0:00

Ready for a new and exciting

0:03

career challenge? At DHL Supply Chain,

0:05

you're part of a team committed

0:07

to creating innovative solutions for some

0:09

of the biggest brands in the

0:11

world. We're recognized as a best

0:14

place to work, where people are

0:16

valued, supported, and respected. DHL Supply

0:18

Chain is hiring for a wide

0:20

range of salaried operational and functional

0:22

roles. Previous experience in logistics is

0:25

welcome, but not required. All opportunities,

0:27

no boundaries. DHL Supply Chain. Apply

0:29

today at joindhl.com. Games,

0:55

quizzes and lots of ways to keep your gambling

0:57

from getting out of hand. Donald

1:25

Trump. You know, we've been saying all along,

1:27

he needs to draw an inside straight in

1:30

order to defeat this law fair against him.

1:32

He's doing it. Every day

1:34

brings more good news for

1:37

the former president. He's doing it. Today,

1:40

a couple of things. Georgia's state court

1:42

of appeals just announced that

1:44

it will consider an appeal from

1:46

Mr. Trump challenging the decision made

1:48

by Judge Scott McAfee overseeing

1:51

the case to disqualify

1:53

D.A. Fannie Willis. You remember

1:56

that she was not disqualified. Well,

1:58

that's going up. But now an appeal the

2:00

appellate court did not have to take it they're

2:03

taking it and so they're going

2:05

to review Scott McAfee's decision On

2:07

whether she should have been DQ'd huge

2:09

huge news late Tuesday

2:12

judge Aileen Cannon, she's

2:14

the one down in Florida indefinitely

2:16

Postponed the trial date regarding

2:18

the classified documents case down

2:21

there and then Thursday

2:23

morning Stormy Daniels is

2:25

expected back on the stand in Manhattan

2:27

her testimony on Tuesday Made

2:30

headlines across the nation and if you

2:33

ask me it did not go well for

2:35

Stormy Daniels You may hear

2:37

something different if you listen to MSNBC But

2:40

Trump's actually doing well in that

2:42

case on a number of fronts

2:44

though. I still think he's going to lose it The

2:47

mainstream media. However, this is like this

2:50

is the most exciting thing that's happened to

2:52

them in years self pajamas Oh, it was

2:54

just like you have nerd STDs

2:57

they had a chat about them Missionary

3:00

position tell us more I'm telling

3:02

you this show called it when

3:04

we get our fake porn reenactment

3:07

show Reading the media's

3:09

write-ups about just him sitting

3:11

there during voir dire of the

3:13

potential jurors Now they're at actual

3:16

sex and the media's beside itself

3:19

What they seem to miss given all of

3:21

their focus on the prurient details was

3:24

the revisionist history Told

3:26

by stormy Daniels on the stand Listen,

3:29

we kept the receipts when stormy

3:32

was on the view this past

3:34

march march We reported on her change

3:36

of tune regarding the encounter that she

3:38

had with Donald Trump back in

3:40

2018 She told

3:43

Anderson Cooper on 60 minutes that what

3:45

happened that night. She specifically said was

3:48

not a me too situation then

3:50

to the view A

3:53

month ago she said she

3:55

realized after seeing the movie bombshell which

3:57

was about the sexual harassment scandal at

3:59

fox news, there was

4:01

indeed now she believes a

4:04

power imbalance between Stormy and

4:06

Donald Trump. Watch. They're

4:10

trying to like, Oh, you know, Stormy comes

4:12

out hashtag me too. This is not a

4:14

me too. I did remember a little more

4:16

of the words that he said to me

4:18

because originally I didn't know that they were

4:20

that important because they weren't direct threats. It

4:23

was more like, I

4:25

thought you wanted to be a, you know, I thought you

4:27

wanted to be successful. You have to show me what it

4:29

takes. It was that kind of thing. And

4:31

I didn't really realize the gravity of that. As whole, I

4:33

watched the movie here. I must say the word. He has

4:36

bombshell. That kind of thing,

4:38

that, that kind of language is a qualifier, which means he

4:40

may have said nothing of the sort, that

4:42

kind of thing. He said, you know, this

4:45

thing about power. Okay.

4:47

That didn't happen. I'm just going to say

4:50

it didn't happen. That's a new fact she's

4:52

offered just now in anticipation of her testimony

4:54

and while they're doing a documentary about her,

4:57

but don't take my word for it. Here's a

4:59

closer look at what she said on the

5:01

stand this week versus what

5:03

she has said in the past.

5:05

Keep in mind, she testified yesterday

5:08

on Tuesday to how much

5:10

she now hates Donald Trump

5:13

and how much she would like to

5:15

see him incarcerated. Speaking

5:17

about the night she says they had sex in

5:19

2006, Stormy Daniels testified

5:22

that she blacked out

5:25

clearly implying to the jury that

5:27

this was a traumatic event. So

5:29

traumatic she blacked out despite not

5:31

consuming any drugs or alcohol. Here's

5:34

what she said on the stand per the

5:36

Washington post in the courtroom. She

5:39

had gone to the bathroom to freshen up. This is

5:41

before they had any interlude. When she

5:43

emerged from the bathroom, she was surprised to

5:45

find Trump wearing a t-shirt and boxers and

5:47

sitting on the bed. She testified

5:49

to the following quote, that's when

5:52

I had that moment when I felt like

5:54

the room spun in full motion and

5:57

I felt the blood leave my hands

5:59

and my feet, almost like if

6:01

you stand up too fast. She

6:03

said Trump, quote, stood up between me and the

6:05

door, not in a threatening manner. I

6:07

think I blacked out. Next thing

6:10

I know, I was on the bed. I

6:12

was staring at the ceiling. I don't

6:14

know how I got there. She

6:17

talked about the sex

6:19

that they had. She described the position

6:22

in which it happened. And

6:25

we'll get to the differences there too. After

6:28

the sex act, she testified, quote,

6:30

my hands were shaking so hard. I

6:32

was having a hard time getting dressed.

6:35

All right. So that's her on the stand

6:37

this week. It was obviously traumatic, so traumatic.

6:39

She blacked out. He had blocked

6:41

her way when she exited the bathroom from

6:44

leaving, though not in a threatening manner. And

6:47

she was so shaken up that she actually

6:49

was physically shaking and could barely

6:51

get dressed. She was having a hard time getting

6:53

dressed. That's her testimony before this jury. And

6:55

in 2011, Stormy Daniels gave

6:57

an interview to In Touch magazine. It

7:00

wasn't printed until 2018 because Michael Cohen

7:02

was called for comment on that magazine

7:04

article in 11 and he threatened to

7:06

sue In Touch. Boy, oh boy,

7:08

have times changed. In 18,

7:10

they finally ran with it. Here is

7:13

what she told the outlet at that point.

7:15

Again, this is from an interview they did in 11

7:17

with her regarding the encounter with Trump. Quote,

7:19

we started kissing. I actually don't

7:21

even know why I did it, but I

7:23

do remember while we were having

7:26

sex, I was like, please

7:28

don't try to pay me. And then I

7:30

remember thinking, but I bet if he did, it would be

7:32

a lot. Okay. So

7:34

far from being blacked out,

7:37

she was well aware of what was happening

7:39

and she was thinking about

7:41

money. Stormy

7:43

went on, you know, it was one position.

7:46

What you would expect someone his age to do. It

7:49

wasn't bad. Don't get me wrong.

7:52

Okay. So it wasn't bad. She went on in

7:54

that old interview to say, I was

7:57

more like fascinated. I was

7:59

definitely. Stimulated. We had a

8:01

really good banter, good conversation for a

8:04

couple of hours. I could tell he

8:06

was nice, intelligent in conversation. That's

8:09

her description then. Alright, he's fascinating.

8:12

She was stimulated by him and

8:15

it wasn't bad. The sex itself wasn't

8:17

bad. Don't get me wrong. Back

8:20

to blacked out. I was

8:22

shaking. The blood rushed

8:24

out of my extremities. Oh my God.

8:27

Come on. Usually I'm guessing if you

8:29

black out during a sex act, you don't remember how good or

8:31

bad it was. But let's move on. The

8:34

reporter for In Touch also asked, Did

8:37

you think the conversation would have led

8:39

to what happened? In

8:41

other words, did you think you were going to have sex? Stormy.

8:43

Yeah. Okay, so she

8:45

wasn't really surprised as she

8:48

testified on the stand. She wasn't surprised at all.

8:50

She knew when having the conversation this was leading

8:52

to sex. She was not shocked, as she now

8:54

claims, when she exited the bathroom to find him

8:56

ready for it. The song revisionist history.

8:59

The In Touch reporter also asked, were you

9:01

attracted to him? She responded,

9:04

would you be? And here she said, I

9:06

was more like fascinated. I was definitely stimulated.

9:08

We had a really good banter. Oh,

9:11

what do you mean? She was stimulated and had

9:13

good banter. And found

9:16

him fascinating and interesting and a nice guy.

