All Episodes
Previous Next
May 29, 2024 - Human Events Daily - Jack Posobiec
48:58
VERDICT WATCH: JUDGE ISSUES STALINIST ORDERS TO TRUMP JURY, FATE OF REPUBLIC HANGS IN BALANCE

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 POSOTo get $5000 of free silver on a qualifying purchase go https://www.protectwithposo.com with code POSO Go to https://www.BlackoutCoffee.com/POSO and use promo code POSO20 for 20% OFF your first order.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.
A peer made by the U.S. media.
military to transport humanitarian aid into Gaza has broken apart.
U.S.
officials say part of the peer became unmoored in heavy seas on Sunday.
It is unclear how long it will take to make repairs or when shipments will resume.
It is a big setback.
Pope Francis has issued a rare apology after word broke that he allegedly used an offensive and derogatory Italian slur referring to gay men, while reaffirming his position against their admission to seminaries and the priesthood.
The closing arguments from the prosecution made the Titanic seem like a short movie.
Were they effective?
What stood out to you?
Yeah, look, anything over three hours for a closing argument, I think you get diminishing returns.
And it really does undercut their argument that this is a simple case, right?
If you need more than three hours, four or five hours, how simple can it be?
The classified documents case in Florida.
A federal judge has rejected the request from special counsel Jack Smith.
He requested a gag order against Donald Trump.
I agree with the officers who showed up and with Robert De Niro, but I'm just curious about the location.
Is there any concern about the campaign getting a little bit too close to these court proceedings and could that backfire?
Any concerns?
No, there's no concern.
This campaign is not speaking about the substance of the trial in any way, shape or form.
The Democratic National Committee plans to nominate President Biden in a virtual roll call before its August convention in order to avoid any issues with ballot access.
Joy, just wondering, do you think people with Trump derangement syndrome know they have it?
You're an idiot.
And second question, did you steal Trump's haircut or did he steal yours?
Cultural appropriation haircut right there.
She didn't like that too much.
Joy Reid, everybody.
Ladies and gentlemen, welcome aboard today's edition of Human Events Daily.
I'm here in Washington, D.C.
I want to go now live to Ben Burquham for Real America's Voice.
He is on the ground outside the Trump trial.
Today is May 29th, 2024.
The Republic and our Constitution hang in the balance as the jury in this absolute Stalinistic show trial has just gone for deliberations.
Ben Burquham, you're there on the scene and I'm sorry, it seems like it's a rally down there.
Are people celebrating?
Trump's not guilty!
Trump's not guilty!
Yeah, well, they're pumped, Jack.
I mean, you can see it right here.
This is a small group.
We've had different groups up to several hundred out here.
Trump's not guilty!
Trump's not guilty!
Look at the cross section of people.
This is America.
This is the DEI the left pretends to care about.
Everything right here in New York City.
Black, white, brown, all genders, all two of them out here in support of President Trump.
The only one that's not over here is Joanne Reid.
I think she's fixing her Trump wig right now.
Ben, that was an amazing piece of journalism that you did there.
Ben, can you talk to anyone who's out there about what they feel about this trial and whether they think this is the way forward for our country, what it means?
Yep.
I'm going to come right over here.
What is your message, what do you think, from this trial, what is your message to the American people about what's happening right now?
That the trial is a charm, that we better wake up, otherwise we are going to lose this country at the hands of the Democrats and radical left that want to destroy this country from within.
And this is not about President Trump.
This is about the American people.
As he said, he's standing in between the deep state and the radical left.
And my message to the elites that support the Democrats and radical left, you must understand that the left is going after your wealth.
So it's insane that you are supporting a left wing Left-wing people who are going after themselves.
So change on them.
Trump 2024.
And this is about we the people.
It's not about President Trump.
He should be enjoying his life.
He should be travelling, spending time with his family.
And he's going through all this nonsense because of we the people.
So Trump 2024.
You better wake up before we lose the USA.
The land of opportunities.
Amen, amen.
Okay, quick question.
No matter what happens, no matter what happens in that courtroom, does that change your opinion at all about President Trump?
Absolutely not!
Absolutely not!
Was this a sham from the beginning?
Shame from the beginning.
They weaponized the government against our president.
This is election interference.
Right here.
Election interference 101.
Right here, right now, going on in New York against President Trump.
Because it's him.
It's him versus the government.
He's in between the government and the people right now.
And that's why they're doing this to him.
Thank you.
There you go, Jack.
You got it right there.
My friend Lillian.
I love you, Lillian.
God bless you.
Be like Lillian, guys.
Praying out here every single day.
Jack?
Ben, incredible work down there.
We'll come back to you.
This is huge.
