All Episodes
Previous Next
May 21, 2024 - Human Events Daily - Jack Posobiec
50:47
DEFENSE RESTS AS COHEN THE RAT GETS CAUGHT IN HIS OWN TRAP

Here’s your Daily dose of Human Events with @JackPosobiecSave up to 65% on MyPillow products by going to https://www.MyPillow.com/POSO and use code POSOGo to https://www.BlackoutCoffee.com/POSO and use promo code POSO20 for 20% OFF your first order.The Wellness Company’s Medical Emergency kit is what you need to be prepared. To order, just go to https://www.TWC.HEALTH/POSO and enter PROMO code POSO for 10% off. Support the Show.

| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Hey folks, I want to remind you that the Turning Point Action People's Conference is coming up this June 14th to 16th in Detroit, Michigan.
Get your tickets and then go to unhumansbook.com to come to a special meet and greet for the launch party of The Unhumans Book with myself and Joshua Lysak.
I'll see you there in Detroit!
This is what happens when the fourth turning meets fifth generation warfare.
A commentator, international social media sensation, and former Navy intelligence veteran.
This is Human Events with your host, Jack Posobiec.
Deliver us from evil!
It's clear.
The President wants to do all he can to ensure civilian protection.
What's happening is not genocide.
We reject that.
The president also condemning the International Criminal Court after prosecutors announced they're seeking the arrest of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Israel's defense minister on allegations of war crimes in Gaza.
When the cameras went back on in the overflow room, the face that Bob Costello was giving was a markedly different one.
It was like a combination of embarrassed and angry.
And then Mershon, by contrast, leaning back in his seat, looking at Costello like this, knowing I have regained control over my courtroom.
He is a threat to the rule of law in America.
That's, to me, that's what this election is about.
Not about policy differences, it's about what kind of country are we going to be.
If he has the ability, smarter than he was last time, to use the power of the Department of Justice and the FBI to target his enemies especially, the rule of law in America will change in a way we haven't seen in our lifetime.
First thing he would do is he would express it in his first term as a wish.
I want people to go after so-and-so.
I want people to go after Andrew McCabe, the former deputy director of the FBI.
In his second term, he would go a step further, I'm highly confident, and say, I want him criminally investigated.
And he would have, he was close to the bottom of the barrel in his appointees last time.
He'll be at the very bottom.
And those are the people who carry out that order.
Do they not see that this guy is promising?
He's promising to be an authoritarian.
He's talking about, you know, getting elected again after 2024.
It's like, we know who Trump is.
This isn't about Trump.
This isn't about Trump.
This is about those people who are deciding instead of choosing democracy, American democracy, they're going to choose democracy.
Ladies and gentlemen, welcome aboard today's edition of Human Events Daily.
We are live from Washington, D.C.
My name is Jack Posobiec and today is May 21st, 2024.
Anno Domini.
It's my father's birthday.
Happy birthday, Dad.
You know, I just saw that clip from James Comey there saying Donald Trump will fundamentally change the rule of law in this country.
I pray to God that he does because we need to restore the rule of law in this country.
The great Andrew Giuliani joins us now.
Andrew, your Twitter feed, complete fire.
Your coverage has been amazing this entire time.
Tell me, what are the latest updates for us?
Where are we with this case?
Sure, Jack.
I just want to make one more comment on He said in that MSNBC clip that he wants to use the Department of Justice against his enemies.
Can I remind all your viewers out there who one of the assistant district attorneys is?
There's a guy named Matthew Colancholo.
You know who Matthew Colancholo is?
He was the number three guy in the Biden Justice Department, and he decided to take a demotion, unprecedented in United States legal history, to go and become a district attorney, an assistant district attorney here in Manhattan, so that way he could try who?
Joe Biden's top opponent, Donald J. Trump.
And it's so obvious.
It's so obvious what's on it.
No, to restore the rule of law, it's very simple.
There needs to be reciprocity against the people that have committed these treasonous acts, who have committed this violation of the civil rights of every American.
To have an uninterfered with or a fair election, just to have a fair and regular election.
But no, we can't have that because of, and the same way that they interfered with the first administration of Donald Trump.
Some of us would say that maybe that constitutionally would say that that term doesn't even count because of the interference by the Department of Justice.
Just throwing that out there.
Just throwing it out there.
FDR had four terms after all.
But Andrew, give us the latest.
Give us the latest from the court.
We're going to blow this break, by the way, folks.
So appreciate Real America's Voice for letting us do that because this is so important.
And I know we only have you for so much time.
Yeah, well, Jack, look, I think one of the biggest things to come out of today happened right as the defense rested their case.
They caught Michael Cohen.
In another perjury trap.
Let me explain.
So earlier yesterday, I should say going back to last week, Michael Cohen characterized the relationship between him and Costello just as a legal advisor who was basically pursuing Cohen.
Costello was pursuing Cohen for Cohen's business.
He said that on the stand time and time again.
Yesterday, the assistant district attorneys, the Soros funded district attorney's office, asked Costello about an email that Costello's son sent to Costello saying, so proud to have you on the team.
