All Episodes
Previous Next
Dec. 4, 2024 - Rudy Giuliani
01:03:02
America's Mayor Live (553): Democrats in Disarray Trying to Justify Joe Biden's Pardon of Hunter
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Is Mayor live?
Well, live on tape, is the way they would say it, because we taped this a little bit early so that I could go to a meeting at Mar-a-Lago.
That's going to take a few hours.
And when I know exactly the contours of the meeting, I'll report to you what I can, and I will not report to you what I can't, as I always do.
But it probably should give us some, at least, among other things, in addition to the The stated purpose of the meeting, we'll find out a lot, talk to a lot of people, and come back with a lot of the information that you're not getting elsewhere, which is what we're going to do right now.
And that, by the way, is what it looks like when it's light out.
That's Palm Beach looking south, looking toward Miami, looking toward Cuba, Looking toward, of even more importance, Mar-a-Lago, which is as the crow flies.
A mile, Ted, would you say?
Maybe a teeny over?
A mile as the crow flies.
Yeah.
I don't think the Secret Service, after what's happened, will let the crow fly there, by the way.
They don't let the planes fly there.
We once pointed that out.
We might get some today because he's there today, so we'll see.
Watch over the mayor's head.
Watch for planes over his head.
He may well be playing golf.
It's still early enough that he could be at the golf course.
Either playing golf or having his meetings there.
The golf course is quite large and has plenty of room for meetings and just about anything else you want to do.
Well, there's a very interesting article by, you know, someone I admire very, very much, Michael Goodwin.
And he tells a story that I'm sure a lot of us have experienced.
A very good friend of his who's a Democratic donor in New York, and I guess at a very, very high level, I mean, I can think of a hundred people, it could be, said to him just the other day at a holiday party, you were right about Trump, he whispered.
And I voted for him.
And here, what he's saying is that Democrats still seem to be living in an absolutely unreal world.
The whole idea of the way this pardon was done.
When Joe Biden first said he was going to pardon his son, just like when he first said, I didn't know anything about the foreign dealings of my son, my brother, my whatever, he knew right away he was lying.
Now, you might not because maybe you didn't keep up with Joe, but I've known Joe since 1981, and Joe lies even when he doesn't have to.
He is certainly a pathological liar, I would say to the point of being an insane pathological liar.
And it was almost a giveaway that he was going to do it.
No, no, even occasional liar would put himself in a position like that.
I mean, the answer is, I'm not going to make up my mind about something like that until I have to and let's see how it all goes and, you know, something like that.
Certainly no one should count on a pardon.
No one should ever count on a pardon.
If it happens, it's exceptional.
There are all sorts of things you could say that would not be a lie, which is insulting to us.
And then to have that little pipsqueak that goes out and lies every day.
She lied about this 40 times.
40 times.
Do you know Joe's statements that he doesn't know about the foreign dealings of his son would be a false exculpatory statement?
Uh, admissible at a trial against him for bribery?
And do you know you could admit every single one of them?
I don't think I've ever heard anyone have 40 false exculpatory statements.
And do you know what a judge charges a jury about a false exculpatory statement?
Here's the false exculpatory statement.
I don't know anything about my son's foreign dealings.
Here's the proof.
40 pictures, 10 emails, the testimony of five different witnesses, Joe's own video to his son that he read the article all about China.
Now, if you had a judge, it was a fair judge, he'd allow you to put the 40 in, and then if he would give you the charge he would give for anybody else, unless it's one of those You know, like the judges I have, Democrat hanging judges, like the one in D.C.,
you would get a charge that, just based on the false exculpatory statements, and that alone, the jury can or cannot, it's up to the jury, derive all of the evidence of intent to commit the crime.
So it would take care of one of the elements of the crime almost decisively, And get a very, very helpful charge out of the judge that leads toward conviction.
Then, of course, there's always the admission that we showed you and we'll show you again today that everyone ignores, which is, there you go.
I don't know if you can see it, but that's a Mar-a-Lago redirected airplane that probably And it also could be done because of weather.
Of course, the cloud, you're going to see it's very, very sunny at times, and then it gets very, very cloudy.
When it's very sunny, I'm boiling.
When it's very cloudy, I feel great.
So his lies are not just lies.
These are lies that would lead to his conviction if we had anything close to a just legal system.
We don't.
We have a miserably corrupt justice system.
As a matter of fact, it took this long.
Biden should have been prosecuted four or five years ago.
He should have, too.
But as he points out, Goodwin does, the pardon doesn't threaten Biden's legacy.
It cements it.
He's been corrupt for decades, as the family influence peddling scheme proved.
Influence peddling for pay is bribery.
It's a nice way to say it, but influence peddling.
Those who refuse to consider the possibility that Joe personally profited from the estimated 20 million foreign sources paid his son, it's actually more like 50, and brother didn't lack for evidence.
They simply refused to see the evidence.
There's absolutely right there.
There is a ton of evidence Gee, as great as the letters that Jimmy Stewart brought in and Mr. Smith goes to Washington to Congress, there's overwhelming evidence that this money was going to Joe Biden, including direct evidence, which is what an admission is.
