Donald Trump 2024 | Lawfare, Voter Fraud and January 6

Trump Conviction to be Reversed on Appeal DONALD TRUMP 2024 | LAWFARE, VOTER FRAUD AND JANUARY 6 I think it was 34 counts of felony crimes what do you think about it all well first of all I think that it is a sham prosecution number one you've got Alvin Bragg who campaigned on finding something to prosecute Donald Trump about now the last time I heard anyone say that that I'm going to find something to prosecute this guy and put him in jail was under Joseph Stalin there was a famous quote from one of Stalin's proteges that said show me the man and I'll show you the crime in other words I'll find a crime on anyone you just tell me who they are and I'll go find a crime that they've committed and that we can charge them with No.1 that's not our system of justice it doesn't proceed from show me the man and I'm going to find something that we can go after him for it instead proceeds with there's been a crime who committed it and you shouldn't even know who committed it in the beginning justice is blind but number one that's not what happened here number two look at how long ago this happened this goes back to 2016 so you're talking about misdemeanors that occurred eight years ago they weren't prosecuted eight years ago they were in fact looked at and turned down by the federal government Justice Department and by Alvin Bragg they were passed on as being non prosecutable these were not good cases in the opinion of the US Justice Department or the Manhattan DA's office eight years ago now all of a sudden in the year that Donald Trump is running for president they take these misdemeanors that had expired because of the statute of limitations you could not prosecute them anymore and they created a novel legal theory that had never been tried before in which they bootstrapped these two misdemeanors to an assortment of other crimes that together would cause it to be a felony so let's see there were three alternative crimes one I think was election fraud the other one might have been tax fraud I'm not sure what the third was but the idea was that if what he was doing in the misdemeanors was intended to hide or conceal these other crimes then that would be a felony and so then they get a judge now these cases are supposed to be appointed randomly to any one of a number of judges in New York dozens of potential judges if not 100 in New York and yet this judge is the one who keeps getting the Trump cases so it's clearly not a random appointment like it's supposed to be all other cases proceed that way but not this case so then you look at this Judge Merchan his daughter works as a fundraiser for the Democratic Party for for democratic candidates who are raising money so she raises millions of dollars for democratic candidates okay that creates a clear conflict of interest between her and her father in the idea of him presiding over this case when he's got a daughter who's raising millions of dollars for democratic candidates creates a conflict of interest beyond that he contributed to the Biden campaign a minimal amount but he contributed but beyond that he contributed to an anti Trump initiative he contributed money to go against Donald Trump now here he sits in judgment on Donald Trump and then his rulings if you look at his rulings with regard to witness testimony with regard to jury instructions which have a tremendous impact on the outcome of a trial those are suspect some of his treatment of witness testimony is suspect some of the jury instructions that he allowed is suspect some of the objections that he allowed and some of the objections that he overruled are suspect so there are number of his rulings that are have been called into question by legal scholars constitutional legal scholars like Jonathan Turley and Alan Dershowitz these guys have been around for decades they're highly respected constitutional scholars Dershowitz is one of the great legal minds in this country for the past 30 or 40 years he he's a professor at Harvard University he's he's been involved in in too many high profile cases to even count and he's saying that this is a complete sham this prosecution is a complete sham and then the man is tried in New York in front of a New York jury where he carried only 5% of the vote so 90 to 95% of the people in that jurisdiction voted against Donald Trump for president in 2020 it's that same pool of people that this jury was drawn from so when you add all of this up it's no surprise whatsoever oh and then in the jury instructions under the 6th Amendment to the United States Constitution you are entitled to know the charges against you and if you are convicted you are certainly entitled to know what you were convicted on specifically what you were convicted on okay and charged with in this trial the judge allowed the misdemeanors to be paired with any one of three possible crimes that would create these felonies so you could pick door No. 1 the juror could pick door No. 1 door No. 2 or door No. 3 and he did not require in the jury um port that they identify which of the three they relied upon as long as they relied on any one of them then that was good enough for a conviction that violates Trump's rights under the Sixth Amendment to know exactly what he was charged with and what he was convicted of it also violates the requirement of a unanimous jury because we don't know that 12 people