Projects
![]()
No projects found
Investors
New
DAO Treasuries
DATs
Lend / Borrow APRs
Chains
Categories
Spaces
🚨BREAKING: PRESIDENT TRUMP FEDERALLY INDICTED w/ Michael Cohen
Recorded: June 8, 2023 Duration: 3:09:24Space Recording
Short Summary
The transcript highlights a decline in the crypto sector due to recent crackdowns and a banking meltdown, while also noting trends in political engagement and digital discourse. Additionally, there is significant financial growth in political fundraising, particularly in response to political events and indictments.
Full Transcription
Well, this was an interesting late development here.
We have Michael Cohen coming on?
Yeah, bro.
Justin, don't underestimate us, man.
Like, why are you acting surprises, Justin?
I'm pretty offended, actually.
I'm pretty offended, Justin.
I know we can bring that sort of thing in there.
I'm just curious when our space is going to be brought up in the first lawsuit file wherever it is as part of the discovery or whatever else.
Yeah, thanks, man.
This is exactly what you need to say.
It could be a positive way, but there you go.
Yeah, we'll have some good questions.
So this is officially the first space ever that Michael Cohen joins.
I'll just check now.
So let me do a nice tweet.
Breaking.
Breaking.
Michael Cohen joining the first Twitter spaces ever.
I should do this for every time we got to.
He's all right, bro.
You need to stop fixing my English, man.
Right, drawing the first.
Oh, yeah, his first.
His first face is ever
Michael Cohen
He's fucking sick man
Let's put a nice photo
That grabs attention
Should I put a photo with him
And Trump
In the tweet?
Let me see
I need I need AI to create one
Where he's punching Trump
In the face
I'm on it
Mid-chernie
I got one with Trump's face
And then Cohen
Like in the background
That's a pretty famous photo
Should I put both on one side by side
Let's see
Whatever you can do
As quickly as possible
No, bro, we got time. We got time.
Or just put his face without Trump. You decide, bro.
The audience was watching us tweet something live.
Yeah, see, this is great.
Do a side by side.
They don't have to be in the same photo, but do aside by side.
I'm going to put my face in the middle.
With the middle finger up.
That's how you get implicated in a crime.
All right.
So up, everyone.
Let me get the, I'll get the panel invited in a bit.
Mario, how are you?
What was that video you posted of yourself in that chamber?
Stop stalking me, Benjamin.
Well, it's on your Twitter feed.
Tucker Carlson posted his second video.
Already?
Yeah, bro, he's a grafter.
He's not a chiller like you.
He's not a what like me?
What'd you say?
A chiller.
A chiller, someone will relax.
See, I don't even know what the word means.
Just say it all.
No one knows.
He just made that up.
A chiller.
You're teaching me English, Nick.
You got someone else you got to teach.
Sorry, it's all DNGs here.
They don't understand this land.
What the fuck is DNG?
You keep using that word, man.
Justin, do you know what DNG means?
He keeps using it, and I've no idea what he means.
We've got to build our own sling vocabulary around Sliber.
All right, let me get the invites out.
I love how spaces works.
Like, everything is...
You're known for this now.
Like, everyone says when Mario's on, all you can hear him is have his unmuted while he's typing on his keyboard.
Yeah.
Yeah.
Great comment, bro.
Great, great, great small talk.
Yeah, what's great is because if you do the same thing,
Coyne be a bit more professional.
Sully, Sully, just stop.
Sully, just stop, Sully.
Just stop, Nick.
Mute your mic.
Mute your mic, you child.
Nick, go ahead.
No, I mean, you're not going to like what I have to say.
I was going to say if me or Swayman do the same thing,
you're going to bitch at us in the back chat.
No, I'll just remove you from co-host, like on the spot.
And then bitching the back chat.
It's one after the other.
And this is true because all he does is whine and cry.
Oh, we got Tom, we got Tom joining.
It's been a while, Tom.
The AK guy's joining.
That's a sick panel today.
John Pierce is sending you an invite.
Seeing the audience.
Ryan Fernier's joining.
It's a really good panel.
I'm impressed by the team.
This is a lot of research to be doing it at the last second,
but it's a pretty good poll with Michael Cohn.
Good to see everyone.
We're going to kick this off in a few minutes.
Can you see all source sully? Can you see all source in the audience?
Because he's always blacklisted account, uh, shadow band.
I can't invite him.
He's literally always shadow band.
Thomas.
I think they test shadow band features on his account.
Oh, they put you as a liberal, Justin, in the list.
Let me tell them.
Justin Hart is not a liberal.
I've got, John, Justin's...
Classical liberal.
I mean, I mean, it's because he's switching positions so much.
They can't keep up.
Yeah.
All right, Tony Michaels is coming up, bro.
Justin, what you got to say about your boy?
You provide misinformation or disinformation.
You're going to disinformation.
What you mean the crazy video of Chris Christie with the buffet?
Was that Desantis?
No, that was Trump.
Oh, that was an amazing thing.
No, no, I'm talking about, Justin, I'm talking about, you know, where a book.
Like, at least Trump's people don't pretend.
They're like, yeah, we take the piss.
We do.
You mean like a three pixel size AI picture that was on the screen for like three seconds?
What are you saying?
Yeah, yeah, we're talking about that.
So I thought you guys don't do this information.
Yeah.
Actually, I don't condone it.
I think it was bad news.
Because each we know now, the reality is,
the reality is you guys do it,
you're just not good at it.
So therefore you just complain about it.
The reality is that, as Chris Christie says,
Trump seems to be a little bit of a child, right?
And I think what happens here is that this probably is a legit issue
that they could bring against the DeSanta's campaign
for using those images.
And so the entire Trump clan is just grasping after it
because it's like the first semi-moderate, low-substance of thing
that they could throw up to instead of crazy name-calling.
It's just a passive-aggressive child
who was trying to make it look like he doesn't do these things
because he knew he gets smashed.
Oh, come on.
Now, imagine the laziness not to just change the background text from your AI generation.
Like, uh, it's literally like a two-minute Photoshop, just laziness.
No, I think one of those is mine. I'm not sure.
If you really want to see some good Photoshop of Trump and Fauci, I'll share those.
I got some good ones.
Yeah.
All let me, yeah, I've seen the one.
But those are just memes, right?
I've seen the one where this is, do we, do we, guys, just shush for a sec.
Do we realize how crazy this year has been?
Do you just think about it for a while?
Across the board, it's, it's been a fucking mental, mental year.
From a former president getting indicted time and time again to the shit we've seen in
crypto and the crackdowns we saw over the last 48 hours.
To the banking meltdown, this has been a mental, mental year.
It's just getting started.
It's going to be an incredible, it's going to be an entertaining election, to say
the least, in a few months.
We're preparing to cover the elections here on Twitter spaces.
That's going to be epic.
That's going to be really fun.
All right, everyone, so we're just going to give it a bit more time.
Let me send an invite to Mr. Cohen.
All right, so everyone, just put your questions in the bottom right corner.
We're going to kick this off in a couple of minutes.
You know, I'm pulling Elon here.
You know how Elon, when he does the space, like just chilling at the beginning and typing away and relaxing.
You hear all the background noise probably goes to the bathroom.
It's like I'm doing the same thing now.
All right, let me send that.
Except all we hear is the whirring fan of your hyperbolic chamber.
Do you actually hear any background sound or should be completely quiet now?
Do you hear any sound?
No, no, no, no.
You wouldn't hear me.
I tried to do space once from it, but everyone was really pissed.
I think Darnish, Danish.
I was doing it in Danish's space.
He was just pissed.
because of the background noise.
All right, let me send out to the invite to Mr. Cohen.
So I can see Mr. Michael Cohen is not the biggest fan of Twitter or social media.
His username is Michael Cohen 212.
Not real Michael Cohen, not official Michael Cohen.
It says Michael Cohen 212.
There are 211.
There are 211 other Michael Cohen's on Twitter, apparently.
I'll get Joa. Joe's going to jump in as well.
Well, I think I've sent out all the invites.
All right, so I'm going to get...
the space kicked off. I think I've got everything sorted, invites are there, the team is ready,
and we've got panelists already on stage. So let's kick it off with Justin. Justin,
do you want to give us an overview of what's happened? What do we know so far about Trump's possible
indictment and the leaks that came out of the, from the DOJ, and I've seen a few pieces here
and there. If you can quickly summarize it for us, Justin and Dan, it should be great.
It is a teeter totter of information and misinformation.
We're not quite sure where things stand.
Yesterday, it was leaked to certain individuals that Trump was indeed notified that he was going to be indicted.
Trump then told Maggie Haberman of the New York Times.
That was not the case.
He hasn't received anything.
Then this morning, we have a source from Sean Hannity who told him it is indeed going to happen and that tomorrow will be really big.
The indictments have been a flurry of different testimonies that are being done in the Florida grand jury.
And this, of course, is all around the document case of classified documents or secret documents or otherwise that were kept at Mar-a-Lago.
There was apparently negotiations underway.
And then, of course, we remember the fateful raid on Mar-a-Lago, which happened, I believe, at the end of last year.
And that sparked a lot of very, very prominent...
plans for President for President Trump's
re-election run and now we stand where a special prosecutor was assigned to look after this and they're
working a lot quicker than the other special prosecutors uh as we've seen in the last little bit here the
the durham case just came to a close and so this one is is moving like the light speed uh and it's
very possible that we will see indictments as early as tomorrow uh unclear exactly what that means uh
As far as Mr. Cohen is concerned, he has lawsuits again with Mr. Trump, I think most recently, Mr. Trump accused him of
breaching of confidentiality, but we can probably get into that a little bit later.
And just a heads up, Danesh, before you jump in, just for the panelists, obviously when Mr. Cohen joins,
you know, anyone that jumps in and wants to get their time in the limelight, we'll just remove you.
Because we want to focus on questions for Mr. Cohen.
So if you've got a good question, obviously it jumps in.
And we know all the panelists, you guys are all chill.
But yeah, go ahead, Danish.
Yeah, the only other thing is, and I'm not sure if this is rumored currently or if it's been verified,
but there are some sources that were unnamed that were sharing that Mark Meadows,
not directly to us, but to the mainstream media, that Mark Meadows may have gone after some partial immunity,
and that was involved.
Has that been debunked yet?
I just wanted to make sure if that has been confirmed further, that Mark Meadows was involved in this.
Yeah.
Well, I think that Trump's angst towards him with multiple tweets over the last couple of days is probably indicative that he may have testified or he was giving over evidence for that.
It's a crazy scene. I think yesterday Trump indicated over true social that Mark came to him in tears begging for a job.
And then definitely Trump blamed all of the terrible hiring decisions of the last part of his presidency on Mark Meadows.
Michael Cohen, it's a pleasure to have you.
This is your first official Twitter space.
You've got to press the bottom left corner to unmute,
and we'll be able to hear your voice.
Right. It's actually my second, believe it or not, I was a speaker when you had Elon Musk, and we were talking about the acquisition of Twitter by Elon Musk.
I still take, by still, I could be number two.
Okay, so you initially broke my heart because you said I'm not first, and then he said the first one was with us as well.
Yes, it was.
What's your, I'm going to ask with the selfish question, Mr. Cohen, and then we'll kick off the tough questions and talking about the Trump indictment.
But what are your thoughts is, considering this is your second space, and I think I've seen you in the audience listen before.
What are your thoughts on what Elon's doing with Twitter spaces and the structure he has, you know, with his fight against mainstream media through spaces?
Yeah.
So I like this platform very much, and I'm a firm believer that Twitter is an important part of the dissemination of information.
What I am seriously concerned about, something that I had brought up during that last split.
space conversation is the number of trolls and and bot farms that are out there right now.
And what happens is they, obviously, they're not real.
And so what they do is they change narrative by attacking the speaker or the person who's
promoting a concept.
It's okay for us to disagree.
However...
We need to disagree as human beings, not as bot farms.
Your opinion is valid, but what invalidates it when you have a thousand,
5,000, 10,000 bots that are there promoting your position,
and what makes it dangerous is when that position is not even legitimate,
but you're able to...
put it out there with such ferocity because of the bot farms.
So my hope was that by now they would have figured out how to do a two or even a three-time authentication to ensure that these bot farms do not get to put out an indiscriminate number of IP addresses.
Yeah, and I know that Elon has done, has made a few moves in that direction.
I think he's done a few things with Twitter's API, and people have apparently seen it improve.
I hope you're not seeing the ugly side of bot attacks on accounts.
but it's definitely a valid concern.
But otherwise, I appreciate you coming on stage
and Nick and Suleiman.
I'll let you, Nick, to kick off an introduction
for the panel.
If you've got questions, just put your hand up, as always.
We'll give you the mic just to keep it structured.
But Nick, the mic is yours for an introduction.
Mr. Cohen, thank you for coming up on stage here.
So I do want to ask you, so you were Donald Trump's attorney, his personal attorney and that of the Trump organization, I believe, from 2006 for at least a decade at 2016.
And then you ended up being prosecuted, right?
You were found guilty of campaign finance violations, tax evasion, bank fraud, false statements to Congress.
Can you give us a little bit of an overview of why you were prosecuted for these crimes?
And so far for right now, Trump has not been implicated for them at all.
Yeah.
Um...
I wrote a book about it, which became my second New York Times bestselling book, which is called Revenge,
how Donald Trump weaponized the United States Department of Justice against his critics.
Now, yes, it's true.
I pled guilty to nine different offenses.
Right.
Five of them were tax evasion cases. One was not bank fraud. It was misrepresentation to a bank.
They went after me based upon what's called a helock, a home equity line of credit. There were then two counts of campaign finance violation.
One count was Stormy Daniels. The second count was Karen McDougal. And then, of course, the ninth
charge was misrepresentation lying to Congress, a 1,001 violation. Now, if you had an opportunity
to read the book, which again, it's all about the weaponization of the Justice Department by Donald,
if you read the book, which I have...
cast as the single most corrupt prosecution of a United States citizen in our country's history,
you would see there is no tax evasion. I was a first-time tax offender. Yes, I did not pay on
$1.3 million of tax over the course of five years or $260,000 a year. But what I did pay was $5 million
in taxes. What I did is I had never in my entire life been audited. I had never requested an
extension. I was not in a cash business. There was no overseas bank relationships. There was no fake
invoices. There's no cash. Every single dollar was deposited into Capital One Bank, which was
located at the base of the building that I lived in.
And to make matters worse, when I found out about it for the very first time, I never, even to this date, I have never received a letter from the IRS, which is why Senator Dick Durbin had called for an inspector general's investigation into the IRS's handling of this case and the Southern District of New York's handling of this case.
Did you plead guilty to that charge?
So I pled guilty because I finally found out what they were going to come after me for on a Friday evening at 5.30 p.m.
And I was told that if I did not come and plead guilty on Monday, 48 hours later, they were going to file an 80-page indictment that would include my wife.
So as I describe it in my book,
this was not a legitimate plea.
This is a hostage video.
I'm married now going on 29 years.
There wasn't a chance in the world,
and they knew my Achilles heel
that I would put my wife or any member of my family
in jeopardy and when I say jeopardy,
they never would have been successful
in prosecuting her because she did nothing wrong.
It was all about the campaign finance violation
or the hush money payment to Stormy Daniels.
If I can also say one thing,
it's why I beg people, I beseech people,
You got to get the book.
And that way you'll understand what Trump and his administration did with the help of Bill Barr, the bloviated Attorney General, what they did and what they will do again, what Donald will do again, if in fact that he is elected as president in 2024.
But, but, yeah, Michael, so since that time, it has, you know, obviously for these, these crimes that were, that you allege,
did happen under Trump's watch and that he knew about them and everything like that,
you know, would you not believe that something would have happened before, you know, now?
He's been out of office for, you know, two and a half years now when we're just now seeing,
you know, prosecutors from New York and stuff, like bringing charges against him.
But none of the accusations that you've made so far have actually stuck.
And,
And so why is that?
Why were you prosecuted for all these crimes?
Well, I'm so sorry.
What do you mean by that?
His company was found guilty of more than two dozen violations.
And you have the Attorney General of New York.
That was...
under the district attorney's case against both Alan Weisselberg and the Trump organization.
The attorney general case is going to trial in about four months or so.
Donald Trump is being investigated and most probably to be indicted soon by the government in regard to the mishandling of
the top secret classified documents that he stored at Mara Lago.
I'm,
I'm not sure that I agree with your assessment.
I will acknowledge that the wheels of justice turn awfully slow for Donald Trump.
For me, it was 48 hours.
Okay.
So, Michael, Michael, one thing is you, I mean, you mentioned it in your book as well,
but that you were basically his personal attorney and some would say you were his fixer.
I mean, what happened or what was the specific incident or situation that caused you essentially to turn on Trump?
Because obviously you knew a lot about him.
He knew a lot about you.
So what was the circumstances that led to that?
Well, there was one specific moment where I was watching television, and this is post the raid.
And Donald made a statement which was,
It's disgusting that the FBI raided the home and law office of one of my attorneys.
It was really at that moment that I realized that I'm being pushed out of the orbit on top of that.
I had a long conversation with my father.
And, you know, one of the things that he reminded me, he's a Holocaust survivor, is that, you know, your name means a lot.
And at the end of the day, Donald doesn't care about you.
He doesn't care about anyone other than himself.
And I then said to George Stephanopoulos that,
I need to reprioritize my life that my wife, my daughter, my son, and my country have my first loyalty and always will.
And so what happened was I was...
subpoenaed by the Senate permanent select committee on intelligence to provide testimony to them.
And I cooperated. I appeared as per the subpoena. I didn't do things like what Meadows or
others did, which is I defy the subpoena. In fact, Donald wanted me to testify before.
before it and so i did unfortunately what he didn't want is for me to tell the truth okay so that is
why you were charged originally with making false statements to congress correct because you did appear
before them but yeah so let me so let me just let me just jump into that one if i can for a second
yeah all right do you know what the false statement to congress was i was referring to the uh trump tower
in moscow correct
Well, yes, but do you know specifically what was the misstatement that I made to Congress
that I was charged with a 1,001 violation?
It seems like what you had said was you were talking about the project ending in January 2016.
Yeah, what it was was the number of times that I stated to Congress that I spoke to Donald
about the failed Trump Tower Moscow real estate project.
