Welcome.
It is verdict with Senator Ted Cruz, Ben Ferguson with you and Senator we now know the White House. They know how to celebrate when it comes to Donald Trump being convicted.
Well, that's exactly right. We have seen now the smirk heard around the world, Joe Biden, jubilant, gleeful, celebrating and spiking the football in the end zone at this political prosecution. And it's not just a prosecution. It is a persecution which Democrats believe will yield dividends. In November, we're going to break down the fallout from the convictions in New York and we're going to go into detail about precisely why this was an abuse of power, the jury instructions that were given in this trial, how this was rigged, and the Democrats do not want anyone to acknowledge how it was rigged. Well, we're going to give you the facts. We're going to break it down.
It was shocking to see how gleeful the President of the United States of America was at knowing that his political opponent is now an official political prisoner.
Well, look, it is sad watching Joe Biden utterly gleeful and not even pretending to hide it. You know, I have to say, if you're going to do a kangaroo trial, if you're going to go after your political opponents and try to attack them and abuse the justice system, usually people pretend they're not doing that. Well, not with Joe Biden. Take a look at how we reacted when he was asked.
About it, mister president. Can you tell us, sir, Donald Trump prefers to himself as a political prisoner and blames you directly. What's your response to that, sir? Do you think the condition will have an impact on the campaign. We'd love to hear.
Your thoughts, sir. Should you be on the ballot? Sir?
That's damning. I mean it's obvious he's saying, yeah, and I did that.
Look it is disgusting. And I will say for those of you all listening to the audio, as you know, in this podcast, we do three shows a week that are on audio. One of them typically is on video. This is one of the video shows. So if you're on audio, i'd encourage you go over to YouTube and watch the video because you actually need to see see the expression on his face. He's gleeful, He's not hiding it. He is spiking the football and just shameless it is. I'm abusing power. I'm reminded of of mel Brooks history of the world. It's good to be the king. That's actually what I thought. I could almost hear Biden saying, I'm abusing my power, damn it, and I'm proud of it. I will say this, the Trump campaign saw that and immediately turned it around. They put together an ad. I got to say, it's a heck of a powerful ad. It's the same thing you've seen, you just saw, but with a little bit of music, a little bit of context. Take a look at this Trump ad.
Just was done. Guy.
The Biden administration order a boon or an opponent to political appone, mister.
President, can you tell us, sir, Donald Trump prefers himself as a political prisoner and blames you directly. What's your response to that, sir?
Now, before I get your response, I want to tell you about our friends over at Freedom Gold USA. At Freedom Gold USA, they are a company that I recommend when it comes to gold and silver for one main reason. They typically charge twenty to thirty percent less than other major gold firms when it comes buying gold or silver and with inflation where it is right now, it is a time to watch what's happening. With the price of gold continuing to hit all time highs, inflation is heavily eroding your purchasing power, putting your savings and your retirement accounts and future legacy at risk. And with more taxes, the continued threat of war, a national debt now exceeding thirty four trillion, and the push for a central bank digital currency, your financial freedom is at stake and that is why to know about Freedom Goold USA. They are here to help you be empowered when it comes to buying gold and silver, and the team at freedom Goold USA is ready to answer all of your questions about preserving your wealth and provide stability in uncertain times. Freedom Gold USA will never take you to put all your money in a gold or silver ira. They understand diversification, but part of safeguarding your wealth can be used with physical gold and silver to take control of your financial future today. So call the team that I use and trust, the team that charges between twenty to thirty percent less than other major gold companies out there. That means you're getting twenty to thirty percent more gold or silver in your account day one one eight hundred sixty five five eight eight four three one eight hundred sixty five five eight eight four to three, or visit freedom goold USA dot com slash verdict. That's freedom gold USA dot com slash verdict and see if you qualify for up to ten thousand dollars in free silver.
Senator, that ad was a brilliant ad. Y.
I also think we can see that America saw that smirk for what it was, a threat to our freedom and democracy and our way of life in this country, trying to imprison your political opponents. But even more than that, people went to donate to Trump like never before. They're angry.
Fifty three million dollars in the first twenty four hours. It was stunning. And by the way, I will say, I think Republicans across the board saw that. I can tell you in terms of my campaign website, we saw a surge of donations there as well. I assume others did as well. I think people saw what happened in the campaign and they were pissed off, and they were pissed off, and they had the reaction They're like, this is wrong. We need to stand up and fight back. You know, I got to say, watching that smirk, it's in furiating. But it was a moment when the mask slipped. And so the Democrats are playing a game. This political prosecution was all about calling Trump a convicted felon. They can now do that. They're going to do that every single day until election day. Now, there's kind of a script that you play when you're doing a kangaroo court. When the court is over, what you say is is all right to quote south Park, respect my authority. That's supposed to be the line. Well Joe Biden managed when he wasn't caught smirking through giving his genuine reaction to read the script and say, we now have the verdict, we must respect the authority. Give a listen to this press conference of Joe Biden telling everyone shut up and accept the results. Trump is a bad guy.
