All Episodes
Previous Next
May 11, 2023 - Lionel Nation
01:20:55
Part II: The Trump Carroll Sexual Verdict Reviewed & Tucker's Ballyhooed Move (Sorta) to Twitter

It seems to be correct. So far.

| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Disaster can strike when least expected.
Wildfires, hurricanes, tornadoes, earthquakes.
They can instantly turn your world upside down.
Dirty Man Underground Safes is a safeguard against chaos.
Hidden below, your valuables remain protected no matter what.
Prepare for the unexpected.
Use code DIRTY10 for 10% off and secure peace of mind for you and your family.
Dirty Man Safe.
When disaster hits, security isn't optional.
The storm is coming.
Markets are crashing.
Banks are closing.
When the economy collapses, how will you survive?
You need a plan.
Cash, gold, bitcoin.
Dirty Man Safes keep your assets hidden underground at a secret location ready for any crisis.
Don't wait for disaster to strike.
Get your Dirty Man safe today.
Use promo code Dirty10 for 10% off your order.
When uncertainty strikes, peace of mind is priceless.
Dirty Man underground safes protects what matters most.
Discreetly designed, these safes are where innovation meets reliability, keeping your valuables close yet secure.
Be ready for anything.
Use code DIRTY10 for 10% off today and take the first step towards safeguarding your future.
Dirty Man's Safe.
Because protecting your family starts with protecting what you treasure.
Dirty Man's Safe.
I hope you're ready for this.
And I hope you're of the mindset to handle today's post- Trump-Carol verdict.
We did it last night after it happened.
I want to continue today, but I want to provide something to you that nobody is providing to you.
And I'm sorry to tell you, but it's the God's honest truth.
I've made a copious diagram of where we need to go today.
Not a copious diagram, a thorough diagram of breaking this thing down.
So I can explain this to you in a way that nobody else is doing this.
So that you'll be able to look at this dispassionately and analyze what happened regarding this verdict.
And if we have time, this non-story about Tucker maybe going to Twitter, maybe, which I don't understand.
This Tucker fetish, but we'll get to that later.
But what I want you to understand is to be able to look at this and say, okay, let me just explain this to me.
Very, very dispassionately.
Say we're watching boxing films.
We're watching our future competitor.
We're watching.
We're studying film.
We're just evaluating it.
We're physicians holding up charts and holding up graphs and holding up...
X-rays and scans and films and reading labs.
We're not looking into this as to who's involved.
Why?
Why did this person get this disease?
Why?
It's not fair!
Okay, it may not be fair, but doctors don't talk like that.
People don't talk like that.
People don't discuss it.
This is something you're going to have to...
I'm handing you a ball of fishing line that is so tangled up, tangled up in blue, that you've got to separate these.
Last night, Mrs. L. and I went to an event.
It was very nice.
It was a group of people here in Manhattan.
And the guest, whatever it was, Alan Dershowitz.
Who wrote a book, Get Trump.
And Alan Dershowitz is, what is he, 85 years old?
He's incredible.
Alan Dershowitz is incredible.
To be of this, he's so, I mean, he's, Joe Biden is out to lunch.
Alan Dershowitz just goes to show you, you're just lucky.
Our friend, the Catholic priest, who's 102, is like this.
It just depends.
It's a luck of the draw.
Alan Dershowitz is 80...
I think he's 86. He said he was 85, right?
85?
Let me see over here, just to make sure.
Alan Dershowitz.
And he has been around my entire life, it seems like.
One way or another, he is...
He's 84. And he will be, he was born in September 1st.
Oh, he's a Virgo.
Uh-oh.
So, he's coming up on his 85th birthday.
Incredible.
In, incredible.
In any event.
But Alan Dershowitz is very, very good, but he says things that are prototypically Alan Dershowitz.
He knows exactly what he has to do.
So anyway, so I was at this event last night, Mrs. Ellis.
Very nice.
This very nice place.
And it was predominantly, well, it was a Republican, basically, organization, an enclave.
And I'm finding out, and I think you would agree, And he even commented on it.
That of the political spectrum, the only people right now who are interested at least in freedom of speech, civil liberties, due process, are people more from the conservative or Republican bent.
I'm telling you, I am not a Republican.
I am not a Democrat.
I am not a liberal.
I have no name to what I'm saying.
I'm a registered independent.
I can speak at any group, anybody who wants to, anybody.
I'll go whoever.
I have no predisposition.
It means nothing.
It's like me saying, I'm not going to go there.
Well, you're, ooh, that's country.
Yeah, but I'm bluegrass.
Bluegrass, we don't like country people.
I've heard that.
Believe it or not.
Believe it or not.
Whoa, you're plant-based?
Sorry.
I'm sorry.
I'm raw.
You're plant-based?
Yeah, but you cook.
I'm raw vegan.
There are people.
There's the raw group.
I'm not kidding you.
Who separate from...
And vegetarians, they won't even talk to them.
You're phony.
You're like an agnostic.
You're an atheist.
No, you're an agnostic.
So there are these people.
We love to get into these groups.
I swear to you.
I don't understand what it is.
I don't get it.
I don't understand it.
Recently, we had a death in my high school class of a friend of ours, and we're all kind of getting...
It's kind of like the big chills, sort of.
We're all sort of talking to each other and reminiscing about what a good guy he was.
And I'm looking at people, and I haven't seen these folks in a long time, and I'm thinking, who's that?
I saw somebody the other day from my class look like Charles Durning.
I said, who's that?
And he said, that's so-and-so.
I said, you're kidding me.
And not only do they forget what they look like, I thought we were part of the coolest generation.
We met in 1971 in high school.
Went from 71 to 76. I've never seen.
Anyway.
So I don't fit in.
You've got to understand something.
I don't fit in.
I liked Trump some ways.
Some ways I don't.
Now we're going to look at this.
We're going to look at Trump.
We're going to try to get rid of this Rorschach test, but we're going to acknowledge it.
I'm going to acknowledge it.
You have to understand this.
There's Donald Trump, this rock star.
Donald Trump, the politician.
Donald Trump, perhaps the 2024 candidate.
And Donald Trump, the subject of this fetish.
Then you have E. Jean Carroll.
I've never met the woman.
I've never met.
I don't know anything.
She's, what, 79 years old?
She's a woman who theoretically, allegedly, at least a jury believes she was sexually abused.
And we can't say the R word.
Not for purposes of this forum, if you know what I mean.
So we're going to call it the R word.
The jury found...
We'll get to this in a moment.
This is one thing where Dershowitz and I disagree.