During the time that I was preparing this opening statement, it was being prepared in concert with Donald's lawyers, Jay Sekulow, Abby Loll, Ty Cobb, Ivanka, Jared, and so on.
And everybody weighed in.
And yes, I read it, and yes, I submitted it as part of my statement, but it was worked on by over, you know, almost like eight or nine different people.
What I said was that the number of times I spoke to Donald about the failed real estate, the Trump Tower Moscow real estate project, he wanted a de minimis number.
And so still being in the camp, I acquiesce, and I stated three.
The true answer was that I spoke to him about it 10 times.
That's the big lie that everybody, you know, wants to refer to, especially Donald, when he calls me a convicted perjurer.
Three versus 10.
Yeah.
Going back to what you said before, you said, and I asked you, what was the reason you turned on Trump?
And you said that basically Donald Trump came on TV and said that the FBI had raided one of his attorneys.
How does him speaking out for you publicly demonstrate that he was somebody that you couldn't rely on?
That's the bit I'm not understanding because isn't it the opposite that he's speaking out for you in the public and then you turn on him?
Well, so the answer is no. He was not speaking about me. In fact, at that specific moment, he elected to forget my name, which, of course, we all know is impossible.
And so I realized that it's all about himself protecting himself from the things that he did and or had me do on what.
his behalf for his benefit, for example, like the Stormy Daniels payment.
Now, I want to be clear about something, and your listeners can look this up.
You could Google it.
I did not pay Karen McDougal.
I was charged with the Karen McDougal campaign finance violation.
That $150,000 was paid for by David Pecker, AMI National Enquirer.
I merely, as a lawyer, looked over a document that was prepared by AMI to ensure that Donald was protected in the fact that the story would not be released about his relationship with Karen McDougal.
But yet, they gave David Pecker immunity for that, and I was held holding the ban, despite the fact I just reviewed documents.
It's almost as stupid as the HELOC violation, what you called bank fraud, and it was not bank, it was a misrepresentation to a bank.
People said, oh, Michael Cohen needed, you know, to...
Mortgage his home in order to pay the 130, that's not true.
And again, if you read revenge, you would understand.
I could not go into my bank.
I had several millions of dollars in cash in the bank.
All legal money from real estate acquisitions and sales.
I didn't need to borrow money for the 130.
The problem is my wife is the CEO of the household,
and she does all the banking work.
So how am I supposed to remove $130,000?
And when she asks me what I took it for, I give her the answer I can't tell you.
That's not going to work in my household.
So I needed to use a source of catheteral that was paperless, and that was the helock.
Which I, by the way, happened to have had for over 15 years.
It's not as if I took out the HELOC for the purpose of this transaction.
I had had it for, I don't know, 15 years.
So, Michael, let me ask you here because you're coming out with these accusations now, right?
So it seems like...
No, no, they're not accusations, the facts.
Right.
We don't really know that the facts because we haven't, you know, he hasn't been,
Trump has not been found guilty of any of this stuff at this point,
of any charges that would be related to this.
But isn't there an issue here when it comes to, you know,
the fact that you seem to have been willingly,
unless you truly didn't realize that what you were doing was a crime,
you were willingly participating in this activity.
at these points, you know.
I'm sorry, you got to be more specific.
What activity you're referring to?
You're talking about how Trump, you know,
made hush money payments to,
to stormy Daniels and,
and you do make a lot of accusations in your books about,
you know,
what Trump was doing some of the shady business dealings and such.
And you mentioned that the Trump organization has been,
you know,
prosecuted as a business for some of these crimes.
But you were the attorney.
why did this end up why did this end up happening to begin with well first of i wasn't the attorney
for the company there was general counseled in fact there were two people who were general and
co-general counsel that was not my role i was special counsel to just donald trump only um
so you know the again i think that you're conflating a multitude of different things
all at the same time.
I also want to remind you that the things that were done while I was there,
and some of them, yes, are absolutely inappropriate.
And I did it because I did it at the direction of, for the benefit of,
and in concert with my boss.
You know, there are things sometimes that you do.
Look, I've even said this in front of Congress.
I don't want people to mistake the Trump organization for murder, Inc.
There was never anybody that we turned around that we killed and dragged them over to Central Park and buried them.
The Trump Organization is not murder, Inc.
Are the things that they did that are inappropriate, that were, you know, illegal,
that people like our Attorney General here in New York, Tish James,
or the Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Breg will be seeking to prosecute on?
The answer is yes, and that will be for them to prosecute on.
I was charged.
with campaign finance violation.
I didn't have the affair with Karen McDougal.
I didn't have the affair with Stormy Daniels.
I was just instructed by my boss to resolve an issue that he was concerned about
because of its time period to the election.
And so I did.
And so I did. And I take responsibility for that. But I refuse to take the responsibility at this point when it comes to, for example, Karen McDougal. I just looked over an agreement. I didn't pay it. It was paid by AMI. I refused to acknowledge a misrepresentation to a bank. In fact, I have never owed a dollar to any bank or any institution.
There was no financial loss to anyone.
In fact, let me go one step even further.
The mistake, I had a CPA, my tax returns were over 1,800 pages long a year.
I had a CPA that I paid an exorbitant amount of money.
in order to do my taxes.
Every single document, every bank statement, every deposit was given to him in an organized three-ring notebook.
His job was merely just to go ahead and to organize it and to reconcile the bank accounts.
Tell me how much I owed.
Now, when the judge said to me, yeah, but you took tax in law school for one semester.
That happens to be true.
But I can't do my own taxes.
And so I hired a CPA.
There's a mistake, no problem. That's called a tax omission, something that 100 million Americans have dealt with.
I was never given that opportunity. That's the point. No different than when they unconstitutionally remanded me back to prison because I refused to waive my First Amendment constitutional rights.
And I published the book Disloyal.
So it's why I beseech everybody.
So you understand the danger.
So you fully understand the danger of Donald Trump
and his lack of appreciation for the Constitution or rule of law.
I say to you, you must read revenge in that way you fully understand
exactly what this man is capable of.
So before I go to the panelists,
before I go to the panelist guys,
and so I'm going to go to Shemichael and Jim
and Mickey once I've asked this question.
But before I do, guys, if you've got any questions,
put them in the comments,
and we will read your questions out
so you at least get an opportunity to ask Michael.
So that's the bottom right corner, everyone,
the purple circle.
Go ahead, Tilly.
That's right. That's right. So just one quick question before I'll go to the panelists.
You mentioned that you gave $130,000 to Stormy Daniels. You did not pay McDougal.
If you look at the payments that you were receiving from President Trump,
they were excessively or quite considerably a lot more than the $130,000. So what were those payments for?
Right, that's also spelled out in the book.
What happens is just so you're saying, in order for me to have gotten back the $130,000 that I laid out, it's called grossing up.
You have to double the money because I live in New York and my income put me into the 50% tax bracket.
So for me to get back my 130, it needs to be 260.
And then there was bonus money that they, for whatever the reason, they chopped my bonus down for the year, two thirds. And so part of that was also the return. And then there was monies that I had expended on Donald's behalf.
whether it was for the CNBC poll or other things.
But Michael, you can see how then you've got a scenario where you were receiving money
and it doesn't completely correlate with the 130.
How is...
Yes, no, no, no, no, it does.
Where is the real evidence that that money also included Storm and Daniels money?
Could it have not just been something else on your claimant?
It's...
Lemon is the guest. No, no, no, no. It's, I mean, there were receipts for all of it, including a
handwritten document from Alan Weisselberg and myself that was presented to Donald. So I want to assure you that
There's something called documentary evidence, right?
And documentary evidence is not just my comment.
It's not your comment.
You know, it's not hearsay, which is out of court statements offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted.
There's documentary evidence as well as corroborating testimony from other people who are involved that, again,
again, corroborates the statements that I'm making the same statements that I put into my books
and the same statements that I talk about, whether it's on my podcast's political beatdown or on Mayor Culper.
So, Michael, I'm going to, I want to ask you this one last question before we go to the panel here.
So going back into these charges that you pled guilty to, you know,
five counts of tax evasion, one count of making false statements to a financial institution,
one count of willfully causing an unlawful corporate contribution,
and one count of making an excessive campaign contribution.
You say that was at the request of Trump.
So what I want to ask you there is if you weren't guilty of these crimes,
why not take them to trial?
Why plead guilty to them?
Well, I don't know if you've ever been put into the type of situation where they, in 48 hours over the course of a weekend, after they raided your properties and took everything from you, they now turn around and tell you, if you don't plead guilty on Monday at 9 a.m., we're filing an 80-page indictment and we're taking you and your wife out of your home in handcuffs.
I'm not so sure that you would, maybe it would. I don't know. I don't know you.
I wouldn't do that.
And there was no chance in the world that I was going to put my wife in that situation over this.
I also never believe that the judge was going to buy any of this bullshit.
Sure, Michael.
Go ahead.
Hey, thanks. Mike, I hope you've been well. It's been a long time. Let me ask you this question. And I don't want to relitigate all this legal nonsense. This stuff has been covered a million and one times. I think it's kind of fruitless at this point. No disrespect to the individuals hosting the space. But that's just my perspective. But I want to ask you a more critical question here. So you were president, former president.
I think it is probably fair to say based on your statements today, based on your statements on television, news articles, your book, which I've read.
You clearly now come to the conclusion that he is not an ethical person, a moral person, broke the law according to you, multiple times, according to you.
Why would you help such a person become president?
And I asked this question for this particular reason.
I want to be transparent here.
So I worked for a presidential candidate.
That candidate endorsed former president.
Wasn't my particular interest.
I would have hoped my person would have stayed out of it.
He did anyway.
Endursed a person.
I went along with him.
The person appointed him to a cabinet position.
I went along with him as his deputy.
He said,
And then the former president got rid of me because I criticized him.
Now, I could have apologized and stayed and I refused.
So I guess my question is, if you know that someone is problematic for you, for your morals, for your ethics, for your legal standing grounding, your attorney, why continue to work for them?
Why continue to advise them?
Why not say, you know, this is going too far for me?
I got to sort of get out of this.
And that's an honest question.
It's an honest question. It's a great question.
You have to remember from 2006, 2007 to 2017,
Donald Trump was not president of the United States.
He was the president's CEO of a...
real estate, you know, development company.
And there was a lot of action.
There was a lot of activity.
There were a lot of good people that were working there.
There was a lot of fun.
I was also immediately placed on the board of the Miss Universe.
There was me, Donald and Alan Weisselberg.
Then on top of that, I was also made co-president of Trump Productions.
So I dealt...
a lot with the apprentice.
There was a lot of very interesting things happening at the time,
real estate acquisitions, development sites, and so on.
I did truly believe.
I really truly believed that whatever the personal characteristic faults of Donald
would be or were during the time periods that I had worked for the decade,
that becoming president of the United States would elevate him to
A different place where he would now elevate himself to the office of the presidency.
In fact, that's not what happened.
Really, what he did is he debased the office of the presidency by continuing to be the worst version of himself imaginable.
So that is on me.
I acknowledge that.
I backed an individual who does lack...
a lot in terms of character and so on.
That is on me, and it's something that I deal with,
and I am responsible for,
but I have only one vote.
I was not the only one who wanted to see Donald Trump
become president.
We are all angry.
Let me rephrase that.
Many of us are very, very angry
at those that are allegedly working for us in Washington.
Right.
Whether it's in the capital, whether it's in the administration, we are all angry at many of these people because they're not working for the betterment of the United States of America.
They're only working for themselves, hence the whole concept of drain the swamp.
I truly thought that Donald would be that guy. He would elevate himself to that position.
But instead, he did not.
He decided that he was going to use the office of the presidency for his own personal gain.
Kim, let's jump to you and then we'll go to another panel.
Go ahead, Kim.
Hey, Michael, good talking to you again.
Hey, pal, how are you? Long time not speak.
Yeah, man.
Very good. Look, I'm sorry about everything that happened to you.
Just one quick question, right?
Everyone in this room here is wondering, you know, is this guy Michael credible?
Does he speak the truth?
I have one single question for you that I think will indicate if you are truthful in what you say or not.
Do you believe that D.A. Braggs has a political agenda?
You know, everything is and is not a political agenda.
I don't believe that D.A. Bragg would have brought this case
if, in fact, he did not have the necessary information and proof in order to bring the case.
I believe he knows what he has,
and I believe that he will be able to demonstrate it at the time of trial.
Do I think that Donald became a target because of who he is?
Well, the answer is, yeah, sure, why not?
It's for the same reason that I was investigated, that I was raided off of what?
Off of a campaign finance violation?
that they went ahead and that they created this bullshit on my taxes,
I've never failed to pay taxes ever.
In fact, I've never asked for an extension.
And as I said before,
Lanny Davis went out with Guns Ablazain,
created one of the best PowerPoint presentations
showing that there's not one element of tax evasion
that applied to me.
My only issue is what do you do?
What do you do when you are, as I like to call it?
It was a hostage video.
What did you do when they have a proverbial gun to your wife's head
and they're threatening pretty significant action against?
Well, you know what you do?
Well, you know what I did?
I manned up and I said, okay, okay, I'll deal with this.
I'll deal with it.
You're not going to put this on my wife.
You're certainly not going to put it on my family.
Yep.
Let me go to Laura.
Before you do that,
I do want to remind the audience,
put your questions down in the bottom right hand corner.
Questions from Michael Cohen.
I'm sure you got a lot of them.
And Ben,
I want to jump in and let you ask Michael a question.
Go ahead.
Yeah, very quickly. It was already touched on briefly, but now you said that you were given 48 hours to basically accept the plea deal, right?
So if memory serves me corrects, Bob Kazumi was involved in that, right, from SDNY.
Do you have, or have you ever published any type of documenting evidence to say that, yes, I was only given 48 hours?
Because SDNY was a very friendly district. I just...
It's a little bit hard to believe that they would come to you and say, well, you have 48 hours to accept the guilty plea.
Do you have any evidence?
Yeah, the answer is yes, and a great question.
Actually, the SDNY has never been known to be a friendly group.
You know, everybody else calls themselves the Southern District, in this case, SDNY Southern District of New York.
They refer to themselves as the sovereign district of New York.
Right.
They all do the same thing.
In fact, if you read, there's a book, it's
It's written by Judge Jed Rakoff,
Why the Innocent Plead Guilty and the Guilty Go Free.
It's a fantastic, fantastic book.
And what Judge Rakoff says is that the power differential between the prosecutor
and the defendant is so significant that in all of these plea deals,
he recommends that there be a union, that there be a,
different judge who would be an impartial judge that would be associated to ensure that these plea deals don't get rammed down the throat of the defendant because we have seen time and time again how many defendants have been ultimately proven
not guilty after serving their sentence.
It's just all too common.
Why?
Because prosecutors care about only one thing.
And that's their conviction rate.
Every single prosecutor will say to you when you're in their grasp,
I have a 98% conviction rate.
It's not because they're geniuses.
None of them are.
It's because they have all the power.
And they're prepared to use it.
And they were 100% prepared to use it against me,
knowing my Achilles heel is my family and my wife.
Yeah, absolutely.
I agree with that.
But my last question is this.
Who was the U.S. attorney that organized this?
Was it Kazumi?
So originally, you may remember it was Jeffrey Berman, who then put out a book, acknowledging in his own book.
He acknowledges in his book that he was being pressured by main justice to ensure a conviction.
And so he ultimately recuses himself, and nobody really knows the reason why, but he did.
He recused himself, and Robert Kazami became the acting head of the Southern District's criminal division.
And who was he appointed under?
He was appointed by Donald Trump.
Okay.
Right, let me go to.
Laura, Laura, go ahead.
Morgan, let me hear.
Yeah, I'm here.
I was just taking it off mute.
So I don't know.
I don't really buy it, you know, because I'll just challenge something that you just said.
Because, you know, Kim just asked you whether or not...
you know you think that alvin bragg has a political agenda but i don't i don't understand
how you could say that this isn't rooted in revenge or some kind of political agenda when you know
your own lawyer spoke out against you and you know called you out for going on a revenge tour
against donald trump as it specifically relates to the stormy daniel's case i mean
You helped perpetuate these lies about Stormy Daniels and President Trump when she herself issued a statement saying that she never, you know, had, you know, sexual relations with Donald Trump.
And so how can you, how can you stand by what you just said and that it's not political in nature when this whole arrest originated from lies regarding this made up relationship with Stormy Daniels?
I mean, don't you think that...
It's a bit dishonest on your point.
There's no, there's no, there's no doubt in my mind that we can all figure out exactly which part of the line that you sit on.
It's certainly far to the right of center.
There's not a single thing that just came out of your mouth, Laura, that has any accuracy to it.
I mean, you are just promoting the, and.
regurgitating the lives.
You are promoting and regurgitating lives.
You have heard on Newsmax in OAN.
There was a relationship between Donald Trump and Stormy Danes.
All right.
All right.
Stop it.
Laura, Laura, Laura, Laura, we've just got a lot of hands up.
We've just got a lot of hands up.
I'll have a mic.
Yeah, it's every...
What you're doing is you're regurgitating the right-wing nonsense,
and you refuse to listen to facts.
You refuse to even look and to read for yourself.
You're basically just regurgitating misinformation, disinformation, and malinformation.
And I assure you, I assure you that...
If you follow the trial with an open mind, with your eyes wide open and your ears wide open,
that you will see that the statements that I have made are 100% accurate.
Lev, the mic is yours.
I would I wouldn't say so.
Laura, we'll just go to left.
Go ahead.
Hey, Michael, how are you?
Long time.
How are you doing?
I'm doing good, thanks.
One of the things we both have in common, obviously, besides, you know, being politically prosecuted because of the ex-president Donald Trump, but also we also will prosecute by same prosecutors in SDNY.
And one of the things people keep forgetting about is that he was also indicted his individual, one, named, and the only reason they couldn't indict him at the time was because of a technicality that you can't indict a sitting president.
What are your feelings why SDI and why they continue and go after him?
Why didn't they go after him post-determination of his presidency?
Well, that's an interesting one, and it's one that's actually covered in Jeffrey Berman's book.
They decided that they didn't want to do it.
Remember, it's still his people that were there, despite the fact he wanted to remove
Jeffrey Berman and to put somebody else in there because of the, we'll call it the loyalty factor.
There were indictments all over sealed indictments that existed from what I was told.
They chose not to do it.
