18 posts from Wednesday, August 2, 2023

How can you win with Russian interference, though? That's the real thing. That's what I'm scared about in 2020. But rightly. Because I think you're the illegitimate president that didn't really win. So how do you, you know, fight against that in 2020? You are absolutely right. He's an illegitimate president in my mind. Would you be my vice president? I'm so candid. Folks, look, I absolutely agree. Trump didn't actually win the election in 2016. He lost the election and he was put in the office because of the Russians' interference. Trump knows he's an illegitimate president. The president or the elected, or legally elected, is not legitimate. I don't see this as president-elect as a legitimate president. You said you believe that Russia's interference altered the outcome of the election. I do. We have a president who, if in fact it is proven, has been assisted by the Russians that may in fact not be a legitimate president. The one thing that Trump is fearful of when it comes to his being president is that finally we will see how illegitimate his victory actually was. I have an objection. I object to the 15 votes from the state of North Carolina. I object because people are horrified. He's an illegitimate president. Do you believe Trump is a legitimate president? What I believe is that there's no question that the outcome of this election was affected by the Russian interference. There absolutely is a cloud of illegitimacy. So that legitimacy is in question, yes. So that was a very tainted election and in that sense it's illegitimate. Why do you think the president is going through such great lengths to essentially prove that he beat you? Because he knows he didn't. He knows he's an illegitimate president. Stolen emails. Stolen drone. Stolen drone. Stolen election. Welcome to the world of unprecedented Trump. Did you believe President Trump is an illegitimate president? Based on what I just said, which I can't retract. The Russian attempt to have the election, and frankly the FBI's weighing in on the election, I think makes his election illegitimate. There was a widespread understanding that this election was not on the level. We still don't know what really happened, Isaac. I mean, there's just a lot that I think will be revealed, history will discover, but you don't win by three million votes and have all this other shenanigans stuff going on and not come away with an idea like, whoa, something's not right here. The outcome of the election was affected by their interference and now we need to know to what degree, if any, the Trump campaign was actually in collusion with Russia. He knows he's an illegitimate president. So of course he's obsessed with me and I believe that it's a guilty conscience. We actually won the last presidential election folks, they stole the last presidential election. With Al Gore won that election, I think he won anyway. Actually, I think I carried Florida. Bush versus Gore, a court took away a presidency. All the votes were counted in Florida that Al Gore would be president today and George Bush would be backing off. I come from Florida where you and others participated in what I call the United States coup d'etat. There's no doubt in my mind that Al Gore was elected president. I rise to object to the fraudulent 25 Florida electoral votes. I must object because of the overwhelming evidence of official misconduct, delivery fraud, and an attempt to support Florida. It is signed by myself on behalf of my diverse constituents and the millions of Americans who have been disenfranchised by Florida's inaccurate vote count. The Supreme Court, not the people of the United States, decided this election. Speaking to a Democratic group in Chicago, he made it clear he thinks Al Gore was the winner. The time it was over, our candidate had won the popular vote. And the only way they could win the election was to stop the voting in Florida. Katherine Harris, Jeb Bush, Jim Baker, and the Supreme Court hadn't tampered with the results. Al Gore would be president. The Supreme Court elected the presidency. Al Gore won the state of Florida in 2000, although not the presidency. But the Supreme Court tampered at the large chart, the Supreme Court stopped the counting of the votes, and if they let the count go on, Al Gore would have got the necessary votes. The Supreme Court selected George W. Bush as the president. He was not elected. There is overwhelming evidence that George W. Bush did not win this election. What I observed as a voter, as a citizen of Illinois four years ago, were troubling evidence of the fact that not every vote was being counted. I don't think that George W. Bush won the election in 2000. I guess that would go up, because