Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

May 29, 2024 - Lionel Nation

01:11:35

The Trump Prosecution Has Been A Vile Tragedy and It's Coming to An End

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	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.
	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.
	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.
	Good morning, dear friends.
	Good morning and welcome to today's Tuesday morning, even though it feels like Monday.
	Tuesday morning.
	Post-Memorial Day version of this thing of ours.
	And today I'm going to, for the most part, spend significant time to slowly, carefully, and methodically giving you the truth as to what happens regarding President Trump's New York case.
	What is the likelihood of him being convicted?
	If he is convicted, will they send him to jail?
	Will he go to jail?
	Will they hold him in jail?
	Can they hold him in jail?
	If he's convicted, can he serve as the president?
	If he's convicted and he appeals, do they stay the conviction?
	What does this mean?
	What's the likelihood?
	What's the jury's thinking?
	What happens today?
	Give us, this is what you're saying, give us the legal reasons.
	Give us the legal stuff.
	Don't tell us what we want to hear.
	Don't tell us things just to make us happy.
	Don't give us this Fox News, everything's groovy kind of a thing.
	Oh, no, no, no, no, no, no.
	Is there a lot to be happy about?
	Oh, absolutely.
	Is there a lot that is incredibly corrupt about this?
	So-so.
	And I'll explain that to you.
	Because you have been absolutely played by people who go on TV and listen to me very carefully.
	All they want to do is to ensure that they are brought back to make sure they continue the gig as a paid...
	A correspondent, analyst, whatever it is.
	If you go on Fox News and you say too often, no, I think the president's got a lot to worry about.
	Sorry, numbers go down.
	They don't want to hear this.
	People do not want to hear.
	People do not want to hear the truth.
	They want to hear things that are positive.
	Then there's the Alan Dershowitz case, who is so off the rails.
	I don't even...
	You know, I never really listened to him before, but he's always been kind of like a media person.
	But between what he says...
	I mean, I don't know.
	I think he figures, you know what?
	I'm 85 years old.
	Screw it.
	I've done my time.
	I did my thing.
	I'm going to enjoy my life.
	I'm going to go balls to the wall.
	And if I say something which...
	Whether it's about any subject, whether it's the Middle East or whether it's about Trump, as long as I keep...
	You know what?
	I'm going to get paid.
	And they say, hey, you were great, professor.
	Well, thank you.
	You come back again, I certainly will.
	And can you give us more of that?
	Absolutely.
	Well, I'm going to give you the truth.
	I'm going to give you the absolute truth, the unvarnished absolute truth.
	And if it's good, it's good.
	If it's not, it's not.
	I will never lie to you.
	And I'm not saying they're lying, but sometimes they have this irrational exuberance, to use the Greenspan case.
	So in any event, dear friends, let's sit back.
	Please make sure you are subscribed.
	If you are not subscribed, subscribe.
	Make sure you are subscribed.
	Like this.
	It's critical for our demo.
	You know how the algorithms work.
	Like this video.
	And I mean that sincerely.
	Hit the little buzzer, the little bell, the little things so you're notified of live streams and new videos.
	And before we begin, let us go first of all to our great friends at PrepareWithLino.com regarding one of the most critical issues you are absolutely going to face before you know it.
	It's no longer a question of if something catastrophic is coming, it's when.
	And while you still have some control, what are you going to do about it now?
	To prepare.
	Well, your first step is going to my website, preparewithlionel.com.
	And for a limited time, take $200 off a three-month emergency food supply.
	My Patriot Supply is equipped to help you and your family to prepare.
	They've helped over 2 million families already.
	These three-month kits with Ready Hour Foods provide over 2,000 calories every day with 22 varieties and a 25-year shelf life.
	Breakfast, lunches, dinners, drinks, snacks, everything.
	And they're sealed inside six rugged, waterproof buckets.
	And they're over 120 pounds of food.
	So take advantage right now and go to preparewithlionel.com, preparewithlionel.com.
	One more time, preparewithlionel.com.
	Now, my friends, first and foremost, let's get down to some specifics.
	Number one, in this case, in this New York case, listen to me carefully.
	In the light most favorable to the prosecution.
	That's interesting.
	That's great lingo.
	Whenever you hear, in the light most favorable to.
	This is the language you use at the end of the state's case, in the government's case, when you apply a motion for a judgment of acquittal.
	Your Honor, in the light most favorable to the state.
	In the light most favorable.
	bending over backwards saying i'm going to to look at this as positively as possible towards the state of new york and uh mr colangelo and mr bragg and others i am telling you now listen to me carefully in this case i can't speak about i'm not talking about any other case the president did absolutely nothing wrong Let me say this again.
	Let me make sure you understand this.
	Listen to me carefully.
	He did nothing wrong.
	Thank you.
	Wrong.
	Now, in the other cases, you can say, well, maybe he took a few of the documents.
	Well, maybe he didn't, he didn't, doesn't matter.
	E. Jean Carroll, civil case, well, maybe he under, you know, maybe the, maybe, and the Letitia James case, well, maybe he didn't do anything wrong, but under this statute, no.
	We're not talking about that.
	In the insurrection case, well, maybe the president, by virtue of his exuberant...
	No!
	I'm telling you, he did nothing wrong.
	Read the indictment.
	Okay, that's number one.
	He didn't do anything wrong.
	Number two, the indictment doesn't say anything.
	I can't say this enough.
	This is rare.
	Number one, he did nothing wrong.
	Let's say we get rid of the indictment.
	Start all over again.
	Okay.
	If somebody said to me, okay, look, let's do it again.
	Under the facts of this case, what can you come up with?
	Nothing.
	Nothing.
	Give me a state case, state jurisdiction, something involving New York.
	Did he violate New York law?
	No.
	Not with this.
	Unless there's something else, you know.
	Is there a murder somewhere we don't know about?
	No, okay.
	You mean this one?
	No, nothing.
	Nothing.
	Now, I'm not saying this.
	Listen to what I'm saying.
	I'm not saying this because I like him, I'm going to vote for him, and I do like him, and I'm going to vote for him.
	Nothing to do with that.
	He didn't do anything wrong.
	There is nothing that he did.
	The NDA will explain this in a moment.
	The NDA, hush money, whatever, nothing.
	Whether it went in this column versus I column is number one.
	Number two, and this is important, forget that.
	The indictment is so defective that in most cases, a judge could say, no, I'm going to dismiss this.