Dershowitz says, they said that Donald Trump did not commit the letter R, but it was sexual abuse.
No, they found that there wasn't enough evidence of it.
We'll argue about that later.
So anyway, then we have her.
Then we have this...
This lawyer, this legal team, that scares me to no end.
When you have a lawyer who wants to be the media lawyer, when you have the Melvin Bell eyes, when you have the from the old days, this is the scariest thing in the world because it's about them standing up there.
All right.
So today we're going to look at Trump.
We're going to eat Jane Carroll.
We're going to look at the trial.
We're going to look at the evidence.
We're going to look at the defense that was presented, the actual proof itself.
And then we're going to look at the verdict.
And we're going to break the verdict down and say, what does this mean?
That's it.
And I'm going to try my best to contain my analysis within those areas.
But first, I want to say something right now regarding Donald Trump.
Donald Trump, this is a Rorschach test.
Donald, I have never seen anything.
I thought Nixon, in my lifetime, Nixon was, Nixon was, you just, people went berserk over him.
That's nothing compared to this.
Reagan, well, people loved Reagan, sort of, and Bill Clinton, nothing.
There has never been, even W. Bush, and the debacle of Iraq and Iran.
Donald Trump is a lightning rod.
Donald Trump is that rare, that raw nerve that either causes you ecstatic pleasure or the most horrible pain you can imagine.
I've seen politics destroy.
I gotta tell you this one case.
I know a person Not really close, but kind of a friend.
I'm just kind of listening.
This is a person who is involved in, has a medical background.
She was involved, dealt with trauma care in the past.
Again, I'm just listening to this.
And the first thing we're talking, the first thing she says was, why didn't she scream?
I said, what are you talking about?
Oh, E. Jean Carroll.
Why didn't she scream?
I know about this.
I know about this.
So, I didn't have any time.
I said, do you think she made this up?
Look, all I know is, I know this.
I'm telling you.
Mrs. L, she's standing right there.
All I know, I'm not in any way disputing your bona fides.
Do you think she made this up?
Do you think none of it happened?
Nothing.
No Bergdorf.
And by the way, nobody in New York can say Bergdorf.
Orf.
Orf.
They say Bergdorf.
I don't know why they do that.
They say things here differently.
I don't know why.
They just do it.
Bergdorf.
Anyway.
Do you think she just made this up?
Do you think about it?
Well, I don't know.
Well, you're going to have to.
You're either going to think either A, she made it up, B, she's exaggerating it, C, maybe she kind of wanted this but didn't go well, or some combination.
But you think this is a lie.
She got up there and she lied.
She lied in 2019.
She lied in 1995.
Her friend who testifies, under pain of perjury, who says, yeah, she called me and she was freaking out.
That's all a lie.
Because that's what you're saying.
That's what you're saying.
She walked off.
She never thought it through.
Because when you say that she didn't scream, what are you saying?
Let me give you an example.
This is an example.
This is an example.
When people that I know claim that they are right to lifers, and that's fine, and that they want any kind of termination, got to be careful with the A word now, Very sensitive in these channels.
But the termination procedure, the A word, when they want to ban this, I ask them, do you want to put women in prison?
Do you want to put a woman in prison who has this?
Well, that's what you're saying.
Understand what you're saying.
When you say this, you mean this.
Understand something.
Say it.
Tell me, yes, I think E. Jean Carroll, I'm not saying it, but I want somebody to say that they believe that E. Jean Carroll made this up in 2019 in order.
She wrote this book about something that happened in 95 or 96 after she, and this story with Bernbach where she got on the phone contemporaneously to what's happening.
She made all that up.
It never happened.
Just to get Trump.
So the 2019 book was written.
Then she met with people like George Conway and the billionaire who would fund a...
She would write the article, lure Trump into saying, that's ridiculous, that never happened, sue him for defamation, take that all the way, wait until New York passes this Child victims advocacy, this extension of the statute of limitations, combine the two, remove the case to federal court.
Okay.
Do you know what you're saying?
If you read Breitbart, it's all about how the people pushed her case.
Now, is that relevant?
Of course it's relevant.
Were there Democratic operatives here?
Yes!
Did people try to capitalize on this?
Yes!
Are they going to forget E. Jean Carroll?
Yes!
Was she used by them?
Yes!
Does that mean it didn't happen?
Does that mean nothing happened?
What are you trying to say?
So before you get on, before you talk to your friends, before you go on TV, ask yourself, what are you really saying?
What are you really saying?
Because this brilliant healthcare person never thought about anything when she said, and why did she scream?
She thought, aha!
I have found the answer.
I have found that gotcha moment.
Something nobody's thought of.
Joe Tacopina, or as my friend calls him, Joe Tapioca, he brought it up.
He even talked about the length, the height of her shoes.
Not height, height.
Of her shoes.
And how this would have been impossible.
Okay.
This is microscopic dissection of an issue.
The bottom line is this.
There are people who are going to say, yes, I think it's all nonsense.
They don't mean that.
They haven't thought through this.
What do I think?
Something happened.
Is it exactly what people say?
No.
No.
Could Trump actually...
Trump's argument was the best.
I don't know who this woman is.
Is that possible?
Yes.
Maybe not now.
I think right now.
I think...
I think when somebody says, this woman is E. Jean Carroll.
She was married to...
Remember John Johnson?
Remember him?
She was married to John Johnson.
This is a picture of you and Ivana in 1987.
This is about eight years prior to this incident.
Here's you and John Johnson and Gene Carroll at some party and you're talking.
And he mistook Gene Carroll for Marla Maples or for his wife or something.
I mean, he didn't know.
Could Trump have been absolutely...
He could have been absolutely telling the truth where he says, I don't know who this is.
I don't remember her.
But, between now, then, and now, she knows who she is.
He knows who she is.
I know who she is now.
You know all about her.
What she's written, how many shows he's been on.
So you know who she is now, but not by virtue of the event.
What could have happened?
A lot could have happened.
Something that happened initially may be flirtatious.
We're in Bergdorf, as they say, Goodman.
Somehow he's there.
Why he's there.
This was in 1995.
I know people...
Who swear?
He doesn't go.
He wouldn't go to the ladies' section.
How do you know?
You know who I saw one time in front of Bergdorf?
You know who I saw?
Jeffrey Epstein.
Right there.
What does that mean?
I don't know.
I've been in Bergdorf, Goodman, before.
What does this mean?
You've never been?
This is this Trump derangement.
Syndrome in reverse.
It's this Trump, this defense of everything that he does.
He is a god.
