Truth Podcast - Vivek Ramaswamy - My Day in Court with Former President Donald Trump | The TRUTH Podcast #47

00:00:00.000 I attended the Trump trial this week in the Manhattan courthouse, and there's no substitute for being there in person.

00:00:14.000 You can read about something.

00:00:15.000 You can even watch it at times on TV, not this trial, but you can watch something on TV, but it's not quite the same as being there in person.

00:00:22.000 I'm going to tell you about my experience in the courtroom.

00:00:25.000 But more importantly, we're going to get to the heart of what the heck is actually going on in these multiple prosecutions against Donald Trump.

00:00:33.000 And the moral of the story is, it has nothing to do with Donald Trump.

00:00:37.000 It has to do with you.

00:00:38.000 It has to do with us, with every one of us as Americans.

00:00:42.000 It has to do with why our founding fathers fought a revolution 250 years ago.

00:00:47.000 That's really what's at stake here.

00:00:48.000 But I find that Republican politicians often hover at the level of standard talking points, repeating themselves time and again.

00:00:56.000 You don't need more of that.

00:00:57.000 So what we're going to do is actually go into some level of depth, some level of detail to get into the essence of what's actually going on.

00:01:05.000 And then on the other side, emerge with a stronger understanding of what's actually at stake and why this matters, not just to Americans who follow politics, not just to Republicans or Democrats, but to every American who cares about living in a self-governing constitutional republic where they are but to every American who cares about living in a self-governing constitutional republic where they are free and bound by That's what's at issue.

00:01:28.000 I was in that courthouse.

00:01:29.000 It was like I was sitting in the middle of a Kafka novel.

00:01:32.000 I'll tell you what I mean by that.

00:01:34.000 It's the dingiest place I've been in a long time.

00:01:36.000 It'd be sad as an American to understand what U.S. taxpayers and, frankly, New York state and city taxpayers are paying to go sit inside what looks like a building that might have reminded me from a bureaucrat's office in India in the 1990s.

00:01:50.000 In a third world nation that, in many cases, has outstripped the United States in the quality of its own infrastructure or buildings.

00:01:57.000 This is what it felt like as a reminder to me.

00:01:59.000 It was dingy.

00:02:00.000 It was stuffy in the air.

00:02:02.000 The finishes in the building were ugly.

00:02:05.000 It was a depressing atmosphere.

00:02:06.000 None of that really matters, but it gives you the look and feel of what's actually going on in a, I would say, disastrous New York City courthouse.

00:02:15.000 But it was fitting.

00:02:17.000 That's what made it most remarkable.

00:02:19.000 It was fitting for how disgusting what actually is happening in that courthouse as well.

00:02:24.000 The thing that made it depressing wasn't just the interior finishes or the fact that the electric wiring is showing in a courtroom which should supposedly have the austere environment of justice.

00:02:33.000 It's the fact that that was appropriate for a courtroom in which what we saw playing out was nothing other than a political sham in the name, masquerading in the name of justice.

00:02:44.000 And so in a certain sense, it was a poetic fit that was rather depressing.

00:02:48.000 And the day I was there, it was focused on finishing the direct testimony of Michael Cohen and then the beginning of his cross-examination.

00:02:57.000 Perhaps one of the most flawed witnesses you could imagine in the conduct of any trial, let alone this one.

00:03:03.000 So I want to get to the heart of the real question that needs to be answered.

00:03:09.000 Trump is being charged with a crime, a criminal trial conducted right here in New York City.

00:03:14.000 It's where I'm recording this today because I just ended up being in New York.

00:03:17.000 We're not at our home base.

00:03:18.000 I'm in New York today, fresh off my thoughts of what I saw in that trial.

00:03:22.000 The number one question we need to answer is, what exactly is the crime that Donald Trump is being charged with here?

00:03:31.000 It's a legitimate question to ask.

00:03:34.000 What exactly is the crime that has a former president of the United States sitting in a courtroom from 9am to 6pm or 9am to 5pm every day or 4pm?

00:03:44.000 What exactly is the crime at issue?

00:03:48.000 Nobody seems to have a good answer to that question.

00:03:51.000 They've said a lot of things that he did, a lot of paperwork here and there, hush money payments.

00:03:55.000 People understand the atmosphere, the vibe of something that happened that seems sinister and wrong.

00:04:00.000 But again, a clear statement of what exactly is the crime?

00:04:05.000 There's a lack of a good answer to that question.

00:04:08.000 And after the period of the trial that I attended where Michael Cohen testified, that answer is now less clear than it ever was.

00:04:16.000 So what you saw for hours—I was in the courtroom while they did this—was Michael Cohen going through invoice after invoice that he submitted for Donald Trump in the name of legal services.

00:04:27.000 And Michael Cohen on the stand, a guy who has perjured himself, lied over and over, and actually said so yesterday, the countless number of times that he had lied before— Says that, you know what, that was his falsifying of a business record.

00:04:40.000 That was his alleged violation of not actually submitting a legal receipt as something that was something other than a legal receipt submitted as a legal receipt.

00:04:48.000 So I think Michael Cohen for several hours during the time that I was there established that he had submitted false receipts.

00:04:55.000 But what exactly was the crime that Donald Trump committed?

00:04:59.000 Nobody has yet answered that question.

00:05:01.000 Now I'll tell you what their prosecution's theory of the case is.

00:05:06.000 Prosecution's theory of the case is that Donald Trump participated in falsifying those business records based on how those were recorded.

00:05:13.000 legal invoices that came in were recorded as legal expenses.

00:05:17.000 And supposedly that's an allegation involving falsification of a business record.

00:05:22.000 Well, let's take a look at that for a second.

00:05:25.000 If you're running a business and a lawyer sends you an invoice citing legal expenses, and for all you know, that is to settle an NDA or a nondisclosure agreement that that lawyer made on your behalf that involves foreclosing a legal liability, the alleged crime here that is to settle an NDA or a nondisclosure agreement that that lawyer made on your behalf that involves foreclosing a legal liability, the alleged crime here of Donald Trump falsifying a legal record, a business record, not Michael Cohen, who's writing up false invoices that he claims not Michael

00:05:56.000 That's That's the heart of what they're challenging here.

00:05:59.000 Well, what else are you supposed to do when an attorney sends you a legal invoice for something that relates to a legal matter involving an NDA and the enforcement of NDA and avoidance of liability under that NDA? Recording that as a legal expense.