Just checking this afternoon, good afternoon. Before I began, Mary Marx, I just wanted to say a few words about what happened yesterday in New York City. The American principle that no one is above the law was reaffirmed. Donald Trump was given every opportunity to defend himself. It was a state case not a federal case, and it was heard by a jury of twelve citizens, twelve Americans, twelve people like you, Like millions of Americans who served on jurys. This jury is chosen the same way every jury in America is chosen. It was the process that Donald Trump's attorney.
Was part of.
The jury heard five weeks of evidence, five weeks after careful deliberation, the jury reached a unanimous verdict. They found Donald Trump guilty on all thirty four felon accounts not only be given the opportunity as he should to feel that decision, just like everyone else has that opportunity. That's how the American system of justice works. And it's reckless, it's dangerous. It's irresponsible for anyone to say this was rigged just because they don't like the verdict. Our justice system is endured for nearly two hundred and fifty years, and it literally is a cornerstone of America. Our justice system, the justicystem should be respected and we should never allow anyone to tear it down. It's as simple as that. That's America, that's who we are, and that's who will always be. God will he.
He says, it's irresponsible to say that this verdict was rigged, that this jury was rigged, that all of this was rigged. But then he smirks, basically saying, yeah, it was rigged, and you should respect the system that we just rigged.
Look, I got to say listening to that, watching that, it is infuriating. It makes my blood boil. He says, it's reckless to do this, and we need to not tear down the justice system. Nobody has torn down our justice system more than that man, Joseph Robin at Biden jor he has presided over number one, politicizing the Department of Justice in a way that is utterly shameful, that targets his political enemies, that protects his own corruption, and at the same time he says, well, we got to respect this system. He ignores the fact that Alvin Bragg is a viciously partisan prosecutor, a Democrat who campaigns saying I'm the guy to get Donald Trump. I'm the one to get Donald Trump. I know how to get Donald Trump. I'm the one to get Donald Trump. Joe Biden doesn't acknowledge any of that. He doesn't acknowledge the fact that the number three person at his own Justice department, left the Department of Justice to go join the prosecution. He has a line in there. This was a state case, not a federal case, except for the fact that one of the lead lawyers was your number three lawyer at the Department of Justice. He doesn't ignore knowledge the fact that this judge was a joke, was a rabid partisan, was a donor to Joe Biden. He's one of his donors. And you know what he behaved. You know, the man should have been he should have taken off his black robe and he should have put on a Biden hat because it was a campaign. You want to talk about an unacknowledged campaign contribution, how about every day Judge Merchamp showed up to work. That was a campaign contribution. And by the way, under their theory, it was clearly intended to influence the outcome of the election. Alvin Bragg every day. Apparently Joe Biden needs to disclose Alvin Bragg's salary on his campaign finance reports because this is entirely intended to influence the outcome of an election. It is Look, the rule of law matters. What happened this week. It's infuriating, and it's disappointing.
He's also premeditated.
Yes, they knew what they were doing by the smirk. The smirk was the honesty that whole riff was. The planned defense, by the way, was planned at the beginning. They knew what they were going to say. It was all about we do a kangaroo court. It's all over. Now. Listen to the court. Listen to the court. No, no, no, you can't call it a kangaroo court. Never mind the kangaroo jumping up and down, ignore the facts, ignore the law. We have someone who is wearing a robe who says him bad. Okay, you got to keep us in power. And by the way, that's all we care about that Democrats stay in power.
They pre planned this and you can literally go back years to see it. One of the Soros family members, and I want to pull this tweet up because I think it's an important point that you just made.
This was all orchestrated by design.
George Soros went out there and said, I want to find people that are friendly to me. I'm going to get them elected around the country. I'm going to weaponize the court system, and then I'm going to get the outcomes from weaponizing the court system. Alvin Bragg was the first part of this master plan. You had to have a prosecutor that was willing to say, I'm not going to follow the law all and I'm going to do egregious acts of partisanship to get us to a point where we might be able to get to a court And look at the tweet from Soros's son explaining that we have won.
We are successful.
Quote Democrats to refer to Trump as a convicted felon at every opportunity. Repetition is the key to a successful message. And we want people to wrestle with a notion of hiring a convicted felon for the most important job in the country. And then the New York Times headline Trump guilty on all counts. They plan this, yes, and it was years in the making that.
They're all on the same team. Now. Alex Soros is George Soros's son. By many reports, George Soros is he's he's very elderly, and apparently he has diminished significantly, much like Joe Biden, and so it is widely reported that Alex Soros is running things now. Alex Soros is the young hard leftist who is distributing billions of dollars funding it all. And so how did Alvin Bragg get elected with money from Soros? Massive money from Soros. By the way, Soros is doing this all across the country, investing millions and millions of dollars in electing left wing DA's who let criminals out of jail, who won't prosecute murderers, And it really is striking. They're not hiding it. No, look at this tweet. Democrats should refer to Trump as a convicted felon at every opportunity. As we said on Friday's pod, the entire purpose of this was for them to be able to call him a convicted felon. Repetition is the key to a successful message. This is all about message. This is all about politics. They're not hiding it. It's why Joe Biden's smirking, which is our political plan, worked. Although I'm not convinced it worked. I actually think it think it may well backfire. They think people are stupid. They think repetition is the key. If we say it a lot, people will be stupid and just believe it. I think people have some real common sense. I think people understand this was a sham.