	Why?
	Because it fails to state A cause of action.
	What do I mean?
	Let's assume you are charged with burglary.
	And if I say that Lizzie Solak, Wes Inman, and Edie Crowley, on the 28th day of May, 2024, you entered a business establishment,
	to wit, Saks Fifth Avenue, And entered and stayed and left and you're bad people.
	Okay.
	And let's say I charged burglary.
	The indictment or the charge says burglary.
	And I read this and I'm saying, excuse me, I don't know what you did, but hold it.
	It says you entered a city.
	No, you've got to say you entered With the intent of committing an offense therein, a felony therein, something.
	No, this doesn't say enough.
	It's like, for example, if you get a speeding ticket and it says you were driving.
	You were driving on Route 3 in New Jersey.
	And was I careless, reckless, speeding, what?
	No, there's nothing in there.
	This indictment.
	Let me remind you of something.
	This is where we get very technical.
	And I hope you don't mind, but we're going to get technical because you'd better get technical with this.
	Let me read you, for example, count one.
	And they're all pretty much similar to this.
	The defendant.
	Now this is, of course, this is the falsifying business records in the first degree.
	Section 175.1.
	Point one zero.
	This is, okay?
	Falsifying business records in the first degree is the felony.
	Count one.
	Listen to this carefully.
	The defendant, President Trump, in the county of New York and elsewhere on or about February the 14th, 2017 with the intent to defraud and intent to commit another crime.
	Now that right there, I've never What?
	With the intent to commit another crime and aid and conceal the commission thereof of the defrauding and the intent to commit another crime.
	Again, what is it?
	I don't know.
	Made and caused a false entry in the business records of an enterprise.
	To it, an invoice from Michael Cohen dated February the 14th, 2017 marked as a record of the Donald J. Trump revocable trust and kept and maintained by the Let me say this very carefully.
	A judge has to say, if you were to plead guilty to this, what are you pleading guilty to?
	You intended to defraud and to commit another crime.
	What is the other crime?
	And the commission thereof, I don't know what this is.
	I cannot take...
	As a judge, in good conscience, I cannot take your plea.
	Because this is insufficient.
	This doesn't speak to anything.
	So, it may sound technically like, no, no, no.
	I don't know what it means.
	I don't know.
	I don't know what it means.
	Now, you can't say later on, well, what I meant to say was, by virtue of you paying off Stormy Daniels, you intended that embarrassment to be kept away from the voters, and therefore it is in effect a campaign expenditure.
	And you didn't write it as such.
	Excuse me.
	What law is it in New York that I violated it?
	Well, there is no law.
	It's a federal law.
	Excuse me.
	You're telling me, now wait a minute, you're telling me that I, I violated a federal law in New York and a state court is charging me with violating a federal law?
	Now this may sound kind of boring to you.
	This is like, what?
	Wait a minute, what?
	You can't charge in the state of New York a violation of the Mann Act.
	Or IRS tax code problems.
	Or laws against Native Americans or indigenous.
	This is federal.
	I don't understand.
	I mean, none of this.
	And people are saying, what are you talking about?
	So number one, number one, he didn't do anything at all.
	Number two, They didn't charge him with anything.
	Do you understand that?
	Now, what do they want?
	Listen carefully.
	They want him to be convicted.
	Let me say this again.
	They want him to be convicted.
	Why?
	So they can write, convicted president, ex-president, Donald Trump.
	Convicted felon.
	Convicted felon Donald Trump.
	Remember when Anthony Weiner was called disgraced congressman?
	Anthony Weiner disgraced.
	Anthony Weiner disgraced.
	Everybody called him disgraced.
	Well, why was he disgraced?
	I mean, that's your opinion, but everybody did it.
	And they are ready to...
	Why?
	Because then...
	Listen to me carefully.
	Then, Joe Biden can say, I'm not going to debate a convicted felon.
	You think that's crazy?
	You think it's bullshit?
	It's exactly what it's about.
	And that's all they've got.
	A convicted felon, immediately, all of a sudden, from CNN to MSDNC, all the autocorrect Convicted, convicted felon, convicted felon, former president, convicted felon, that's it.
	And Joe Biden says, now, question number one.
	Question number two.
	Is it likely that he will be convicted?
	Probably, yes.
	But here's the thing.
	Here's the thing.
	One juror, it takes one juror to say, This is bullshit.
	Not guilty.
	Why do you say that?
	Could a juror find him not guilty of let's say 17 of the counts but guilty of 17 others or some split verdict?
	It's almost impossible to even conceive of how they would do this.
	This would be A great piece on appeal because how do you do this?
	It's one transaction.
	Listen to me very carefully.
	This is just one deal.
	This is one deal that took a lot of subparts.
	Murder.
	A lot of times people do this.
	Murder.
	Conspiracy to murder.
	Possession of a firearm.
	Interstate of a firearm.
	Theft of a firearm.
	Okay, alright.
	Speeding.
	You sped to the murder scene.
	Okay.
	You were reckless.
	You were drunk.
	You committed DUI.
	When you sped, drunk drove to the murder site to kill somebody.
	He said, would you stop this?
	This is murder one.
	No, no.
	Then you bought the...
	You stole the bullets.
	We're going to charge you with 80,000 counts.
	80,000 counts of drug trafficking.
	And why?
	Because this kilo of cocaine, it is believed, could be sold to 80,000 people in 80,000.
	We found 80,000 plastic little vials.
	Nobody does this.
	Here's one for you.
	They used to do this years ago.
	You're going to love this.
	And I mean that.
	How dare you?
	They would say...
	You planned, this was during the marijuana days, you conspired to sell, to grow so many plants, so many seeds, and this could result in so many acres of pot.
	I mean, they just said, well, just stop that!
	So what they're doing is, you're going to say, how is one, for example, they logged it in as an invoice, Versus a check.
	An invoice versus a check in the operating account, in the revocable trust account.
	So you have permutations.
	Two to three cubed.
	I mean, just imagine.
	You've got like a hundred different variations.
	It doesn't make any sense.
	So the thing is, you're going to say to these people, listen to me.
	And by the way, I need your likes.
	I'm sorry.
	Please.
	Lizzie, don't let me turn.
	Our den mother, Lizzie Solak, on you.
	Do not, you don't want that.
	Okay?
	The likes are critical.
	So number one, let me back up.
	Is it possible for him to be found guilty?
	Yeah, they could go and say, guilty!