And what they were characterizing it as was that Costello was basically seeking the fame of representing Cohen, who was at the time the personal attorney to the President of the United States, saying that Costello had nefarious reasons for actually doing that.
What Emile Vauvet, President Trump's defense attorney, actually exposed at the very, very end of his questioning was that that was not an original comment from Costello's son.
That was in quotes, and who were they quoting?
Michael Cohen.
Again, connecting the dots, Michael Cohen says, I'm so happy to have you on the team.
It's an honor to have you on the team.
And what did Michael Cohen say just a few short days ago after he swore his hand on the Bible there, the other two in the state of New York, that Costello was never his lawyer?
Again, such an honor to have you on the team.
Saying he was never his lawyer.
Cohen perjured himself again at the very, very end of the defense's case.
And the defense rested.
And Jack, I gotta tell you, I can't imagine a witness that would be worse that I've ever seen in my life.
than Michael Cohen.
Michael Cohen is not just a serial liar.
He's not just a perjurer to the U.S.
Congress.
He's not just a convicted felon, but he just almost doesn't know how to stop lying.
And you can see that.
And Todd Blanch did a great job of laying that out for the jury.
To me, Jack, it's unconscionable, unconscionable that the judge allows this to go to a jury.
But again, we're talking about a judge whose daughter is profiting Andrew, I'm being told that President Trump is coming out.
He's making a statement right now.
We're going to go to that live.
The case was put on.
There is no crime.
Andrew, the president, where I'm being told that President Trump is coming out.
He's making a statement right now.
We're going to go to that live.
The case was put on.
There is no crime.
In fact, I just got almost every review that's been done of the case so far.
As they say, there is no crime.
This here has never been brought.
It should be dismissed before you even have a verdict, but we have a judge that's extremely, let's say complicated, but let's also say conflicted.
He's complicated and conflicted.
And it's a very strange situation.
Nobody's ever seen anything quite like it.
But we have a situation where we have no crime.
And this next couple of hours is very important because the judge can try and manufacture one where he goes from a misdemeanor, which doesn't exist because of the statute of limitations.
It doesn't exist, absolutely.
And they try to bring it into a felony, but he can't do it because they haven't been able to prove it.
And you see what's happened there with the border.
Remember, I'm gagged.
I'm not allowed to say what I'd like to really say.
You'd be very impressed.
But I'm ganged, so why would I take the chance?
We do want to defend our Constitution, so at some point maybe I will take the chance.
It's a very serious situation when a Republican nominee for President, the Republican nominee, somebody that won easily and quickly in record time, gets, number one, gagged, and number two is before a Democrat-appointed judge, and you're playing with fire like this.
It's very sad.
Not proven a case.
There is no crime.
Now, you're going to read all of these experts, and you know the ones that have to go over their names again, but all experts.
Legal scholars, talented people, very smart people.
And there is no crime.
So maybe they'll try and devise one right now, the judge.
He'll help them out, because the judge has been very helpful to the other side.
And that should never be.
That should never be in our country.
Now, on another note, Biden is releasing 1 million barrels of oil from the Northeast Reserve at a bid to lower prices at the pump just before the election because he's unable to drill properly.
And so he's destroyed everything we had.
We were energy independent.
We were shortly going to be energy dominant.
And now he has to go into what's called the strategic reserves to give oil And gasoline, essentially, for cars, so they don't have to go up to $7, $8, $9 a barrel.
By the way, if he ever got in again, you're — you would be paying more than $10 a barrel.
You better hope he doesn't get elected, though, to drive cars.
And, by the way — and everybody else in our country.
So, this is a big story.
It just came out.
He's releasing 1 million barrels of oil.
And the Strategic Reserves — he's been doing this to keep the prices Down, but the prices are now higher than they've been in a long time.
They're very high.
And so he's trying to stop that because high gasoline prices are not good for elections, if you're on his side of it.
But nothing he's done has been good for elections.
Everything he's done has been very bad for our country.
And the border, I don't know if you've seen, but the border, record numbers of people from prisons, from jails, from mental institutions, parrots, record numbers of people are pouring into our country.
Numbers like we've never seen before are pouring in.
We have an incompetent president and we have to win.
And as I've said, November 5th, the most important day in the history of our country.
Thank you very much, everybody.
Sir, why did you decide against testifying in your case?
Did you not want to take a stand?
Are you nervous having a picture?
All right, Andrew, I want to get your response there, take on what the President has said, and also basically your read, I guess, on the fact that the jury does now have this case in their hands.
We know it's only been about an hour or so so far since they have begun deliberations, and we'll see.
We'll see if it's a quick jury.
I think that would be a quick conviction, but if it gets dragged out for a few more days, I think that could really lead to potentially some different outcomes.
What's your take?
Well, Jack, a hard worker like yourself would think that actually they would start going on deliberations soon, but what this judge has done is he's given them off for the rest of the week and summations actually won't happen until next Tuesday, at which point the jury will come back.
That's New York State taxpayer dollars at your work.
I'm sorry, I'm not even familiar with that.
That's ridiculous.
They've rested their cases.
They're taking time off as opposed to actually going into deliberations and deciding this case.