The support goes nowhere.
No show trial is going to shake people's view of what's going on.
It's not justice.
It's injustice.
We'll be right back to walk through the latest.
Attorney Will Chamberlain.
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.
They talk about influences.
These are influences and they're friends of mine.
Jack, so like where's Jack?
He's got a great job.
All right, Jack, so we back live human events daily.
Folks, how do you survive a communist apocalypse?
Well, you watch Human Events Daily every day, you follow Jack Pasovic on X, you pre-order Unhumans, but there's one thing you're forgetting that could make the biggest difference in your future and your family's financial future, and that's checking out today's episode sponsor, Allegiance Gold.
Since 2020, Bidenomics has obliterated the American economy.
Imagine what four more years will do to interest rates, debt, and labor disputes.
You need something stable so you can take a breath.
And note that the money you earn and the retirement you work for is safe.
You have to proactively protect your assets so that when the supply chains get rocked and Biden decides to print a few more trillion dollar bills, it won't impact your family's bottom line.
And the only way to do that is with one true beacon of stability that so many patriots use to preserve their wealth and that, my friends, is gold.
Over the last five years, it's almost doubled in value and the way things are looking, the sky is the limit.
Allegiance Gold has done things the right way from the beginning, so it's no coincidence that they've earned the highest trust rating in the precious metals industry, five stars with TrustLink, and an A-plus with the Better Business Bureau.
Allegiance Gold can help protect your IRA or 401k with physical gold and silver, or have it delivered securely to your doorstep.
Get up to $5,000 in free silver on a qualifying purchase when you go to ProtectWithPosso.com or call 844-577-POSSO.
Don't risk your financial future betting against these forces.
Act today!
ProtectWithPosso.com.
That's ProtectWithPosso.com or call 844-577-POSO.
Now the jury has just left the courtroom.
They've gone back for deliberations.
There's been some questions.
There's been some information.
I want to play though for you CNN's response to the judge's last words, the jury instructions to them before they broke.
Here's that clip.
The jury must be overwhelmed.
I mean, to have all of these instructions just read to them without them getting a copy is going to be overwhelming for them.
And also, it's crazy that the lawyers were not able to discuss the instructions in their closings yesterday.
Typically, lawyers can go through the instructions and explain why they've met them or why the government hasn't met them, and they weren't able to do that yesterday, which I find bizarre.
I think the lawyers should have been able to do that because because the jurors right now must be wondering, what is this all about?
Jack Posobiec, we are back live.
I want to bring on attorney Will Chamberlain with the Article 3 project.
Will, walk me through these jury instructions specifically.
And guys, do we have that tweet that Jonathan Turley put up regarding this question of there's always been this doubt about what is the underlying crime that makes all these things a felony?
So, Will, if you could, and we're going to pull that tweet up, but if you could explain to us why the underlying crime is so important and also this confusion over what that underlying crime is and should the jury agree on what the underlying crime is?
So, the charge in this case is falsification of business records.
A New York law that's normally a misdemeanor.
To make this a felony, it has to be in the first degree, meaning that it's in service of another crime, in furtherance of another crime.
And so the question is, what is that other crime?
From the outset, Trump's legal team and many legal observers have said that there needs to be specificity about what that crime is.
It needs to be proven in court.
And there needs to be unanimity as to what that crime is.
But Bragg and Justice Merchant have said, no, actually, there doesn't need to be unanimity.
We don't need to tell you what the crime is till the very end.
And even if the jurors don't agree on which crime this was in furtherance of, if they all agree that there was a crime that this was in furtherance of, then that's sufficient unanimity to find President Trump guilty.
And in particular, there's one...
Go ahead.
And just a quick question.
When you say unanimity, what you're saying is the jury has to agree to the charges.
The jury, all 12 members of the jury and everyone who's watched like any movie about a jury or for people who haven't served on one.
It's pretty, pretty common knowledge that for the jury to find someone guilty, by the way, way, or to acquit, they all have to agree on each section.
Now, each charge, you could come down differently on that.
Each element of the crime.
We all understand that.
Each element of the, thank you, each element of the crime.
But the idea that there's something that they don't have to agree on sounds a little bit different than what we're used to.
Yes, it is, especially when it comes to the elements of the crime.
It's, I think it's a very, very clear due process violation.
Thank you.
Thank you As a result, I mean, it seems pretty obvious that he's just hoping to help Biden win with a conviction, even if that conviction can't stand up on appeal.
So the idea then is so let's say, OK, devil's advocate, let's say Trump's found guilty on all or some of the charges.
What kind of time frame would he be looking at for a for overturning that on appeal?
Well, I mean, I think It can, it depends, right?