	Now later on in appeal, he didn't commit an offense that's even cognizable at law.
	And number two, the indictment doesn't charge anything.
	Okay, so that's over there.
	Number three, on appeal, How do you say he was found guilty of this?
	Let's say there's a split verdict.
	How would you do this?
	How would you say, how do you possibly, how can a jury, and this is not just me saying this, this is a grounds for appeal, that the verdict has nothing to do with the law.
	But here's the biggest issue.
	Okay, he's convicted.
	Okay, fine.
	They're all a bunch of liberal Dems and they find him guilty.
	And Judge Mershon says, yeah.
	Is he going to jail?
	Is he going to be sent to prison?
	Is there any way they can say, remand him and take him to Rikers and lock him up?
	Chances are, again, chances, because in this place, no.
	Under New York law, it's a non-violent offense.
	It's a first event, and most probably, once he files the appeal, which he is doing so, It'll be stayed.
	Meaning that everything is stopped pending the determination of the appeal.
	They may expedite it.
	He is not going to jail.
	He is not going to jail.
	Why do I say that?
	Number one, they can't take him to Rikers.
	Number two, he's got the Secret Service.
	Number three, believe it or not, dear friends, believe it or not, there comes a point where what they're doing is so ridiculous.
	That even the Democrats have to say, stop this!
	After what he did to the Bronx, his appearance in the Bronx, when people said, I don't care, I don't care, I don't care, his mugshot, they love his mugshot.
	That became his red badge of courage.
	Do you hear what I'm saying?
	Do you hear what I'm saying?
	Now, people can talk about Judge Mershon.
	Is he corrupt?
	No.
	Is he a bad judge?
	You tell me.
	Is he biased?
	You tell me.
	How many courts have you been in?
	How many courts?
	How many courts?
	I'll bet you Alvin Bragg.
	I'll bet you Alvin Bragg and that DA's office probably thought, this guy is the worst judge.
	He's let more defendants go, unless it's Trump.
	If he's a woke lefty whose daughter is involved or whatever it is, I'm telling you, if you look at his career, more often than not, you're going to say, this guy's like a...
	The DA hates him!
	Raul Rodriguez says, so his case can lead to a mistrial.
	Let me explain that one very carefully.
	It's a good point, and thank you.
	If one juror says not guilty, not to 17, but all of them, It's a mistrial, a hung jury, and that means the prosecution has to ask the question, do we want to do this again?
	Good news for the prosecutor, you know all the mistakes.
	Maybe you don't put Stormy Daniels on, maybe you do.
	Maybe you don't put Michael Cohen on, maybe you do.
	It was a trial run.
	A juror.
	One juror, all of them, one, just takes one, says not guilty.
	The verdict has to be unanimous.
	And therefore, the judge says, when he hears this, when they say, your honor, we are unable to reach a verdict.
	He then issues what is called an Allen charge or a shotgun charge.
	I want you to go back and really try.
	Come on, folks.
	Give it your college best.
	Come on!
	And they send it back again.
	And the jury says, I thought I told you the first time.
	We can't make up our mind.
	That's it.
	Have a nice day.
	Mistrial.
	And then the Mershon's bride says, do we bring him up again?
	Do we maybe offer, in any other case, okay, will you plead to a misdemeanor?
	He might.
	Trump could say, sure, give me a misdemeanor.
	I'll take it.
	Yeah, okay.
	Would you plead to a misdemeanor?
	Okay.
	Now, Trump may say, no, I'm not going to do that.
	I mean, he could.
	Or they may elect to drop the charges.
	They could elect to bring whatever it is.
	But it takes one juror.
	Remember, if one juror said not guilty, bullshit.
	Bullshit!
	One juror.
	So, good news is, a one juror can cause a mistrial, a hung jury.
	Number two, if he's found guilty, he's not going to go to jail.
	He's not.
	Number three, if he's convicted, and this is another one too, but let's just say, can he run for office still?
	Yes!
	If he were theoretically to be in jail, jail or prison, yes, he can run.
	Eugene V. Dubbs in whatever it was, 1900, yeah!
	You can do that.
	Nothing, nothing, nothing, nothing, nothing, nothing, nothing can prevent that.
	Okay, you got that?
	Now, let's go through this again.
	Number one, if I had to bet, I'm going to bet they're going to convict him of something.
	Absolutely.
	Something.
	Or he'll be a convicted felon.
	Number two, very good chance.
	Very good chance.
	One juror says, I'm sorry, this is a hung jury.
	Because you don't know what happens.
	You get into that jury room and they start browbeating somebody, they piss somebody off, and he says, you know what?
	Screw this.
	You don't know what these people think.
	They could say, you have wasted my time.
	Time with this.
	I hate these people.
	I hate Stormy Daniels.
	I hate Michael Cohen.
	I can't stand this judge.
	They may hate this guy.
	They may look at Trump and say, I hate Trump too, but I hate those people more.
	You have no idea.
	And that colors everything.
	And they may have been a bunch of Karen sitting back there.
	And one juror says, you know what?
	F you.
	I'm going to show you a thing or two.
	Watch this.
	I don't care.
	Nobody's going to find out who I am.
	Nobody cares.
	I don't care about this.
	Sorry.
	I swore to do my job.
	And I'm going to find him not guilty.
	F you.
	And you.
	And you.
	And no whores you rode in on.
	You got that?
	F you and rotate.
	Period.
	I hate you.
	I hate this court.
	I hate this.
	I've hated every moment of this.
	Awful, cold, dank, horrible.
	I hate everything.
	And I'm going to get you back for this.
	Because I've learned I hate.
	I can't stand that.
	You have no earthly idea.
	They consider saying, I disagree.
	Boys!
	Stormy Daniels.
	How many women just look as...
	I hate that.
	You never know what women...
	Please, don't take this the wrong way.
	Did you see the picture of Marjorie Taylor Greene?
	I turn 50!
	I'm in my bikini!
	Oh my god!
	The Stampede!
	They hate her!
	Why?
	Not because of what she said, but she said about Katie and I don't know when, I don't understand this.
	So recap.
	Recap.
	Number one, he's not going to go to jail.
	No matter what.
	He's not.
	If he's found guilty, he'll appeal, pending appeal.
	Plus, it's not a violent offense.
	It's the first time he could give a probation or something.
	So that...
	That's not it.
	They want him to be a convicted felon.
	If you're a convicted felon, do you lose the right to vote?