You look at the sham and you see the media respond. We could play fifty clips the media. Most people that are listening, they know what was said. But there's also this psychotic gleefulness over the idea now that they're saying, not only we're gonna call him a convicted felon, but Donald Trump can't travel outside the country to many other countries. Do you really want that got to be your president? I mean this is they obviously knew what they were gonna say long before he was convicted, and play it out for this campaign, knowing that the appeal wouldn't happen in time.
Look, this is all about politics. The appeal will succeed, this will be reversed on appeal, But this is all about attacking Trump. And I will say this. Trump came out and gave a press conference, and I want you to listen to the point he made. This is very brief, but it is a fundamental point that ought to scare the hell out of everybody.
Give a listen a case where if they can do this to me, they can do this to anyone.
I think that's incredibly powerful reminder. If the Democrats line is remind him and say it over and over again. He's a convicted felon. Donald Trump's line should be over and over again. If they can do this to me, a former president United States of America, they can do it to any one of you.
And let's let's use an example. Ben. You're you're an influential guy. You're well known, You've got a very popular podcast. You are on the radio. You've been on the radio since you were twelve years old. Who long time? Let me ask you something. Are you a billionaire? No? Do you have a billion dollars in the bank.
No?
Do you have a team of lawyers on retainer?
No?
Were you president of the United States?
No?
Do you have universal name idea across the globe?
No?
Do you have a jet with your name on the side of it. If they can do it to him, it's a hell of a lot easier to squash he Ben Fergus than it is a Donald J.
Trump.
If they can do it to him, whoever is listening, there's nobody listening. They could do it to me. They could do it to you. They can do it to anybody. They are grinning. We can destroy you and we don't care. It is all about power. Look We talk a lot on this podcast about Marxism, and as you know, I wrote a whole book, my last book, Unwoke, how to defeat cultural Marxism in America. For me, Marxism is very real because my family has suffered and been imprisoned and tortured by Marxists. They care about power, the same thugs that will throw you in prison. They're trying to do the same thing to Donald Trump right now because all they care about is power.
Let's talk about the step forward for Trump and using not just a smirk, but also using this court case to explain the American people just how rigged it is. I think that's an important point for him. He's gonna have to go out there and explain this is how all this went down, this is how corrupt it was.
How much into the weeds does he need to go into that?
I don't think he needs to get into the weeds a lot. I think think we're going to provide details in just a few minutes that will give you give you some backup on that. But look, I think people know you look at this. Everyone involved in this is obviously a partisan. It's why I get so angry at Joe Biden saying it's reckless to tear down our justice system because he's the one tearing down the justice system. I watched that that press conference, and it reminds me of like an arsonist holding cans of gasoline with with matches in his hands, saying, stop complaining about me lighting buildings on fire. He's the one burning our justice system to the ground, and their real consequences to it. There are real consequences to people losing faith. What he actually said about our system of justice is a cornerstone of America. That is correct. Look, if you contrast America to Banana republics, the difference is you have the rule of law. The difference is you don't do this. And these democrats they hate Trump so much they don't care. They're willing to destroy it. And all right, let let's get to Alvin Bragg. Alvin Bragg minds you, he's suddenly tough on crime. Yeah, this is a guy who if you murder people, if you rate people, you walk down the street and you punch a little old lady in the face, Alvin Bragg will let you go.
Three the illegal immigrants attacked a police officer on camera.
Let him walk out.
The same day, the same day, the same day. Let him go. This is a man who was elected to let violent criminals go. That's what Soros wanted. Let violent criminals go. New York will be better with more murderers on the street. New York will be better with more rapists on the street. That is their view. Now I want you to listen to what Donald Trump said, because he made a very powerful point on exactly this.
We had a DA who is a failed DA. Crime is ramped into New York. Violent crime, that's what he's really supposed to be looking at. Crime is ramp into New York. Yesterday and McDonald's you had a man hitting him up with machetes a machete. Whoever can imagine even a machete being wielded in a store in a place where they're eating and they's going rampant, and Bragg is down watching a trial on what they call.
Crimes crimes.
He's got a great point.
This guy shouldn't be in this court with Donald Trump when this is what he's dealing with, machete wielding individuals in New York.