00:06:12.000 That is what they would say is falsifying a business record.

00:06:15.000 That fails on its own terms.

00:06:17.000 But let's go a layer deeper into this.

00:06:19.000 This is where going into the details of the law actually matter.

00:06:23.000 That alleged crime, even if it was committed, which for the reasons we discussed, if you get a legal expense, you're running a business, a lawyer, an outside lawyer sends you an invoice.

00:06:31.000 It says it's for legal services.

00:06:33.000 You know it relates to dealing with a legal matter and you record it as a legal expense in your business ledger.

00:06:40.000 To call that a crime itself should frighten every business owner, not just in New York but any other jurisdiction in the United States where they're going to adopt this kind of politics in prosecution.

00:06:49.000 Even if you accept that ridiculous theory that that itself was a crime, look at the New York law.

00:06:55.000 Under New York law, that supposed crime is only a misdemeanor.

00:07:01.000 It's not a felony.

00:07:02.000 Donald Trump is being charged with a felony.

00:07:04.000 I'll get to that in a second.

00:07:04.000 But that crime of falsifying that business record, failing to record that non-legal expense but recording it as a legal expense, that is only a...

00:07:16.000 Crime up to the level of being a misdemeanor.

00:07:19.000 You can't go to prison over it, right?

00:07:20.000 It's not a felony.

00:07:21.000 It's the kind of thing that involves, you know, say you accidentally run through a yellow right but actually turn red.

00:07:27.000 Let's say you're speeding on the highway.

00:07:29.000 These are things that are classified as misdemeanors, not as felonies.

00:07:34.000 Furthermore, that misdemeanor has what's called a statute of limitations applied to it.

00:07:40.000 What's a statute of limitations?

00:07:41.000 It's a basic concept in the law that says, after a certain amount of time, we don't want people thinking about certain transgressions and have it weigh over their life.

00:07:48.000 The prosecution or the government has a certain amount of time to charge a crime.

00:07:53.000 That's what's called the statute of limitations.

00:07:54.000 And the statute of limitations for this particular alleged crime or misdemeanor is five years.

00:08:02.000 Trump's actions here that are alleged are far beyond that five years.

00:08:05.000 So in order to be able to actually charge this crime and bring it within the statute of limitations and to further be able to charge it as a felony, something that could send you to prison, not just something that would have you have a small fine for misdemeanor, they had to charge a different underlying not just something that would have you have a small fine That's what the New York law requires.

00:08:26.000 It says that unless this falsifying business record was in furtherance of a separate felony, you could only charge that as a misdemeanor.

00:08:35.000 And by the way, you only have five years to do it.

00:08:37.000 There's no way they could have brought this case.

00:08:38.000 And even if they brought this case within that five years, they couldn't have charged it as a felony.

00:08:42.000 But they're charging as a felony long after that five-year window.

00:08:45.000 So that five-year window then expands if you're charging it as a felony.

00:08:50.000 Here's a funny little wrinkle that other people haven't commented on.

00:08:53.000 Even the felony charge has a statute of limitations that would have otherwise expired, but for certain exemptions that the prosecution has asked for because of COVID that should further extend that statute of limitations even for the felony.

00:09:05.000 So that's a side wrinkle I'm not even going to go into in depth, but using every little potential exception or trick in the book, what they're saying is that this allegation of falsifying business records, recording a legal expense as a legal expense in a business ledger, that that supposed crime is no longer just a misdemeanor, but is a felony. that that supposed crime is no longer just a misdemeanor, And it can be charged outside the statute of limitations because it is in furtherance of another crime, another felony.

00:09:32.000 That's the heart of this case in New York.

00:09:35.000 What is that felony, you might ask?

00:09:36.000 Here's what it is.

00:09:38.000 They're claiming that this is a violation of federal campaign finance laws.

00:09:43.000 So this is interesting.

00:09:45.000 Alvin Bragg, the DA in Manhattan, is a local DA.

00:09:48.000 He operates and enforces supposedly state laws.

00:09:52.000 Side note, look at New York City, where I actually was yesterday in the courthouse, recording it right here this morning before leaving town.

00:09:59.000 It's interesting how you could go left and right in New York City and see crimes as being committed on any given day.

00:10:05.000 I used to live in New York a decade ago.

00:10:06.000 It's not the same city as today.

00:10:08.000 And yet the concern of local prosecutors in New York is not to actually stop the violent crime being committed across the city and across the state, but instead to go after fictitious crimes that are politicized in nature.

00:10:18.000 It's funny how that works.

00:10:19.000 But his pursuit of going after it says he could go after local crimes enforcing the state law.

00:10:26.000 Why would Alvin Bragg bring a case involving federal law?

00:10:29.000 He can't.

00:10:30.000 But the contorted legal theory is he can bring that federal law in if it's tied to the falsification of a business record, which is a New York law.

00:10:37.000 He couldn't charge the falsification of a business record under New York law unless he tied in that federal crime.

00:10:42.000 So they're really walking on a tightrope here to say that he gets to charge the New York misdemeanor under New York state law as a felony outside the statute of limitations because he charges a separate underlying federal crime.

00:10:54.000 But he couldn't have otherwise charged that federal crime were it not for the auspices of doing it under a state law that itself has expired.

00:11:00.000 So that's a funny little dance right there.

00:11:02.000 But now let's go into even further detail.

00:11:04.000 His whole theory of the case is that not only did Donald Trump falsify a business record, which is a misdemeanor, But that it becomes a felony that the New York prosecutor is able to charge under state law because it was in furtherance of a federal crime of a campaign finance violation.

00:11:22.000 What is that campaign finance violation, you might ask?

00:11:26.000 Here's the whole theory of the case.

00:11:27.000 The entire case comes down to this one question.

00:11:32.000 Alvin Bragg, the prosecutor here, the New York prosecution, claims that this was a constructive campaign contribution.

00:11:41.000 What was the this?

00:11:42.000 This was the payments made to Michael Cohen, which they say were reimbursements for Stormy Daniels' hush money payment, an NDA that Stormy Daniels signed to say that she could not talk publicly about her alleged, the affair that she alleged with Donald Trump.

00:11:58.000 Donald Trump has denied the affair, but that she alleges it.

00:12:01.000 But nonetheless, that they signed an NDA with her to make sure that she couldn't speak about it publicly.

00:12:05.000 There's nothing illegal about an NDA.