He is perfect.
He is pure of thought.
He is my hero.
I love him.
Wait a minute.
Take it easy.
Wait a minute.
What very well could have happened, which would not surprise me, there was some encounter.
Hi, how are you?
And I think it was, are you, she claims, are you that gossip lady?
Are you that real estate tycoon?
Come on in.
Very flirtatious.
Whatever.
That's the way he is.
Nothing wrong with that.
And then, who knows?
Could this have been, in 95, something that might have started off as a weird kind of a tryst?
Kind of weird?
You know how some people sometimes have this thing, which I do not understand, let's, let's, let's, let's risk getting caught.
You know, let's do, I'm not saying this happened, but let me just throw this out, because if other people could come up with stuff, people have this weird stuff, hey, let's, let's, Let's have a little tryst in the park in front of people.
What?
Let's do it.
Let's risk getting...
What?
What are you talking...
Okay.
All I know is something went wrong.
And the thing that I would say to a jury, ladies and gentlemen of the jury, Lisa Bernbach was there.
This is the author, her friend, granted.
Do you believe that she's making this up?
Do you believe, when she testifies under oath, that E. Jean Carroll called her distraught, frantic?
Do you believe that did not occur?
If you did, then you know what?
We're going to go.
We're going to demand that the U.S. Attorney's Office or somebody go after her for lying, the way they did Ghislaine Maxwell for lying on a deposition, which has never occurred, I think, in the history of...
So I believe something happened.
Look at me.
I don't care if you love Trump or not.
Something happened.
She might have actually thought, oh my God, I can't believe I gave in to that.
Who knows?
I don't know.
But this idea that E. Jean Carroll...
I can't keep saying E. Jean Carroll.
Anyway.
Remember Jean?
Remember Oliver?
Jean.
Roses are...
So that's it.
It's her job to prove the case, not Trump.
But I can't believe this.
Can you tell me why...
This is one woman.
This woman I'm talking about is a medical professional.
I know another woman who said, why this...
And they talk about her looks.
She's 79 years old.
People get older.
What is with this thing in our country?
They do this all the time.
I saw somebody the other day.
The people, the stars of American Graffiti.
Look at them now.
Oh my God.
They're aging.
What do you want?
I don't understand this.
I really...
People are so mean.
Tara Reade.
They make fun of Tara Reade.
Her weight, her age.
This happened when Tara Reade, the young girl, is still there.
Why are women, not all women, believe me, absolutely not.
There are so many great women who have a sense of compassion.
But there are other women who were brutal to other women.
Well, she probably knew what she was doing.
Is this some kind of a weird...
Projection on yourself?
What is going on?
I can't believe this.
And I can't believe how people can look at a civil verdict as somehow a referendum on their political beliefs, their political ideology.
I don't understand this.
What does this have to do with the 2024 election?
Well, it has a lot to do with the election, but...
Let me also say something.
I don't want to spend too much time with this.
What kind of a person do you think Donald Trump is?
Do you know him?
Do you know Donald Trump?
I don't know Donald Trump.
Do you know what kind of person he is?
I don't know.
Have you spent any time with him?
Have you been able to find out?
Do you think Donald Trump would want to know you?
Do you think he would be dismissive of you?
Do you think if you weren't one of his fellow moneyed millionaire, billionaire pals, he'd give you the time of day?
I don't know.
What do you think?
Do you think he would?
Do you think you know him?
What do you have invested with him?
What is it?
I'm saying this.
All I know is 2016 Donald Trump, there was the election.
He appears to be at this particular point the frontrunner for the Republican nomination.
And that's all I can tell you.
Do I love him?
What is the matter with you?
It's the same thing with you and Tucker.
What happened?
What is this Tucker Carlson?
Why do you go crazy over Tucker Carlson?
He's okay, but I don't understand this.
They never did this with Cronkite.
They never did this with Murrow.
They never did this with anybody with Bill Paley or Eric Severide or...
Charles Keralta.
I don't understand.
Why are we turning our political and journalistic tendencies into these love affairs?
This fetish, obsessive, compulsive.
I don't get it.
Trump on the deposition.
Arrogant.
Arrogant.
Jury gets a load of that.
Oh, my God.
Did you see this?
Arrogant.
So, well, did you...
Who's that?
Yeah, 87. No, no, Mr. Trump.
President Trump.
That's E. Jean Carroll.
What?
Yeah, the woman that you said isn't your type?
You just confused her with your wife, who was your type.
The way he...
No, not good.
Not good.
Not good.
And not appearing in court?
Let me stop right there.
What is he thinking?
He's in Scotland?
Playing golf?
The rest of the...
Wait a minute.
You're a juror.
Think about this.
Don't give me this about, well, you know, the New York jury and they're all Democrats?
True.
They voted 80% against Trump?
True.
I'd want Staten Island.
Now that's the jury I want.
But that's true.
All true.
And these people are going to go to this thing and take time off.
It's a pain in the neck to do this.
And they're in court and they're saying, where's the guest of honor?
He's not even in here.
Let me tell you something, what anybody else would have done.
They would have sat there and said, let me explain something to you, mister.
I think it was, I don't think.
There's a Kaplan, the lawyer, and the Kaplan, the judge, but whoever's going to be cross-examining him, Takapina does a direct.
He said, I'm going to tell you something right now.
I did not.
I did not.
And stick only within this.
Don't say, I never, I never been in Bergdorf.
No, no, no, no, no, no, no.
I never physically attacked that woman.
Ever.
That's it.
That's it.
Don't say anything more.
Don't say, I don't remember who she is.
I don't know who she is.
No, no, no, no, no.
It's very easy to get caught up in this embellished, you say, if it's true, under oath, I'm going to say this again.
And I don't care what she says, you say, or anybody says.
I never did.
Boom.
And then they can have fun.
Trump can handle his own.
And if he says, were you ever in, and then they can do the cross-examination.
In 1995?
What is this, 28 years ago?
Or 1996?
We don't know.
Was I ever in?
I don't know.
But his office is right, you know, Trump Tower is like right there.
His office is right there.
You can walk out his Trump Tower and there it is.
I mean, you know, so it's not unlikely.
But he never showed up.
Ladies and gentlemen, John McGuire couldn't get hired, said, on the surface, this case seems to come down to who can sell the jury the best.
Is that really how civil suits work?
John, yes.
And thank you, by the way.
Crepitations.
Yes!
John, if you go to a jury, civil jury, and you say, I was driving down, I was parked at, or stopped at a red light, and the defendant came slammed in behind me, hit me, called my neck to go back.