So literally, on the day of the trial, there was a lunatic with a machete in a McDonald's threatening people. Now you would think, what is a district attorney supposed to be doing? I would think pretty high on the list is protecting me from machetes. Like if some guy brings out a machete and is trying to hurt people, the DA ought to arrest him and prosecute him. But no, you know, what's a decapitated person or two. When you're talking about Democrats, they're willing to look the other way at that. What was Alvin Bragg doing? He had a political objective to be in that courtroom because he's trying to bloody Donald Trump, he's trying to reelect Joe Biden, he's trying to stay in power. And I want to break down some of the materials so that There's a very interesting article that was written in The Intelligencer, and it's by Elie Honik, who is a CNN legal commentator, not a conservative, but he is a real lawyer, and he analyzes and and breaks down a lot of the enormous legal problems with what happened in this trial. Let me read read briefly what he said. He said the District Attorney's press office and its flax often proclaim that falsification of business records charges, which is what they went after Trump on, are quote commonplace, and indeed the office is quote bread and butter. That's true only if you draw definitional lines so broad is to render them meaningless. Of course, the DA charges falsification quite frequently. Virtually any fraud case involves some sort of fake documentation, so it's often an add on to some other case. It's one of the additional crimes that's committed. But let me continue from elihonik. But when you impose meaningful search parameters, the truth emerges. The charges against Trump are obscure and nearly entirely unprecedented. Now listen to this next sentence. In fact, no state prosecutor in New York or Wyoming or anywhere has ever listened to that word, ever charged federal election laws as a direct or predicate state crime against anyone for anything, none ever, Even putting aside the specifics of election law, The Manhattan DA itself almost never brings any case in which falsification of business records is the only charge, so that starts off of the front end. This is unusual. They had to get incredibly creative.
Not just unusual, never been done before.
Yeah, that's true. Yeah, I mean we.
Literally said, no one's been super enough to do it. But we packed this court. We got the judge we want, We got the da we want. We got a guy that the majority of the people in this area actually hate. They knew this. You couldn't have planned this any better. And it goes back to the George Soros money. We got the money to get the guy we want elected. We got the judge. He gave money to Joe Biden. We've set up this kangaroo court from beginning to end exactly how you'd have to do it to get this to happen.
That's right now. One of the things that we have today that we did not have we did the last podcast is we actually have the jury instruction. So I've gotten written jury instructions, been able to read them before. I was relying on news reports of what the judge said, but I didn't actually have them in front of me. So understand that the sort of Rube Goldberg machine that they invented to try to get anything to get Trump the cl The crime is falsifying business records. That's a misdemeanor. By the way, a misdemeanor. Do you know the definition of a misdemeanor with the different differences between a misdemeanor and a felony. A misdemeanor is a crime that is punishable by less than a year in jail. The definition of a felony is a crime that is punishable by a year or more in jail, So that's the cutoff. Felonies, understandably are more serious.
Speeding ticket, parking ticket all misdemeanors because you don't go to jail for over a year.
Fright jaywalking, those are misdemeanors. Murder is a felony. Rape is a felony. Burglary is a felony. Crimes that are serious, so falsification of business record, it is a misdemeanor. It's punishable by less than a year, and it has a two year statute of limitations, which means the prosecutor has two years to bring the case. All of this happened years go back in twenty sixteen, so the statute of limitations expired years ago. So every one of the charges that Alvin Bragg brought you can't bring now under the plain text because two years is passed. So New York has, however, a mechanism to elevate that crime to a felony if the falsification of business record is done with the intent to conceal another crime. And so I want to break down these jury instructions because it's going to show just how absurd this was. One thing linked upon another, linked upon another. So page twenty nine of the jury instructions herees what the judge told the jury intent to commit or conceal another crime for the crime of falsifying business records in the first degree, the intent to defraud must include an intent to commit another crime or to aid or conceal the commission thereof. Under our law, though the people must prove an intent to commit another crime or to aid or conceal the commission thereof, they need not prove that the other crime was in fact committed, aided or concealed. So understand this other crime, which is the magic ticket that elevates these these misdemeanors to felonies and extends the statutal limitationcy you can suddenly prosecute them. The prosecutor quote need not prove that the other crime was in fact committed, aided or concealed. So it's a crime that doesn't have to have happened, all right, So let's read some more New York election Law section seventeen one to fifty two predicate. Here's what the judge instructed the jury. The people alleged that the other crime the defendant intended to commit aid or conceal is a violation of New York election Law section seventeen one fifty two. Okay, that's some clarity that we didn't have through much of the trial. But the judge actually specifies, all right, this is the quote other crime. What is section seventeen one to fifty two of New York election law provides, Well, it provides that quote, any two or more persons who conspire to promote or prevent the election of any person to a public office by unlawful means, and which conspiracy is acted upon by one or more parties, there too, shall be guilty of conspiracy to promote or prevent on election. And so the keywords there are unlawful means, two or more persons who conspire to promote or prevent the election of any person to a public office by unlawful means. So those two words unlawful means are the entire foundation on which this whole case is built. Now, what does unlawful means mean? And this is the most important jury instruction. This will be the basis for reversal when this case is appealed, it will be There are lots of reasons to reverse it, but this is the easiest and clearest. Here's what unlawful means means. And it's just two paragrass It's very short quote. Although you must conclude unanimously that the defendant conspired to promote or prevent the election of any person to a public office by unlawful means, you need not be unanimous as to what those unlawful means were. In determining whether the defendant conspired to promote or prevent the election of any person to a public office by unlawful means, you may consider the following one violations of the Federal Election Campaign Act otherwise known as FICA, two the falsification of other business records, or three violation of tax laws. So we've talked about how the US Supreme Court has long made clear in order to convict someone of a crime, you must prove beyond a reasonable doubt every element of the crime, and the jury must found find unanimously that you are guilty. You have committed every element of the crime. What the judge just said, there is no no number one. This unlawful means means anything unlawful, like whatever, like. We're not going to define it, but I'm going to give you three jurors choice, your pick. It's like mix and match, choose your own adventure. A couple people say, I think it was federal campaign finance law. Someone else. You know, it was violation of the tax laws. By the way, they don't specify what about the tax laws? Did you violate the tax laws?