I think he probably lost Florida and also that nationwide. If you invite me back on this show in about eight weeks, I think you're going to learn that Al Gore actually did get all the votes in there. The court has been thwarting formation of the popular will, the most spectacular example being Bush versus Gore, where the majority, by a 5-4 vote, enjoin the counting of more than 100,000 ballots in Florida and essentially gave America its first court-appointed president. I think in 2000, everybody thought, well, he did win the election, Al Gore. After the election, when you stole the election, you came back here and said, "Get over it." No, we're not going to get over it. You know it, I know it, they know it, we won that election. Constantly shifting vote tallies in Ohio and malfunctioning electronic machines, which may not have paper receipts, have led to additional loss of confidence by the public. The right to vote has been stolen from qualified voters. In 2004, the democratic process was thwarted. The 2004 presidential election in Ohio was riddled with unnecessary problems. Some machines malfunctioned, causing votes to be counted more than once, or not at all. Based upon an inordinate number of allegations suggesting gross voting rights violations and misconduct, I joined with my colleagues in objecting to counting the state of Ohio's electoral votes. As in 2000, the votes of many who wanted to vote were not, in fact, counted. This last Friday night, I arranged to meet Senator Kerry at a fundraiser to give him a copy of my book. He told me he now thinks the election was stolen. The wife of John Kerry said she has lingering doubts about the legitimacy of the election. Her theory goes like this. Two brothers, what she calls hard right Republicans, own 80 percent of voting machines in the U.S. Therefore, it would be easy to hack into the mother machines that control the electronic voting. There were numerous irregularities in Ohio, including large percentages of rejections of provisional balloting, problems with voting machines. As we look at our election system, I think it's fair to say that there are many legitimate questions about its accuracy, about its integrity. There are still legitimate concerns over the integrity of our elections. I agree with tens of millions of Americans who are very worried that when they cast the ballot on an electronic voting machine, that there is no paper trail to record that vote. The numerous irregularities that occurred with the electronic voting machines in Ohio on November the 2nd of last year point to an unresolved national crisis. We cannot declare that the election of November 2nd, 2004 was free and clear and transparent and real. There must be independent testing of the voting machines used in Ohio. I'm not confident that the election in Ohio was fairly decided. We know that there was substantial voter suppression and the machines were not reliable. The members of Congress who have brought this challenge are speaking up for their aggrieved constituents, many of whom may have been disenfranchised in this process. Treating today's electoral vote count in Congress as a meaningless ritual would be an insult to our democracy unless we registered our own protest against the obviously flawed voting process that took place in so many of our states. Voters who wish to cast a vote for president or vice president can't approach the polls with certainty that their vote will be counted. One of the most significant problems in Ohio and in many other states was the lack of measures to ensure the integrity of electronic voting machines. In 2004, they caused Democratic voters in Ohio to wait for eight hours before they could cast their ballot. They turned the Department of Civil Rights and the Justice Department into the voter suppression division with voter ID laws, voter purging, voter caging, voter intimidation. There aren't going to be any more election stealing. And despite the final tally and the inauguration and the situation we find ourselves in, I do have one very affirmative statement to make. Without voter suppression, Stacey Abrams would be the governor of Georgia. Andrew Gillum is the governor of Florida. You refuse to concede and say that you lost. Do you stand by that decision today? Absolutely. The election was not fair. The process was not fair. If Stacey Abrams doesn't win in Georgia, they stole it. It's clear. It's clear. I think that Stacey Abrams election is being stolen from her. It was not a free and fair election. Brian Kemp stole the gubernatorial election from Georgians and Stacey Abrams. But will I say that this election was not tainted, was not a disinvestment and a disenfranchisement of thousands of voters? I will not say that.

