Special Counsel Jack Smith has filed a second case against Donald Trump, this time in Florida, alleging multiple crimes in relation to the election of 2020 and January 6th. This is a bit different than the classified documents case, in which the case will be heard in Washington, D.C., but it's still a significant legal challenge for the President. Is this case politically motivated? Or is it really a case of political retaliation against a former president who stood up for himself in the face of overwhelming public opinion against him in order to cling to power after losing to Hillary Clinton in the presidential election in 2016? And is this case really as political as the first case, the one brought against Trump regarding classified documents, which is being heard in Florida? And if so, what does that mean for the future of this case and the possibility of further indictments against Trump in the case against him? This is an interesting one, and I think you'll agree that it's a fascinating one, especially if you're a supporter of the President and want to see Donald Trump go to jail for something he did in this case. Today's episode is all about the other shoe dropping and why this is a political in nature, not just political, and why we should be worried that Donald Trump will be sent to jail in the United States of America's capital, New York City, not New York, New Jersey, or Los Angeles, and whether or not he should go to Florida or New York. The other shoe drops in a little sooner than we think it will be dropped in the next week, and we'll get a fair chance to respond in court in Florida or Manhattan, and get a chance to defend Trump in court, not in New York or New Jersey. And we'll talk about why that's a good thing and why it's so important and why the case is so important to the President's chances of getting a fair shot at a fair hearing in the coming days, and what's going to happen in the end, not what we should do in the rest of the case in the future, and so on this episode of 'The Other Shoe' and why he should be more than just a little bit more than we should we should all be worried about what happens in Florida. of course, not less than a little more than a week from now, but more than two weeks from now! Thank you for listening to this episode, and tweet us
00:00:01.000Yesterday, Jack Smith, the special counsel who was appointed to investigate Donald Trump's activities surrounding the election of 2020 and January 6th, and also appointed to look into his handling of classified documents, he has now filed a second case against Donald Trump.
00:00:16.000The classified documents case is going to be held down in Florida.
00:00:19.000Now, he has filed a federal indictment Alleging multiple crimes with regard to January 6th and election 2020.
00:00:25.000According to the Wall Street Journal, Trump was indicted Tuesday in an unprecedented criminal case accusing the former president of trying to subvert the will of American voters through his attempts to cling to power after he lost the 2020 election.
00:00:35.000Here was Jack Smith yesterday announcing the indictment and making it all about January 6th.
00:00:40.000And as we'll see, this is sort of fascinating because it's political.
00:00:44.000I mean, when I say it's political, I don't just mean that he is saying things that are political in nature.
00:00:48.000I mean that this indictment itself is political.
00:00:51.000See, in order for an indictment to actually have any teeth, the crimes that are statutory in nature, the elements of the crimes must be fulfilled.
00:00:59.000Alleging that somebody did a bad thing to you doesn't make it a crime.
00:01:02.000If I say something mean to you, you may not like it.
00:01:04.000I may be being a jerk, but that doesn't mean that I just committed a crime.
00:01:07.000A crime is a statutorily defined thing, and you have to hit the elements of that crime In order for him to go to jail over that crime.
00:01:15.000The problem in this particular case is that there are a lot of things that a lot of people don't like about what Donald Trump did between the election of 2020 and January 6th.
00:01:23.000I think, for example, he was not telling the truth when he suggested that the election had actually been won by him, that formal voter fraud, not just, you know, media rigging the election through informal means or changing of voter rules, but actual formal voter fraud changed the outcome of the 2020 election.
00:01:38.000I think he knew that was not true and I think that he was lying about that, but I can't prove it.
00:01:42.000Not only can I not prove it, the evidence, you know, again, is somewhat speculative because maybe he truly believed, this is gonna be his defense, that voter fraud did decide the 2020 election.
00:01:52.000I think that Donald Trump did something that was, frankly, false.
00:01:55.000And I think that he was lying to people when he suggested, between the election and January 6th, that Mike Pence had the unilateral ability to overturn election results.
00:02:02.000That's not the way the Constitution is written.
00:02:04.000However, could there be a legal theory to that extent that Donald Trump actually believed?
00:02:11.000Me thinking that Donald Trump did a bad thing does not make the bad thing a crime.
00:02:14.000And when you start making bad things a crime, things you don't like a crime, free speech a crime, specious legal theory is a crime, now you are encroaching on actual American freedoms just to get Donald Trump.
00:02:23.000And that's what Jack Smith is doing here.
00:02:25.000Because as we will see, and we're going to go through the indictment in great detail today, as we will see, the things that Jack Smith is alleging are mainly things that are just, like, not good.
00:02:35.000Like, not good things that are not provable crimes.
00:02:37.000And he is stretching the definition of crimes to fit those not good things because he had a mandate, as all special counsels do, which is indict.
00:02:45.000And as the old saying goes, once you get a case in front of a grand jury, they'll indict a ham sandwich.
00:02:49.000And for Jack Smith, who's bringing this case in Washington, DC, it's almost being treated,
00:02:54.000I think, legally as a backup to the classified documents case in Florida.
00:02:57.000The classified documents case in Florida is the most significant legal threat to Donald Trump
00:03:00.000because he appears to have fulfilled the elements of the crime.
00:03:02.000Leave aside the double standard with Hillary Clinton, if you are just a jury looking at whether Donald Trump
00:03:06.000did the things alleged in the indictment and do those fulfill the elements of the crime
00:03:09.000with regard to classified documents, the answer is likely yes in the state of Florida.