An admission from his son and co-conspirator and the guy he pardoned that he gave half the money to Joe for 30 years.
And then all kinds of emails and transfers and Meetings and other memos like 10% for the big guy in one particular case.
Checks that are unexplained or explained as loan.
They can't.
Hunter's statement about saying that he gave half the money to his father.
Hunter would have to get on the witness stand to rebut that in some way.
First of all, he can't rebut it.
It's in his own writing.
It's in his own computer.
He'd have to explain, I'm just kidding.
I really didn't give him any money.
Well, what about the $50,000 that you paid for rent on your own house to your father?
What about buying the house?
What about putting your half sister through college?
What about paying for the storm windows?
I mean, they were cheap.
None of this evidence has been given to you.
I don't understand why.
I don't understand why the Republican committee doesn't put out this evidence.
They kind of walk around like, well, you know, it still has to be proved.
Even Michael is a little more hesitant than he should be.
Thank you.
Those who refuse to consider the possibility That Joe personally profited.
Here's the simple fact.
If you don't realize from everything you've read and see that he personally profited, you're stupid.
Or you're deliberately avoiding it, or you're crooked.
Hunter tells you in his own words that he gave the old man half his money for 30 years.
There's nothing in the record to suggest he's lying about that.
That would go before the jury unrebutted unless that The criminal were to take the witness stand.
Can you imagine what would happen if he took the witness stand?
If there was somebody half as competent as me doing the cross-examination, he'd walk off the witness stand destroyed.
Everything would come out.
All the things he was pardoned for.
You'd argue that the pardon was a cover-up by his father.
Now, you can't prosecute him for the cover-up, the pardon cover-up, largely because of the immunity decision.
I mean, you still have to interpret that, but largely because of the immunity decision the Democrats were complaining about.
It would make it hard to prosecute him for that as a cover-up.
I don't think impossible, but hard.
But you sure as hell could prosecute him for the RICO prosecution, which is ongoing and has a very long statute of limitations and has a beautiful symmetry with Four different situations where he was the point man and four different situations in which Hunter got millions and millions and millions for doing nothing.
And he was supposed to, Joe was supposed to do something for America and he failed.
So you have America get screwed.
The Bidens get millions.
And then you have all the proof that that money was going to James and to the sister and Laura and to him and to Hunter and all of it going up to the boss of the family.
It's as good, actually, a better case than I ever had.
See the book behind me?
That book explains it.
It explains it in total.
But the interesting thing, maybe I should redo the book.
I could do that book in two parts.
I could do the case I had before the hard drive and the case I had after the hard drive.
Because there was a prosecutable RICO case even before we had the hard drive.
It didn't include the wonderful admission by Hunter, which everyone hides from you, including the Republicans.
I don't know why.
They also hide from you the fact that he was a danger to his nieces and nephews, which he admits and his father did nothing about, which gets you into the reason why they sent an FBI agent from the child sex unit To John Mack Isaacs to question him about the hard drive, because they may have seen the pictures that I really didn't see until it was brought to my attention.
I had the hard drive for about four or five, maybe longer, and Bernie and I were concentrating on the text.
I care about the pictures.
Somebody else was looking at the pictures, and they came to me and said, I can't believe that.
Sure, there are plenty of pornography with adults, but it seems to me there's more pictures of young girls than I have.
And I've ever seen an adult male have.
And then one or two proof to go over the line.
And then you have this text basically saying, admitting that he's a danger to the children.
And you have the concerned grandfather doing shit about it.
The grandfather that doesn't meet with Navy.
You got to realize he's an evil man, don't you, by now?
The DOJ was surprised by Biden's free pass.
Give me a break.
The DOJ was covering the case up for years.
The first offer they gave him was basically a pardon.
He could get immunity for everything.
And even what they prosecuted him for, very artfully, let the statute of limitations run on all the big money that went to Joe.
And basically, the reason that people can say, oh, other people wouldn't be prosecuted for this is because they took everything out of the case.
But the simple fact is other people have been prosecuted for it.
That's also a lie.
Everything they say is a lie.
They're a lie.
I don't just mean Biden.
I mean Harris and the whole group of them.
They're just phony.
But not just phony like ha ha ha phony.
Phony like dangers and people get killed because of it.
Phony.
And the American people who vote for them, I feel sorry for them.
Because something's happened to the operation of their mind or conscience.
I don't make fun of them like they do for us.
I feel sorry for them.
I think they're largely good people that have been overwhelmed by Soviet-Chinese-style propaganda, which is basically what our networks do.
Our networks, in many ways, may be as bad as them.
No, not really.
Bad, though.
He goes around for For months, and a little pipsqueak goes around for months saying, look at the great respect he has for the legal system.
He's going to let it work itself out.
Now he says he was worried about what Trump and Trump's people would do to them because of the appointments he made.
He appointed a couple of really honest people at what he did.
Yeah, he was very fortunate.
He had people he could corrupt, like Comey, and the poor excuse for an FBI director, that complete bumblehead and liar.