	Yes!
	You lose your civil rights unless you have them restored.
	You lose the right to serve as a juror or to run for office.
	In some cases, this is weird.
	Article 2 of the Constitution.
	It says specifically what you have to be.
	35 natural born citizens, 16 years, blah, blah, blah.
	So he's running.
	So don't worry about that.
	He's not going to go to jail.
	And knowing him, he probably wants to go to jail.
	He might be elevated to king.
	The worse they do to him, the more it benefits him.
	I don't know why, but it's true.
	It's true, okay?
	That's number one.
	He's not going to jail.
	Now, What about some other issues here?
	What about this?
	One of the biggest areas of reversible error.
	What does that mean?
	You're always going to find error.
	When you go to an appellate court, you say, you screwed up here, you screwed up here.
	Okay, fine.
	Michigan against Tucker, I think, was a case that said you were entitled to a fair trial, not a perfect one.
	But the issue then becomes, well, listen, if that's true.
	Was it reversible error?
	Was it so egregious?
	So problematic?
	Was it so contaminated?
	Did it so poison the verdict?
	Did it so derail?
	That's the kind of stuff we want.
	Reversible error.
	Do you know what one of the biggest examples of reversible error is?
	Believe it or not.
	Believe it or not.
	First of all, I hope it had to have been the subject of an objection because you have to object to trial to preserve the issue on appeal.
	You have to object because when you go to court, when you go to an appellate court, they say, did you object?
	No.
	Why do you object?
	First, to ask the judge to correct it.
	It's simple.
	To correct it.
	You understand it?
	Didn't you ask the judge?
	No.
	Unless it is so egregious that you don't even have to object, but it's, for the most part, 99%.
	Did you object?
	Yes.
	Number two, did the court disagree with you?
	Because if the court sustained the objection, what the hell are you here for?
	Yes.
	Judge overruled it.
	Okay, fine.
	And number three, what was the error?
	And then you fell in your money.
	The number one issue, the biggest issue, guess what it was?
	One of the biggest issues.
	I'm going to tell you.
	But only, only after we hear from this great word from our great sponsor, a man who knows a little bit about free speech, the great Mike Lindell, MyPillow.com, promo code Lionel.
	Listen.
	It's time yet again, my friends, to hail and salute our great friends at MyPillow.com.
	And if you use promo code Lionel, you'll get a free gift.
	No purchase necessary.
	And yes, I know, I know, a free gift.
	It's a tautology, so sue me.
	But first...
	Listen carefully.
	Check out their $25 extravaganza.
	Premium MyPillows.
	Queen and King.
	MyPillow 2.0.
	MyPillow bed sheets.
	The lowest price ever.
	Sandals, slides, slippers, six-piece towel sets, four-pack dish towel sets.
	Simply and absolutely unbelievable.
	So go to MyPillow.com slash Lionel.
	MyPillow.com promo code Lionel.
	Or call 800-645-4965.
	Watch how fast Mike Lindell answers the phone.
	MyPillow.com.
	Simply and absolutely the best.
	Now, my dear friends, I must say this to you.
	We have a raucous morning.
	Over 1,028 folks.
	I need 1,000 likes.
	Now, I know you're going to say, what is he talking about?
	I'm going to get to the point in a moment, but...
	What we love more than anything else, views and likes, it takes our message and it puts us into the fast lane.
	It says, okay, and I want to get people in to learn.
	I want them to say, you know, I like this guy.
	I like these people.
	Why?
	Because he's telling me the truth.
	I'm explaining the law.
	I'm not giving you this as a Trump supporter.
	I'm telling you the law.
	If it's good, if it's bad, whatever it is, I'm telling you the law.
	But I need you.
	And I need your likes.
	I need you to like this.
	I need you to stop what you're doing.
	Hit the like button.
	If you have any questions on how to do this, how to accomplish this, please ask your friends here.
	They will tell you how to do it.
	It's our lifeblood.
	It means everything to us.
	Okay.
	Now.
	Let's go back to this.
	But before we do this, let me answer this question.
	Raul says, is the jury required to justify its decision?
	No!
	Great question.
	No!
	Absolutely not.
	No!
	And by the way, Raymond Radas is our new member.
	Great question.
	No!
	The only thing a jury has to do is, upon polling the jury, At the end of the verdict, for you to say, juror number one, is this your verdict?
	Yes.
	Juror number two, is this your verdict?
	Yes.
	Why do you do this?
	The loser always polls the jury.
	If you win, you get out.
	Not guilty.
	Let's go!
	Wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait.
	Judge, prosecution then polls the jury.
	Why?
	Because the prosecution lost.
	If the defendant...
	Is acquitted.
	Prosecution lost.
	Prosecution says, poll the jury.
	Jury number one, is this your verdict?
	Yes.
	Jury number two, is this your verdict?
	Yes.
	Is this your verdict if not guilty?
	Yes.
	Jury number five, no.
	I, I, no.
	It was not guilty.
	What a minute, you mean, oh, we all have to be?
	Oh, I thought it was, oh, I thought anything short of unanimous.
	No!
	It's a harm jury.
	That happened one time.
	The jury didn't understand.
	He didn't poll the jury.
	And that's his fault.
	Now, you don't have to talk to anybody.
	You don't have to say anything.
	After you're done, you're free to write a book, do whatever you want.
	Grand juries are different.
	This is, by the way, a petit, as in P-E-T-I-T, petit versus grand, grand.
	Petit mal seizure, grand mal seizure, petty jury.
	Grand jury.
	The grand jury is the special one.
	That's the, you know, the grand jury is secret.
	It's almost prosecutorial.
	It's the theoretical buffer between the state and the sovereign.
	Now, I want you to hear something very, very carefully.
	So, let me just explain very, very, very, very clearly.
	Very important.
	Good news.
	Number one, again, he is not going to jail no matter what.
	And not going to prison.
	Jail is for misdemeanors.
	Prison is for felonies.
	Jail is where you go pending.
	It's either to be held in a misdemeanor account.
	It's to be held if you can't make bond.
	If you're felonies or prison.
	Felony is anything over a year.
	Where you're sentenced to over a year is a felony.
	That's it.
	And the only reason a felony is a felony is because the legislature says that's worth a felony.
	There's nothing magical behind it.
	You got that?
	Very important.
	Very important.
	Very critical.
	So he's not going to jail.
	He's not going to prison.
