Well, we've had about four or five days to process at all, and
I want to give as best I can some kind of big picture Trump case
thoughts, but also then move on to another case, the Hunter Biden gun
case, which is starting up this week. Jury selection started today. So
looking at the Trump case, there's several lingering questions. First is the question
of how this is impacting things politically. I'm not sure exactly how it's impacting
things politically. In one sense, it's an obvious massive boon to Trump insofar
as he's raised two hundred million dollars over two hundred million dollars since the guilty
plea came down. So that's a massive infusion of money, a lot of
it from small dollar donors, a lot of it coming from large dollar donors,
though, and I get this sense that there are more and more large
dollar donors sort of saying, all right, enough is enough, We're back
in Trump here now. Trump has been out fundraised significantly both in twenty sixteen
and in twenty twenty. The Cooke Brothers or the well I guess it's not
only one Coke brother left several kind of libertarian leaning Republican donors who financed guys
like Mitt Romney, et cetera. They're not opening their wallets for Trump.
So this infusion of cash may actually wind up being quite the boon for Trump.
Now beyond that, though, there comes sentencing, and that is a
murky picture. So Trump was convicted. He's convicted of a low level,
the lowest level, nonviolent felony within the New York State criminal court system.
Now most of the time, and this is the problem with all of the
legal analysis of this, So much of the legal analysis of this has illustrated
how atypical this whole trial is. Most of the time, someone who commits
a felony like this felony is in this category, okay, nonviolent, within
this certain classification within New York state law. You know, before the trial
had wrapped up and before the verdict had come down, I was, you
know, seeing videos produced by you know New York area attorney's talking about,
well, what's the usual sentencing in a case like this, And in a
case like this, usually the sentencing would be no jail time, possibly not
even probation. Maybe you'd have to do some community service, maybe you'd have
to do this, you have to do that, blah blah, blah blah
blah. But and I heard Anny McCarthy, who is a great attorney who
writes for National Review. He made this point, no aspect, well he's
hardly the only one who made this point. But no aspect of this trial
has been typical, So why should we assume that the sentencing would be typical?
Okay, Yes, I understand the sentencing usually speaking, usually for a
guy who doesn't have a prior conviction on his background, is convicted of a
low level felony, nonviolent felony. He's not posing an imminent risk to anyone's
physical harm, and god knows New York doesn't like locking people in jail anyway.
Yes, usually the sentencing will be this way. And by the way,
the sentencing is going to be four days before the Republican Convention. So
I understand the argument that usually the sentencing is going to be this way.
But let's recall what the whole theory of this case is, all right now,
or maybe what I should say is the whole narrative of this case,
because theory would assume that there's like some hard legal base, which there wasn't.
Okay, how did Trump get charged with a felony? To begin with,
Well, he kind of got charged with a felony by the smushing together
of two misdemeanors. A misdemeanor falsification of business records can become a felony if
it's in further and so another crime. Well, you would per suppose that
that other crime was, you know, felony level something else. Falsification of
business records in furtherance of you know, trying to defraud someone out of fifty
thousand dollars. Okay, that becomes a felony, But no, the felony.
Somehow the judge was able to turn misdemeanor offense falsification of business records when
it was in furtherance of another misdemeanor, and somehow he thinks two misdemeanors smushed
together amounts to a felony, which was wild legal reasoning that hasn't really been
applied to anyone other than Donald Trump. So there was not much theory to
the case. But the narrative to the case was this, by covering this
up, Donald Trump stole sixteen election by covering up his affair with Stormy Daniels
by having her sign a non disclosure agreement paying her one hundred thirty thousand dollars,
agreeing to pay her one hundred thirty thousand dollars, and then subsequently paying
her one hundred thirty thousand dollars. That Donald Trump stole the twenty sixteen election,
and that that both the judge allowed the prosecutors tried to make that argument,
and the judge allowed them to make that argument. That basically what this
case was about was Donald Trump stealing the twenty sixteen election by preventing the voters
from hearing about the fact that he had an affair. Now that theory is,
in my opinion, demonstrably silly. We knew Trump was a sleeze ball,
everyone voting for him knew he was a sleeze and a philanderer and cheats
on his wife or has been alleged to cheat on his wife. And in
fact, the Karen McDougall story a very basically a copycat thing to Stormy Daniels,
woman who allegedly had an affair with Donald Trump, also a playboy model,
signed a non disclosure agreement. She broke the non disclosure agreement. Karen
McDougall came out a few days before the election and Trump won. Why would
Stormy Daniels be any different. Stormy Daniels became big time news because liberals thought
that this was a legal gotcha for Trump, and indeed it was. If
it just came out that this woman said she had an affair with Trump.