Like, sometimes you can, you, I mean, obviously, I mean, that's a very lawyer answer, right?
It depends, but I'm not familiar with New York procedure, but just, you know, from, from what it looks like in the federal court system, you know, you can always, you can ask for an injunction to stop enforcement.
Usually you have to make a pretty strong showing that that the, I'm sure that in the event of a conviction here that President Trump's legal team will do that.
They'll try to basically stay any, you know, attempt to enforce the verdict and for, you know, put Trump in jail.
I don't think, I saw some mixed, you know, I've seen mixed things because on the one hand, the level of felony this is, I think under New York law, it is in fact required jail term.
But I've seen people on Twitter saying the opposite.
And I'm not really sure.
I can't say that I have done enough detailed research to know what the potential penalty is here.
But I know, I mean, if they've raised this up to a felony, I think that I would be surprised, I guess, if jail time wasn't a possibility.
And this is what we were talking about yesterday when the news broke out of CBS that the Secret Service has met with local jail officials in New York to discuss that very, um, I mean, I mean, can we step back for a second here and say, this is what we've crossed the Rubicon for.
The Secret Service is holding meetings with the, with local jail officials on what the circumstances of the incarceration of a former president who is entitled to lifetime secret service protection would be.
So what are the, are the prison officers then protecting the secret service officers?
How does this work?
You know, uh, over, over something where the judge has told the jury incorrectly that they don't even need to agree on what the underlying crime is.
Yeah, it's an, it's, I mean, it's really shocking that, and it turns the New York legal system into into a joke, which turns the American legal system into a joke.
It's a shameful episode, a stain on our country's history, honestly, and it's certainly a stain on everybody in the New York office who's involved with this.
Hopefully one day we'll get accountability.
I think that it's challenging, obviously, but JD Vance had a pretty good criminal referral to talk about the fact that there's been effectively a conspiracy against President Trump's rights as a result of all this.
The combination of You know, a malicious, unlawful prosecution, unlawful orders throughout, an unlawful gag order, and all done to interfere in a presidential election.
It's really appalling.
And it's something, by the way, I've said that very same, since we're going to be applying that to basically everyone now, that's the same thing they've gone after Trump for, they're going after Doug Mackey for this, etc.
I would certainly apply that same charge to pretty much any NGO or even government official who is facilitating the importation of illegal aliens into this country.
It's a conspiracy against all our rights.
Obviously, obviously it is.
And if we're just going to be interpreting whatever we want into that, then fine, fine.
Conspiracy against rights.
Yeah, I mean, I think you have the right attitude, which is, I mean, this is obviously a very vague statute and in a perfect world wouldn't exist, but in a world where the Democrats are going to wield the statute unilaterally as a weapon, well, I'm not for unilateral disarmament.
And what's been done to President Trump and been done to Republican voters everywhere, effectively, by trying to deprive us of our choice, not just here, but think of all the Colorado case where they were trying to kick Trump off the ballot via unlawful means.
All that should be seen as conspiracy against rights.
And, of course, we're looking at this.
Now, we have no indication.
This is, of course, you know, it reminds me of when, you know, what, three, yeah, about maybe two and a half years ago when we saw the last criminal trial that we watched in the political world with probably this level of detail was the Kyle Rittenhouse trial.
And when that jury goes, you know, Will, just two minutes until the break, but, you know, is there anything you can do at this point once the jury goes behind those doors?
It's up to the jury.
You know, I've had people ask me, like, how long will this take?
And the answer is, I don't know, man.
It'll take as long as it takes.
It'll take as long as... Do the juries agree?
If the jurors agree, this doesn't take very long.
If the jurors don't agree, then this can take a really long time.
And so the only people who have a good idea of how long this is going to take are in that jury room.
And so, you know, who knows?
We may get a... They may come out.
They might acquit him.
They might convict him.
I mean, we just... They haven't spoken.
We don't talk to these people.
We don't know what they think.
And gosh, if you're talking about a case where the actual underlying facts are not going to be nearly as predictive of the ultimate result, I mean, this is the one.
There's no more politically important criminal prosecution that probably has ever happened in our nation's history.
So, you know, the fact that politics plays such a role in these jurors' decisions and these jurors' attitudes, the fact there's so much obvious bias one way or the other.
I mean, it's not merely that there's bias against President Trump.
There's also plenty of jurors who are probably biased for President Trump.
So you really just have no idea what you're looking for here or what the end result is.
I would say just gut assessment.
If the jury comes back early, that's probably not a good sign for President Trump's team.
If they extend this out, the longer they extend, the better it gets for President Trump.
I think Kyle Rittenhouse, it was like three or four days.
They had one holdout.