I can't move now.
I can't work.
I went to the hospital.
Let's assume there's physical records and all this kind of stuff.
Yeah!
It's selling the jury.
Everything.
Criminal cases.
Murder cases.
Defenses.
Prosecutions.
If the jury sits there and says, and unless we're there, we don't know anything.
See, because John, you can sit there during cases and there's this one moment or two where you say, that was it.
I remember that.
Somebody says something.
It's weird, the way they look at you.
You know when you meet somebody and they tell you things?
They kind of look off or they don't make eye contact or they give you the impression that they're not telling you the truth.
Well, sometimes the opposite of that occurs and they look you right in the eye.
They look you right in the eye and they tell you yes.
So, yeah, it depends upon that.
Now, let's talk about this.
E. Jean Carroll, what's her case?
Well, since we weren't there, I don't know how she came across.
I don't know.
I have no idea.
I know how he didn't come across because he wasn't there.
All they have is a deposition.
I cannot put into words how that is stupid.
In a criminal case, if a defendant does not take the stand, The defendant usually has to appear.
Very rarely do you waive the defendant's appearance in his own criminal court.
You don't do that because that's nothing but setting the trap for a reversal on appeal.
But, but, but, but, but, in this case, she was there?
I don't know.
Did she make out contact?
Nine jurors.
Interesting.
Nine jurors.
Six men, three women.
Okay.
This was her case.
Now, let's talk about the trial and what I think is the worst.
This is the worst.
I don't care if you're Donald Trump.
I don't care who you are.
Number one, similar fact evidence.
In the rules of evidence, listen to this.
Evidence is the best subject.
My favorite.
Evidence is nothing but taking something and trying to get it in or keeping it up.
That's all it is.
Period.
You can take something.
I can call it something.
You can call it something.
The same evidence.
The same evidence.
Somebody can come in and say, I was there and I heard her say, Donald Trump did this to me.
Objection.
Hearsay.
Sustain.
Wait a minute.
Somebody says, that's not hearsay.
Why?
I'm not offering it to prove the truth of the matter asserted.
I'm offering it to prove that it was said.
An excited utterance exception to the hearsay rule.
Oh, okay.
Sustain.
Wait a minute.
The same thing?
The excited utterance exception to the hearsay rule?
Rest just on?
Not being offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted?
What the heck are you talking about?
The same thing?
Yep.
What do you call it?
Imagine this.
Knocking at the door.
Remember the speakeasies?
Knocking at the door.
Open the door.
Joe sent me.
Nope.
Go like that.
Knock, knock, knock.
Bernard sent me.
Nope.
That's not the name.
Reginald sent me.
You're in.
Same person.
Different code word.
Similar fact evidence?
Oh my god, it's horrible.
But every now and then it kind of makes sense.
I've told you this before.
Did you ever see a Ben Gertzell hat?
How about Jim Iroquois?
You know, that hat he wears was weird.
What if this guy was charged and convicted three times, robbing banks, wearing that hat, using this gun, saying these words, this guy!
This guy!
Murray Lefkowitz, that guy, three times, wearing the hat, saying these words, found guilty three times.
Well, guess what?
Now we have a similar situation where somebody all of a sudden shows up at a bank and he's wearing that same hat, saying that same thing, using that same gun, but we don't know who it is.
Well, I'm going to bring somebody in one time and say, you know, two years ago, he did the same thing to me.
Objection!
Wait a minute.
Relevance.
What are you bringing this up for?
I'm bringing this up to show not that he has a bad character, not that he has a criminal predisposition towards robbery.
No!
I'm trying to show you.
I'm bringing it up to clear up.
An identity issue.
Oh, I see.
Yes, yes, yes.
No, it's not.
It's not to.
No, it's not to make your client look bad.
It's to show you that when it comes to identity, no, the jury's thinking, this SOB did this before!
Three times!
And if we can't get him, he's, it's a joke!
The jury knows, the jury doesn't sit there and say, no, wait a minute.
I'm not listening to this in order to show some kind of criminal propensity.
I'm merely looking at that to show that there was a common plan and intent and identification.
Stop it.
How about this?
Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, please, please disregard that last statement made.
Disregard was that please, you can't unring the bell.
Why do judges do that?
Please disregard what you just heard.
It never happens.
Okay, judge.
That outburst just now?
No.
Trials, they're beautiful, but they forget one thing.
These are human beings.
They don't know what you're talking about.
They don't know what you're talking about.
They don't know the difference between hearsay, non-hearsay, an exception to the hearsay, the fertile octogenary and springing interest exception to the rule against perpetuity.
Well, it's property, but nobody does that.
So that's number one.
So what do you do?
Well, ladies and gentlemen, here are two other women who were manhandled or abused or groped by Donald Trump, too.
Wait a minute!
What does this have to do with anything?
Well, let's just show that this is a current...
What?
Identification problem?
What are you doing?
Why is this coming up?
That is, to me, verboten.
That is...
Is that going to be overturned on appeal?
No.
No.
Should it be?
Yes.
Have you ever had an argument with somebody?
Tell me if it's ever happened.
Where all of a sudden you're talking to somebody and you're making a point.
You're actually making a point.
And the person you're arguing with says, oh yeah?
Remember the time at your cousin Molly's birthday party when you got drunk?
What?
Remember when you got drunk and you broke the table?
Excuse me, what are we talking about?
I'm talking about the time you...
I'm not talking about that.
I'm talking about this.
Well, I'm losing this argument.
So I'm going to talk about something that I'm going to bring up because I don't know how to argue.
I don't know critical thinking.
I don't know how to follow any rules of logic.
So I'm going to bring something up from the past.
How do you like that?
That's what these things are.
What does this have to do with anything?
Second, statutes of limitations.
There comes a point when you can't say, when was this?
1995.
28 years ago?
Yeah, where were you, Trump?
Come on, don't you have any diaries you can go back and look?
I guess.
Hey, look at this!
I was in Egypt at the time this happened.
Who remembers this?
Now, when you have children, young people, that's a different story.
To extend statutes of limitations, especially young people who, by the way, are the victims.
They're the victims of medical malpractice sometimes, and their parents, I know this is one particular case in particular, the parents were friends with the doctor, so the parents basically kind of said to the doctor, don't worry about it.
And this child never got the chance to sue for it.
I'm sorry, kids are...
Kids, they should extend them.
But you should always extend them while, theoretically in most cases, when the statute is still pertinent.
Not after the fact.
You know that thing that was foreclosed about 25 years ago?