Yep?
Okay. Then suddenly this is a felony. Then suddenly the statute of limitations is extended. Then suddenly, instead of less than a year, you can sentence Donald Trump to over one hundred years.
Is it fair to say that the judge basically gave instructions to the jury that almost put them in a position where there's no way to not find them guilty because there's such ambiguity.
The way they define this. The judge knew damn well it was all but forcing the jury to render a guilty verdict now, I still think a juror should have said no. And by the way, there is a long tradition in our juris prudence of what's called jury nullification, which is there are times when this has happened repeatedly where a juror says, you know what, you may give me instructions that I've got to do X, Y and Z, but this is garbage, this is bs no, this is a miscarriage of justice. And that's part of the reason our system has a jury system, is to have twelve ordinary people as a check on the prosecution and on the justice system. It's why I held out hope for a hung jury that someone would say this is so obviously garbage. I won't play a part, but I will say I feel some sympathy for the jurors because reading this. Here's the instruction that the judge gave about the Federal Election Campaign Act. The terms contribution and expenditure include anything of value, including any purchase, payment, loan, or advance, made by any person, for the purpose of influencing any election for federal office. Under federal law, a third party's payment of candidate's expenses is deemed to be a contribution to the candidate unless the payment would have been made irrespective of the candidacy. So in this instance, the focus was on the money that Michael Cohen paid to Stormy Daniels, the so called hush money to keep her quiet about the alleged affair. Now, under this instruction, the judge is basically told the jury that is a campaign finance violation. He says any payment, any payment of candidate's expenses is deemed to be a contribution unless the payment would have been made irrespective of the candidacy. Now, the judge did not allow Brad Smith, the chairman former chairman of the Federal Elections Commission, to testify, and that instruction on federal campaign finance law is woefully incomplete. So Brad Smith put out a tweet thread that actually explained federal campaign finance law. I want to read it and walk through that because it will show why the judges jury instructions were so deficient.
Before we do that, I want to talk to you about one of my commitments, and that is I am sick and tired of giving my money to companies that do not stand with my values. And in the coffee business, there are a lot of liberal companies out there. You probably had two or three pop into your brain right when I said that. Well, I start my day every morning at seven am on the radio. I've got to be awake and I want a premium cup of coffee to start my day that, honestly I can look forward to.
And that is why I switched to Blackout Coffee.
Now, Blackout Coffee is one hundred percent America and zero percent woke. They are committed to conservative values from sourcing the beans to the roasting process, customer support and shipping, and they embody true American values and they accept no compromise on taste or quality. Now, Blackout Coffee is a premium cup of coffee.
It's not average, and I want you to try it.
I'm going to give you a discount to give it a shot, because when you do, you're never going to switch back. Go to Blackoutcoffee dot com, slash verdict. That's Blackoutcoffee dot com slash verdict and use the coupon code Verdict for twenty percent off your first order. That's Blackoutcoffee dot com slash verdict.
Be awake, not woke.
Try Blackout Coffee at Blackoutcoffee dot com slash verdict and use that promo code verdict for twenty percent off your first order centata. I want you to go over what you were just describing, because it's amazing that the guy that should have been able to go before the court and explain these laws and how they work to the jury was barred from testifying, and that's why apparently he decided to put out this long tweet.