00:03:12.000The problem for Jack Smith is it's in the state of Florida.
00:03:15.000You may get a juror who's willing to basically say, I don't think it's fair that you're trying him at all.
00:03:20.000So the backup is file a bunch of real stretch charges in Washington DC where everybody hates Donald Trump's guts and hope that they're going to send him to jail on those bases.
00:03:30.000Same thing that Manhattan DA is doing over in Manhattan with regards to these ridiculous Stormy Daniels charges.
00:03:39.000And this is where it starts to seem incredibly political.
00:03:42.000Again, not just political because everything is political, but political in the sense that there is an overt attempt at this point to stretch the law to get Donald Trump.
00:03:50.000Here's Jack Smith yesterday announcing the charges.
00:03:54.000Today, 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.
00:04:10.000The indictment was issued by a grand jury of citizens here in the District of Columbia, and it sets forth the crimes charged in detail.
00:04:19.000I encourage everyone to read it in full.
00:04:24.000The attack on our nation's capital on January 6, 2021, was an unprecedented assault on the seat of American democracy.
00:04:33.000As described in the indictment, it was fueled by lies.
00:04:39.000Lies by the defendant, Targeted at obstructing a bedrock function of the US government, the nation's process of collecting, counting, and certifying the results of the presidential election.
00:04:53.000Okay, what he just alleged right there is not a crime.
00:04:54.000Okay, January 6th, I agree, was really bad.
00:04:58.000I think January 6th was terrible for America.
00:05:00.000I'm not somebody who actually, you know, whitewashes January 6th or pretends that riots in general are okay as long as they're coming from my side.
00:05:07.000I don't like violence against police officers.
00:05:09.000I don't think that the riots in the Capitol were Going to achieve anything that was remotely approached by constitutional law.
00:05:18.000I do think that the attempt to label everybody who's at the protest a rioter and everybody who is at the riot a rioter because a lot of people are just kind of wandering through the halls of Congress there.
00:05:43.000But, put all of that aside, what Jack Smith is saying, which is January 6th is bad and Donald Trump lied and that's the thing that's bad and therefore it's a crime, that is not a crime.
00:05:52.000Even if you believe that Donald Trump's words fueled people into believing that they could overthrow the election and that therefore they went and they did the thing.
00:06:49.000He's going to be, before the election, facing down charges in Georgia, in Washington, D.C., in Florida, and in New York.
00:06:55.000And so he's going to argue, and his lawyers are going to argue, as Andy McCarthy has pointed out, that that makes him kind of a busy man as he's running a presidential election, so maybe they ought to delay the trial beyond the election.
00:07:03.000We'll see if a judge buys that or not.
00:07:04.000The judge in this particular case, it ought to be noted, is a U.S.
00:07:07.000District Court judge named Tanya Chutkin, who's an Obama appointee.
00:07:11.000She also happens to be the only federal judge in Washington, D.C.
00:07:13.000who has sentenced January 6th defendants to sentences longer than the government request.
00:07:18.000She's also the same person who, as a lawyer, represented Theranos at Boies Schiller and presided as a judge in the U.S.
00:07:28.000There's been a point in this case, and it's fair for the left to point out that a Trump appointee is presiding over the Mar-a-Lago classified documents case.
00:07:35.000It is certainly fair to point out that Jack Smith is filing in a court in Washington, D.C.
00:07:39.000with probably the most Trump-hating judge in Washington, D.C.
00:07:43.000In Washington, D.C., with a Trump-hating jury, presumably, which is why he feels that he can get away with this.
00:07:48.000Here he says they're going to seek a speedy trial and see if they can get Trump in the dock before the election.
00:07:53.000Since the attack on our Capitol, the Department of Justice has remained committed to ensuring accountability for those criminally responsible for what happened that day.
00:08:04.000This case is brought consistent with that commitment, and our investigation of other individuals continues.
00:08:11.000In this case, my office will seek a speedy trial so that our evidence can be tested in court and judged by a jury of citizens.
00:08:22.000OK, so here is here is the problem with with all of this.
00:08:26.000Trump is going to come to court in Washington, D.C.
00:08:33.000OJ Simpson-style media coverage of the cars leaving Mar-a-Lago, of the plane arriving in Washington, D.C., and Trump going to the courthouse.
00:08:40.000And when you aggregate all these charges, attempting to obstruct an official proceeding, for example, carries a maximum sentence of 20 years in prison.
00:08:45.000I mean, these are really, really serious charges.
00:08:47.000Will he be sentenced to that, even if he is convicted of those things?
00:10:59.000Hey, if you are going to accuse Donald Trump of fraud, this is not criminal fraud.
00:11:03.000As National Review points out, quote, As the Supreme Court reaffirmed just a few weeks ago, fraud in federal criminal law is a scheme to swindle victims out of money or tangible property.
00:11:11.000Mandacious rhetoric in seeking to retain political office is damnable, but it is not criminal fraud, although that is what Smith has charged.
00:11:18.000Indeed, assuming a prosecutor could prove beyond a reasonable doubt Trump hadn't actually convinced himself the election was stolen from him, hyperbole, and even worse, our protected political speech.
00:11:26.000So, again, the notion that it is defrauding the United States, not like you stole money from the post office, like, or embezzled from the EPA, but him actively challenging the election beyond the time when the Constitution says the states certify, that that amounts to fraud?