00:12:06.000 But what they're saying is the use of those payments to Michael Cohen, which they allege were misrecorded by the Trump organization, were actually campaign contributions that were paid for by personal money, but should have been paid for by campaign funds or should have been but should have been paid for by campaign funds or should have been recorded as

00:12:28.000 That's the heart of this entire case of what makes this a supposed felony is that these alleged payments to Michael Cohen, which were alleged to be reimbursements for a Stormy Daniels payment to enforce an NDA, that those should have been recorded as a campaign contribution that those should have been recorded as a campaign contribution rather than just the personal payment that they were actually made through.

00:12:51.000 Let's examine that for a second.

00:12:54.000 The idea The idea that a personal hush money payment should have been made and recorded as a campaign contribution, should have been made out of campaign funds, is actually a laughable idea.

00:13:11.000 Let's have the same shoe on the other foot.

00:13:13.000 You want to get the best litmus test for whether a prosecution is politicized.

00:13:19.000 Here's what it is.

00:13:20.000 If the defendant would have done the exact opposite, the exact opposite thing of what the The exact opposite thing of what the prosecution says.

00:13:30.000 The prosecution says, this is a crime.

00:13:32.000 What you did was a crime.

00:13:33.000 Suppose the defendant did the exact opposite thing of what the prosecution is alleging.

00:13:38.000 If the prosecution could have still brought that case and would have still brought that case, that proves that it's a politicized prosecution, right?

00:13:44.000 Because if you do A, they're going to prosecute you.

00:13:46.000 They say A is a crime.

00:13:47.000 Well, let's say you do the exact opposite of A, the thing that they claim in this case that you should have otherwise done, and then they would still come after you for it.

00:13:55.000 That means they were going to get you either way.

00:13:56.000 That's a politicized prosecution.

00:13:57.000 This is a classic textbook case.

00:13:59.000 This will be taught in law schools for the next century.

00:14:02.000 It certainly should be as an example of what is a politicized prosecution because let's examine this claim.

00:14:07.000 The New York prosecution rests on the idea, the entire case rests on the idea that Donald Trump failed to record a personal hush money payment as a campaign contribution because part of the point of making that contribution was to influence the perception of voters.

00:14:22.000 Having Stormy Daniel stay quiet was supposedly to improve the perception of voters.

00:14:27.000 Even if you accept those facts, which are being contested in court, even if you accept those facts, if Donald Trump had used campaign funds to make a personal hush money payment, they would no doubt be prosecuting him for that.

00:14:43.000 And the irony is they'd have an even stronger case for doing it.

00:14:46.000 There's good examples of this.

00:14:49.000 You Politicians who for years, you have congressmen, you have Sarah Palin caught up in something like this where she was alleged to have used campaign funds for personal expense.

00:14:59.000 Let's say it's the clothing you buy.

00:15:01.000 Suppose you want to dress up in a nice suit and tie, but you feel like you wouldn't have bought that nice suit and tie of that quality, spending $5,000 or whatever it would be for a nice suit.

00:15:12.000 You wouldn't spend that money as a politician who hasn't achieved millions, is not yet a millionaire but wants to go into public service, say that, you know what, I'm going to use campaign funds to do something that affects the perception of voters, that voters have of me.

00:15:27.000 of me.

00:15:27.000 If I show up in a ratty gym t-shirt and shorts, I don't think voters are going to vote for me, even if that's what I normally wear.

00:15:34.000 So I'm going to incur an expense that is designed with the goal of influencing the voters' perception of me.

00:15:40.000 So let's say a Republican politician decides, you know what, I wasn't going to spend that personal money on a suit for my personal life, but the only reason I'm going to buy that $5,000 suit is because I want to influence voters' perceptions of me.

00:15:51.000 That's a reasonable basis for many politicians to believe they're going to actually have voter perceptions affected by how they dress.

00:15:58.000 Now, multiple congressmen back in 2009 used this argument to use campaign money to buy personal attire.

00:16:06.000 Sarah Palin got caught up in what became a similar scandal. 0.60

00:16:09.000 But what the Federal Election Commission, viewing federal law, says is...

00:16:14.000 Political candidates cannot use campaign funds to make a personal clothing payment, a personal sartorial choice, even if it is explicitly designed to influence the perception of voters.

00:16:29.000 So the prosecution's entire theory of the case here is that Donald Trump is making a personal hush money payment.

00:16:35.000 There's all kinds of personal reasons, very much a personal issue of whether or not somebody's making a false allegation of an affair they had with you or an allegation of any kind that they had an affair with you.

00:16:45.000 No, no, the exact same thing they did to congressmen and other candidates who have used campaign funds to buy personal clothing.

00:17:14.000 Let's go through any other example.

00:17:15.000 Say it's to get a haircut.

00:17:16.000 I wouldn't have gotten a haircut, certainly not an expensive fancy one.

00:17:19.000 You could pay $300 for a haircut.

00:17:20.000 Well, you only might get that haircut as a politician if you really care about the way you present yourself on a debate stage in the media to voters, to influence voters' perceptions of you.

00:17:28.000 If you had a politician who was using campaign funds to make personal haircut payments, there is no doubt that federal prosecutors or the Federal Election Commission would be coming after you for that, as opposed to saying that if you used those same campaign funds for getting a haircut, as opposed to saying that if you used those same campaign funds for getting a haircut, you wanted to look good for voters at a rally or at a debate to then say that, oh, no, no, no, because that was designed to influence voters' perceptions of you, somehow that was supposed to

00:17:58.000 That means there's literally no way to run for office, because on one hand, if you use campaign funds to make a personal payment, they're going to come after you for that.

00:18:06.000 I don't know if you make a personal payment, but it was designed with somehow influencing the perceptions of voters of you that you were going to get dinged because it should have been a campaign expense.

00:18:14.000 They're going to get you either way.

00:18:16.000 But the question is, do they like you as the actual defendant?

00:18:19.000 Do they like your politics?

00:18:20.000 Do they like what you represent?

00:18:21.000 That's what this case is actually about.

00:18:22.000 Imagine if Donald Trump, who rides around in planes that land in hangars, it says Trump on the plane.

00:18:28.000 Part of his brand is success landing at rallies that have been held at hangars, supposedly Suppose he bought that personal airplane and owned it because he says, my ownership of an airplane is going to affect voters' perceptions of me.

00:18:41.000 Had he used campaign funds to do that, that would be a scandal on the front page of the New York Times.

00:18:46.000 Likely federal action against him for that.