I don't think it actually changes the needle. Certainly it doesn't in New York,
which, by the way, is the only state over which Alvin Bragg,
the Massachusetts sorry, the Manhattan District Attorney can possibly claim to have any
jurisdiction. But that's the theory of this case. That's the narrative of this
case. The narrative of this case was that Donald Trump stole the twenty sixteen
elections by his illegal conduct of misrepresenting his in his financial documents, misrepresenting what
was in fact the loan repayment as legal expenses. And that's a big deal.
Now again, I reject the premise that that's what happened, but that's
the narrative the judge has given throughout. That is the or that the judge
has allowed to be presented throughout. That was the narrative that Alvin Bragg and
the District Attorney's office from Manhattan laid out that Donald Trump stole the twenty sixteen
elections by his conduct, and we are here to vindicate that massive wrong.
And if that were true, that would be a massive wrong. If you
did conduct illegal conduct that was so egregious that it flipped the outcome of a
United States presidential election, that's a huge deal. Again, I don't think
that's what happened here, But that's the narrative that the prosecutors have given.
If that's the narrative the prosecutors gave, and that's the narrative that you,
as the judge, obviously allowed in highly questionable ruling after ruling after ruling after
ruling after ruling, And if that, what's the narrative that you, as
the judge obviously believe in yourself, and you, as a judge, oversaw
a conviction on that narrative, How do you just give Trump a slap on
the wrist? How do you let Trump go without spending a day in jail?
If he, in fact was the mastermind who stole the twenty sixteen election,
who altered the course of world history by keeping Hillary Clinton out of the
White House and putting himself in for four years. For four years, the
United States had a president elected via illegal and fraudulent means. That's the narrative
that the prosecutors pushed and the judge allowed. How could the judge if he
believes that, and I'm sure sure he does, how can the judge just
say, h community service. I mean the judge and the prosecutors. The
prosecutors were presenting it. The judge was allowing it as if this is the
crime of the century. I think Trump is gonna be in jail now.
How far is the judge gonna push it? Clearly, this judge has pushed
everything to eleven. There's almost nothing he didn't allow the prosecutors to do,
and he acts like, I mean, there was so much stuff that the
judge did that was so inappropriate. I mean, at one point, he
lets Stormy Daniels testify about her and Trump's sexual relationship, which has nothing to
do with the charges against Trump. It was irrelevant testimony, and all it
did was inflame the jury with stuff that's irrelevant to the case because her testimony
makes it look like Trump is terrible. All of a sudden, now she's
changing her story to say that Trump may have kind of assaulted her, which
is something she had never said. Before all of her prior talk about the
Trump about her relationship with Trump was that it was consensual, that it was
stupid and she shouldn't have done it, but it was consensual. So she
gives testimony that has nothing to do with the case at hand. By the
way, the case was about how the Trump corporation listed the payments to Michael
Cohen, paying Michael Cohen back for having paid Stormy Daniels for the non disclosure
agreement. Whether Trump had an affair with Stormy Daniels or the nature of their
affair or how they had sex with each other is irrelevant to that case.
It shouldn't have come in. The judge let it come in, and then
he has the gall to turn to judges to Trump's defense attorneys and say,
boy, that was a pretty rough testimony. I feel like you guys should
have objected more the judgement. You already ruled to let her in to testify.
What are we gonna object to you let her in. If we just
object to her giving the testimony that you're allowing her to give, then we're
just gonna look contemptuous. So this judge, I mean, the Stormy Daniels
thing was one example out of about twenty of inappropriate, biased things that this
judge did to get to the conviction. If the judge is gonna allow all
that, what makes us think he's not going to sentence Trump to some actual
jail time such that maybe he can't physically go to the Republican Convention or beyond.
And that's the thing is pretty much everyone is in a state of we're
not sure. There's stuff about, and everyone's trying to become an expert all
of a sudden in New York, you know New York sentencing law and can
people be out on bail pending appeal and stuff like that. Whether he can
be out on bail pending appeal or not, this judge is going to sentence
Trump to some time. I was the other way last week, and now
I'm fully in the well. Of course he has to sentence him to time.
If he doesn't sentence Trump to any kind of time, then what was
the point of the trial. If Trump is so diabolical that he stole the
twenty sixteen election became leader of the free world under false pretenses, then you
gotta put him in jail. When we return the idea of jailing your political
opponents and how that ramps things up to eleven. Some Roman history for you
all next on the John Girardi Show, Why did Julius Caesar cross the Rubicon?