00:11:45.000Nope, it doesn't fulfill that criminal statute.
00:11:47.000Okay, that's conspiracy number one they're alleging.
00:11:50.000A conspiracy to corruptly obstruct and impede the January 6th congressional proceeding at which the collected results of the presidential election are counted and certified in violation of 18 U.S.
00:12:08.000When they said obstruction of justice, I thought that the charges, you know, before they released them, I thought maybe what the charges were going to be is that Donald Trump called up witnesses and threatened them to lie.
00:12:16.000He said, I want you to lie to the January 6th committee, or I want you to lie to the Jack Smith office in this proceeding.
00:12:57.000You can tell when a case is bullcrap by what exactly is being alleged.
00:13:01.000And so, for example, if you go back to the Derek Chauvin criminal case, I kept pointing out that the entire media, the entire country, kept saying this is a case about race.
00:13:09.000And I kept saying, it's not even alleged in court that this is a case about race.
00:13:13.000So when there's a gap between the public perception of a case and what's actually being alleged, well, then you can tell that the case is specious.
00:13:19.000The same thing is true with regard to Donald Trump's case about election fraud.
00:13:23.000I kept pointing out that Donald Trump did not even legally allege the fraud that he kept saying to the American public over and over in court, which means there's a gap, which means somebody is not being honest.
00:13:32.000Okay, well, they are alleging here that Donald Trump obstructed justice, and then they provide no evidence of the actual obstruction.
00:13:39.000There's no allegation that matches the crime that they're actually attempting to indict him on.
00:13:44.000That gap means somebody is being dishonest, and in this case, it's Jack Smith.
00:13:47.000And finally, a conspiracy against the right to vote and to have one's vote counted in violation of 18 U.S.
00:13:52.000Again, this is not the right interpretation of the law, not even remotely.
00:13:57.000This law was written, it was a civil rights law.
00:13:58.000It was written in the aftermath of the Civil War to stop, essentially, white racists from preventing black people from voting or throwing their votes in the river or something.
00:14:08.000If you have a specious legal case and it ends up not being verified by a court, That does not mean you violated the law if the basic idea is that every time I advance a legal theory and the legal theory ends up not being justified by a court, somehow I have conspired against the right to vote.
00:14:25.000Like, that means I can't ever file a voter case.
00:14:30.000Every time Democrats file a gerrymandering case on some legal theory, And they get overruled.
00:14:36.000Then, presumably, they have now conspired to prevent somebody's right to vote, because the gerrymandering was legal, and they said the gerrymandering was illegal, but then that was turned down, so obviously they were trying to deprive somebody of their right to vote in accordance with the law.
00:16:13.000That doesn't apply because specious legal theories that you attempt to advance, that's not obstructing justice.
00:16:19.000And a conspiracy against the right to vote and stopping people from having their votes counted, again, a specious legal theory does not mean that you have now violated somebody's right to vote.
00:16:29.000And then we get to some of the actual allegations in the indictment.
00:16:33.000So, they say the defendant's conspiracy to impair, obstruct, and defeat the federal government function through dishonesty, fraud, and deceit included the following manner and means.
00:16:41.000First, the defendant and co-conspirators used knowingly false claims of election fraud to get state legislators and election officials to subvert the legitimate election results and change electoral votes for the defendant's opponent, Joe Biden, to electoral votes for the defendant.
00:16:53.000That is, on the pretext of baseless fraud claims, the defendant pushed officials in certain states to ignore the popular vote, disenfranchised millions of voters, dismissed legitimate electors, and ultimately caused the ascertainment of and voting by illegitimate electors in favor of defendant.
00:17:05.000Okay, so there's a key word in that particular paragraph, knowingly.
00:17:10.000Knowingly false claims of election fraud.
00:17:12.000So, they're gonna have a real tough time with this one.
00:17:14.000They have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Donald Trump absolutely knew that the election fraud claims were false?
00:17:20.000Not that he should have known, not that people told him, but that he actively knew that the election fraud claims were false and he promoted them anyway for his own personal benefit.
00:17:28.000Now, there are people around Trump who have basically said as much, right?
00:17:32.000Bill Stepien, former campaign manager, a bunch of people around Trump have said, yeah, we knew that this kind of stuff was not true and we were still promoting it to the public.
00:17:41.000But by we, do they mean that Donald Trump personally told them?
00:17:44.000That allegation is not included in the indictment.
00:17:45.000If it were, if there were some allegation here, a witness said, Donald Trump told me, yeah, I lost the election, do it anyway.
00:17:51.000That would be a problem for Donald Trump.
00:17:53.000If they said, if there were a tape like there is in the classified documents case where he's like, I know I lost the election.
00:18:05.000And as I've said for a very long time about the president of the United States, it is very difficult to establish intent for Donald Trump on intent crimes.
00:18:12.000Because again, his intent shifts moment to moment.
00:18:15.000Like almost every day, he shifts his intent.
00:18:18.000And he fully believes the thing that he is saying today.
00:18:20.000And he fully believed the thing that he was saying yesterday.
00:18:22.000Okay, B. The defendant and co-conspirators organized fraudulent slates of electors in seven targeted states attempting to mimic the procedures that the legitimate electors were supposed to follow under the Constitution and other federal and state laws.