00:18:48.000 Yet the entire prosecution's theory of the case is, oh, if you're using funds to influence voters' perceptions of you, you are committing a crime unless you use campaign funds to do it.

00:18:56.000 It is an impossible bind.

00:18:58.000 It is a Hobson's choice. 0.97

00:18:59.000 You're damned if you do, damned if you don't. 0.96

00:19:02.000 That's really what's going on here. 0.96

00:19:04.000 So, back to the heart of this case, the original question I asked...

00:19:08.000 What exactly is the crime that Donald Trump committed?

00:19:14.000 They say it was falsifying a business record in furtherance of influencing an election with an illegal campaign contribution.

00:19:22.000 It fails on every metric of that test.

00:19:26.000 First of all, recording a legal expense as a legal expense was the alleged falsification of a business record that itself fails on its own terms.

00:19:35.000 Even if that was a crime, it was only a misdemeanor that fell outside the statute of limitations.

00:19:40.000 And the only way they were able to upcharge it as a felony was by tying it to a federal crime that local prosecutors otherwise could not have charged.

00:19:48.000 But that federal crime involves using personal money to make a personal payment.

00:19:53.000 And had he used campaign funds to do it, as the prosecution alleges that he was obligated to, he actually would be in violation of laws based on precedents set by federal regulators and federal prosecutors in the past.

00:20:05.000 That's where we are right now with this case.

00:20:08.000 It was clearer to me than ever after watching Michael Cohen testify that the entire legal premise for the case rests on these falsehoods.

00:20:19.000 And this was a case of an attorney who spent an hour testifying in part based on recordings that he took while he was the attorney for that client secretly recording those conversations.

00:20:31.000 Think about this.

00:20:33.000 An attorney, supposedly for the benefit of the client, without telling the client, is secretly recording those conversations.

00:20:39.000 And now those conversations have been aired in a prosecution against that client.

00:20:45.000 Anybody who's dealt with a lawyer, anybody who's been through law school, any layperson who has an understanding of the law understands that seeking legal advice is subject to something called attorney-client privilege.

00:20:55.000 You could debate the policy on this.

00:20:57.000 Is that good policy or not?

00:20:58.000 There's a separate debate to be had.

00:20:59.000 There's good arguments on both sides.

00:21:01.000 But we as a country and in the law and countless cases, thousands every year, respect the concept of attorney-client privilege, which is to say that the conversation that a client has with an attorney while seeking in good faith legal advice is protected and cannot be used against that client because otherwise you couldn't have a legal system that functioned because a defense attorney couldn't actually be doing their job if their client couldn't talk to them.

00:21:25.000 This is true in the cases of murders.

00:21:26.000 This is true in the case of mass murders, true in the case of rapes, true in the case of some of the most heinous crimes that are committed.

00:21:32.000 But that's part of what we think of as the due process of law in the United States of America that has a judicial system that we can trust.

00:21:39.000 Yet yesterday, what I witnessed in that courtroom...

00:21:43.000 Was a guy testifying about the content of his interactions with his client, secretly recording them in those recordings being the linchpin of the prosecution against that exact client.

00:21:54.000 That's not just a threat to Donald Trump.

00:21:56.000 That's a threat to every American in this country. 0.83

00:21:59.000 Every American who, in good faith, may seek how they're going to actually not violate the law, only to have that be used against them when they're seeking that legal advice.

00:22:07.000 It flouts the very idea of attorney-client privilege.

00:22:11.000 And had this been any other case, I think that every newspaper in this country and every lawyer in this country would be calling it out.

00:22:16.000 But because of the political backdrop, they're too afraid to say it.

00:22:19.000 That was a big part of the testimony yesterday as well.

00:22:21.000 And so you have an attorney testifying that he believes he himself committed crimes but is attributing those to Donald Trump in flagrant violation of attorney-client privilege on the backdrop of a legal theory that fails on its own terms.

00:22:34.000 So that's what's going on in this legal case in New York.

00:22:38.000 I think it's a disgusting prosecution and the fact that that courtroom is sadly as disgusting as it is, shameful as an American citizen, that this is where the third world atmosphere in which the carriage of justice is actually carried out, the saddest part of all is actually fitting for what's actually happening in that courtroom because the only thing more third world than the interior of that courtroom is Is really the content of what's happening in there.

00:23:01.000 This is the stuff of banana republics.

00:23:03.000 This is the stuff of third world countries. 1.00

00:23:05.000 If this was another country where on the back of this type of politicized case, we saw a former president that was running for president, was a leader.

00:23:14.000 The party of the party and the party of the president in power is then using these prosecutorial tools to, through the back door, prosecute that major opponent.

00:23:23.000 We would call that the stuff of banana republic.

00:23:25.000 We would say that's an autocracy.

00:23:27.000 And the worst part is, we haven't even gotten to some of the other details that you would see and have been in a republic.

00:23:32.000 Let's go through a couple of them.

00:23:34.000 Alvin Bragg, the lead prosecutor, the Manhattan DA in this case.

00:23:39.000 He ran for office on the campaign pledge of going after Donald Trump.

00:23:46.000 It was an old Soviet saying, you show me the man, I'll find you the crime. 0.97

00:23:50.000 What does that mean?

00:23:50.000 It means the law doesn't matter.

00:23:52.000 You tell me who we need to go after and then I'll use the law to justify it. 0.90

00:23:55.000 It was disgusting.

00:23:56.000 It was a good example in the United States of America.

00:23:58.000 That's how the Soviets in communist Russia did it and the communist USSR did it.

00:24:02.000 We do things differently in the United States of America.

00:24:04.000 Well, no, that's exactly what Alvin Bragg did.

00:24:06.000 He ran on the campaign promise of going after somebody that was politically unpopular in the jurisdiction where he was running, Hard Blue New York, to say that I'm going to go after and investigate this man.

00:24:16.000 He didn't say what crime.

00:24:17.000 He just said I'm going to investigate that man.

00:24:19.000 Well, he's now keeping his campaign pledge.

00:24:22.000 We should not want to live in a country.

00:24:24.000 Where prosecutors are bringing cases that are just fulfilling campaign pledges that they've made to go after specific individuals on vague charges, on nebulous legal theories, on flawed legal theories that they wouldn't have gone after anybody else for.

00:24:38.000 I'll give credit to Fareed Zakaria for saying the hard truth that everybody recognizes.

00:24:41.000 This case would not have been brought if this man's name were not Donald Trump. 0.93

00:24:46.000 And I think that's disgusting.