He had a little Garfield there, who's now, the Justice Department is now getting attacked by both the president and the president-elect for being corrupt and political.
He says the Justice Department only went after Hunter.
Biden does.
Because the Justice Department was political.
Maybe that means it effectively should be done away with if both presidents think it's political.
I mean, it seems like they agree.
I mean, Trump thinks it's political because of all of the lawfare cases against him and against others and all of the Biden-inspired cases, both state and federal.
He's argued from the beginning that the four cases were coordinated.
That's why Everybody wants the documents that Fannie the Ho is refusing to turn over, which explain the contacts between her, the boyfriend, and the White House.
I think Judicial Watch just won a lawsuit against them in order to see those documents.
And as usual, Judicial Watch will probably break it open.
They've broken up a hell of a lot more crimes than the Justice Department.
I think they should be made part of the Justice Department.
Why recreate the wheel when you got it?
I mean, and I don't even have to look at those documents.
I know what they say.
I know why that complete ass of a lawyer who got a million dollars and didn't know anything about the RICO case, I know why he was going to the White House, not to watch movies.
And I know why they sent the number three guy in the Justice Department down to prosecute the case for bumbling, stumbling, stupid Bragg who couldn't prosecute a case.
He probably did in the U.S. Attorney's Office, but Boy, was that affirmative action.
Affirmative disgrace.
Even...
Looks like Jon Stewart played all of these videos of Democrats praising Biden for...
For, you know, abiding by the criminal justice system and not pardoning his son.
Are they all the Democrats going to go on now and explain and apologize for having a run on that?
And explain, if that was true, how much damage he's done by doing it?
No president in American history has done more damage to the Fair administration of justice in this country, one of our great, great guiding lights, Joseph Robinette Biden, stands to reason.
He is, as far as we can tell, the biggest crook ever to be in the White House.
And the evidence of that doesn't have to be proved in court because it's, in many cases, it's documentary.
Documentary on video, documentary on audio, and documentary in writing.
It would be good if it was proven in court, though, and it would take a lot of guts, but he should be indicted for racketeering.
He should be indicted for a lifetime of taking bribes and for having an enterprise that hit it, covered it up, put together shell corporations to hide it.
I mean, they're very typical of an organized crime family or a financial fraud case.
There was an awful lot of conniving That went into this, and probably if he did a really good investigation with subpoenas and whatever, probably pull a couple more Democrats in.
What the heck was Blinken doing?
I don't know.
Blinken went pretty far by getting that false statement about getting the 51 Spives Who Lied to lie about Russian earmarks on the computer and hard drive, which he knew was Hunter Biden's.
that would probably involve him in the in the RICO case he's got goes back with Biden forever um Present at some of these meetings.
Is it possible of the defendant in the case?
Now, is Biden going to give them all a part?
And himself?
The other part that I pointed out last night, so I won't belabor it, but nobody else really does.
They plagiarized the pardon.
I mean, literally took every single word.
Of the Nixon pardon and put it in theirs.
Has committed or...
This is the part that brings in the world.
Or may have...
Has committed or may have committed.
Imagine getting pardoned for something you may have done.
Or taken pardon during the period January 1, 2014 to December 1, 2024. It's a decade in which you could commit any federal crime you want and get away with it because you're the president's bag man.
Not because you're his son.
So it's a blanket pardon whose constitutionality has been questioned by distinguished professors like Rappaport and then also by what's that Francis O. What's his last name, Ted?
Francis O. Backing off.
Francis O. Bowman, who's now afraid to talk to us.
Right, Ted?
We've emailed him.
You've emailed him three or four times.
Let's explain why.
He has an article.
There's a series of articles on whether a blanket pardon, such as Nixon gave Ford, is constitutional.
And he does it in a debate with another professor named Rappaport.
Rappaport says, yes, it's unconstitutional.
At first, he says, pardons can be very broad, much broader than Rappaport says.
And the Ford-Nixon pardon gives me pause.
But he doesn't conclude that it's unconstitutional in the first article.
Then in the 2022 article, he comes to the conclusion, well, that's the one area where I would say it was unconstitutional.
So we wanted him on to explain it.
Yeah.
My God, I hope we didn't give him a heart attack.
He ran away completely.
First, he told us that wasn't really his opinion.
Except I don't see an article changing it.
That's the last one we have, so it's unconstitutional.
And I said, well, why don't you come on and explain how you change?
Yeah.
Just come on and explain.
We would like to debate.
If you really do think it's not unconstitutional, I'd be happy to debate the other side of it.
I wouldn't be nearly as good as you are.
I mean, I'm just a poor little disbarred lawyer.
And you're a great professor.
I don't assume you remember what you wrote.
Or could you possibly be affected by, not the law, but by your political biases?
Would law professors be affected by political bias?
I know one or two who aren't.
So, he pardoned him because he said his son could be a target after he left the White House.
You know, President Trump even said he might pardon him.
I thought that was terrible.
I don't think President Trump should have...
In fact, one of the things, the only thing that I was sad, the only thing that made me relieved when he pardoned was that President Trump didn't pardon him.