00:18:33.000This included causing the fraudulent electors to meet on the day appointed by federal law on which legitimate electors were to gather and cast their votes, cast fraudulent votes for the defendant, And signed certificates falsely representing they were the legitimate electors.
00:18:44.000Some fraudulent electors were tricked into participating based on the understanding their votes would be used only if the defendant succeeded in outcome-determinative lawsuits within their state, which the defendant never did.
00:18:53.000The defendant and co-conspirators then caused these fraudulent electors to transmit their false certificates to the VP.
00:18:58.000Okay, again, that's a specious legal claim.
00:19:05.000If Donald Trump convinces me to write a letter to my congressperson threatening that if my congressperson does not do X, Y, or Z, I become the legal congressperson from that district, that is a fraudulent legal claim that has no merit.
00:19:24.000Specious legal theories are fully protected here in the United States of America, or they were until five minutes ago.
00:19:28.000C. The defendant and co-conspirators attempted to use the power and authority of the DOJ to conduct sham election crime investigations and to send a letter to the targeted states that falsely claimed that the DOJ had identified significant concerns that may have impacted the election outcome.
00:19:41.000Now again, all of this is really bad stuff, right?
00:19:43.000It's not just specious legal theory, it's pretty obvious specious legal theory, in absence of evidence.
00:19:46.000fraudulent electors as a valid alternative and urged on behalf of the DOJ the targeted
00:19:50.000state's legislatures to convene to create the opportunity to choose the fraudulent
00:19:53.000electors over the legitimate electors.
00:19:55.000Now again, all this is really bad stuff, right?
00:19:57.000It's been, it's not just specious legal theory.
00:19:59.000It's pretty obvious specious legal theory in absence of evidence.
00:20:04.000Also, did any of this constitute a crime?
00:20:07.000If Donald Trump says to a lower level member of the DOJ, because this is what's actually alleged, I want you to send a letter to the state of Michigan and tell them that there was fraud.
00:20:14.000And then that lower level member of the DOJ went to Attorney General Bill Barr and said, let's do it.
00:20:18.000And Bill Barr says, no, there's no evidence of that.
00:20:26.000Very difficult to say that that's a crime, that that fulfills the elements of, for example, obstruction of justice.
00:20:31.000D. The defendant and co-conspirators attempted to enlist the VP to use his ceremonial role at the January 6th certification proceeding to fraudulently alter the election results.
00:20:48.000When that failed on the morning of January 6th, the defendant and co-conspirators repeated knowingly false claims of election fraud to gathered supporters, falsely told them the VP had the authority to and might alter the election results, and directed them to the Capitol to obstruct the certification proceeding and exert pressure on the vice president.
00:21:14.000And finally, after it became public on the afternoon of January 6th, the VP would not fraudulently alter the election results.
00:21:19.000A large and angry crowd, including many individuals defendant had deceived into believing the VP could and might change the election results, violently attacked the Capitol and halted the proceedings.
00:21:27.000As violence ensued, the defendant and co-conspirators exploited the disruption by redoubling efforts to levy false claims of election fraud and convince members of Congress to further delay the certification based on those claims.
00:21:57.000My team knows I need my Black Rifle Coffee every morning.
00:21:59.000Black Rifle Coffee literally fuels The Daily Wire.
00:22:02.000Our office drinks about 40 pounds of their coffee every week.
00:22:04.000If you haven't tried the Black Rifle Coffee yet, you need to.
00:22:07.000A great place to start is their Complete the Mission Fuel Sampler, giving you a taste of the entire spectrum of Black Rifle Coffee flavor profiles.
00:22:13.000Offering four ounce bags of the following roasts, the Silencer Smooth, AK-47 Espresso, Beyond Black, and Just Black, the only hard part will be picking a favorite amongst these classic roasts.
00:22:20.000Black Rifle Coffee is a veteran founded coffee company, operated.
00:22:24.000By principled men and women who honor those who protect, defend, and support our country.
00:22:27.000With every purchase you make, they give back.
00:22:51.000Okay, so some of the allegations here are things like Donald Trump wanted to fire somebody and then didn't, right?
00:22:59.000This is one of the allegations that is made about the DOJ, that he was putting pressure on the DOJ to send certain letters and he threatened to fire his AG.
00:23:07.000Honestly, one of the things that Trump did repeatedly throughout his administration is threatened to fire people, and then when it turned out that he couldn't legally fire the person or create significant blowback, he would just not fire them.
00:23:17.000So for example, on page 31 of the indictment, It says, quote, Okay, and so?
00:23:23.000in the Oval Office on the night of January 3rd, co-conspirator four suggested
00:23:26.000the Justice Department should opine the VP could exceed his lawful authority
00:23:29.000during the certification proceeding and change the election outcome.
00:23:32.000When the assistant AG for the Office of Legal Counsel began to explain why the DOJ should not do so,
00:23:36.000the defendant said, no one here should be talking to the vice president,
00:23:38.000I'm talking to the vice president and ended the conversation.
00:23:55.000The chairman briefed the defendants on that particular issue.
00:23:57.000When the chairman and another advisor recommended the defendant take no action because the inauguration was 17 days away, the defendant said, quote, yeah, you're right.
00:24:58.000Shortly before 1 p.m., The Vice President issued a public statement explaining that his role as President of the Senate at the certification proceeding was about to begin, and did not include unilateral authority to determine which electoral votes should be counted and which should not.
00:25:10.000Before the defendant had finished speaking, a crowd began to gather at the Capitol.
