Search Posts

Are you or your loved ones suffering from illnesses such as TDS, also known as Trump Derangement Syndrome? Do you dismiss or deny the current issues facing our country, such as historic inflation, illegal immigration, corporate corruption, World War 3 escalations, and the chronic disease epidemic? Are you willing to elect someone who was the least popular Vice President in modern history, and who offers no policy or vision for America, simply because your brain keeps telling you anyone but Trump? If so, you might be struggling from TDS. Introducing Independence. Independence allows you the freedom to finally think independently once again. Instead of believing everything you hear from the mainstream media, Independence allows for constructive critical thinking. I used to hear people on the news say things like Donald Trump and the movement he has encouraged are a threat to democracy. And I instantly believed it. With independence, I now realize the media is run by the Democrat elite who are a corrupt oligarchy that censors free speech, silences political opponents, supports forever wars, and abandons democracy by anointing its candidates. Independence may not be for everyone. If you enjoy being lied to about your president's cognitive abilities, support Orwellian totalitarianism, or are excited about communist fiscal policy, independence may not be right for you. Common side effects of independence may include an awakening of rational thought, successfully identifying propaganda, freedom of choice, loss of hatred, anti-narcissistic behavior, and love of democracy. I used to blindly hate whoever my party was running against. I didn't care about facts or policy because I was hopelessly indoctrinated. With independence, I'm much more interested in policies that uphold democracy, and I truly care about the health of our country and its citizens. Ask your doctor if independence is right for you, and enjoy your freedoms once again. you

Transcribed automatically. Expect errors in names and numbers.

Well, our testimony was important because it starts to connect some of the dots, and that is, you know, can you actually put a pin in Donald Trump's hand, can you put a check in his hand under his signature? But that really is not the crux of the government's case. The case deals with heavy falsified records as it relates to the federal election law, and so that has not been accomplished yet.

Transcribed automatically. Expect errors in names and numbers.

Joining us now, David Shown, former Trump impeachment lawyer and Mike Davis, former Gorsuch clerk and president and founder of the Article III Project. Now there was scheduling news in the other Trump case in New York, but David, before we get into that, this is how Tish James responded to the bond being lowered today. In her statement, she said in part, "Donald Trump is still facing accountability for a staggering fraud, 464 million judgment plus interest against Donald Trump and the other defendants that still stands." Is the judge signaling something here? What's your got? Well, I think that the court did, took a big step in the right direction. I don't think there should have been any bond for the appeal in this case, and the court certainly had that discretion. He has the assets, you know where he is, but I think the underlying conviction is going to be reversed, certainly by the time it reaches the New York Court of Appeals, if it has to go that far. As you have said, no loss, no victims, the banks were more than happy to do what they, to make the loans, they wanted more business, he's an international brand and so on. This is a very different definition of fraud than we've ever seen before. No jury trial, there should have been a jury trial, as we've said before, 2011 case that says no jury trial says because damages are incidental to the relief generally given under this statute, this executive law 6312, these are not incidental damages. So I think the court made the right decision, should have gone further. Now, Mike, when you watch the faces, the faces always tell the story on the other networks. They were crestfallen today, I mean, they really wanted an immediate rush to Trump national golf course or any of his premier properties, and they wanted to see the padlocks being put on the door. They didn't quite know how to process this today, did they? Yeah, it's amazing, you have this New York attorney general who campaigned on the fact that she was going to get Trump, Tish James, they went to this biased Democrat Manhattan judge Arthur Inglerond, who decreed before the trial began, before any witnesses or any other evidence that Trump somehow committed fraud when he paid back sophisticated Wall Street banks in full on time as agreed with interest. And then they put this half billion dollar unconstitutionally punitive fine against Trump, and then they wanted him to put up this half billion dollars to pursue his appellate rights. This is obviously not going to fly with the American people, and this is going to backfire on November 5th, 2024. Well, when you think about this, David, the bottom line is this signals that this might go Trump's way. I would imagine it would go Trump's way. But then we have this April 15th trial date that set for this so-called hush money case, which I don't think the left thought was going to be their best shot at starting this law fair really going, but it really could be the first of the big cases. I don't count the Jean Carroll case. Thoughts about that today? That was the one saving grace, the left thought that gave them a little shit on their side. Well, politically, I mean, each one of these cases sends President Trump soaring upwards in the polls, because I think ultimately the American people are fair and reasonable, and they see these political prosecutions for what they are. There are so many problems with this case, it's hard to know where to start. This judge never should have been assigned to the case. He wasn't randomly assigned. He was assigned to the Trump organization case. He was assigned to the Bannon case. They say the chief administrative judge put him on it. It wasn't because he was qualified, in my view. I've had nothing but bad experiences with him. He's an anti-Trumper. The indictment is defective. It doesn't give notice of what's really charged in the case, but the biggest thing is they hired a special prosecutor in this case, Mark Pomerance, who came in and did a study. It's all in his book. The higher ups in that office thought this case should never be brought, just like the feds passed on the case. The feds had this evidence, and they said there should be no prosecution. You're going to see in this case Bob Costello testify, who was Michael Cohen's lawyer, and he's going to tell you that Michael Cohen told a completely different story, and Michael Cohen waved privilege. That's one of the main reasons the feds never prosecuted. Mike, your sense on this, because there were tens of, what, tens of thousands of documents that have to be gone through in this case, and I imagine they're going to ask for another continuation in this case to push it off past April 15th. Do you think that will be successful? For Alvin Bragg's sake, I hope that he better hope this gets pushed off, because this is a dog of a case. They have taken a businessman settling a nuisance claim, and tried to turn this into felony campaign finance violations that the prior Manhattan DA, the Manhattan U.S. Attorney, the Federal Election Commission, and Alvin Bragg himself passed over until Matthew Colangelo got sent from the number three office in the Biden Justice Department to resurrect this zombie case to get Trump. Yeah, well, President Trump mentioned him by name today. David, the judge was clearly annoyed by the underlying allegation that this is all just some political vendetta against Trump. He didn't much like that today. What would you advise the president as a matter of legal strategy? Forget the political PR side of it. He has to keep making the record in this case. This judge is always going to be annoyed with anything that appears to be in President Trump's favor. You have tens of thousands of documents being turned over at the last minute here that easily could have been gotten from the federal prosecutors. They worked with the federal prosecutors. As Mike said, Colangelo comes from the feds. He also comes from the New York Attorney General's Office, where he went after Trump as well. They just can't play it straight with folks who are looking for justice in this case, and this judge certainly isn't, in my opinion. He's the wrong guy for this job, but President Trump has to stay the course and keep raising all of the legal issues in this case, and wait till you see what happens when Michael Cone testifies and his own lawyer contradicts him. Oh, that is going to be juicy, David and Mike. Great to see you both. Thanks so much.