00:24:47.000 It's not about Trump.

00:24:48.000 It's about every American.

00:24:49.000 If they can do it to Republican today, they can do it to Democrat tomorrow.

00:24:52.000 Every Republican, every Democrat, every black or white person or man or woman in this country should be equally concerned.

00:24:58.000 This has nothing to do actually with partisan politics.

00:25:01.000 The concern about it has nothing to do with partisan politics when you have a justice system that is obsessed with partisan politics in the process.

00:25:08.000 But it's not just the prosecutor.

00:25:10.000 Can't make this stuff up.

00:25:11.000 So you got a prosecutor who's run for office on the campaign pledge of going after this man, doesn't care about what crime, doesn't say what crime, uses this flawed legal theory that we've described to now levy that crime.

00:25:21.000 That's the prosecutor in this case.

00:25:22.000 Then you take a look at the judge.

00:25:26.000 This is the backstop, right?

00:25:28.000 This is the backstop of a judicial system.

00:25:30.000 This is the backstop of a fair and just judicial system.

00:25:32.000 The person who's providing instructions to the jury, the person who decides which objections are or are not sustained, the person that decides which evidence gets presented to the jury, the person who provides daily and final instructions to that jury to deliver a verdict, the person who can deliver a directed verdict at any time, the judge, single judge presiding over this case. the judge, single judge presiding over this case.

00:25:50.000 You can't make this stuff up.

00:25:52.000 I had to double check this stuff to be certain because I didn't believe what I saw the first time I read it.

00:25:59.000 His daughter is a leading Democratic Party operative who is making millions of dollars from Democratic clients that include the likes of Adam Schiff, who have made it their career plank to go after Donald Trump and lead the impeachment charge of This is the opposition party to the party that Donald Trump is leading right now as the Republican nominee for US president.

00:26:26.000 This judge has a daughter who is making money off of doing business with the very Democratic clients who have made it the hallmark of their campaigns and their fundraising ploys to point to Donald Trump's trial.

00:26:42.000 It gets even worse.

00:26:44.000 They have specifically during this investigation and trial made money off of fundraising emails and fundraising calls to action that were based on the trial itself.

00:26:58.000 Think about that.

00:26:59.000 Imagine the same shoe fit the other foot.

00:27:02.000 Imagine if this was a Republican judge with a Republican operative daughter who ran a private business that made money off of clients in the Republican Party who their core campaign was predicated on going after Joe Biden.

00:27:18.000 Suppose Joe Biden was the actual defendant.

00:27:20.000 There is no doubt that anybody on the other side, any person in the media, if the same shoe fit the other foot, would be crying bloody murder.

00:27:27.000 And it would be wrong then as it is wrong now that they're raising funds off the very existence of a trial and her firm making money off of it that her own father is presiding over.

00:27:39.000 Let's get this straight.

00:27:40.000 Do you think they're going to make and raise more money from their own anti-Trump base if the judge comes down with a verdict in favor of Trump or in favor of a verdict that's against Trump?

00:27:50.000 Think about which one is actually going to have his own family members profit from that decision.

00:27:56.000 There's an easy solution to this.

00:27:57.000 The judge could have recused himself.

00:27:58.000 He refused to do it.

00:27:59.000 That reveals what this prosecution is about.

00:28:02.000 This is an exercise in politics all the way up and all the way down.

00:28:06.000 And that's what makes it so disgusting.

00:28:08.000 It's not the atmosphere of the courtroom.

00:28:09.000 That's just a detail from being there in person.

00:28:11.000 You get to see that in person.

00:28:12.000 It's the essence of what's happening inside of it.

00:28:15.000 And what's happening inside of that courtroom is a microcosm, an emblem of what's really happening in the United States of America today.

00:28:23.000 It turns out it's not just this case.

00:28:26.000 I want to stay on the Trump cases for a little longer because they're a great lens, a filter, a prism to see what's happening in America.

00:28:33.000 But this really has nothing to do with Trump.

00:28:35.000 It has to do with America, which I'll get to in a second.

00:28:37.000 But before we leave Trump, let's take a look at the other actions then brought against Trump.

00:28:40.000 This is the Manhattan DA Alvin Bragg case brought against Trump for allegedly falsifying business records.

00:28:46.000 We've gone into that in depth.

00:28:48.000 Now let's take a look at the most other recent New York action against Trump.

00:28:52.000 Another person who campaigned for office on the premise of going after Donald Trump, didn't say what crimes, Letitia James I'm now talking about, the AG of New York, who then recently went after Trump.

00:29:04.000 For supposedly over-inflating his property values for the purpose of securing insurance.

00:29:12.000 I want to take a look at this crime.

00:29:13.000 So in the same period that you have this other flawed investigation, farcical sham of a prosecution for falsifying business records, you have this separate case that's been brought to say that, hey, there's a consumer fraud statute, a statute that's designed to protect consumers, everyday Americans, from being defrauded for people who sell a statute that's designed to protect consumers, everyday Americans, from being defrauded for people who sell them false bill of goods, who lie to That's a crime.

00:29:36.000 It's a consumer protection statute in the state of New York.

00:29:38.000 Using that consumer protection statute to go after Donald Trump on a different axis.

00:29:43.000 To say that, you know what, you slightly inflated the values of your properties to secure more favorable terms on commercial insurance.

00:29:53.000 Now, this is bizarre because they're using a consumer protection statute to supposedly protect some of the most sophisticated financial institutions on the planet.

00:30:04.000 The largest banks and financial institutions and insurance companies that are, to say they're big boys would be an understatement.

00:30:11.000 These are some of the most sophisticated financial institutions on planet Earth that have repeatedly done their own due diligence, entered their own partnerships and client relationships with the Trump organizations and haven't sued them, haven't had any damages.

00:30:24.000 In fact, have repeatedly made money off of their business relationship to Donald Trump.

00:30:29.000 But the state of New York is saying that not on behalf of those organizations which aren't suing him, which haven't sued him, which have no claim of damages and haven't made any public claim that they were harmed or damaged.

00:30:38.000 It says that the people of New York were somehow damaged by the fact that Donald Trump slightly inflated his property valuation.

00:30:45.000 Now, as a side note, most business people who would look at what the judge says those valuations should have been, anybody looking at real estate in South Florida, you've got nine-figure houses listed.