They were able to flip at the very end to not guilty, and I think that's probably a situation you're gonna see.
Obviously, in a hung jury, that's something that does extend out, and that's probably their best chance right here.
Stay tuned.
We'll be right back.
Will Chamberlain, attorney for the Article 3 Project, joins us, breaking down the show trial of Donald Trump.
In the hood, I rolled with bloods, and them boys had a saying.
You can't be listening to all that slappy whack, trim out his outlets, a bam ship, nippy bam bam, like Human Events with Jack Posobiec.
All right, Jack Posobiec back live, Human Events Daily.
Folks, the world is in flames and Bidenomics is a complete and total disaster, but it cannot and will not ruin my day.
Do you know why?
It's because I start my day with a hot America first cup of blackout coffee.
This coffee is 100% America.
100% America.
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, everybody knows that my dad got to meet with President Trump over the weekend, and right afterwards he said, "Jack, I need some of that brutal awakening from Blackout Coffee." So we went over to blackoutcoffee.com/post.
We made sure to get promo code poso20 because that will give you 20% off your first order.
Look, we know summer's here, so give 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, by the way, I want to go over this idea of unanimity again.
That unanimity is something that is essential in these cases.
That the fact that the judge has just said you can have a 4-4-4 split is just something that's completely foreign, completely alien to our legal system.
Still Boneless, who's watching the show at home, Sent us or at work or you know, probably on the side of the road.
I think he lives in like a ditch somewhere That Richardson v United States 1999 The jury must be unanimous as to the series of underlying defenses in a cce prosecution but not only that the The jury must unanimously agree not only that the defendant committed some continuing series of violations But also about which specific violations make up that continuing
So again, it's just language backing up what you've been saying that the that you need.
Yeah, I mean, I don't know that it is absolutely binding on state courts, right?
Because it's a way of, it talks about that this is how we should be interpreting federal statutes.
But I think there is language in that case that talks about how the problem of if you don't have unanimity on a predicate crime, there's a due process violation.
If that language is, that language would be Should be binding.
But this is one of those areas of the law where I'm like, I need to actually read not just this case, but a few other cases to get a real handle on whether or not what the, you know, to what extent does this bind a state law, a state court?
Because obviously, like states are responsible for the interpretation of their own statutes.
And, you know, the state Supreme Court is the ultimate arbiter of that, subject to, you're not allowed to violate the federal constitution.
Right.
And so the idea is still being though, is that these ideas, look, walk me through this.
So here's something that I don't think a lot of people get in that judge Schrader in Kyle Rittenhouse's case brought this up a lot.
This whole idea of 12 people on the jury going in and requiring unanimity.
Is that just something we arbitrarily came up with at random?
Did the founding fathers sit down and pick a number out of a hat?
Or is there some long, serious tradition that this is drawing from?
I mean, this is going all the way back to the founding and the right to trial by jury is an extraordinarily basic right.
It's one of the things that Um, the Americans patriots were not happy about with the British, um, thought that was tyrannical to basically not be tried by a jury of your peers.
Instead, just be tried by the judge who became both the arbiter of both law and fact.
Um, and that people under who are criminally prosecuted ought to have the protection of a jury of their peers.
And, and also it's about, um, you know, where basically the system should err on the side of the liberty of the criminal defendant.
Um, meaning that, you know, if you can't get unanimity from a jury, if there's even one holdout, then that's not sufficient to get a conviction.
You have to get every juror to agree.
And this is huge.
You're talking about, so when I talk about the foundations of a republic, when I talk about the foundations of the system by which we define liberty, I know the libertarians and their presidential candidate might have a slightly different definition than myself, But I'm talking about the one that was instituted in 1791 under the Constitution, the current Constitution that we have, and has been litigated ever since.
It had a clear definition.
Some of these terms go all the way back to ancient Rome, some of these concepts.
Being able to face your accuser, for example.
I mean, these are not new concepts.
These are the very foundations of Western civilization.
You've been too mean to communists?
And I'm sorry, you know, and I've been asking everyone this week, Will, but I'm sure you've seen there's been some people have been very upset with me for calling these types on humans and having a very, very, very mean book title.
I've been accused of having a mean book title.
You've been too mean to communists?
Oh, no.
Yes, I'm being too mean to the communists by calling them on humans.
But that is exactly what they are doing.
Of course, they would want to chip away and undo and unravel the very founding network and makeup of our republic.
and replace it with whatever communist gobbledygook crap they can find.
That's what they always do.
That is what they do.
That is what they always do.
And if you'd like to go to unhumansbook.com, you can pre-order, uh, pre-order from, uh, myself and Joshua Lysak, but we'll talk to me a little bit about that, where it seems like this guy, Murshan, is just, it feels like he's just making it up on the fly.