00:25:13.000Thereafter, a mass of people, including individuals who had traveled to Washington and to the Capitol at the defendant's direction, broke through barriers cordoning off the Capitol grounds and advanced on the building, including by violently attacking law enforcement officers trying to secure it.
00:25:25.000The defendant watched events at the Capitol unfold on the TV in the dining room next to the Oval Office.
00:25:29.000Hey now, there's been no allegation anywhere in this indictment that Donald Trump told people to break into the Capitol and violently assault police officers.
00:25:36.000That's why he's not being charged with incitement.
00:25:38.000If he had, that's an actual crime he is not being charged with.
00:25:42.000At 2.13, after more than an hour of steady violence advancement, the crowd at the Capitol broke into the building.
00:25:46.000Upon receiving news that individuals had breached the Capitol, the defendant's advisors told them there was a riot there and rioters had breached the building.
00:25:52.000When advisors urged the defendant to issue a calming message aimed at the rioters, the defendant refused, instead repeatedly remarking that the people at the Capitol were angry because the election had been stolen.
00:26:38.000And it is, in fact, an assault on particular rights.
00:26:40.000Because when you overcharge, and those charges violate things like the First Amendment, or the right to purvey legal theories, even if they are specious, what you are doing is you are saying to everybody else that their First Amendment activities may not be protected.
00:26:55.000This is going to be the defense, by the way, that the Trump campaign is going to roll out.
00:26:59.000They're going to roll out essentially two defenses.
00:27:01.000One, when it comes to did Trump knowingly attempt to Purvey election fraud.
00:27:08.000They're going to say knowingly is a real strong word.
00:27:11.000And in fact, what they're going to do is they're going to relitigate the 2020 election, and they're going to say there are a lot of reasons for Donald Trump to believe that there was election fraud.
00:27:19.000Now, it may be that there was no election fraud to the extent that Donald Trump was talking about, but to pretend that no credible person could have ever believed that there was any election fraud, that's a stretch.
00:27:27.000This is exactly what John Laurel, his lawyer, is saying.
00:27:56.000And that's exactly what the special counsel, I should say Merrick Garland, Merrick Garland and the Biden administration had to sign off on this indictment.
00:28:05.000And what they've really done is invited now a relitigation of 2020, but this time in a criminal court, which is unprecedented.
00:28:16.000They're going to bring up a bunch of charges that Trump made in 2020, and the defense is going to be, well, I mean, would he have to be crazy to actually, you know, consider the possibility of those charges?
00:28:25.000What the indictment says is a bunch of people told Donald Trump that the election fraud thing wasn't true.
00:28:31.000Does that mean that Donald Trump had to believe them?
00:28:34.000How many times have you been told that a thing isn't true?
00:28:36.000Many times, I would imagine, across the course of your life.
00:28:38.000Did you believe it every time somebody told you a thing wasn't true?
00:28:41.000Presumably, sometimes you believed it, and sometimes you didn't.
00:29:37.000It's the first time that we've taken political speech and said, We're going to criminalize it by the party that's in control against the party that's contesting the next election where the two individuals involved are going to be running for office.
00:29:51.000That is an incredible set of circumstances.
00:29:57.000And the DOJ being weaponized against the chief political opponent of the current president of the United States, while that same DOJ was trying to cut a backdoor sweetheart deal with the president's son, is a wild spectacle.
00:30:08.000And it is going to be the centerpiece of the 2024 election if Donald Trump ends up being the nominee.
00:30:12.000And we'll get to sort of the effects of this on both the primary and the general election in a little bit.
00:30:16.000But the fact remains that this indictment is really specious.
00:30:21.000Again, National Review, which is not exactly a publication known for being Trump friendly.
00:30:26.000National Review has a full editorial today talking about how this indictment should be tossed.
00:30:30.000And by the way, even if Trump were convicted on some of these charges, there's a good shot the Supreme Court overturns the charges themselves because they are not properly formulated.
00:30:37.000Jack Smith's entire indicting strategy here is January 6th is super bad.
00:30:41.000Here's a bunch of crap I'm going to throw against the wall.
00:30:45.000And here's the thing, Jack Smith knows better.
00:30:47.000So up until this point, I've said with regard to Jack Smith, Jack Smith is a special prosecutor.
00:30:51.000It's his job to identify crimes and charge them.
00:30:53.000If he sees overwhelming evidence of a crime happening, it's not his job to undo what James Comey did wrongly in allowing Hillary Clinton off the hook in 2016 over classified documents.
00:31:01.000It's his job to determine whether the elements of a crime are fulfilled and then to charge them.
00:31:05.000So when it comes to, for example, the classified documents case in Florida, I can't blame Jack Smith for the indictment.
00:31:13.000And this is pretty obviously coming from a Biden DOJ that, again, is politically biased.
00:31:18.000It is impossible to read this current Trump indictment without at the same time reading the fact that the DOJ did not set up a special counsel for the Hunter Biden prosecution, that the DOJ appears to have attempted a sweetheart deal with Hunter, that the DOJ pretty obviously is attempting to avoid any further investigation into Hunter Biden's finances, specifically with regard to his own dad.
00:31:39.000When you read those two in juxtaposition to one another, it looks like the current president of the United States is prosecuting the former president of the United States.
00:31:48.000And by the way, this would now make it the second time.
00:31:50.000Because remember, it was under Barack Obama that the FBI and the DOJ were targeting Donald Trump in 2016.