Transcribed automatically. Expect errors in names and numbers.

Joining me now is founder of Just the News and host of Just the News No Noise right here on this network, our buddy John Solomon is back with us. John, it's great to see you. I actually think this opens up an entire legal strategy for President Trump now to subpoena or call in as witnesses in this case, everybody surrounding election fraud, and start to make his case thanks to Jack Smith. Yeah, that may happen. And I don't think the judge is going to allow that, particularly a DC judge. I think a more likely scenario is that there are real serious issues here of double jeopardy. He was impeached and acquitted to presidential immunity. You saw this ruling in Pennsylvania, you could have significance to Jack Smith. There is a doctrine that the president had legal action taken against him for actions he officially took as president. It was clear President Trump was acting in his capacity as president when he made these comments and raised these concerns, and then I think a third thing, and it goes to what Andrew McCarthy, you just showed that clip, very important state of mind. Can Jack Smith really prove that Donald Trump didn't think these things were still viable allegations on January 6th, and I'm going to make some documents available tomorrow. They're very important documents. They're from the files of Bernie Kerik, the former NYPD chief. He was running the investigative team on Trump's legal team to see what was true and not true. On January 6th, these documents show Bernie Kerik had not yet made any determinations whether a lot of the allegations floating around that Donald Trump wanted to investigate it were true or not. In fact, they were so uncertain whether they can prove them or not, their only fallback was we got to ask legislators and other bodies of authority to look at this. That is very important exculpatory evidence of the president. We're going to make that public tomorrow. Jack Smith just got these two weeks ago. You think you might want to look at them a little more closely before he brought this indictment. Instead he rushes that indictment out today.

Transcribed automatically. Expect errors in names and numbers.

I read through this so-called January 6th charging document indicting Donald Trump on four counts, two counts of obstruction, two counts of conspiracy. This is a complete embarrassment. At this point, they might as well hang a banner over that main entrance to the Department of Justice building tonight covering the credo with Biden 2024. Now, if this Democrat special counsel, Jack Smith, was ever a serious lawyer, well, he lost that distinction tonight. He now has the sole distinction of being just another political hack. -The attack on our nation's Capitol on January 6th, 2021, was an unprecedented assault on the seat of American democracy. Since the attack on our Capitol, the Department of Justice has remained committed to ensuring accountability for those criminally responsible for what happened that day. This case is brought consistent with that commitment. -Ah, well, by listening to this guy, you would think that Trump himself was smashing through the glass at the Capitol that day. -That was one of the most demagogic presentations I've ever seen in a high-profile criminal case. Anyone who listened to that, any normal person reacting to that, would assume that Trump was alleged to have carried out the Capitol riot. -This is the criminalization of disinformation. In order to get a conviction, he will have to use material that, in my view, is clearly protected by the First Amendment. -Now, this case should never survive. A motion to dismiss, a motion for summary judgment, but will Judge Tanya Shutkin, an Obama judge, ever do the right thing? I want to remind you tonight that she worked for Hunter Biden's law firm at one point, boys and shiller. We'll have more on that at a later date, but I have my doubts about her. Trump said nothing and did nothing to trigger any criminal charge on January 6th, any. His crime was believing and saying that the election was rigged. That's what they want to send him to jail for. Now, excuse me. How is that any different from when the Democrats complained that things were rigged in 2016 or in 2000 after Bush v. Gore? And for that matter, why wasn't Stacey Abrams ever charged for calling her loss a fraud in the Georgia governor's race? And while we're at it, why today? Why did Jack Smith decide to hand down this absurd political diatribe today? Well, I'm sure the timing is purely coincidental. Now, not only is Biden at 40% approval alone now in that new CBS poll, he's plummeting in the polls against Trump, basically even across the country. And Trump is dominating, meanwhile, in the GOP primary. It doesn't look like anyone's gonna be able to stop him right now. But after yesterday's Devin Archer testimony, we now can all see with our own eyes that Joe Biden is wobbling under the weight of his own longstanding corruption. The Bidens have been on the take for years, getting rich off selling influence, and Trump's crime is disagreeing with the outcome of an election, but complaining to a governor over the phone, speaking at a rally? We all know what this is. This is just another and a long line of political hit jobs under the guise of federal law enforcement. We care about the system. They've charged grandmothers and military vets who merely walked into the Capitol through an open door. And they did that to send a message to the public at large. Do not even think about standing up for someone like Donald Trump again. Don't think about it. We could send you to jail. And now they're indicting a former president of the United States to protect Biden and the entire DC establishment from scrutiny. The DOJ does not care about what's happening in this country right now, where real crime is running wild or that Chinese spies are crawling all over the place. They don't bring the same fanfare, the same emotion to tackling human trafficking or the fentanyl explosion. Jack Smith and Merrick Garland have one overriding goal, dragging the decrepit Joe Biden across the finish line in the next election. And yes, by any means necessary. The DOJ is effectively the Biden campaign headquarters at this point. They have nothing else. Of course, he's not gonna run a traditional campaign or really campaign like we have gotten used to serious candidates campaigning. He can barely stay awake during a podcast. If the DOJ can actually get away with this, then anyone who ever speaks out against the DC establishment and does so forcefully, anyone who takes a stand on issues from China to the border to trade, they're all vulnerable.