Crossing the Rubicon is a very common expression. It means basically to pass
a line that once you pass it, you can't go back. It's a
decision that there's no going back from. Julius Caesar was a Roman general.
He was basically a governor of a Roman province, and basically he had both
governing and military powers. He was a pro consul for Gaul. Okay,
which Gaul. We think of Gaul as basically, you know, we we
think of Gaul as basically France. But for the Roman conception, there was
Gaul on this side of the Alps, so kind of northern Italy, and
then there was Gaul on the other side of the Alps, France. So
Julius Caesar was the governor of Cisalpine, Gaul Gall on this side of the
Alps, closer to us in Italy, and the border of his jurisdiction was
the Rubicon River. Once he and the way that Roman command Roman military command
works is basically you had what was called your imperium and your imperium only existed
within a certain geographical boundary. Once you crossed out of that geographical boundary,
you lay down your office. In a sense, you can't be ordering soldiers
around once you cross the line of your imperium. If you do, you're
violating the law and religious customer, and there was religious stuff associated with blah
blah blah blah blah, but you're violating the law. When Julius Caesar came
south with his army, crossed the Rubicon and headed south towards Rome, it
was an act of starting off a civil war. It was a civil war
that would be a bloody affair, and he crossed the civil war in forty
nine b c. Julius Caesar would win this civil war, chiefly against his
faux Punius Pompeius Pompey, and become the most powerful man in the Roman world,
eventually declared dictator for life before he was stabbed to death on the IDEs
of March. So why did he do it? Why did he cross the
Rubicon? Why did he take this decisive step overstep his military authority in order
to kick off a civil war? Why did he do it? Well,
if he followed the rules. He was supposed to lay down his office as
proconsul. His office's pro consul had a certain term limit to it, and
he was supposed to lay down his office. He was supposed to leave Cisalpine,
Gaul and come to Rome, where he was going to be pro secuted
by his enemies. The way the Roman court system worked was different from how
our court system works. People could bring prosecute. Individuals could bring criminal charges
or sort of an equivalent of criminal type charges against their fellow citizens. Julius
Caesar's political enemies people who were jealous of how much power he was getting,
jealous of how much wealth he was getting from his conquests in Gaul. His
conquests in Gall were making Julius Caesar one of the richest men in Rome.
After having taken out massive, massive, massive amounts of debt in order to
finance his political career, finally paid off with a huge campaign in Goal where
he got tons and tons and tons of money. He was becoming incredibly rich,
he was becoming incredibly powerful. He had political disagreements with different people.
They wanted they basically they were gunning for him, and if Caesar came back
to Rome, they were going to prosecute him and convict him and send him
into exile. And so Julius Caesar was like, Nope, not going to
do it. I'm not going to subject myself to political prosecution. So just
like strong men the generation before Marius and Sola, who were similarly Roman generals,
who sort of became strong men in their day rather than because basically violence
had come into the Roman politics, the threat of politicized prosecutions, the threat
of physical violence, and armies, and basically this then devolved into armies having
loyalty to their army commanders personally rather than to the Roman state. So Julius
Caesar followed that tradition laid down a generation earlier, early in the first century,
when Marius and Solo were duking it out for supremacy of the Roman world
and issuing proscriptions in which their political and a list of their political enemies would
be published, and it was open season. People could kill their political enemies.
I think Julius Caesar feared. I don't think this is obviously true.
Julius Caesar feared if he laid down his military command and came back to Rome
buy the books, A meek citizen he would be prosecuted, and he said,
nope, forget it. I'm coming down with my army, and he
kicked off a civil war. Now that we've let this genie out of the
bottle, that we can prosecute our political foes under high stretched circumstances, I
think we are entering a dangerous era where the stakes of running for president are
getting ramped up a lot higher. Some enterprising conservative appointee US attorney could very
well go after Joe Biden after he leaves office, and it's going to turn
into this thing where if you run for president, buckle up because someone's going
to try and send you to jail. When we return the Hunter Biden trial
next on the John Girardi Show. So jury's selection has begun for the Hunter
Biden trial. Remember that that Hunter Biden guy. This is Hunter Biden's gun
case, which is less significant than you know, all the other nefarious stuff
that Hunter Biden probably did, probably failed registers, a foreign agent, probably
doing all kinds of shenanigans using his dad's name in ways that seem pretty darn
corrupt. And maybe a future Justice Department appoints a future special counsel that investigates
this if the statute of limitations can go back that far, which you know,
who would have thought that a two year statute of limitations New York fraudulent
business records law could somehow be stretched into a six year felony New York Business
records falsification law. But I digress. So he's beginning his trial. But
let's talk about the statute of limitations and how that worked. All right?