I don't know who the hell is advising President Trump to pardon him.
That guy should go do something else for a living.
That would be extremely, extremely debilitating.
It would undermine the entire lawfare situation.
It would undermine the ability to straighten out the criminal justice system and the system of justice.
This isn't a question of, oh, it's the president's son.
And to play the fiction that this is limited to this gun case and this tax case is a fiction.
It is not limited.
It's not limited to that.
And just in case you'd like to know if other people were prosecuted for this and put in jail, I'd like to show you this very nice looking young man here.
This very nice looking young man was the former chief of police of Baltimore.
He owed taxes to the IRS. They put him in jail.
The Obama administration did.
You want to know how much he owed?
67,000.
And basically, basically, he said he was just stupid.
He was just too busy and Didn't bother to keep up with paying his taxes.
He was a police commissioner, I guess.
I mean, that would be a case where you'd say it's very hard to find anybody else that went to jail for that.
I mean, I wonder if his lawyers did make a selective prosecution argument here.
I think he could have won.
I heard Chief D'Souza interviewed, and I remember when he was a good commissioner.
I wonder if this was political.
He says to pardon, I don't agree to that.
There needs to be some consequences.
I put my job first, and that was it.
I neglected myself.
I had the only personal responsibility.
I'm almost to the point of forgetting about my health.
Notably, prosecutors Leo Wise and Derek Hines, who argued the firearm case against Hunter Biden in June, also prosecuted the case against D'Souza.
D'Souza's charges stem from 2013 through 2015. Of course, he was forced to resign as police commissioner following the 2019 indictment.
I could come up with a lot more cases, but I take the point And would actually agree with it if this is what it was limited to.
If in fact this was a case about him not paying the taxes that are laid out there, even 1.4 or 1.5, whatever it is, I agree that this would be settled civilly if a person was willing to make a settlement in It's much easier for the government to collect that way when it does that.
It saves the government the expense of a criminal prosecution.
I mean, it makes all the sense in the world, particularly if it's basically a first offense.
But that was the tip of the iceberg that was put there as a sort of like as a quick little thing to stop the dam from overflow.
They had originally given him immunity.
They had originally given him what Joe did, and he turned it down.
And then they prosecuted him for that and for the gun case.
Always consider the gun case more serious because this idea that, oh, he's an addict, he should be excused for the gun case.
It's exactly why we have the crime for addicts.
You know what the crime was?
A person falsely stated that he is two, one more serious than the other, falsely stating that you're not addicted when you get a gun, and two, actually carrying a gun while in a state of addiction.
Which is the serious 10-year felony.
Everybody who gets charged with that is going to be an addict.
It would mean nobody would go to jail for it.
The whole premise of the crime that Congress determined is it's too dangerous to tolerate an addicted person walking around with a firearm.
I mean, this comes from them.
They're the gun control people.
What phonies, huh?
Every time somebody gets killed, This moron in the White House and all the rest of them talk about gun control, gun control, gun control.
They even probably agree with Alec Baldwin that the gun commits the crime, not the person.
The gun just shoots itself off, which that miserable Democrat is getting away with.
Imagine getting somebody to agree that we don't know who pulled the trigger of the gun.
When the bullet was in the gun, his hand was on the gun.
I mean, what is it?
Democrats just can commit murder?
Okay, maybe it was negligent murder.
They got the poor girl who put the bullet in the gun, mistakenly, got her in jail, I think, for 10 years.
But she's nobody.
You can just step all over her.
She's garbage, like I am.
That's why they want to step all over me, and that's why Biden's ex-law partner and counsel Michael Gottlieb for Burisma from Wilkie Farr is trying to do everything he can to bankrupt me and took on a case for nothing in order to do that.
Quite a coincidence that he was a partner of Hunter Biden.
I'm the one who revealed singularly, really, Hunter Biden's crimes.
And I'm the one who revealed Burisma, the company that paid him, the crooked Ukrainian company that paid him.
And his law firm, Wilkie Farr, is expending all kinds of effort to try to destroy me in an effort to destroy Trump.
Please remember that.
Remember what side they're on.
They're on the side of lawfare.
And they abuse also, massively.
In the way in which they discover.
And then they have, and of course, they look good because they have both judges in their pocket.
Like the Godfather used to say, but they said they're the Godfather.
But you're an unduly modest Godfather.
You have the politicians and the judges in your pocket.
You don't think Beryl Howell is in their pocket?
My God, she treated the January 6th people like they were mad serial killers.
I didn't think the other judges were giving harsh enough sentences, and she treated me like it was just ridiculous that I might want a fair trial.
I mean, gosh.
And knowing that she had a jury panel that would convict any Trump person of anything you asked them to convict them.
Well, The New York Post comes to the conclusion that he sold his father's name for big bucks.
So if that's for sure, isn't it logical that he gave that money to his father?
And isn't it logical that And support his admission.
It doesn't even need any support.
That he gave half of it to his father.
That it's true.
Now, the government has the right to put that in front of a jury.