Now, so this is this is a tweet thread. I'm just gonna read it. Let's take a stab. False Falsefying business records under New York law is a misdemeanor unless it is done to hide a crime. Bragg says that crime was a violation of Federal Election Campaign Act FIICA, or of a New York statute making it illegal to inflight LUNs an election by unlawful means. But if the latter, what is the quote unlawful means? That's what we were talking about a minute ago, an alleged violation of FICA. So it comes down to FICA. There are two potential violations here. One is the acceptance of an unlawful contribution by the campaign. The other is incorrect reporting of a contribution by the campaign. Either way, we have to have a campaign contribution that allegedly occurred when Cohen advanced money to pay the Stormy Daniel settlement. FIKA defines a contribution as a payment made quote for the purpose of influencing an election. The twenty sixteen max legal contribution was twenty seven hundred dollars. This looks bad for Trump. It's pretty easy to conclude the payment was made to influence an election by buying Daniel's silence, right, and Cohen paid Daniels one hundred and thirty thousand dollars, way over the limit. Well, it's not so simple. First, let's clear something up. Cohen just loaned them, he was paid back, and then some So where some ask is the contribution. But this is not a winner for Trump. Under the law, a contribution includes a loan unless made in the ordinary course of business EGA bank. So that's not a good argument. But for context, note that there is no limit on how much Trump can pay can contribute to his own campaign. By October twenty seventh, when Daniels was paid, Trump had already spent over sixty million dollars of his own money on the campaign. It would have been easy for him to toss in another one hundred and thirty thousand dollars. Now back to the definition of contribution. If they bought Daniels's silence to quote influence an election, what the prosecution is alleged. Isn't that a contribution and also a campaign expenditure which mirrors the contribution definition. First common sense, we know that a campaign expense is not literally any payment made quote for purpose of influencing an election, and reading the statute that way would be way too broad. For example, in nineteen ninety nine, Bill and Hillary Clinton bought a house in New York. One reason they did so was so that Hillary could run for US Senate from New York. In other words, the expenditure was clearly done in part quote for the purpose of influencing an election. Is it a campaign expenditure underfeaka? Of course not common sense. How about if a would be candidate pays a lawyer to seal old divorce records because he's afraid that, if revealed, they would be damaging to his candidacy campaign expense, No, clearly not, even though done quote for the purpose of influencing an election. Or suppose a business owner wants to settle pending lawsuits against his businesses before running for Congress. He thinks the lawsuits are bs, but he's afraid the press will make a big deal of the allegations. Can he pay the settlements with campaign funds? The answer obviously is no, even though there is no legal obligation to pay them, and the settlements would be paid specifically quote to influence an election. In fact, in each of these examples, it would be unlawful to make the payments with campaign funds. I'm gonna take a pause here. Understand what Alvin Bragg's argument is. He's saying Trump had to use campaign funds to pay off Stormy Daniels. That's an idiotic rule. And by the way, it's a rule that says every candidate for public office, if you're paying to settle a lawsuit dealing with whether you had an affair, you must use your campaign funds to do so. That's absurd. And what Brad Smith is saying is if you did that, the Federal Election Commission would go after you. Let me go back to what Brad Smith, because he explains it a little bit more. This is because and this is the part that the judge left out of the jury instruction didn't tell the jury, so they didn't know this. There's another part of that. The judge just said, ignore this part because it shows that Trump hasn't violated the law. Rat Smith, former chairman of the FEC charged with enforcing this law. Quote. This is because FIICA also prohibits using campaign funds for quote personal use. So you got to ask is it personal use? If yes, you can't use campaign funds aka Hillary Clinton buying a house right in New York? Exactly what is quote personal use? Under Federal Election Commission regulations, and the FEC has primary authority for interpreting the law. It is any obligation that would exist irrespective of the candidacy. Indeed, the FEC regulations make clear that a mixed motive doesn't make something a campaign expense. If the obligation would exist irrespective of the campaign, paying it with campaign funds is personal use and therefore illegal. Certainly, Daniels used the campaign to push or Trump and for the most money she could. The timing affected the value of the allegations, but the obligation didn't exist because Trump was a candidate. It predated his candidacy, and it was not created by his being a candidate. She could have shut him, shook him down for hush money at any point, whether or not he was running for president. Brad didn't say that. I said that. Brad continues, Let's use common sense. Is it a campaign expense to pay a non disclosure agreement for something arising out of events ten years earlier and not caused by the act of being a candidate. Is paying hush money a campaign expense? Duh, No, And we wouldn't want it to be. This is really important. We wouldn't want it to be. We don't want candidates using campaign funds to pay personal expenses, whether new clothes, a weight loss program, or a gym member purchase, to help the candidate look better. And therefore, quote for the purpose of influencing an election, you can't use campaign finance funds for that.
So when you're running for office, just to be very clear on his point, you can't say I'm going to take a fifty thousand dollars wardrobe for all these campaign events because it's still technically closed for you personally.
Yeah, you can't do that at all. You can't buy your clothes using cap I.
Need a haircut or and I'm gonna get one every day.
You can't do any of that. You can cannot do, and they'll go after you for it. If you do it, they will go after you for personal use. Let me finish what he said. He only had a couple more and certainly not to pay non disclosure agreements to keep embarrassing info hidden In summary, for the purpose of influencing an election is an objective standard. The motive of the donor of the spender doesn't matter. So what are expenditures? Paying campaign staff? Are expenditures? Are a campaign expenditure? Buying ads for the candidate, paying fundraising costs, paying a cant paign accountant, paying for polling, travel to campaign events. Basically all the obligations you incuraged solely because you were running for office. The FEC's approach is consistent with the US Supreme Court, which is consistently held in every case in Speaker was passed fifty years ago that its definition of contribution and expenditure must be objective, not subjective, to avoid being unconstitutionally vague. None of that went to the jury, so the jury was just told, well, if it could influence the election, you got to find it's a violation of law that has flat out false, and they were not told. If Trump had done what Alvin Bragg said he needed to do, the FEC would have charged him with a personal use violation with using campaign funds illegally. The jury didn't know that because the judge didn't want him to know.
That, and that's why they said you can't come and testify.
Yes, and he also vented the lawyers from arguing this. But by the way, so that was one ground. The other two grounds that could be unlawful means. And you could have three jurors on one and five on another, and four other like they could mix and match the other ground.
Have you ever heard of a jury where that was it? Okay, this thing, you understand.
It's weird that Usually it's you either got to be all in lockstep, yeah, or you're not. So it's either your innocent or guilty because a twelve agree, and or if they disagree, one of them disagrees.
Were done.