all agreed on one of those three charges or all agreed on two of the three or all agreed on all three of the three there was no feedback from the jury required as to that issue so it could be that some of the jurors believed the crime No. 1 paired with the misdemeanors some of the other jurors may have believed that it was crime No. 2 that paired with some of with the misdemeanors and some of the other jurors may have believed it was crime No. 3 that paired with the misdemeanors what that would mean is that you did not have a unanimous verdict okay you did not have 12 people who all agreed on the same thing okay in addition to all of that you've got a presumption of innocence and you've got a burden of proof on the part of the prosecution to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt okay and the main testimony in this case comes from a serial purger serial purgerer Michael Cohen and and to to for anybody to conclude that there is no doubt in their minds as to whether or not he was being truthful in what he said is beyond me how can you believe Michael Cohen beyond a reasonable doubt how can there be no reasonable doubt in your mind as to his veracity okay he lied during the trial he lied before the trial he he he has you know been convicted of of of lying he's a serial liar so I don't know how you could arrive at a unanimous decision beyond a reasonable doubt under these circumstances I would be willing to bet just about anything that this verdict will be reversed that it'll be overturned by an appellate court if not the Supreme Court there's this is what all the constitutional scholars that I've been reading have been saying is that it will be overturned under the 6th Amendment real quick if I jump in even those constitutional scholars are they non Trump fans too that Dershowitz is a lifelong Democrat okay he's a lifelong Democrat he opposed the Clinton impeachment he opposed the Trump impeachment oh yeah even a lifelong Democrat constitutional scholar is saying what I'm saying there about where that was going yeah the bottom line is this is gonna be reversed on appeal but it's not going to happen in time to be of any use to Donald Trump he's going to be called a convicted felon until November and after November and sometime after that the case will be reversed on appeal and he will no longer be a convicted felon but he may lose the election they're able to brand him as a convicted felon now I'd also like to say that you know to the extent that he did something wrong and to the extent that he committed a crime that I'm all in favor of his being convicted of whatever crime he committed so long as it's done fairly and impartially with due process with a presumption of innocence beyond a reasonable doubt so long as they are protecting the constitutional guarantees that everyone should be entitled to then if they do that then I would be the first to say congratulations well done thank you thank you for enforcing the law enforcing the rule of law and convicting the man I hope they I would love to see more prosecutions of men that are in men and women that are in high positions whether it's Donald Trump or whether it's Nancy Pelosi or whether it's Joe Biden but should we be raising these things should we be calling out these people and and and asking these types of questions and and raising these types of objections should we remain silent they would tell you no you should remain silent uh because you don't yet have proof of all of this well you know so they would say we have to wait for the appellate process for the court to overturn the conviction until then he's a convicted felon well look I've practiced law for 40 years I argued before the United States Supreme Court I won 9-0 I don't need to wait and it was a Sixth amendment case that I won 9-0 and this is a Sixth amendment violation okay so fuck them okay I don't need to wait okay The Man Who Won't Go Down let's go back to Trump and and yeah yeah let's go back to Trump yeah because he's you know he's got a lot of baggage he's got a lot of problems too I'm not a big fan of course you know of course I don't have to be I don't have to like somebody I have to respect them yeah and if you look at you know pull back and I look at you know here's a man we don't know what he's really doing this for why he's willing to go to bat keep fighting for it does he really love America maybe I think he does I agree when I look at a guy like Trump fighting for that I respect the hell out of a man like that that just won't go down yeah yeah throw everything you got at me yeah including the kitchen sink yeah and I'm still battling I mean who can't respect that yeah yeah that right that that alone that alone is is very much worthy of respect because I don't know of another human being I certainly would not have the stamina or the health to survive what Donald Trump has been put through I wouldn't wish that on any human being running for president of the United States without any of this is incredibly draining incredibly stressful would challenge and tax all of us beyond our limits in most cases very few people could do this without any opposition just without any opposition very few of us would be able to do to run for president and go through that grueling gauntlet okay but when you tack on the fact that this guy from the moment he came down the elevator the resistance was born and they have been after