And they have a right to say it's not true.
You don't have a right to ignore it because you say it's untrue.
I mean, then you could ignore any evidence.
Sammy the Bull's evidence against John Gotti.
I just don't believe it.
No, a jury's got to decide that.
Once you had that admission, you have that admission, plus all of the false exculpatory statements, maybe 40, plus the memos and the meetings and the action taken.
Depending on whose evidence you believe, the bare minimum is 20, I believe.
I believe it's quite a bit more than that, but I believe the provable amount is about 30 from China.
Well, if you take Hunter at his word, which you have to do unless somebody can show you why not, Joe got $15 million from China and then did something unexplainable.
He gave the Bagram Air Base away, 400 miles from China, against the unanimous advice of his entire military staff.
But in that room, he was the only one who was paid by China, we think.
Is that a quid pro quo?
Did he imperil the national security of the United States?
Well, he sure did when he brought home all those secret documents I'm having to do with China and laid them out in his garage.
And the partner of the chief spy of China passed him every single day.
That's Hunter.
And again, unexamined by the committee, by the Republicans, who did a sort of surface job here, is the email that Hunter sent to his Chinese contact, which seems very much like a plagiarism of an intelligence report.
Now, since the Bidens plagiarized Just for practice.
I would think you'd want to introduce that into evidence and show how similar it is to an intelligence report.
I mean, what was China buying?
They were buying Joe's ability to do things like get rid of Bagram that no other president would have done.
Or Joe's ability to get them secret documents, which Hunter was sending them.
I don't know, China's going to fork over 20 to 30 million?
for nothing and put a 1.5 billion dollar investment in a ridiculous private equity fund which we seem to forget had as a partner Whitey Bulger's nephew never mentioned again never mentioned what's the son of the vice president united states doing another partnership with Whitey Bulger's nephew if he's not criminal So if you ever want to take a look at this guy
who flip-flops like a crooked politician, Professor Frank O. Bowman III, here are the two articles.
The first one is the constitutionality of non-specific pardons.
This is the one in which he concludes that the president can do anything he wants with a pardon except pardon himself.
Which actually, I think he's wrong.
He's the professor.
But he does come to the conclusion that he does have doubts about the Nixon pardon.
I harbor one lingering reservation on specificity.
President Gerald Ford pardoned Nixon for any and all violations of federal law from the date of his inauguration to the date of his resignation.
The breadth of that pardon was unique in American history, but it was never challenged in court.
I do wonder whether the Constitution grants a president quite that much authority.
Well, that is exactly what he did word for word.
That's exactly what Biden did word for word.
He used exactly the same words.
In hoc verber.
Professor.
See, I know Latin too.
In hoc verber.
N-I-N-H-A-E-C. V-E-R-B-A. In hoc verber.
Jackass.
Ben, professor.
A year later, it seems like he got a little more thinking on it.
And Ford's pardon of Nixon is the only occasion in American history on which a president reported a pardon for every possible violation of federal criminal law, known or unknown.
It created a fierce backlash against President Ford.
But neither Jaworski nor the other Watergate special prosecutor or any other official took it to court.
Then he concludes at the end, a valid pardon presupposes awareness by the president of that which is being pardoned as a logical and legal precondition for an exercise of judgment about the propriety of granting clemency.
The rule positive here would come into play only for president according to pardon offenses of which he had no knowledge at all.
The constraint is useful only insofar that rules out a Nixon style pardon of all federal crimes.
That's Professor Bowman, the guy who's afraid to come on the air and explain what he means by that.
Now, I would like to explain to Professor Bowman, who may be a professor, but doesn't seem to know how the federal courts work, that you really can't just hypothetically challenge the pardon.
You have to be injured by it.
So I guess I could conceive of other ways of creating standing, and I'm going to try.
But the obvious way is you'd have to actually prosecute Hunter, and then Hunter would have to raise the pardon as a bar, and then you'd have to go to court to find out if the pardon is a bar.
Is the pardon valid because it's so broad?
I don't think that'll happen.
I think what could happen, however, is the following.
And this is very, very useful.
You could prosecute Trump, James, Blinken, a whole bunch of others that conspired with him and covering things up.
And you could put in evidence Hunter's admission.
That comes in evidence irrespective of whether he testifies.
Now, you would say you might want...
Another temptation is to call Hunter and question him.
That probably is the better thing to do in terms of a full and complete investigation.
But if you really want to be crafty and win the case, you don't call.
You just put it on, unrebutted.
With 30 other witnesses and all the documents.
And then you give them the choice of whether to call him.
Because unrebutted, there's no way to say that he's not telling the truth.
He's got to get up there and give some explanation for why he said that.
It'd be as if, you know, you had a tape recording of Sammy the Bull saying John Gotti killed five people.
Well, of course you put that in.
Well, Sammy the Bull is lying.
Somebody's got to show that Sammy the Bull is lying, right?
But in any event, I think in terms of trying to get at the whole picture here, rather than just prosecute one guy, Biden.
Although you can see, I have the case all worked out right here in this book.
You can get it now.
