Speaker 1: Welcome to Political beat Down. I'm Ben Mysellas joined by
Michael Cohen. Let's just get into it right away. Moments ago,
Carolon Levitt, Trump's chief propagandast, hosted this helld a press
conference and she was asked, why is Donald Trump calling
female reporters piggy and saying be quiet, piggy, be quiet, piggy.
Watch what Caroline Levitt says, wearing across Michael Cohen wearing
the cross here play this clip.
Speaker 2: Host tomorrow and I'll let the President speak for himself.
Natalie take it here. R.
Speaker 1: What did the President mean when he called report piggy?
Speaker 2: Look, the President is very frank and honest with everyone
in this room. You've all seen it yourself. You've all
experienced it yourselves, and I think it's one of the
many reasons that the American people re elected this president
because of his frankness, and he calls out fake news
when he sees it. He gets frustrated with reporters when
you lie about him, when you spread fake news about
him and his administration. But he also is the most
transparent president in history, and he gives all of you
in this room, as you all know, unprecedented access.
Speaker 3: Yeah, hey, Ben, let me ask you this question. What
was the question that the journalist, this female journalist on
Air Force one asked President Trump?
Speaker 4: Leave?
Speaker 1: She asked him a question about the Epstein files and
the timing and what's happening and would you sign it
into law? I was a question about that.
Speaker 3: And can you tell me please as the legal bagal
mind that you are. What is so offensive about asking
when you intend to release the Epstein files, something that
has basically taken over the new cycle for the last
I don't know, at least several months, six months. Why
is that? Why is that a a disrespectful question to
answer to ask of the president that the response should
be to call this female journalist a pig.
Speaker 1: When you are a deeply insecure, weak, pathetic shell of
a man. That behavior, right there is what we've seen
before in despicable humans, and it is usually a lesson
that we as mature adults, try to instill in our
children and instill in others not to behave that way.
That this is really bad behavior. And at a very
young age, to the extent we see children behaving in
this way, we say, nope, bad child. You know it
receives punishment, and the fact that we're seeing this behavior
in a grown adult in a leadership position, in the
highest leader position, and the presidency is something beyond the spigle.
Let's just play the clip to show when Donald Trump
called that reporter piggy, just so people can see it.
Let's play even the way he said it, like there's
no good way to say quiet piggy, but like if
he were to say quiet piggy, the fact that.
Speaker 3: I was asking a question fake news.
Speaker 1: The way he said it, there's in his voice, the
way he even referred it to her, the finger pointing
quiet piggy, like it was it was a parody of
a despicable, vile person, but it's real, so it wasn't.
And you're watching it and you were like, if you
were to kind of craft the scrap you in a
Hollywood movie of that behavior, you would be like, Yeah,
no one's gonna no one's gonna believe that at all.
And you know, this is real life. This has real ramifications.
And the way the reporter actually asked the question was
I thought the question in the White House today, What
did he mean by piggy? Sometimes the best questions are
simple ones.
Speaker 3: What do you mean by that?
Speaker 1: And then Caroline Levitt's response was, he's direct in front.
What does that mean that she's a piggy? I mean,
Caroline Levitt's response was Trump was being honest, she's a piggy.
And the American people voted for him. This is what
she said, voted for him because they wanted in the
Oval office someone who refers to female reporters.
Speaker 3: As because he's because he's as you know, he's frank, right,
he you know, he's transparent. I mean, look at the
adjectives that she's using to justify an act which I
think every single one of us here has to acknowledge
is despicable behavior. Not forgetting about the fact that it's
by the President of the United States, but by anyone.
You know. In fact, if you were in elementary school,
you'd get a time out. If you were in uh,
let's say middle school, right, you probably would get punched
in the face, right, And you know, and it only
gets worse as you get older. I mean, it's so
beneath the man. I can't believe when I saw it,
I was I personally, I was shocked.
Speaker 1: Yeah, you know, and it was so shocking that the
first time I reported on it. There was a disconnect
between what he said and what he said.
Speaker 3: You know, the first time I heard it, Ben, I
actually thought maybe her name was Peggy. Peggy I swear
at first I did, and then when I turned around,
I was like, oh, no, he didn't. And then that
my wife was like, oh, yes he did, and I
was like, I'd stop, there's no way. And then we
went ahead, we rewound it and lo and behold, as
you just showed for us, he most as you know,
the three Stooges would say, oh he most Sutanly did.
Moh he mote Sutanly did, right, and that really deserved
like a backcand It.
Speaker 1: Was so so bizarre, so you know, and then let's
go through what else happened in that press conference, because
there were so many moments. So Caroline Levitt was then saying,
there's some good news that came out of this government shutdown,
and she goes after forty three days, one of the
things that we've determined is this, let's play the quint.
Speaker 2: The democrats reckless forty three day government shutdown did manage
to do one valuable thing. It proved that America does
not need a federal Department of Education. During the longest
shutdown in history, the Department of Education furloughed ninety percent
of its staff, and America's education system was not impacted whatsoever.
Schools stayed fully open across the country, Students attended class
and received normal in person instruction, and our wonderful teachers
received their paychecks uninterrupted. The Democrats government shutdown made it
painfully obvious that American families do not need the Department
of Education.
Speaker 3: Oh, Tim, I had a point of order, mister ben
to the point of order. Point of order is, well,
I understand that teachers was still teaching classes, was still
going on. Well, government was actually still functioning despite the
fact that they were. That all of Congress was basically
home on a eight week furlough. Does that mean we
get rid of Congress? Two?