And then they made a claim that, well, we don't think that we have enough within which to prosecute him on.
Well, it's funny because...
That's not what was said at the time of the sentencing, nor should it be accurate if I could be charged with the campaign finance violation.
I was never part of the campaign.
I did what my boss told me to do, and I did it as I continuously state at the direction of for the benefit of and in concert.
with individual number one.
So if I couldn't be charged, I didn't have the affair.
He did.
And so if I could be charged with it, how is it possible that the guy who signed off on the campaign finance forms, it was his campaign?
It was his violation.
How is it that I'm the only one who was going to suffer the consequences?
Yes.
I agree with you, Michael.
This is the whole problem with the Southern District of New York.
I agree with you.
Mind you, you take a look at the panel of people that were prosecuting this.
There was no prosecution here.
It's a 48-hour...
It was what's called a charge that they levied it against me.
It became this hostage video, and I went ahead, and I pled to it.
I spent more time with the Southern District of New York
as they prepared the allocution going over what the judge was going to say to me
than having any meaningful discussion with them over what they intended to charge me.
For four and a half months, four and a half months.
My lawyer kept asking, you know, what's going on here?
Can we meet? Can we have a conversation?
What's called Queen for a day?
Nope, we're not ready. We're not ready. We're not ready.
August 17th, we send a letter.
Hey, this is unfair.
It's four and a half months.
We haven't heard from anybody.
They contact my lawyer.
Tell him he has till tomorrow, August 18th, to go ahead and to meet with them,
but not with me, himself alone, or right...
Or they're not meeting.
He goes to the meeting, calls me up that night at 5.30 p.m.
and tells me, you need to come to my office.
They're going to charge you with multiple counts
unless you go in and plead guilty on Monday.
And if you don't plead guilty...
All right, let me go to Dr. Danish then.
Go ahead.
I was going to go to Dr.
I apologize, gentlemen.
I have only one time for one last question.
We'll go with Donish.
Let's go.
Go ahead, Donish.
Yeah, so I just, you know, I wanted to get your thoughts on the situation at hand right now for former President Trump.
As you know, you know, Mark Meadows, who was a key ally to Trump in Congress, has reportedly spoken to a grand jury as part of Jack Smith Special Counsel, his investigation.
Can you give us a sense of what's going on behind the scenes?
In your opinion, again, I know that you're not behind there,
but we'd love to get, you know, an insider's view
on what could be going on with Mark Meadows
because I'm a little bit confused about why he would turn in this situation.
Because he has no choice.
Again, unless you've ever been confronted with this type of scenario, you cannot imagine the pressure that they put on you.
It is the weight of the entire world on your shoulders.
Mark Meadows does not want...
to happen to him, what he saw happened to me and so many others.
What I warned him when I testified before the House Oversight Committee,
you need to be careful.
Seeing what's happened to me, be careful because it could happen to you.
He knows everything that took place behind closed doors.
He knew what happened on January 6th.
He knew what happened regarding the mishandling of the documents.
You know, there are charges here.
under the Espionage Act.
And a lot of people don't realize
that the Espionage Act
was really passed by Congress
during World War.
We have to, Laura, we have to have to.
Guys, we can't do follow up down a chat.
Michael, I know your team is sending us messages
in the back end that you do have to jump off.
As you jump off, who do you think will be our next president
if you had to bet?
I believe it will be Joe Biden.
Appreciate it, Michael.
Thank you so much for joining us today.
great speaking to you.
Bye, Michael.
Bye, guys.
Hey, Suleiman, I just wanted to say really quickly that, you know,
I know you had to hop to other people,
but I don't appreciate being called a liar,
and I'm happy to send you the DMs like I did in the other space I was in with you
so that people can see that I'm actually telling the truth,
and the only liar here is Michael Cohen.
Well, you can even his own lawyers.
Even his own lawyers.
And pin it to the top.
Yeah.
And, you know, I don't have to pin it to the top.
I don't know how I would pin it to the top.
I think only co-host can do that, but I'll send it to you.
No, so you can do it, you can click on the share button.
Yeah, you can also click on the share button of a tweet,
and then it allows you to share it into the space, which is the first option.
Okay.
So you can always do that.
It would be good.
Because I'm telling the truth, I'm just reading from documents that were submitted by his own legal team.
And so, you know, he doesn't want to...
Definitely, definitely.
It wouldn't be the first time you spread BS.
Oh, Michael is here.
It would not be the first time.
Guide, Michael.
Guide, Michael.
Guide, Michael.
Go ahead, Michael.
Go ahead, Michael.
Whoever muted, everyone, you muted Michael as well, guys.
Go ahead, Michael.
You got to unmute, bottom left corner again.
Michael, you got to...
Thank you.
Yeah, thank you.
Laura is endemic of the problem that we are all facing right now in America, which is the divisiveness, but worse than just the divisiveness.
It's also, once again, the misinformation, disinformation, malinformation.
Why do I say it?
So hold on, please.
One of the things, one of the things that she keeps saying is Michael's lawyers turned around
and said that he was lying.
I want to be clear, Bob Costello was never my lawyer.
This is where she is fundamentally wrong and she is misguided because she is a Fox
viewing newsmax watching O-A-N reading.
I don't watch Fox News.
I hate to say it.
You're a fool.
You do not know, you do not know what you're talking about.
I do know what I'm talking about.
Bob Costello was never, do you understand that?
Bob Costello was never my lawyer.
Bob Costello was a plant that was bought, no, you don't.
Bob Costello was a plant put in by Trump and Giuliani in order to ensure that I stayed on message.
And I read through that nonsense.
There are text messages whereby he is talking to Rudy.
There is more than enough documentation, which I cannot get into the exact sum and substance, but you will see it when it comes down to the trial.
But you make these wild statement accusations thinking because you're going to do that MAGA thing that all of a sudden you're right.
You are fundamentally wrong.
wrong on basically everything that you're saying.
You have no facts.
You know nothing about anything.
But yet you spew this bullshit.
You spew this bullshit thinking that by saying it.
You have no idea what you're saying.
I would say the same thing about you.
No, no, mine...
You can say whatever you want.
It's irrelevant.
What you say is irrelevant.
Facts matter.
No more innuendo.
That's your problem.
It's not innuendo, Michael.
You do it all the time, all the time.
I mean,
Laura, what is in their messages that is going to prove that what Michael is saying is inaccurate?
Yeah.
Well, you can read these, you can read these statements.
They delayed the grand jury by over an entire week because clearly this information had some value and some substance.
Yes, they did.
Yes, they did.
No, they did not.
No, they did not.
Do you think you know about the grand jury better than I?
Stormy Daniels.
Okay.
And you were there?
I'm so sorry, you were there?
She signed a letter.
She signed her own letter in 2018.
Everybody just, you know,
you know, look at the statements that have been released by individuals privy to the situation at hand in the past.
You can't just have selected.
And what about her book?
You can't just have.
What about her book?
You can't have selective memories.
And what about her book?
What about her book?
her book. And what about all what about her book? What about the multitude of statements that she went on
60 minutes and other programs? Ma'am, you have no idea what you're talking about. You are
absolutely delusional. I'm reading a letter right now. You are delusional. You're not you can read I'm
I'm the one who prepared that letter. It says a official statement of Stormy Daniels January 30th, 2018.
It says over the past,
I'm the one who prepared the letter.
Over the past few weeks,
I've been asked countless times
to comment on reports
in an alleged sexual relationship
I have a Donald Trump many years ago.
The fact of the matter is that each party
to this alleged fair denied its existence
in 2006,
2011, 2016,
2017,
and now again in 2018.
And now again in 2018.
I am not denying this affair because I was paid hush money, as has been reported in overfee's own tabloids.
I'm denying this affair because it never happened.
I have no further comments on this matter.
Please feel free to check me out on Instagram at the Stormy Daniels.
Thank you, Signed Stormy Daniels.
So in March of 2018, she said on Anderson Cooper
that that letter was a lie, that she signed it
because she felt under pressure,
because she thought she had signed an NDNA.
So there is context to that letter.
That was two times.
I mean like literally, this is all up.
One second, guys.
Michael, just on that specific letter,
Stormy Daniels posted on Twitter of the January 30th, 2018.
Like she said, ask Michael Cohen who wrote that.
It wasn't me.
Did you write that letter?
I was involved in writing certain letters with Keith Davidson that exonerated Trump, which, of course, I did at the direction of...
I don't recall. I don't think so. Oh, you don't recall. You either...
I don't think so.
I don't think I wrote, I don't think I was involved in the writing.
So Michael, who's telling the truth of you?
In 2018.
But who's telling the truth you are Stormy Daniels?
Because Stormy Daniels said, ask Michael.
I think, yeah, and I would tell you, ask Stormy,
I already made my point clear about the relationship.
The only one who seems to think that they know something is this young lady,
Laura.
No, it's a lot of people.
But I do really, I really have to go.
Thank you, Michael.
I can't argue.
You know, there's that old expression.
You can't argue it's stupid.
So I'm going to now.
I'm going to go five minutes ago until I pulled out the letter, Michael.
So go if you're going to go.
Why don't you go?
Yeah, no, Michael, sir, may I ask me?
No, we got it, we got to Janet.
He does have to jump off.
He's got to go, right?
Michael, guys, all right, guys.
So, Michael, appreciate it coming on.
I appreciate jumping in at the end and getting into this banter.
You got.
Okay, he's got muted.
Now we can hear you now.
Someone's calling you, I think.
But Michael, it's a pleasure to have you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Well, that was firing.
Tyra, Tyra.
Go ahead, Tyra.
Yeah.
Yeah, I just want to say once again, sorry if people did not hear me.
She signed that letter January 2018.
In March of 2018, she went on Anderson Cooper and said that letter was a lie.
She said that she had signed it because she felt under pressure and when asked if there was an NDNA involved, she said, yes.
You can choose to believe the first statement or the second, but you cannot not give the context of her saying on television that the first letter was a lie.
Thank you.
Okay, but Tira, was she not, you know, how is that a good argument for her?
Under pressure, why?
To do what sign a letter?
Why would you sign a letter that, what kind of pressure are we talking about here?
Because I cannot answer.
Well, we don't know.
We don't know.
We don't know whether Trump's people said to if you don't sign this, we're going to hold you in violation of an individual.
We don't know, and maybe there's no reason, and I'm not saying who's telling the truth.
What I am telling you is to raise the January 2018 letter without mentioning that she reneged on that completely
is not giving context and not giving information that is relevant to this discussion.
Nick, just look at what he does.
Look at what he does to Michael Cohen and to Lev.
I mean, how are you not going to be scared?
This whole thing is not.
You're not going to be scared.
No, I'll tell you why it's not.
I'll tell you why it's not.
Because from a legal perspective, it's not relevant.
Because if Donald Trump is lying and Stormy Daniels, it was lying when she said repeatedly
that it was not hush money.
And indeed, it was hush money.
That's not a crime.
The whole issue here is how things were recorded and whether or not there was an improper recording with respect to the allegations in New York.
There's no crime if he did pay her to remain silent.
So all this conversation that is so popular on Twitter, who's lying, who's telling the truth?
Was it hush money?
Was it not hush money?
It's exciting gossip.
But from a legal perspective, you know as well as anyone, Tira, there's no crime in that.
Yeah. There's no crime in having an affair. There's no crime in paying her for having an affair. Yes, the crime would be the underlying issue of whether there was, there were falsifications of business records and whether this was done in connection with an election and not basically represented as election money. Now, I have said numerous times that I think the Bragg indictment.
is weak. I'm not a fan of it. I would not have done it. And based on everything I've seen,
I stick to that opinion. But at the end of the day, that's what's relevant.
Well, by the way, it's not just weak. I think Michael has also acknowledged that if it wasn't
Trump, you know, it would probably not have happened. Well, and let's keep in mind here.
The Stormy Daniels saying lie or falsehood is entirely irrelevant to the entire discussion of Trump's criminality or not related to this.
It only has to do with.
Unfortunately, the fact that Michael Cohen admitted that he was involved with an FEC violation, but there is no FEC violation here at all.
I mean, that's really the core of at least Michael Cohen's case.
We can talk about the classified documents and all that.
That's totally unrelated to Michael Cohen.
And I was hoping I could ask him what he specifically is saying the crime is,
that Donald Trump committed.
What is going on here is Michael Cohen got caught up into this
in a legal fashion.
And by the way, I agree with him.
People get in such horrible potential individual jeopardy
the way that we do these criminal investigations
through the Department of Justice.
And it's unfortunate, and I think in many ways it's wrong.
It takes away individual civil rights.
But the reality is that as it relates to Michael Cohen's issues,
there's no crime here to Donald Trump.
It's an absolute absurdity to even go down that path.
Again, we can talk about the classified documents,
and totally different,
and Michael Cohen's bringing that up is actually irrelevant to
to anything he had to say because he has no information on that he wasn't even involved with it what we are
at are looking at here related to his issues is was there an fec violation it is not an fec violation
to sign the kind of contract that stormy daniel signed and was paid for that did not i mean even if it
helps him in his uh case to run in a for a political office
It's not an FEC violation.
There's no crime that I can see related to anything Donald Trump did as it relates to Michael Cohen.
And that's what we got to recognize here.
The DOJ indictment, though, currently, that is imminent, you know, I did, I did think that his thoughts on Mark Meadows were interesting.
And I'm really excited for the base to turn on Mark Meadows now that he has now suddenly turned on Trump.
And this is what's really interesting is I wonder how this is all going to be spun in the Republican Party since Mark Meadows was like the big, it's not McCarthy.
Well,
Well, being someone who knows Mark Meadows and has a deep amount of respect for him, the thing that we do need to look at related to whatever it is that he's done is the fact that he's in the same kind of jeopardy potentially, or at least so we understand so far. I don't even know what the substance is yet. But he is apparently in a similar jeopardy to Michael Cohen. But again,
where's the crime?
Now, there may be one,
and I've talked with people
who seriously think
that they're concerned.
I do not believe
the Espionage Act
relates to Donald Trump at all.
He still has Article 2 powers
to do anything with classified documents that he deems relevant and necessary
while he's sitting in the chair of president.
He did that in my estimation, and I don't see that as being anything at all.
So Mark Meadows, you know, in terms of the Espionage Act thing, yeah.
Jim, do you think it was appropriate for Trump to do to Mark Meadows in the last two days what he has done?
Well, no, of course I don't.
But the reality is that that is all personal issues between people.
We're looking at the law here.
What is the law?
Denise, what are you talking about?
We have a justice department that really puts people into a trigger because all their goal is is to get an indictment.
and have something on their resume.
The substance of matters is not what's being adjudicated here at all.
Donald Trump is within his rights as president of the United States
to do anything with classified documents while he's sitting in that chair he deems necessary.
And there's no evidence.
that he was even with this phone call that they that has been reported by the new york times
that was out there there's no evidence that he did anything illegal at all afterwards having them
but he had absolute right to have classified documents in his possession that's article two powers
jim can i ask you a question real quick because something just came up two days ago
i've been questioning the two billion dollars that jarrick got and finally kind of got put it all
together
So Trump goes and meets with the leader of Saudi Arabia right after he kills an American.
They have a dinner.
Then as soon as he's into 21, Jared gets $2 billion into a fund that's brand new and he never ran a fund before.
Those $2 billion go into the LIV golf into the LIV Golf League.
Now, two days ago, LLV Golf League is merging with PGA.
Guess who's one of the biggest benefactors of that merger?
Donald Trump, right?
Does legal system put this things together?
Does the legal system put the shit together?
Hey, Joe, because it's a joke.
Joe, Joe, Joe, if the legal system wants to pursue that issue and investigate it, let them do it.
That is not what is at play right here right now.
And Jim, why is it okay when some people do corrupts?
No, but it is at play right now because what they're thinking is some of those documents that are missing are also involved in this deal.
Joe, let me answer your question.
I'll be very glad.
if at the same time that they're pursuing this,
which is not a matter of law at the moment,
that they are at the same time investigating Joe Biden, honestly.
That's when we're going to know that we have a good justice.
This is not about what about his.
This, well, hey, hold on, hold on, hold on, hold on, hold on.
What aboutism is a concept that we have pushed way overboard.
There is a thing of what aboutism.
It's a rational, reasonable way to look at this.
We have a justice system that treats different people, different ways, based on various things, particularly political right now.
So yes, if Jared did anything wrong, he should be pursued.
Jim, but that's a joke, but that's a joke.
You're saying just because, so Jim, Joe Biden doesn't get prosecuted,
that means Trump could do whatever he wants.
Exactly.
That's exactly what you're saying.
That's the problem.
That's exactly what you said.
I said that they need to go do their investigation and figure out if they can get a grand jury to take it on.
If Jared did anything like that and it was wrong, fine.
Go after it.
But that's not the system that we're operating under.
And what will happen is if they pursue Jared on this, I guarantee you the way things are set up right now.
They're not going to do with Joe Biden.
Now, Joe Biden's crimes, if Jared has committed a crime, what about is him?
Joe Biden has committed a crime that is far...
more dangerous to our national security in that apparently, as far as we understand right now,
that we're just hearing about and we don't have all the information on.
But if what Joe Biden did happened, then he has put our country in danger because he's worked with foreign governance,
government while he was vice president and after and potentially influencing what he's doing right now.
And I would say that whatever Jared has done is bad,
If that's if it is as you guys claim it.
Jim, Jim, it involves it involves nuclear secrets that were sold to Saudi Arabia in exchange to raise Trump.
That's what it is.
No, but you're making you're making this accusation.
Do we have evidence?
Yeah, exactly.
He is using that is using an accusation as well.
Why why can one side use an accusation?
The other side can't.
But Joe, are you got to be better, man.
You can't just make accusations out of nothing.
No, but it's not out, it's not completely out of nothing, but Jim is using an accusation that hasn't been proven.
We'll give you a second, Joe.
Tell us the proof.
I'll pin it to the test.
Okay, while you're pinning that, I think opinions are fun.
I'm glad everybody has one, unfortunately.
They're not always fact-based and correct.
But what's important, though, are the facts.
And the facts are, yes, a president does have authority to declassified and top-secret documents.
But they must do that while in office and they don't just...
wiggle their nose like I dream of Jeannie and make it happen.
There is a bureaucratic process that must be completed in order to declassify, classified documents.
That is not constitutional, Dan.