I'm sorry, we only have the fate of Western civilization hanging in the balance.
No big deal.
That's exactly right.
And look, they're trying to just make sure that Donald Trump, as he said before, a gagged president right there, to use his terminology, I think it's brilliant what he does right there, Jack, when he starts talking about oil prices, when he does actually start talking about campaign issues.
Because guess what?
If the Soros-funded district attorney is not going to allow him to go on the campaign trail, he's going to bring the campaign trail to him.
And the Biden team is seeing just how much Trump is rising in the polls because Even those people, maybe, that didn't vote for President Trump in 2020, maybe they didn't love President Trump, they're seeing just how slippery a slope this is if you start going after, as James Comey said, political opponents.
A very, very slippery slope in this country if you do that.
And that's exactly what the Soros District Attorney, in conjunction with the Biden Justice Department, is doing to the 45th President of the United States and the leading candidate to become the 47th President of the United States, Donald J. Trump.
Andrew, while we have you, last question.
So juries got this very strange break as opposed to actually going to deliberations.
Here's my question though.
You've been in the courtroom, you've been sizing them up.
We know that while the content of the case takes place between where the judge is, the witness box, the defense table, et cetera, the judges of the case are actually sitting over in the jury box.
Yeah, I think David's right.
They have very good poker face, to be perfectly honest, Jack.
I've been looking over there at some of the salacious testimony.
is standing in this case. - Yeah, I think David's right.
They have very good poker face, to be perfectly honest, Jack.
I've been looking over there at some of the salacious testimony Stormy Daniels gave when Cohen perjured himself the first time, not the second time, with regards to the 96-second phone call.
It's very, very tough to get a read, but I'll just point out here to everybody who's watching your show and your incredible audience that you have worldwide, Everything the prosecution has presented, all the documents, all the witnesses, it's all based off the word of Michael Cohen.
There's nothing that connects the president to, as the president said, anything without Michael Cohen.
And they got Michael Cohen to perjure himself on the stand just twice in the last couple of days.
So if you have an unbiased arbiter in there, in the jury, there's no way.
The only thing that scares me, Jack, is we're talking about Manhattan.
86% voted for Joe Biden.
79% voted for Alvin Bragg on a bail reform platform.
So that's the only thing that scares me in looking at all this.
But if they're unbiased, they acquit Donald Trump.
That's it.
Now that being said, acquittal, hung jury, certainly also if they can't get to that 12 unanimous consent for a guilty verdict.
That said, even if those goes to a guilty verdict, we've seen other high profile cases overturned in this very same circuit.
We've seen multiple times where cases including high profile individuals, Harvey Weinstein's case was just overturned in this circuit.
So is there a possibility that you can see based on Errors made in the case, particularly the conduct of the judge, that this could be overturned.
Yeah, I think so.
And I think the Trump defense team has had that as a contingency plan the whole way.
You can see in some of the motions that they end up presenting to the judge to get on the record before the jury ends up getting there.
So that way, in case you have a biased jury that has already predetermined Donald Trump's guilt, even though there's been no crime that's been actually presented, that the Trump team has the opportunity to go and file for guilt.
I think it's very strong, Jack, to be perfectly honest.
Well, this is absolutely incredible because you have a situation here where we know that this is a case that should have been dropped, that this is a case that at this point is completely ridiculous.
And this judge, he seems determined to push it forward at any cost, even knowing, knowing that he faces the risk.
And I hate to say, I hate to be the guy to throw out there that in New York City, a judge may have been given some kind of offer to keep a case going forward.
But it's very, I will put it this way, it beggars belief that both Donald Trump and Steve Bannon would have the same judge randomly selected because bear in mind, folks, this is the same Judge Womershon that Steve Bannon has to go up against because Letitia James has charged this is the same Judge Womershon that Steve Bannon has to go up against because Letitia James has charged him again in this We Build the Wall situation that Andrew, it's just kind of funny how that works.
You get the same exact judge as Donald Trump, even though it's random selection.
Yeah, it's like the judge in the D.C.
courts, Barrett, right?
Not Amy Comey Barrett, but Barrett in the D.C.
courts.
Oh, we love her.
I love her so much.
I've been in court with her many times.
Well, she doesn't love you, Jack, and she sure as heck doesn't love me.
I think that's a really good example right there of somebody who basically has, look, Just lay it out in terms of what Merchant and his daughter, how his daughter makes a living.
His daughter's, we're not talking about even a $100,000 a year job.
Her company's made $93 million off the back of, get this, Adam Schiff.
Kamala Harris, Joe Biden, Cory Booker.
These are all people that have basically said Donald Trump is the devil in a certain kind of way.
So you know he comes into this case completely biased.
And they're making money off the case the same way that Michael Cohen is.
By the way, that's Amy Berman Jackson.
I just realized I called myself Amy Berman Jackson, not Amy Coney Barrett from the Supreme Court.
Amy Berman Jackson, similar name.
But yes, Amy Berman Jackson is the one that we're speaking of.
Andrew Giuliani, a minute left.
Where can people follow you and what should they be paying attention to as we wait for justice in this case?
I guess enjoy your Memorial Day weekend.