9:18

Not somebody who behaved in

9:21

some way that caused her to black out and

9:23

lose the blood in her extremities. In

9:25

the full In Touch interview, Stormy never talks

9:28

about not remembering details, being

9:31

shaky, shaky hands, or having

9:33

trouble getting dressed. In

9:35

2018, when speaking to 60 Minutes,

9:37

Anderson Cooper, she did not

9:39

use any of those

9:41

words either. Instead, she

9:44

laughed at times. Watch. So

9:47

I excused myself when I went to the

9:49

restroom. You know, I was in there for

9:51

a little bit and came out and he was sitting on

9:53

the edge of the bed when I walked out. Perched.

9:58

And When you saw that, what went through? The mud.

10:00

Ah, I realize exactly what

10:03

I gotten myself into and

10:05

let us. Here

10:08

we go and I just felt

10:10

like maybe. It

10:13

was sort of. I had it coming for making

10:15

a bad decision for going to someone's room alone

10:17

and I just heard the voice and i well

10:19

you put yourself in a bad situation and bad

10:21

things happen though. You deserve this. And

10:24

you had sex with guess. Unbelievable.

10:28

And. Still, at that time not a me to

10:31

situation not suggesting that in. Anyway,

10:34

Here's me not to discuss all the

10:36

latest news. Fill Holloway Legal analyst and

10:39

host of Inside the Law on You

10:41

Tube And you Enough Seen! A long

10:43

time Democratic lawyer and consultant who served

10:45

as chief counsel to Democrats during Bill

10:47

Clinton's impeachment trial. You

10:49

oh back taxes. Pandemic. Relief

10:52

is now over. Along with

10:54

hiring thousands of new agents and field

10:56

officers, The Iris is kicked off Twenty

10:58

Twenty Four by sending over five million

11:00

pay up letters to those who have

11:02

on file tax returns or balance owed.

11:05

Don't we've You need to speak with them on your own. Tax

11:08

Network Usa, a trusted tax relief from

11:10

has saved over one billion dollars in

11:12

back taxes for their clients and they

11:14

can help you secure the best deal

11:17

possible. That are you. Oh,

11:19

ten thousand dollars Or ten million. They.

11:21

Can help you. Whether. It's business or

11:23

personal taxes. Even. If you have the

11:25

means to pay, or if you're on a fixed income.

11:27

They. Can help finally resolved your tax burdens

11:30

once and for all. Call one

11:32

hundred to four Five Six thousand. For.

11:34

A private free consultation. With.

11:36

Is T and

11:38

usa.com/megan. Guys,

11:41

welcome back to the show! My gosh, there's a lot

11:43

to discuss fill your take on what we just went

11:45

through. The difference in her testimony that a now. You.

11:47

don't make a great be here all

11:50

is there's always looks we always knew

11:52

that stormy daniels was going to have

11:54

credibility problems because just like other witnesses

11:57

in the case i'm looking at michael

11:59

cohen For example, she

12:01

can't remember what she said from one

12:04

day to the next. And anytime you get a

12:06

witness that gets in the witness stand and

12:09

you can show that they've made dozens

12:11

of prior inconsistent statements,

12:13

and we're talking about wildly

12:15

inconsistent, it goes to

12:17

their credibility. At least it would,

12:20

Megan, in a typical criminal case.

12:22

Here when you're in Manhattan with

12:24

this Manhattan jury that's pre-conditioned, I

12:26

think, to sort of believe anything

12:28

that Alvin Bragg may be selling,

12:30

but typically it would be a fatal

12:33

blow to the prosecution in New York, it

12:35

remains to be seen. It's

12:37

amazing when you hear the details, Julian.

12:40

This is the New York Times repeating

12:42

what she said on the stand. She's

12:45

describing a remarkably intense encounter. She says

12:47

the room spun in slow motion and

12:49

the blood left her hands and feet.

12:51

Says she blacked out. Okay, so now

12:54

she's traumatized, shaking, bewildered. It's

12:57

a distinction in

12:59

the balance of power versus

13:03

what she's been saying a lot, laughing. It

13:06

was pretty good. It was not bad. It was

13:08

what you'd expect of a man that age. I

13:10

mean, it's night and day, which

13:12

the jury's going to know because that 2011 In

13:14

Touch magazine was

13:17

the subject of the cross-examination. Well, yeah. And

13:19

I think, well, first of all, good afternoon, Megan,

13:21

and it's great to be with you again. I

13:23

think the rift that you went through

13:25

at the opening of the show is exactly what

13:28

the defense attorneys are going to use

13:30

in cross-examination of her. And

13:34

I would hate to be on

13:37

her side when that occurs because I

13:39

think it's going to be a pretty

13:41

tough cross-examination. And I think the prosecutors

13:43

will end up regretting even

13:46

calling her in the first place. I

13:48

think the judge has let this case

13:50

get out of control. This case has

13:52

now become an official dumpster fire on

13:56

just so many levels. But

13:58

what they're doing to do is they're going to be Donald Trump right now

14:00

is exactly what they tried to do to Bill Clinton.

14:03

They didn't have a strong case against Bill

14:05

Clinton. They don't have a case against Donald

14:07

Trump. So what they're trying to do is

14:09

to dirty him up with all

14:12

of these prurient details of the

14:14

affair and all this stuff that you just sort of

14:16

went through. And I think at

14:19

the end of the day, it risks turning off

14:22

the jurors. I think it

14:24

will continue to look to the

14:26

public that this is a political

14:28

persecution. And I think if

14:31

nothing else, this

14:33

is reversible error. I mean, the fact

14:35

that the judge is letting something, testimony

14:38

like this in is reversible error. This

14:40

has nothing, nothing zero

14:43

to do with what Donald Trump is being

14:45

charged with, which is misrepresenting records

14:47

and furtherance of a federal campaign

14:49

violation. It's completely irrelevant to that.

14:53

To our last conversation, you talked

14:55

about Brad Smith being disqualified from

14:58

testifying at the trial when Brad Smith

15:01

could have given very important testimony about

15:03

him being the chief law enforcement officer at

15:05

one point on federal campaign finance laws, saying

15:08

that hush money is not a reportable expenditure. And

15:11

Donald Trump probably relied on that kind of

15:13

analysis. So how can you show he was

15:15

intending to violate the law if he in

15:17

fact was relying on expert analysis saying hush

15:19

money is not reportable? Well, they won't let

15:21

that in the case, but they'll

15:24

let something completely irrelevant like this

15:26

intended just to dirty him up

15:28

as much as they can in

15:30

order to poison the jury pool.

15:33

And this is reversible error. They're

15:36

trying, Phil, to humiliate him. And this

15:38

judge is aiding and

15:40

abetting the effort. The defense

15:42

went up there before she took the

15:44

stand to try to say that she

15:46

is irrelevant. Her testimony is irrelevant. And

15:48

certainly any descriptions of the alleged interlude

15:51

are irrelevant. And the prosecution said, no, we

15:53

need to establish it. We have to show

15:55

that sex took place. And the judge said,

15:58

okay. So then she. starts

16:00

talking about how they had conversations about STDs

16:02

in the porn industry. She

16:04

actually testified and was allowed to that

16:07

he didn't wear a condom. Okay,

16:09

so the jury's now heard that he's

16:11

having an extramarital affair with a porn

16:13

star without wearing a condom. How

16:15

is that, again, relevant to the core

16:18

issue of campaign finance violations or falsifying

16:20

business records? And she

16:22

goes on and on about the

16:25

details of the mission. Why do we know it was

16:27

missionary? All this stuff she got in without

16:30

much of a fight. The defense stood

16:32

up here or there, but not

16:34

that much because they'd just been overruled at the

16:36

beginning of her testimony. And you and I both

16:39

know you don't want to look like

16:41

it's hurting me, it's hurting me. When you've already

16:43

been ruled against privately by the judge and you

16:45

know all this stuff is coming in, you don't

16:48

stand on every question because then you're just telegraphing

16:50

to the jury, this shit is really hurting me.

16:52

So they pick their places to object, then they

16:54

have a sidebar and the judge is like, this

16:57

is not appropriate testimony. I expected

16:59

more objections from the defense. He's

17:01

blaming them for the situation he

17:03

created. Well,

17:06

he's putting between a rock and a hard place

17:09

because if you don't object, you can waive

17:12

the error for appeal. You

17:14

can be deemed to have not

17:16

objected timely. They should have asked

17:19

for like a continuing objection or something

17:21

like that. Hopefully everything that was

17:23

said at sidebar was taken down and there's

17:26

no waiver issues. But apparently

17:28

Judge Murchand is, he's

17:31

not been reading his slip opinions because

17:33

I think he failed to read that

17:36

the appeals court in New York

17:38

has reversed one of his colleagues

17:41

for allowing prosecutors to

17:43

put in too much irrelevant stuff

17:45

and to slime Harvey Weinstein to

17:47

the point that it created an

17:50

unfair trial and of course that

17:52

case was recently reversed. Judge

17:55

Murchand would do well to take a

17:57

lesson from that. This

17:59

testimony I mean,

18:01

we've said it's irrelevant, and I don't know any

18:03

other way to say it, other than it's now

18:06

cumulative, it's the kind of evidence that even

18:08

if it were relevant to one of the

18:11

issues, it's so unfairly

18:13

prejudicial to the defense

18:15

that it becomes otherwise

18:17

inadmissible. Now, the only

18:20

thing I think that you can say about

18:22

this testimony that might help Donald Trump, one

18:24

of the points that he is making, and

18:26

I think he's doing a good job making

18:28

it through his counsel, is that

18:31

any payments, and by the way, I'm not going

18:33

to call them hush money because that implies there's

18:35

something sinister, but the media will call it a

18:37

hush money payment. His

18:41

purpose in doing that is not

18:43

for benefiting his campaign. Now

18:46

we see that he can have other non-related

18:49

purposes like to avoid embarrassment

18:52

and also for the sake of his spouse

18:55

and any number in his business

18:57

enterprises, things that are unrelated to the

19:00

campaign. So this, I think,

19:02

helps him make that argument that

19:04

even if there was anything wrong

19:06

with it, it wasn't for

19:09

the purpose of benefiting the campaign, and that

19:11

is the so-called other crime that the...