The Constitution says the Constitution in Article 2, the Constitution in Article 2 says that the President of the United States is given executive power over the federal administration.
Donald J.
And there is no constitutionally prescribed process for declassifying for the president.
It is for everyone else, but it is not for the president.
Okay. So, Jim, could I ask you a question here?
Because can Trump do this in his head without telling anyone?
Absolutely he can't.
Absolutely.
Okay.
Okay, Jim, how did that explain why that is one of the stupidest things you could have said in my judgment?
And I really like you, Jim, but that's really weird.
Okay?
So let me ask you something.
The president also has the power to pardon people, doesn't he?
Could Trump have said a year later, I pardoned a thousand people?
And would you have said, oh, cool?
That is entirely, no, it's not.
It's the same theory, which is by telling no one and doing it in your head, somehow you've given yourself the right to do it.
Let me explain to you the substantive difference between these two things.
When you are pardoning someone, there is actually a process that must take place for that.
criminal that was placed behind bars that was found guilty. And therefore, you must have the criminal
justice system process that. When it comes to classification, the only reason you classify
documents is for the purpose of doing things at the purpose.
president's behest who's ever sitting there. That is unilaterally within the authority of the person
sitting in the chair. Jim, that is literally really just nonsensical what you're saying. What you're saying is like
the tree falling in the woods. What I'm telling you is,
Okay, Karen, wait, let me just finish.
I agree that there's no specific process.
I agree that what Obama put into place does not necessarily apply to Trump, et cetera.
I agree with all of that.
But the idea that someone can do it sort of like in their head and tell no one means it didn't happen
or let's at least admit that the issue of proof is incredibly.
Think of that.
Jim, Jim.
Jim.
Jim, Jim, can I weigh in as an attorney here and split the baby here?
and tell you that I agree with everything you're saying, Jim, that there's no constitutional process
and that he has, the sitting president has absolute power to declassify any documents that he wants.
And I do think that in theory, that would go so far as to say it could even be done in his head,
but Tira's asking a fair question.
And the answer to Tira's question, I believe, is this.
that there's a concept in the law of a verbal act.
Much as if someone, if a cop comes up and says,
give me the dress that your wife was wearing yesterday,
and she comes down with the dress as a verbal act as a statement,
it serves as a statement that this is the dress that she was wearing.
Certain times when we take an action,
It has the consequence of serving as words.
Similarly, when a president takes classified documents and directs that they should move to a place that is not proper storage for classified documents,
it is crystal clear that there is, in his mind, there's the verbal act that,
that he's declassifying those documents by dint of the fact that he's taking them to a non-secure area.
And that's why I don't understand the concept of how it's possible,
even from a legal theoretical perspective,
how it's even possible for a president to be in violation of holding on to classify documents
if he moves them while he's president to a non-secured place.
And I'd love for anyone who's sitting on the left side of the aisle saying that he should be prosecuted
to explain how he could possibly be liable.
And just to add to that, no one, when we're having this kind of a discussion, except on rare occasions, brings up the fact that we have precedent with this in the law related to Bill Clinton's recorded tapes.
And as Tom Fitton has said here many times in this space.
they made an attempt through Judicial Watch to hold him responsible for those tapes that Bill Clinton took that had classified information on them.
And he was found to have supreme authority to do what he did with those tapes.
And I think that that actually was a good decision.
That's the guiding law here.
No, because it's a district court case. It's not a precedent, as you know. And also, because that was FOIA, agreeing with Clinton on this, because it was NARA agreeing with Clinton on this, is extremely different when the federal government, which is the arm of the president, current president, basically says, no, no, no, no, not your documents.
Again, NARA and every federal agency works at the behest.
of the president of the united states who has granted article two powers and executive
what you're suggesting is that president trump could literally take every single and that's
frankly what i'm sorry whoever the person talking before was as well every single document that
ever existed whether or not had anything to do with his administration whether or not he had ever
even seen it and in his head go it's declassified and it's all declassified
This is the extreme of what you're saying.
That is insane.
And if you went to a court with that argument after the fact, after the fact, you
You would be laughed out of court like everyone's laughing on this case.
Here, so this is what we're going to do.
We're going to go a little bit back on more back on topic here.
And I know you can call it What Aboutism or whatever you want to do.
But why is this different when any other president and vice president, especially Joe Biden, goes and takes these classified documents?
I mean, you can say it's an accident.
Because they cooperated, Nick.
Okay, not only that, Nick, but that's it.
How many years did it take?
How many years did it take?
Lev, let's let's see you smash him.
Yeah.
Yeah, well, what I don't understand is how two wrongs make a right.
If that was your Jim and Trump and all of you are saying that Trump could declassify,
why are you all on TV?
Why is Trump on TV saying that Biden should get prosecuted?
Why aren't you just defending the right that he shouldn't get prosecuted?
In the meantime, you're saying it's not true.
Isn't it different because aren't Biden from before he was president?
That's right.
What I'm saying to you is it's not.
That's the difference, isn't it?
Like Trump can take...
Trump can declassify.
Not only Biden.
We're talking about Clinton.
We're talking about why other people are not getting prosecuted for the same crime.
Clinton argument.
If he did a Jew but while he's president,
that's a weak argument.
I agree with you.
That's what I'm saying.
Yeah,
I agree with you.
By the way,
the Biden argument is left.
The Biden argument is different because Biden did it when he wasn't president.
And same with Pence.
Actually, I'm not sure about Pence,
but he was vice president.
So both of them were unable to declassify.
Well, as far as the Biden case is still going on, the way I understand, there's still a special
prosecutor looking into it, so we don't know what happens with the Biden case. But what I'm saying
is that the bottom line is that when you see Trump on TV, every time he's accused of doing something
wrong, instead of defending himself, like with the documents or anything else, he right away,
and his support is accused right away, why doesn't somebody else get prosecuted for it? Why doesn't
this one? And they try to.
blame the justice system for unfairly treating him instead of defending himself for what he did
if he believes so heavily that he's right and he did nothing wrong and look at all the other
excuses he gave i can answer your question i can answer that question i can answer that question
because he's answering it the way a layperson would answer it because he is a layperson
that's not the way an attorney would answer it because i'll tell you right now you make a great point live
and by
And by the way, Tira, my name is Joe.
You can call me Joe Nierman.
You make a great point, Lev, as far as what other presidents, you know,
him bringing up other presidents.
That's a layperson's way of basically saying,
this is established precedent for presidents.
that they take documents.
This is something that every president in living memory
has done, that they've taken tons of documents when they left.
That's why he's saying, go prosecute these other ones.
Because he's basically, what he's saying,
rather inarticulately from a legal perspective,
is that I have legal right to do this.
That's why every other president has done that.
You didn't prosecute them.
And that's what's indicative of the fact
that it's completely legal for him to do the same.
And I think that from a legal perspective, it does establish precedent that, hey, you know what?
If every president is doing it, why does it suddenly become illegal when he does it?
Well, just a simple fact is that most, as far as I understand, I could be wrong,
but every other president cooperated whenever there was a situation and dealt with the DOJ.
Trump's the only president that turned around and said, no, I'm not going to cooperate you.
I could do whatever I want.
I was the president.
I declassified it.
And the other thing is he came up with 20 different excuses.
He didn't come up and say, this is the reason and stick to it.
It was first, oh, I didn't know who moved the boxes.
Yes.
Oh, I didn't know this.
Oh, I could do this.
I could do that.
It was 20 different reasons why when he was being accused.
The bottom line is his biggest excuse is saying that the Justice Department is treating him unfriendly.
And no one's talking about the documents that are missing.
The documents that are missing no one's talking about, which directly benefits Saudi Arabia.
Okay, but we can't prove that they're in Trump's possession anyway.
That's not, there is no evidence.
You can prove they were in Trump's possession.
Okay, but you've already made the accusation that he was selling secrets to Saudi Arabia.
So we're going to need a little bit more than that.
So, Nick, a couple of things.
First thing is whether or not the documents are classified is a little bit of a little bit
of a red herring here because the charges that are being looked at, and I am not making
any claims about the charges currently, the charges that are being looked at do not require
classification.
It's obstruction, which doesn't require a classified document, and is under the Espionage Act,
which requires national security documents, but not necessarily classified documents.
So first of all, this is a little bit of a, you know, we're having this discussion as if it
totally answers the issue, but it of course doesn't.
Right?
So I'll just say that and stop.
Yeah, and also just on Joe's board.
One second, I'm sorry.
I just want to touch on Joe's board.
Everybody keeps saying that Joe is saying that he's accusing of Trump and the Saudis and all of that.
And there's no proof of that.
What about all the accusations going on right now with Joe Biden about this $5 million bribe that he took from Ukraine?
From Ukraine, there's no proof of that.
It's because of Rudy Giuliani sending disinformation from Ukrainian operatives that work for the Russian government, which I know a lot about.
And right now,
One of these documents that were provided by the FBI?
It seems like that's what came out from James Comer,
the chair of the House of the Senate Committee,
kept subpoena in these documents,
and FBI Director Ray would not do it.
Comer threatened to hold Ray in contempt of Congress,
and they finally got the documents.
So, I mean, to see the documents.
Oh, they got the ability to see the documents, not to get the documents,
although Marjorie Taylor Green ran that out and said what the documents said.
They've already seen the documents.
In fact, Homer says he has the documents before that.
Homer said he has the documents before because Giuliani is the one they gave him the documents.
Lev. Lev. Lev.
Lev, you said something earlier that I've heard a lot of people on the left say when they
distinguish between Trump and other former presidents with respect to taking the documents.
And every one of them gives the same answer.
And the answer is this.
Well, they cooperated when they were approached them.
They cooperated.
That's the answer that they're giving.
But you have to ask yourself the following question and try to think about this.
I know that you're not attorneys, but think about this from a legal perspective.
At what moment...
Is Trump violating the law?
If, in fact, when he's first taking it, there's no violation of law.
So first and foremost, he could not be prosecuted in Washington.
He would have to be prosecuted later on.
And in that it's when he's not listening to narrow, when the documents are already in Florida,
that at that point, that's when the crime is being committed.
Guys, guys, I got, I got to, I got to.
Nick, can I just respond?
Just let me respond quickly in that because I have to leave anyway.
I just have to break.
30 seconds.
Yes.
So the first thing is like Trish said, it's about obstruction about how he acted when he did the document, what he did with the documents.
It's not about if he took him or not.
Right now we're talking about obstruction, which is one of the charges that he is probably going to be indicted with.
All right. So Donald Trump just posted this on True Social just a few minutes ago. He has said that he is being indicted in the classified documents probe. He says the corrupt Biden administration has informed my attorneys that I have been indicted seemingly over the box's hopes, even though Joe Biden has 1,850 boxes at the University of Delaware, additional boxes in Chinatown, D.C., with
with even more boxes at the University of Pennsylvania
with documents through it all over his garage.
I'm going to tweet to send the replies and turn it to the top so everybody can see it.
But I do want to ask Justin, does this change anything for you?
I mean, this is new information for it.
What are your thoughts?
Look, in the end, I just want things buttoned up a little more.
When you go into politics, you recognize that you have to have a clear,
a cleaner nose than usual.
I've been, whenever I, for example, whenever I take an executive role, my Twitter account
either goes on lockdown or I've become very quiet.
I've been very fortunate the last three years to be an independent consultant.
Likewise, when I've taken an official role into some political campaign, I button things up, right?
I'm careful about what I do.
I'm cautious about my receipts.
I look at these things, right?
You've got people that look over these things in.
invariably, the minutia of laws that our government has are there to entrap people in many ways.
And you kind of have to get your nose clean to get around them.
And so I don't, you know, I've spent 25 years doing FEC reports in one way or another for political campaigns.
There is not a violation here.
It's a, it's a silly sort of pedantic thing.
But.
At the same time, you got to button things up.
It's so frustrating that this even comes to this.
You could have had this very cleanly done and done it the right way or whatever else there.
But he steps in it all the time.
And I think that's the real question going forward in 2024, which is a question about judgment, a question about what's clean and what's not, and how you basically avoid all this baggage that comes with them.
It's just, it's frustrating.
Exactly so. Just think about it. If he would have, if Trump would have handed over the documents, cooperated with NARA, cooperated at DOJ, this would never be going on.
It would have been a lost cause. It would have been done. Forget about it. The reason why we're still talking about the reason why he's getting indicted is not because he took the documents is because of his actions after he took it and the way he's dealing with the situation, even up to this moment.
By tweeting out again, like I said previously.
Are you saying that he's actually not guilty of taking declassified documents home?
What he's actually guilty of is not given the documents when requested.
I'm not a lawyer, Suleyman, so I can't comment on the, there's lawyers here like Trish and Joe,
and they could debate as far as the legality of, what I could definitely tell you is,
is his actions of obstructing justice after he took the documents and the way he deals with things after.
It's definitely a crime, and that's why we're here today.
I believe, I truly believe that if he handed up,
But that presumes that the documents were classified at the moment they were going through it.
And by the way, the espion, I still want to say out there, the espionage ag thing is the best that they could come up with to try to go after him.
I don't think it applies when it relates to presidents of the United States who have, as many presidents have, had possession of classified documents after they left off.
That is just an absolute absurdity.
If we want to go down that path, then just open the door.
First of all, it's not right to begin with whatever legal process might happen
that would bring these sorts of cases about now or in the future.
Then we're opening the door for chaos for every present.
Jim, can you explain the espionage charges?
The factual underpinnings?
What are the factual underpinnings that give rise to alleged espionage?
Are you talking
Are you speaking to me?
I can't hear Jim at all.
Oh, I can hear him now.
Go ahead, Jim.
Is somebody speaking?
I can't hear anyone.
No, I can't hear anyone either.
I was going to say what's been really interesting,
I just thought it was going bad.
But I was going to say that, you know,
one thing that's really interesting right now
Just to put this in context, has anybody else noticed that we've seen a flurry of Republican candidates join the race in the last two weeks?
Perhaps they knew something we didn't know.
Because clearly, it seems like, you know, given such a giant lead, I would never enter.
I don't think anybody here would have entered.
But we're seeing all of these people enter, I guess they think that these charges are going to stick.
Well, that calculation is possibly come into play for some.
Mike Tense has been working on this for a long time.
Ron DeSantis was working on it for a long time.
Tim Scott was considering it.
So, I mean, that might be part of the calculation,
but that's not the reason you're seeing it all show out.
People have timed it now.
This is actually historically quite an early time to be announcing
for presidential campaign.
That typically would happen through the summer or toward the end of the summer with a few months run up to the primaries.
But this is just a unique different circumstance.
That plays into it as much or probably a lot more than any calculation of what will happen to Donald Trump.
I just want to make a quick statement before I lose my signal.
You know, I appreciate everything you're saying, Jim.
I'm looking forward to the space that Mario will host upon Trump's conviction.
I'll call it the Trump celebration space.
And I really look forward to hearing your opinion.
You mean morning.
How that plays out, sir.
Where is he?
I mean, hold on.
So what's, Doc, Doc, Doc and following.
Let me speak because now we have some news.
So now with Trump indicted, I'm guessing it doesn't come as a surprise, but what happens next?
What's the process like?
Well, this is the first time hearing of it.
And I will say real quick before Doc jumps in that he's been summoned to appear in the federal courthouse in Miami on Tuesday at 3 p.m.
So that's what we're looking at right there.
Go ahead, Doc.
Yeah, read the message out as well, Nick, because I think it's good. Have you got it?
Yeah, I do. Yeah, sure. I think it's a top as well.
I think it's really good.
I've been summoned to appear at the federal courthouse in Miami on Tuesday at 3pm.
I never thought it possible that such a thing could happen to a former president of the United States
who received far more votes than any sitting president in the history of our country
and is currently leading by far all candidates.
both Democrat and Republican in polls of the 2024 presidential election.
I am an innocent man.
This is indeed a dark day for the United States of America.
We're a country in serious and rapid decline, but together we will make America great again.
That was the entire remainder of the post, and that is pinned to the top.
Pin to the top.
Hold on who, what do you say?
Is that, Suli, Suli, hold on.
Suli, Suli, Suli, do you say Suleiman just say it?
Yeah, yeah, I'm telling you, this is my unbiased co-hose.
Because Suleiman has access to all the evidence.
Jesus, Suleiman.
He has access to all the evidence.
He's been researching this for the past three years.
He knows everything.
He's on calls with the DOJ and with Trump and knows all the facts.
It's not biased speaking whatsoever.
This is a factual.
Also, Suleiman was a constitutional lawyer before this.
I don't know if you made that.
Tate could beat someone up.
I will say this.
Tate could beat someone up to death in front of Suleiman.
And Suleiman will go testifying court,
along for the same thing for Trump,
that he's innocent.
Well, Donald Trump actually said that.
What would actually happen is you guys will falsely accuse them
and I will ask for evidence
and you guys will not be able to bring the evidence.
And then when I bring it up,
Yeah, because when we, of course, the DOJ, when you ask for evidence,
the DOJ contacts you directly with the evidence.
Bro, a great example.
They don't go through the legal system.
Bro, no, no, no, no.
Look, you saw the first case with Bragg.
Even Tira.
Forget everybody.
Yeah, we're not talking about Bride.
We're not talking about Bragg.
We're not talking about it.
We're not talking about it.
I'm trying to demonstrate you your argument.
So you guys were all like, oh, he's going to be indicted.
It's going to be over.
That's it.
He is so guilty.
And even Tira was like,
this is even I can't
yeah but you got you got one guess yeah but
you should ask Tara the same
hold on hold on you should ask Tara about her opinions on this
case that she has been sharing with us
and enlightening us
for the past few minutes oh dear
now I will no longer be
Suleiman's favorite lawyer or you
Yeah, but Tira, I mean, with Tira, a broken clock is right twice,
so she was right about that, but unfortunately,
Oh, but now that she disagrees with you, she's incorrect.
This is the most maga thing I've ever heard.
No, no, but no.
All right, guys, so, hold on.
Breaking for News is going to join us
just with some more details on the charges,
so Breaking Four News will be coming up shortly.
Multiple, there's multiple, there's multiple federal charges,
so you're just going to come up,
and Dr. Gorkas here as well.
Crazy.
Go ahead, Dr. Gorka.
Yeah, and I want to go to Dr. Gorker.
Yeah.
I want to go to Dr. Ghoster.