Yeah, we're opening it up again.
Now, all of a sudden, when it came, and it's a very difficult thing, there were people Who themselves, when they were in school, when they were in Catholic school in particular, loads here, I know, well, here in New York,
in this area, dioceses where there was systematic abuse, absolutely, at the diocesan level, they knew of this one, and it's different when you had 10, 20, 30 people coming forward.
They basically, in some cases, wiped out Catholic dioceses from 40 years ago.
Priests and people who were dead.
That is subject to debate, but that is a little different.
Is it able to be exploited and abused?
Of course.
Everything is.
But it's a little bit different.
Here you have adults.
And the statute of limitations has run out.
So in her particular case, she says in 95-96, this happened to her.
In 2019, E. Jean Carroll writes an article, a story about men behaving badly.
At least she mentioned Les Moonves and Trump.
Trump reads this in 2019.
Okay?
Prior to 2020, obviously.
He says, something to the effect of, you're crazy, it never happened.
She sues him for defamation.
He turns around and says, I want the Department of Justice to defend me because I am being, I am currently the president.
And she is suing me now as a president.
Then, in the meantime, Governor Cuomo, or was it Hochul, someone at the time, Signed this new Child Victims Act, which allowed for the statute of limitations to be extended for any particular event that was foreclosed.
So she said, you know what I'm going to do?
In addition to my defamation, I'm going to go back and resuscitate, in essence, to file for the first time, de novo, this Lawsuit for the R word.
Okay?
And that's how it ended up here.
Now, let's talk about something else, which is the other part of this.
This is the inconsistent verdict.
Is this verdict inconsistent?
Okay.
Let me explain to you a couple of things here.
And this is important to recognize.
And these are some very important aspects.
First, let's look at the three types of battery.
Battery is the impermissible touching of another against their will.
What kind of battery is a different story.
The first one is the R form.
There's the R. I'm sorry to speak like this, but there are sensors and algorithms and machine readers that might look at this and say, you know what, this is inappropriate.
Even though it's in the news, so you know what I'm talking about.
There is the R world, there is sexual abuse, and there is forcible touching.
These are the three possibilities.
The R version of this deals with, of course, as you would imagine, classic, Intromission, coitus, absolute, the usual form that one would think.
Sexual abuse, by the way, is a different story.
And this is a type of contact by physical force.
And sexual contact is defined as touching the intimate, To parts of another person really against their will.
And then forcible touching is including squeezing, grabbing, pinching, rubbing, etc.
So the jury found that, and this is where Dershowitz and I differ a little bit, the jury found that Trump was guilty.
By the way, we only have 159, 158 likes.
We must, must.
Increase that number frantically in order for the metrics to kick in, so I thank you for that advantage.
The jury said, well, we find that you proved beyond, not a reasonable doubt, but based upon the preponderance of the evidence, and that means 50.1% Something a little bit over dead even.
My favorite is, is it more likely than not that this occurred?
Yes, it is.
Okay, fine.
So that happened.
But not for the R version of this, but for the sexual abuse.
Now, does that mean that R didn't occur?
It means it was improved.
Does that mean it didn't occur?
It means it was improved.
Are we saying that this?
No, we're not saying...
We don't say things don't happen.
In criminal cases, if you're charged with armed robbery, and the jury comes back with a verdict of not guilty, they say the state did not, or the state or the federal government, did not prove the case beyond and to the exclusion of every reasonable doubt.
It doesn't mean that it never happened.
It means you didn't prove it.
If you go to a waiter and say, excuse me, I never got my salad.
You never brought it.
You never proved it.
It doesn't mean they didn't have any salad.
It doesn't mean nobody else had any salad.
All you know is, I never saw it.
And I'm not paying for it.
So, take this off the bill.
That's all.
That's it.
Take this off the bill.
I never saw it.
That's all I can tell you.
I don't know why.
I don't know if you're negligent.
That's all it means.
Now, here's the other thing.
What about this?
How can he be found liable of saying that an event did not take place that the jury apparently said, in Dershowitz's mind, never occurred?
The jury said, In effect.
Well, of these three, it was the abuse that we think was proved.
Does that mean that the touching wasn't proved?
Well, we never even addressed that because something more egregious in terms of...
It's almost like a lesser included.
They were...
So, can you be found liable of saying something that the jury said never occurred?
Or did they say it never occurred?
I don't think they make any statements like this.
You said this.
We think we libeled you.
And if you look at all of this, in fact, the way it works is very interesting.
Look at the jury form.
If you can somehow get a hold of it, look at the jury form.
Look at what's happening.
The jury form really says it all.
It's very interesting because that's what is made public.
And it works something like this.
Let me see.
No, that's not it.
Here we go.
It works like this.
Question number one.
Battery.
This is a verdict form.
Did Ms. Carroll prove by a preponderance of the evidence that one, Mr. Trump, are Ms. Carroll?
No.
No.
Ms. Carroll did not prove by a preponderance that the R event happened.
No.
Does that mean it didn't happen?
Does that mean she's making it up?
Does that mean she's lying?
But we don't know.
All we know, all we know is very simple.
Very, very simple.
No.
Okay, number two.
Did Mr. Trump sexually abuse?
Ms. Carroll.
Yes!
They put a check for that.
Yes!
Okay.
Never got to the third part regarding forceful touching.
Question number four.
Ms. Carroll was injured?
Yes!
Okay.
Underneath this, if yes, insert a dollar amount that would fairly and adequately compensate her for the injury or those injuries.
Two million.
Parentheses, it's two million.
Okay.
Next.
Five.
Question five.
Mr. Trump's conduct was willfully or wantonly negligent, reckless, or done with a conscious disregard for the rights of Ms. Carroll?
Or was so reckless as to amount to such disregard?
These are punitive damages.
Punitives.
Punies.
Smart money.
Exemplary damages.
Teaching you a lesson.
Why you...
It's punitive.
Punies.
Okay?
They said yes.
$20,000.
Now stop right there.
$2 million for the injury.
But you just said he was willful, wanton, negligent.
Reckless?
He showed a conscious disregard of the rights of Ms. Carroll?
So reckless as to amount to a disregard?
Think about this.
20,000?
I don't know.
They were there.
I don't know how they figured that out.
I have no idea.
Now comes defamation.
Here's this defamation portion.
Did Ms. Carroll, this is according to the verdict form, did Ms. Carroll prove by a preponderance of the evidence, remember, more Likely than that, 51% of that seesaw teeter-totter.
Did Ms. Carroll prove by a preponderance of the evidence that, one, Mr. Trump's statement was defamatory?
