Feb. 15, 2024 - Epoch Times
13:24
| 
| Time | Text |
|---|---|
| As election season is really beginning to kick into high gear, so are the many lawsuits that have been lobbied against President Trump. | |
| And so today, let's go through where all these different cases stand, starting over in Washington, D.C. with the January 6th case. | |
| This is, of course, the case being pushed forward by Mr. | |
| Jack Smith, charging President Trump with four separate counts of conspiracy and obstruction related to the events that unfolded back on January 6th of 2021. | |
| Now, currently, this case is at a bit of a standstill. | |
| That's because President Trump attempted to have the entire case dismissed based on the principle of executive immunity. | |
| Essentially, the argument that Trump's lawyers made was that since the alleged crime took place while Trump was the President of the United States, he is immune from any and all prosecution. | |
| Now, the judge overseeing that case, well, she did not buy that argument, and she refused to dismiss the case based on that argument. | |
| And so, Trump's legal team, they then appealed that decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. | |
| However, the appeals court, they also ruled against President Trump, rejecting the idea that presidents are immune from all criminal prosecution. | |
| The appellate court, they wrote that Trump has to stand trial within four days unless he appeals to the U.S. Supreme Court. | |
| And, of course, that's exactly what he did. | |
| In their roughly 100-page filing, here is the argument that Trump's lawyers made to the U.S. Supreme Court. | |
| A panel of the D.C. Circuit has, in an extraordinarily fast manner, issued a decision on President Trump's claim of immunity and ordered the mandate returned to the district court to proceed with President Trump's criminal trial in four business days, unless this court intervenes, as it should. | |
| Without immunity from criminal prosecution, the presidency as we know it will cease to exist. | |
| In 234 years of American history, no president has been criminally prosecuted and for good reason. | |
| To set such a precedent would open the floodgates. | |
| If the prosecution of a president is upheld, such prosecutions will recur and become increasingly common, ushering in destructive cycles of recommendation. | |
| The threat of future criminal prosecution by a politically opposed administration will hang like a millstone around every future president's neck, distorting presidential decision-making, undermining the president's independence, and clouding the president's ability to deal fearlessly and impartially with the duties of his office. | |
| And so essentially, Trump's legal team, they put forth two separate questions in front of the U.S. Supreme Court. | |
| The first question was whether or not a president can be criminally prosecuted for official acts that were undertaken while he or she was in office. | |
| And the second question was, quote, whether an impeachment would foreclose criminal prosecution for the same charges under the principles of double jeopardy. | |
| Meaning, in plain English, that since President Trump was already impeached and then subsequently tried in the Senate for his actions on January 6th, would this case count as double jeopardy, since he would essentially be forced to stand trial twice for the same alleged crime? | |
| These are the two questions that were put forth in front of the U.S. Supreme Court. | |
| And for Trump's legal defense team, there is a lot riding on the U.S. Supreme Court agreeing to take up this case. | |
| That's because if the Supreme Court decides to not take up this case, then the trial might begin immediately, which is exactly what Trump's legal team is trying to avoid. | |
| With a Washington D.C. jury pool, the trial would likely find President Trump guilty prior to the November election. | |
| But if they can either have the U.S. Supreme Court rule that presidents are, in fact, immune from criminal prosecution, or, more likely, if the U.S. Supreme Court just agrees to take up the case and put a stay on the appeals court order, then the entire trial will be stalled. | |
| And then, of course, if President Trump is then subsequently elected in November, then the case will be delayed by another four years because he will not be able to stand trial while actively being a president. | |
| So here's basically where the Washington D.C. case currently stands. | |
| The trial itself is on hold. | |
| Jack Smith and his team are demanding that the trial proceedings resume right away, even as President Trump is pursuing his appeal with the U.S. Supreme Court. | |
| Basically, Jack Smith, he wants the trial to run in tandem with the appeals process. | |
| However, Trump's lawyers, they're arguing the exact opposite. | |
| And to that end, they have made a special request to the U.S. Supreme Court, quote, Trump's defense attorneys requested the Supreme Court issue a stay on the lower court decision pending a review from the high court. | |
| They asked that the stay be extended until the Supreme Court has reviewed the case and also stayed in the event of a petition for a rehearing in the appeals court, something the appeals court expressly did not grant in its own order. | |
| The lawyers make the case that the Supreme Court grant the appeal and review the case because it involves an important area of law not yet settled by the court. | |
| Essentially, Trump's emergency appeal is asking the U.S. Supreme Court to place a hold on the ruling of the appeals court so that the actual trial will not be able to resume during this period of time when the case is still being appealed at the U.S. Supreme Court level. | |