What are you thinking of the development here?
Trump is going to be arraigned on Tuesday in 3 p.m. in Miami in the classified documents case.
Your initial thoughts.
Banana Republic.
You're asking me?
Yes.
Yes.
That was for you.
Yeah.
Okay.
So I've just sent.
Well, real quick, Dr. Gorga.
I'm sorry.
It looks like the grand jury has indicted.
Trump on seven counts.
We don't know exactly what those counts are yet, but, you know, there are multiple, so we're going to figure that out.
The document probably had seven pages, bro.
This is actually good news for Trump, all things consider it.
And there we are.
The good news for him.
I'm sorry.
I was, I'll connect you.
I agreed with you on the last one, but not this one.
Okay.
Go ahead, Dr. Goka. You got to unmute bottom left corner.
There's two ways, or two ways that we should look at this news.
There's the debate that you've been having, and we've had many, many times before on your spaces, Mario, about, you know, the legal actual issues there.
And then there's the political. Now, let's be clear about the legal issues.
I had legal analyst Greg Jarrett on my show, and in two minutes, he destroyed any potential indictment from Jack Smith in the following fashion.
He said...
When it comes to presidential records, it is a civil act. It is not a criminal one. The Presidential Records Act has nothing to do with any criminal penalties. It is purely civil. You cannot bring a felony charge on a civil, something that is regulated in the civil domain. So what have they done? Just like Albin Bragg, they've...
turboed it up into an obstruction of justice charge.
Now, the problem there is if you're a lawyer,
you understand, and the Supreme Court
has actually brought a ruling on this,
You cannot bring obstruction of justice unless there is malintent, quote unquote, evil,
unless you actually are intending to do something bad.
There's no way to prove that.
I mean, unless we are in the, you know, Hunter Biden crack pipe smoking world of President Trump is,
you know, giving our nuclear launch codes to North Korea.
It's just it will not hold water.
Now, the other aspect is forget about all of this.
I mean, just forget.
the legal judicial analysis because it's utterly completely irrelevant. Why? Because to use a legal
term, we have a fact pattern. We have seven years of a fact pattern from Operation Crossfire
Hurricane to impeachment one, impeachment two, the Mueller probe, the January 6th committee,
the Mar-a-Lago raid, to Alvin Bragg, to now the special counsel.
we have the persistent and undeniable exploitation of the intelligence community, the DOJ and the FBI to politically target one man.
If you understand that, if you deny that fact pattern, again, you're a hack, you're biased or you're demented.
That is an unequivocal fact pattern.
And that's how this issue should be judged.
Not on the merits, because there won't be any merits to this.
He won't be able to get a fair trial.
We know this because it's not about a fair trial.
It's about the one thing they want.
They want him.
In custody, they want him in an orange jumpsuit before the 2024 elections.
So we can, you know, have a continued debate about,
can he declassify things in his head, blah, blah, blah.
It's irrelevant.
It's not about the law.
It's about a political assault, not just on President Trump, but on the fabric of the judicial
system in America and what the intelligence community is meant to be used for.
And the last point, because, again, somebody made it, but it can't be made enough.
The intelligence system and the classification system exists for one person and one person
alone.
It exists for the president.
I have sent a document to Mario to.
to Nick and to Solomon, which was actually released in a court case regarding Andy McCabe because Andy McCabe is an idiot and so are his lawyers.
It is a two-page document from the federal record signed by President Trump on January the 19th the day before he left office as president.
signed by the president.
And it states, read it.
I don't know how to post it.
Post it on your timeline.
Please, guys.
It states, I have the classified every document pertaining to the Russia collusion hoax and
Operation Crossfire Hurricane.
Read it and then get back to me.
Dr. Gorka, I have to ask, can I ask a question, please?
Isn't the indictment in...
Hold on, guys, guys.
Let me hear go.
We're going to let here ago, but what I would do want to announce here is that the seven charges,
the seven federal charges that I previously mentioned include illegal retention of classified documents,
obstruction and conspiracy.
Tira, go ahead.
All right, Dr. Gorka, I have read that letter about Crossfire, Operation Crossfire, but are those the documents that President Trump is accused of taking?
Because if they're not, it's an irrelevant document.
And it also actually might be relevant because it shows that he actually did have a procedure in place for declassification.
So are those the documents that he's accused of taking?
I'm not going to argue. I've told you already. It is pointless. It is utterly pointless to argue the merits. I'm not going to argue the merits anymore because the system is clear. The classification system is for the president. It exists for the president.
Okay, if you're not prepared to, if the people on this call who vote Democrat are not prepared to admit that this is a political decision, then this is a circular debate that will not see any end in sight.
But if you want to talk about the real legal ramifications, the political ramifications and the geopolitical ramifications for the indictment of a president of.
on a trumped up charge,
what the hell are we talking about?
He mismanaged documents.
He conspired to do what?
He's the president.
What are you talking about?
Sir, with all due respect.
What are we talking about?
It's an absurdity.
It's an utter, complete absurdity.
Sir, with all due respect, though, you yourself posted, you said to post the document
about the declassification as if it was relevant.
Is it relevant?
Is it relevant?
I'm simply asking a question.
Is that, were those the documents in the case?
Were those the documents that took?
I have not seen the indictment, but it doesn't matter.
Well, because what are we saying?
If they're not those documents, what are we saying?
And we're saying that what you posted isn't relevant.
The French embassy, it has been leaked and he gave it to the sound.
Dr. Gorka, you can't have it both ways.
I just, you can't have it in the way that when you say that, hey, by the way.
You're not listening. You're not classified.
You are deliberately being obtuse and you're not listening.
No, I'm trying not to, actually.
I feel like you're.
I said the legal arguments are if you want to stay in the mire of naval gazing, stay there.
But I'm not going to waste my time.
I gave you the actual legal argument just to shut it down because it's garbage.
Greg Jarrett is clear.
He said it is a civil act.
you can't bring a felony charge on a civil act unless you turbo it up to conspiracy and obstruction of justice,
but there has to be malice. What malice? What are we talking about? The president was planning to do
evil things with documents that don't pertain to crossfire hurricane. I'm not even going to waste my
breath on that because the second you stepped into that territory, it's clear you are defending a political hatchet job.
The name of the case that Dr. Gork is referencing is Arthur Anderson, LLP, versus the United States in 2005.
That's where they said that with respect to obstruction specifically,
that there has to be an intent, there has to be an intent for corruption.
And establishing that intent is exceedingly difficult.
That's one of the reasons I was saying, this is relatively good news for Donald Trump.
Because ultimately, if he had been hailed before Washington, D.C.,
trial court instead of
instead of Miami, he would have been walking
into an arena where everyone
there is certainly
staring daggers and looking to
basically convict, they would convict a hand,
you know, for, they're convict him for eating a ham
sandwich. But,
In Florida, the jurisdiction is likely to be far more neutral.
At the very least, he has a chance of not having to take this all the way to the Supreme Court to getting it before he can see it.
This is why Sebastian is off his rocker.
This is why Sebastian's off his rocker to say he's never going to get a fair trial.
Based on your vast legal experience, right, Joe?
Yeah.
They keep, no, based on your...
apparently because Florida doesn't
rule republic
I have to do a news
max hit right now on this
on this breaking news
I'll be back in eight minutes
sorry guys
so can I ask you
can ask a simple question
just for the attorneys here
I know both attorneys
are fans are not
not you guys
do you ask Doc and Folly and Tira
so I got three
not you either
Tira I want to go to you
and then we'll go to Doc
I've got a lot
I've got a Tira
I got a low degree
hold on hold on you got a low degree bro
Yeah, I've got a law background.
Background, degree moved to background.
And then, is that back in...
No, so I've got a law degree and I've litigated in the high court in the United Kingdom, actually.
Holy shit.
Bullshit.
Anyway, let's go to Tira.
Tira, I tell you.
Not only would have opinions.
I smashed him in the high court as well, but.
Tira, of course.
I was found guilty, Mario, but I still smashed them.
Tira, just quick question.
How does this compare to the previous indictment and how serious is this?
Just explain it to the, you know, to be what, don't know the basics talking about myself.
Okay, so look, I haven't seen any indictment. I haven't even read what was posted up there, so I'm really sorry. I just didn't look at it yet. I will. But what I would say is there are some complicating factors here. Okay, there are issues, as Dr. Gorka said, although I really do want to say that Dr. Gorker did not answer my question and probably should have, however.
There are issues of whether the underlying Presidential Records Act, what it does, what he was allowed to take, etc.
There are clearly issues of classification, if anything in these charges relates to classification,
about whether Kosh Patel, for example, said the president declassified things.
He's the only person who said that.
But, you know, there are clearly issues of fact here that I can't begin to understand.
But there are real possibilities in here, for example.
let's say there's evidence that he was taking these papers and showing them to everybody and handing them off.
I mean, there are real possibilities here for actual, what I would call non-Alvin Bragg type charges, real charges.
But I can't answer that.
I think Jack Smith is a fair, well,
I believe he's fairly careful, and so I believe that he looked into all of the legal issues
in terms of whether you can bring this sort of case at all. But I do acknowledge that I think
that, first of all, Donald Trump is never going to jail. Donald Trump is probably never even
going to see a trial because he will delay, delay, delay. This is not going to happen. Okay,
so that's my final viewpoint, really. But I do think there's some real charges, potentially,
some much more serious charges. Thanks.
Thank you.
I think actually I would agree with a lot of what Tira has said there.
I mean, in the sense that, A, I don't know that he's going to trial.
And I do agree that with what Dr. Corker was saying,
that it does seem as if they're trying to trump,
that this is really...
Everyone knows this is political, you know, but as far as like, you know, on the legal end of things, we don't know factually a lot about what's happening here.
Although I am curious if anyone here knows whether Jack Smith, who I believe is stationed near Washington, in or around Washington, if he's the prosecutor who is the lead prosecutor on these indictments, which seem like they're brought in Miami, because that would be a little unusual.
Well, before we get into that speculation, I've been asked to take the mic a couple of times.
And so I'll do so now without being interrupted, hopefully.
Look, the smartest man in the universe, our dear leader, our deal leader, Elon Musk said at the time, and I posted, I think it's been deleted, I posted it up in the nets that at the time that the brag rumors were circulating that Trump was going to be indicted in New York, that Elon said, if that happens, Trump is going to win in a land side.
And I think it's born out in the poll since then, that that effort to, that lawfare effort, that traitorous piece of shit, Alvin Bragg, the pleas to the Democratic power base in Washington, C, indicted a, you know, a former president and a candidate for office.
This is disgusting that regardless of your political persuasion and who you want to be the next president to cheer this on the way that the bottom row here, the comedians and the and the YouTubers and what have you are cheering on. It's really disgusting.
Okay, as far as the legal case against them, we don't really know.
What we do know is that Joe Biden has been under investigation for a longer period of time for these same sorts of charges and nothing.
He had hundreds of boxes distributed around several different offices.
We know that Hunter Biden had access to it.
We know from the latest news about Biden that there's clear and convincing evidence from this whistleblower.
The FBI has held withheld that Biden took a $5 million bribe, and nothing's happening to him.
This Justice Department is as corrupt as it can be, and anyone sharing this effort on is part of the problem.
Right. So,
Fox has a sitting president.
Can Biden be indicted?
Yes, of course he can.
Can Biden be indicted by the way?
He can't be indicted, but he can't be prosecuted.
There's a difference.
Wait, wait, wait.
Now that would go against what happened with Trump and I think you know it.
What?
All right.
So let me ask Harry Sisson this question.
Why is it appropriate for the Biden administration to be prosecuting his main opponent
in a case that has been described as a speeding ticket type case?
All former presidents have taken documents.
Joe Biden stored documents next to his Corvette,
said they were very secure because they were in the garage.
Why is this fair?
Why right now?
Wow, you know, Nick, thank you for the question. And what a great day for justice in America. Look, it's appropriate because there's ample evidence that Donald Trump broke the law. And I just, I just want to find how we have folks. I'm here. Just stop talking. You right there. Just stop talking. Just stop talking.
Just stop talking.
I find it weird that we have people up here like the person who just interrupted me.
Doc saying it's disgusting.
It's this is wrong.
It's like they want a different tier of justice just for Donald Trump.
If there's evidence, I wish that we could have a universal panel up here saying if Donald Trump broke the law, he should be held accountable.
Just like we can all, I hope, can say for President Biden, if you broke the law, he should be held accountable.
And this idea that it's political, no.
They have ample evidence.
They have this.
They have this guy on audio recording saying that he knows he has a classified document that he can't show other people.
That's as clear as it gets.
It's an audio recording.
Wait, wait.
You're saying, oh, it's political, political.
Just stop talking.
Harry, do we have this?
You can tell me to stop talking all you want to.
Oh, no.
No, no, no, of course.
No, no, tell him.
Tell him, Harry, just tell him, bro.
Who gives a fuck?
I don't get a co-host.
Tell him again, Harry.
Don, shut the fuck up.
Listen, listen, it's right, Mara.
It still won't work that.
All right, you go, listen, it doesn't, whether we have, whether we have the audio or not, it's been widely reported.
It's also been reported that it was played for the grand jury in D.C.,
And it seems reasonable to me.
And also given the circumstances, that was for a book and whatnot.
And there's no other report saying, oh, it didn't happen.
And we have Donald Trump saying, I don't know anything about this recording,
but Donald Trump lies every single day of his life, right?
So his work is not reliable.
Justin Hart, who was on stage earlier, he just sent me the message.
All the fundraising channels are blowing up again.
Every indictment means millions of dollars into Republican coffers,
not just Trump, but across the board.
You can tell the country.
Wait, wait, but who pairs?
When people say that, when people say like Republicans,
oh, Donald Trump's going to...
Who cares? I don't care whether Donald Trump raises a trillion dollars from this. It's about accountability.
And this is why it's not political. It's not, if Biden stole and knowingly stole classified documents and, you know, obstructed justice when they were asked to be returned, indict him. Great. This is not political. This is about maintaining justice in this country.
And if we set a precedent that former presidents can just do whatever they want, you're going down a very, very dark path. So, you're going.
What's the good difference here? Here's the different, Harry.
Okay, I'm back.
I know we keep hitting on this point, but it's a very important thing.
And I'd like to hear your answer to this.
You had Vice President Joe Biden that took classified documents.
And then all of a sudden years later comes out, well, maybe I stole a couple thousand classified documents or anything.
Yeah, but what...
Why is that why is that okay and then they continue to find documents upon searching how many go ahead
Wait wait wait wait wait wait wait wait I can I can I can answer that Nick I got no no no I can answer that
Here just give me one second let let Harry go it's not the dude I'll let you respond right okay okay do whatever you want you want him to go you want me to go
What do you want him to go?
I will let all source respond.
Go ahead.
Okay.
What I'm saying is the reason
why it's different
is because in Donald Trump's
case, there's clear
evidence of intent.
In these classes,
if you actually read the statute
surrounding the retention
of classified documents,
you have to prove intent,
right?
You have to,
prove that they knowingly did what they're being
accused of. And that's why Mike Pence was
recently exonerated because he didn't, he, there's no
intent, there's no evidence that Mike Pence knowingly
stole classified documents. As of now,
there's no evidence that President Biden
knowingly stole classified documents. But in Donald
Trump's case, you know, defying subpoenas,
having them in his desk drawer, acknowledging
it on audio tape, that's intent. And that's
And aside from that, even aside from charges relating classified documents,
obstruction of justice is as clear as day in this case.
So it's just different.
And that's why-
You don't know what obstructive justice is.
You don't know.
Wait, what do you mean?
What do you mean?
What I mean is that you must establish that there's intent to do something negative
with those documents.
You have to establish he's trying, he's obstructing because he's trying to get something
accomplished.
How is that possibly established based on any facts that?
that anyone has submitted so far,
aside from the Saudi Arabian thing
that Joe has thrown out there from some conspiracy theories,
tell me how we have any reason to think
that he's planning on doing something bad with these documents.
But following, that's not a true statement.
That's not a two statement,
because if you look at the...
Following, that's not a conspiracy.
And they went after the Discord League guy because he just stole it for bragging rights, right?
The stealing a claim, and Harry hit the nail on the head.
This is compared to Mike Pence.
I mean, also Joe Biden, they didn't go after them because, again, these types of things actually happen more regular than people think.
It's then the intent of the divulging a classified information to people without a clearance is a punishable offense.
It is a crime.
It is a criminal offense.
Who did he?
Alls off, all of.
You said a lot of words, but who did he do that to that?
Who did he divulge?
classified information.
That's where I think we have to see the trial.
I mean, again, that's the point.
You've said that, but there's no evidence to suggest that.
This is the problem.
Well, the evidence will come.
I think the, well, I mean, come on.
We don't know the evidence.
We thought that we didn't know.
We don't know that evidence.
You're asking for evidence when we literally just within the last hour found out he got
indicted.
But you said it will come.
You should have just said, I don't know the evidence or not.
But you're, well, that's the reporting.
I haven't seen the evidence.
No, no.
So the problem is, that's not the reporting.
Because the problem is, like, for example, the previous indictment was a clear example of what all you guys were saying, the evidence is going to come.
It's going to be huge.
It's going to be monumental.
And then when we saw it, even Tira was like...
This is just ridiculous.
How is this even...
Do you acknowledge that there's...
Even Tira.
What is this...
Should we just be as Even Tira now?
So Donald Trump Jr.
Donald Trump Jr. just tweeted three minutes ago,
Biden's corrupt DOJ is openly interfering
the 2024 presidential election
to stop Trump because they know Biden can't beat him in a fair race.
that's what is really all about.
And everyone knows it.
Dr. Dr. Gorka, jump in here.
And then we'll go to Gabe.
Yeah, I think that's absolutely bloody genius.
I mean, you know, we're supposed to believe that a decrepit old man
who's been a machine politician for 47 years,
two years ago got more votes than the first black president.
We know what happened in 2020.
And they can't do that under the cover of COVID again.
They can't.
out 80 million vote again. They won't get away with it. So how are they going to win the election?
Let's be clear. President Trump...
President Trump received more votes than any other incumbent president in history.
He got 10 million more than he did the first time he was elected after four years of calumny and libel.
Therefore, they have to stop him in a fashion that has nothing to do with winning an election fair and square.
Don Jr. is absolutely right.