Speaker 1: Well, it also there's a few aspects of it.
Speaker 3: Number one.
Speaker 1: Number one that number two the cruelty that what you
took out of the government shutdown is to get rid
of the Department of Education. But three, the stupidity the
Department of Education does not deal with the way schools
operate on a day to day basis. Within states, schools
and the education system are local and state functions. Where
the federal government comes in, Where the Department of Education
comes in, is to fill the gaps in areas that
the states can't do, oftentimes dealing with students who are
disabled students and helping them, addressing discrimination in schools, addressing
funding initiatives that focus on federal priorities science and tech
and things engineering and things like that. The federal government
provides student aid, student loans and tries to buttress bolster
the state systems. But it also just reflects when she
makes a statement like that, well it was operating, we realize, well,
the thing is the parts that the federal government help
out in lunches, right, free lunches, and trying to help
starving and food desert communities. That's where the federal government helps.
And you know, I guess the fourth point that I'll
make just about that clip. And I spoke to Randy Weingarten,
the head of the American Federation of Teachers. I said,
doesn't it seem like every week this regime comes out
with another announcement about disbanding the Department of Education, Like
it just feels like at least every.
Speaker 3: Crystal wid that they were going to do that a
long time ago.
Speaker 1: Every week back and it's just like a sick, cruel culture.
And then fifth point Cohen, then I'll throw it back.
Does keep going all this six point seven point two
hundred and twenty three trillion points. But doesn't it feel
like the Trump regime enjoys attacking kids, kids, disabled people,
marginalized groups, and especially kids. Right when they got rid
of Medicaid programs. It's really impacting kids, harving kids education.
There is a hatred towards kids. And you know what,
when you put kids in an education system and kids
get smart and they have to coexist with other kids
and you have to be diverse and inclusive and gain knowledge,
that's a threat to authoritarian regime.
Speaker 3: Sorry, yeah, don't be sorry. Look, you know the whole
claim by Caroline Levitt. We really can't hold her solely
accountable for the stupidity that emanates from that gaping anus
under her nose. It's not her fault if you notice,
and Ben or Jeremy, if you could find any clip
of Caroline Levitt grabbing a whole stack of papers, basically
reading from it, this is all prepared horseshit from Russell Vaught,
from Stephen peewee Germy Miller, Right, that's what this is.
And all she's doing is reading off of a script.
Why she's doing well, she's in the fucking cult, let's
be honest, and she's not going to do anything to
jeopardize her position there in the cult, no matter how
stupid and ridiculous and insane it is. But that's all
that she's doing. It's not like she's answering for Donald Trump.
Nobody does that. And yes she is an adult, I
get that too, But every single Press secretary answers questions
on behalf of the administration, on behalf of the president
that is in line with the administration and the president's
you know, ideas, and she's not answering them personally, she's
basically reading off of a script. In fact, her job
is not even necessary. Very soon, AI will actually have
all of these prepared, scripted answers, so you could have
an AI robot ask a question to receive back an
AI response, because that's really what we're having here, And
you know, I don't. While I blame her for being
an answer and for perpetuating these lies, the ones who
I actually find the most despicable is actually the press
idiots that go there to the press room, to the
briefing room expecting that they're going to get an honest
answer to anything. What they should do is try to say,
you know, what a question here, Carolyn? Yes, Michael, you
know every day we come here, every day we ask
you questions, every day you lie to us. Why should
we even continue to come here. I would love to
see somebody throw that there. I know that you wear
in a cross around your neck, but the shit that
you spew is so it's so antithetical to what Jesus
would do. Maybe you should put something else around your neck,
like maybe an albatross, you know, something like that. Why
is there nobody there to basically make her look as
stupid as she is, and that way, maybe she does quit.
Maybe she does, you know, find some God in her
life where the attack on a female, the attack on children,
the attack on the disabled, the attack on the poor,
the attack on the elderly is no longer acceptable to this,
you know, cross wearing bullshit artist. See.
Speaker 1: I think my pushback in our debate, I think you
have it a little inverted in the sense that to me,
the problem with the press and the corporate news establishment
in general is that they're so hungry for access and
money that they have given away all values and principles
for which we used to hold the press at a
high standard. And that's why you have the Minus Touch
network and other independent media emerging. So for me, the
reason why the press doesn't do that is there just
looking for access. They gotta do what they perceive is
good for clicks and their corporate overlords, who are now
often billionaires with other business interests, using the media as
their play thing in order to gain access to their
other revenue streams. And the media people you see in
the room, they're just kind of stooges and they're pawns
in this game. See Caroline Levitt. Though that job that
she's doing, I put more of the onus on her
because she sawed it. She knows what she's doing and
while those ideas may not originate with her, she's not
the originator, but by being the propagator of it, it's
more than simply repeating it like a robot or an AI.
Speaker 3: But isn't that really what she's doing? Back? Can't you
make the analogy that she take like somebody who is
looking for shelter, because it's snowing out. There's a blizzard,
and you see a building, you open up the door,
you go into it, but there's no roof. That's what
I see with that level.
