Speaker 1: Welcome to Political Beatdown. I'm Ben Mycelis, joined by Dina Dohl.
Speaker 1: I think we'll get Michael Cohen back in the next
Speaker 1: week week and a half. No, of course, out of
Speaker 1: respect for the trial process, out of respect for Justice
Speaker 1: Mershon's orders and requests, Michael Cohen will not be appearing
Speaker 1: on Political beat Down, I think until there's at least
Speaker 1: closure in the case, which would be a verdict. Dina,
Speaker 1: I think you and I both expect that verdict to
Speaker 1: come next week, by next Thursday or Friday. Given some
Speaker 1: of the delays that took place. Justice Mershon explained today
Speaker 1: that the summations would take place beginning after Memorial Day,
Speaker 1: so starting Tuesday. I think Justice Mershon smartly didn't want
Speaker 1: to kind of have a big gap with Memorial Day
Speaker 1: after summation where jurors may forget what's going on, and
Speaker 1: so the summation goes right into deliberation, and they were
Speaker 1: able to use the other time which they needed anyway
Speaker 1: today and we'll see if there's some other days to
Speaker 1: go over things like the charging instructions for the jury,
Speaker 1: where the jury will ultimately get the law that they
Speaker 1: need to apply to the facts. The other jury instructions
Speaker 1: were discussed if there were disputes over which instructions should
Speaker 1: be given to the jury. Remember, it's the judge's job
Speaker 1: to basically advise on what the law is. It is
Speaker 1: the jury that is the trier of fact. They take
Speaker 1: the law they're given and then they apply the facts
Speaker 1: to it. So when you have to deal with charging instructions,
Speaker 1: you go and you look at what the law is
Speaker 1: that gets handed over to the jury, And there may
Speaker 1: be disputes over what type of instructions the jury receives.
Speaker 1: For example, you know whether there is an instruction about
Speaker 1: something called advice of counsel, which has to be asserted
Speaker 1: before the trial begins, or at least at some point
Speaker 1: during the trial, in which case the defendant has to testify.
Speaker 1: An advice of counsel instruction is basically a criminal defendant
Speaker 1: saying it's my lawyer's fault they misled me. I got
Speaker 1: bad advice. But the criminal defendant has to take the stand.
Speaker 1: So Trump and his legal team were trying to be
Speaker 1: a little sneaky and say that we're not actually requesting
Speaker 1: an advice of council instruction. We're requesting a presence of
Speaker 1: council instruction. They invented their own concept and said, well,
Speaker 1: Trump didn't testify, so we didn't formally assert advice of counsel,
Speaker 1: but we still want to blame the lawyers, and we
Speaker 1: want to give the jury instructions on that, and moments
Speaker 1: ago Justice Mershan's life like presence of counsel. That's not
Speaker 1: a real thing denied. And so it was things like
Speaker 1: that that were discussed whether or not when we're dealing
Speaker 1: with falsified business records, whether it's enough for a person
Speaker 1: who's being charged with it to cause the records to
Speaker 1: be falsified versus actually them going with the the magic
Speaker 1: marker or the sharpie and quite literally falsifying the records themselves.
Speaker 1: If they cause the records to be falsified through their
Speaker 1: acts and conduct and others, then do it. You can't
Speaker 1: then blame the others. So that was discussed. It is
Speaker 1: enough if Donald Trump put in motion thereby causing business
Speaker 1: records to be falsified, so all of this stuff for
Speaker 1: MAGA blaming it on the bookkeeper, that's not what the
Speaker 1: law is. The law is if Trump caused the bookkeeper
Speaker 1: to then make the false entury, Trump is criminally responsible,
Speaker 1: So that was ruled on moments ago. And then Dina,
Speaker 1: you know yesterday we had Robert Costello testify. My brother Jordi,
Speaker 1: you know, I think said it brilliantly. So Robert Costello
Speaker 1: is this maga lawyer. And the way the media tried
Speaker 1: to present the way they claimed Michael Cohen was going
Speaker 1: to testify, like Cohen was just going to start going
Speaker 1: all crazy and being disruptive and engage in contemptuous behavior.
Speaker 1: Of course Cohen didn't do that. Everybody who watches political
Speaker 1: beat down and maya Copan knows that Cohen conducts himself professionally.