| And indeed, the U.S. Supreme Court appears to be placing significant urgency on this request, given the fact that Chief Justice John Roberts gave Mr. | |
| Jack Smith just seven days, five business days, but seven days in total, to file a response, which is an extremely expedited timeline. | |
| Jack Smith has until this upcoming Tuesday to file his response. | |
| Quote, The Supreme Court asked for the special counsel to file his response by the afternoon of February 20th. | |
| After that filing, Trump's legal team will get a chance to file a reply, after which the court can act on Trump's request at any time at its own discretion. | |
| And so we'll have to wait and see how the US Supreme Court decides in this particular matter. | |
| If they accept Trump's request, then a hold will be placed in the prosecution. | |
| If they deny the request, however, then the prosecution will probably restart right away. | |
| Let's wait and see what actually happens. | |
| In the meantime, though, let's head on over to New York, where you have several trials that are being lobbied against President Trump. | |
| At the moment, there are three cases playing themselves out here in relation to President Trump. | |
| You have the first case, the case of E. Jean Carroll, who was recently awarded a settlement of about $83 million in her defamation lawsuit. | |
| Now, President Trump has already announced that he will be appealing that verdict in the near future, although it appears that, at this very moment at least, no appeal has yet been filed. | |
| Then you have another case, the one that was brought forth by New York Attorney General Ms. | |
| Letitia James against President Trump, his adult children, as well as the Trump Organization. | |
| The claim here by the New York Attorney General is that President Trump, as well as his company, they inflated the value of their assets in order to get better lending terms from different banks. | |
| Now, the actual trial itself is over. | |
| Judge Arthur Engren has already found Trump and the Trump Organization guilty, and he is now deliberating on what the penalty will be. | |
| This is, by the way, for your reference, a bench trial, and so Judge Engren is the sole arbiter for everything. | |
| He's the one who unilaterally decided that Trump was guilty, and he is the one who is deciding on what the actual penalty will be. | |
| Now, just for your reference, Ms. | |
| Letitia James, she is pushing for the following. | |
| Ms. | |
| James, a Democrat, is seeking $250 million in penalties and wants to ban President Trump from doing business in New York and from engaging in real estate acquisitions in the state for five years. | |
| She's also seeking for him and his children to be barred from serving as high-level executives at any company in New York. | |
| The official announcement from Judge Ingerin is due any day now, and probably within the next week or two, we will have a ruling in regards to what the penalty will be. | |
| Although, whatever that ruling will be, President Trump will be appealing this whole case to the New York Court of Appeals, meaning that the final decision in this case will probably take another year or two to actually figure out. | |
| All right, just to pause here for a super quick moment. | |
| Listen, it's obvious that the financial system is not looking too great. | |
| After being pumped up with trillions of virtually free government dollars for many, many years now, well, the stock bubble might actually burst in the near future. | |
| And in that process, unfortunately, it could take away the nest egg of anyone who happens to be exposed to it. | |
| And so, consider taking this opportunity to diversify into something which is beyond the grasp of Washington, D.C. and Wall Street, physical gold and silver. | |
| And the best company to use, in my opinion, is the sponsor of today's episode, American Hartford Gold, who, I should mention, is also my own personal gold and silver bullion dealer. | |
| And besides myself, they have thousands of five-star reviews from other Americans, and they also have an A-plus rating with the Better Business Bureau. | |
| And working with them is rather simple. | |
| They have a huge selection of coins, bars, and rounds to choose from. | |
| They have super friendly staff who you can call, and they can set up either gold delivery directly to your doorstep, or they can even set you up in a gold IRA. And then lastly, best of all, if you tell them the Romans sent you, they will throw in a free gold coin with your first qualifying purchase. | |
| So give them a call. | |
| The number is 866-242-2352. | |
| That's 866-242-2352 or you can simply text Roman to 65532. | |
| I'll also throw a link to their webpage. | |
| It'll be down there in the description box below. | |
| And so that is the second case against President Trump. | |
| The third case is one that most people have already probably forgotten about. | |
| The Hush Money case in regards to Ms. | |
| Stormy Daniels. | |
| This was the case brought forth by Manhattan District Attorney Mr. | |
| Alvin Bragg, and it alleges that President Trump falsified his business documents in order to pay off a woman who was alleging that they were having an affair. | |
| Now, ironically, out of all the cases that were brought forth against President Trump, this one was actually the first. | |
| However, because of all the other cases that sprung up since then, this one has been put on the back burner. | |
| But since the case over in Washington, D.C. has been delayed due to the U.S. Supreme Court appeal that we just discussed a moment ago, well, the Stormy Daniels case is now getting pushed up. | |