Transcribed automatically. Expect errors in names and numbers.

Nine days. That's how long Donald Trump has to respond to a new motion filed by special counsel Jack Smith earlier today. Smith is asking the Supreme Court for an expedited ruling on whether Trump has presidential immunity for his actions related to his objections to the results of the 2020 election. Of course, all the usual suspects say it's all about making sure the trains run on time. I do think it's a smart move, Jake. I think it's a necessary move, in fact, because this is, as a practical matter, the only real way Jack Smith can hold on to his current trial date, which is March 4th, 2024. It's his only chance of keeping this case on track. Now, that's a load of bunk. It's notable, right, that in his request Jack Smith says it's important to decide it quickly, but he never gives any reason as to why. The only sensible explanation is that Smith filed this request because he wants Trump tried, convicted, and sentenced before the 2024 election. Joining me now, Christopher Landau. Chris has argued before the court several times, and also clerk for Justices Thomas and Scalia. Chris, explain this for us. All right. Well, it's good to be here, Laura. The special counsel filed two motions today. One was an extraordinary motion to have the Supreme Court decide this important immunity issue before the court of appeals. I mean, the district court, we have three levels in our system, district court, court of appeals, Supreme Court. The normal path is for the case to go to the court of appeals. Jack Smith wants the Supreme Court to basically take that case before the court of appeals has even decided it. Why? Well, I think it's obvious. The mask is coming off, Laura, that this is about election interference. As you just said, this is all about the timetable that they want to get Trump convicted before the 2024 election. So you have to speed it up. This is highly unusual. Look, they brought an incredibly unprecedented case. Never before in American history has anything like this come up through the legal system. Obviously, Trump has legal defenses. Like I was president then, and there's very tricky immunity questions. Okay. Instead of having the legal process play itself out like it usually does, they're insisting that there is imperative public importance in this. Yeah. Public importance is that Biden's down in like five, six, seven swing states. Laura, it is one of the most depressing things as an American to see that we are really in a banana republic where this is again, there's no way to explain this other than election interference. They want a DC jury essentially to decide the 2024 election by having this jurisdiction where, by the way, in the last election, Biden got 92% of the votes and Trump is five. So they want to tell the rest of the country, oh no, Trump was criminally convicted in DC. Are you going to vote for a convicted felon? I mean, this is all a setup. And again, the legal system, whoever's right or wrong on some of these legal issues, we have a process. And I think it is particularly important in an election case like this to make sure that the special counsel crosses his T's and dots his eyes. Why doesn't Congress bring him to testify on Capitol Hill? Where is the accountability? Congress has a role here. Does it not? This is why Justice Scalia thought all of this was basically unconstitutional. This whole special counsel thing. They're accountable to no one. The Biden Justice Department acts. I mean, this is such a charade. Like, oh no, it's not us. It's this special counsel who's doing it. Yeah. Well, Politico just reported moments ago, Chris, that Smith has extracted data from the cell phone Trump used while he was in the White House and plans to present evidence of his findings to the DC jury to demonstrate how Trump used the phone in the weeks during which he attempted to subvert it. I mean, this is what it is now in a presidential election year. You're going to take the cell phone of the guy who's beaten the other guy by how many points? Laura, I mean, come on. You know, there was no question that January 6th, if Trump is the nominee, will be a major issue, but the Democrats don't want to fight this in the political arena. They want to say, oh no, this is a criminal case, folks. This is, you know, this is the mighty halls of justice. This is again, this motion to the Supreme Court can only be explained by their desire on timing. There's no imperative public need to have this trial in March of next year. What's the imperative public need on that? No, it's convenient politically because otherwise it's very unlikely given normal judicial, uh, procedures and processes that this won't be decided before the election. And that's the worst of all worlds for them. The voters, voters don't seem to buy into any of this. Well, you know, I mean, listen, we'll, you know, we'll see what happens. I have to say the one law that they can't manipulate is the law of unintended consequences. And so far it's not worked that well for them on this. Chris Landau, you made something complicated, really understandable. Great to to see you, as always. - Always a pleasure. Thanks for having me.

Transcribed automatically. Expect errors in names and numbers.