Speaker 1: To The better example to me is Asama bin Laden
comes up with the plan for nine to eleven, and
then there are the hijackers, and I'll bring this to
Saudi Arabia because of the Crown Prince being at the
White House, they carry it out. They're clearly the terrorists
taking the orders from somebody. But would you go and say, well,
they didn't know what they were doing, they were just
you could have replaced them with anybody, or another example
being someone hatches the plan for the murder and then
goes and tells the hit person to do the killing,
the person who ultimately pulls the trigger. You may be
able to find others. But what Caroline Levitt is doing,
I think is pulling the trigger in a way that
divides our country. And she does seem to do it
with a delight and a glee and a smile.
Speaker 3: She does. Smile really gets to me too, brother, she does,
because the thing she's saying, it's so.
Speaker 1: Evil that it is that the reaction to it would
be like if you saw somebody bleeding out on the
street and you walked over to them and you just smiled.
And it's the same feeling that you get watching her
get off and enjoy it as you would when you
see somebody laughing at the suffering of others, Because what
she's doing is enjoying, it seems, the torture and the pain.
Speaker 3: But it's a whole group of them been. I mean, okay,
so you've heard me even on this show, like last
time last week when I compared what's his name to
smiling Bob, Right, the other idiot has it all right.
On top of that, another smiling idiot is when Steven
Miller gets on and he starts talking about.
Speaker 4: They should all be incarcerated, they should all be beaten
for absolutely turning it and saying that the president is
not allowed to order an illegal.
Speaker 3: Strike and hit on some I mean, they are all sadists,
they are, and they are cruel. Their entire their entire
agenda is literally cruel, illegal, constitutional, And it's why I
turn around and say all the time, help us to
continue to grow this community so big that we don't
have to worry because I'm a warrior. Right, you know.
I remember when when I would take an exam, even
if I studied my ass off and I knew that
I did well on it, but I was always nervous
until I got the grade back, no different than I'm
nervous now about what's going to transpire in twenty twenty six,
because one thing that Trump is extremely good at is
making himself into the victim, right. And my fear is
that when you have, like as I wrote in my
substec of today, you have people like a Hakim Jeffries
or a Chuck Schumer that are patting themselves on the
back for the release of the Epstein fils, but you
don't hold your own to that same hypocrisy. My fear
is that He's going to ride a wave of victimization
again and we're not going to be successful in the
twenty twenty six midterms, right, and that will ultimately be
the end of our democratic republic because he will do
what he's doing now but on steroids, because he knows
right now, poll after poll is showing that they are
losing in the twenty twenty six midterms, and if that happens,
at least we will have our tripartheid system of government
to keep the executive branch in check. Right now, we
don't have.
Speaker 1: That, no, no doubt about it.
Speaker 3: Right there.
Speaker 1: Let's then go to the next thing that Donald Trump
was doing today where he was threatening Democratic lawmakers with death,
and he was saying that George Washington would hang you.
So he invokes Washington's Washington would hang you. He's reposting
these accounts traders, you're involved in sedition, You're a domestic terrorist.
And these Democratic lawmakers, congress members and senators put out
a statement that just said to our members of the military,
the current status of the law is that you can't
follow unlawful orders because you will be held responsible. Cohen
kind of liked the discussion that we were having before.
Not just the general or the commander in chief, although
with our Supreme Court they give Trump absolute immunity, but
the general or the Secretary of Defense and his lieutenants
and colonels in a war tribunal, the person who gets
the order and pulls the trigger would be held the
same level of responsibility as the higher ups. Objectively, there
have been war crimes admitted by the United States on
a daily basis for a lot of things. But let's
hone in on the war crimes that are taking place
with blowing up these fishing boats off the coast of Venezuela.
We know that the top JAG lawyer, his legal memo,
said that these were war crimes and extra judicial killings,
which is consistent with what we know the UK, the
United Nations, France, Germany, you know, pretty much every country
deemed these to be war crimes. So Pambondy and the DOJ,
essentially they overrode the legal opinion of the JAG lawyer,
which never happens, and they said, this is fine, you
can do it. And what the Trump regime officials are
saying is, well, we trust Pambondy, the people covering up
the child pedo sex trafficking ring, that we support them.
So that's where we're at, Cohen right now. And Trump
is making those posts saying kill these Democrats, hang them
like George Washington would hang them. And Caroline Leavitt was
asked about it at the press conference. You've accused Democrats
of inciting violence, but is in this directly inciting violence?
Now before playing the clip to your point, Cohen, when
the way this question was framed, it adopts a false
framework by the Trump regime when they say the Democrats
are the ones doing this, but overwhelmingly these threats are
coming from Republicans and MAGA and right wing shams. Doesn't
mean it never happens from the left, just overwhelmingly. The
data which the Trump DOJ took down from its websites
suggests that right wing extremism politically motivated violence overwhelmingly the
cause of these assassinations and attacks taking place. And even
when you look at the ones that relate to Trump,
there are people from right wing families, gun touting kind
of right wing Trumper families.
Speaker 3: You know. The funny thing too, When he started talking
about George Washington would hang you, the first thing that
came through my mind was that obviously we know that
Trump doesn't really care about history. I think he was
really referring to King George, not to George Washington. George
Washington wasn't hanging anybody short of that on that same
theme theme. I don't know, Ben, if you saw this,
and Brigaders if you haven't seen it too, I want
you to google. I want you to google the following.