Yeah, I mean, it's just a different view of the criminal justice system.
You know, most people, I think, would look at the criminal justice system as there to protect the innocent and to put away wrongdoers and to protect life, liberty and property.
But the unhumans, as you put them, I think, view the criminal justice system as a tool to wield power against their political opponents.
And in fact, they're not particularly interested at all in ensuring that No, that's not the issue.
citizen is safe on the streets and that basic crimes are are prosecuted no that's not that's not the issue the issue is how can we use the the power of the law as such to to imprison and marginalize are the people who might take power from us and a lot of this goes back
of course the end people also don't want to say there's a lot of people who want to say that america doesn't have a uh a specific founding from a specific set of people and it's just not true because it is the 12 jurors has an anglo history this is english history it goes back over 850 years of course i'm getting i'm getting the notes in now medieval england uh it goes back to the
Henry II in the 12th century, particularly with the Assize of Clarendon in 1166, which established the use of a jury in the justice system.
Because, of course, prior to that, you just went to the court's judge, and the judge would just sort of decide, and off you go.
And that's still true in many places.
The use of the jury is not something that happens everywhere.
You go to France, for instance, and if you're in a criminal prosecution in France, there's no jury.
You're just facing a judge. - Right, so you wanna mess with this stuff.
This is, you know, you're chipping away at the very bedrock.
I think actually in Japan, they have something interesting where they have a panel of judges and some of which are professional judges and then others are like citizens who act as judges.
So it's sort of a mix between juror and judge.
So you're appointed a member of the judge's panel for that trial.
It's totally not, which again, that's their system.
They're Japanese.
They want the Japanese system.
We're Americans.
We have a specific American legal and justice system that is based on our Anglo-American heritage.
And it's just a fact.
It's just a fact.
And when you start having people that come up through the ranks, and yes, this definitely gets into an immigration argument, but when you start having people come in who don't come from places that have no history of this whatsoever, it doesn't seem that important to them.
Yeah, I mean, that's also true of other aspects of due process and the First Amendment.
I mean, we think of these things, I think there's a big conceit, especially among liberals, to think of our liberties as kind of universal, when in reality they can be very particular to our system, to our heritage.
This is something that the National Conservatives are really good about, and I think Yoram Hazony has written beautifully about this, the fact that people take for granted how, you know, how their liberties are, you know, the idea that these liberties are universal is just wrong.
And fostering your own distinct heritage and making sure you preserve the institutions that protect it is really important.
If you want to keep the liberty that you have.
Well, you know, a lot of people talk about George W. Bush trying to export our liberties into the Middle East.
And obviously, I think we all kind of get that didn't go so well.
But what they also miss is that going all the way back to 2000, George W. Bush was campaigning on bringing in as many people as possible from the third world, particularly Latin America, particularly South America.
and saying the more we get, it's just going to increase our liberties and they're going to enjoy in our freedoms and bask in them.
And I mean, it's just complete failure, complete and utter failure.
These are countries that have a completely different, the way I'd put it is this, and I'd even say it to my sort of libertarian leaning folk colleagues, is that these are countries that have a very different relationship between the government is that these are countries that have a very different relationship between the The United States is a very particular relationship between the government and the people, and that's only because of the unique history of the United States.
No one else has that history, ergo, you need to be very careful with immigration.
Last minute on all of this, Will Chamberlain.
Yeah, I I think that there's a lot, there's a lot to that.
And I think that, you know, a big part I want to talk about is the idea that for our democracy to work, the parties need to honor each other.
They need to honor each other's leaders because that ultimately facilitates the peaceful transfer of power and means that we aren't playing winner take all every time somebody takes power.
But the thing that these prosecutions, they're a massive breach of that principle.
You're, you're, you're prosecuting the leader of the opposing political party.
Um, and at this point, I mean, when people talk about what Banana Republics do, this is what Banana Republics do.
Precisely that.
Will, tell us where they can go to follow not just the Article 3 Project, but A3P Action.
Right.
So Article3Project.org is the general place to go for the website, but A3PAction.org should be of very significant interest to your listeners.
It's a place where, with just a few clicks, you can Send an email or make a phone call to your congressman and alert them about particular issues.
For example, there's a big one that we're pushing now about trying to get Representative Clyde Ryder to defund all of the warfare against President Trump.
We're trying to get that attached to this bill.
So if you contact your congressperson and make it clear that you want this to happen, that can have a real impact on how they think.
And a3paction.org makes it very easy for you to do so.
So you should check that out.
Well, Chamberlain, always a pleasure, my friend.