19:13

Well, wait a minute, because on that

19:15

front, she testified that he

19:18

did not ask her to keep it

19:20

quiet. The prosecution brought out testimony from

19:22

Stormy that Trump did not say, don't

19:24

tell anyone at any point

19:26

after it happened, immediately after it happened,

19:29

and they wanted to bring that out

19:31

to suggest Trump didn't want to

19:33

shut her up until he ran for office. Well,

19:37

there's also, they have to bring

19:39

that out because she's now intimating

19:41

through her testimony, I think, that

19:43

perhaps somehow this was something

19:46

less than fully consensual. I think that's

19:48

the sinister motive behind Albin Bragg's testimony.

19:50

I think he knew good and well

19:52

what she was going to say about

19:55

possibly blacking out and all that sort

19:57

of thing, because that sort

19:59

of... The message to the jury that

20:01

he's a real real sinister and evil person to

20:04

me That was the real purpose of this testimony

20:06

that I mean, it's truly second two quick points.

20:08

Yeah, go ahead Julian Yeah,

20:12

so again, you know to I

20:14

take Phil's point on the NDA hush money Semantic

20:18

issue, but you said that the

20:20

prosecutors said they needed to establish that sex occurred

20:23

That's just wrong as a matter of law whether

20:25

or not sex occurred There

20:28

was an NDA and the only

20:30

issue before The

20:32

court is whether the NDA

20:35

was misreported on the business records And I'm not

20:37

sure by the way calling an NDA a legal

20:39

expense is a misreporting. I'm not even there's no

20:41

clear guidance in New York on

20:44

that so That's one point

20:46

So whether they had sex is completely

20:48

irrelevant the only question is whether there

20:50

was an NDA that was misreported on

20:52

business records and whether there was a

20:54

federal crime that that misreporting was furthering

20:56

and Whether you know

20:58

you want to subjectively say one of

21:00

the purposes to Phil's point was Not

21:04

reporting it on

21:06

federal campaign records The

21:09

though if you read the rules the

21:11

FPC rules, it's clear that an NDA

21:14

is not considered I know portable can't

21:16

we talk about it's about what matters

21:18

the nature of the expenditure not the

21:20

subjective motivation in the pay or even

21:22

if it was if Correct,

21:26

but even if it was it wouldn't have been reportable to 2017

21:28

when he was already interfered in the 2016 election When

21:32

he was already an officer and even if

21:35

it was bragg this don't have jurisdiction to

21:37

enforce that so this this case has become

21:39

A joke. I mean this is embarrassing. This

21:41

is exactly what the left argued during the

21:43

Bill Clinton Weeping

21:47

condemnations are interesting But I want to say that this is because

21:49

we're we've got a lot of them to get through today And

21:52

I want that brings me to Stormy's claim. This is

21:54

another area in which they tried to ding her up

21:56

on cross she claimed

21:58

that But

22:00

she was threatened. So the

22:02

prosecution is trying to say, you came

22:06

forward and, or you did not

22:08

come forward, right? You

22:10

did not come forward to say anything about this

22:13

until you decided to shake down Donald

22:15

Trump. That's what you wanted to

22:17

do, shake him down. And she's like, no, the reason

22:19

I didn't come forward earlier is because I was threatened.

22:22

I was in a parking lot years

22:25

ago, like after it happened, closer in time to

22:27

when it happened, a man came

22:30

up to me in a parking lot when

22:33

I was in Las Vegas with my daughter. And

22:38

he threatened me that if I told people I was

22:40

going to be in some sort of a trailer. And

22:42

she says that she didn't report it because it

22:44

would have been upsetting to the person she was

22:46

in a relationship with at the time. Now

22:49

the New York Times reports that this is an account.

22:52

This is an account she never told some of the people

22:54

who worked closely with her on the

22:57

NDA. She first revealed it in that

22:59

60 minutes interview in 2018. All

23:01

right. So now in

23:03

2018, she first time for the first time

23:05

says the reason I haven't come forward until

23:08

now, 12 years after

23:10

the act by that point was because

23:12

somebody threatened me. And the prosecution got

23:14

all over her. Um,

23:16

actually, wait, we have a soundbite of what she

23:19

told Anderson Cooper in 2018 about

23:22

what she did right after this

23:24

alleged scary parking lot threat. And

23:29

a guy walked up on me and

23:31

said to me, leave Trump

23:33

alone, forget the story. And then he

23:35

leaned around and looked at my daughter and said, a beautiful

23:38

little girl would be ashamed of something happened to her mom. And

23:40

then he was gone. I was rattled. I

23:42

remember going into the workout class and my hands

23:44

are shaking so much. I was afraid I was

23:46

going to drop her. Did you go to the police? No.

23:50

Why? Because I was scared. Okay.

23:53

So back then she says, I'm

23:55

rattled. And the

23:57

prosecution gets up to her. It

24:00

gets up in her grill and says in your book, you

24:03

write that you went to an exercise

24:05

class after this alleged

24:08

threat. So you went to

24:10

an exercise class and the defense is trying to

24:13

suggest she made up the whole thing to

24:15

explain why she didn't come forward

24:17

earlier. The question by the defense

24:19

counsel was, you were using it

24:21

as an excuse to lie. You

24:24

used this supposed threat as an excuse

24:26

for why you did not talk publicly.

24:29

She said the man who

24:31

allegedly threatened you doesn't

24:33

exist, does he? I

24:35

thought that was actually quite effective because who

24:38

goes into an exercise class right

24:40

after they've been threatened, their life

24:42

has been threatened, if they reveal that they've had sex with

24:45

Donald Trump? Yeah,

24:49

if you ask me, I don't think anybody does. This

24:51

is the kind of thing that it

24:54

just defies common sense, it defies belief.

24:56

It's the kind of thing that is,

24:58

there's no way that it's ever going

25:01

to be able to be conclusively proven

25:03

one way or the other. And it's

25:05

the kind of thing if you like

25:07

Donald Trump or you're at least not

25:11

opposed to the man, you might tend to

25:13

say, well, she's lying. But on the other

25:15

hand, if you just can't see past your

25:18

visceral hatred for the defendant, you absolutely believe

25:20

that that is the gospel truth. And

25:23

so it's easy for the kind of thing for

25:25

a witness to just come out and say, because

25:27

there's no a way to prove

25:29

or disprove it. We're not going to hear

25:31

from anybody else that was there. We're not

25:33

going to see any security camera videos from

25:35

wherever it was. There's no police reports. There's

25:38

no investigation. It's easy to

25:40

fabricate and difficult to disprove.

25:42

It's the kind of thing that all

25:44

the defense lawyer can do is

25:47

ask the question the way that he asked

25:49

it and leave it there because there's no

25:51

way to prove it through any kind of

25:53

intrinsic facts otherwise. So they're just trying to

25:55

chip away at her credibility, ding her up

25:58

and ding her up. And Julian, They

26:00

did that by getting her in part to admit she

26:03

hates Donald Trump. She

26:05

would love to see him incarcerated. And

26:08

also she admitted on the stand that even though

26:10

she's been ordered by a federal judge to pay

26:12

his attorney's costs in connection with the defamation suit

26:15

she brought against him and lost, she

26:17

won't pay it at some, I think, $500,000. And

26:19

she said, on cross, I'm not going to pay it. I don't care.

26:22

She admitted that she had previously said she'll never

26:24

pay it and she doesn't care about the court

26:26

order. So this jury is hearing she'll defy a

26:28

court order to pay what she owes when

26:31

it comes to Donald Trump. She's dying to see

26:33

him incarcerated and she hates him. And

26:36

they have more than enough basis to disregard

26:39

every word she has said for that

26:41

reason alone, never mind the many inconsistencies

26:43

we just went through, many of which

26:45

they heard about. Well,

26:49

this is why I think the prosecution may

26:51

regret calling her. I think the defense is

26:53

going to make mincemeat out of uncross

26:56

examination. As

26:58

Phil said, after this 2011 incident, completely

27:00

impossible to prove it was true. And

27:03

no one has tried to attach Donald Trump

27:05

to it, even if it were true. If

27:07

you were to would trashed Donald Trump, it

27:09

would prove he wanted to keep the affair

27:12

quiet long before he ran for president. So

27:14

let me just add to that for one second,

27:16

Julian. Even on that front, Michael Cohen, who's

27:18

now turned in favor of the

27:20

prosecution and against Donald Trump, even

27:22

he has never to this day

27:24

alleged that somebody in Trump's orbit

27:26

or Trump himself or he is

27:28

the conciliarity Trump dispatched somebody to

27:30

go threaten Stormy Daniels. It's

27:33

a lie. She told the lie

27:35

to justify why she didn't come forward

27:37

all that time. And the

27:39

prosecute or the defense attorneys were on to

27:41

it. Go ahead. But

27:44

there's a bigger point to all

27:46

of this stuff we are talking

27:49

about is completely irrelevant. It

27:51

has nothing to do with

27:53

whether or not the records were falsified. And as we

27:55

just mentioned, it's not clear that they were. And

27:58

it has nothing to do with whether they were falsified

28:00

in furtherance of some federal crime, which wasn't a

28:03

crime. So what

28:05

has happened is the judge

28:08

here has completely lost control of this

28:10

trial and is

28:13

now trying to, has become,

28:15

and remember, this judge made

28:19

political contributions to Biden in 2020. His

28:24

daughter is a political activist. I wouldn't normally say

28:26

these kinds of things, but I think the conflicts

28:28

are so rife here. Both prosecutors,

28:30

Colangelo and Bragg, made political

28:33

contributions to Democrats, including Biden.