I think this would be a great time to read it and see what horrible criminal statement the whole family really is.
And this is really just a primer on how to do a RICO case.
What I could do in my sleep.
We'll take a short break and we'll be right back with some interesting new entries, late entries in the appointment race.
I'm ready for action.
Get the elite TV plan only through the portal.
218 channels and it's only $69.95 a month.
Including your free portal.
That's cheaper than everyone else.
Your favorite sports, movies, news, even daytime dramas.
We're talking about ESPN, OAN, Newsmax.
Channels you can't get anymore in certain areas.
Compared to the competition, this is a way better deal.
Endless selection.
Not to mention all the free music channels.
There's over 700 premium and classic movies all ready to go.
Plus, they got catch-up TV that allows you to go back and watch what you've missed or want to watch again.
Cut your cable in half and get twice as much for free.
Way more channels for half the cost.
After the first year, the subscription then drops to $57.95 monthly, where you change or upgrade anytime.
Go to QUXnow.com and get yours today.
Use promo code RUDY. Act fast.
These deals are selling out.
We're having the biggest sale ever on overstock clearance and brand new products.
For example, save 60% on our Goose Down comforters, the best comforters ever.
They go perfectly with our MyPillow bed sheets and duvet covers.
Save 25% on our brand new kitchen towels.
They're made with the same technology as our famous MyTowels.
Our initial quantities are extremely low, so get them now before they go.
Our seasonal flannel sheets are finally in.
You save up to 50% and they sell out fast every year, so order now.
They're truly the best flannel sheets you'll ever sleep on.
Or save up to 80% on all our clearance items.
And this is where it gets even better.
For a limited time, your entire order ships absolutely free.
So go to MyPillow.com or call the number on your screen.
Use that promo code to get deep discounts on all MyPillow products.
And for a limited time, your order ships absolutely free.
This is Rudy Giuliani, and we are back with America's Mayor Live, unusually during the daytime, about three hours before a normal 8 p.m.
time, because at 8 p.m., I will be at the White House, the White House, Mar-a-Lago, the Palm Beach White House, for a meeting and for some socializing.
I will come back and report to you what I can of it.
We're nothing.
You know, I believe in confidentiality.
So I'm very, very upset about what they're doing at Pete Hicks.
Pete is somebody I do admire.
I do say that, and I would consider Pete a friend, but he's not a close personal friend.
I don't think I've ever socialized with Pete.
I'd love to, but I never did.
You know, Fox doesn't put me on.
They don't put me on because I won't sign the oath, you know, like Thomas More would, and I won't sign the oath that I mentioned the corrupt 2020 election.
And that it was stolen.
And because they think I'll lie, although everything I've said has turned out to be true, including the hard drive and the Russian collusion and just on and on and on and on.
You go to Georgia, for example, where there are now a big dispute about how many ballots are missing.
Some say 320,000.
And they don't want to turn over the documents.
The governor, and particularly Rauschenberg, is hiding the documents.
He's been hiding them for five years now, four years.
A part of this comes down to the fact that he would never let us see the paper.
I'd have been convinced that it was a straight election.
If I looked at the paper and it was all legitimate stationary, they would never let us see the paper.
I couldn't imagine why Kemp and Rauschenberger were fighting so hard.
To do that.
And then I get a copy of videos useful and needed for my bar association proceeding and they're doctored.
Seriously doctored and deliberately doctored.
And the prosecutor told me that's the way they were given to him by Rasenberger.
And then I happened to know that he had in his desk all throughout a memo Raising 40 different irregularities 10 days after the election with the election.
An election that he kept saying was fine, no problem with it.
But he had it hidden in his desk.
I mean, John Sullivan got that away from the Freedom of Information Act thing.
He made a little thing about it, but nobody ever paid attention to it.
It also comes to the conclusion, basically, that all the ballots in Filton County were invalid because there was no chain of custody.
They broke chain of custody.
So here I had information, newly discovered evidence, and they wouldn't let me on ABC.
They wouldn't let me report it.
That's why I'm with Frank Speech Network.
And with X, because they believe in free speech.
And they believe that I can have an opinion that the election was stolen and not be crucified and destroyed.
John Castamatitis in WABC did not have that view, which has to make you suspect about the minute you do that or something so serious.
I don't think you're a legitimate journalist any longer, if it means anything to be a journalist.
Well, Pete, I say this about Pete because Pete is one of the few people at Fox with whom I was very close.
I helped to create Fox.
You might not know, but I did.
And he tried to put me on his show and he was told he couldn't.
And I understood why he had to go along with that.
He has a family to support.
I understand why all of them do that.
Not everybody is like me.
Look, I'm a lot older than Pete, and I've already had my career, and I've already done everything you could possibly want to do in government.
My children are all grown, so you could say I have more of an ability to be independent and stand by my principles.
But look, I give Pete credit for wanting to have me on.
Only a few of them have ever reached out.
None of my colleagues at AVC have.
Well, no, that's not true.
I'm sorry.
Sid has.
Sid's got balls.
The rest?
They won't even put me on their other shows, like on Newsmax and stuff.