Thank you for your deep analysis and insights into what is going on, the fall of our civilization.
Major Giuliani has been in trial this entire time during this test.
Jack, where is Jack?
Where is Jack?
Where is he?
Jack, I want to see you.
Great job, Jack.
Thank you.
What a job you do.
You know, we have an incredible thing.
We're always talking about the fake news and the bad, but we have guys, and these are the guys who should be getting policies.
All right, Jack Dysopek, back live, Human Events Daily.
We've now got Andrew Giuliani live from New York City.
He's from a very special location, and he's been in the courtroom the entire time.
Andrew, how are you?
Jack, I'm doing well.
It's nice to have Lady Liberty out in the background over here.
I feel like that's something that I've not seen in the courtroom over the last six weeks, sadly.
Well, and I couldn't agree more on that, unfortunately.
Liberty Island might be the only place within the confines of the city that we have any of that left right now.
But tell me about the closing arguments.
This story that we got, this report of a five-hour closing, this seems egregious.
What kind of lawyer spends three weeks in the trial and then delivers a five-hour closing?
The whole trial is when you're supposed to make your argument.
The closing is just a summation.
Jack, even Homer was looking down from on high and saying, let's get the Reader's Digest version of this.
This is just taking forever and ever.
And actually, I think he may have lost some of the jury at one point in there.
I'll tell you, during one of the bathroom breaks, I was in there, and I don't remember if the reporter was an MSNBC, CNN, Fox, what kind of political affiliation this reporter had.
But he had said at one point that he had lost most of the jury.
He looked and he was counting that there were seven no votes at that point.
I don't think that's necessarily the case.
I don't think he lost this jury.
I think this jury just frankly is far too biased.
When you look at the 12 primary jurors, eight of them are New York Times subscribers.
That concerns me right there.
I would imagine all eight of those are probably going to vote against Donald Trump and probably would vote to convict no matter what the evidence is right there.
But the five-hour summation by the prosecution, really, I think it was just throwing so much against the wall because, again, they were trying to get as far away from Michael Cohen's testimony as possible.
There's no document in this case that connects Donald Trump To any kind of a crime without Michael Cohen telling you that Donald Trump did this or Donald Trump did that.
And when you consider that Michael Cohen is not just a perjurer of Congress, is not just a convicted felon, but perjured himself twice in the last couple of weeks in that exact same courtroom that jurors were watching him swear his oath on a Bible, that's extremely problematic for the prosecution.
Now let me ask you this as well, there was a report early this morning that I saw about the Trump legal team and it's of course anonymous source so take it with a grain of salt, but there's this idea floating around that the Trump legal team thinks they've identified potentially one juror Who was making strong eye contact with President Trump, who seemed to light up when J.D.
Vance or Ana Paulina Luna or some of these other high-profile individuals came into the courtroom.
Did you notice anything like that when you were there?
Was there any one juror to your eye that seemed more favorable than the others?
Yeah, I'll tell you one thing that stood out, and I will say this jury has had a good poker face throughout the entire trial.
It's been tough, and I've been watching during some of the salacious testimony that Stormy gave during some of the lies that Cohen was caught in, and they don't really give much.
However, yesterday, during that Odyssean final argument that the prosecution put up, there was one juror in the front row, a male, who went exactly like this.
I'll show it to you, and you can determine what it was.
Put his hands in his hands like this, and went back and forth.
No like that.
And at the time I was thinking of myself.
He was facepalming.
He was facepalming.
And it was obvious the reason why he was doing it is because this summation went on forever and ever and ever and ever.
There was nothing salacious at the time that the prosecution was saying.
There was nothing that was directly linking President Trump, that they were alleging, linking President Trump to anything criminal.
This juror just wanted to get it over, so that very well may be the same juror that the Trump team has highlighted.
Again, if you go back to this jury questionnaire here, Jack, You can see that 8 of the 12 are New York Times subscribers.
There's only one that has admitted to being a true social subscriber that also admits to getting their media on X, and they do not get their media from MSNBC, CNN, or the New York Times.
I'm hopeful that's not a Trojan horse.
I'm hopeful that's the one that they're looking at.
I'm hopeful that one is actually unbiased when they're looking at the facts and the evidence here.
Right, and unfortunately, and I've had some experience covering trials before, is that on occasion you'll get jurors who, as you say, they're upset because of having so much of their time wasted, but because they don't like having their time wasted, whenever that first, usually there's a test vote that goes on right at the beginning of jury deliberations, and the foreman goes around and they take the votes and they determine where people stand.
And let's say it's eight to four for that test vote.
And so when it goes to eight to four, then those four who sit there, then they go to them and they say, all right, what do you need for us to get you from where you are undecided to guilty?