28:35

This case now has become

28:37

so out of control that

28:39

rather than dealing with a

28:41

central question here, the judge

28:43

is playing party to this

28:45

death by a thousand cuts

28:47

on completely irrelevant issues aimed

28:49

at going after reputational matters

28:51

that have nothing to do

28:53

with the core of the case here. This

28:55

is a joke and Democrats and

28:57

civil libertarians should be saying this case is

28:59

a joke. And this is exactly the

29:01

kind of thing that Republicans will do to Democrats when

29:04

they get into office. And this

29:06

is why, and it'll be no one's fault, but the

29:08

Democrats were not having objected to it when the shoe

29:10

was on the other foot. Here

29:12

is a judge, Shira Sheinlin,

29:14

no relation to Judge Judy. She was appointed

29:16

to the federal bench by Bill Clinton saying

29:19

much the same. Listen to her analysis. I

29:21

think this is from a CNN clip. The

29:26

material that came in was not relevant

29:28

to this criminal case at all. And

29:30

I think it shows that she was trying to

29:32

get Trump, I actually thought there was a motive

29:35

there. She said she hates him. She said she'd

29:37

like to see him in prison. I think she

29:39

was purposely throwing out this stuff to make sure

29:41

the jurors were prejudiced, particularly the women jurors, but

29:43

probably half of the men too were really put

29:45

off. That's the

29:48

big question, Phil. Did she succeed? Because

29:50

she was, the judge pointed out a

29:52

difficult witness. The reporting

29:55

of many journalists who were in

29:57

the courtroom was that she was squeezing

29:59

these things in. She would speak fast

30:01

on direct and would slip in, you

30:03

know, new information about Donald Trump, like,

30:05

you know, the no condom and things

30:07

like that before the defense could even

30:10

get on its feet to object and

30:12

was trying to joke with the jury. They,

30:15

journalists were reporting most of them didn't land.

30:18

The jurors did not smile or laugh in

30:20

response to her attempts at humor. So

30:23

it sounded to me like she was not a

30:25

very effective witness. However, she

30:28

managed to get those things in and they have a way

30:30

of lingering. Oh,

30:33

this is also New York. And if the

30:35

jurors are predisposed to hate Donald Trump as

30:37

well, I mean, the man won only, I

30:39

think 12% of the vote there, the last

30:41

election. And

30:43

that was before everybody fled New York to go

30:46

to free states like Florida and

30:48

elsewhere. So who knows what the demographics

30:50

are now. But if the

30:52

majority of the people on that jury are predisposed

30:54

to hate Donald Trump, then

30:57

everything that we are saying here about

30:59

Stormy Daniels and her lack of credibility

31:01

and the lack of relevance may not

31:03

even matter because the deck is stacked

31:05

against Donald Trump. Normally, if

31:07

this was someplace, even maybe in Fulton

31:10

County, Georgia, of all places, a jury,

31:12

if the jury hears this kind of

31:14

testimony, maybe they ignore the witness. Maybe

31:16

they even tend to side

31:19

with the defense because the prosecution

31:21

is bringing an irrelevant witness and wasting

31:23

their time. But if the deck

31:25

is stacked against him in

31:27

New York, in Manhattan, then

31:30

I just can't help but be concerned

31:32

that despite the legal flaws

31:34

with this testimony and despite the fact that

31:36

the judge should have granted a mistrial and

31:39

despite the fact that it's cumulative

31:41

and irrelevant, all of these things don't

31:43

matter. I'm concerned that a jury is

31:46

also going to be out to get Trump,

31:48

just like Stormy Daniels is out to get

31:50

Trump, just like Alvin Bragg is out to

31:52

get Trump. And just like speaking of Coagulow

31:55

leaves a lofty perch at

31:57

Biden's Department of Justice, takes an

31:59

apparent demand. motion to come to

32:01

Manhattan to get Trump. If everybody

32:03

is in on the get Trump

32:05

game plan, including the jury, then

32:07

none of the points that we are

32:10

making here today might matter until it

32:12

was perhaps a court of appeal.

32:14

And that's my real concern with it. Yeah. And

32:17

that's not going to happen until after the election.

32:19

You're not wrong about any of that, but I

32:21

will say it's this woman now

32:23

trying to spin this into a me

32:25

too situation, both with the

32:28

testimony on the stand on Tuesday and

32:30

what she said to the view about

32:32

the power imbalance is really galling. Okay.

32:34

Because that applies in

32:37

the workplace. Stormy, you

32:39

don't get to suggest you're a me

32:41

too victim just because you had sex

32:44

with a man who has more money

32:46

than you. That's not

32:48

what me too was about. It

32:50

was about extracting sexual favors

32:53

while threatening one's position of

32:55

employment. At best, what she's

32:58

alleging is that Trump said, I might be

33:00

able to get you on celebrity apprentice and

33:02

she's the one trying to exploit her ability

33:04

to give him sex so she could get

33:06

the role. All right. She

33:09

never consent said it wasn't consensual, that you didn't do it

33:11

willingly. And this is just a

33:13

bastardization of what the me too movement

33:15

at its core was. It

33:17

was bastardized by many people, but the core of the

33:19

movement was women trying to get ahead

33:22

at the office based on their merit should not

33:24

have to sleep with their boss or give sexual

33:26

favors to a superior at the workplace in

33:28

order to get there. That's

33:31

not what happened. It's infuriating to watch

33:33

her try to glom on Julian. And

33:36

by the way, the leftist reaction to

33:38

her, nobody's pointing that out, right? Nobody

33:40

will speak up for what the core of the

33:42

women's rights issue was. They'd love to have her

33:45

on board because it makes Trump look bad. And

33:47

I'll just give you a sampling. It's not on me too,

33:49

but here's a little bit of Maddow and

33:52

Nicole Wallace talking about her

33:54

observations in the wake of Stormy. Listen.

33:58

She said today, I have no shame talking about. about

34:00

her career choices. And there's

34:03

no reason she should. She's got self-determination. She

34:05

has given herself the career that she wants.

34:07

But we can have shame. You

34:10

know, we can have shame about our political choices as

34:13

a country in terms of who we are

34:15

elevating as America's base to the

34:17

world. And today is just, I

34:19

mean, none of us will ever get this taste out of our mouth. Wow.

34:23

Because I guess all the Democrats are pitch

34:25

perfect when it comes to their sex lives

34:27

in office. Yeah,

34:31

well, I think in addition to the point that you just

34:33

made, certainly about the

34:35

legal requirements of workplace harassment, which I think

34:38

is accurate, you

34:42

know, the role of the news media here is

34:44

to be getting issues like that the way you

34:46

just stated it, be getting it accurate, and

34:49

to be correcting things that

34:51

are false. The fact that

34:53

they don't do it along the lines of

34:55

what you just said, and they are

34:57

in fact treating this case as a serious case,

35:00

I think tells you about the corruption

35:02

of a lot of mainstream media today.

35:05

They are not looking at the truth. They are not

35:07

looking at getting the facts. If you look at the

35:09

number of people and news

35:11

organizations that have saved

35:13

the ratings, that have built their

35:16

careers, that have otherwise benefited personally

35:18

from going after Trump since 2016, it's

35:23

just staggering. I mean,

35:25

the whole Russiagate issue was sort

35:27

of built on, I mean, it

35:29

may have saved the ratings for

35:31

CNN and MSNBC, and it

35:33

built a lot of careers over there, and it built a

35:35

lot of careers in newsrooms, but it

35:37

turned out to be not really

35:39

factually based, right? But when

35:43

we found out that there wasn't strong evidence that

35:45

Trump was a Russian mall, you didn't

35:47

hear a lot of the people that spent three, four,

35:49

five years building their career saying, you know, we were

35:51

wrong. I mean, you can make the same kind of

35:53

analogies about the Wuhan Lab, and

35:55

you can make 100 Bites. You

35:57

can go on down the line about the news

35:59

media. of making these their

36:02

careers, reporters, news

36:04

people who are supposed to be honoring

36:06

the profession by going after the truth,

36:08

what they've become is opinion

36:11

activists. And sort of

36:13

all that matters is that they can

36:15

get a viewership that gets angry, that

36:17

gets upset, that

36:20

can throw contempt towards the other side. And that's how

36:22

they build their careers. And when

36:24

they make that leap to opinion activism,

36:26

it's when you stop thinking

36:28

critically along the lines of the rift that

36:30

you just made, which I think was

36:33

spot on, or looking at really is this

36:35

case being handled in a fair way. So

36:37

the media is going along with this charade.