Although, Greg Kelly finally did.
He had me on for a little bit, and he said some very supportive things the other night with Bob Costello.
So maybe things are loosening up a little.
But in any event, what they're doing to Pete is completely unfair.
The latest one, there's just complete contradiction of it by numerous sources that he was creating some kind of a drunken whatever.
All the people that were there say it didn't happen.
CVA, Concerned Veterans of America.
A whistleblower.
Yeah, like the whistleblower that said that Trump had a quid pro quo conversation with Zelensky, and it turned out that Biden had the quid pro quo conversation with Poroshenko when the truth came out.
And Shifty Swalwell, now unfortunately and tragically, not Shifty Swalwell, Shifty Schiff, now tragically a senator, but from California, which I don't know if it really counts, He really should be sitting in the...
What do they call the Russian parliament?
They still used to call it the Duma under the...
That was under the Tsar, was the Duma.
I'm surprised the communists retain that.
That's where Boris Gudinov falls down the stairs and dies.
One of the great scenes in opera, particularly if it's done by a six-foot-seven basso, and he falls down the big steps and Well, we're off the point.
Rudy, get back on the point.
I think it's the heat that's getting to you.
So, Rob Amari has written a piece about this CVA thing where allegations of misconduct, that the whistleblower is a liar.
The CVA senior advisor says it's a complete fabrication.
Numerous others there say it was a complete fabrication.
The person was a disgruntled employee that was fired by Pete.
Gee, do I know about that?
I got more than one of those.
So now they're considering DeSantis.
Well, you're not going to hear anything bad about DeSantis from me.
I did oppose him against Trump.
I opposed everybody against Trump.
And I did think it was a mistake that DeSantis ran.
I thought he should Keep his powder dry for 28, but I think he's one hell of a governor.
And he has a background in the military, including...
He went to West Point, didn't he?
So let's see what they're going to do with him.
You know, they hate him for being such a conservative.
I mean, in many ways, he's more conservative than Trump.
Remember, like me, he opposed making marijuana legal here.
Trump supported it.
I was...
I am...
Without any doubt, the biggest opponent of doing that in the world.
And I was before all the reports started to come out, how dangerous it is.
And I was before they enhanced marijuana, so that it's much more dangerous than what we were debating 20 years ago.
And I was that way before Oregon has now realized that it's become bumper cars in Oregon.
And Colorado, I think it's the only reason why Jared Polis Is Governor Feliz Navidad.
It's all in his head.
Did you see he condemned Biden for the pardons?
Feliz Navidad.
He's one of their best governors.
He's only getting people killed in Colorado left and right with all of the trans-Duragua he's brought in.
And he denies it.
And he's got that Johnson mayor who's going to stand at the gates and stop Tom Holman from coming in.
What's the name of that betting site?
Polymarket.
Oh, Polymarket.
They're going after Polymarket.
You know that?
Because Polymarket predicted Trump.
And I got angry at the Post because the Post wrote an article.
Maybe it was the Journal.
I don't remember.
They wrote an article saying this was just, you know, a continuation of their lawfare.
And I said, what about me?
Biden's law partner, who worked for the crooked firm that I exposed, that began all this, is suing me for nothing with these women?
And that's not, they treat the case like it's a real case?
$148 million judgment?
I'll get you the comparative judgments if you really want to.
I hope that Pete makes it.
But I have to say, if you start seeing a name like DeSantis, which is a serious name, float it at this point.
Somebody either...
I imagine...
The president...
The president doesn't back away from people easily.
He goes right down the line with, you remember, he didn't back away from Kavanaugh, any other president except Reagan would have.
Fannie Willis now is refusing to turn over her documents of the communications with the White House, which will show that all four prosecutions of Trump were coordinated.
I really thought they should have brought a civil rights case and had them all put together and thrown out as a violation of his civil rights.
But that was me, and I'm a disbarred lawyer, remember?
But they say she violated the open records laws.
You know, when are they going to prosecute her for taking campaign money?
Or at least find out...
This is like the Hunter Biden statement.
Do we have that ready to go?
What do we want to do it on?
Yeah.
We got Fannie's little statement ready to go that she used campaign money for personal reasons.
Isn't that a crime?
Am I missing something?
I mean, is Georgia so crooked they don't make using campaign money?
You know why?
They're so crooked they don't get upset by it.
When I was in court...
Cash at the house.
That has been, I don't know, all my life.
If you're a woman and you go on a date with a man, you better have $200 in your pocket, so if that man acts up, you can go where you want to go.
So I keep cash in my house, and I don't keep cash as good in my purse like I used to, because I don't go on many dates.
But when you go on a date, you should have cash in your pocket.
So my question was, where did that cash originally come from, if it didn't come out of the bank?
Cash is fungible.
I've had cash for years in my house.
So for me to tell you the source of what it comes from, when you go to Publix and you buy something, you get $50, you throw it in there.
It's been my whole life.
When I took out a large amount of money on my first campaign, I kept some of the cash of that.
Like, to tell you, I just have cash in my house.