The Coast Guard, as of Monday, is actually declassifying the swastika,
the noose, and the Confederate flag as symbols of hatred. Now,
ben join me here for a second as the son
of a Holocaust survivor my father, right, my father spent
some time there, not just in an internment camp, but
for a short time in Auschwitz. I want to be
crystal clear about something. There is nobody in the world
that will be able to ever convince me that the
swastika is not a symbol of hate, that a noose
is not a symbol of racism and hatred towards the
black and brown community, all right, Or that the Confederate
flag is a symbol of peace. It is not. And
yet this Department of War, which controls the Coastguard thinks
that this is acceptable under this administration. And this to
me is blowing This blows me away. This really angers me.
That the American people are sitting there and saying, yeah,
you know what, and the KKK's white robes and they're
pointy little hats, are are symbols of freedom and goodness.
Speaker 1: They're going to now classify it as potentially divisive under
a new policy said to take effect December fifteenth. And
as you said, the noose the Confederate flag and the
swasticker um and you know, which basically means that if
people show it or share it, there's no ramifications. And
but but I guess that you know. One of the
points as well. Cohen, though, is is like, I just
want you to think about this. Twenty thirty million Americans
right now terrified that they're about to lose their health
care and that they can die. Forty two million Americans
were tortured with the idea of losing their snap benefits.
We're heading into Thanksgiving where it's not a great Thanksgiving
for the American people. Unemployment ticked up to four point
four percent, and based on what we saw in October,
we're going to be at five five and a half
percent in no time. And normally you may see the
unemployment go down if inflation goes up or vice versa.
But here we're seeing inflation surge right past three percent
year over year, and then on many items, ten percent,
fifteen percent, twenty percent on key items that like the
American people need, and you're seeing unemployment tick up, and
that's called stagflation when that happens and Americans can't afford things.
While Trump saying everything is great, and everybody's rich and
it's a miracle, and I did this and you're living
in a golden age. And what there were working on,
what their priorities are, this is what their think takes, right,
is not how do we deal with this or that
or the other thing. It's you know what a real
problem is in this country. This is what the Trump
people are saying, the swastika. Why are we saying that
this is a bad symbol? And then they're sitting around
at a table the way we're having conversations right and
people are saying, what if we removed it as a
symbol of hate? And then told the people in the military,
go on, use the swastika, use the noose and the
Confederate flag. And then somebody else in the room goes,
that's exactly what we need to do right now. And
someone goes, all right, here's what we're gonna do. Let's
make it happen. And then they leave the meeting, going
back to Caroline Levitt, they give her the talking points.
Great news, everybody, you see my cross.
Speaker 5: What I'm here to announce today is that weave We've
made the swastika, and we've made the noose and we've
made the Confederate flag back to being used to get
in the mill.
Speaker 3: Has nothing to do with us, It has nothing to
do with the black community. I love the blacks. The
blacks are great. I'm glad. I love the blacks, and
I'll take it has nothing to do with the clan.
I'll take it all to do with the clan.
Speaker 1: I'll take questions, all right. Pretend you're a reporter code
and asked me a question.
Speaker 3: I'll take questions. Uh yeah, Hi, I mis love it
over here. Yeah, can you tell me how is it
that the swastika, the noose, and the Confederate flag are
not deemed to be symbols of hate? Okay?
Speaker 1: Well, Donald J. Trump is a really strong and powerful president,
and the American people absolutely voted for this. And when
we talk about free speech, the American people want this
to happen. Gone are the days in the Biden administration
when they would be focused on the woke. And now
we've ended the woke. We are in an error of
prosperity and everybody is doing incredible right now. Next question,
that's that right there, and scene is exactly what happens.
Let's take our first quick break of the show.
Speaker 3: Here we go.
Speaker 1: We didn't even know we were gonna do a little
role playing on this episode. A reminder everybody, subscribe right
now to Michael Cohen Substack, The Michael Cohen Substack. Subscribe
to his YouTube channel at The Michael Cohen Show. Subscribe
to Maya Kulpa Audio podcast. Subscribe to everything Michael Cohen related.
We'll be right back after our first quick break of
the show.
Speaker 3: You haven't noticed how credit card debt works a lot
like a bad relationship where you think everything's fine and
then suddenly you're getting mystery charges, angry phone calls, and
someone n in collections leaving your voicemail like I don't
know they're X. Well, that's because, and let's be honest here,
debt from credit cards is not an accident. It's a
system built to keep Americans down the bank's profit. The
creditors win, and families they lose. Every call, every fee,
every high interest trap. It's just another reminder that the
game is rigged. But luckily this is the part of
the movie where the underdog fights back. PDS debt has
already helped hundreds of thousands cut debt and the calls
and put money back where it belongs in your pocket,
not some banker's bonus pool. Whether you're drowning in credit cards,
personal loans, medical bills, or you just bought something late
at night because the ad said limited edition. PDS Debt
has custom options for you. They actually look at your
real financial situation, not the imaginary one where you meal
prep every Sunday and never impulse by sneakers. No, and
the best part, no minimum credit score required. If your
credit score is so low that it's hiding from you,
they don't judge. They just help you pay things off
and let you keep more of your money. They're a
plus rated by the Better Business Bureau with thousands of
five star reviews, five star on trust Pilot because they've
helped hundreds of thousands of people break free from this nonsense.
And honestly, if I had needed this product, it's what
I would use. And you know I don't say that lightly.