And if someone's there and just wants to get out of there, wants it to be done with, they'll go with whatever the majority is, because they're not worried about what the case says, they're trying to get out of there.
And I'm not saying this is exactly what's going on or what that person was saying, but I have had situations where jurors have said that coming out.
Yeah.
And Jack, that's where these lawyers are going to play a really, really outsized role.
And it's normally one of the reasons why they don't want lawyers on juries, for example.
So they'll play a really, really big role in this.
There's one other really key point I want to make about the summation the prosecution gave, which was actually really one of the most outrageous things that I thought happened during the trial.
The prosecutor at one point said, don't fall for the defense's trap of actually looking at each piece of information in a vacuum.
Now, first off, that's what a jury is supposed to do.
They're supposed to look at each piece of information, and reasonable doubt can come from any one of those pieces of information.
However, think about what he said.
Look at the entire thing with everything that ended up happening here.
What the prosecution was actually saying to the jury, I believe in there was, don't actually look at the evidence, the minutia of the evidence.
Think about whether or not you like Donald Trump.
Think about whether or not you want him to be elected the 47th president and make your determination on that.
Again, Jack, he didn't say that in those words, but I think that's what he was trying to convey.
The prosecutor was trying to convey to the jury by making that statement in his summation.
So wait, he made a statement regarding their feelings on the defendant?
Is that what you're saying?
No, he did not.
He basically just said, don't worry about the vacuum of Picking out facts, one fact at a time.
Look at the whole picture basically here.
The entire picture.
Which by the way, anybody who's either been on a jury or been around the legal profession, they know that reasonable doubt can be proven through any single one of the pieces of evidence that may be wrong.
So a jury is supposed to do that.
What I am telling you, what I heard when I heard that was something beyond the legal argument.
Don't get hung up on, yeah, yeah.
He's saying don't get hung up on the particulars.
Don't get hung up on the little details.
You know in your heart this guy is guilty, but that's not criminal law, is it?
Exactly.
That's exactly right.
So he went against really what reasonable doubt is A, and B, it was my interpretation that by him saying that, he was telling to a Manhattan jury, again, that voted 86% for Joe Biden and 20, 20, 79% for Alvin Bragg.
So you can see the bias there that, hey, don't worry about the facts, whether or not we've proved them or not.
If you don't like Donald Trump, then guess what?
Vote to convict him.
Of what crime?
I don't really know, but you don't like him, so vote to convict him.
And this this is the the biggest part of it and we just had another attorney on talking about this the idea that they don't have to let me ask you this and and we'll be just one minute till the break but when when the judge brought up that jury instruction that said you don't have to agree on the underlying crime what was the jury's response if any?
The jury didn't respond to anything.
I think it was kind of more disbelief for myself when I heard that.
I was sitting with another lawyer who had represented President Trump in other issues at the time, and we've talked about that at lunch just a few minutes ago and how absurd that ruling is right there.
And I think that's something that would ultimately really hold up on appeal for the Trump team.
But whether or not the jury actually looks at that and follows what the judge is saying or follows the law on this, that's two separate paths.
And this is everything now.
It's with the jury.
It's been with the jury for a couple of hours.
Stay tuned, folks, because we've got Andrew Giuliani, and he's breaking down not what he thinks happened in the courtroom, but what exactly happened because he was there.
Stay tuned.
Alright, Jack Posobiec, we're back live.
You know, it's unfortunate because we're hearing now, we're told that the jury just requested to see the evidence from the court.
Unfortunately, the court had to tell them that there wasn't any evidence.
There wasn't any evidence at all.
No, I'm just kidding, but it's ridiculous.
We've got Andrew Giuliani on, and Andrew, if I can ask you, and it's more of a comment than a question, but when you were there, perhaps you can educate me on this, but it seemed like so much of this has been about the different personalities in the case as opposed to the actual business records themselves, which is interesting to me because, of course, this is supposed to be a business records case to begin with.
That's exactly right and I would look at really what the prosecution was trying to do.
You can put kind of In two different paths there.
One, the business records case, which the prosecution fell woefully short of proving in any kind of way.
The only thing that would connect Donald Trump to any of this is Michael Cohen's word.
And even with Michael Cohen's word, there's no direct documentation from Donald J. Trump.
So let's say you even had somebody like Mother Teresa instead of Michael Cohen in that situation.
I still don't think that you connect Donald Trump to all this.
Instead, you have Michael Cohen, two-time perjurer, Yeah, just in the last week.
But really, I think what the prosecution was trying to do to this jury pool was to make it as salacious as possible.
Say, you had Donald Trump here, who had sex with a porn star, allegedly, 18 years ago.