00:30:53.000 Anybody been to Mar-a-Lago to say that, you know what, if that should have been valued for $19 million or whatever the prosecutor says it should have been valued at, I think it's a good deal for anybody to be able to buy that property for that value.

00:31:03.000 That would be a great business deal somebody could make to buy a real estate property of that valuation.

00:31:07.000 So it's ridiculous what they ascribed as the valuation.

00:31:10.000 But they said that Donald Trump valued it more.

00:31:12.000 Well, he's probably right about that.

00:31:14.000 Anybody who knows the real estate market and knows these assets may agree with me.

00:31:17.000 But the irony is, this isn't for some armchair prosecutor to adjudicate.

00:31:21.000 If somebody was actually harmed by it, they would have sued him for it.

00:31:24.000 They would have pressed the charges.

00:31:25.000 They didn't do it.

00:31:26.000 These are sophisticated financial institutions who made money off of their relationship with Donald Trump over the course of years, did not lose money, and you have a prosecutor saying that somehow the people of New York are a victim.

00:31:37.000 They're not.

00:31:37.000 It's a joke.

00:31:38.000 It's another farce.

00:31:39.000 It's another exercise in what we call lawfare.

00:31:42.000 The use of the law to adjudicate politics.

00:31:45.000 It's a bastardization of our legal system.

00:31:47.000 So at the same time you've got Alvin Bragg who ran for office on the pledge of going after Donald Trump, you have another state AG, Letitia James, who did the same thing.

00:31:54.000 She ran for office on the pledge of going after Trump, didn't say what crime, now levying the statute book thrown after him. 1.00

00:32:00.000 Same formula.

00:32:01.000 You find me the man, I'll show you the crime.

00:32:02.000 That's exactly what they've done.

00:32:03.000 There is no crime, yet they allege one anyway.

00:32:06.000 At that same time, now you see these are just two of the prosecutions at the exact same time.

00:32:10.000 And so I'm not going to go through every one of the other prosecutions, but we could just go through them one by one.

00:32:15.000 Take the Jack Smith prosecution playing out at the same time.

00:32:18.000 This is one for Trump retaining documents in Mar-a-Lago that he should not have retained as a former president of the United States.

00:32:27.000 That's the allegation here.

00:32:28.000 That's interesting.

00:32:29.000 They allege this under the 1917 Espionage Act.

00:32:36.000 Okay, this is the same overbroad statute from over a century ago that they've used to charge people from Eugene Debs to Julian Assange, people who've been politically unpopular at the time, a vague, broadly written statute. 0.75

00:32:49.000 And I've written about this extensively in the Wall Street Journal op-ed pages about why I think the statute is garbage. 0.92

00:32:54.000 It's anti-American at its core.

00:32:56.000 But part of the reason it's anti-American at its core is it allows prosecutors with a political motivation to go after their opponents for vaguely defined crimes that weren't actually crimes when committed.

00:33:05.000 Because that entire indictment of Jack Smith, now moving to that topic of the so-called documents case, leaves out any mention, what is it, a 40, 60-page indictment, whatever it is, that leaves out any mention of the much more recent act that governs how a president of the United States is supposed to deal with confidential records that he kept while U.S. president.

00:33:25.000 Conference of Records of the United States while he was U.S. President and afterwards.

00:33:28.000 It's called, you might be surprised to know, in 1978, the Presidential Records Act.

00:33:35.000 And the jurisprudence on this, the case law on this is clear that the person who decides what does or does not qualify as a classified document and does or does not qualify as what the U.S. president then can keep with him after he leaves office is none other than the U.S. president.

00:33:50.000 Now you might debate that as a policy matter.

00:33:52.000 You might say that we as a people should not want to trust the U.S. president with whether or not he gets to keep documents after he leaves office.

00:33:59.000 And that's a fair debate to have.

00:34:01.000 Keep in mind, this is the same U.S. president that we entrust with the nuclear codes.

00:34:05.000 This is the same U.S. president that we entrust as the commander-in-chief of deciding whether to send our sons and daughters to go die in foreign wars or to defend our own soil.

00:34:13.000 That U.S. president, I think it actually is pretty reasonable to say we also trust with deciding which documents should or should not remain under classified status in the White House versus ones that could be exposed to at least the general public or even kept by yourself after you leave office.

00:34:26.000 I think it's a reasonable policy judgment.

00:34:28.000 could debate the policy.

00:34:29.000 But that's what the law says.

00:34:31.000 The courts have already upheld that interpretation of the law.

00:34:35.000 You have a judge in the Clinton sock drawer case of 2012 that said the exact same thing, that in that case, President Bill Clinton, a Democrat in this case, it doesn't matter what party, it shouldn't really, but a Democrat in that case, Democratic president, recorded conversations that he had with foreign leaders.

00:34:51.000 He had all kinds of discussions, sensitive discussions with Madeleine Albright, the secretary of state, about real matters of foreign importance to the United States, that he took with him and he kept them in his sock drawer, presumably as personal memorabilia.

00:35:02.000 No one's alleging that Bill Clinton was trying to sell that to our enemies, just as nobody's alleged or offered a shred of fact that Donald Trump is doing the same thing with documents that he kept.

00:35:11.000 And yet, in that case, the judge, federal judge held that the person with the sole authority, the sole discretion to determine what was or wasn't covered by what needed to be kept in the government versus what the president could declassify or take with him was none other than the U.S. president himself, the same person we entrusted the nuclear codes in protecting this country as commander in chief.

00:35:34.000 Yet, in the Trump documents case, what they're alleging is they did not make any mention of the Presidential Records Act, but were invoking some vague statute from 1917 called the Espionage Act, passed during World War I, to go after anti-war dissenters during World War I, to now charge Donald Trump with preserving documents in a way that Bill Clinton did, but somehow when Donald Trump does it, it's a crime.

00:35:53.000 And the irony is he's running against Joe Biden, who wasn't protected by the Presidential Records Act when he was a U.S. senator, that actually took a bunch of documents, including classified documents, That he held in an unsecured location in his own home.

00:36:06.000 And the only reason they even went after him at all was because they went after Donald Trump.

00:36:10.000 This is otherwise a dated allegation that otherwise never would have been brought but for air cover.

00:36:14.000 So that's the documents case.

00:36:15.000 Then you go to the Georgia case.

00:36:16.000 That's a state case being brought by Fannie Willis against Donald Trump where you see all kinds of procedural missteps.

00:36:22.000 And by the way, in the documents case, you see the procedural missteps too.