What is statute of limitation? That talked about this a little bit Friday when
I was talking about the Catholic dioceses filing for bankruptcy. Statute of limitations is
basically this principle that if somebody committed a crime, or if someone did something
that allows you to sue him or her, you have to file the lawsuit
within a certain time frame. If someone did something bad, you got to
file your lawsuit or submit your indictment if you're the government process. So if
you're the government, you're prosecuting someone criminally. If you're an individual, you
might sue someone civilly. Sometimes the government also civilly sues people very often in
fact, but basically you have to do it within a certain timeframe. Why,
Well, for a lot of reasons. One is to allow people to
have some security in their lives. Okay, I don't have to live with
this lingering over my head for the next twenty Did I do something wrong here?
Well, five years have passed, We're done. You know. We
don't have to retain these records for forever, or I don't have to worry
about what happened, you know, seven years ago, it's over, it's
past. Okay. But also it has to do with the preservation of evidence.
Okay, did Michael rob a liquor store fifty years ago? Okay?
Well, Michael is fifty years older. His memory, to be in his
own defense is going to be worse. Most of the witnesses we now are
scattered to the four wins. Several witnesses may be dead by this point.
The video footage may have been corrupted. Evidence gets worse as years go by.
People's memories get fuzzier and fuzzier and fuzzier. The preservation of physical evidence
gets harder and harder and harder. So it's kind of a thing of helping,
you know, how can you reasonably litigate a claim when so much time
has passed? And as a result, we require a statute of limitations.
You've got to file your charge within a certain time frame for pretty much most
crimes. And the only crimes that we're gonna be willing to go back that
far is something that's so serious, maybe like murder, okay, but other
than that, we're requiring statutes of limitations. And that's in part why I
think the situation the Catholic Church is in right now is unjust. California,
basically, in a certain way, is unjust. California opens up this statute
of limitations for people to bring civil lawsuits regarding sexual abuse. Basically, they
open up a three year window and say you can go back as far as
you want and bring a lawsuit. These eager trial attorneys get one hundred and
fifty something claimants to file lawsuits against the Dices a President in that time,
with cases that date back decades. Most of the priests who committed these offenses
allegedly are dead, most of the witnesses are dead. How can you fairly
adjudicate that claim. That's why the Dices of President had to file for Chapter
eleven bankruptcy. Basically, it's an incredibly difficult kind of claim to defend against.
When the priest is dead. All the witnesses are dead. It's the
word of the alleged victim against yours. And you can't say that you had
great processes in those days, you know. But is that is that a
fair outcome? I mean, I from a due process perspective, I don't
know how that that seems very unfair to me. It seems very flimsy.
Now, are some of those claims legit? Probably some of those claims are
legit. Yes, I'm I would assume maybe many of them are, but
I'd have to assume at least some are not. I find it hard to
believe all of those claims are one legit. And and I don't think a
criminal a civil process where again, all the evidence is gone, most of
the witnesses are dead. The witness who the person who allegedly perpetrated this act
can't speak in his defense because he's dead. I find it hard to believe
justice speking to other anyway. So that's why statue of limitations exist. Now,
when you know what, I might just save this for its own segment.
I'll do this now, all right, Let's look at the ways in
which statutes of limitations were manipulated. To get Trump, but to try to
get Hunter off the hook, and successfully have gotten Hunter off the hook.