36:39

They're complicit. Because it's good for them personally,

36:41

it's good for their careers. They're more

36:44

than complicit. They are playing

36:46

along with it because it's good

36:48

for them personally. They think it

36:50

builds their followers, their ratings, their

36:52

social media brand. And

36:55

this is a corruption of the system that more

36:57

people need to be calling out. And

36:59

not for nothing, but I completely

37:01

disagree with Rachel Maddow. Stormy Daniels

37:03

should have some shame around being

37:05

a porn star. That's not something

37:07

to be proud of. And I'm

37:09

not afraid to say that she's

37:11

got self-determination. Yeah, she's self-determined to

37:14

be a professional hooker. That's

37:16

what you are. You're getting paid to

37:18

have sex on camera. That's what being

37:20

a porn star is. You take something

37:22

that's supposed to be absolutely lovely and

37:24

special and awesome between two loving people,

37:27

ideally to procreate or be in

37:29

a marriage or a relationship in which that

37:31

will happen. And you bastardize it so that

37:33

random strangers can get off in their basements.

37:35

There's nothing valorous about it. I

37:38

would have shame too if I were Stormy Daniels.

37:40

Sorry, but we shouldn't be celebrating it, Rachel. Okay,

37:43

let's move on because there's a lot going on

37:45

in Trump legal world. And Phil, how about

37:48

the Georgia appellate court

37:50

taking up the Fannie

37:52

Willis case, suggesting maybe

37:55

she is going to get DQ'd from this

37:57

thing after all? Tell us the headlines here.

38:00

Yeah, so today I got

38:02

a text message right when the news was

38:05

breaking and so I immediately took to ex

38:07

and posted it out there. And

38:10

it's as I predicted, the Court

38:12

of Appeals, because this issue of

38:14

Fonnie Willis and whether she has

38:16

a conflict of interest in how

38:18

she has behaved,

38:20

quite frankly, in an irresponsible

38:23

way in bringing this case,

38:25

because it's such an important

38:27

issue, the trial judge took

38:29

the unusual step of allowing the

38:31

parties to take his order

38:33

up on appeal with, you know, prior

38:35

to the trial. It's an interlocutory appeal

38:37

is what we call it. It's unusual,

38:39

but it can happen. But the Court

38:41

of Appeals also has to agree to

38:43

hear it, Megan, it's discretionary. And so

38:45

they had like 45 days and

38:48

the clock was ticking. I think it was going to be Monday.

38:51

Today they said, yes, we are going to agree

38:53

to hear the appeal. And so now we move

38:55

on to the next phase. There's

38:57

going to have to be briefing by the parties

39:00

and of course oral argument in a couple of

39:02

months and it's going to be heard by a

39:04

panel of three judges. And it's

39:07

going to take, of course, a majority of that. So

39:09

two judges on the panel of three are going

39:11

to have to decide with the defense in

39:14

order to disqualify Fonnie Willis.

39:16

But that's not all. They're asking

39:18

that the case be dismissed in

39:20

addition to her being disqualified. What

39:23

we don't know is who

39:25

we're going to get on the panel, who are the

39:27

three judges. We just don't know that right now. But

39:30

if there's two judges that at a minimum

39:32

believe that she should be disqualified, the case

39:35

is going to be effectively over because there's

39:37

no other prosecutor in their right mind that

39:39

would want it because, Megan,

39:41

the odor of mendacity will

39:43

remain in the case even

39:46

if another prosecutor gets on it and it's

39:48

irreparable. They would have to start over from

39:50

scratch. And it's just the kind of thing

39:52

that's too big of an ask for another

39:54

prosecutor. So when

39:57

do we find out which panel they polled to

39:59

hear this appeal? Well,

40:02

we don't know yet. It's going to have to

40:04

be assigned to a panel. And

40:06

of course, these things rotate, right? It's

40:09

not the same panel, I don't believe, that

40:11

agreed to hear it. It's going to be

40:13

a second panel. So we're going to have,

40:15

at this point, at least six judges involved

40:17

in the decision, the combined decision to take

40:19

the case and then what to do with

40:21

it. So we don't yet know how it's

40:23

going to be assigned, but that's going to

40:25

be something, obviously, we're going to have to

40:27

watch very closely. Does the case keep moving?

40:30

Phil, does the case keep moving in the meantime while

40:32

they take this up on appeal? Does Fannie Willis get

40:34

to go forward at the trial level? Until

40:38

now, I'm of the belief that it

40:40

does not because once the case goes

40:42

up on appeal, and up until today,

40:44

it was not officially on appeal. Now

40:46

it's officially on appeal. And

40:48

so I think maybe the argument was that some

40:50

of the other business of the trial

40:52

court could continue. I am of the belief

40:55

that now that the case is officially in

40:57

the court of appeals, that the trial judge

40:59

is divested of jurisdiction to take any action.

41:01

And I think even if it's

41:04

unwise, because you don't want to do

41:06

a whole lot of work preparing the

41:08

case, gearing it up for trial, if

41:10

it turns out the prosecutor who's representing

41:12

the state at these pretrial matters is

41:14

not supposed to be there. So I

41:17

think that- Bombshell. ... the practical

41:19

matter. That is just a true bombshell,

41:21

Julian. I don't know how closely you follow this,

41:23

but Phil and we were

41:25

on this case very, from

41:27

the beginning, in a very detailed way. And

41:30

this is huge. I mean, this is, we talked about the

41:32

inside straight. Georgia

41:35

very well could go away. If Fannie Willis

41:37

gets disqualified, it's done. And

41:39

this one needs to go away for Trump because he

41:41

can't on the two federal cases, he can pull the

41:44

prosecutor off of that, but he can't pull them off

41:46

of New York and Georgia. New York's going to

41:48

be resolved before November. Then there's

41:50

Georgia lingering. Oh,

41:54

I think this case will go away. I mean,

41:56

look, I was critical of what Donald Trump did

41:58

with Brossenberger in Georgia. I

42:00

don't know that it crossed the line into criminal behavior.

42:02

I have my concerns about that. I've written about that.

42:05

The use of the racketeering laws is

42:07

almost unprecedented in a circumstance like this.

42:10

And remember, Fani Willis herself was conflicted

42:12

just the way Bragg was conflicted and

42:14

Letitia James were conflicted. She held a

42:16

fundraiser for one of the opponents of

42:18

the target of the initial investigation. So

42:21

she was deeply conflicted and she's been very

42:23

clear about her dislike of Donald Trump. These

42:25

conflicts with these prosecutors are a big deal.

42:28

And then when it crosses over into

42:30

what she was accused of, which was

42:33

basically a kickback scheme in

42:35

which she hired an unqualified boyfriend,

42:37

spent over half a million dollars, sent

42:40

him over half a

42:42

million dollars, he was then kicking that

42:44

money back to her. She claimed she

42:46

paid it back, but she's got no records. It

42:48

was all in cash. I mean, sort of all

42:50

of that stuff is just hard to swallow. So

42:52

I think not only will on

42:55

appeal is there likely to

42:57

be a finding of a conflict of interest.

42:59

I think she's got to be careful about

43:01

potential perjury charges here. But this

43:04

is another case where it's sort of, you

43:06

know, this has become, I sort of sometimes

43:08

wish Tom Wolf were still alive because this

43:10

is such great material for sort of a

43:12

discussion about this charade

43:14

that a lot of this

43:16

lawfare has become. I mean,

43:19

if Donald Trump did something wrong, there should be

43:21

consequences clearly. But the way that the left has

43:23

behaved, bringing these cases, waiting

43:27

eight years in the case of the New

43:29

York case we were just discussing, waiting four

43:31

years in the case of the election interference

43:33

just before the election, it's outrageous to be

43:35

this is election interference. What's happening is bringing

43:37

these cases, and I'm not a Donald Trump

43:39

supporter. I voted for Hillary in 2016. I

43:41

voted for Biden in 2020. I

43:44

didn't vote for Donald Trump at all. But

43:46

waiting to bring these cases until the eve

43:48

of election is abuse of authority. And

43:51

at some point, there needs to be a reckoning here

43:53

because this is exactly the kind of thing that

43:56

Republicans are going to do to Democrats when they

43:58

get into power. And Democrats will

44:00

have no one to blame but themselves for

44:02

not speaking up and for countenancing the abuse

44:04

of the legal system the way it's being

44:06

abused in these cases. So so true. Phil

44:09

I've been dying to ask you about Nathan

44:12

Wade's interview on ABC. We ran this

44:14

soundbite the other day on the show, but your

44:16

reaction i'd really love. Can we run SAT18? So

44:21

you didn't realize when you took the case your life was

44:23

really going to be under a microscope. I

44:26

did not realize that my life would be

44:29

in danger. The microscope I don't have

44:31

a problem with. The

44:34

truth is, you know, if the worst

44:36

that you could find was the fact

44:38

that I had

44:41

a relationship with someone or

44:44

that I happened to

44:46

be going through a divorce. That's okay. That's

44:49

right. That's okay. I have nothing

44:51

to to hide. That's

44:54

the worst that you could find. That's what he

44:56

that's how he styles what happened to him, Phil.