	What happens if he appeals this?
	Interesting.
	Is he still convicted?
	They're going to call him convicted felon no matter what.
	I would say, technically, there hasn't been a final adjudication yet.
	But technically speaking, you know, whatever the benefits or detriments of being called convicted, they're going to call him that because that's why this is here.
	Mershon gets his prize, so to speak, by being the only judge to convict him.
	Is that corrupt?
	No!
	No!
	We'll get to that later on.
	We'll get to that later on.
	Okay?
	So, what's the most reversible thing ever?
	Ah, Michael Cohen.
	Michael Cohen kept saying, well, you were convicted of election fraud.
	Objection!
	Overruled.
	Why?
	Because the jury thinks that because he was convicted of election fraud, and we're not sure what that is without any kind of clarifying rule as to what he was convicted of, the jury thinks that Trump must be guilty.
	Of election fraud if Michael Cohen was guilty of election fraud.
	Michael Cohen is Trump's lawyer.
	Michael Cohen is a liar and whatever it is, but that's his lawyer.
	You see, people always say, nobody's going to believe Michael Cohen.
	No, no, no.
	They could say, look what a rat criminal that President Trump is.
	Hiring Michael Cohen.
	Oh, so he was convicted of election fraud?
	And they had this over the weekend.
	Remember, it was a long time for them to think about this and ruminate and marinate this.
	Now listen carefully.
	This is one of the most important issues around.
	Oh, here we go too.
	Raul says, what is the time frame for an appeal?
	Years.
	Years.
	Except, look at Harvey Weinstein.
	Look how long it took them.
	Years!
	They might expedite it in the case of Trump, and they're not going to expedite it if they're going to overrule.
	Now, if you think this is political, oh!
	The New York Court of Appeals, oh!
	Interesting, New York is very strange in this respect.
	The trial court is called the Supreme Court, and the Supreme Court is called the Court of Appeals.
	Don't ask me why.
	Now, listen to this.
	What is this about?
	Well, let me tell you.
	And this is one of the best examples of what we're talking about right here, okay?
	Listen to me carefully.
	This is this guy, Michael Smarkanish.
	And by the way, Smarkanish is the noise and the sound a naked fat lady makes when she gets off a Naugahite chair.
	Just to let you know.
	How dare you?
	Now, I don't know when this was taken.
	I don't know what was it.
	I don't know what.
	But in the middle, there's a fellow named Bradley Smith.
	This is a fellow who is an election, federal election expert.
	Bradley Smith.
	Bradley Smith is the one of the, he's the president of this thing called the chairman and founder of the Institute for Free Speech.
	He is the nation's foremost experts on campaign finance law.
	He served as a commissioner on the Federal Election Commission, resigning as of 2005.
	So Bradley Smith, he knows his stuff.
	Okay?
	Okay.
	Now, he wanted, they wanted to bring him on to testify.
	And Mershon said, no.
	Now, I can sort of see maybe why.
	And you might say to yourself, well, why would you do that?
	Well, You can have an expert witness on for various reasons.
	For example, an expert witness can testify as to whether a police officer acted normally within the particular normally accepted rules of police behavior.
	An expert can say, no, officer, yes, he did apply the headlock, but he applied it correctly, and this is what is normal, and okay, so that's kind of an expert witness.
	An expert witness in the civil case could testify against malpractice, against whatever.
	Okay, fine.
	Fine, fine, fine, fine.
	However, here, they're asking him to come on and explain to the jury that what President Trump did, or is alleged to have done, is not campaign fraud.
	And Mershon said, wait a minute.
	This is almost like another judge, another trial.
	No.
	No.
	He can't testify.
	Is that reversible error?
	Probably not.
	But here's the thing.
	And listen carefully.
	You got this?
	You got this?
	We think, we think, one of the cases, one of the charges they're charging President Trump with, in addition to everything else, is the violation or the attempted violation or the conspiracy to violate or the attempt to violate.
	A federal election law.
	There is no state election law.
	There's a federal.
	So they're talking about, and follow me, a business records fraud.
	They're talking about, and this is important, they're talking about falsifying business records in the first degree as it applies to a federal Campaign law which does not have a state counterpart.
	This is Byzantine.
	If I were to charge Inman or Pittman or Evan or Carey or any of you wonderful people with violating the law of New York in order to avoid or to violate, say, the Mann Act, which is a federal statute, They would say, wait a minute, you can't do that.
	You can't do that.
	So the question is, is this particular case, this is what I want you to master this today.
	I want you to, and we're going to spend a lot of time on this.
	I want you to master this.
	Because this is the bottom line.
	If there is no campaign law violation at any level, everything falls.
	You can't conspire to commit something legal.
	If you and I conspire, confederate, to organize a birthday party for our grandmother, that's not against the law.
	It's not even a conspiracy.
	It's an agreement.
	It's secret.
	But it's not illegal.
	You got that?
	Okay.
	Now, let's watch this very carefully.
	The feller in the middle is this Bradley Smith, and I like him.
	And he's on this Marcana show, and the feller on the right, I think, is Jeff Sy, who was John Edwards' prosecutor.
	Remember that Riel Hunter or whatever, where he paid her, the daughter of his, the mother of his...
	Anyway, he was acquitted!
	And that's why the federal government said, that's alright, we're done with this.
	We're done.
	We're done.
	We're finished.
	We are through with this.
	Again, please, I need a thousand likes.
	That's all I'm going to say.
	That's all I'm going to say.
	I don't want to browbeat, but it's that critical.
	Okay, let us begin.
	Remember, If the enemy says this, there's something to this.
	Well, I disagree that the fundamental question here is whether or not he intended to influence the campaign.
	Now stop right there.
	Stop, stop.
	I'm sorry.
	You've got to understand there's one thing about law.
	I'm giving you a little law here.
	There's subjective and objective standards.
	What does that mean?
	Does it matter what...
	President Trump intended what he thought.
	Not really.
	Not really.
	Not really.
	Well, what's that?
	Well, that's an objective standard.
	What does that mean?
	Very quickly.
	A subjective standard is what you felt.
	Objective standard is what the reasonable person, the statute says.
	Perfect example.
	True case.
	Years ago, there was a case of robbery.
	Robbery is larceny plus a stalled.
	The element of fear is part of it.
	Were you placed in fear?
	My victim was this ex-Korean war veteran years ago.
	And he said, I wasn't in fear.
	I've been in combat.