It's been a long week, I guess, for the judge and the jury here.
But at Andrew H. Giuliani, once we pick up again, I'll be live-exing, we'll be live-truthing it all out there, Jack.
And look, they should look, obviously, at the summations.
I think the Trump team will give a very, very strong summation about Cohen perjuring himself.
Also, on top of that, The fact that there still is no underlying felony here that the prosecution has pointed out.
It's kind of amazing that we've still gotten to this point where we're at summations and there's still no underlying felony, but that's what you could be looking for with two-year jails.
That's what they say.
Justice delayed is justice denied.
Justice delayed is justice denied.
Thank you, Andrew Giuliani.
God bless.
And seriously, just go follow him on Twitter.
One of the hottest ex-accounts out there right now.
We'll be right back with Will Chamberlain to dig into the guts of this case.
Ladies and gentlemen, one of the best ways that you can support us here at Human Events and the work that we do is subscribing to us on our Rumble channel.
Make sure you're subscribed, you hit the notifications, so you'll never miss a clip, you'll never miss a new live episode, and we're putting them out every single day of the week.
Influences, these are influences, and they're friends of mine.
Jack Przellink.
Where's Jack?
Jack.
He's got a great job.
Alright folks, we're back.
Jack Persovic, Human Events Daily, Washington, D.C.
When the next medical crisis strikes, you want to be confident that you can protect your family and be prepared.
Well, whether it's another pandemic or something, closer to home preparedness is no longer an option.
It's a necessity.
So the Wellness Company comes in.
From something innocent and natural like a tick bite to COVID to the next bioweapon manufactured in a lab, the Wellness Company's Medical Emergency Kit is what you need to be prepared.
It contains life-saving medications like ivermectin, emergency antibiotics, Z-Pak, and so much more, as well as a guidebook to aid in the safe use of these life-saving medications.
The wellness company and their doctors, including Dr. Peter McCullough, Dr. James Thorke, Dr. Harvey Reich, yes, Dr. Drew, and also Dr. Robert Sieck, and more, are medical professionals you can trust, so rest assured knowing you're ready for whatever the globalists throw at us next.
To order, just go to TWC.Health.Poso.
That's TWC.Health.Poso.
Enter promo code POSO for 10% off the wellness company and their licensed doctors, medical professionals you can trust, and their medical emergency kits are the gold standard to keeping you safe.
Again, that's TWC.Health.Poso.
Chromacode POSO for 10% off.
See the site for details.
Prescription may be required.
Now, I want to get into some of the nuts and bolts of this case, the jury instructions, because as always is, folks, as it always is, the devil is in the details.
The devil is in the details.
And someone who understands the details is Will Chamberlain from A3P Action.
That's the Article 3 Project.
Everybody knows Mike Davis.
Well, they've launched A3P Action.
Will, tell us how people can get involved with A3P Action.
So, yeah, if you sign up on this website and you go to this portal, basically it'll give you the opportunity to email your congressman with like a click or two and talk to them about what, you know, basically complain about something that they're doing wrong and join one of our campaigns.
So, you know, be it wanting to say something about what's the horrible offer against President Trump or any number of other issues.
It makes it very, very easy to engage with your Congress people.
And that's really important because what Congress people ultimately pay attention to, I am reliably informed, is do their constituents have a complaint about what they specifically are doing.
They're worried about votes and that has as much impact as anything.
So, it's a really unique and very good setup for you guys to be able to take action and really get Congress to pay attention to what you're doing.
And that's incredible.
So, people go, A3P Action, and they can check out this portal.
They can do everything.
Everyone knows Mike Davis is always out there leading the fight.
He's banging the drum.
He's the hammer.
This is how people can get involved in the very same fight.
Look, we talk about this in my book as well.
We say, in UnHumans, what is the best way to get back at the left, or the regime, or whatever word you want to use for it.
Yes.
Because unilateral disarmament is a good way to lose and lose repeatedly, right?
small role in reintroducing this word as well to the lexicon the word is reciprocity well why is reciprocity so important because unilateral disarmament is a good way to lose and lose repeatedly right like you know this is this is something that you know you go to evolutionary biology and you look at how you know birds behave you see this behavior they they They are willing to open with cooperation, but once their partner defects against them, they start defecting too.
They don't allow themselves to be exploited.
And, you know, this phenomenon replicates itself not just in, you know, evolutionary biology, but in social dynamics, you name it.
You shouldn't let yourself get exploited.
And yet we have many conservatives who say you should always just turn the other cheek, even when other people are behaving badly.
And particularly one of the things that always irritates me is when Republicans say, oh, we shouldn't do this thing because it'll set a bad precedent.
And they're surprised that Democrats do an unprecedented thing when they have power.
Like, no kidding!
You shouldn't worry about what precedent you're setting for Democrats because Democrats don't care about precedent when they're deciding what to do.
Well, and in that same vein, Will, as we talk about Democrats not caring about precedent, so the Democrats, about a year and change ago, decided to cross the Rubicon and indict the former president of the United States, and not just one, but four times.