| Quote, President Trump was charged with 34 counts last April, and the case was originally set to go to trial on March 25th. | |
| However, President Trump would be indicted three more times that year, with a federal judge in Washington, D.C. setting a March 4th trial date in a separate case. | |
| The Stormy Daniels case was expected to be delayed, according to the district attorney. | |
| For a time, experts had predicted that this might be the last of the four cases to go to trial. | |
| But the Washington, D.C. case has since been removed from the judge's calendar. | |
| Therefore, New York Judge Juan Merchant will hold a scheduling conference this week to clarify the timetable for the case, which could resume and go to trial in March. | |
| That ruling is set to come on Thursday. | |
| Meaning that since the Washington, D.C. case has been put on an indefinite hold, this case, the New York Stormy Daniels case, might be moving up. | |
| On Thursday of this week, which is tomorrow, the Manhattan judge overseeing this case will hold a hearing and decide on when the trial should actually start. | |
| For your reference, President Trump will actually be in attendance at this hearing in New York. | |
| And so by tomorrow, we should have an update on the start date of this Stormy Daniels trial. | |
| However, that's not all that's going to be happening tomorrow. | |
| Because over in Fulton County, Georgia, the judge who's overseeing Trump's RICO case, he will be having a televised hearing tomorrow centered around whether Ms. | |
| Fannie Willis and her... | |
| Personal relationship with Mr. | |
| Nathan Wade, the lead prosecutor in the case, constituted a form of misconduct. | |
| And according to Judge Scott McAfee, who is the RICO judge, this is a serious hearing that could very well lead to the disqualification of Ms. | |
| Fannie Willis. | |
| Quote, I think it's clear that disqualification can occur if evidence is produced presenting a conflict or the appearance of one, and the filings submitted on this issue so far have presented a conflict of interest that can be resolved as a matter of law. | |
| Specifically, looking at defendant Michael Roman's motion, it alleged a personal relationship that resulted in a financial benefit to the district attorney that is no longer a matter of speculation. | |
| The state has admitted a relationship existed, and so what remains to be proven is the existence and extent of any financial benefit, again, if there even was one. | |
| And so tomorrow we can look forward to seeing these televised proceedings live. | |
| Besides Ms. | |
| Fannie Willis and Mr. | |
| Nathan Wade, there will be about a dozen other witnesses who will be called to the stand in order to determine whether or not there was any improper financial gain on the part of Ms. | |
| Fannie Willis, and then subsequently whether she should be disqualified from the Trump-RICO case altogether. | |
| So that's all to say that there's a lot to look forward to this upcoming week. | |
| If you'd like to go deeper into any of these updates, I'll throw the links to all my reference notes. | |
| They'll be down in the description box below this video if you're the type of person that likes to dig into the weeds. | |
| And all I ask in return is that as you're making your way down there to the description box, take a super quick detour to smash those like and subscribe buttons so that the YouTube algorithm will be quite literally forced to share this information out to ever more people. | |
| Now lastly, if you enjoyed the content of today's episode and you're just thinking to yourself, man, I love this content, I just wish Roman would put out more episodes every single week. | |
| Well, you're in luck, because I do. | |
| Over on EpicTV, our awesome no-censorship video platform, I publish anywhere between one to three exclusive episodes of Facts Matter every single week, usually on topics that are unfortunately too spicy for here on YouTube, including election integrity and voter fraud, climate science, mRNA vaccines, and things like that. | |
| Now, of course, Those episodes, just like this episode, is properly sourced. | |
| Everything is fag-based. | |
| It's just a matter of reality that on YouTube they have algorithms that crawl the text of your speech, and if they pull out any words that they don't like, they will just shadow ban the episode, if not take it down altogether. | |
| That's just the reality of the world we live in, which is exactly why we created Epic TV, a platform where we can publish content without having to self-censor and think about what some algorithm or some latte-sipping kid in Silicon Valley will think when he sees our content. | |
| That is not what we have to think about over on EpicTV. | |
| That's why we publish those episodes on there. | |
| If you want to check it out, right now is a great opportunity because the Epic Times is running a phenomenal sale, just 25 cents a week for the entirety of the year, which if you do the math, works itself out to just be a single dollar a month. | |
| And so if you like access to those extra episodes every single week, including a huge backlog from the last three years, well, take advantage of the sale. | |
| The link will be right there at the top of the description box below. | |
| You can just click on that link. | |
| It'll take you to the sale page. | |
| We can try the Epic Times, again, for just a single dollar a month. | |
| I hope you check it out. | |
| And then until next time, I'm your host, Roman from the Epic Times. | |
| Stay informed. |
Export Selection