Yes!
What statement?
Which statement?
What statement are we talking about?
Well, did Ms. Carroll prove by clear and convincing evidence that, so here's the best part, you've got preponderance of the evidence at this level.
Let me just go back.
Up at the very top, the highest, the absolute proof of evidence, presumption, great might be the highest of them all.
But reasonable doubt is way up there.
That teeter-totter, that seesaw is like this in terms of proof.
Preponderance of the evidence, 51%.
Clear and convincing.
What does that mean?
How about prima facie?
Probable cause.
Proxima cause.
What?
There's all these names.
Proof of presumption.
Great.
Clear and convincing.
Anyway.
Did Ms. Carroll prove by clear and convincing evidence that Mr. Trump's statement was false?
Yes.
Yes.
It was interesting because I think defamatory implies false.
But anyway.
Number eight.
Mr. Trump made the statement with actual malice?
Yes.
Yes, he did.
Ooh.
Next, did Ms. Carroll prove by a preponderance of the evidence that Ms. Carroll was injured as a result of Mr. Trump's publication of the October 2, 2022 statement?
Yes.
Yes, she was damaged.
If yes, insert a dollar amount for any damages other than...
The Reputation Repair Program.
Which is...
It sounds like a...
I love the phrase.
The Reputation Repair Program.
A million dollars they gave her.
Next.
If yes, insert a dollar amount for any damages for the Reputation Repair Program.
1.7 million.
Okay.
Number 10. In making the statement, Mr. Trump acted maliciously, out of hatred, Ill will, spite, or wanton, reckless, or willful disregard for the rights of others.
Yes, he did.
If yes, how much, if any, would Mr. Trump pay to Ms. Carroll in punitive damages?
$280,000.
Isn't it funny?
$20,000, $280,000.
And there you have it.
Five.
So you've added them all up.
You get $2 million.
Plus $20,000.
Plus $1 million.
Plus $1.7 million.
Plus $280,000.
And you get five.
And that's it.
And that's how you do it.
How do you evaluate it?
Only the jury can tell you.
Why was it $280,000?
I don't know.
I don't know.
That's the way that is.
Sometimes valuation is a very interesting thing in civil cases.
Sometimes it's really Really interesting.
You should see Day in the Life.
Oh my God, that's the worst.
You have somebody who is, let's say, the victim of a serious, horrible tort.
And tort, by the way, you know the word torts.
Tort is the opposite of a crime.
A crime is a particular wrongdoing done against the sovereign, the crown, the state, the federal government.
It's a crime.
And the punishment for a crime is jail.
It seeks justice.
A tort is a civil wrong.
From the Latin, it means tortious, twisted, hurt.
I'm hurt.
The reason for torts, the reason why we have civil courts, is to prevent dueling.
In the old days, if there wasn't some way to sit there and say, why you?
We'd say, please.
We'll make a deal with you.
We'll have a tribunal where you can work this out.
We don't want you slugging each other.
Okay.
It makes sense.
In the case of a child or a person, paraplegic, rendered for the rest of his life unable to enjoy the usual happenstance, the usual goings-on of life, they have this thing called a day in the life.
And it's these video...
Geniuses.
I shouldn't say geniuses.
They will film somebody getting up in the morning, going to the bathroom, just the difficulty in eating, the nurse, the attendant, bathe, being turned over to avoid the cubitus ulcers and bed sores and that painful...
Physical therapy.
Not to mention all of the testimony from forensic accountants.
And when they see this damage, when they see somebody's life reduced to these horrible videos, they're just ready to.
I mean, they...
They have to quantify.
So, quantifying in terms of damage is a different story.
Now, let me see.
The battery did that.
I think I've pretty much done a lot of these things.
Let's see.
Now, in general, can we agree with something, please?
May we agree on something?
Number one.
Do you agree with me and follow us?
That follows.
That whatever Donald Trump experienced in terms of this particular case is unlike anything anybody else would experience if charged, if alleged to have committed the same events.
Anybody?
Anybody?
Do you agree with me?
Absolutely.
Absolutely.
Do you understand this?
Do you understand this?
We already, already, already have said beyond a reasonable doubt, which is a criminalization, that nobody would have been treated the same way Donald Trump did.
Nobody!
Nobody.
They want him this.
You know they revived this.
You know they did everything.
You know.
And by the way, it also happens, one could argue, that he did this.
Do you understand this?
This is something that is an absolute truth.
Whether you like it or not, Irrespective of whatever normal people have to go through, Donald Trump doesn't go through that.
He lives in a separate world, sometimes by his own mouth, sometimes by his own braggadocious behavior, sometimes by whatever it is.
But he is not given the same courtesies that you and I have.
Absolutely.
Absolutely nothing.
There is, there is, there are, there is...
The amount of attention, the amount of...
let me see this There is something which is the most important thing in the world.
Did you know that there is something called the 65 Project?
Have you heard about the 65 Project?
Have you ever heard what the 65 Project is?
The 65 Project is a campaign, this is from Influence Watch, targeting lawyers who aided attempts by then-President Donald Trump and his supporters to overturn the 2020 election using advertisements, threats of disbarment, and changing rules within the American Bar Association, ostensibly to deter future similar efforts.
The project, they said, was devised by a Democratic consultant and former Clinton administration, blah, blah, blah.
So there are people, think about this, the 65 Project, which is designed to show people, to go after lawyers, to dissuade them from representing Donald Trump.
Now you tell me, anybody, anybody, that you've ever heard about this?
They did the same thing, too, for people who represented Harvey Weinstein.
Now, I'm going to explain something to you, and I'm going to show you this little book I've got.
And it's called The Constitution.
And the Constitution works like this.
We lawyers swear.
In order to get in, you go to law school, take the bar exam, you swear.
To uphold the Constitution.
They even tell you, we want you to be responsible for helping pro bono, to bring legal services to the poor, which is a wonderful, wonderful, wonderful thing.
But you represent the Constitution.
You don't represent the person, you represent the Constitution.
And this person deserves, under this, I didn't come up with this, I didn't come up with this, this did, this, this document.
Sixth Amendment, Seventh Amendment, Jury Trial, Sixth Amendment, Right to Counsel, Speedy Trial, blah, blah, blah.
That's it.
Everybody's entitled.
I don't care who you are.
John Adams represented the Boston Massacre, the British soldiers.
He'd be blasted today.
Trump changed this.
Trump, they took whatever you think about him, whatever you like him, and he does some of the most boneheaded stuff I've ever seen.
And they move him over here.