	This punk didn't scare me.
	It doesn't matter what you thought, sir, subjectively.
	Would the reasonable person be placed in fear?
	Okay?
	So the question is simply this.
	What did President Trump do if he said, I'm going to pay off?
	I'm going to pay off Stormy Daniels so that these stupid voters won't find out about what I did and they'll vote for me.
	Is that against the law?
	No!
	It's not what you thought.
	Or if he thought, I don't think there's anything wrong with it.
	No!
	Sometimes you get into the whole thing about willful.
	I don't want to complicate this.
	But that's not the law.
	The law is simply this.
	What did you pay for?
	Is this something that is a part of the election process?
	I'm going to say this again.
	I don't want to keep repeating this, but this is what everything is all about.
	Well, I disagree that the fundamental question here is whether or not he intended to influence the campaign.
	That is the statutory language, but it has an objective component.
	And in fact, under FEC regulations and under the laws traditionally understood, He was a commissioner.
	The obligation has to arise from the campaign in order to be something that you pay with campaign expenditures.
	Listen to that carefully.
	Listen to that carefully.
	It has to be something that comes from the campaign.
	It's only something that a person running for office would do.
	It's only it's only for an expenditure that only a candidate would ever even consider.
	So, for example, if a businessman has lawsuits pending against his businesses, he thinks they're bogus.
	They have no merit.
	But he tells his company lawyer, settle these lawsuits.
	I don't want the distraction while I'm running for office.
	And I don't want people thinking that I'm a heartless tycoon.
	Pay whatever it takes.
	That doesn't convert those settlements to campaign expenditure.
	Did you hear that?
	Did you hear that?
	Let me say this again.
	If a person is running for office and he has lawsuits pending, And he says to himself, he says to his lawyers, listen, pay this.
	You know, we've got a couple of weird employees.
	Terminate them.
	Give them a severance package.
	Have them sign an NDA.
	Why?
	I don't want this hanging around.
	Could that be done necessarily?
	Of course.
	Could that be done by somebody not running for office?
	Of course.
	Could that be done by somebody who is not running for president?
	Yes.
	But opening up a campaign office can only be done by somebody who's running for office.
	What if you were to put up a billboard and you, what if Pete or Bobby or Adam or Johnny up here puts up a billboard that says, Johnny is the greatest guy in the world.
	Okay, you put that up.
	Did that affect your campaign?
	Yes.
	Can other people do that who are not running for office?
	Yes!
	You can put up a campaign...
	Yes!
	No, he may not do it, but yeah, you can put up a billboard.
	That's not only.
	Opening up a campaign office is a different story.
	What if Inman...
	What if Inman or Pittman decides, I'm going to go on and have a new, I'm going to have a toupee done and a weave and get my teeth capped and why?
	So people will vote for me.
	So people will love me.
	So people will think I'm great.
	Is that a campaign expenditure?
	No!
	Because you can do this when you don't run for office.
	So if you stoop some botana named Dusty Saddles or whatever, can you pay her off?
	Yes!
	Should you pay her off?
	It's up to you.
	Why?
	Who knows why?
	Maybe you're embarrassed.
	Maybe you don't want your wife to find out.
	Is that a campaign?
	No!
	Because people do it all the time who are not running for office.
	You see, this is the essence of it.
	They are still personal expenditures which are required to be paid personally.
	So I really think the question is, were these campaign expenditures?
	And I think most people don't think that paying hush money is a campaign expenditure.
	And if it were, then we're going to be in a situation where, for example, recently we've had about 40 congressmen or so that we've been revealed that they paid.
	Sex harassment settlements out of their office accounts.
	What we're going to start saying is that those have to be paid from campaign funds, right, rather than by the congressman personally for their sex harassment.
	That's not what campaign funds are for.
	We're inverting the law and allowing the campaign funds to be used as sort of a slush fund.
	Jeff Sy, respond.
	Now this is good.
	This guy Sy is good.
	Now he's wondering, oh shit.
	Oh shit.
	God, that's a good point.
	Because remember, this is the guy who prosecuted John Edwards.
	And that thing was a disaster!
	And again, the federal government, the Southern District wanted nothing to do with this.
	The FEC wanted nothing to do with this.
	The FBI wanted nothing to do with it.
	The DOJ wanted nothing to do with it.
	Nobody wanted anything.
	In fact, Cy Vance, who was the predecessor DA in New York, wanted nothing to do with it.
	Alvin Bragg didn't want anything until they told him, no, you're going to prosecute this.
	This case was dogshit from the beginning.
	And Cy's going to say, right now he's thinking to himself, now how do I say something without saying anything?
	How can I say nothing and make it sound good?
	He's very good at this, by the way.
	Well, you know, campaign finance law is both highly tactical on one level, but it also fundamentally goes to the core issue of what our purpose is.
	No, wait a minute.
	No, no, no, no, no, no, no.
	That doesn't go to the idea of the purpose.
	Stop it.
	No, no, no, no.
	No, you missed the point there.
	The purpose is to have transparency and to try to mitigate as much as possible the potential corruptive influence of money.
	No, that's not it at all.
	It's only to deal with issues and things.
	Money can corrupt.
	Money can corrupt the fact that I've got so much money and I can spend it legally.
	Nothing wrong with it.
	That's not the issue.
	That's not what this is about.
	See, he doesn't know what to say here.
	These things can be difficult lines to draw.
	Yes!
	Extremely difficult lines to draw, but it doesn't mean we don't try to draw a line.
	And it doesn't mean you don't prosecute somebody for this either.
	It is difficult.
	See, he can't say, this is the stupidest case.
	Mr. Sy, would you bring this charge?
	Hell no!
	He can't say that.
	And I think that's what the prosecutors do in all of these cases, including the Edwards case, including in the Cohen and potentially other cases down the line, is try to look for where there is something that is, as the law describes, the primary purpose or a purpose being for a purpose of influencing the campaign.
	No, no, no, no, no, no!
	That's not what a prosecutor does.
	Prosecutor, first of all, ask yourself, is this worth our time and effort?
	I'm going to use prosecutorial discretion.
	I'm going to apply my own particular way of looking at things, and I'm going to ask whether this makes any sense.
	I'm not going to.
	I'm not.
	I'm not going to do something because, well, there might be a technical.
	No!
	This is a witch hunt.
	This is all they've got.
	And remember, the election, let me remind you of this, this election violation, there is no New York federal election statute.