him relentlessly and it hasn't just been Democrats Republican establishment in the beginning was very much against him it was the Democrats it was the Republican establishment and it was the media all three of these mega forces were constantly biting at the heels of this man for four years and then we had an election The Big Lie an election that he claims was fraudulent right without proof right but an election that clearly had some issues 30 some states changed their rules on the election weeks before the election there were definitely some irregularities there's no question about it you know I'm I I conceded the minute that the Electoral College numbers came in and it said that Trump lost I said I conceded that he lost and I said there's no way in hell that Trump is going to have enough time to prove fraud in all these different states to a degree that would allow him to overturn that result it's not going to happen so in our system of justice he has to accept the decision he didn't accept the decision now people say that's because he's a tyrant or that's because he's a megalomaniac or that's because he wants to be a dictator how about maybe it's because he felt that the American system was abused and he was standing up for what he believed okay you know they talk about the big lie the big lie is supposedly that Donald Trump said that the election was stolen you know the real big lie is to say that anyone actually knows hmm we don't know hmm because we haven't had sufficient time and investigation to know and fraud is extremely hard to find and extremely hard to prove so the big lie is to say that you actually know one way or the other now even though we don't know I have always accepted the result from the moment that result came out and and it could be argued fairly perhaps that he should have accepted it too that would have been the gentlemanly thing to do that would have been the more civilized and mature thing to do but there's also an argument to be made that if there was actual fraud he had a duty he had a duty to object to it he had a duty to say what he did he had a duty to do what he did January 6 now that aside you look at January 6th and what happened on January 6th and you look at free speech under the First Amendment and you look at the US Supreme Court rulings on what constitutes incitement of violence okay and it is very clear under the US Supreme Court rulings in that area that Trump never incited violence on January 6th okay he told them to march peacefully to the capital he didn't tell them to go storm the capital number one now what you could fault Trump with and and I do fault him for this is once the chaos began he could have come out earlier and said stop he could have gotten back on the microphone he could have come out and told those people stand down stop what you're doing that in my view could arguably be a dereliction of duty on his part and I fault him for that okay I don't fault him for inciting the riot I don't fault him for raising the issue of potential fraud in the election I don't fault him for you know trying every legal means available to change the result challenging it in courts across the country you know an argument can be made that the vice president was empowered to change the you know to call for a recount of electors and that Trump on the advice of his legal counsel was pursuing that avenue because he felt it was a constitutional avenue that he was entitled to pursue you know whether or not that legal argument is valid may or may not be but it's not a slam dunk either way filing false elector information which occurred in various states is a crime and those people ought to be prosecuted right you know and trespassing on the capital is a crime and many of those people especially those who committed acts of violence or caused damage should have been prosecuted should the soccer mom who just walked in with the crowd and was taking pictures and didn't do anything you know be sitting in jail I don't think so I don't think so and was that an insurrection you know not in my mind right it was a riot it it there was no legitimate attempt to overthrow the government you know you don't you don't try to overthrow the government without guns you know by marching in in costumes with horns and yeah you know yeah I mean you that's not that's not a legitimate attempt in my view to overthrow the government it's clear that the embellishment of these events yeah are obvious yeah they're extremely obvious at this point and I think with what's going on as of today makes it even more obvious and even tends to give some legitimacy to his claims yeah and let me they're playing into his hands I mean he raised more money in the days yeah in the days that followed this conviction than anyone had raised and this may have been the greatest miscalculation of the Democratic Party with regard to Donald Trump and the election in November they overplayed their hand totally yeah and and you're right it does it does make everyone think about you know if they were wrong about this if they were wrong about Russian collusion if they were wrong about the two failed impeachments now how many other things are they wrong about are they wrong about this this conviction are they wrong about the way that this went down and the answer is yeah they are they have consistently shown that they have been wrong the whole time and yeah they are wrong