I don't have as much today as I would normally have, but I'm building back up now.
You just put money in.
It's a very good practice.
I would advise it to all women.
Am I crazy?
Or nobody even seemed to react to it.
From time immemorial, I'm pretty sure I've even prosecuted cases like this.
You can't use campaign money for personal expenses.
Didn't you just say that, Ted?
Am I crazy?
And nobody even cares?
It's like Biden.
Hunter says I give half the money to my father for a lifetime, and they say there's no evidence the father got money.
What the hell is that?
That's classical admission.
It's evidence.
It's right there in the books.
It's evidence, even admissible evidence, meaning it's an exception to the hearsay rule that allows you to put in evidence, even described as sometimes more credible and more effective than confessions.
But there's no evidence that Joe Biden got money.
Goddamn right there's evidence.
And there's evidence that she took for herself.
For personal reasons, her campaign money.
Now, this is one where she could be lying because what she's trying to do, but she's talking herself into another crime.
The real theory was that she produced this million dollars for the boyfriend who knew nothing about RICO laws.
He had to go to a course to learn about it.
And she paid him a million dollars and then he spent a lot of it on her.
And I always wondered when I appeared there why they did the two grand jury con job.
You know, I went before a grand jury and I was told, well, they can't indict you.
I said, well, what the hell am I here for?
I mean, they can't indict anybody.
It's just a exploratory grand jury.
Then they had another grand jury.
Well, that was too.
But they're as crooked as, you know, the New York judges and the New York politicians who appointed them.
That's spread out the money.
The guy questioned me and honestly didn't think they'd prosecute the case because he was so stupid.
I mean, he didn't know what he was doing.
And the grand jury was wild.
The grand jury asked me to sign autographs.
The grand jury asked me to take pictures.
The poor lady of the grand jury kissed me.
And then Fannie the Ho asked to see me afterwards because I was such an important prosecutor.
My lawyer Bob Costello was sure, well, she's not going to indict you.
I said, don't count on it, Bob.
This place could be more crooked than New York, Fulham County.
And it is if they don't react to that.
Kash Patel, they're giving him trouble too, but I don't, it doesn't, it doesn't.
Right now, none of the other trouble sounds fatal.
Now, the Hicks at Trouble doesn't sound fatal to me.
I don't think there's anything I've heard that would stop me from going forward with them.
But look, the White House, the White House, the Trump people are on top of this.
And if a name like DeSantis is being floated, it would be terrible, Pete.
I mean, why did he have to go through all this?
And it's all his personal life.
I mean, it's nothing having to do with what kind of a defense secretary he'd make.
Jesus, I mean, he says a lot of it is not true.
And in any event, it's nothing compared to Clinton, right?
Nothing.
And he, based on the Biden-Obama model, he wasn't a bad president.
So, As I said, we'll be back, you know, tomorrow night.
We'll be back live tomorrow night.
We'll give you the lowdown on what happened at Mar-a-Lago, one mile from here.
And we'll be live.
And if anything big happens, we'll just come on when we get back, okay?
So you have a wonderful, wonderful evening and day.
And pray for the people of Israel and pray for the people of Of Ukraine and pray for the people of Iran and pray for us that we continue to continue on this course of restoring our rights that are still all in jeopardy because Biden's still in the White House.
Mine are being violated every day.
I'd have to spend the whole show explaining it if I did.
But the fact that this guy, Godly, was Biden's partner, and took money from the organized crime operation Burisma instigated this whole case and nobody reports that kind of makes it clear this is a political case as everyone else has said well in any event we got a lot of important things to cover a lot more appointments to come and the president is president
trump is off to a great start and the choices that he's making And the trouble that's being caused is typical Democrat nonsense.
These are very good people who are going to carry out the job of restoring this country to what our founding fathers and what we always believed it was, a republic based on laws and not on the dictates of one man or one political group, which is what it is now.
God bless America!
...bear the principle of common sense and rational discussion to the issues of our day.
America was created at a time of great turmoil, tremendous disagreements, anger, hatred.
It was a book written in 1776 that guided much of the discipline of thinking that brought to us the discovery of our freedoms, of our God-given freedoms.
It was Thomas Paine's Common Sense, written in 1776, one of the first American bestsellers, in which Thomas Paine explained by rational principles the reason why these small colonies felt the necessity to separate from the Kingdom of Great Britain and the King of England.
He explained their inherent desire for liberty, for freedom, freedom of religion, freedom of speech, The ability to select the people who govern them.
And he explained it in ways that were understandable to all the people, not just the elite.
Because the desire for freedom is universal.
The desire for freedom adheres in the human mind and it is part of the human soul.
This is exactly the time we should consult our history.
Look at What we've done in the past.
And see if we can't use it to help us now.
We understand that our founders created the greatest country in the history of the world.
The greatest democracy, the freest country.
A country that has taken more people out of poverty than any country ever.
All of us are so fortunate to be Americans.
But a great deal of the reason for America's constant ability to self-improve is because we're able to reason.
We're able to talk.
We're able to analyze.
▲
Export Selection