00:31:56.000So it'd be the second time that Democrats in charge of the government and the auspices of legal power were essentially targeting Donald Trump.
00:32:06.000It's why he's going to be promoted in the primaries, by the way.
00:32:09.000Every time he gets indicted, every Republican rushes to his defense, and they should on this particular indictment, because the feeling, quite properly, is this is a weaponization of law enforcement against the former president of the United States for political reasons.
00:32:26.000We'll get to the actual consequences of this in just one second, politically speaking first.
00:32:30.000When you're running a business, your employees can create all sorts of interesting situations.
00:32:34.000This is why you need to talk to Bambi.
00:32:35.000Bambi gives you access to your own dedicated HR manager starting just $99 per month.
00:32:39.000This person is available to you by phone, email, and real-time chat.
00:32:41.000They'll help you run employee onboardings, terminations, and performance reviews.
00:32:44.000With Bambi's HR Autopilot feature, it can automate important HR practices like setting policies, employee training, and feedback procedures.
00:32:51.000All of Bambi's HR managers are based here in the United States and can support the nuances across all 50 states.
00:32:55.000HR managers can easily cost you 80 grand a year, but Bambi starts at just 99 bucks per month.
00:32:59.000Schedule your free conversation today.
00:33:01.000See how much Bambi can take off your plate.
00:33:26.000When you sign up and schedule that free conversation, see how much Bambi can take off your plate and how much they can protect your company.
00:33:33.000Also, the left believes good intentions absolve them of bad behavior.
00:33:36.000This type of thinking is incredibly hypocritical and stupid, but being a good person requires more effort than virtue signaling.
00:33:41.000You have to be self-aware, for starters.
00:33:43.000There are more attributes you need to cultivate, many of them you probably haven't thought about, which is why you should watch the final episode of PragerU Master's Program, streaming only on Daily Wire+.
00:33:51.000In PragerU Master's Program, Dennis Prager has gathered four years worth of wisdom and is sharing it on a number of wide-ranging subjects.
00:33:57.000How to Be a Good Person is this week's episode, but Dennis also covers the differences between men and women, the consequences of secularism, and so much more.
00:34:02.000Remember, the world wants to make you woke and foolish, and Dennis Prager wants to make you wise, which is why you should check out the PragerU's Master Program, available at dailywareplus.com right now.
00:34:29.000The President was told, given advice, that under these circumstances, the state legislatures have the ultimate ability to qualify electors.
00:34:56.000Because under the First Amendment... It does matter if it was actually fraud.
00:34:59.000No, the First Amendment allows... John, let me stop you there because if he's saying that there was fraud, the First Amendment doesn't allow the President of the United States to go and claim there was fraud when he was told there was not fraud and then try to subvert the election by overturning legitimate electors.
00:35:14.000I mean, it says it right here in the actual indictment.
00:35:19.000Okay, so in other words, if she doesn't like what you say, the First Amendment doesn't protect it.
00:35:23.000That's a hell of a standard for the First Amendment.
00:35:26.000Again, this is a very significant First Amendment development.
00:35:28.000If it turns out you can advance a spurious legal theory, or advance an opinion which turns out to be wrong, or even if you believe a thing that is false.
00:35:37.000Now you're not allowed to articulate a thing that others have told you is false but you believe to be true?
00:36:37.000It's up there with Dred Scott, a case that led to the Civil War and declared that black people were not American citizens and could not be American citizens.
00:36:43.000It's up there with Brown v. Board, which ended segregation in the United States.
00:37:45.000The Supreme Court will look at these charges.
00:37:47.000And the Supreme Court is very likely to say, by a 5-4 vote, That these charges are spurious and it is likely to overturn them.
00:37:54.000That's exactly what happened to Jack Smith's case against, for example, the former Virginia governor Bob McDonald.
00:37:59.000Turned out that was a spurious case, got thrown out.
00:38:02.000It's quite possible this case gets thrown out.
00:38:03.000Now imagine the political fallout from a Supreme Court on which three United States justices were appointed by President Trump, throwing out a case in which Donald Trump was convicted of conspiring to overturn an election.
00:38:15.000Can you imagine what the political fallout is going to be?
00:38:17.000You worry about the credibility of America's institutions and you pretend that you care about that if you're Joe Biden?
00:38:22.000The only reason to set this up is to undermine the credibility of America's institutions either way.
00:38:40.000This is why you should not charge things that do not exist as crimes.
00:38:44.000And well, the political fallout has been immediate.
00:38:45.000President Trump immediately went to a level 11, which you can understand on an emotional level, although I don't think the comparison is correct.
00:39:05.000The lawlessness of these persecutions of President Trump and his supporters is reminiscent of Nazi Germany in the 1930s, the former Soviet Union, and other authoritarian dictatorial regimes.
00:39:14.000President Trump has always followed the law and the Constitution with advice from many highly accomplished attorneys.
00:39:19.000So, again, not a huge fan of Nazi Germany comparisons because the truth is the Nazis didn't actually just trump up legal charges.
00:39:25.000They literally just killed you or put you in a concentration camp.
00:39:29.000If they did trump up legal charges, it was like a full-on show trial in which you were forced to confess because they beat you in the back room.
00:39:33.000So, is the United States Nazi Germany or Soviet?
00:40:37.000There's some staunch Trump defenders who called for cutting off money for the Smith investigation.