And they treat him with such humane discourtesy.
Such incomprehensible double standards.
It's horrible.
It is like nothing anybody's ever seen.
And they're not done yet.
They're not done yet.
They're going after this January 6th.
The one that you've really got to be careful about, to really be careful, watch, I'm telling you, is this Mar-a-Lago, obstruction of justice kind of case.
This is the one.
Not that he possessed these files.
That's not it.
Obstruction of justice.
They're going after.
They want his scalp.
This is called target prosecution.
Let me say this again.
I don't care who it is.
Donald Trump or whatever.
I've never seen anything.
I thought I saw double standards of justice.
This is the same group of people who want reparations?
Reparations?
By the way, you notice how Gavin Newsom backed off on that.
You know why?
Bobby Kennedy Jr.
I'm telling you again!
Bobby Kennedy Jr. just threw a monkey wrench into this.
Oh my God!
Donald Trump, they hate him.
Listen to me.
They despise him.
Lawfare indeed.
They'll throw anything at him.
They don't...
They despise him.
It's not even personal.
This Letitia Baldrige, the case in New York, the case with the Attorney General, they're saying he overvalued property.
What do you think the banks are for?
Do me a favor.
Go into your...
Local bank and say, I'd like a million dollar loan and I'm going to pledge this.
This is worth two million.
Okay.
I give you my word.
You probably want to appraise this.
No, no.
We'll take your word for it.
Two million?
Two million.
Well, that should more than cover the loan.
Consider it done.
It doesn't work like that.
Donald Trump could pledge anything he wants.
This is the case.
This is the New York case.
The overvalued.
What?
How about the case in Fulton County?
Hello?
Yeah, Donald Trump.
Listen.
I want you to fine me 10,000 votes.
I want you to fine me 10,000 votes.
Do you want me to make up 10,000 votes?
No, I didn't tell you.
You want me to steal?
No, I didn't tell you to steal.
I didn't tell you to steal.
I want you to fine me.
Fine me.
Legal votes.
Votes that exist.
That's not against the law.
Am I missing something here?
What are you talking about?
Well, we're not going to know about until July or Labor Day.
Between July and Labor Day.
What?
E. Jean Carroll, they're going to marry.
Oh my God.
This is going to be done to grind up to sully.
To try to destroy his position with suburban moms and suburban women or anybody else for that matter.
Not only that, it's just done because it's fun.
And he is not without blame and he does some stupid things but he doesn't deserve this.
He doesn't deserve this.
What they're doing to him is a violation of this.
And the lawyers of the world are saying nothing.
Because they're afraid.
They're scared, as we say in Hell's Kitchen.
They're scared.
They're not going to say anything.
Well, whatever.
I'm not going to do anything.
I'm not going to help him out.
No way.
What about these lawyers who helped these January 6th?
Oh, no, no, no, no.
January 6th is far too complicated.
Far, far, far too complicated for me to even remotely, remotely address.
But this is absolute.
Here's the best part.
From the people who want restorative justice, from the critical legal studies people, the CLS people, The crits, the ones who say, we and this open society, George Soros, we want to reintroduce the notion of due process on the part of, what about Donald Trump?
Well, that's different.
What about his due process?
Ah, the hell with his due process.
That's the part that doesn't make any sense.
That's the part that doesn't make any sense.
It's unbelievable.
Now, I've got to say this right now.
Would you please explain to me, why am I supposed to be hanging on to this Tucker Carlson coming to Twitter.
Did you read this?
Who is in charge of this?
Let me go on the record.
Let me just say something, because Tucker Carlson is the best person on Fox News today.
That's not saying a lot, but it's true.
He was the smartest, the brightest, the best writer, the most piquant, covered subjects, albeit for a minute, but talked about things nobody else did, without a doubt.
The most talented, certainly ready to get away, ready to get away and pull away from the yoke of that.
Fox News is gone.
Fox News is dead.
Fox News post-Dominion.
They realize, we're not into this anymore.
It's not worth it.
Let's just rehash and just bring in Tommy Lahren and, you know, that kind of stuff.
Okay, fine.
It's a free country.
You can do whatever you want.
It is so bushly, so lightweight.
They just want to be, they just, no hits, no runs, no errors.
Okay, fine.
So they bounce Tucker.
All right?
I think that's, it's not going to be the end of their cable or their network.
Why?
Because they make their money in carriage fees before the season even starts.
And they're going to get their money back.
There's a lot of people, you don't want to hear this, who don't want to advertise because it's Tucker.
But now that he's gone, they'll get some Brian Kilmeade.
Hey, I'm Brian Kilmeade.
Easy.
They'll come back to him.
Big ticket stuff.
Because he's easy.
He's a goof.
He's like a nothing.
He says nothing.
Steve Doocy.
Hey, I'm Steve Doocy.
I'm Brian Kilmeade.
Simple.
Simple.
Free country.
They'll make more money with that than with Tucker Carlson.
You like Tucker Carlson because you like that intriguing stuff.
They don't like Tucker Carlson because that's not where the money is.
Okay.
But would you make up your mind and do whatever you want?
And now there's a...
I'm sending...
I don't know why they're...
I guess this helps.
Maybe somebody figures.
No, no.
Put this all in the news.
Tucker's alleging that you violated my terms and conditions by exposing my tweet.
Okay, fine.
Whatever it is.
I don't know.
I'm getting bored with it.
Just make up your mind.
But here's the best part.
Did you see?
Did you see when your boy Elon says, I never made any deal with him.
Tucker can come back like anybody else.
What was that?
Was that a...
See, that's what Elon does.
When you get too close to him, when you think you're his buddy, look what he did to Matt Taibbi.
Barry Wise took the last train for the coast.
She took off.
So there's Tucker.
Wait, wait, what?
Elon was very...
Oh, don't look at me.
I never made a deal with him.
If he wants to come over here, fine, but...
Why are you doing that, Elon?
Because I don't want anything to do with him.
Oh, somebody got to you?
Maybe.
Maybe he's like the third rail.
Maybe I don't want to deal with him anymore.
Maybe it's a good idea for me to stay away from Tucker.
Maybe.
You got it?
I got it.
Just saying.
Just saying.
This is fascinating stuff, my friends.
Beyond, beyond fascinating.
But please tell me, why are you so enamored by this?
Why do you care about...
I know you think I'm being heretical by saying something against your boyfriend, Tucker.
Has he ever said anything to you that you really, honestly...
Didn't know.
Seriously?
Do you know where I could...
Do you know, I can tell you three, four different websites that talk about things he would never, ever, even remotely get near.