Speaker 1: Everyone knows how Cohen would act, and Cohen acted professionally,
Speaker 1: made eye contact with the jury. But the way the
Speaker 1: media narrative was like, this is how Cohen's gonna act,
Speaker 1: is how the witness, like, really the one witness Donald
Speaker 1: Trump called acted, Robert Costello like grinning and making noises
Speaker 1: at the Ajustice Mershon, staring him down, making snide remarkable.
Speaker 1: Then you strike it and so like Justice Mershon had
Speaker 1: to like shut down the courtroom, close it and basically
Speaker 1: warn Robert Costello that he would be held in contempt
Speaker 1: if he continued to engage in that conduct. The cross
Speaker 1: examination of Costello was what a cross examination should be.
Speaker 1: And Costello basically collapsed on cross examination, not literally, but
Speaker 1: you know, you had jurors who were basically laughing in
Speaker 1: Costello's face, and Trump's lawyers did not want to call Costello.
Speaker 1: Apparently Trump made them call Costello, and it was just
Speaker 1: devastating because Costello was like, I didn't care about Donald Trump.
Speaker 1: I don't care about Trump or Giuliani. I was focused
Speaker 1: on helping Michael Cohen. And then very quickly the way
Speaker 1: across is supposed to happen like pool boom boom. The
Speaker 1: prosecutor Susan Hoppaderson. Oh really, you said that your interests
Speaker 1: were Cohen. Well, here are all of the emails basically
Speaker 1: behind the scenes where you had Costello calling Cohen and
Speaker 1: a hole and basically telling people if we really need
Speaker 1: to help Trump here and Cohen's not playing ball and
Speaker 1: what can we do with Cohen? And we really need
Speaker 1: to help Trump out right here? And you know and more.
Speaker 1: It's that effect. So it actually and I'll throw it
Speaker 1: to you, Dina, It put the perfect ribbon on the
Speaker 1: prosecution's case. Then now you had this like mafia style
Speaker 1: dude lawyer masquerading as like trying to be Cohen's lawyer,
Speaker 1: weasel his way in on behalf of Trump to like
Speaker 1: cover it up, like and like to silence Cohen. Like
Speaker 1: what better way for the prosecution to end the case
Speaker 1: than have Costello testify? So what a blunder the by
Speaker 1: the defense if you want to talk about drawing blood,
Speaker 1: how devastating of a witness for the defense was Costello?
Speaker 1: And that leads us to where we are today. So
Speaker 1: that's may intro. Dina. I'm so grateful for you posting
Speaker 1: this with me while Cohen's way. Everybody loves to see it.
Speaker 1: What'd you make of today and where we're headed?
Speaker 2: I'm so grateful to be here. I mean, this is
Speaker 2: such a historic case. I agree with you. I mean
Speaker 2: I think that the defense should have just not put
Speaker 2: on a case, you know, it's just don't put on
Speaker 2: a case, rather than put on a witness like Robert Castello.
Speaker 2: And then in closing you can put holes in the
Speaker 2: case and it is the prosecutor's burden, you know. But
Speaker 2: at this point when you put on Robert Castello, like that,
Speaker 2: the fact that the jury had to leave twice during
Speaker 2: his testimony because of how disrespectful he was to the judge.