00:40:41.000It would be a little bit late for that at this point.
00:40:43.000Tim Scott suggested he was concerned about the weaponization of Biden's DOJ and its immense power used against political opponents.
00:40:50.000Democrats, of course, were celebratory.
00:40:52.000Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer said, No one is above the law, including Donald Trump, unless your name is Hunter Biden or Hillary Clinton, in which case you're totally above the law.
00:41:19.000Forget the railroading of people like Derek Chauvin.
00:41:24.000Now the legal process is totally fair and above board.
00:41:26.000Meanwhile, Rashida Tlaib, a terrible human, she posted a similar account to X, which is Twitter, saying, quote, Trump must be held accountable for conspiring to overturn an election and inciting a violent fascist insurrection, giving away the quiet part right there that he wasn't charged with incitement.
00:43:03.000Because again, everybody's going to be focused in on the problems with Trump.
00:43:06.000They're not going to be focused in on the problems with the current president of the United States, who is both corrupt and terrible at his job.
00:43:11.000Problem number two is, if Donald Trump uses every dollar that is coming in to fight all of these spurious legal actions against him, you know where that money isn't going?
00:43:18.000It's not going toward ballot harvesting.
00:43:20.000It's not going toward the knocking on doors campaign.
00:43:23.000It's not going to the on-the-ground things you need to win a tight election.
00:43:49.000His only chance is we have to give it to him.
00:43:51.000We have to let him run for the presidency because that way he can pardon himself in the federal cases or if he wins then he has powers that he wouldn't normally have.
00:43:59.000Also, we need to see the conclusion of this movie where Trump takes revenge or at least has the opportunity to take revenge against the DOJ that has been plaguing him.
00:44:12.000Because the only way you actually win and defeat the Joe Biden political machine and the DOJ run by Joe Biden is to make him not the president anymore.
00:44:19.000And the only way to make him not the president anymore is to replace him with a Republican.
00:44:22.000And the only way to replace him with a Republican is to run somebody who presumably is not going to be hampered for the next year by massive legal issues, spending every dollar on his legal defense and spending no time actually campaigning because he's too busy doing depots.
00:44:41.000It's just a practical, real-life appraisal of the political situation on the ground.
00:44:45.000Now, despite all those on-the-ground concerns, the real concerns about the general, in the primary, there's no question this dynamic helps Trump.
00:44:52.000Good evidence of this is Mike Pence's response.
00:44:54.000So, Mike Pence, the former vice president, who actually was the guy who had to certify the election, which he had to legally do, okay?
00:45:00.000There was no actual legal argument that he could overturn the election, that the vice president can simply throw out state-certified electoral votes.
00:45:05.000If you think that's the case, wait until Kamala Harris does it, if Trump wins the election, and then see how you feel about it.
00:45:09.000That's not the way the Constitution works, but Mike Pence put out a statement saying,
00:45:14.000quote, today's indictment serves as an important reminder.
00:45:17.000Anyone who puts himself over the Constitution should never be president of the United States.
00:45:20.000I'll have more to say about the government's case after reviewing the indictment.
00:45:22.000The former president is entitled to the presumption of innocence,
00:45:25.000but with this indictment, his candidacy means more talk about January 6th and more distractions.
00:45:28.000As Americans, his candidacy means less attention paid to Joe Biden's disastrous economic policies,
00:45:32.000afflicting millions across the United States and to the pattern of corruption with Hunter.
00:45:37.000And I think for some good reason and some bad reason.
00:45:38.000constitution is more important than any one man's career.
00:45:40.000On January 6th, former President Trump demanded I choose between him and the
00:45:43.000Constitution. I chose the Constitution and I always will. Okay, so the blowback
00:45:46.000to Pence's statement has been extraordinary and I think for some good reason and
00:45:50.000some bad reason. So he is saying two things and they are distinct things. Thing
00:45:55.000number one is he is saying that Donald Trump's activities leading up to January 6th
00:45:59.000were egregious and that he shouldn't be the nominee because somebody who displays
00:46:02.000that sort of judgment should not be the nominee.
00:46:05.000I have a lot of agreement with that sentiment.
00:46:07.000I think that Trump's behavior between the election and January 6th was in fact egregious.
00:46:10.000I think that the pressure he put on Mike Pence to take unconstitutional action was egregious and spurious.
00:46:18.000Because the second thing that he should have said is the thing he should have said but didn't, which is still, this indictment is obviously a put-up job.
00:46:26.000As always, two things can be true at once.
00:46:29.000I don't know how often I can say this.
00:46:30.000Donald Trump's behavior between the election and January 6th was unpalatable.
00:47:02.000And right now, the issue is whether things that are not crimes should be charged as crimes, not whether Donald Trump's behavior during the election was good.
00:47:10.000Donald Trump's behavior during the election was good has been litigated and relitigated one million times.
00:47:14.000In the court of public opinion, it was litigated in impeachment.
00:47:16.000It was litigated in elections that took place in January of 2021.
00:47:19.000It was litigated in the midterm elections of 2022.
00:47:22.000It will be litigated again, presumably, in 2024 if Donald Trump is the nominee.
00:47:45.000The double standard of justice that has become quite apparent to everybody continues.
00:47:50.000The media continued to just studiously avoid any implication that Hunter Biden and Joe Biden had some sort of a corrupt bargain going on, which they pretty obviously did.