This is about stealing the next election.
He's crushing everyone.
The latest polls have him beating Ron.
border. They have to stop him. And that's all that this is about. If you can't see that, you're a hack.
You're just a hack. It's very simple.
Let me go to Harry. Harry, you got your hand up.
This is what I just think is funny about people like Seb.
There could be video of Donald Trump murdering somebody.
Oh, dude, you're just as a fan of, right?
There could be a video recorded of Donald's shooting somebody.
Tell me any other person.
Tell me, Harry.
He is still, wait, wait.
Guys, guys, have Gabe.
Guys, guys, let Gabe jump in because I know he's been sitting there quietly with his hand up.
Go ahead, Gabe.
Oh, I always find it funny when Seb tries to act smart on these calls.
Look, here's the thing at the end of the day, right?
Yes, that's the way you answer.
You got a guy who constantly complains.
So you can answer the point or you can stop.
You can answer the point or you can stop.
So, okay, go ahead.
Answer his point.
Tell them to unmute, bottom left.
Sorry.
You got a guy Donald Trump constantly whines.
Every time they did this, they did this.
It's a witch hunt.
It's a hoax.
Dda, da, da.
If you don't want to have someone come after you for committing a crime, then don't commit a crime.
It's very simple.
He hasn't been convicted.
It's very simple logic.
He hasn't been convicted.
Stop talking.
If you really believe, if you really believe that he is innocent, then, you know, from your own words in terms of the party of law and order,
He's innocent until proven guilty, you hack.
Nice.
Look, I said, if you actually believe in law and order, then let it go through.
And if he's truly innocent, then he will come out innocent.
That was one of the same.
The system under American artists really, it's really objective, right?
When a pro-life preacher has his house arraided by the FBI with guns loaded.
Oh, did he sexually assault someone?
What? What?
I'm just saying if you're talking about a pro-life person...
Is Joe Biden the pet... Ask his daughter and his son.
Carry on, Sebastian. I actually don't get...
Go ahead. Gabe, what do you mean by a point? I didn't get it.
The point that I've never seen the Republican so triggered tonight.
And I'm saying the people that typically complain about this that are coming from...
From his argument, if he's going to say pro-life people,
The people that yell about this stuff the most
are the people that are projecting their own problems
and their own issues and their own acts of crime.
This is serious debate.
The same thing that goes for Trump.
Trump complains in wines.
Trump complains and whines every day.
People he's never met.
Get me a hard way.
Let's have a serious debate on the law and politics.
Let's have a serious debate, but Seb can't be part of it
because he still thinks the election was stolen, right?
You can't have a serious debate with seven calls us.
How is that relevant though?
Because we want to have, if we want to have a substantive debate,
why do we keep attacking Dr. Gorka?
Okay, we're not talking about substance here.
That's what I want to talk about.
No, the reason I bring it up is because, Dave, your argument is weak, though.
Look, it's non-secretary.
Like, how does someone being pro-life have to do with basically high gaslighting someone or whatever you said that?
But, Solie, no one can be moving away.
Republicans are triggered.
Silly, all right, but that doesn't, I think you should just focus on the indictment.
I'm just really, I really, can we go back just quickly refresh the, the, the, the audience?
What happens next?
How serious is this and how does it compare to the previous indict?
I know we answered it already, but maybe Doc, you can just give a quick update on what that means for Trump.
So it's going to be a lot like the brag situation I would expect because I agree with Seb.
I agree with Greg Jenkins.
this
to muddy up Trump
it's I have to hope
to use back to mine
yeah
I'm sorry
it's that it's
it's desperation
because
Because they've already seen that the Bragg indictment has bolstered Trump's numbers and really crater DeSantis' numbers when he sat quietly when he should have spoken up as both another presidential candidate like Vivek Ramoswamy did, defending Trump and attacking Bragg for that.
So I think this is going to be set for a ways out.
I think they're going to keep accusing him.
The bottom row here is going to keep accusing him of being indicted, like he was impeached, like he was a Russian collusionist.
There is a pattern here, and it's consistent, and it's a straight line through.
He is fighting, Trump is fighting the Justice Department, just like doctors in California are.
for prescribing ivermectin,
just like attorneys in Arizona are
for bringing a case of election fraud.
This is law fair writ large,
and they are unrestrained and untempered
by going after a president
and ignoring the city president
who is guilty of at least
everything they're accusing Trump of times 10.
This is a joke.
It's anti-democratic.
It's anti-justice.
And it's repugnant to me.
And that's why I left the stage before.
You guys really got to get a grip with your hatred.
You got to stop being orange pill, Doc, because you're defending a case that you know none of the facts about.
None of us do.
And you already, you already made a thousand excuses for them.
You already made a thousand excuses for them, Doc.
You're orange-pilled.
You're orange-pilled.
And you defend it without knowing any facts.
To the point where you won't even let me talk.
You won't even let me talk because you're so triggered.
You're triggered, boomer.
You're triggered, boomer.
I am triggered.
I'm fucking pissed off at you people.
Kill, Doc.
Can somebody give Doc a Xanax?
Does anyone have a Xanax for Doc?
All right, all right, guys, guys, guys.
Everyone, let's just going to let you know.
I want to hear what Harry Potter has to say.
Yeah, well, we'll get the Harry here in a second.
Simon Musk has waited on this issue.
I've pinned it now to the top.
He said there does seem to be far higher interest in pursuing Trump compared to other people in politics.
Very important that the justice system rebut what appears to be differential enforcement or they will lose public trust.
Harry, Kim requested you jump in.
So you know what?
Jump in.
Can I say one thing?
I don't really, stop talking.
I don't really care about what Elon Musk has to say about this, right?
Like Elon Musk is kind of in the same position that we are.
We still, because you're the people come on here to lie, aren't you?
Stop talking, you right down there, you.
Stop talking, you're right down there, you.
Stop talking, triggered boomer.
Triggered boomers, please, just be quiet.
We have a lot of evidence available in the public.
But there's even more evidence.
No, I'm going to keep talking about.
You get to come.
There's even more, wait, there's even more evidence yet to come.
It's only going to get worse for Donald Trump.
We're only just learning about the charges.
And we'll soon know more.
But for Elon must to suggest that Trump is more sought out
after other, as compared to other political opponents,
is ridiculous.
It's ridiculous.
It's just not based in fact. Donald Trump is being held accountable.
I know that makes people on the right like Seb, like Doc, like other Republicans, mad, but that's just the fact of the matter.
Dr. Gorda.
Mario, is Mario listening? Are you on this?
Mario?
Yes, he is.
Yeah, Dr. Gawker, go ahead.
Yeah, he is.
So, so I just, you know, I do these Twitter spaces almost exclusively with you guys.
And I just want it to, just for the record, say something.
There's no point in doing these, okay? There's zero point when we're talking about, forget your
politics. We're talking about using the judicial system to neutralize a leader of the opposition.
We don't like that in Venezuela. We don't like that anywhere else. It's happening here and you've got
people, I'm not even going to qualify them.
We've got people talking about, give another participant on this call as Xanax.
We've got people who are just making, you know, personal assaults.
And they don't want to talk about the issue.
Don't invite these people, Mario.
You're not guilty of it.
You can't have.
You told us we're all hacks.
You don't get to.
No, you just shut up now.
He called this whole hack.
And then he complains people.
We want to talk the issues.
We want to talk.
It would be kind of commend.
These people cannot do it.
I guarantee you right now, they cannot
make.
mentally, physically, psychologically do this.
But I would be really interested.
I've got an hour till I have to host an emergency show on Newsmax about this.
I would like to hear people who voted for Biden,
people who think he's the orange bad man.
I would like them to discuss this for the next 57 minutes,
on the merits, just the merits, not to make fun of people, not to say they need Xanax,
but to tell me why they think we have an impartial judicial system and why they think,
I mean, look, the merits of the matter of this, we're accusing a former president who has
top secret SCIQ clearance till the day he dies of mishandling society.
classified documents, 18 months before a general election. The idea that even if that were true,
which it isn't, I guarantee you, even if it were true, that couldn't wait until 2028, but instead
we have to neutralize him so he can't be elected because the American people might choose the
wrong people, the wrong person to be their chief executive. I would love to hear the merits of the
case. But if one more person...
does a personal attack,
they should be written up
and put on a blacklist, Mario,
because I want to have a debate
on the merits,
and these people are not worthy
of that opportunity on your platform.
And just based on that,
let me go to...
Then you shouldn't do it, Seth.
Please, come on, guys.
We need to stay focused.
Right, let me go to Thira,
because...
Because I believe, Tira, even you thought the first one was unjust and therefore there was some...
I want to say one thing first.
Dr. Gorka, I was the one who made the Xanax comment.
I'm sorry, it was supposed to be a joke.
But it is indicative.
No, no, no, it is indicative.
I would like to apologize to you in the stage if that was inappropriate.
I was trying to be amusing and obviously not succeeding in the case of you, but certainly I do not think it is something that I should not receive...
forgiveness for, let's just say. Okay, that's number one. I did tell you said, I thought you said it's a doc, but I guess maybe I was wrong.
I said, I was saying it to doc because he was yelling and screaming. I, I, I'm sorry. I, I apologize to
Peter, please continue. You are forgiven. Okay. Number two, thank you. Number two, I want to respond to
something doc said and then what Dr. Gorkas said. As to a sitting president, Doc, we all know a sitting
president cannot be indicted. So this idea that why aren't they indicting Joe Biden, they can't.
right? Because when Donald Trump was president, they couldn't. They can impeach. Maybe they will impeach, but indictment is out off the table. So when you raise it, it's not the right discussion to be having. We know what happened with Donald Trump. He was not able to be indicted. That's what Robert Mueller said. In fact, that's what the Office of Legal Counsel memo had said.
Dr. Gorka, you said that a former president has security clearance.
I'm not aware that actually has a security clearance at all.
It is correct.
Every cabinet member and every president has the top level security clearance to the day they die.
But not as a former president, my understanding is that was at the, that was what, it would be only in the case if the sitting president gave him such a clearance.
Incorrect.
I do not think you're correct.
Okay.
Jimmy Carter has a top secret SCIQ clearance, every single one of them.
I guess we will have to agree to disagree on this and I will try and find the back.
As somebody who served in the White House who still has his clearance, I think you can trust.
Fine.
Sir, I don't, I think Joe Biden has basically said he does not wish to share documents with Donald Trump.
Doesn't matter.
He still has the clearance.
Doesn't matter.
I'm not aware that he does.
Okay.
Anyway.
I'm sorry. I'm sorry. No, I'm not going to let you get away with that. That is patently incorrect.
Fine. Every president, George W. Bush, Jimmy Carter, Obama has top clearance until the day they die. Period. End of story.
Sir, can we talk about the issues? Now, we don't know much of anything yet.
right? We don't, we haven't seen an indictment. We don't know the charges. We do know a special
counsel was brought in. We know one other thing that the charges were brought in Miami,
which actually means that Jack Smith does not want too many delays. Because had they been brought
in DC, I would have thought that Donald Trump would have immediate claim that is an unfair venue
and might have succeeded in that, right? In Miami, there's that particular issue will go away.
And also because it is the place where presumably the actions happened,
It is the right venue, right?
So we know that he's taking this pretty seriously because he didn't charge him in D.C.,
which would have been, I think, the wrong move legally.
Now, what do we know?
We know that the president took documents.
There is a dispute about whether these documents had been somehow declassified magically in his head
or by some other process.
You yourself, Dr. Gorka, raised a memo that seems to be to be irrelevant to the documents in question.
But I haven't seen anything in writing that said those particular documents were declassified.
We also know, we believe that declassification is not necessarily the relevant issue here because we're talking about obstruction of justice.
Here's what we don't know. We don't know all the actions today.
President Trump took. We don't know whether when he waived apparently in the audio recording,
whether he was showing documents to people, whether he basically lied to the investigators about
the documents, et cetera. That's what we sort of don't know. I don't know what this case will show.
I think it is a much more serious case, as I said, than the Alvin Brad case, which to me strikes
me as is not a very difficult case to prove and not going to happen.
But I don't know about this case because there's a lot of details that nobody knows about.
We hear about people talking about moving documents, the day before they came, the documents removed, things like that.
So we honestly, we have some glimmers of things, but we're not really sure exactly what's there,
but we suspect there probably is a little more there than just Donald Trump holding onto some documents.
That's what I would suspect.
as to whether this is political, what I would say is pretty much everything involving Donald Trump is political, including his own responses to things, right?
He will be fundraising off this quite successfully, I suspect. But I want to raise one other thing.
If you think this is being done to stop Donald Trump, in fact, so far all of these things are having the exact opposite effect, right?
What we're seeing is he's rising in the polls.
So if you believe the Democrats are doing this to stop them, then they're obviously really stupid because it doesn't work and it is not working.
So I'm not clear on whether...
You know, Joe Biden has instructed Merrick Garland to tell Jack Smith to do all this stuff, because that's what you're saying.
If it's political, that means that Biden told Garland, who told Smith.
And I'm not so certain that's how it's happening, nor do I think it's having the effect that you seem to think.
Thank you.
Well, you're, you know, I didn't say they're smart.
I didn't say they're smart, but they're obsessed.
And they think that this is the one that's going to stick.
And they think if he's in a prison cell, he can't be the president. It's very simple.
I don't think anybody thinks if he's in a prison cell, he can't.
There's nothing that suggests that if he's in jail or anything like that, he can't be president.
No serious legal scholar believes that because that would be imposing another requirement
upon the president other than what's in the Constitution.
So you're acting logically. You're thinking logically. You think the vituperation of the last six years is logical? I mean, seriously, you think when a former director of the CIA on national television says the president, the sitting president, is a traitor and is an agent of Russia? Is that, are these people functioning on logic? Why are you presupposing logic?
I might also ask, you suggested on the stage just before that election fraud happened.
Now, I'm assuming you actually meant fraud, meaning votes were changed or baskets of
votes were brought in, et cetera.
I don't see that there's any legitimacy to that.
You can, of course, we...
Well, have you watched 2000 news?
I have watched 2,000 years.
I do not find it at all compelling.
I have read every fourth case.
So you think one individual...
who's harvesting ballots and dropping them off in six different counties at 3 a.m.
That's normal for you?
I don't think that show that.
And I also don't think that was redacted.
That was redacted.
That was redacted.
I mean, there are lots of things we can say about that, but I do not believe that film.
Everything that I have read shows that while election fraud might happen in
Well, this is pointless. You're making a status if nothing, nothing weird happened in the last seven years.
You're thinking that this isn't a fact pattern of political persecution. Are you telling me that?
But I'm telling you. That book was redacted. He was forced to redact the whole thing about the other.
No, he wasn't. The movie's still out there. It hasn't been redacted at all. The book had to be redacted. Of course, the movies that were out.
The book is still out there.
The book was redacted because the publisher, he was forced by the publisher.
His movies are independently funded so he can release whatever he wants, Seb.
So in terms of...
Why? Because you can't be liable for a movie.
You can release whatever movie you want, but the book had to be redacted because it was requested on.
Yeah, we're going down rabbit holes again. This is irrelevant. If you're denied that there wasn't the political persecution for seven years, you're, you can easily Google this if you need to. It's very searchable. You're not acting in good faith.
But I do, I do, I got to jump on it. There is one thing I want to point out about the voter fraud thing.
I know, I know, said likes to talk about voter fraud, but I mean, just a few examples.
If we look at the, the highest concentration of voter fraud happened between the members of the, uh,
the Florida retirement community, right, the villages.
And then we also have to remember that there was that man in Pennsylvania who killed his wife and also voted on behalf of her and his mother-in-law for Donald Trump.
So when people on the right tend to bring up issues of vote, we stole the election and lost.
Right. Thanks.
I'm not...
I'm not saying you stole the election, but I am saying when you come to an argument or a debate and say there was election fraud or the election was stolen and you look at the examples that are made, you found that these examples are coming from people on the right.
People who voted for Trump on behalf of someone else.
Right.
That's a laughful example.
A black president.
I got it, okay. Thanks.
That's a laughable example of what about us.
It's like, oh, what about this?
These three votes.
Following, following, there were fake ballot boxes in California.
There were fake ballot box put up by Republicans, and they admitted it in California.
Yeah.
In Southern California, to Joe's point, in Southern California,
there were illegal ballot boxes that were put by the Republican Party,
and they were not actually authorized to do so.
Right.
Joe is right.
Let me ask you a question, right?
And this is more specific to this issue.
Just from a completely rational perspective, right?
Like, no biases.
Like, I know everyone has their bias.
And not just you, like, every single person has their own biases, yeah?
But when you look at all of the actions of the basically judiciary
and how they've been going after Trump,
some of these cases might have more merit than others.
But from a holistic perspective, does it not, I mean, from your,
what do you think?
Does you think it looks like that there is some kind of targeted attack on him,
even if he may or may not be guilty?
Why would you consider to be a targeted attack?
If someone did something illegal, wouldn't you want them to be held accountable,
regardless of them being Republican or Democrat?
Yeah, no, so what I'd want is, I'd want consistency.
So essentially, like, for example, if Donald's consistently break,
like, so if he has multiple.
Consistency among all people, not consistently against one person.
Sure, yeah.
I think anyone would tell you, I mean, I would hope that people would tell you,
but I definitely want, if you've got something that shows that
President Biden or vice president at the time Biden did something legal or anyone else that's a Democrat or Republican.
If you have the evidence and you can bring them to, you know, charge or indict or whatever it might be, then do it.
I'm not stopping anyone.
I find it fascinating that we hear this all the time.
If you commit a crime, if you commit a crime, then what happens?
Every commit a crime you've got to say to.
So nobody, nobody here who is arguing against my side.
can explain how it is normal, completely normal, to expend $30 million on the Mueller probe,
and then to spend another $20 million on the investigation by the John Durham special prosecutor.
None of you can explain, hmm, for six years, Russia collusion, Russia collusion,
$50 million spent and...
end no evidence.
The conclusion never happened.
You think that's not,
you think that's not political persecution.
$60 million over six years.
And you think, well, you know,
he's got to prove who's innocent.
You're just not credible.
None of you are credible.
Seb, can I answer your question?