	None.
	Obviously, it's oxymoronic.
	A state, federal law?
	No!
	No, no, no.
	And even Smirconish, by the fact that he's not saying anything, he realizes this guy's right.
	Well, Jeff, I was going to say, and I'll ask you as a follow-up, What if his purpose was a little of both?
	I don't want the voters evaluating Stormy Daniels and Karen McDougal and nor do I want my wife being aware of this.
	It doesn't matter!
	Because a private citizen can say, I'm thinking about running for office.
	I want to be the head of my homeowners association.
	We're going to be meeting the parents.
	Of the young man my daughter's going to marry.
	And I don't want them to find out.
	That's legal!
	It can be done legally.
	It can be done that way.
	Remember, it's not what he is intending to do.
	Is this something that can only be done in the world of elections?
	And the answer is no!
	That's the issue.
	It was a combination of factors.
	It doesn't matter.
	Where is the president's legal defense?
	Jeff Sy.
	Well, you hit on, Michael, the horns of the dilemma right there.
	There is an issue that is to be debated.
	It was debated in the Edwards case as to whether or not under the law, for purposes of contributions and expenditures, whether or not the law says it has to be, as you said in your survey, the primary purpose, the sole purpose, or a purpose.
	Oh, and that's why the jury acquitted him.
	We're missing the point.
	As we argued in the Edwards case, what we had to show was simply a purpose.
	And to the extent there is this duality, I think it creates more difficulty for prosecutors to try to establish a case as to the point about drawing a line as to where that line is.
	Bullshit.
	Bradley, something you made reference to in the National Review piece.
	What if the president did view this as campaign-related and wanted to make it go away by the book?
	So what?
	Again, it's not subjective.
	Let me say this again.
	Please, I don't want to keep repeating.
	It doesn't matter what you thought.
	This ain't campaign.
	Just like if I said, well, we opened up an office.
	I opened up an office, a campaign office.
	I hired a campaigner.
	I don't think that's campaign related.
	So what?
	It is.
	That doesn't get you off the hook.
	Well, if that doesn't get you off the hook based upon what you thought, then why would it get you on the hook if you thought something that somebody didn't like?
	Do you see what we're saying?
	Do you see this?
	This has no, and aside from that, it has no business in state law.
	I guess he would have had to adhere to the $2,700 limitation.
	No!
	And disclose it.
	And can you imagine the hue and cry if all of a sudden you had a candidate saying, hey, I paid hush money to make this go away, and it was a campaign expenditure.
	You don't pay hush money you're going to pay.
	Trump's a billionaire.
	He can pay his own money.
	You're not going to pay it through the campaign.
	Well, had it been done that way, President Trump is not subject to the $2,700 limit himself, so he could spend his own money for it.
	There would be questions about people advancing him money and so on, but let's kind of shove that to the side.
	He could spend his own money to do this.
	It would be reported.
	But how would it be reported?
	It would probably be reported as legal fees, the same way that the Clintons reported the payments they made to their law firm to pay the British by steel to dig up dirt on Trump.
	Did you hear that?
	One more time.
	One more time.
	Let's hear that again.
	To the side.
	He could spend his own money to do this.
	It would be reported.
	But how would it be reported?
	It would probably be reported as legal fees, the same way that the Clintons reported the payments they made to their law firm to pay the British by steel to dig up dirt on Trump.
	And so I'm not sure how enlightening that would have been to anybody involved.
	And I think when we really look at the bottom line here, I mean, Jess's point is a good one, right?
	It's a tough question, but the FEC has, in its regulations, has said it has to be an obligation that arises from the campaign.
	If it would have existed anyway, it's not a campaign expenditure.
	If it would have existed anyway, in any other world, if it would have existed irrespective of this, it's not...
	For FEC purposes.
	Specifically rejected the mixed-use idea that if it primarily benefits the campaign, but also benefits the candidate personally, it counts.
	So I think that's a real problem.
	That is exactly right.
	So, recap, ladies and gentlemen.
	Recap.
	Any questions?
	Number one.
	Today.
	Closing arguments.
	Closing arguments.
	I hope they've got great jury instruction.
	Closing arguments.
	What is the difference between a closing argument and an opening statement?
	Opening statement gives the jurors a kind of a look.
	Kind of a look-see.
	I used to prefer this wonderful little reference.
	By the way, thank you for the likes.
	Come on.
	Anyway, I like this.
	When we used to put together puzzles, you would look at the top of the puzzle box and it tells you what everything is going to look like when it is put together.
	You have to know the outline before you look at the piece and say, okay, this is a...
	This is blue.
	This is obviously a sky.
	And this must be part of the tree, so it's going to be down here, right?
	Well, that's what an opening statement is.
	And you always know, you always say, the evidence will show.
	The evidence will show.
	Ladies and gentlemen...
	The evidence will show, and as the judge will instruct, what we will show, what you will find out, what you will believe, what you will notice, what you will...
	This is what we...
	Okay, and you've got to be very careful because everybody else is writing down the promises you're making.
	That's opening state, okay?
	Closing argument.
	Both sides have rested.
	That's it.
	What do you do?
	This is when you get to argue.
	Now, argue doesn't mean...
	Argue means to explain what something means.
	Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, the issue of Stormy Daniels is irrelevant because she is a two-timing floozy of questions.
	You might say to yourself, because you can impeach, do you want to believe the word of a woman who has spent almost her entire life convincing men That she finds them sexy.
	That she is enjoying herself.
	I mean, she might.
	That she is involved in this rancid, concubiscent, scabrous world of pornography.
	Do you think, do you believe, okay, I'm arguing credibility.
	Don't believe her.
	Do you believe, do not believe a word of Michael Cohen?
	He's a rat.
	He admitted, he admitted to stealing thousands, tens of thousands of dollars.
	Nobody prosecuted him.
	He's all they have.
	And they're throwing it.
	And now I'm explaining intent.
	And I'm explaining motivation.
	And I'm telling you what they're doing that's wrong.
	And why you shouldn't believe them.
	And why.
	That's argument to tell you.
	Don't listen to him.
	Listen to us.
	Don't listen to this one.
	Listen to this.
	Listen to what Mr. Costello said.
	Remember, Bradley Smith was not allowed on the stand.
	Is that a piece for or a subject of appellate review?
	Absolutely.
	Should he have been?
	That's a tough one.