44:58

That's you know that they found out I was

45:00

in a relationship and got a divorce. Well,

45:04

look When you're in a hole,

45:06

the first thing you have to do is

45:08

stop digging and I wonder if the judges

45:11

on the court of appeals were watching this

45:13

news this week because that was just a

45:15

couple of days ago, right? And just today

45:17

we get the news that of course the

45:19

disqualification issue is is going to be before

45:21

the court of appeals. His

45:24

testimony as I recall it his and hers

45:26

by the way from the disqualification hearings was

45:29

that they were no longer a romantic

45:31

item before the Trump indictment, which

45:33

I think was the first week

45:35

of August of 2023. In

45:38

that interview, he said that they ended

45:41

their relationship towards the end of 2023.

45:44

Well, which one was it? Okay. Were you were

45:46

you telling the truth on ABC or were you

45:48

telling the truth under oath

45:50

in court or maybe neither one? We just

45:53

don't know because you can't square what

45:55

he's saying with the ABC with what

45:57

was said in court. So

46:00

It's just another example of Diddy. And Phil,

46:02

we know he perjured himself. We

46:04

know he perjured. Nathan

46:06

Wade, you can come sue me. You

46:08

lied under oath in your divorce proceedings.

46:10

Sue me if I'm not saying the

46:13

right thing. Go ahead, bring it. Sue

46:15

me if that's not true. You lied.

46:17

You lied under oath in your divorce

46:19

proceedings. And I believe you

46:21

lied in your proceeding with Fannie Willis.

46:23

But now he's trying to forget, like,

46:25

oh, I just had a divorce, Phil.

46:28

What's the worst they could find on

46:30

me? Well,

46:32

that's not the worst they can find. No, the worst they

46:34

found on him was that he was arguably

46:37

giving kickbacks after this no-bid contract that his

46:39

girlfriend gave him to prosecute a case that

46:41

he had no business being on. That's the

46:43

worst thing. But on top of all of

46:45

that, and it's not the fact that they

46:47

were sleeping together that I or anybody really,

46:49

I think, has a problem with. It's

46:52

the fact of the money. It's

46:54

the fact of not telling the truth

46:56

to the court. It's the fact of

46:58

filing what I believe, in my opinion,

47:00

to be a false document and affidavit

47:03

in the court and what I believe

47:05

to be false testimony in court. That

47:07

is turning the justice system on its

47:09

ear. It's making a mockery of the

47:11

judicial system. All of

47:13

these law fair cases make a mockery of

47:16

it. And it's embarrassing. It's embarrassing to me

47:18

as a member of the legal profession. This

47:21

is not what the court system is supposed

47:23

to be about. This is not how lawyers

47:25

are supposed to behave. And it's the kind

47:27

of thing that makes me just feel, it

47:30

makes me feel disgusting. I mean, it's just ugly

47:32

and it's the kind of... She didn't ask

47:34

him any of that. No follow-ups by that ABC

47:36

reporter. She failed. I've got to just send one

47:38

more question on this and then we'll move on

47:40

to the other case. There

47:44

sat out, Steve sat out who represents or

47:46

stayed out, Trump in the Georgia

47:48

case is upset

47:50

because his

47:52

big thing in trying to get Fannie

47:55

disqualified was she made those statements in

47:57

that church suggesting...

48:00

that the defendants were racist and

48:02

that they only went after Nathan Wade because he was black,

48:05

as opposed to the fact that he was the

48:07

one shipping Fannie Willis and doing the kickback scheme.

48:10

And the judge said, I'm not going

48:12

to disqualify based on that. I don't like it.

48:14

I don't like what she said and you better

48:16

not do it again, but I'm not

48:19

going to disqualify. Well, the other

48:21

day, Fannie Willis goes out back

48:23

in public and I'm going to show the

48:25

sound bite and you're going to hear this pastor

48:27

taking aim at Trump. You can't see her in the

48:29

shot, but it is the case

48:31

that Fannie Willis was right in front of him.

48:34

This was her event. She, they were together. And

48:37

here's what this guy said, the Reverend Motley.

48:42

It occurred to me after watching him

48:46

just for a short while, Bishop,

48:51

that all of the, and

48:53

this is what came to my mind,

48:55

all of the resources of hell. All

48:58

right. Has

49:01

been made available to

49:04

this man. Somebody

49:08

said on yesterday that I believe

49:10

it was Reverend Al Sharpton or

49:14

someone on the issue that there's not

49:16

a redeeming quality in demand. He

49:20

is hoped and saturated with evil.

49:23

Wow. Here's the picture we'll

49:25

show it of her sitting right with him. So look,

49:28

there she is. She's right there looking up

49:30

at him like he's her, her

49:32

apostle. Um, Phil,

49:34

could this get her in trouble? Yeah,

49:38

it really should get her in trouble. She, she may

49:40

not have uttered the words herself, but she stood up

49:42

right after that and gave prepared remarks

49:44

and you know, the, what she should have done, Megan,

49:46

is she shouldn't said, wait a minute, pastor, I

49:49

can't be out here publicly talking in

49:51

a campaign setting about a case that

49:53

I'm actively prosecuting. It's not right. It's

49:55

not proper. And she should have told

49:58

him that ahead of time, but. She's

50:00

not interested in doing the right

50:02

thing. She's only interested in elevating

50:04

herself politically, so she's willing to

50:06

flout the rules. But

50:08

the right thing to do is to

50:10

not go out and publicly talk about

50:12

cases that you're currently prosecuting, and you

50:15

damn sure don't say or don't let

50:17

others say on your behalf that a

50:19

defendant in the case is evil and

50:21

has no redeeming qualities. It's just as bad as

50:23

well. They were there to endorse her. They were there

50:25

to endorse. It was all about her. It's not like

50:27

some random gathering of them, and she allowed it, Phil.

50:31

Yeah, and it's

50:34

worse to me than what you said

50:36

almost inside the church, because now she's

50:38

been put on notice. The judge threatened

50:40

her in his order with maybe it's

50:42

time to put a gag order on

50:44

Fonny Willis because in

50:46

his words, she was wading into dangerous

50:48

waters. Well, she's neck deep in it

50:50

now. She is neck deep in dangerous

50:52

waters. That is forensic misconduct. It

50:55

is unlawful. It is wrong, and it's the

50:57

kind of thing that should have gotten her

50:59

kicked off the case already. But if that

51:02

wasn't enough, this should be the straw

51:04

that breaks the camel's back. That press

51:06

conference was absolutely egregious, and it was

51:09

wrong, and she needs to be accountable

51:11

for it. Here's Steve Seydow

51:13

saying Trump argued Willis engaged in forensic misconduct.

51:15

The court said, don't do it again. So

51:18

yesterday, Willis had a religious endorser stand right

51:20

behind her, say to the media, the president

51:22

uses the resources of hell and is saturated

51:24

with evil. Unbelievable. All

51:26

right. Last, last question. Fonny

51:29

Willis has been, she's been

51:32

called, I don't know if it was a subpoena or how

51:34

they reached out to her, to testify

51:36

before the Georgia State Senate special

51:39

committee investigating whether she misused taxpayer

51:41

money during her relationship with Nathan

51:43

Wade. This is the panel that

51:45

called Ashley Merchant. And

51:48

she's saying she's not going to go. She was asked

51:50

about it Monday during the same thing with the faith

51:52

leaders. Here's what she said in SOT 14. I

52:04

will not appear to anything that is unlawful

52:07

and I have not broken the law in any way. I

52:10

said it, you know, I'm saying it amongst these, you know, I'm sorry

52:13

folks get pissed off that everybody gets treated

52:15

even. All right. All right. All

52:17

right. So she's

52:19

thumbing her nose at them. What do you think? She

52:23

could have – she would have thrown somebody

52:25

in jail if they refused to show up for

52:27

her grand jury, which by the way you can

52:29

make a strong argument was unlawful. That issue is

52:31

also about to be before the Georgia

52:34

Court of Appeals because she did not have

52:36

the proper referral from the state election board

52:38

that she needed to prosecute an alleged election

52:40

crime. But nevertheless,

52:42

she is setting up a legal

52:45

challenge to fight the Georgia State

52:47

Senate, which has a lawful and

52:49

duly constituted committee that's meeting. The

52:52

legislature is not even in session, but they're

52:54

still having meetings because they want to

52:56

be able to propose legislation next year

52:58

when the legislature comes back to prevent

53:00

this kind of thing from happening to

53:03

provide more oversight. The committee the other

53:05

day heard a four-hour – had a

53:07

four-hour hearing they heard from the chairman

53:09

of the county commission that basically they

53:11

have no oversight whatsoever after

53:13

they award her money in her budget. They give

53:15

her the money. She says what it's going to

53:17

be used for, but they can't stop her from

53:20

doing it on whatever she wants. And guess who

53:22

she had in attendance as

53:24

her lawyer, former Governor Roy Barnes,

53:26

the same one who testified in

53:28

the – So

53:31

she's got him working now as

53:33

her lawyer apparently, setting up the

53:36

state senate to oppose any

53:38

subpoena. That's perfect. Okay. Let

53:40

me move on, Julian, because I want to get to the

53:42

Trent case with you in Florida.