Because, and, you know,
saying we're not,
saying we're not credible,
again, stop with the attacks
that you asked everyone else to do.
there was an investigation
because his circle
were connected to Russia
I get it's not a crime
it's not a crime
it's not a crime to be connected to Russia
it's not it's not
and there shouldn't have been charges against him
and I don't think there was Russian collusion
and New York
I think it only went forward because there was a little something there.
And so politics got involved and put fuel in the fire to make it go through.
And I think it's a trumped up charge.
What's going on in Florida, I really hope if it's a charge, it's not what is happening in New York.
I hope it ties in money or secrets or the fact that the Iran files are missing.
And now Saudi Arabia isn't a peace deal with Iran.
Iran.
I hope there's more there than just he helped.
Hold on.
Hold on.
I'm saying I'm hoping.
Because this is how you're justifying it.
You think President Trump...
No, let me just finish and you can answer me.
You can ask all the questions you won't.
I'm curious.
You're re-positing that.
I hope it's more.
I hope there's more, if they're bringing charges,
I hope there's more to it than just the fact that he had the file.
So that's what I'm saying.
This is the sharing.
This is what I say,
not credible is not credible.
You're actually using the word, I hope.
You hope, you hope, you're hoping that the president...
I don't hope a president did that.
Don't change my words, Seth.
You actually said hope.
I heard you say, yes, you're taking out one.
I'm saying if they brought charges, I hope there's more there.
Trump gave classified secrets to Saudi Arabia...
You're changing my words, seven, you know it.
You're switching around my words.
You're switching around my words and you know it.
What I said is if they brought these charges, I hope there's more there.
Do I hope that a president did something illegal?
No, of course not.
I'm saying if they decided to bring charges, I hope there's more there than what we know today.
Because if it is, it's only going to help Trump.
The same way, as soon as the New York thing said, I was one of the first people to say,
this is going to help Trump.
And everyone said, you're crazy.
I knew it would help Trump.
This right now is helping Trump because everyone thinks it's what was there.
Joe, is the reason it helped Trump because you basically had charges that were basically inflated to federal charges in order to go after Trump.
100%.
Because it was a weak case and politicians saw an advantage and pulled fuel in the fire.
And that's where the, is it politically motivated?
No, I don't think it's, I don't think it's politically motivated.
I think it's politically.
That's what I'm surprised.
And they were saying.
that's why I was surprised when Gabe was saying,
like, no, this is normal.
Like, I don't say anything out of 10.
At least you, with you and Tira,
you guys are like, yeah, these charges were really weak.
And I think Donners said the same thing as well.
That's not what I said.
What I said was if a crime is committed,
if somebody commits a crime,
then they should be held responsible
and accountable for the crime that was committed.
And so when I hear people like said,
just let it play out.
No, no, but in the New York case,
it's already, we want...
We let it play out with Molo.
We let it play out with Durham.
But you don't have anything to say about that.
You have nothing to say about that.
Nothing to say.
We let it play out for $50 million.
Which is the idea that when every, you know,
Seb and Doc and other people on this space or others on Twitter,
whether it be Elon or others,
have stated that these are going to,
these things are going to help Trump.
Yeah, he's going to fundraise.
He's going to get his group of people behind him,
all of that stuff.
And again, to back up what Tira said,
it doesn't seem to be the strategy, like if it didn't prove to be something that worked previously, whether it was E. Jean Carroll or it was the Manhattan DA case so far, or it's Fulton County, or whatever might be, you have to look at it and realize that if this was really was the strategy of the Democratic Party, they're doing a fucking terrible job. But it's not.
And the logic that you have to pass between,
oh, it's Joe Biden telling Merrick Arland,
telling Jack Smith, coming after him,
or Alvin Bragg or Fannie Wilson or whatever it is.
Like, it's a very convoluted concept,
just like the idea that the election was stolen
And that we let, we, we, we, uh, didn't win an overwhelming majority of people in the Senate or the
house or whatever was during the 2020 election, right? Like these arguments of it was rigged,
it was stolen. But then when there be a landslide, uh, result when it came to the, uh, the,
the, the, the, the, uh, the, the, the return on what the count was, like this argument of like,
it was done this and it was done that way. And when it comes to, if there are, is a crime committed, then
Then that person should follow suit and be...
So what's your response to it's just normal to investigate a man for six years and spend $50 million?
Is that normal?
And find nothing?
Is it normal to investigate other people?
Like...
Seb, if you were selling weapons to Russia...
Not you, sorry.
If you're in a circle, people who worked for you were selling weapons to Russia, and you're their boss...
Hold on. Hold on. Hold on.
No, no. Who are selling weapons to Russia?
I'm just playing a scenario so you understand.
No, I'm not interested in ridiculous scenarios about...
Of course you're not.
Of course you're not.
Of course you're not.
Okay, if you're selling cupcakes, if you're selling cupcakes to the Girl Scouts...
Sebastian, your employees are selling cupcakes to the Girl Scouts,
and there's an investigation because the cupcakes were poisonous,
you're probably going to be investigated because you were the boss.
Doesn't mean you actually committed a crime.
That's normal to be investigated for, because you have a strong connection with them.
Let's be clear here, okay?
Let's be clear.
Even you, who tries to be, you know, reasonable or sound reasonable,
you actually posited literally five minutes ago.
that President Trump, who had no wars, no new wars for four years, that he's the guy who's selling secrets to the Saudis or Iran.
Now, this is why these discussions...
I didn't say he is.
No, no, stop. No, stop. No, stop. Okay? Now I get to talk.
People like you and the more vociferous ones, like whoever that Sanchez guy is and the Krasenstein hacks, these individuals, what have you told us for four years?
Even the president outside independence hauled in it. He called half the nation fascists.
Now, if I believed, as you do,
that the president and the people who vote for him are deplorable white supremacist fascists,
you know what? Yeah, I'd probably use the FBI and the CIA and the NSA to take him down.
You're never going to convince me that this is reasonable behavior and it's fair.
Let him prove his innocence in front of a court.
No, you're not going to convince me. If the president...
is calling half the nation, fascists, I know that you are using the tools of the state against me.
When I find out, thanks to Tom Fitton, we get a foyer that the American ambassador in the Ukraine
is illegally using the State Department assets to monitor my social media, Dan Bongino's social media,
John Solomon's social media, Sarah Carter's social media. I know that this is just, that's all the
proof I need, that this is a witch hunt. And if you're, if you're using the State Department
against federal law to monitor me, I'm a nobody.
Okay, I'm a radio talk show host and you're using the state department to illegally
surveil my social media.
I know what's happening with this indictment and there's nothing you can say, nothing
that Gaines says that.
If you can say, yeah, you know what, it's exploiting the judicial tools of the state,
then I'll start taking you seriously.
All right. So I want to bring in Alex.
Welcome back to the stage, Alex.
So I just want your overall opinion because it seems like President Trump has been indicted on seven federal charges,
including illegal retention of classified documents, obstruction and conspiracy,
all charged by the Biden Department of Justice.
So just give me your initial feedback on that.
Sorry, go ahead, Alex.
Unmute you, Mike.
Sorry, can you guys hear me?
Yeah, yeah, there was a bit of background noise, but it's fine now.
Well, I think it's quite the coincidence that the indictment came the same day that the evidence of Joe Biden accepting a $5 million bribe from Burisma came to light thanks to the House Oversight and the courageous members on that committee.
But it's absolutely disgusting.
It's a dark day in our nation's history that this is happening.
This shouldn't be happening in America.
We can no longer claim to be defenders of democracy
when our country has become a banana republic itself.
This shouldn't happen in the United States.
This is nothing more than election interference.
This is a total hoax.
This is another witch hunt.
It's been seven years, a witch hunt after witch hunt after witch hunt.
And it's not just a witch hunt into President Trump anymore.
And it hasn't just been a witch hunt into President Trump for the last couple of years.
The Democrats have expanded their witch hunts into Trump allies, Trump's children.
Anybody that supports President Trump, if you look at the dozens and dozens of peaceful protesters who are serving time in prison for waving a Trump flag at the nation's capital.
And so this isn't just about Trump anymore.
This is about the ruling class trying to send the message to the American people that
we do not have power anymore, that they are in control.
And if we question it, if we try to challenge them, we are going to be dealt with and
we're going to be thrown in jail.
And I just find it to be troubling that for two years, Trump was president.
He left office in 2020.
the boxes hoax didn't become a thing until late 2022 why well it's because they had the january
six hoax that they ran with and they had the democrats in control of congress so they could use
the congressional power to you know create this this investigation and this bogus witch hunting
the president trump using the j6 committee and then the second the j6 committee
ran out of a leash, then they passed it over to the DOJ where the DOJ created this other BS hoax.
And so it's just witch hunt after which hunt. The American people see through the bullshit.
That's why President Trump is leading in the polls in the Republican primary, and he's leading in most credible polls against Joe Biden in the general election.
Okay, so before I answer that question, Alex, I do want to say, encourage the audience here.
We need your questions down in the bottom, right hand corner.
I'm going through them right now as we speak, so leave them as soon as possible.
You guys have been asking some pretty good questions, so we're going to get there here shortly.
So Ivan, you want to jump in?
No, no, I'm just going to pass it over to Sarah.
Sarah, what's your thoughts?
Thank you.
You know, I'm going to defer to Mays if that's okay.
She's had her hand up forever, and she's been very respectful.
So I'll defer to Mays, and if I could go after her, that would be great.
Yeah, you've given your turn to Mays now, so you're going to have to wait until the end now, Sarah.
That's how it works. Go ahead, Ms.
Hey, so I'm just, you know, looking at the charges.
So, Section 793, doesn't that?
I mean, they're basically stating that he, the gathering and transmitting of these classified documents and, you know,
it having being related to national defense.
I mean, can they even prove that anybody else saw these documents?
Because that's a big part of it.
And also, I think we, so we know that he took the documents.
Obviously, they were at Mar-a-Lago, but don't they also have to prove his mental state?
Like, what he was thinking about when he was taking them?
I mean, some sort of intent to do some sort of harm.
I mean, this happened with Biden and with Pence, right?
And I just feel like they're not, they don't.
And to terror's point, they can't charge Biden because he's a sitting president.
But why are they so hyper-focused on Trump?
And not only that, he still has the case in Georgia, right?
And in New York, I mean, it's very clear that it just seems to be a targeted attack.
in my opinion.
But I am curious to know, Tara, if you can answer that,
don't they have the burden to prove
what he was thinking at the time when he took him?
If he was intentionally trying to, you know,
espionage is a very, very, I don't know, it's a very serious charge.
Well, just to speak to Pence, they have decided not to charge him with anything.
In terms of Biden, not only can they not indict a sitting in president, but there were about, I think, 20 classified documents found.
The rest of the documents, I believe, were not...
I don't even, I don't know if they're even relevant.
I don't know if they're personal records.
I know nothing about them.
But he had no intent to take or to keep.
So in terms of your intent question as to him, I don't think there's any way they're going to be able to prove intent.
Now, as to Donald Trump, as I've said, I think there might be some evidence that he knew that he should have returned them, that he was showing them to people, et cetera, which would show some sort of intent.
Intent can be after the fact.
Right? You can be obstructing after you take things, right? So I don't know what these charges are. None of us do. None of us have seen all the evidence. But it seems to me there would be a way to make a case that he certainly had an intent not to return to show them to people to keep documents he shouldn't have had, etc. Thanks.
Thanks, Sarah. I just think it's probably matter. So, Spike, I'm going to get you, I'm going to get you in here real quick. Welcome back to the panel. I believe you were the nominee for the libertarian party for vice president last time around here. So what are your thoughts here on this indictment? Is it fair? You know, and just, yeah, just give me your overall thoughts.
Sure. So that part remains to be seen. And I will say I strongly doubt unless they have proof that Trump was intentionally leaking classified documents, either for malicious reasons or for money or both, I think it's very unlikely we're going to see an actual conviction.
Right.
But that remains to be seen.
What I do know is from a political standpoint, he is now,
Donald Trump is now basically certain, all but certain,
to get the Republican nomination.
And this seems to have given him a boost in the polls and the general election, too.
So this could actually get him elected, or I guess, reelected.
And I want my Republican friends to consider what that means.
Back in 2016, Donald Trump already knew.
going into the White House after he was elected, that the FBI under Obama had spied on him when he
became a candidate. He already knew that the law enforcement and intelligent apparatus of the
United States government wanted Donald Trump not to be in office, even if it meant trumping up
charges or putting him in prison preemptively, whatever it would take. And yet under President Trump,
The FBI and the entire law enforcement and intelligent apparatus got more funding than under any other previous president.
He decried the use of big pharma and the medical industrial complex.
And yet it was under Donald Trump that 15 days to slow this spread happened.
For all of his complaining about the lockdowns, it never stopped him from signing off on giving Anthony Fauci and the entire medical government complex, more money.
more funding and more authority than under any other president.
He pushed for things like the CARES Act,
which helped to contribute to the higher inflation that we saw over the coming years after.
The lockdowns that happened under his watch, under Anthony Fauci,
who he refused to fire, not only cause irreparable and immeasurable harm around the country,
but they also greatly contributed to his not getting reelected.
So Donald Trump talked about, oh, and he refused to going out,
he refused to pardon Julian Assange.
who is being facing prosecution under the same espionage act that Trump is now likely facing prosecution under.
So he said he was going to drain the swamp.
He got into office.
He wanted to become instead the king of the swamp creatures.
And he learned firsthand, you can't try to co-opt them.
They're going to swallow you or you.
So my question is, if he already knew that they had it out for him last time, and he still gave them everything they wanted and more, what compelling reason do we have to think he's not going to, if he gets back in there, he's not going to just think, well, this time I can definitely take it over and weaponize it.
Is Donald Trump going to recognize after this that you can't drain, that you have to drain the swamp?
You're not going to be able to co-opt it.
Alex?
Alex.
What a dishonest premise to suggest that President Trump knew what he was getting himself into when he became president.
He was a New York real estate developer for 50 years. He's a talk show, a TV show personality.
He had no clue what he was getting himself into. He literally walked into a trap on day one. And you think he,
He knew that. There's no chance in hell that he knew that.
Seb Gorka, Mike Flynn, all these guys who were there at the beginning,
they had no clue what was going on.
Either went with the swamp.
Nobody knew how deep the swamp was until they got there.
And President Trump faced off with it.
They've been coming after him for seven years.
He's still standing strong.
He's still the frontrunner for the presidency at this moment in time.
And they have not been able to take him out.
And they are absolutely terrified.
of the fact that he is the leading candidate right now.
And they know that if he gets back in there,
knowing what he knows now,
he will be able to finish the job
and expose every single thing that they have been doing to our country
for the last 50 years.
I think it's incredibly dishonest to suggest that he knew
what he was getting himself into.
Well, first of all,
he knew that Saudi Arabia took down the towers,
at least that's what Trump said, right?
He knew a lot of info, apparently.
Libertarians have been saying how deep the swap is back when Donald Trump was given to the Clinton Foundation.
So it's not true that no one knew. Clearly many people knew. He might not have been one of them, but that's certainly not an asset for why you should have been elected or reelected if you want to make that argument.
The other thing is you're talking about finishing the job. The job he did was to empower the FBI with more funding and more authority than they've ever had before thinking, oh, certainly the Scorpion won't bite me. And it did.
So if finishing the job is continuing to do what he did in office,
we're going to get an even more powerful and even more politically weaponized FBI.
We were dealing with a Congress that was led by Paul Ryan and then Nancy Pelosi.
And they control the purse strings.
And he signed every single omnibus that he got.
And he threatened Republican lawmakers who wouldn't vote for the omnibuses with primary challenges.
Like Thomas Massey, who refused to sign the CARES Act,
there wasn't a single one that Donald Trump didn't enthusiastically sign off on
and pressure his fellow Republicans in Capitol Hill to sign off on.
To vote for it.
Ron DeSantis signed off on those as well.
He voted for those bills as well.
And so if your choice is Ron DeSantis, then it's basically
I mean what are we talking about Ron Desanus?
I don't vote Republican or Democrat.
So what is Ron DeSantis?
Your one of the boy isn't going to work with me, bud, because I'm not a Republican.
Your boy, Thomas Massey, endorsed Ron DeSantis,
even though he voted for all of those out-in-the-bus bills and all those spending
packages.
Thomas Massey is also a Republican.
I support a lot of things he done that he does, but I certainly don't support that.
And he's not a member of the Libertarian Party.
He's a Republican.
Okay.
So President Trump has learned from his previous administration.
He didn't know he was getting himself into.
He was an outsider.
He was an outsider.
And that's what the American people wanted.
They wanted an outsider.
They didn't want another deep state swamp rat lawyer elected president.
They sent President Trump to Washington, D.C.
to shake up the swamp.
The swamp absolutely hated that.
And they did everything in their power to undermine his administration.
And President Trump is a dealmaker.
He likes to take, you know, he thought he was operating and dealing with good faith actors
because, you know, he's a businessman, right?
Right.
And so he was trying to negotiate good deals.
And obviously he's learned that that's not the case in Washington, D.C.
The Washington, D.C. is filled of the most nasty, vile, sick, degenerate, and quite frankly, satanic people that our country has.
And President Trump recognizes that now.
All of Trump's allies recognize that now.
He now knows who to trust, who he's going to put in the cabinet, who he's going to have as top advisors.
I'd love to see Seb Gorka back in there.
I know that he would not go lightly or go easy on the deep state.
And so if President Trump gets back in in 2024, he is going to destroy the entire system.
And that is what they fear.
And that is why they are trying to arrest him not once, not twice, not three times,
but they're trying to arrest him on four different separate cases and charges.
They are terrified that this guy's going to get back in there and expose the parents.
Alex, let me ask you a question.
Let me ask you a question.
In 2015 and in 2016, Donald Trump exposed the system by saying all of the things that happened that he knew
because he talked about how as a deal maker and as a businessman, he was the one doing the payoffs of the politicians he needed to.
He fully understood it.
He detailed and articulated it.
It's a big part to his credit of why he got the nomination over names that were far more established in politics.
And I will say, by the way, I just want to give while I'm doing this, let's give Donald Trump props for basically single-handedly ending both the Bush and Clinton dynasties.
we'll never know how many lives are saved in the future because of that. So all credit to him on
that. But he knew exactly what he was getting into. He said exactly what he was getting into.
