Search Posts

Disindictment against Donald Trump for a number of reasons and I don't want to hog the time should be dismissed Based upon the joke that this whole thing is

Transcribed automatically. Expect errors in names and numbers.

This is a jumbo calendar, okay? Nine years divided into months, okay, years and months. 108 months altogether. We did this because I think it's interesting when the alleged offenses committed by Donald Trump, when they allegedly happened, as to when he was actually processed or charged. So let's go all the way back to 2016, which is all the way up here. This is where the alleged payment thing was Stormy Daniels, right? Then you got to go all the way over here to January 6th. And then August 8th of 2022, that's when the FBI raided Mar-a-Lago. So they were kind of all over the place, right? Isn't it wild that all the indictments are falling in this three-month span on the federal level? And you got this one over here, the local, only two months separated from the federal indictments. And how big, how many months did they have to choose from? They waited until within less than a year away from the primary. Doesn't that seem suspicious? Isn't that kind of, um, possibly prosecutorial abuse or election interference? I think so. All right, take a look at this. Let's be clear on this point. It wasn't just that they asked for a pause. Uh, the president, uh, specifically asked me and his gaggle of, uh, of crackpot lawyers asked me to literally reject votes, which would have resulted in, uh, in the issue being turned over to the House of Representatives, and literally chaos would have ensued. Mike Pence, there was a way to do it. And people can disagree about that, I understand. But did you just call them crackpot lawyers? That's something coming from Vice President Pence. He'd go to law school. It's fine law school, but it's not all that. Uh, I.U. McKinney School of Law. Never heard of it, but, uh, number 98 in the nation. And I don't think he actually ever practiced law. Rudy Giuliani went to New York University Law School, one of the top 10 in the country, and became one of the top prosecutors in American history. John Eastman went to the University of Chicago Law School and became one of the top academics in the country. These are not crackpot lawyers. Pence is just mimicking what the mainstream media say. Tells you something about Mike Pence. And here's something else about Mike Pence that really bothers me. You know, he could have told people ahead of January 6th, "My only duty and role that day is to, is to count the votes," nothing else. He could have said that out loud. Um, he knew his mind was made up. But why didn't he tell anybody? I mean, he told Mark Short, and he told his daughter. So he's driving over to, uh, the Capitol on January 6th. He's pulling up, and we have this from his book. See, he knew what he was gonna do. He also knew that nobody else knew. I turned to my daughter and said with a sigh, "God bless those people. They're gonna be so disappointed." Why don't they roll down the window and say, "Hey, I'm just gonna rubber-stamp the whole thing, sorry." Again, Mike Pence, that's his position. And he could defend that position. I disagree with it. Donald Trump disagreed with it. People disagree about stuff all the time. It goes to the Supreme Court. Five to four decisions. He could have said something. And it might have precluded a lot of the strife on January 6th. Some of the candidates and the stuff they're saying about this indictment, I think it renders them ineligible to be the nominee and to be president. This is Asa Hutchinson. I'm sorry, if you can't see this indictment for the political hit job that it is, you're not qualified, but anyway. -The voters that Donald Trump has misled, the indictment talks about that he knew that he had not won the election, but he continued to propagate this idea that he had. He misled his voters, and he continues to do that today. I've already been through that about the advisers, Asa Hutchinson, or Ada, as Donald Trump calls them, for some reason, it's not going to happen. Congressman Heard, former CIA guy who's running, I wonder why, his denial of the 2020 election results and actions on January 6th show he's unfit for office. Okay, who are you again? Just good luck with getting people to know who you are. Here's a guy I like, Vivek Ramaswamy. This is the reaction. This is the reaction. -We do not want to become a country where the party in power is able to use banana-republic-like tactics to eliminate its political opponents. Yet I'm sad to say that's exactly where we are. The allegations in this indictment fall flat. It is wrong and incorrect and inaccurate to place blame for what happened on January 6th at the feet of Donald Trump. -Good for you, Vivek Ramaswamy, and he's still a competitor of Donald Trump, but he's doing it the right way. Keep an eye on him. Now, let's check in on Joe Biden at the beach again today. Joe Biden at the beach. It's not Memorial Day weekend. It's not July 4th. It's not Labor Day. It's Wednesday. I mean, how many vacation days do federal employees get? He was at the beach. He also rode his bike all over the place, which is a bad idea. I already warned him about this, and he's had at least one major fall off that bike. Not good, not good. Now, he went to the beach also last night, which I can't figure out. Who goes to the beach at night? Generally speaking, I don't think older married couples go to the beach. I know some people go to the beach at night, but I don't know. That's a little bit odd. And he went to the movies, and not just any movie. He saw a three-hour movie on a Tuesday night. It's a weeknight. It's a school night if you're an adult, kind of. Well, it's not a school night, I guess. But you know what I mean. He shouldn't be going to a three-hour movie. What did he see? Oppenheimer. I saw that movie, and I could not stay for the whole three hours. I had to get back to my life. I had stuff to do, and I'm not the president of the United States. I just have a show on Channel 333. I had to get back to work. I couldn't stay for the whole thing. I did stay through the test in New Mexico. Overrated movie. Anyway, next, please, the judge in the case. We have to talk about her for a second. Tanya Shutkin. This is a bad judge. I'm not saying she's bad. I don't know about her record, but bad for the Trump case, because she has major conflicts. Take a look at this. She worked at Hunter Biden's law firm. You can't spend 12 years at the law firm where Hunter Biden worked. Boys, Schiller, Flexner, or whatever. You can't be there. That's the major conflict of interest. Next, please. Let's see, the judge donated $1,500 to Obama in 2008 and 2009. I'm sorry, that renders her ineligible to preside over a case where President Trump is a defendant, and I think we have one more. What is it? Number three, she lives in Washington, DC. Now, why is that? Why is that a problem? Well, if you watch local news in Washington, DC, they talk about January 6th like it was Pearl Harbor, like it was here in New York, like 9/11 or Hurricane Sandy. It's something that affected all of Washington, DC. They're very melodramatic about it. And also, the town is 92.1% Democrat. And according to the Constitution, Donald Trump, under the Sixth Amendment, is entitled-- all Americans are entitled to an impartial jury, and it's impossible for him to get one in Washington, DC. All right, folks, we need your help. We'd like to know how you feel about this indictment. I have a sneaking suspicion how you already feel, but Trump's second federal indictment, a crime or an effort to stop his 24 run. Please vote. Text Trump, T-R-U-M-P, to 39 747 39 747. There'll be a bunch of questions there. It'll take you through it, and we'll share the results with all of you. Thank you. It will mean a lot.