Find the elements of the crime.
He said, find your own path too.
Guilty, Yeah, whatever you want. The objective is guilty. You come up with however you want to get there, all right, So one was the Federal campaign Finance on his instructions are wonefully deficient. He only includes part of the rule. He leaves out the other half, which is explains why Trump shouldn't have done so. And it would have been a mistake to do it the way the prosecutor wanted him to do, and he would have been charged with it. I mean it would have been he would have been violating the law to do what Alvin Bragg is saying he should have done. Another supposed basis of unlawful means was falsification of other business records. The second of the people's theories. This is from the jury instruction. The second of the people's theories of unlawful means, which I will define for you now, is the falsification of other business records for purposes of determining whether falsifizing business to records, and the second degree was an unlawful means used by a conspiracy to promote or prevent election. Here you may consider the bank records associated with Michael Cohen's account formation, the bank records association with Michael Cohens wired to Keith Davidson, the invoice from Investor Advisory Services, and the ten ninety nine MISK form of the Trumpet Organization issued to Michael Cohenes. So, in other words, they're thirty four counts of false business records. They're all the identical charge. They just occur thirty four different times, thirty four different entries in the bookmarks. What he's saying is, you know what, every one of these is a misdemeanor. But if you say you made one of these entries to assist in another of these entries, then they're all felonies. Wow, Like it is the most circular reasoning that just makes no sense. And by the way, let's go to the third one, because the third one just makes me laugh out loud. The people's third theory of unlawful means, which I will define for you now, is a violation of tax laws. Under New York State and New York City law, it is unlawful to knowingly supply or submit materially false or fraudulent information in connection with any tax return. Likewise, under federal law, it is unlawful for a person to willfully make any tax return, statement, or other document that is fraudulent or false as at any material matter, or that the person does not believe to be true and correctest to every material matter. I listened to this last sentence. Under these federal, state, and local laws, such conduct is unlawful even if it does not result in the underpayment of taxes. So, in other words, he told the jury, by the way, you can find a violation of tax laws even if you paid you didn't pay any less taxes, even if you didn't defraud anyone, even if you're not using it to cheat on your taxes, if you think there's something in the tax laws. And by the way, there is no person on planet Earth who understands all of the tax laws. You know, there was a book that was written years ago called three Felonies a Day, and it argues that all of us living in this complex world commit three felonies a day between tax laws and environmental laws. There's just so much regulations. If you are doing anything, if you're filling out a credit card application, an aggressive prosecutor can find three felonies a day that Ben Ferguson has committed in this instance. That jury instruction says, well, if you can figure out if you think there was any.
Lime up with your own theory, basically.
Come up with your own theory. And by the way, the violation of tax law, doesn't have to have taken a penny of taxes from New York City, New York State of the federal government. And if you think there was some amorphous violation of tax law that didn't result in any underpayment of taxes, suddenly, presto chanjoh. These misdemeanors that we can't prosecute the statute of limitations that extended. They're now felonies, and we can sentence Donald Trump to one hundred years in jail. One hundred and thirty four years in jail.
In other words, orange man bad, find your way to figure out how to say he's guilty.
That's exactly what this was all about. This is politics. It'll get reversed on appeal, but the judge doesn't care. He knows that The purpose is what Alex Soro said. The purpose is what Joe Biden said. The purpose is all the Democrats at all the media get to call him a felon over and over and over again between now an election day. This is a five month battle. It's not a five year battle. The purpose is not to put Donald Trump in jail. They know that's not gonna happen.
Cost the election.
They are trying to win. This is about keeping Joe Biden to the Democrats in power because it's all they care about, and they're willing to burn the justice system to the ground to keep the Democrats in power.
One more question I want to ask of you, and it deals with what's next for Trump. But before we do that, I want to say thank you to so many of you that are listeners and watchers of this podcast for getting involved with the International Fellowship of Christians and Jews. Since a tear attack on October seventh, anti Semitism has been on the rise, not just in Israel but here at home, in the US and around the world. And that is why I've partnered with the International Fellowship of Christians and Jews to make a difference for the needs of those in Israel right now. They are asking for help when it comes to actually giving and putting up bomb shelters as well as the supplies you need while you were in that bomb shelter. For the month of June. We're asking Christians to sign this pledge will deliver to the President of Israel to show that Christians in America are not only standing in solidarity, but they are speaking up as well. So let's take a stand today with the International Fellowship of Christians and Jews and let the Jewish people know that they are not alone. They need your help. And if you're ready to pledge to stand side by side with your Jewish brothers and sisters to never be silent, to show the Jewish people that they're not alone, that they have God and Christians standing by their side. To sign the pledge, Go to SUPPORTIFCJ dot org. That is support IFCJ dot org to take a stand today. Help the people in Israel again. Sign the pledge and stand with our brothers and sisters in Israel. Go to support if CJ dot org. That's support if CJ dot org to take a stand today. Send her final question for you, and this goes back to the last podcast. You were conflicted on what Trump's plan should be Next. Do you go to the Supreme Court? Do you try to get there quickly? Or is there a way to force this case moving forward? Now knowing the jury instructions and what they were given and most importantly, what they had admitted from them, does this open up any different legal pathway for the Trump team to say, Okay, we need to get this scene even quicker. So it isn't Hey, we got what we wanted. We get to say you're a convicted felon all the way through election day. Can this speed up the process?