And specifically, the very first one was this case, which we are now seeing displayed before us, which, and keep in mind, this is a trial, and you understand this better than me, Willis, Georgetown Law,
everyone, but a trial is supposed to be, as everyone, but a trial is supposed to be, as the general popular understanding of it is, is that an investigation has been done, a crime has been uncovered, and this is supposed to be the presentation of that crime to the public.
This is the prosecution.
That is why the burden is on the prosecution, not on the defense, because the burden of proof is on those who are presenting the crime before the public.
The public, represented by the jury, is then supposed to determine the guilt of the accused.
This is the idea.
So, Will, we've crossed the Rubicon.
We've thrown precedent completely out the window on this one.
And I say we.
I certainly don't mean we.
I mean the unhumans that are behind this process.
How have they done?
How has the presentation been?
This must be totally locked down if they're willing to, for the first time in American history, indict a former president.
I mean, they must have had him pretty ironclad to rights.
Am I right?
No, this trial has not gone well for the Democrats.
And to the point that even if they somehow manage to nail a jury of 12 absolute Trump haters and the guy's going to get convicted, it's going to be seen as illegitimate by the broader public.
The basic problem is that they chose a very complicated and convoluted legal theory to avoid a very obvious statute of limitations problem.
And then in doing so, they needed to rely on Michael Cohen, a convicted perjurer and disbarred attorney, And his credibility in order to get Trump convicted.
So that's just two of the most obvious problems.
There are others as well.
But the thing about Michael Cohen, I've said this before, I think he's the single most despicable figure in all of the Russiagate nonsense, in all of the lawfare against President Trump in the last decade.
This is a guy who recorded his client as an attorney And then did so, and then sold, basically sold the rights to his client's confidences.
It's, I mean, as an attorney myself, it strikes at like the most fundamental thing about legal ethics, which is your, you have a duty of loyalty to your client.
You are obligated to preserve his confidence as sacrosanct.
Michael Cohen didn't just breach that duty of loyalty.
He sold out that duty of loyalty and profit off of breaching that duty.
Crazy.
Well, and this is a huge thing.
I mean, in the times that I've had to deal with lawyers, or even any time when you're bringing someone into confidence, the idea is that you would not have that confidence betrayed.
Lawyers can't operate, the whole profession can't operate, if there's no level of trust between the attorney-client relationship.
And that's what we're talking about, the attorney-client privilege.
That's why it exists in the first place.
Correct.
Correct.
The idea is that when you deal with a legal system, there should be somebody on your side who can guide you through it.
And that client should be able to be honest with their lawyers to help lawyers steer them through dealing with the courts, which is usually a very, very important moment in their lives.
They're in a situation where they have to deal with the courts.
So, yeah, it's truly appalling and contemptible.
And not only that, the guys lied under oath a bazillion times.
And it looks like President Trump's lawyers caught him lying under oath yet again about this phone call that Cohen apparently made to Keith Schiller.
This is a 96 second phone call.
Apparently the phone call was, you know, Cohen testified that it was about the Stormy Daniels deal.
And in reality, it looks like it was about Cohen being mad about some 14 year old harassing him.
All he had to do, all Michael Cohen had to do was go on the stand and not lie.
All he had to do was testify to the facts and not lie.
He couldn't handle that.
He couldn't.
And this, that wasn't even under cross.
That was under direct.
That means, and, and Will, you know, you know this and, and people have talked about the prep on the case.
Okay.
That was a question that must have come up a dozen or more times.
Are you sure this is what you talked about on the call?
Are you absolutely sure this is what you talked about?
This is like the central part of your testimony.
And so I guess my question is, you know, do you think that Cohen, you know, that he told them the truth that, you know, the prosecution team, or do you think he was just lying to everybody?
I think he might have just been lying to everybody.
You've got to realize, also, he has another incentive.
We haven't talked about this yet.
The guy admitted on the stand to stealing money from the Trump Organization.
He did it offhandedly in his direct testimony, but when he was questioned about it, yeah, this is a guy who stole like $60,000 or something.
That's a more serious crime than what Trump is even charged with.
The falsification of business records is not as serious as a straightforward larceny, which is a felony outright, not something that has to be manufactured into a felony.
And normally, prosecutors are looking to convict the most serious criminal who has committed the most serious crime.
And if they want to let somebody plea out, they let somebody who's lesser involved or less culpable.
But here it's completely inverted because they're more interested in the person rather than the crime.
They're going to let Michael Cohen off of a larceny, a $60,000 theft in order to get Donald Trump, who they allege might have instructed somebody else to change something on the books.
It's really, really embarrassing.
And it's, I mean, it's just generally a part of like what's so wrong with this prosecution.
Well, and we've got two minutes until the break, but we'll come back after this and go into it at length, because I've seen so many people, and even the New York Post headline in their cover today is, well, so he stole, so he's a thief, right?
He's a thief.
Yes, it impeaches his character, sure, of course, but that's not the bigger point here.
The bigger point here isn't just that he stole from the Trump Organization in terms of overcharging for reimbursements.
It's that he was overcharging for THESE reimbursements.
He was overcharging for THESE expenses in the deal that he, the scheme, that he himself put together with Stormy Daniels.