This is what happened when your other friend, one of the best, what he says, I have no idea.
Uh...
Well, I don't mention names.
But some people decide that all of a sudden, years ago, they discovered Alex Jones.
And when Alex Jones, before he went off the reservation, Alex Jones was talking about stuff that was really wild.
So, okay, his initials are Glenn Beck.
He decided, I'm going to do the same thing.
So he got his...
Chalkboard, and he's writing about the Federal Reserve, and special drawing rights, and this, and DARPA, and we're talking about Bilderberg, and all this stuff that we've been talking about forever.
In fact, I'm not even mentioning any of the good stuff here.
Any of the good stuff.
Remember that?
And it was just too much.
It just was the wrong venue.
They're not, this is not, they don't want to hear this.
They don't want to talk about Mises.
They don't want to talk about the Mom Pelerin.
They don't want to talk about Carol Quigley.
No, no, no, no, no.
Don't bring up DARPA.
Not...
No.
Not around Hannity.
They don't know what you're talking about.
It's the wrong venue.
But he became, wow!
Because he was really involved in this.
That's what Tucker did.
Tucker said, this is great!
I'm now...
I'm a...
I'm like the Lone Ranger.
I'm off the reservation.
And all of a sudden Tucker's Mr. Spiritual.
And that's why, goodness in God, okay, I'm not going to question everybody, but say, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait.
Let me explain something to you.
And please, you must understand this for me.
Please.
Please.
You can say whatever you want until I think you're a phony.
If you believe something that I disagree with, I will respect you.
I will respect you if you really believe what you're saying.
I mean it.
But the moment I think you're saying something just to fit in, just to enter a new crowd, can somebody explain to me where all of a sudden, I don't understand this, where did Megyn Kelly come from?
Does she have a deal with somebody?
Now all of a sudden she's a headline.
Megyn Kelly thinks that, excuse me, who?
Well, Megyn Kelly thinks...
Megyn Kelly?
Okay.
Here's another one.
Megyn Kelly doesn't believe that Megyn Markle...
Excuse me.
There's Megyn Kelly again.
Why is she in here?
She's entitled to her opinion.
She's smart.
What is going on here?
Now they're citing Megyn Kelly as...
Well, you know, Megyn Kelly said, there you go again.
What's with the Megyn Kelly?
What happened?
What is this thing?
What does Lou Rockwell think about this?
Who?
My point exactly.
I mean, I just, I don't understand.
So let me explain something to you.
This is the news that you see on TV.
It's the cellular level.
That's number one.
Number two.
This is the lesser known, but still interesting.
Let's go about three or four levels down.
That's where the news is.
And that's where Bobby Kennedy comes in.
I can't say enough about this.
And I don't have my...
I'm not fooled.
Bobby Kennedy is going to blow this thing up.
And Bobby Kennedy is causing more problems In the Democratic Party, and you can imagine.
And the reason for that is because he's forcing the Democrats to have to say something.
Why do you think Gavin Newsom so quickly said, I'm going to put an end to that reparations talk.
That's it.
Without Bobby Kennedy, he would have let that ride.
Let that ride.
He would have had his benefactors, his shadow government money guys, they would have been thrilled with that.
But he didn't do that.
So anyway, my friends, let me just look at it this way.
I want you to understand something.
Number one, what you think about, and this is important, what you think about Donald Trump has nothing to do with what happened in the courtroom.
Your like or dislike or respect Politically or otherwise, has nothing to do with this.
This is a different story.
This is a different story.
The second, third, and fourth standards that Donald Trump has to endure is like nobody on this planet.
For somebody who was a billionaire, for somebody who was...
Supposedly living the life, he lives by a different standard, a different constitution, a different everything.
That's the absolute truth.
He gets himself into a lot of trouble, but nobody, nobody deserves what he does.
Nobody.
Now, what will happen with this?
Nothing.
E.G. and Carroll will be forgotten so fast.
Remember Blasey Ford?
Remember her?
She was the woman who made the accusations against Judge Kavanaugh?
Yeah.
Did you hear from her anymore?
Nope.
They use you, and then you're gone.
Watch what happens.
Keep an eye on Bobby Kennedy Jr.
Watch what's happening, and watch what Bobby Kennedy says in view of what's happening.
Look at the influx today, now that Title 42, tomorrow, Title 42 is gone.
You're going to see A wave of humanity.
Watch what Bobby Kennedy is going to force Gavin Newsom to have to say.
This will set reverberations through the Democratic Party like nothing else.
Watch what happens.
Pay attention to this.
Let me also thank you for this.
You have been so terrific.
You have been with this.
You are good and great people.
Not people necessarily who are just in this country, but people from all over the world.
Because you appreciate something.
I know this sounds corny, but you appreciate justice and fairness.
And what is being seen?
I am embarrassed.
I am embarrassed.
Embarrassed.
By what I see as my justice system.
And I'll use that term with a lowercase j, my justice system.
Has been ridiculed, mocked, derided.
It's been just reduced to rubble.
We don't prosecute crimes anymore, and the prosecutions that we do focus on are on people who are not even anywhere near posing any real and actual threat to anybody else.
It's horrible.
So you have a great and a glorious day.
We will be back this evening at 7 p.m.
Have your questions ready.
Have your thoughts ready.
Let's keep focusing.
Follow this.
Remember, like this, like this, like this.
We have 233 likes.
We need 300 likes immediately.
You need to like this.
You need to subscribe to the channel.
You need to be aware of what's going on.
Because we are a movement.
And the reason why, the hardest part, is that I demand that people think.
I am not going to come on and just give you the usual read the headlines and talk about it.
Trump was found guilty.
Well, it must be found liable.
Well, it must be because...
No, let's go through it.
No, no, no, no, no.
You're an adult.
You want to know what...
Well, what does this mean?
What does this verdict mean?
Who is she?
What did he do?
What was he found liable of?
How does this work?
I want to explain that to you.
And I want to tell you what's important, what's not, what's critical, what's not.
And the thing is, is that what I'm saying has absolutely no, no place on any conventional news platform.
Because I don't think like they do.
And you know that.
And I don't want to think like they do.
Alright, dear friends, thank you.
Thank you from the bottom of my heart.
Have a great and a glorious and a wonderful day.
Please be careful.
Keep thinking.
Always critically think.
We'll see you tonight at 7 p.m.
Don't forget.
And until then, remember this valedictory, this sayonara, this adios, this see you later.
As we always end with, the monkey's dead.
The show's over.
See you.
▲
Export Selection