So look, it's your money, it's your future. Don't let
the system decide for you. You have thirty seconds away from
being debt free. Get your free assessment right now at
p DS debt dot com slash beat that's p d
S Debt Debt dot com slash beat. I got to
tell you about my neighbor's cat, you know, the one
I always talk about, Marlow. I mean, this guy is
a total character. Last week I watched sniff around my
kitchen like an inspector, judging everything. I mean, I swear
if he could talk, he'd be reviewing restaurants on Yelp.
And you know what, I realized something, Marlow deserves the best.
And that's where Smalls comes in. Even though I don't
feed him, I know he'd go crazy for it because
Smalls is real, protein packed, preservative free food that cats
actually love. I mean, imagine Marlow doing a taste test
two balls side by side, one with mystery kibble, one
with Smalls. Guaranteed he wouldn't even glance at the kibble,
goes straight for Smalls, nose twitching, tail flicking, the full
Marlow seal of approval. So know this that's small started
in twenty seventeen two people cooking in small batches for
friends cats, and now they've served millions of meals. Fresh
healthy recipes that give cats shiny of fur, more energy,
fewer hair balls, and a litter box that doesn't make
you question life choices and if your cat doesn't love it,
Smalls will refund you, no risk, no questions. So here's
the deal for a limited time, because you're a Political
Beatdown listener, You're gonna get sixty percent off your first
order plus free shipping. So go right now to smalls
dot com slash Beat. That's Smalls s M A L
l s dot com slash Beat for sixty percent off
plus free shipping. Treat your cat well. Just imagine Marlowe
enjoying every bite. It's worth it. Boom boom boom.
Speaker 1: Back to political buh bah bah bah beat Down. Michael Cohen.
Speaker 3: Yeah, you know, Ben, I'll tell you we're getting a
lot of comments from from our brigaders. Oh my god,
I only love to sit through Michael's commercials. Well, I
appreciate that, you know, Marlowe, Yeah, he is a pain
in the ask me how.
Speaker 1: That's why in the future I may just try to
pitch advertisers as I'm trying to grow and expand this network.
And I'm like, okay, here's the concept. It's Michael Cohen
a full hour. He's just gonna do ads the whole time. Okay,
But like, what's the show about. It's about you. It's
about you and your product. He'll do this ad that
like the old days of infomercials, it'll just be Cohen
ad reads and then uh, and then you know that
Fox has its own funding mechanism. I'll just do Cohen
infomercial ads all day. All right, Cohen. Let's talk though,
about the update on Donald Trump's favorite prosecutor, Lindsey Halligan,
the beauty pageant contestant turned insurance lawyer with no federal
prosecutorial experience at all, who Donald Trump handpicked to lead
the Eastern District of Virginia prosecution against James Comy after
the career prosecutors, including the Republican Interim United States Attorney,
was basically fired by Donald Trump and pushed out, and
that former Republican United States Interim Attorney wrote a memo
to file saying that there's no evidence to go after Komy,
no evidence to go after New York Attorney General Laticia James.
So I just want you to think about this from
the perspective of a criminal case, where the standard is
reasonable doubt. When you get that document in discovery and
one of your exhibits to the jury is we got
a memo who's it from the prosecutor's office, which one
them from their office? And what do they say that
there's no evidence to go after my client? Really, So
not only did they say there's no reasonable doubt, they
said there's no evidence at all. So the first part
of this hearing with Halligan that took place earlier, which
was Comy's request for dismissal, one of the things that
I thought was the bombshell, right, was that the prosecutors
did not turn over that memo, Like, we know that
there's a memo that says don't prosecute Comy by a
Republican interim United States attorney then got fired. There's no evidence,
so they didn't turn that over. Why the DOJ and
the Deputy AG's office says don't turn it over? So
to me, that was the first moment. But then Cohen,
they go to did the grand jury ever receive the
actual and too count indictment that became the indictment that
they purportedly voted on in order to indict Comy and
find probable cause? And during the hearing, Lindsay Halligan and
the prosecutors both said, we never showed the actual indictment
to the grand jury. We just showed it to the
four person and one other grand juror, And so people
may be saying, the hell, how does that happen? It
never happens. Ever, it never has happened.
Speaker 3: Let's just say that's a pretty significant.
Speaker 1: Proceed never has happened before. So there's no like, well,
when this happened. No, it never happens. Why because you
have confident people who do this. So what appears to
have happened is that Lindsay Callagan first presented a three
count indictment to the grand jury, and according to Halligan
and the DOJ, the grand jury rejected the first count
but accepted the final two counts. However, that's not what
the document says. The document says that they rejected all
three counts. According to the Halligan story, because they approved
two counts, she had to print out another copy to
get them to sign off on that. That copy was
never presented to the grand jury. But Lindsay Halligan had
the four person and somebody else in another grand jury
was there sign off as though it was presented to
the full grind jury and they hadn't seen it. So
I'm going to try to read this, but my eyes
Cohen are not the greatest right now, This says after
the November nineteen, twenty twenty five hearing on the defendants
vindictive prosecution Memorandum, the Eastern District of Virginia Grand Jury
Coordinated informed, okay, after the it was so small for me.
Coordinator informed the Undersign that the grand jury four person
informed her that they had returned a true bill as
to counts two and three and not as to count one.
The coordinator was informed by the Deputy Criminal Chief to
amend the indictment by removing the text of the former
count one and moving the remaining counts two and three
to reflect discounts one and two, and that it was
the coordinator and the four person who are the people
who were in the room, but not the full grand jury.
