separate and apart from politics. So listen, part of me, my heart hurts when I hear people saying, all right, Republicans, go indict the Democrats. Now, I don't want to see our legal system used as a weapon and tool of political retribution. Now, to be clear, I've said repeatedly the Department of Justice should investigate the

Biden family and Joe Biden in particular for corruption. Official public corruption is a responsibility of the Department of Justice, and I think there is significant evidence that Joe Biden personally has profited and that his family has profited from communist China and also from Barisma, the Ukrainian natural gas company. Those investigations are perfectly appropriate. Ideally they should happen in the Department of Justice, even though it is headed by

a Democrat attorney general. But I do think we've got a good possibility of seeing some Republican DA somewhere who decides, all right, I want to be famous like Alvin Bragg. I'm going to go do this too. And I got to say that is much worse for the rule of law. It's worse for the constitution, It's worse for our democratically elected government if we go down that road. But Alvin Bragg and Merrick Garland have pushed us a long long

way down that road. And I understand the rage and fury that is leading people to call for that last question for you. Don't want to ask you about these future indictments. Before we get that, I want to remind you about our friends at Patriot Mobile. Patriot Mobile is the only conservative Christian cell phone coming in the US, and they are a company where every single time that you pay your bill, you actually are supporting the causes

and organizations that fight for our values. If you want to know that when you are writing a check, when you're spending money each month, it's going to companies that stand up for what you believe in instead of what commies fighting against what you believe in. Patriot Mobile is where you need to be. Switching is easy. You get

to keep your same cell phone number. You can keep your same cell phone you have right now in your hand, or you can upgrade to a new one, and many times you'll actually save money over what you're spending right now. And on top of that, they take a percentage of your bill every month and they give it back to conservative causes that fight for First Amendment rights, our Second Amendment rights, rights of unborn children, even help now with adoptions.

In a post reviewweight World. This is a company I've been using for years. They're amazing. So stand with other conservatives and make a difference with every phone call. Call Patriot Mobile to day, or go online to Patriot Mobile dot com slash ben, Patriot Mobile dot com slash ben, or you can go to eight seven eight Patriot. That's eight seven eight Patriot or Patriotmobile dot com slash ben.

Last question for you, Center, and that is with this indictment today, is do you believe it's going to be pretty easy now to get these other indictments against Donald Trump? Because those grand juries are gonna say this prosecutor and say, hey, they've already done it in New York. You're not going to be the first go ahead and take the leap. Maybe. Look, I think it makes it a little bit easier, but but I don't think it makes it much easier. The

Atlanta investigation, I don't really know. I don't know that that prosecutor as we discuss the grand jury for a woman, the fact that she went on a media tour broadcasting her partisan dislike for Trump, that's a real problem for the prosecutors. I promise you the Atlanta prosecutors were horrified when she did that. It will raise if there is an indictment, it will raise an obvious ground for challenging that indictment. The greatest peril legally has always been the

Department of Justice. And listen, the Department of Justice has a unique role. It is the exclusive enforcer of federal law. We've discussed at great length. I believe Merrick Garland has made the political decision he wants to indict Donald Trump.

It's why, and we've talked about this before. DJ leaked that they intended to indict Hunter Biden for purely personal crimes that had nothing to do with Joe Biden because a they wanted to insulate Joe Biden in the White House from liability and complicity in corruption with foreign governments, but b because it gave a easy appearance of balance for Garland to say, look, I indicted a Biden, I

indited a Trump. Look how even handed I am. I think that plan hit a major, major impediment when it was suddenly discovered that Joe Biden had classified documents seemingly everywhere. I think prior to the Biden documents being discovered, the odds were extremely high that Merritt Garland was going to indict Trump for the possession of classified documents. Now it is really tough. It is really tough to bring that

case against Trump and not bring it against Biden. Everyone, even MSNBC, the partisan shills there, would be forced to ask, wait a second, why is this only a crime when Republicans do it? And so I think yesterday's indictment, well, last week's indictment, and yesterday's not guilty plea marginally increases the chances of future indictments. But at the end of the day, I think there are real impediments to the other cases, and those impediments may be sufficient to prevent

the indictments from coming. We're going to keep covering this here and we'll let you We'll keep you update on all of this as it continues to move forward and these possible other indictments. As you said, Center, this is Saturday for this country, and it's going to be very hard to get the genie back in the bottle after what the Democrats have done to the President of the United States America Foreign President Donald Trump. And I think, like you said, his approval rating and his numbers are

going to skyrocket in this primary. He's going to be the overwhelming front runner on steroids after this, and that may be the biggest backfire ball for what the Democrats thought they were going to get out of this one. Don't forget. We do this podcast three days a week. One day we do audio and video, the other two are audio only. So make sure it subscribed and the

hit that auto subscriber auto download button right. It's a five star review, so we can help reach more people, and please share it with your family and your friends. Senator Cruz and I will see you back here in a couple of days.