Transcribed automatically. Expect errors in names and numbers.

Next, your thoughts on this? This indictment strikes me as an amateurish joke. Frankly, Jack Smith, a 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, you know, 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.

Transcribed automatically. Expect errors in names and numbers.

Well, look, I think this is a very dangerous time in our history. I think this is an incredibly concerning, I do think this is a weaponization of post-election speech, and I have to say, all of the people who claim that the 2016 election wasn't legitimate, all of the people who claimed in 2004 with a formal objection in the Congress, that that election wasn't legitimate and in fact objected to the point where they said that the voting machines in Ohio were tampered with and that President Bush was selected, not elected, and not to mention former presidents of the United States and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, Jimmy Carter, and a whole slew of House Democrats who repeatedly led the nation to believe, lied to the nation, that they said Russia selected Donald Trump as president, that the election was completely illegitimate. All of that was allowed to pass, but yet once again, we see a criminalization when it comes to Donald Trump, and I think, guys, you're going to have all kinds of analysts on here diving into the weeds on the Electoral Count Act, on the Presidential Records Act, on all kinds of interpretation of the law, but I hope you don't lose the forest for the trees, that this is dangerously badly eroding public trust in the fairness of the law and the fairness of the Department of Justice and in our institutions, and that is someone who's out on the ground talking to voters every day and every week.

Transcribed automatically. Expect errors in names and numbers.