That's a big part of what his appeal was. And when he got into office, he gave them more than any
president before him did in a single term. He ran up nearly $8 trillion in debt. He's, he,
for all of his complaining on Twitter about the lockdowns, he did nothing to stop Anthony Fauci. For all of his talk about
calling it the Wuhan flu.
He didn't lift a single finger
to begin investigating the actual origins of COVID.
He talked to big talk on Twitter,
but when it came time to actually drain the swamp,
he did nothing.
Actually, we have a clip now from Donald Trump.
He actually posted it on True Social, saying with a caption,
I am an innocent man.
The Biden administration is totally corrupt.
This is election interference and a continuation of the greatest witch hunt of all time.
Make America great again.
I'm going to play that clip right now for you guys.
Very sadly, we're a nation in decline.
Very sadly, we're a nation of decline.
They go after a popular president, a president that got more votes than any sitting president in the history of our country by far, and did much better the second time in the election than the first.
And they go after him on a boxer's hoax, just like the Russia, Russia, Russia, Russia hoax, and all of the others.
It's been going on for seven years.
They can't stop because it's election interference at the highest level.
There's never been anything like what's happened.
I'm an innocent man.
I'm an innocent person.
They had the Mueller hoax, the Mueller report.
And that came out, no collusion after two and a half years.
That was set up by Hillary Clinton and Democrats.
But this is what they do.
This is what they do so well.
If they would devote their energies to honesty and integrity,
it would be a lot better for our country.
They could do a lot better.
They could do a lot of great things.
But when you look at what's happened to our country in the last three years,
we were energy independent.
We had a strong military that wasn't woke.
We were doing so well, we were respected all over the world,
the biggest tax cuts in history, biggest regulation cuts in history.
And what do you do? You have a president where an election was taken,
got more votes than any sitting president in history by far, never anything even close.
And they come after me because now we're leading in the polls again by a lot, against Biden,
and against the Republicans by a lot.
But we're leading against Biden by a lot, a tremendous amount.
And we went up to a level that they figured the way they're going to stop us is by using what's called warfare.
And that's what it is.
This is warfare for the law.
And we can't let it happen.
We can't let it happen.
Our country is going to hell.
And they come after...
Donald Trump, weaponizing the Justice Department, weaponizing the FBI, we can't let this continue to go on because it's ripping our country to shreds.
We have such big problems, and this shouldn't be one of them.
It's a hoax.
The whole thing is a hoax, just like Russia, Russia, Russia, just like the fake dossier was a hoax.
You saw the Durham report. You saw the Mueller report. It was all a big hoax. You had two
impeachments and they lost and we won and we had tremendous support. But that was a hoax and a scam.
And now they're doing it again. It's just a continuation, seven years, even half the amount.
But it's called election interference.
They're trying to destroy a reputation so they can win an election.
That's just as bad as doing any of the other things that have been done
over the last number of years and especially during the 2020 election.
So I just want to tell you, I'm in...
And we'll find this out just like we've been fighting for seven years.
It would be wonderful if we could devote our full time to making America great again.
And that's exactly what we did. But now, again, our country is in decline.
We're a failing nation. And this is what they do. I'm an innocent man. We will prove that again.
Seven years of proving it. And here we go again. Very unfair.
Thank you, everybody.
We are doing something very special for us.
Always for America.
We're in a position.
Unfortunately, that position is no longer valid because they've done such a poor job,
but we're in a position where we're going to make America great again.
I'm innocent, and we will prove that very, very soundly and hopefully very quickly.
Thank you very much.
So that video was pinned to the top for anybody that wants to re-watch or share it.
Dr. Gorka, your first thoughts on Trump's words here.
Well, I mean, he's absolutely right.
I'm glad he kept it to a short comment,
and I'm glad he said that he's innocent and he repeated it.
He made it very clear that this is just...
an extension of what we've seen for the last seven years.
It's the latest version of a witch hunt,
and it is their way to try and prevent him from becoming the president again.
So good for the president, good for the comms team.
And I think whoever said it previously,
and thank you, Alex, for the kind words.
I don't know if it was Alex.
But this has guaranteed that he will be the nominee.
The question is, can they stop him from winning the election?
So Dr. Gorka, one of the arguments we hear a lot from people, and this is actually a question that we've gotten in the audience as well.
So like I said, we're going through them, put them down there, the bottom right hand corner, hit that purple button.
Leave us for your comments and replies here.
They're saying that Biden's DOJ is going after Trump because they want him to be the nominee because they feel like it's easier for
for Biden to win against Donald Trump than other candidates.
What are your thoughts on that?
Dr. Gorka?
Sorry, this is the strange reality of the people we're dealing with.
They're highly committed.
They're incredibly ideological.
You can kind of pitch the first rank.
The first rank are irrelevant.
So Biden really doesn't make any decisions.
Merrick Garland is just a meat puppet.
It's the Lisa Monaco, the deputy AG, it's the Susan Rice's who are the highly ideological individuals.
Nevertheless, and this isn't...
This isn't, you know, a bit of a tutative.
This isn't political point scoring.
It's just a fact.
These aren't top-tier intellectuals, none of them.
There's no, there's no Axelrod.
There's no, I mean, you don't have to like Axelrod, but he's smart.
There's no real smart one amongst them.
So the idea that this is some kind of Machiavellian Vulcan 4D chess,
and this is how they want him to be the guy,
and they want him to raise more money.
They want him to be the nominee because he's easier to beat.
No, that's nonsense.
That's nonsense.
When you're making speeches where you're saying half the nation are fascists,
you're not actually being rational or strategic.
And when you know already that after four years of calling him a white supremacist,
misogynist, Islamophob, he got 10 million more votes than he did the first time he became president.
We're in this kind of bizarreo twilight world of people who are totally ideologically committed,
but who don't really think things through.
I mean, the whole Alvin Bragg thing
has kind of disappeared
because it was so stupid
and they only realized it was so stupid
after he raised, you know,
$8 million in the first four hours
after the indictment was leaked.
So this is why the good guys
probably will win
unless they, you know,
the bad guys trigger a civil war
is because, yes,
they're ideologically motivated,
but they're really not big thinkers.
Daniel, welcome to the panel.
I don't know, sorry, go ahead, Nick.
No, sorry, go ahead.
No, I was going to bring in Daniel, yeah.
Yeah, no, honestly, thank you very much for giving me a chance to speak. It's nice to share the space with Sebastian. And really thank you guys all. My background is I've done criminal defense work for the past 10 years. I went to law school at the University of San Diego. I studied under both the late justices Scalia and the late Justice Stevens.
And one of the things that that struck me about this issue is that it is a bigger issue than just Donald Trump specifically.
Because if we go back in time to 2016, the FBI had active criminal investigations into not just Donald Trump, but also Hillary Clinton and also Bernie Sanders family.
And while they were the last three candidates, one of which was going to take over the role of being under the FBI.
And I think we're mature enough as a society to be able to have a discussion about whether that's the state of affairs that we want to have, which is that all of our presidential candidates are all under criminal investigation all at the same time.
And if we're having that discussion, what level of transparency does the FBI have or other
law enforcement and domestic surveillance agencies have to the public?
Because assuming that we live in a democracy or a democratic republic, the people have
a very important oversight function over their, not only their political representatives,
but also they're elected that any government actor that takes an action in their name.
And if that action is going to be to devote the resources of the FBI,
not towards breaking like child pedophile rings or whatever's going on on Epstein Island,
or any of the traditional functions that we think the FBI should focus on,
transnational crime, serial killers that cross state lines,
giving additional resources to local police departments that need them.
Those are all classic functions that we need a functional FBI to focus on.
But what we're getting is a significant amount of covert activity by federal law enforcement that crosses over into the political domain.
And the honest answers, none of us understand even the extent to what it is.
And there are certain types of information that the American public needs declassified and in our purview.
So we can exercise our proper role of holding our elected leaders and the government actors that take actions in our name.
accountable for the actions that they're taking in our name.
So I was just curious what your guys' thoughts are for that.
And I'm happy to answer any other questions that people may have about the case specifically.
Yeah, thanks for that, Daniel.
Sarah, what's your thought?
Thank you.
Daniel said that we could ask him questions on this case specifically.
Was that the case, Daniel?
Yep.
Okay.
Yeah, absolutely, if you'd like.
Then specifically, since we don't know exactly what he is, what is in the charging documents, and you said that there are things that should be declassified for the American people, uh,
But in this case, we may not even know the specifics of any information that he may have,
and I'm using air quotes here, may have shared.
And so, therefore, do you believe that those documents should be classified?
If he's being charged with a crime relating to documents, classified documents,
are you stating that those documents should be classified?
de-classified and shared with the American people?
Absolutely, 100%.
I think the fact that our leaders are leaving an open ambiguity in the American public's mind
about whether the documents that are in Donald Trump's possession,
because they could, theoretically, either be documents that show he was selling nuclear secrets
to the Saudis or the Chinese or the Russians, right?
That's one categorical side of the spectrum.
Or on the other side of the spectrum, certain classified documents include just a presidential travel schedule.
Right? And I think we can acknowledge that if it was just the presidential travel schedule, and I'm not suggesting that it is. I'm just saying we can acknowledge that if that's all that it was, that the response taken is completely inappropriate. But that if what we're talking about is actually the possession of classified documents that are being sold to the Russians, the Chinese, the
or the Saudis, right?
That's something that would warrant all of the actions that were taken.
And the only way the American public is going to be able to know
whether the discretionary law enforcement and prosecutorial actions that were taken
were appropriate is if there's full declassification about these things.
If they are things like, if they are, if they are things like nuclear codes, then the nuclear code section of the form can be blacked out, but the heading that says nuclear codes can still be declassified for the public to see.
If your position is that the public is too immature or too irresponsible to handle this type of information, I just wholeheartedly disagree.
It's not immaturity or irresponsibility.
It's simply that there are things for the matter of national security that American people should not see.
And that was my point.
And does that include to you the level of activity that the FBI engages in that overlaps with domestic political representation, the electoral process, civil rights groups going back to the 1950s when the FBI tried to extort Martin Luther King to commit suicide?
Like the misconduct of the FBI goes back decades.
It's not the entire FBI.
It's pockets of the FBI.
And it's pockets and it's pockets.
No, but I'm just saying it's pockets of the FBI that when they act without adequate public oversight in dark spaces, in secrecy, that absolute power corrupts absolutely.
That's my only point.
And that there's no reason for there to be any strategic ambiguity with the American public going into this next election.
The American public absolutely should know exactly what the categorical contents of those files were.
because it's absolutely unfair to the American people
to send them into an election cycle
without having that information,
irrespective of which political candidate you support.
I'll say one thing,
and then you guys can drop me down to a listener
and bring somebody back up.
But I will say that I would hope,
I hope with all my heart that the prosecution has an airtight case,
because at this point, if they don't,
it is going to feed into the Republican narrative that this is a witch hunt.
And I would hope that the Democrat on this stage...
myself included would look at this and if we think that it's like the New York brag case
that we would all say this is a joke and that this needs to stop because at some point
our country has to heal and we are here every night arguing about the same thing different day
and it is exhausting thank you drop me down
Thanks for that, yeah, and I'm sure Tira will also do the same as she did in the previous case, so don't worry about that.
I definitely will. No, I'm really interested in seeing this indictment.
But can I just say one more thing?
But if there is something credible here and there is evidence that he has shared national secrets with our enemies or even with just some guy off the side of the street that walked into Mar-a-Lago, that is an issue.
And he should never, ever come anywhere near the presidency again.
And that goes for Democrats or Republicans.
Yes.
Yeah, and on the other side of that, I don't think there is, hence why, I mean, if there was something major like that, normally gets, in my view, obviously, it may not be the case, but generally speaking, something huge like that.
If they want to attack Trump probably would have been leaked by now.
I would think so, and that scares me, Salaman.
I'm not a Trump supporter. I'm not a Trump fan, but if they don't have the goods, this is their shot.
And if they don't have the goods, they've lost it.
Well, they've had one shot and it looked weak.
The second shot, it looked weak.
And my feeling is what's going to happen is they'll be like,
oh, yeah, these two are weak, but we've got the Georgia case.
And if that's weak, then we've got the fourth case.
I was holding out for the Jack Smith.
I didn't have really hope for Bragg.
I didn't have really any hope for the E. Jean Carroll.
But for Jack Smith's case, sure.
He better have something.
Otherwise, we all need to sit down and stop this nonsense and heal as a country.
Joe, are you going to stop?
Look, I get why people voted for Trump, right?
Trump promised to get rid of the deep state.
We knew he was going to come in and show where things were rotten.
At least we thought we were.
And people wanted that.
And they could care less if he was an adulterer or whatever he was.
They could care less, right?
Because that's all they wanted and they knew electing the political class wasn't going to get him there.
And I think, and that's why he got elected.
The reason why I am not a Trumpster is because things in February of 2016, he said, I know who took down the Trump, the 9-11 towers.
I saw thousands of, or hundreds of thousands or whatever it was that he said in New Jersey, cheering.
And I know that it was Saudi Arabia.
Then he got money from Saudi Arabia and his son-in-law got money from Saudi Arabia, which now is benefiting his golf courses because all that money apparently went to the live league and he's all good with Saudi Arabia.
So is that getting rid of the swamp or is that just becoming the swamp?
And as that fact, there's many facts.
that I look at and I'm just like,
this guy just created a different swamp.
And that's all that happened.
That's the way I look at it.
And you can agree with me or disagree with me.
I think the case...
It sounds like you are naming a lot of things fact that
actual facts so i i guess we'll have to wait for those to come out but uh what do i make
we're gonna do a subscriber only space here very shortly yeah let me do nick can i just finish
can i just finish because i'm gonna give you 15 seconds i'm gonna give you 15 seconds yeah let me finish
yeah let me finish because someone keeps hitting the mute button on me all night right uh
uh nick stop muting joa bro go on continue joa i don't know what you're talking about but go ahead
Don't worry, Joe. I got your back, bro.
Do you keep...
Who keeps me?
Nick, stop muting him, bro.
Sully, I know it's you.
That's you, too.
We have the gas lighter in chief up here, but go ahead, Joe.
Yeah.
So I get it.
These charges, you could tell who's been...
They're defending the case without knowing any of the facts.
I think we need to see the facts.
When I said, I hope...
it's more than just what's there.
It doesn't mean I hope our president is a criminal.
It means I hope they came with something stronger than they did in New York.
Because New York was weak, and I think politics got involved and fueled that fire so that it went through and it was stupid.
And it's going to help Trump and it has.
And I just want to see the facts.
And I hope we have a much more interesting debate once we get these facts and I'd like to see what people have to say on both sides after they see them.
Let me go to Alex.
Okay, Alex.
Yeah, go ahead, sorry, Nick.
Yeah, get fucked up my whole flow, bud.
But one...
No, I know you like to go to Alex.
No, no, no, no, no, no, no.
No, no, no, no.
No, I know you like to go to Alex because it makes you warm and fozy.
Sorry, I'm sorry, bro.
Go ahead.
Going to Alex, bud.
We're going to Alex.
All I'm saying is go to Mario's profile,
spend $1, and you can hear Slayman get fucking slayed by...
You know, and I specifically after the space, it's uncensored, unrecorded.
All that happens in the space is I smashed all these nerds.
Come there for me to destroy them.
I'm going to have to get a microphone that's louder than this clowns.
Alex, 60 seconds.
I haven't even got a microphone.
That way people can go to Mario's profile and spend $1 while they hear you talk.
Go ahead, Alex.
Well, Joe is saying that we're defending things that we know nothing about.
We've had seven years of lie after lie, witch hunt after which on into President Trump.
Every single thing that they've accused President Trump has turned out to be a complete and total lie.
And so, yes, millions and millions of Americans are defending President Trump because they do not have a track record of being honest when it comes to targeting them.
Everybody with a brain assumes that this is just a continuation of the endless switch shot, that they have absolutely nothing.
and that they are terrified of President Trump returning to the Oval Office in January of 2020.
Alex, will you change your tune if there was missing files that benefit other countries and things of that?
Will you change your tune then or no?
The Justice Department has lost all credibility with the people.
So no, you won't change your tune no matter what.
They have done to our country for the last seven years.
The Justice Department has lost all credibility with the American people, and that is dangerous for our country.
I wish that wasn't the case.
I wish that I could sit here and say, yes, we have a credible Department of Justice, but I can't say that because we don't.
We have a dishonest DOJ that's crooked to its core that has lied and has spied.
And it's in every single thing it possibly could do to stop Trump and the mega movement.
And so there's nothing that can come forward that would change my mind.
That would change tens of millions of Americans' minds because they have lost the trust of the American people.
And until we restore the trust within the DOJ, we have a banana republic.
And so we have to get tough.
We have to get serious.
And we need to basically...
probably restart the entire DOJ when President Trump gets back in there in 2025.
Right, guys. Thank you so much.
All right. Well,
Go ahead, Nick.
Go ahead.
No, I was just going to say.
I was going to say thank you to Mario.
Thank you to Salaim, man.
This was a fairly stressful space.
There was a lot of breaking news coming in right away.
And thank you to our panelists and everything.
It was a great debate.
A little bit fiery sometimes.
But Mario, fire up.
Do you guys have a crush on each other?
It's like, you know, one speaks, the other speaks.
Like, no, no, you speak.
No, no, you speak.
Oh, Suley, man.
Oh, Nick.
And this is like, I just jumped on for the last.
I just jumped on for the last five minutes.
I don't want him to get upset.
Yeah, let me, let's go to Justin.
Justin, any final thoughts on the space today?
Oh no, actually not actually, I shit.
I don't do it on these days.
I was going to end it while he's speaking.
Do I do it on these spaces, silly, or the subscriber on these places?
You do, but the real reason.
It's exhausting.
It's exhausting.
All of this is exhausting.
But exciting, too.
What was the best bit?
The best bit is my phone, my phone bursting off its, it's ringer here as people try to say, I want to run this email.
I want to run this text message.
Because there'll be millions of dollars raised overnight for GOP coffers.
And it's all in the back of here they go again.
And, you know, if they don't come up with the goods...
We'll raise 10 times that because people are like, okay, now we know it's corrupt.
And people see it.
Sully, do you want to give you final shout out for the subscriber space?
Go ahead, Sully.
You're not falling for it, are you?
Smartos.
Let's go to Troy.
Troy, final quick thoughts on the space?
Great space.
Have a great night.