Transcribed automatically. Expect errors in names and numbers.

- Next, your thoughts on this. - This indictment strikes me as an amateurish joke. Frankly, Jack Smith as special counsel should be indicted for stupidity, it's that bad. But he has this disreputable habit of bringing politically driven prosecutions by contorting the law and mangling the evidence. And these four counts are the definition of a stretch. It's a gumby indictment, conspiracy to defraud the government because Trump challenged certification of electors on January 6th. Well, he's entitled to do that under the Electoral Count Act. Democrats did the same thing in 2016 and in prior elections. Nor is it a crime to claim the election was stolen, which Hillary Clinton and Nancy Pelosi alleged four years earlier. And the main point is, if Donald Trump truly believed he won even if he was wrong about it, and he used the legal process to contest the outcome as the law clearly permits, that is not election fraud. And then Smith tosses in obstruction charge, conspiracy charge, those are redundant of the first charge and the exact same defense applies. So, you know, this is a junk indictment and it's politically motivated. Matt, we're gonna do a quick break.

Transcribed automatically. Expect errors in names and numbers.

Let's get your point of view from the perspective of the politics of this in light of everything we learned yesterday and looking at a Department of Justice that clearly seems to be weaponized. Well, the politics of this, Sean, I think are clear. You're going to see millions of voters rally around Donald Trump as a result of this unprecedented persecution, and you're going to see his campaign turbocharged, but that doesn't change the fact that they are trying to throw this man in jail for multiple life sentences. So what's at stake here is the president's freedom, and as your earlier guest said, free speech and the Constitution itself. Sean, this indictment is the legal equivalent of the French guillotine, the reign of terror. This is a mob mentality to take out Donald Trump. They are criminalizing free speech. They are criminalizing resistance in the deep state. They are criminalizing the questioning of an election result. They are criminalizing any resistance to Democrat officials in the states who violated election laws. They are criminalizing anyone who resists DOJ on any level, on any policy matter whatsoever. Free speech will not survive if this indictment succeeds.

Transcribed automatically. Expect errors in names and numbers.