Well today, now Halligan's team filed a notice of correction, right,
and their notice of correction goes and says, well, the
four person stated in the transcript that the grand jury
approved this, and so what they're trying to do now
the four person is just like a regular citizen who
got a jury notice. Right, So the four person doesn't
know the procedure, right that the indictment needed to be
shown to the entire uh, you know, to the entire
grand jury. So they're trying to blame the four person,
right though the four person. Look, the four person said it,
but yesterday.
Speaker 3: This is the old person supposed to know how the
process works, or they just there on behalf of the
grand jurors, the grand jurists. So let me be crystal
clear about something, all right. And I've watched now a
multitude of former federal prosecutors turn around and say, yeah,
I didn't even know that there was a notice of
correction that you can file, simply because in the thirty
eight years that I've been practicing law, I've actually never
had or never heard of anybody filing such a thing.
I don't even know if what they're saying about this
notice of correction is even something that exists. I mean literally,
I couldn't find it. I look for it. I suspect
maybe that there is something no I practice.
Speaker 1: You know, there's something called a notice of errata, right, yes,
and I filed notice of erratas before. And maybe you
do a notice of rata where your case citation is
like thirty three cal dot app dot three thirty three
dash five. But it's three thirty three dash four, right, judge.
And this is what would cause you panic as a
lawyer sometimes because when you were going through your table
of contents. I remember when I was how diligent I
would be as a litigator to make sure every point
was whatever, and if I made a mistake, I'd like,
oh my god, we need to notice of a rata.
I told the judge that that the case starts on
page three point thirty four dash five, and it was
three thirty four dash six. The idea of a notice
of correction, which after you do your hearing, you go
and say, oopsies everything we told you at that hearing
on the substantive issue in the hearing as officers of
the court, where we said that only the four person
and one other grand juror saw it. Actually we've now
uncovered something that we had in our possession what weeks ago,
because it's the grand jury testimony. And actually we're gonna
just say the four person mentioned that this was approved
by the grand jury, so we're gonna just put it
on the four person and all. And the four person
didn't know the four person was given something to sign
by this interim fake United States attorney and Lindsay Halligan,
and so the four person is not the legal authority.
The legal authority is you, you idiots. It's the lawyers
who are there. You're gonna and if you wanted to
make this argument, you know when you make them, you
make them in court. You know what this would be like.
And I'm sorry to all of our Toronto fans with
the Blue Jays losing the World series to my La Dodgers,
it would be this is what it would be like
after the game is over, notice of redo, notice of redo, and.
Speaker 3: People like, the game's over, I want to take I
want to take that pitchback, all right, I'd like.
Speaker 1: To take the pitchback notice and repitch.
Speaker 3: And this really reminds me of, seriously, what this really
reminds me of. And I know you're going to finally
agree with me on this one. This is like, uh,
the movie my cousin Vinnie, and I really want to
be Fred Gwynn, the judge in this and go, you know,
you know, pretending that Lindsay Halligan is Vinnie Gambini, right,
because this is the kind of procedural stupidity that mister Gambini.
You It's like you know. Uh did you just say ute?
Speaker 4: Right?
Speaker 3: What is a ute? I mean, that's that's what we're
talking about here. This is I have Okay, I'm with
you on that. People make citation errors. Maybe you hit
instead of three three three, you did three three three three,
just simply because it happens. So you do the notice
of the correction, the the arada. I get it, I
get it, I get it. But those aren't significant errors.
That is the predicate for the entire motion. Yes, what
you're doing is you're doing a correction so that the
record reflects it correctly. That if there's an appear there
is something that they go to page three three three,
not thirty three thirty three, which doesn't exist. I get that.
This is the entire procedure. Are now turning around the state.
I mean, this is like, yeah, we kind of like
we kind of like did the whole thing wrong. So yeah,
but I will tell you, I will tell you that
what it does do is it gives them the ability,
if granted, to avoid the statute of limitations violation that
would exist if they brought the case. Now. How so,
because the motion that they're bringing brings it back to
the data, the filing as a correction and not as
a new issue.
Speaker 1: I'm not sure I agree with it. You're saying it
does which thing though you're talking about like Pambondi has
tried to retroactively, they couldn't go back to the grand
jury now.
Speaker 3: No, what she's saying that they don't have to that
they're just correcting the record onto it, even though the
record is completely screwed up because procedurally it was done wrong.
But what they're saying is if we brought back the
grand jury and we showed them the documents and so on,
and that they agreed to the indictment, well then lo
and behold. It's correcting the record.
Speaker 1: Not one thing you can I don't think you can
bring it back.
Speaker 3: I'm not saying that I agree with it. I'm saying
that this is the argument.
Speaker 1: I you know, I mean, you know, they could argue
that they'll build a time capsule and go back and
maybe tell Lindsay Halligan that she should. Mean, there's so
many things that they could do, but like, you can't
bring this, you can't re impanel this same grand jury tomorrow.
It's done. They're done. They've been released of their obligation.
The preceding the proceeding is over where I'm confident though,
is that this judge I think is going to find
a few things. I mean, there's also the issue though,
and this is different and distinct from what the magistrate
judge talked about, because the grand jury also got false instructions.