So you mentioned Karen McDougal, the Playboy playmate, the Access Hollywood tape, which had nothing, absolutely nothing to do whatsoever with what they're alleging right now.
Yet they're able to bring that transcript into the courthouse.
They were able to play President Trump's apology about that there.
That was all about trying to throw mud against the wall to see what actually stuck there, Jack.
And I think what they really wanted to do with this Manhattan jury pool was again to say, hey, look, you see, Donald Trump is unworthy of your confidence.
And so because of that, we want you to convict him.
Not of any crimes that we're proving, as I said in the last segment right there, but just because, you know, we don't think he's a good guy.
And sadly, Murshan, what he was able to do in terms of manipulating the scope of questioning, the evidence that the prosecution could present and that the defense could not present, he was able to frame, I think, something for this jury that was really one-sided in so many ways.
Even with that being said, even with Donald Trump proverbially fighting against the refs as well in this legal contest, if you will, the prosecution still did not prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt, and it wasn't even close in my estimation, Jack.
Let's just see if there are any jurors that are unbiased with principle that are sitting in that courtroom right now deliberating.
We will see.
Andrew Giuliani, thank you so much for joining us here on Human Events.
Incredible work, incredible job in the courtroom.
Thank you, Jack.
See you soon.
I want to play a quick clip now from CNN giving their take, saying something a little similar to what we're saying.
Let's play that.
It's on the prosecution, right?
They need to prove beyond reasonable doubt that Donald Trump broke the law.
And you think, after listening to all of this, you think they fell short?
They fell way short.
Because let's start with reasonable doubt.
There is reasonable doubt all over this case.
Where is Keith Schiller?
Where is Allen Weisselberg?
How did Michael Cohen get away with stealing $30,000, hold a pity party for him, made $4 million on this, thought he'd be chief of staff?
He's a fixer!
If the plumber comes to my house to fix my leak, I could be home!
That doesn't mean I know how he's doing it and what it's taking to be fixed.
It's simply about, did the former president know that There you go, folks.
It ain't just us saying it.
It's CNN admitting it well.
They know this case is a loser.
They know this case is trash.
And we got Ben Burquam down on the street with another group of people who know that this case is a loser and know this case is trash and it's political and it's Joseph Stalin.
Ben.
Yeah, but Jack, it doesn't matter because once they convict, that's all they want is that conviction so that they can delegitimize President Trump.
That's what this is all about.
I've got a few other people over here.
Jack, I want to talk to them and get their perspective.
Rose Angel, what do you think about what's happening in that courtroom?
I think it's a sham.
I think it's a waste of our money.
I think it's a distraction and New Yorkers are fed up.
That's what I think.
And you know what?
We're breaking the stereotype.
Latinos support Trump.
That's it?
This side.
What about you, my man?
Latinos for Trump.
We're supporting Trump.
We know what the corrupt regime are doing to Trump.
It's not only him, it's us too.
They're after us.
So we are here to support him.
And you're here for school from India.
Why does this matter to you, bro?
This matters to me especially because it's all about standing up for the truth.
Wherever I would have been at this point, even in some other country, I would have stood up for the truth.
This is what you see at the back people like Chinese people people of all color Stands for Trump.
This is not all about white people.
You see the other side most of the anti-trump people are mostly the base is always the white people they try to Spread the black victim stories and The main issue here is what is Trump?
Getting sued for like what did wrong did he do?
How did the other customers pay Stormy Daniel?
By cash?
By under table?
I mean how did the other people pay?
And they could have bought this case like 10 years ago in 2016.
This didn't happen like two years ago this happened like a decade ago.
Why are they bringing up this this case like just before six months?
Yeah it's very sad what's happening.
The border Especially.
Everything.
And you see that here.
And I have my friend from Barbados back here behind the flag.
All of this, Jack, you see this.
This is what it's about.
It's about the people, not just in America, but around the world.
We have people from the UK that came here to watch this that are saying this is what happens in America affects the entire world.
Real quick, 15 seconds.
What's your message to President Trump?
We support you.
We absolutely support you.
You have a lot of support.
The other side over there, their numbers are pathetic, and they're dwindling because they're starting to understand what the situation is, the lies that's been told, the corruption that is being exposed.
A lot of people are finally starting to see it, and that's a beautiful thing.
And we work, and we are here to work to make sure that people who don't know will know, and get them to the polls to vote.
That's it.
In the end, this all comes down to the election, Jack.
Everyone here understands it, and I guarantee everyone in that building understands it.
Incredible work, Ben.
Ladies and gentlemen, we know this is a show trial.
This is potentially the end of our republic, or perhaps the start of the next republic.
▲
Export Selection