And therefore, not only does it impeach his character, it impeaches his ability as a material witness To explain his actions and his statements, because it calls all of it into question now.
He was the one who initiated the scheme.
He was the one who initiated the payment.
And of course, Donald Trump, if involved at all, as you just said, Will, he was operating on the advice of this individual.
He was operating on the advice of this lawyer.
So, it seems to me, and this is something that CNN, a lot of people have made this point, that, you know, clearly there's a much larger crime here that's been committed by Michael Cohen.
I mean, falsification of business records, I mean, that's usually like a fine and you refile.
That's like the end of it.
There's a ton to unpack here, folks.
Will Chamberlain is with us.
We're going through it.
Article 3 Project Action, A3P Action.
Make sure you go and sign up.
Be right back.
I rolled with bloods, and them boys had a saying.
You can't be listening to all that slappy whack, trim out his alitzabam ship, nippy bam bam, like Human Events with Jack Posobiec.
Jack Posobiec here, live Human Events daily.
Folks, I gotta tell you, quick message, because we know the world's in flames.
Videnomics is a complete and total disaster, but you know what?
It will not and cannot ruin my day.
Do you know why?
Because I start my day with a bold, hot America First cup of Blackout Coffee.
This coffee is 100% Americana.
Blackout Coffee is 100% committed to conservative values, from sourcing the beans to the roasting process, customer support and shipping.
They embody true American values and accept no compromise on taste or quality.
Look, I know I said that today is my dad's birthday.
It's the big 7-0.
But I'll tell you something, Dad.
You are not getting into my Blackout Coffee stash today.
Absolutely not.
But maybe, maybe I can get you something from Blackout for your birthday.
What else can I say, Pops?
I love you.
Go to blackoutcoffee.com slash poso and use promo code POSO20 for 20% off your first order.
Summer's here, so give the gift of those close to your heart the gift of being awake, not woke, with Blackout Coffee.
That's blackoutcoffee.com slash poso, blackoutcoffee.com slash poso, promo code poso20.
Will Chamberlain is on with us from A3P Action.
Make sure you go to A3P Action and sign up.
Will, is that .com or .org?
I believe that is .org.
A-P-A-C-T-I-O-N.org.
Go and sign up.
Get a part.
Reciprocity.
Fight back.
Will, one of the questions that Producer Faz was asking over the break.
this question of dismissing the case now motion dismiss um that's something that's made it's it's every trial every criminal trial has this um when the prosecution rests before it goes to the defense side they say oh they haven't proven their case and the evidence isn't there so we're going to dismiss and um what what a lot of people have pointed out though
that in this case in this instance it seems like uh there actually is very strong grounds to do so because their own star witness perjured himself and not just perjured himself about something immaterial about multiple material elements of the case which What say you, Will Chamberlain?
Yeah, it's normally a very high bar to meet in order to get a case dismissed in the sense that you have to demonstrate that basically no reasonable juror could find that President Trump was guilty beyond reasonable doubt.
That's a high bar.
But here, you've got a way to do it, and I think actually the motion to dismiss should be granted, and here's why.
This case includes an intent element that says President Trump had to know he was both intending to defraud or to put in a false business record, but also that he was intending to commit another crime while doing so, namely some sort of election fraud crime.
And the only testimony, the only evidence of any kind that was presented by the prosecution for those intent elements was Michael Cohen's testimony about conversations Cohen had with President Trump.
The problem is Cohen admitted to perjuring himself in a stand, and so it's pretty easy to say that if the guy's willing to lie under oath, he's lied under oath in the past, and he's lied under oath during this testimony, that no reasonable juror could say, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Michael Cohen's testimony was truthful, and therefore no reasonable juror could find President Trump guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, since Cohen's testimony is the only evidence to prove one or two elements of this crime.
So here you go.
And this is a huge part of it, but we'll, I'll play devil's advocate for a second.
Um, so, all right.
What if, what about the tapes?
What about Stormy Daniels?
You yourself referenced these tapes.
What about the phone call?
What about, um, you know, the payments themselves?
Surely these are corroboration of the fact that Donald Trump was behind this attempt to cover up the false business records in order to, uh, benefit his campaign for president.
No, they're not specific enough.
Those tapes don't contain the specific discussions about how this would be recorded.
They don't contain the specific discussions about the purpose of the entire scheme being related to elections and President Trump's campaign.
And because they don't contain those specific facts, You're again relying on Cohen's testimony.
Cohen testified to those specific points.
He testified that President Trump deeply understood the nature of what would happen to the business records.
Cohen testified that President Trump was doing this for political purposes.
There's nobody else who testified that was in the room who could confirm what Cohen was saying.
So again, for that key point, the question of What was President Trump intending?
There is no other evidence at all except Cohen's testimony.
And because there's no other evidence but Cohen's testimony, if the judge says to himself, it is not reasonable to assign 100% credibility to Cohen, then it's not reasonable for any juror to find Trump guilty beyond reasonable doubt.
This is huge, and obviously this is something that could come up at appeal.
But before anything gets to appeal, it goes to the jury.