	Because that almost is like, that's an expert witness that basically goes to the crux of It's like I can't put somebody on who explains to the jury why this isn't campaign fraud.
	No, no, no, no, no.
	That's what the judge instructs.
	That's what you're to find out.
	You don't have like a mini jury within this.
	So the bottom line is simply this.
	Today it's going to be, his lawyers have been superb.
	Superb.
	And you do not know unless you are in that jury.
	You don't care about what you believe.
	If you voted for the guy, if you don't like the guy, if he's a crumb bum, that doesn't mean anything.
	That doesn't mean anything to you.
	That's not what this is about.
	So, to recap, number one, if I had to guess, they're going to find him guilty of something.
	They're going to.
	Because they're going to look at the judge and say, Judge, is this a good case?
	It's a good case.
	Any reason why we shouldn't find him guilty?
	If you want, it's up to you.
	Okay.
	Well, if you think he is, fine.
	Could be as simple as that.
	I guess, maybe they don't understand it.
	I don't know.
	But there's a way they could certainly find him guilty.
	Then, of course, that would be subject to appeal later on.
	Number two.
	It's very likely at least one person will say, I'm finding I'm not guilty.
	The evidence doesn't show this.
	And you always tell the evidence.
	You never bring up Donald Trump.
	You say the evidence doesn't show.
	There's no evidence of this.
	Don't talk about him.
	It's not about him.
	It's about the evidence.
	There's no evidence of this.
	There's no evidence of this.
	They never proved this.
	This was never proved.
	So, if you have to bet on a conviction, I'm sorry, but it's the reality of this.
	But don't be surprised.
	Don't be surprised if they say, ah, not guilty.
	At least one person.
	And then it's a hung jury.
	It's less than unanimous.
	It's a mistrial.
	And then the prosecutor says, do we do this again or not?
	That's that.
	Number two, he's not going to jail.
	He's not going to go to jail.
	He's not going to go to prison.
	They're not going to do this for a variety of reasons.
	First of all, even the Democrats are going to say, no, no overkill.
	And number two, even if it was just a regular stranger, you would say, no, this is excessive.
	This is ridiculous.
	This is nuts.
	It's a nonviolent offender, first-time offender.
	No, no, no.
	No priors.
	No, no.
	Number three, appeals coming.
	And number four, the reason for this is so that they can say he is convicted.
	The reason why they say he's convicted is because they think somehow that this will give Biden a chance to say, I'm not going to debate a convicted expert.
	I mean, it's absurd, but these people have nothing.
	Also remember that, believe it or not, Michael Cohen's, not his testimony, but the referring to him as having been convicted of campaign fraud may in fact be A reversible error situation.
	So that's where that is.
	Okay?
	Good news is he's going to be re-elected and this means at this point nothing.
	Nothing.
	The case means nothing.
	Nobody cares about this case.
	Nobody cares about this case.
	Nobody.
	It's overkill.
	The average voter cannot tell the difference between this and Tish James and Judge Engeron and...
	Jack Smith and Chuck Smith and the case of Jason, they don't know.
	It's overkill.
	They all kind of blend together.
	And this one had no punch?
	Plus the gag orders.
	And don't you think for a moment that the jurors don't know what's going on?
	I've never, ever believed that jurors don't check.
	Their phones.
	Would you?
	If you were on a case of this note, you wouldn't watch the news?
	Seriously?
	Are you telling me that you say, oh, I never read one story about this.
	Really?
	You never heard what Trump said?
	You never heard about who showed up wearing short dresses?
	I mean, seriously.
	Come on!
	Stop it!
	Stop it.
	He's going to win.
	He's going to win.
	But he's not going to go to jail.
	He's not going to go to jail.
	And this is a great legal team.
	And every time I keep seeing those old pictures, old Joe Tacopina, where did he go?
	What happened?
	What happened with this?
	Just gone.
	And thank God Alina Habas, out of the court.
	Get these people out of the court.
	These are the lawyers.
	Good for him.
	Good for him.
	All right, dear friends, does that help you?
	I hope it does.
	Please note, please pay particular attention to what I have provided for you.
	At the top of this, Mrs. L's YouTube channel.
	I've linked this, I've appended this.
	Follow it immediately for the best coverage.
	Regarding the most important issues that are affecting children, children's safety, human trafficking, and child predation, bar none.
	All right, my friends.
	Have we enjoyed this?
	Do you feel smarter?
	Do you feel like, oh, okay, I've got a better idea for this?
	Don't expect it because, listen, if you say to yourself, but I don't know why they're bothering, that's what we're saying too.
	Don't necessarily think.
	Don't necessarily think that everything is groovy because we still have problems that are beyond belief.
	Remember this, how fake things are.
	This has nothing to do with the case, but I came upon this one.
	Remember this story years ago?
	Do you remember this?
	This was Hillary Clinton.
	Remember this?
	Hillary Clinton, this was on September the 11th.
	This is where she lost her shoe.
	Look at how bad she was.
	What was she drunk?
	She fell.
	They threw her in the back of this ambulette.
	Remember that one?
	Wasn't that something?
	Didn't that just make you say, dear God?
	And you know something is bad.
	Let me just leave you with this.
	This has nothing to do with this, but I just think it's fantastic.
	Johnny Carson was famous.
	Famous for...
	Not really getting involved in partisan politics.
	But when Johnny Carson did speak about you, it means that the joke was so obvious, he had to do it.
	Remember this one?
	On the political scene, one of the Democratic candidates is Senator Joseph Biden.
	Have you seen the problem he's been having?
	He went around and made a speech.
	And apparently, he quoted a, I think it was a British politician, took his speech and kind of paraphrased it as his own.
	Stole it.
	And then the press got on him.
	And then he was charged also with taking part of Bobby Kennedy's speeches.
	Stole it.
	And Biden says, not to worry.
	He reassured his staff.
	He said, we have nothing to fear but fear itself.
	And there you have it.
	And there you have it.
	All right, dear friends.
	Have a wonderful and a great day.
	We will see you tonight at 7 p.m.
	Make sure you are subscribed, subscribed, subscribed.
	Thank you for letting me into your heart, into your day today.
	Thank you for this.
	And thank you, more importantly, so far we accumulated 848 likes.
	Not exactly the 1,000, but listen, I thank you.
	I thank you for your tribute and your loyalty.
	Have a great and glorious day, dear friends.
	And until we meet again, remember this.
	The monkey's dead.
	The show's over.
	Sue you.

▲