53:45

So we're

53:48

not shocked that the Florida case is not going

53:50

to get tried before November, but I mean this

53:52

is just officially a death knell to

53:54

that happening. Judge Aileen Cannon

53:56

has, quote, indefinitely postponed the

53:58

trial. This was

54:01

so predictable that they've

54:03

got to figure out who, if

54:05

anyone, the jury, the

54:07

defense counsel, even Trump at

54:10

this point, the defendant, can

54:12

see the classified documents

54:14

that are the basis for the

54:16

claim against him. That

54:19

requires all sorts of background checks and security

54:21

clearances and so on of everybody involved in

54:23

arguments and pretrial motions. She's

54:26

officially canceled the May tentative date they

54:28

had saying it's postponed

54:30

indefinitely. You

54:33

think what in response to that? Well,

54:37

there's a concept known as jumping the shark, which is

54:40

when you try to be too cute by half, it

54:42

ends up backfiring on you. The

54:45

people bringing these cases that waited until the

54:47

last minute, right before the election to bring

54:49

them, these

54:52

things are starting to fall apart. I actually

54:54

think the New York case is falling apart,

54:56

but as you just mentioned, the Georgia case

54:58

is falling apart. This documents case, I think

55:01

is falling apart precisely because they waited until

55:03

the eve of election to do it. Anybody

55:06

familiar with the basic

55:08

facts in this case knows

55:11

that when you're dealing with classified

55:13

documents, you're going to have extended

55:15

pretrial motions and procedures,

55:17

hearings, in order to determine

55:19

who gets access to what

55:21

documents. In particular because many

55:24

of the people that need to review in order

55:26

to put on the defense don't have security clearances.

55:29

So you've got to go through the whole process for

55:31

security clearances. The court's got to decide what

55:33

is going to be relevant in the case,

55:35

who gets to see what. Sometimes he's involved

55:38

really, really important national security issues. So the

55:40

court tries to keep a lid on it.

55:42

The point of this all, Meghan, it was

55:45

predictable. So when the Justice

55:47

Department waited four years

55:49

to bring the election interference case

55:51

on January 6th, they should have known the question

55:54

of presidential immunity was going to be litigated. The

55:56

Wall Street Journal was talking about this a year

55:58

ago. They should have known that this was going

56:00

to be something that would likely go to the

56:02

Supreme Court. They should have known when they brought

56:04

this case that you were going to have extensive

56:06

pretrial motions on exactly the issue

56:08

that you just mentioned, which is the classified documents

56:10

and who gets access to that and which documents

56:12

are actually going to see the light of day

56:15

in court. So this is, I

56:17

think, sort of lawfare and

56:19

floating on its own weight. And

56:21

it, you know, I think the left at

56:23

some point is going to have a reckoning

56:26

on it. What

56:28

is Jack Smith going to do? Is he going to drop

56:31

now? Because there's two pieces of that case. Trump had a

56:33

bunch of documents he shouldn't have had. And

56:35

then when hit with the subpoena by the feds,

56:37

he ignored it, defied it, obstructed

56:40

it. And there are many

56:42

arguing Jack Smith, many have said from the beginning,

56:44

he never should have brought part one. He should have

56:46

just stuck to obstruction, which is a much

56:48

cleaner, easier case for him. Obstruction, I guess.

56:50

So does he, do you think now in the wake

56:52

of this, does he, Jack Smith, drop part one and

56:55

just make this a pure obstruction case in an effort

56:57

to try to put the pedal to the metal before

56:59

November? Theoretically,

57:02

he could do that. It gets hard

57:04

to sort of put the toothpaste back

57:06

into the tube at this point of

57:08

the case. He could theoretically try to

57:11

do it. The strongest thing he has on the

57:13

documents case is the obstruction case.

57:15

But I think there are all kinds of

57:17

procedural hoops that

57:19

he would have to go through in order to

57:21

segregate these two issues. But,

57:23

you know, again, I think that Democrats got

57:25

to be careful here because, you know, you

57:27

can make a, in the case of Biden

57:30

documents, there wasn't any obstruction there. Biden agreed

57:32

to give the documents back, but under the

57:34

Espionage Act, there is a provision, I think

57:36

it's subsection F, which says a

57:40

reckless treatment, sort of gross negligence treatment of

57:43

documents and you're knowing that you know that

57:45

you have in your possession, even if you

57:47

later give that back so there's no obstruction,

57:49

give them back so there's no obstruction, there's

57:52

a felony. And again, to

57:54

my point about the tables being turned, I

57:57

can see a case where somebody could bring a

57:59

case, could bring a case. an indictment against Joe

58:01

Biden for that. I'm not advocating that. I hope

58:03

that that doesn't happen. But if you look at

58:05

just the plain reading of the law, so

58:08

I think Democrats have got to be very careful

58:10

here. I don't think actually

58:12

Jack Smith is going to divide the case long

58:14

lines. You suggested, although theoretically, how can he not?

58:16

This is a case of probably, I don't get it.

58:19

I don't feel how can he not

58:21

divided? Well, because we're not going to get a

58:23

trial. I know, but he's not going

58:26

to get a trial. His only goal is to

58:28

get it before November. It would likely be a separate indictment. Even

58:32

if you do that, Megan, it's not clear you have

58:34

time to schedule a trial on that part

58:37

of it before November. You

58:39

have a lot of procedural hoops. You've got to

58:41

jump through. Maybe I'm wrong.

58:43

I'm sure there are hoops. But there's zero chance of

58:45

him getting this case to trial before November, which he's

58:47

made very clear is his sole goal for all the

58:49

reasons we know. I don't

58:51

see how he keeps part one alive at

58:54

this point. I just don't. But let me

58:56

give you a little sampling, Phil, of how

58:58

the media has decided, look, this has

59:00

been predicted. If you listen to Andy McCarthy, he

59:02

tried these cases for a living where they had

59:04

lots of classified documents involving terrorists. He said from

59:07

day one, no chance this gets

59:09

tried before November 2024. Understanding

59:11

the number of security clearances and so on, you'd

59:13

have to go through. This is not a shock,

59:15

a shock, as Julian just said. It's not. You

59:17

could have foreseen that this was going to take

59:19

much longer. Nonetheless, here's

59:21

some of the reaction from the media.

59:24

This is Lisa Rubin on

59:27

The Judge on Morning Joe.

59:30

And right after it, we'll play Joe

59:32

Scarborough himself on Eileen Cannon, the judge

59:34

in the case. Listen. This

59:38

is a judge who is overwhelmed

59:41

and is second-guessing herself at every

59:43

corner. She seems to be overwhelmed

59:45

with anxiety about the import of

59:48

the case. And so a combination

59:50

of insecurity in your own decisions,

59:53

the gravity of the case before

59:55

you, and maybe also some inclination

59:57

to slow walk where you. don't

1:00:00

have trust in yourself. That's a toxic brew.