00:47:57.000Here was CNN's Dana Bash trying to defend Hunter and Joe Biden's activities, despite the fact that we now have open testimony from Devin Archer to Congress suggesting that Joe Biden was on 20 phone calls with Hunter Biden's business partners, that Hunter and Joe obviously, I mean, Joe obviously knew about the businesses.
00:48:15.000We know all these things, but here's CNN's Dana Bash trying to, you know, wave her hand away at it.
00:48:21.000Does that mean that the president was involved in Hunter Biden's business dealings?
00:48:28.000No, but we all understand Washington and we all understand that a lot of these relationships operate in the gray areas intentionally, especially when you have somebody who is either Related to a famous person or a powerful person or used to work for a powerful person, you want your clients to know that you can get them on the phone.
00:49:02.000One of their hosts, Jonathan the Liar, basically trotting out what is going to be the final form of the argument, which is, all of this is just because Joe Biden is such a nice guy.
00:49:09.000This is going to be the final form of the argument.
00:49:10.000It's going to go from, he knew nothing about Hunter's business dealings, and Hunter did nothing wrong and never took Chinese money, to, sure, Hunter did something wrong and took Chinese money, but he wasn't involved in the business, to, well, he was involved in the business and knew what was going on, on a general level, but he's an amazing father.
00:49:25.000And that's where Jonathan the Liar is just going right forward here on MSNBC.
00:49:29.000As far as Hunter Biden goes, there's no doubt.
00:49:31.000I mean, it's pretty clear even those close to the Biden family suggest that some of his behavior is pretty unseemly.
00:49:55.000This is a time when Bo Biden, the president's other son, was ill and then dying and then passed away.
00:50:01.000So perhaps he was not as attentive to what he should have been here?
00:50:05.000The context is that this was a sort of very fraught and sad time for the Biden family.
00:50:15.000And we know how important family is to the president.
00:50:19.000And so do you hang up on your phone on your son?
00:50:24.000Anytime, but certainly at a moment like that, and probably the answer is no.
00:50:30.000He loves his family, which is why he's a corrupt elderly gent taking cash from his crack son, his crack snorting son, who schtups prostitutes on the regular.
00:51:14.000I don't know that's how independents are gonna react.
00:51:17.000I think independents may just react by saying, okay, well, I'm hearing a lot of allegations about Trump, and I remember that guy, and I didn't like that guy that much the first time, and nobody's talking about Biden, so I'm gonna focus in on Trump, and I don't like Trump that much.
00:51:28.000In order for Donald Trump to win the election, turnout for Joe Biden has to be low.
00:51:37.000And so, again, I recommend that Republicans try to get out of their own heads a little bit and think about what independents might be interested in a general election.
00:51:45.000And again, it would be very satisfying.
00:51:47.000I will admit that the denouement of Trump's Season 8 here Would be utterly fascinating if he gets the nomination.
00:51:56.000I have serious doubts as to whether the man can win a general election while he's under four simultaneous indictments.
00:52:00.000Just on a practical level, even if I think those indictments are politically motivated and spurious in many of those cases.
00:52:06.000All right, time for a couple of things.
00:52:08.000I'm just going with things I hate here.
00:54:06.000The area is known for its sex theaters, sex shops, and clubs and bars where nudity is on full display.
00:54:11.000So, um, apparently, the lawsuit states things quickly got out of hand.
00:54:16.000Lizzo began inviting cast members to take turns touching the nude performers.
00:54:20.000Catching dildos launched from the performer's vaginas and eating bananas protruding from the performer's vaginas.
00:54:30.000So, first of all, hell of an act, it sounds like.
00:54:34.000Catching dildos launched from the performer's- what is this, like Tom Brady?
00:54:39.000The suit also claims that Lizzo allegedly pressured and goaded Davidson into touching one nude performer's breasts, which is excellent employer behavior.
00:54:46.000Employers let it be known that Lizzo, who is a great heroine to us all, is a wonderful person who causes her employees to have to perform sex acts with prostitutes.
00:54:54.000The plaintiffs claim that just a month later, Lizzo deceived them into once again attending a nude show, thereby robbing them of the choice not to participate.
00:55:01.000So first of all, I feel like after she deceived you the first time, that you might be suspicious.
00:55:06.000If Lizzo, like, the first time she took you to the red light district and was like, eat that banana from that person's vagina.
00:55:11.000And then the second time she's like, we're going to Chuck E. Cheese, gang!
00:55:15.000Like at that point you might be like, do you mean like the children's restaurant or is that a euphemism?
00:55:22.000Davis claims in the lawsuit that at one point she had no choice but to soil herself on stage during an excruciating re-audition, fearing the repercussions of excusing herself to go to the restroom.
00:55:32.000Eventually, Lizzo allegedly fired Davis on the spot after learning Davis had recorded one of their meetings, even though it was in order to have a copy of the notes the artist provided.
00:55:40.000Rodriguez then resigned shortly thereafter, out of solidarity.
00:55:44.000The lawsuit claims she feared Lizzo intended to hit her, and would have done so if one of the other dancers had not intervened.
00:55:51.000Apparently, again, she weight shames her dancers, like claiming that they have gained too much weight.
00:55:58.000Which, I gotta say, is like OJ claiming that you're too violent with women.
00:56:05.000Lizzo claiming that you have gained too much weight, Lizzo has her own gravitational pull independent of the earth sufficient to draw in large barges.
00:56:18.000Her weight shaming people is pretty egregious.