And even before it goes to the jury, there's a few other steps.
Walk us through the process as of this point.
If I understand from Andrew Giuliani, who was just on, who's been covering this case live from the courtroom.
It seems as though they've sent the jury back for, you know, kind of early for Memorial Day weekend.
Of course, there's probably going to be a few days where they go back and forth over jury instructions.
I don't believe, it sounds like they're not calling the jury back until after the Memorial Day weekend.
And if jury instructions haven't been agreed to since then, we might see another hearing on that come next Tuesday.
So, walk us through, what do jury instructions mean?
Okay, so, I mean, everybody understands that there is a criminal statute that President Trump is alleged to have violated, and this is true in any criminal trial, right?
There's a criminal statute.
Jury instructions are the process of translating that criminal statute into something that jury understands and then can be instructed as to, like, what they need to find for each element of the crime.
Um, that is itself a very trick, can be a very tricky process.
Oftentimes, basically what, what courts try to do is they try to use model jury instructions or jury instructions from previous cases that were upheld on appeal as accurate.
Um, that's a way that they avoid most of these problems, but you know, falsification of business records, this is not that commonly charged with crime.
Um, and so there's going to be some issues there.
There's also some unique distinct issues about this particular case.
terms of the intent requirement and the fact that you have this this federal election element right because an element of this crime is that president trump intended to commit a different crime in furtherance um or rather did the you know did the falsification of business records in furtherance of different crimes so there has to be jury instructions about what that other crime was and what the jury has to find in order to find that that element well and this has been real real quick
this has been a huge element of it because uh we have not really heard this from bragg or his team what specifically that underlying crime was that they were trying to cover up so So I imagine that that's going to be a key point that is argued over between both sets of lawyers.
Because of course, when that gets sent to the jury, you can't leave that up to chance.
There can't be vagaries in the jury instructions there.
That has to be a clear letter law when it's given to the jury.
Or, by the way, that's another thing that you can bring up on appeal.
Yeah, absolutely.
The failure to have an expert come in and explain the nuances of a very complicated area of federal law that the judge is not an expert in.
I mean, normally judges are loath to allow legal experts to come testify because the judge is supposed to be the expert on the law.
And it's not supposed to be a factual issue for the witnesses.
But because this is an element of the offense, right?
The intent to commit a different crime is an element of defense.
That's actually an important point.
He should have had a legal expert in.
And here's the other problem.
He excluded the legal expert.
Wait, wait, wait.
Don't bury the lead there.
That's going to be a huge question for Trump's legal team.
Are they going to push for a legal expert to come in?
Specifically because, as you point out correctly, this is a federal crime, but it's a state judge.
So it is not a crime that he would have had any direct experience with in his courtroom because it's completely out of his jurisdiction, which is also, by the way, that they were trying to get – oh, they did, okay.
And that's also why they were trying to get the FEC chair, a former FEC chair, which he, I believe, also denied because the FEC – This is exactly what I was talking about.
Oh, so that would be the legal expert.
Got it.
The FEC chair was going to be the legal expert to talk about this.
Merchant – the Trump team brought him forward and said, "Please let this guy testify.
Merchant's like, no, I'm the expert on the law.
But then here's the other thing that was such a problem.
He let Michael Cohen testify about something that Trump did and let him say it was an election law violation.
Cohen is certainly no expert on federal election law, but Merchant let that testimony through saying it was necessary for context.
It's like, give me a break.
You're not going to let the actual expert on the substantive law and the intent required come in and say what constitutes a crime in either way, but you're going to let Michael Cohen do it?
By the way, Will, we've got a quick break coming up.
Also, a breaking from the courtroom.
Just reading Jonathan Turley's feed here.
Merchant completely keeps ruling for the prosecution in terms of the jury instructions.
More on that when we come back to Human Events Daily.
Human Events Editorial Board, this case is a joke.
Ashley Kutcher is going to pop and let us tell us that we've been pumped.
Jack Pesok back live.
We've got the latest from inside the courtroom.
And guess what, folks?
And we're looking at Jonathan Turley's thread here from Twitter.
What's going on in the courtroom as we speak is exactly what Will Chamberlain was delineating in the very last segment.
They're arguing over this issue of legal experts not being provided to the jury to They're pointing out these are extremely complicated and ever-shifting, by the way, regulations from the Federal Elections Commission regarding campaign donations.
In fact, I'm reading one line here, and of course, who's arguing against all of this?
It's Matthew Colangelo, the judge, of course, ruling for the prosecution over and over and over.
And in fact, at one point it says the defense is even arguing that they should include information that points out that a candidate, and this is just, you know, standard, a candidate is allowed to donate as much money as they want to their own campaign.
And therefore, should Trump have, let's say this was actually a campaign donation, if he had wanted to, he could have just paid it himself and, you know, wouldn't have needed any criminal scheme.
But of course, the prosecutors are arguing that all of these things should be struck.
Will, I know you're looking at it right now.