00:36:25.000 Jack Smith in that particular case has now been found alleged to have tampered with that evidence after collecting it.

00:36:31.000 So you have a...

00:36:32.000 Entire case against a defendant brought on the premise of mishandling documents.

00:36:38.000 And then the prosecutor who brings that case does what?

00:36:41.000 Nothing other than mishandle those documents, which will likely toss this case out of court.

00:36:45.000 At the same time you see that happening, you have a different case being brought in the state of Georgia, where the prosecutor who's going after Donald Trump, Fannie Willis over there, has now a personal conflict of interest.

00:36:55.000 Apparently, now we know for sure, based on testimony, a deeply personal conflict.

00:37:01.000 With the very attorney who she otherwise put in charge of prosecuting and bringing that case against Donald Trump, which has completely compromised the integrity of that case.

00:37:08.000 And I'm not gonna go into those merits here because our time is limited.

00:37:12.000 But my point is to ask this question.

00:37:13.000 I went into depth in the New York case.

00:37:15.000 Number one, you got the Alvin Bragg case.

00:37:17.000 Then you got the Letitia James politicized crusade. 0.87

00:37:21.000 Then you have what's going on with Jack Smith, his own mishandling of the documents in the mishandled documents case, ignoring the Clinton sock door case, judicial precedent, and the Presidential Records Act.

00:37:29.000 What's the disaster that's unfolding in Fulton County, Georgia, with Fannie Willis and her personal relationship and her affair and financial relationship with the prosecutor who she's put in charge?

00:37:41.000 Is that a coincidence?

00:37:42.000 It's not.

00:37:44.000 The reason why is if the whole premise of these prosecutions was political in the first place, then the politics is going to guide the mistakes that those prosecutions make.

00:37:55.000 This is not complicated.

00:37:57.000 This is exactly what you could have predicted.

00:38:00.000 If these cases had nothing to do with the law, it's no surprise that those prosecutors are behaving in a manner that has nothing to do with the law.

00:38:08.000 When you have prosecutors that have made campaign pledges to go after one man and keep that, that's not justice.

00:38:13.000 When you have a judge whose family member is making money off of the existence of that case while presiding over that case, that is not justice.

00:38:22.000 When you have century-old laws being used in tortured and overexpanded ways while ignoring more recent laws that govern that U.S. president charged in a criminal prosecution, that is not justice.

00:38:34.000 And when you have a prosecutorial system in the United States of America that goes after you now because of your political beliefs, that is not justice.

00:38:41.000 That is a bastardization of justice.

00:38:43.000 This is a third world nation. 0.96

00:38:44.000 It's the stuff of third world nations. 1.00

00:38:46.000 It's a banana republic behavior now here in the United States of America. 0.97

00:38:49.000 And that has nothing to do with Donald Trump.

00:38:51.000 That has to do with every American in this country.

00:38:53.000 And now I want to talk about what's really at stake in these prosecutions.

00:38:57.000 It's not about the details or the legal minutia of these cases.

00:39:00.000 It has to do with the heart of why we fought a revolution in 1776. And that's what's really at stake is a skepticism of democracy itself.

00:39:10.000 These cases would not be brought unless Donald Trump were running for president.

00:39:14.000 And furthermore, unless they feared there was a possibility that Donald Trump could be elected president again.

00:39:19.000 That's what this is about.

00:39:19.000 And I say this as somebody who ran against Donald Trump in the primary.

00:39:22.000 I say this as somebody who, for a year, was running to be U.S. president in the same election where he was running.

00:39:28.000 This has nothing to do with politics.

00:39:30.000 I said this in the primary.

00:39:31.000 I think Joe Biden should say the same thing.

00:39:33.000 We should not want to win elections by seeing opponents eliminated in the middle of a prosecution, in the middle of an election.

00:39:40.000 We should not want to be a country where prosecutors decide the outcome of an election rather than the voters.

00:39:45.000 You look at one of the recent headlines from mainstream press in recent months.

00:39:49.000 It says the problem with democracy is actually the voters.

00:39:53.000 I'm not making this up.

00:39:54.000 You can look this up yourself.

00:39:55.000 There's countless other pieces that have been written like it.

00:39:58.000 It's not a joke.

00:39:58.000 It actually reflects an honest intention.

00:40:02.000 It's not an odd view.

00:40:03.000 It's actually the view that's existed for most of human history.

00:40:06.000 You see, the thing about the United States of America is we are the exception in human history.

00:40:11.000 For most of human history in old world Europe and dating back to most civilizations, people were skeptical of the idea that citizens could self-govern.

00:40:19.000 The idea that you get to speak your own mind freely as long as I get to in return.

00:40:24.000 That's a crazy idea for most of human history.

00:40:27.000 For most of human history, it's the idea that people are able to express any opinion in public. 0.98

00:40:32.000 That's ridiculous.

00:40:33.000 The idea that you get to decide who your leaders are, that you get to hold them accountable at the ballot box in a process where every citizen's voice and vote counts equally. 0.88

00:40:42.000 That's the stuff of crazy futuristic talk of a society that isn't supposed to last.

00:40:47.000 That's what old world Europe thought.

00:40:48.000 That's what King George thought.

00:40:50.000 But that's what makes America great.

00:40:52.000 That's what made America great the first time around, is that for better or worse, and that's a crucial part of the bargain, for better or worse, we the people create a government that is accountable to us.

00:41:01.000 We the people decide who actually wins our elections and who governs, not bureaucrats sitting in the back of three-letter government agencies or prosecutors in a prosecutorial system or judges who are conflicted.

00:41:12.000 No, we the people settle that every November.

00:41:15.000 That's what makes America itself.

00:41:17.000 And that's what's at stake here.

00:41:19.000 They're afraid that it is possible, increasingly if you look at the polling numbers now, likely, that the one man who this system has an anaphylactic response to might actually just get elected as the next president of the United States.

00:41:30.000 And they are going to stop at nothing.

00:41:32.000 And they've made clear they will stop at nothing to keep this man away from office.

00:41:35.000 There are the cases we've talked about today.

00:41:37.000 There are the attempts to remove him from the ballot extrajudicially.

00:41:41.000 Just a secretary of state saying that, you know what, I'm going to make a judgment saying that he should not be on the ballot because he did something that I disagree with.

00:41:47.000 To the civil cases, to God knows what's coming in the next six months, that is not America. 0.63

00:41:52.000 That is a bastardization of what this country was founded on.