Trump had committed a crime, allegedly of falsifying business records. He was giving
Michael Cohen a loan repayment, and he called it legal expenses. That is
usually if he did it with a fraudulent intent, and by the way,
fraudulent intent means lying for money. If he just misstated it, that might
not be a crime. It has to be misstating it for some kind of
pecuniary advantage. That's a misdemeanor in New York law, and it only has
a two year statute of limitations. Trump allegedly Trump made those payments to Michael
Cohen in twenty seventeen. We're in twenty twenty four, the two years are
up. Alvin Bragg can't bring that lawsuit unless there's this provision with the New
York law that it becomes a felony with a six year statute of limitations window
if the falsification of business records was in furtherance of some other crime. So
Alvin Bragg charges it that way. He says this was falsification, fraudulent falsification
of business records in furtherance of another crime, and then he kind of never
specifies the other crime. He says violation of New York election law, which
isn't really a felony, violation of federal election law also not a felony,
violation of in furtherance of falsifying more business records, which is circular. But
basically what Alvin Bragg did was he tried to argue that fraudulent falsification of business
records in furtherance of another crime is a felony, but then pretended like that
second crime didn't have to be a felony. So by smushing two misdemeanors together,
he makes it a felony, and most critically, extends the statute of
limitations from two years to six years. So Bragg was able to charge Donald
Trump in twenty twenty three within that six year statute of limitation window. Conduct
happened in twenty seventeen, filed the indictment in twenty three, So Bragg manipulates
the statue's statute of limitations, manipulates the law in order to get his intended
outcome with Hunter the federal prosecutors going after him with kid gloves, delay and
delay and delay and delay bringing the indictments against him for his massive criminal failures
to pay his taxes. We're talking millions of dollars of income that Hunter is
paying Zilcherino taxes on. When you don't pay your taxes, like, okay,
you're five thousand dollars short on your taxes, all right, the IRS
is involved. If you're several millions of dollars not paying your taxes, that's
when the DOJ gets involved and starts criminally talking about criminal prosecution. Okay,
so tax stuff has a six year act, you to limitations. The DOJ
doesn't do anything with Hunter Biden. They know about this in twenty eighteen,
twenty nineteen, goes by, twenty twenty, goes by twenty twenty one,
goes by what's happening? Oh, we learn that the DOJ is getting together
with Hunter's attorneys on a plea deal to make it all go away. His
tax stuff and his gun stuff. Remember how Hunter Biden lied on a federal
background check said he didn't have a drug problem. Well, he was trying
to buy a gun. He lies on a federal background check says that he
doesn't have a drug problem when he has a rich and storied history of drug
abuse, and he gets the gun by lying on the federal background check and
then proceeds to misuse the gun in a way that you would anticipate a drug
he might misuse the gun scares his partner, Halle biden Voe's old widow,
who throws it in a garbage can next to a school. Because the DA
and his lawyers were trying to work out a plea deal, and they kept
working on it, delayed, delaying, delane, all of Hunter's tax stuff
from twenty fourteen, twenty fifteen and twenty sixteen is gone. We can't bring
a charge for it because the statute of limitations has passed. And that's when
the most interesting Hunter financial stuff happened that maybe points to the big guy.
So now we won't find out about that stuff. Let me return again.
We'll just do the basics of Hunter's gun trial. But understand that the by
far more interesting stuff that Hunter did that's illegal is gone because of the Statute
of limitations, because of how the doj sat on their hands, will manipulate
everything to make the statute of limitations work against Trump. Ump with the Manhattan
Day's Office, but lives at the DOJ. No, no, no,
no, no, let's treat Hunter with kid gloves. We'll be back on
the John Girardi Show. So what is Hunter Biden facing here? Hunter Biden's
facing some pretty serious charges. So let me just reiterate what Biden Hunter Biden
did for which he is now facing criminal prosecution. Let's remember he wasn't going
to face any criminal prosecution for any of this stuff, or for anything else
for that matter, until the judge looked at this bizarrely crafted plea deal that
Hunter's lawyers clearly drafted for the DOJ much of it, and said, this
doesn't make any sense, why are you doing that? And the whole thing
imploded. So now the DOJ is basically shamed into actually bringing the gun charges
against Hunter Biden. All of his tax stuff is gone because because it's all
time barred by the statute of limitations. So we bring the gun charges,
which are, by the way, a slam dunk. Here's basically what happened.
When you try to buy a gun, you get a federal background check.
On that federal background check, they ask you, hey, you have
a history of drug abuse. Why, well, we don't want druggies getting
guns. It's kind of the nature of druggies. They're a little erratic,
and guns are really violent, powerful tools that in the wrong hands could well
be misused. Well, Hunter just lies. He lies on the background check
and says, Nope, no problem with substance abuse, in spite of the
fact that he has many, rich, storied problems with drug abuse for it.
By this point, Hunter gets the gun as a result of his lying.
He then proceeds to misuse the gun in the ways that you would fear
a druggie misusing a gun, taking all kinds of weird pictures with it,
et cetera, and then ultimately scaring his partner so much that she throws the
gun into a garbage can, an outdoor garbage can near a school, and
they lose the gun. So God, God only knows if you're going to
be a Democrat and you're going to pass gun control legislation, including stuff like
a federal background check, like, I can't believe there is any liberal objecting
to Hunter Biden being prosecuted. He so blatantly violated this law that's a out
gun safety that liberals want past. Why would you want this past and then
not enforce it. It's insanity. To me, So that's what Hunter's looking
at. We'll see what happens. That'll do it. John Jerlady Show,
See next time on Power Talk