What's your sense of things?
uh, Uh yeah it's my sense is that the it's very clear Merchant is putting his thumb on the scale for uh the prosecution here that's what it looks like they're just giving the prosecution what they want on the jury instructions and um that's I mean that's not surprising that's the way Merchant's been conducting himself in the entirety of the trial um the big The one big issue is the prosecution's getting up there and trying to say that there doesn't need to be intent for the unlawful means that President Trump would have used.
But that's a way to circumvent criminal law more generally, because you can't negligently violate campaign finance law.
You have to have an intent to do so.
Otherwise, it's not a crime.
So You know, it's actually quite bizarre, right?
Just reading that, just off the top of my head, I'm seeing problems already with the way that Judge Murchison is getting these jury instructions.
So walk through that again.
They're arguing that there doesn't need to be criminal intent?
For this one particular, for that small element of the case, they're saying, you know, basically, oh, if you did this via unlawful means, well, the intent, you didn't need to have the intent to use unlawful means.
It's like, well, hold on.
How do you discern whether means are unlawful?
Well, that's, that's because they're criminal.
And they're only criminal if you had criminal intent.
So there's, there's sort of a foundational problem with how they're approaching this.
And that's just what I'm reading from Jonathan Turley's feed.
I'm assuming he's accurately characterizing all this.
And by the way, Go ahead.
Oh, I was just gonna throw out there that again, They haven't even proven that Trump was willfully doing this to support his campaign primarily.
Because I remember one testimony that nobody's talking about anymore is Hope Hicks.
And people were saying this was going to be some big betrayal and she's going to come out there.
She worked for the man and now she's testifying against him.
But she came up there and she said, no, he didn't talk about the campaign at all.
And he mostly said that he was worried about how it would affect his family.
They said that he was worried about, obviously, how it would affect his relationship with his wife.
The fact that he was even, say, you know, telling people, don't, you know, deliver the newspapers to our room that day, cancelling the service and all of this.
Those don't sound like the actions of a man who's first and foremost trying to conduct some kind of illegal campaign business.
It sounds like a guy who's getting blackmailed and doesn't want his family to know about it.
Yeah, that's an obvious problem, right?
Even if you think President Trump did everything Michael Cohen alleged, if you think he did it because he was trying to protect his family and trying to avoid personal embarrassment in his marriage, then it's a not guilty because that's not the intent required for the crime that he's been charged with.
and it's it's it it's you know it's it's amazing to me that we're going to this level of having you know we've got we've got um jury instructions regarding federal election commission reports but they i don't even feel like they've proven that this was done with intent to uh you know to interfere in the election
what what was intended uh to interfere with the election or i guess to use as leverage for the election was the fact that stormy daniels and her crooked former lawyer who by the way has also now pointed out the futility of this case uh and her i guess her ex-husband who was involved in all this
They were the ones extorting money from a guy running for president, holding this thing, which of course hasn't been proven, over his head, and then you have the crooked Michael Cohen getting involved and realizing that he can rub a couple bucks out for himself in the middle.
I mean, Will, am I reading this wrong?
You're not?
And I mean, the deep irony here is, of course, they're saying President Trump is responsible for interfering in the 2016 election.
And he's responsible for their actions.
He's responsible for all of their actions.
Yeah.
And they're the ones who've indicted the guy four times in four different jurisdictions in four months.
I mean, give me a break.
Yes.
Right?
Like, what are we, you know, these people are jokers.
Originally three jurisdictions, by the way, but they moved one.
Yeah.
Because of how complicated this case is.
Because of how complicated the indictment is.
There's so many different, because of how complicated this case is, because of how complicated the indictment is, there's so many different individual things they have to prove.
And there's so many unique problems with each of the individual things they have to prove, right?
Like, you have to prove so many distinct things about President Trump's intent, that he knew, what did he know?
That he knew that there was going to be a falsification of the business records.
That he was intending to do so, not for his own personal reasons, but in furtherance of a federal election crime.
What is that federal election crime?
And what are the parameters of that federal election crime?
What does it mean to actually be guilty of it?
Because some things, as you say, you're allowed to donate as much money as you want to that campaign, When does, what exactly constitutes an illegal election donation, and what is the necessary intent for that illegal election donation?
Like, problem after problem after problem, that any jury... Wait, you can't make an illegal donation to yourself.
That's the problem.
You can't make an illegal donation to yourself, because you're paying your own campaign.
It's a transfer.
Meanwhile, there's a guy who stole $60,000 from him, and rather than charge him with his brazen theft, you're putting him on the stand!
Put him on the stand.
And as far as we know, he still has the money, or I'm sure, you know, it's gone somewhere.
We are just out of time.
Let people know where people, where they can go to, I mean, we're just having too much fun clowning on Michael Cohen.
The time has gotten away from us.
And all of these ridiculous buffoons.
Where can people go to get access?
a3paction.org.
I'm going to sign up and follow you.
Exactly.
A3PAction.org.
You can tell Congress to defund this lawfare on President Trump by supporting Representative Blythe's appropriations rider that would stop all this until— Defund it!
Defund it.
Defund Jack Smith.
Defund all of them.
Put them behind bars.
James Comey, you know what's something, Jimmy?
For once, you're right.
We are coming after you, and we're not going to stop.
You threw your best shot, and you missed.
▲
Export Selection