Biden's Justice Department has just brought criminal charges against Donald Trump, his political opponent for the third time in four months. This time, the charges relate to January 6th. Good evening. Today, an indictment was unsealed, charging Donald J. Trump with conspiring to defraud the United States, conspiring to disenfranchise voters, and conspiring and attempting to obstruct an official proceeding. The indictment was issued by a grand jury of citizens here in the District of Columbia, and it sets forth the crimes charged in detail. That was Special Counsel Jack Smith, who looked like a bedraggled, nervous wreck, dripping with anger and highly emotional. The last time Jack Smith charged a politician, the case was so weak it got tossed out of the Supreme Court unanimously. Biden's Justice Department is using obscure federal statutes to put a former president in prison for the rest of his life. These charges aren't bribery, not assault, not tax evasion, not sex trafficking. They're charging Trump under the act of 1866. It was used against the Klan, and now they're using it against Trump. Here are the specific charges. Count one, conspiracy to defraud the United States. Count two, conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding. Count three, conspiracy or attempt to obstruct an official proceeding. Count four, conspiracy against rights. Okay. Now, here's how they're saying Trump broke the law. They're saying Trump lied that the election was fraudulent when he really knew the election was clean, and that these lies made it hard for the government to certify the election. Now, first, they said Trump called a bunch of state legislators in Georgia, Arizona, Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin, and tried to get them to investigate election fraud, hold hearings. Okay. Then the government says Trump tried to get some states to send in Trump electors instead of Biden electors, and only a tiny handful of states did that. They mailed in some Trump electors to the archivist and to the Senate, and then the Senate threw him in the garbage and ratified the Biden electors. That was it. Then they're saying Trump broke the law when he asked Pence to do the right thing, to not certify and kick it back to the states. That was a different legal interpretation than many people had at the time, but it was a difference of opinion, and it didn't matter because Pence didn't do it. And then they're saying the January 6th protesters, because of Trump's lies, slowed down the certification for a couple hours. That's it. Those are the charges. Now, I know this doesn't count in a court of law, but do you think Trump had any idea that he was breaking the law when he was asking Mike Pence not to certify? And how are you going to prove that Trump knew there wasn't any election fraud? And how are you going to prove that these were corrupt intentions if Trump thought he was doing the righteous thing? You can't. It was just politics. It's all politics. He was pushing it as far as he could, and maybe he pushed it a little too far. But should he die in prison for that? I don't think the Biden administration realizes what it's done here. It's going to give Donald Trump the opportunity to re-litigate the 2020 election in federal court. This is what Donald Trump's been dying to do for the last two and a half years. He's going to have subpoena power. He's going to cross-examine witnesses. He's going to put on his own witnesses. He's going to go out and prove or try to prove there was election fraud in Philly, Vegas, Arizona, Detroit. And the federal government is going to have to prove that it was clean in those deep blue counties. That's going to be a fun one to follow. So Trump's due in court on Thursday for the January 6th charges. So in case you're keeping score at home, Donald Trump will be on trial in three different courtrooms next year, an election year, while he's running for president, while he's fundraising, and while he's debating. So he'll be in court on bookkeeping charges with Stormy Daniels in Manhattan in March. He'll be in a Florida courtroom beginning in May on the Mar-a-Lago documents case, and he'll be in a DC courtroom on the January 6th charges, probably in the spring as well. He needs a body double. And this is a DC jury in a case overseen by an Obama appointed judge who has got a nasty track record. Oh, and there's another Georgia election related grand jury considering charging Trump. So he can have four trials next year. And we also may be looking at a president Biden impeachment trial next year as well. So legally speaking, Trump's going to have to pay lawyers a lot of money. And if he's convicted, he will not go to prison. He'll be freed on appeal and he'll be able to appeal these federal charges all the way to the Supreme Court, which will take a while, probably until after the election. And there's no way the Supreme Court of the United States is going to uphold the conviction of a former president close to 80 years old. That's not how the court operates, especially on something as political as this. Now the timing of this indictment was coordinated to take the heat off Biden. This is the third time this has happened. You ready? On March 17th, Hunter admitted the laptop was his. And on the very next day, Trump received word Alvin Bragg was indicting him in New York. On June 8th, an FBI document broke that Ukraine paid Biden a $5 million bribe. And the next day on June 9th, Biden's DOJ indicts Trump on the Mar-a-Lago documents. Yesterday, on July 31st, a Biden insider told Congress that Biden spoke with Hunter Biden's business partners dozens of times. And Hunter was paid handsomely to get his dad to fire the prosecutor in Ukraine. And then today, August 1st, Biden's Justice Department indicts Trump on January 6th charges. This isn't a coincidence. Any time Biden's in trouble, Trump pays for it. And the news cycle flips. Now Donald Trump is a runaway favorite to wrap up the Republican nomination and is currently tied with Joe Biden in yesterday's New York Times poll in the general. 43-43. Astonishingly, after these political war crimes have been perpetrated on him, Donald Trump is in the best position he's been in so far to win reelection. Can you believe that? At which point he'll have to pardon himself immediately. And don't you think for a second, he's not going to unleash hell on all of his political enemies. This is only the beginning of politicians putting other politicians and their families in prison. Sad we had to go down this road, but this is where we are. And now we have to finish it.

Transcribed automatically. Expect errors in names and numbers.