1:00:02

And we're, you know, we're all drinking it

1:00:04

right now. We're watching it play out. I

1:00:07

guess she's either ill

1:00:09

equipped, extraordinarily ill equipped, or

1:00:13

she just doesn't care what the world thinks of

1:00:15

her. She's, she's right now

1:00:17

looking like everything she's

1:00:19

doing, she's doing to help Donald Trump. I

1:00:22

just want to tell a listening audience film as as just Scarborough

1:00:25

is saying she's just ill equipped. You've got

1:00:28

Mika Brzezinski there who knows

1:00:30

nothing about anything, and

1:00:32

certainly knows nothing about the law, going,

1:00:38

she's got the hands out like, what can one

1:00:40

do? Shaking her head like, it's

1:00:43

such a shame that this federal district judge

1:00:45

is such a dumbass, unlike me. The

1:00:47

amount of delusion

1:00:50

sitting on that set,

1:00:52

she knows nothing. This coffee

1:00:54

cup filled with water has

1:00:56

more legal gravitas than Mika

1:00:58

Brzezinski does. Just know when

1:01:00

you don't know anything, and

1:01:03

be quiet. Anywho, what

1:01:05

do you make of the criticisms

1:01:07

now that the judge was overwhelmed

1:01:09

and full of anxiety and ill

1:01:11

equipped, or just doesn't care? Well,

1:01:15

I have news for MSNBC

1:01:17

and all nine people who

1:01:19

watch MSNBC, the

1:01:22

magnitude of the case before the

1:01:24

judge alone, which one of

1:01:26

the people I just heard

1:01:28

speaking about that issue alone is enough

1:01:31

to cause a wise judge to

1:01:33

pump the brakes and say, look,

1:01:35

we don't need to go headlong

1:01:37

into this thing without doing our

1:01:39

due diligence. The judge's job is

1:01:41

to make sure that the trial

1:01:44

and the process is fair. And

1:01:47

when you're rushing through it, because you're trying

1:01:49

to get the trial done for

1:01:51

some reason, like, you know, before an election, that's

1:01:53

sort of our area, it has nothing to do

1:01:56

with justice. The judge's job is to make sure

1:01:58

the trial and the process is fair. process

1:02:00

is fair to the defendant and

1:02:02

that's what due process requires. And

1:02:04

so the fact that a judge

1:02:07

is actually providing due process and

1:02:09

a fair process to a criminally

1:02:11

accused is something that people

1:02:13

on the left used to celebrate. But

1:02:15

now because they are so consumed with

1:02:18

get Trump hatred, it's the

1:02:20

wrong thing to do in their mind. They

1:02:22

would rather see somebody like Fonny Willis

1:02:24

on the bench, who is absolutely going

1:02:27

to do anything recklessly

1:02:29

and carelessly with one mission in

1:02:31

mind. And that is to get

1:02:33

Trump before the election. Julian,

1:02:35

can you believe that? Like, and

1:02:38

Joe Scarborough too, like, okay. So

1:02:40

she, it just has to be, she's dumb

1:02:43

or she doesn't care. Do you

1:02:45

think he's ever tried a case

1:02:48

involving this number of classified documents,

1:02:50

allegedly classified documents, Intel matters,

1:02:52

having security clearances? This

1:02:54

is a joke. These people who pretend to be

1:02:56

experts are a joke. Well,

1:03:01

that's right because journalism has

1:03:03

changed. It is no longer about fact

1:03:05

finding. They're searching for the truth. It's

1:03:07

about opinion and building your following

1:03:09

based on your opinion, even if it's sort

1:03:11

of superficial. Um, this was

1:03:14

very predictable. As I just said, I don't want to

1:03:16

be repetitive, but when this case was brought, there

1:03:19

were plenty of commentators, myself

1:03:21

included, but lots of others. Uh, Andy

1:03:23

McCarthy is, is, is, is excellent. Um,

1:03:26

who said that, you know, when you, or

1:03:28

any time you bring a case with classified

1:03:30

documents, you will have extended pretrial procedures. Um,

1:03:33

it was completely predictable. So when Joe

1:03:35

Scarborough, you know,

1:03:37

uh, sort of laments to the, the,

1:03:40

the MSNBC uh, uh, viewers

1:03:42

that this is some type of abuse, he's

1:03:44

got no, he's got

1:03:46

no solution. He has no way

1:03:48

and nor does Mika have any way of

1:03:51

saying this is what the judge should have done in

1:03:53

this case. There's no way around, uh,

1:03:55

the classified information procedure assist, but

1:03:57

the, the, the act that require.

1:04:00

that the court go through these

1:04:02

kind of motion in order to

1:04:04

protect national security and determine what

1:04:06

national security documents will actually be

1:04:08

seen by witnesses, by defense counsel

1:04:11

and others before they make their way

1:04:14

before all of this makes its way into the courtroom.

1:04:16

So completely predictable. And you know, in terms of

1:04:18

a new trial, it's sort of, it would be

1:04:20

a new indictment and the clock would start ticking.

1:04:23

As I say, it's theoretically impossible,

1:04:25

it's theoretically possible. But when

1:04:27

you look at what's involved in bringing

1:04:29

just once the indictment, just

1:04:32

on the obstruction, it's

1:04:34

hard for me to see that getting done before

1:04:36

November, no matter how you slice it. Yeah.

1:04:39

That's why Trump's drawing the inside straight. All

1:04:42

right. So you had mentioned during Stormy, that

1:04:44

he started a discussion, you thought it was going

1:04:47

poorly for the prosecution. Does

1:04:49

that lead you Julian, even with this

1:04:51

jury pool to believe there will

1:04:53

be an acquittal or a hung jury? I

1:04:58

think there will be a hung jury. I think when

1:05:00

you get down to when, and I

1:05:02

know I'm going out on a limb on that, I know

1:05:04

I'm in the minority, but I think when you get down,

1:05:07

yeah, I think that when you get down to

1:05:09

the question about whether this was a book reaping

1:05:11

violation, there's nowhere that I

1:05:13

can find in New York law that says an

1:05:15

NDA shouldn't be recorded as a legal expense. So

1:05:18

that's one. And then there's a

1:05:20

second question about whether

1:05:22

there is a federal offense that you can attach

1:05:24

it to the court has no

1:05:27

jurisdiction on that. And as we've discussed

1:05:29

at nausea, now there's no federal crime here. Right. But

1:05:31

we're talking about what the jury is going to do.

1:05:37

I think that the defense has

1:05:40

an opportunity in closing arguments to

1:05:42

make those points. And

1:05:47

I think that there is, for

1:05:49

reasons we discussed about how

1:05:51

the prosecution is handling this case. I

1:05:53

think storing Daniels cross examination is going

1:05:55

to go very bad for the prosecution.

1:05:58

I think there will be enough. Why did you ask to

1:06:00

say there's

1:06:02

not enough evidence for conviction here? And they should

1:06:05

do that. This is an abusive

1:06:07

case for which there should be some type

1:06:09

of reckoning. And

1:06:11

let's not forget, Phil, that the

1:06:13

true star witness of this case is Michael Cohen. And

1:06:17

whatever cross, you know, we're in the midst of

1:06:19

a cross with Stormy, resumes on Thursday,

1:06:21

whatever cross she gets will

1:06:23

pale in comparison to

1:06:25

what Trump's lawyers are going to do to

1:06:27

Michael Cohen. So are you at all

1:06:31

newly optimistic about a possible

1:06:34

acquittal or hung jury? Yeah,

1:06:38

well, Michael Cohen is like the ideal

1:06:40

witness. Like this is the kind of

1:06:42

witness that I dream about being able

1:06:44

to have on cross-examination. Not only

1:06:47

because he's a convicted felon and all that,

1:06:49

but because of all the prior inconsistent statements.

1:06:52

And I'm going to go through all of them.

1:06:54

And I'm going to take my time. And I'm

1:06:56

going to make sure that I have fun with

1:06:58

this and show the jury that he blows hot

1:07:00

and cold at the same time. And he can't

1:07:02

keep his story straight. The thing about the jury,

1:07:04

though, and I agree that there's probably going to

1:07:06

be an acquittal. Excuse me, not

1:07:09

an acquittal. I don't think there's going

1:07:11

to be an acquittal. I think it's

1:07:13

going to be a mistrial based on

1:07:15

the hung jury. And here's why. Remember,

1:07:17

there are two lawyers on this jury.

1:07:19

Normally, I don't want a lawyer on

1:07:21

my jury because then you wind up

1:07:23

with a jury of one effectively because

1:07:25

the other jurors oftentimes would defer to

1:07:27

the lawyer back in the jury room.

1:07:30

However, if you have a case where you have

1:07:32

two lawyers, it's very seldom that

1:07:34

two lawyers agree completely on everything. So

1:07:36

they've got that going for them. If

1:07:38

you have disagreement in the jury room,

1:07:40

that's a good thing for Donald Trump.

1:07:42

But there's so much about this case

1:07:45

that is in the weeds

1:07:47

legally. The things that we've been talking

1:07:49

about here today, for example, is

1:07:51

minutiae that might get missed

1:07:54

by the average layperson on the

1:07:56

jury, but a lawyer in the

1:07:58

jury, or maybe them back there

1:08:00

at least, might be able to understand

1:08:02

the finer points of the legal arguments. And

1:08:04

if, even if they hate Trump, maybe they

1:08:07

love the justice system enough to understand that

1:08:09

they've got to put their, their passion, their

1:08:11

bias and their prejudice out of their mind.

1:08:13

And they've got to base their decision on

1:08:15

the law and the facts and do the

1:08:17

right thing. And if you can get one

1:08:20

or two or three in that

1:08:22

jury room that are fair minded in that

1:08:24

way, then I think Trump stands a chance.

1:08:26

And let's not, let's not pretend that a,

1:08:29

a hung

1:08:31

jury is a victory. Okay.

1:08:33

It really is because it is.

1:08:35

We try it again. No, it won't be. All

1:08:38

right. I still maintain he's going

1:08:40

to be convicted. I don't

1:08:42

think he should be, but I think he

1:08:44

will be. I think it all comes down

1:08:46

to the jury instructions and they're going to

1:08:48

be extremely favorable and wrongheaded

1:08:50

and will lead the jury right

1:08:53

to guilty. I don't

1:08:55

have any doubt that one merchant will

1:08:57

come through for the prosecution in approving

1:09:00

the final jury instructions. Just they

1:09:02

want them. Phil, Julian, a

1:09:04

pleasure. Thanks to both of you so

1:09:06

much for joining me today. Aben, it's great. Thanks

1:09:08

for having us, Megan. All right guys, all the

1:09:11

best. And we are back tomorrow. Everybody will see you

1:09:13

then. Thanks for

1:09:17

listening to the Megan Kelly show. No

1:09:19

BS, no agenda, and no fear. Spectrum

1:09:32

One is a big deal. You get

1:09:34

Spectrum Internet with the most reliable Internet

1:09:37

speeds, free advanced Wi-Fi for enhanced security

1:09:39

and privacy, and a free Spectrum Mobile

1:09:41

Unlimited line with nationwide 5G included. All

1:09:43

while saving big. For the big speed,

1:09:45

big reliability, and big savings you want,

1:09:47

get Spectrum One. Just $49.99 a month

1:09:50

for 12 months. Visit

1:09:53

spectrum.com/bigdeal for full details. Offer subject

1:09:55

to change. Valid for qualified residential

1:09:57

customers. Only service not available in

1:10:00

all areas. Restrictions apply.