So they were told to basically ignore James Comy's Fifth
Amendment rights. That's what they were instructed by Lindsay Allagan,
according to what the magistrate judge implied in the ruling,
and also Lindsay Halligan seemed to suggest to the grand
jury that she didn't have to present the evidence that
they had against him there, but that they had stronger
evidence that strategically they were going to show at trial,
and that the burden would then be on Komy to
take the stand and rebutton at trial or some warped
view of the law. So there's the issue also of
Halligan giving the jury incorrect legal instructions. Then there was
the issue about the grand jury not getting this indictment,
and then there was the issue with the only witness
who testified was an FBI agent who was exposed to
attorney client information of James Comy, which disqualified him from
testifying and what it seems these but he's still testified nonetheless,
despite being exposed to attorney client privilege, And you would say, well,
why'd they have this FBI officer? Any FBI officer could
show up and basically testify on hearsay based on their
review of the file, because only the guy who was
exposed to the attorney client privileged stuff was the only
person who was agreeing to testify, which probably gives you
insight into that individual's warped mindset as well. So I
think where this order is going to go, I think
it's going to hit on all of those factors. I
think it's going to find vindictive prosecution. I think it's
going to find that the grand jury never got the
underlying indictment. I think it's going to find that the
FBI agent who testified was not qualified to testify based
on exposure to attorney client privilege. I think they're going
to find that the grand jury was given false legal instructions.
And I think you're going to find a referral from
all of the judges involved in the case. I think
they'll be shoulder to shoulder that Lindsey Halligan should be
looked into based on what she did for a very
basic proceeding in theory, this grand jury proceeding. The amount
of errors that were made are probably worse that if
you just picked any random first year law student and
then had them read a book and then do it
in forty eight hours. I mean, it couldn't have been
handled worse.
Speaker 3: It's called disclosure, your fucking idiot.
Speaker 1: You know one other point I want to bring up,
and then I want to give you a layup for
the two fingers salute. So earlier today as well, a
Democratic senator, Senator Heinrich from New Mexico put forward what's
called a unanimous consent motion to repeal the provision in
that continuing resolution that ended the government shutdown, which allowed
the individual senators to pursue five hundred thousand dollars payouts
at least potentially more from the taxpayers because their phone
number showed up in subpoenas or in documents from subpoenas
that were issued by federal courts because of their communications
relating to the January sixth insurrection, their communications with Trump
and others. Senator Lindsey Graham stands up and objects to
kill the bill so it fails. So everybody remembers how
with the release of the Epstein files, nobody objected when
Schumer motioned unanimous consent. Here Lindsey Graham objected, and that
means they've killed us. And again I go back to
what I say before, which is Americans are struggling right
now heading into Thanksgiving. That's a given objectively. And when
they see Trump partying with the Saudi Crown Prince at
all of these events, and when we see Lindsey Graham
do things like this, and the Republicans in the Senate,
and when we see the half naked women in the
Martini glasses at Trump's properties, and when we see Caroline
Leavitt enjoying the suffering of others. You know, Trump has
even lost Cohen white voters in the latest Mars Pole.
I mean, you know, took you some time, but in
the latest Bars poll, fifty to forty six white voters
disapprove of Trump. Although you know it should not exactly
deserve a lot of credit for realizing that, right now,
let's just say that. But Cohen, to me, you can't
tell any of these stories in slices. And I think
sometimes the problem with creators influencers, and the media is
they tell stories in slices, but they don't show the
apple pie. Because you need to make all of these connections.
The covering up of the Epstein files is related to
this culture of rich, male, often right wing, all the Garks,
but all the Garks in general, screwing over people. It
is a culture of grift and lack of accountability and
a predatory culture that preys on people in all sorts
of ways, whether it's with their trafficking rings, whether it's
economic predation, whether it is immigration predation. Will you name it.
This is a rogue, lawless, criminal, despicable regime. And I'll
give you the two fingers salute.
Speaker 3: Yeah. So I don't think you're going to be able
to guess who I want to give the two fingers
salute to, because to me, it's very personal. To those
of you that read my substack, you would know who
it is. I'm giving mind to Representative Stacy Plasket of
the Virgin Islands, and not because she was questioning me
at my live house over hearing, not because testifying before
Congress is emotionally fucking debilitating. It was one of seven
that I did this. One of course, being live. It's
the fact that she was in communication with the most
despicable human being on the planet at the time, Jeffrey Epstein.
And it's not the questions that she was asking. Lord knows,
she could have and she should have as a lawyer,
as a former prosecutor, she could have come up with
her own questions. Her staff could have come up with
her own with their own questions for me. But instead
she's texting with Jeffrey Epstein while I'm going through this scenario.
And it's not just Stacy Plasket that I have a problem.
She owes the American people, she owes the victim, She
owes me an explanation as to her relationship with Jeffrey Epstein.
It's not as if everybody has her private cell number.
It's not that she would be picking up people's, you know,
information that they think that she should be asking me
during a live hearing. It's not that it's you now
have again, ha King Jeffries coming out there and instead
of as the leader or the wanna be future leader
of the of the House, the Speaker of the House,
if God willing, we take it back in twenty twenty
six with a censure no no, no, no, it has
nothing to do with Stacy Plasket. It's all the Republicans
because we beat them with the bill and they have
to now return it. It's the hypocrisy, you know. If
we're going to call out as we do here all
the time on Political Beatdown, as Ben and I do
on our various other shows as well, if we're going
to talk about the hypocrisy of the Republican Party and
ignore the shit that goes on within our own house,
well that's exactly what Trump rode the twenty twenty five
election in where he is constantly the victim. And I
am sick and tired of the fact that, like Hakim Jeffries,
wants to play nice to everybody because he wants to
be desperately the Speaker of the House. And I am
insulted personally that she did it. She does right a riot.