00:41:55.000 And I don't care whether you're on the left or the right.

00:41:58.000 We got to agree that the people who we elect to run the government should be the ones who actually run the government.

00:42:04.000 Maybe those people disagree with my views.

00:42:06.000 I have strong views on questions relating from climate policy to the politicization of justice to, you think about, issues relating to the Second Amendment to issues relating to health care.

00:42:16.000 I've got strong views on a lot of different things.

00:42:18.000 You may disagree with me on those views, but we agree and part of our bargain is to live in a country where if our democratic process actually settles that at the ballot box, then it's up to us to hold our leaders accountable and we live by those results.

00:42:31.000 We don't use the courtroom and the prosecutorial system to settle it through the back door instead. 0.73

00:42:36.000 What we see right now is the old world monster rearing its ugly head again.

00:42:42.000 King George's vision, as opposed to George Washington's vision for this country, a vision that was skeptical of citizens, skeptical that your voice could actually be trusted to determine who leads your country.

00:42:53.000 That's what's at stake right now.

00:42:54.000 That's why we fought the American Revolution.

00:42:56.000 That's why I say we live in a 1776 moment right now.

00:43:00.000 This isn't some...

00:43:03.000 Tax rate election, 1% higher or lower tax rate.

00:43:06.000 Now, this isn't one of those elections.

00:43:07.000 This is an election about the basic rules of the road.

00:43:09.000 Do we believe in the year 2024, in the ideals of 1776, do we believe that you're free to express your opinion regardless of what that opinion is?

00:43:18.000 Do we actually believe that your voice counts equally at the ballot box and it shouldn't be some government bureaucrat determining who can and cannot be the next president?

00:43:27.000 Do we actually believe that the people who we elect to run the government should be the ones who actually run the government, not three-letter agency bureaucrats who were never elected to their positions, festering in that ever-growing swamp in Washington, D.C., the four million federal bureaucrats that are actually making policies rather than the congressman who you elect?

00:43:43.000 That's what's at stake in this election.

00:43:46.000 It's the American Revolution.

00:43:47.000 The same question, except this time, the way we're going to settle this, I hope, is through open debate, through an actual revival of those ideals that we long for.

00:43:56.000 Americans across this country, especially young people, I see it, are lost, are hungry in a nation.

00:44:00.000 Why wouldn't they be lost?

00:44:01.000 A nation that preaches one set of ideals enshrined in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, yet today living a very different set of ideals.

00:44:07.000 It's no surprise to me that many people, young people, independents, people of every age across this country are lost, have been unmoored from understanding who we are, are lost at a moment where faith has disappeared, family has disintegrated, now our national identity has gone too.

00:44:23.000 We're told we have a Declaration of Independence and a Constitution, yet now bureaucrats are telling me who I can and cannot elect, what I can and cannot say, what opinions I can and cannot express.

00:44:32.000 That's not America.

00:44:33.000 We've lost our sense of identity.

00:44:35.000 We've become unmoored.

00:44:36.000 That's what's going on in this country.

00:44:38.000 I don't think it's a stretch to say that's part of what's fueling this mental health epidemic across our country.

00:44:42.000 People that have lost their sense of grounding.

00:44:44.000 People have lost their sense of commitment.

00:44:46.000 People have lost their sense of citizenship and identity.

00:44:49.000 And so what we talked about today, these trials against Trump, gets a little bit technical at times, talking about the specifics of, well, why is this legal case...

00:44:57.000 Actually an unlawful case that's being brought against him.

00:45:00.000 It can be technocratic at times.

00:45:02.000 Part of the advice I'd give you is the more boring it sounds, the more you need to pay attention.

00:45:06.000 Part of what they're trying to do is to pack in a political agenda, wrap it in the veneer of technocracy, and sell it to you as a legal or technical judgment.

00:45:13.000 No, you've got to see through the details.

00:45:15.000 Arm yourself with knowledge.

00:45:17.000 That's how we're going to win the revolution of 2024. Our founding fathers had to do it a different way against the British Empire in 1776. But this time, the way we do it is not through physical action, not through violence, but through knowledge.

00:45:30.000 Equip yourself and understand what's actually going on.

00:45:32.000 Know the things that you're sure they don't want you to know.

00:45:36.000 And that's how we're going to get this country back.

00:45:37.000 That's how we're going to restore a justice system that's no longer politicized.

00:45:40.000 That's how we're going to restore free speech in this country.

00:45:44.000 And that's how we're going to save this republic.

00:45:46.000 And if we don't get this right before, say my kids are in high school, I'm going to see them later today.

00:45:51.000 The older one's four years old.

00:45:53.000 If he's in high school before we get this right, I don't think we have a country left.

00:45:56.000 That's the window we're working within.

00:45:58.000 In 1776, the American Revolution that our founding fathers started, it lasted for seven years.

00:46:03.000 Seven years and then some, maybe eight years.

00:46:05.000 If we don't get this right in that same period, we don't have a country left.

00:46:08.000 That's what's at stake.

00:46:09.000 But I don't think it has to stay this way.

00:46:12.000 I'm not some fake optimist, but I'm not just going to be a pessimist for the sake of being a pessimist either.

00:46:16.000 You've got to see the problem with clear eyes if you're to fix it.

00:46:19.000 The best step to solving a problem is to name it first.

00:46:23.000 That's what we're doing here.

00:46:24.000 But the next step is for every one of us to step up and speak our mind and to take the time to actually educate ourselves, not just read the front page of the New York Times and accept that as gospel, but to do your own homework and understand.

00:46:34.000 That's what I'm telling you.

00:46:35.000 Get it from everywhere else, too, to get to the truth of what's really happening in this country.

00:46:40.000 And now as ever, the truth will be what sets us free.

00:46:44.000 That's what this is all about.

00:46:45.000 Thank you for joining this episode of The Truth.

00:46:48.000 That's why we brought this back and we are not going to stop.

00:46:51.000 I don't want standard conservative talking points.

00:46:53.000 If you want that, you can get that elsewhere.

00:46:55.000 But if you want the actual hard truths and to be challenged by it, this is the place for you.

00:47:01.000 Subscribe to the podcast.

00:47:02.000 We're going to be out with one of these per week.

00:47:04.000 And I'm looking forward to it.

Truth Podcast - Vivek Ramaswamy - May 16, 2024

My Day in Court with Former President Donald Trump | The TRUTH Podcast #47

Episode Stats

Summary

Transcript