Or no?
So let me answer that. But let me answer that in connection to a question that people ask quite a bit, which is what's the sentence going to be? We've got the sentence, we know that is just a few days before the Republican Convention, and a lot of folks are asking, is the judge going to sentence Trump to jail time? I think there's a very real chance the judge sentence Trump to jail time. I think this is a vicious partisan. I think he hates Donald Trump. I think he's willing to abuse his power. But I will wager large sums of money regardless of what he sentences him to jail time or something else, that if there is incarceration, he will suspend it pending appeal. I think that I could see the judge at sentencing saying I sentence you to four years in jail or no, No, I don't think he would. I do think you've got four years for each of these thirty four counts. Is the maximum amount typically they would run concurrently, which means they would all run at the same time. You could run him consecutively, which is how you get over one hundred years in any ordinary circumstance. Number One, a judge of Trump's age that does not have any prior offenses in New York would never serve a day of jail time in any other case. I mean, look, you can physically assault someone, you can repeatedly violently beat people up, you can engage in all sorts of crimes and not serve jail time in New York. That being said, I think it's that's entirely possible. This judge is enough of a partisan to say, you're the president, what you did mattered, I'm sentencing you to four years in jail. I could see him. He would love that. That would be the crowning moment of his life to utter those words.
It also be useful politically, because then not only can you say he's convicted felon, but then you say, do you want a guy going to the White House, it's about to go to jail.
Yeah.
So what I do not think he will do is sentenced him to jail and say take him into custody. And put him there right now. He could, but I think if he did that, it would prompt an immediate emergency appeal and he would get reversed. I assume this guy is smart enough to know that he doesn't want to get reversed, and he especially does not want to get reversed before election day. He's engaged in politics, so he's not going to do something I think that will prompt an immediate reversal because that undermines the political value of the charai that he's conducting. So if the sentences in prisonment or it could be home confinement. If the sentence is something like that, I think he'll suspend it pending the resolution of the appeal. In that case, I think the odds are quite high. This appeal will have to go through the New York state system. First. We talked about in Friday's pod, and by the way, you should go back and listen to Friday's pod. We did Friday's pod late Thursday night. We did it on the road as I was driving from Dallas to Houston. It was right after the verdict came down, and it was analyzing the next steps and in much greater detail than we have in this pod, and so you ought to listen to the two pods together. But the ordinary course of appeal would be to appeal from the trial court to the intermediate appellate court in New York in the state court system, and then if you lose in the intermediate appellate court, to appeal to the top appellate court in New York called the New York Court of Appeals. And then finally, if you lose there, then you could appeal to the U. S. Supreme Court. That's normally how a criminal case would proceed. It is possible you can file an extraordinary writ to ask the US Supreme Court to intervene right now, but it is very very very rare. There is a chance, and I'm sure the Trump legal team is debating this right now. There's a chance the court would say yes. But I think it's probably unlikely. I think the court's instinct, particularly if a sentence is suspended, if the judge order Trump put in jail, the Supreme Court would say yes. It would force the court to say yes. So if the sentence is suspended and Trump is free to campaign, fore to debate, for you to go to the convention, I think the justice's instincts will be you know what, The New York state courts might correct this. The Court of Appeals might reverse this, The Intermediate Court of Appeals might reverse this. They might get it right. And there's a long ethos that the Court, which is, if we don't need to act, we don't need to act. If someone else can fix this, if another level of the justice system can fix this, the US Supreme Court doesn't need to step in. That's their general approach. If they were to deny the extraordinary writ I suspect you would have some justices right and say something like there are lots of reasons to be concerned here, but right now the sentence is suspended. The verdicts can be overturned on appeal, and so will allow the state proceedings to go forward. If there was an order of immediate incarceration, it would force their hands. I think the whole game here from the DA and from the judge is the political advantage not actually sending Trump to jail. They know these jury instructions will never survive an appeal. If you had anything resembling fairness in the judicial system, the New York Court's Appeals should reverse it. I got to say, based on the absolute disgrace we just saw play out, I have no confidence of that. The New York justice system is I suspect forever a global laughing stock. And you put this on top of the prior civil case where they took a half billion dollars that they're trying to take a half billion dollars from Trump. The combination. The message New York has said is if we don't like you, if you are politically disfavored, welcome to communist Cuba. We will treat you the same and you have the same rights as you would have locked into Gulac.
This is gonna be interesting that it plays out. It's gonna be interesting to see what the poll numbers say this week. We're gonna cover it all. Don't forget we did this show Monday, Wednesday, Friday. Hit that subscribe or auto download button, and on those in between days there's a lot of breaking news. Grab my podcast as well, the Ben Ferguson podcasts, and I will keep you up to date on those in between days. Make sure if you didn't get to watch this on YouTube, watch it on YouTube. You'll get to see those clips and this famous smirk of Joe Biden and the Senate, and I will see you back here in a couple of days.