She needs to explain herself and he cannot just whitewash
it and say that this is a Republican hoax. That's
Trump's shit, And that's what we fight every single day.
It's why we talk about the Caroline levittz So to
Stacy Plasket, right, fuck you to Hakim Jeffries, for doing
what he did.
Speaker 1: Fuck you too, definitely a wild card choice for the
two finger salute. All that's going on, and you know,
so you're right in the sense that I wouldn't predict that.
But let me give another perspective, which is the following
what she could what she did can be viewed as heinous, reprehensible,
worthy of censure. The question ultimately is though she is
a non voting at large delegate, she doesn't get a
vote in the House of Representatives, so she's able to
participate in debates. That's why she was able to question you.
So my only point, Cohen, is given all of the
myriad of issues out there and the limited time to
address all of those issues, my only question is the
power of our lens as reporters. With all that's going on,
the question becomes, and I'd pose it as a question,
which is am I more offended such that the devotion
of finite time is focused on a non voting congressional
at large delegate from the Virgin Islands. Now, as your friend,
I take it personally in the sense that it was
something that was done to you, and so I come
at it with a perspective that Epstein was helping coordinate
questions to a friend of mine, to a close friend
of mine, and that's not cool. My broader question to ask, though,
is where you have Trump destroying our democracy, where you
have war crimes taking place, where you had the Republicans
covering up the child sex trafficking ring, where you have
them engaged in crimes against humanity on a daily basis,
where you have people like Pam Bondy and Todd Blanche
moving Gilane Maxwell to minimum security facilities and helping her
get VIP treatment. In that world, the question becomes for us,
and this is a journalistic thing, can we appropriately call
out this behavior like we should bad behavior? But the
question of weight, the weight of the lens that we use,
is something to I think assess, and that would be
my point. Not what she did is fine or acceptable
or good. It's worthy of condemnation. The question is on
a scale of condemnation where we get one thing un
two finger salute, but more broadly framed dealing with a
fascist attack.
Speaker 3: That I get your point, but my pushback on that
is we want to be above what they're doing there
in DC. On both sides of the off the hypocrisy
is the part that I find to be so reprehensible.
You know, it would not be wrong for the leader
or the minority leader in this case, right to turn
around and instead of looking into the camera and saying
that you know, there's nothing here. It's the reason why
more than seventy percent of America Republicans, Democrats, and independents
combined think that Washington and our politicians are full of shit,
all right, and that'sheld for the future of a democratic
republican democratic republic. How many people even here think that
their politicians are full of shit, which they are. So
there's nothing wrong I'm not saying. And I never called
for her to be thrown out. I never turned around
and said that she should be censured. I say that
she has some explaining to do, all right. How do
we know that she didn't know what the fuck was
going on on little Saint James Island. I mean, it's
a tiny little island. Are you really gonna tell me?
Airplanes coming in private airplanes like Epstein's and others, and
you have a bunch of little girls running around there,
and you have all of these high powered men, you know,
coming to the island, from celebrities to politicians to businessmen,
You really think that that type of a secret for
so long stays hidden. I think she has an hour obligation,
just as every single person who won't be named in
those files that will, god hopefully one day be released,
they have an obligation to provide answers.
Speaker 1: Right, Which is why And this is I think I
want to show people the type of respectful debate that
we just had. There is what I wish we could
have all the time. There wasn't yelling, there wasn't shouting.
I think we each made you know, certain points. You
can as an audience assess it yourself. But that's simply
where And I know the two finger salute that we
do at the end of the show doesn't take on
some official whatever you know. I mean, I get it,
but it's you know. But but my point is is
that my if the two finger salute is given to
the person who exemplifies the worst behavior of the week,
that's all, you know, then my thought would be the
people who continue to cover up, who have access to
these files and continue to cover it up, deserve it.
So I would give it, even though you could probably
give it to her every day to a pan Bondy
and a Todd Blanche and a Cash Pattel and and
that crew that said everybody's.
Speaker 3: Single day, well.
Speaker 1: Every day day you remove him from it, you know,
and you know you could give it to Christine Home
pretty much every day you can give it to you know, uh,
pretty much everywhere. You know, all of the cabinet members
you can cycle through. And so there's a little bit
of creativity. Anyway, we get it, everybody, Hit subscribe, Hit subscribe.
Subscribe to Michael Cohen's YouTube channel at The Michael Cohen Show.
Subscribe to the Maya Kulpa audio podcast. Make sure to
watch the show I Do Live with My Brothers at
eight eastern five Pacific tonight on the Minas.
Speaker 3: To just say one thing about the Maya Culpa podcast
below at midnight to I have Noel Dunfi, who is
the young lady that has a lawsuit against Rudy Giuliani
for sexual misconduct with her. There are a ton of bombshells.
When I say bombshells, this is the Moab, the mother
of all bombs dropping tonight on Maya Culpa Blue with
Noel Dunfi. So I strongly suggest you want to learn
a lot about Rudy Kaludi, drunken Giuliani in his mushroom. Hud, Well,
there you go.
Speaker 1: Everybody hit subscribe. Let's get to six million subscribers, and
thanks everybody for watching
Speaker 3: Boom