Speaker 2: They didn't hear the clear the courtroom line, right, they
Speaker 2: had already left, but they saw him answering even when
Speaker 2: he wasn't supposed to be answering, and muttering the g's
Speaker 2: behind under his breath, and they knew, they knew why
Speaker 2: they were being asked to leave. They you know, I mean,
Speaker 2: it's logical that he was going to get reprimanded by
Speaker 2: the judge. First of all, the jury is very aligned
Speaker 2: with the judge. The judge is, you know, looking out
Speaker 2: for them, right instruction, they know to look out to him,
Speaker 2: and honestly, in this kind of a situation, the judge
Speaker 2: is protecting them literally, you know, making instructions to the
Speaker 2: media don't talk about them so much because you know,
Speaker 2: they were getting kind of outed in the beginning. The
Speaker 2: jury knows this. One of the juris in particular, during
Speaker 2: that sidebar was saying how she had been worried about
Speaker 2: her safety and she ended up staying, and the judge
Speaker 2: was like, don't worry like I am going to you know,
Speaker 2: make sure that they don't report about you. So when
Speaker 2: you are being so respectful to the judge, it's as
Speaker 2: if you are being disrespectful to the jury. They see
Speaker 2: themselves as one unit in that respect, And again, this
Speaker 2: whole case is about were you unlawful? Were you willing
Speaker 2: to be unlawful to win the presidency? And when you
Speaker 2: have your one witness completely flouting the law. Judge in
Speaker 2: this trial is the symbol of the law, and you
Speaker 2: are sitting there not caring about his rulings and being
Speaker 2: so disrespectful. It's like the last thing you want to
Speaker 2: do when you're trying to say that the defendant is
Speaker 2: a law abiding citizen, and that's the true probably for
Speaker 2: any criminal defendant. You're trying to show that you're a
Speaker 2: law abiding citizen. But in this respect, when you're dealing
Speaker 2: with this power and the fact that the prosecution today
Speaker 2: was able to get in those emails for the second time,
Speaker 2: those emails to me were I think one of the
Speaker 2: most damaging parts of the case because it shows that
Speaker 2: once he got into the presidency, he continued to abuse
Speaker 2: his power. He used the power of the White House
Speaker 2: in this mafia style setting. There's more than one way
Speaker 2: to get somebody to do what you want to do, right,
Speaker 2: You threaten violence, and you threaten like with your power,
Speaker 2: and he was threatening with his power, trying to keep
Speaker 2: Michael Cohen quiet. And the prosecutors had are gotten that
Speaker 2: email and once, but they got to get it in
Speaker 2: a second time. And that is alone enough of a
Speaker 2: reason not to have had Robert Castello testify. It was
Speaker 2: really clear that they were trying to keep Michael Cohen
Speaker 2: quiet with this power of the presidency. And so you
Speaker 2: see again and again from the prosecution and the evidence
Speaker 2: that they put forward, the defense and Robert Costello and
Speaker 2: the emails that put forward, that Trump was willing to
Speaker 2: abuse his power. He was willing to flout the law
Speaker 2: to become president and then once president to you know,
Speaker 2: interfere with the justice system and the judge when he
Speaker 2: goes to give the jury the case, like we may
Speaker 2: talk about the more the during sections, like you said,
Speaker 2: but he's also going to tell them to use their
Speaker 2: common sense. He's going to tell them, you know, that
Speaker 2: they're allowed to use their life experience to determine somebody's credibility,
Speaker 2: the witness's credibility. He already told them that in the
Speaker 2: beginning of the case. He also was going to tell
Speaker 2: them and that they can use their common sense. And
Speaker 2: if you have common sense, and you see the defense
Speaker 2: act like that to the judge, and you see testimony
Speaker 2: and testimony, and you see the politicians parading inside the courtroom,
Speaker 2: the common sense is that Trump did what he wanted
Speaker 2: to do and he didn't care about the law, and
Speaker 2: neither does anybody else around him.
Speaker 1: Think about it this way, Dina as well. Michael Cohen,
Speaker 1: my co host on Political peat Down. He testified for
Speaker 1: about twenty one hours, twenty one hours of testimony, and
Speaker 1: I know the corporate media tried to pick apart quite
Speaker 1: literally like thirty seconds, which, by the way, where Cohen
Speaker 1: was being honest, he was corroborated by contemporaneous photos that
Speaker 1: the prosecution then had to show these c Span photos
Speaker 1: from October twenty fourth of twenty sixteen. Cohen was honest,
Speaker 1: and where back in the day he did wrong. He
Speaker 1: told the truth. There wasn't any moment where they were like,
Speaker 1: but ah, here's what I have. Cohen was honest. He
Speaker 1: told the good, he told the bad, he told the ugly,
Speaker 1: and he submitted to twenty one hours. I mean it
Speaker 1: wasn't voluntarily. He was a subpoena witness, but Cohen's had
Speaker 1: to testify probably more than almost like any American in
Speaker 1: almost anything period. And he does it, and he looks
Speaker 1: at the jury. He's honest, he's candid, and as I said,
Speaker 1: the good, the bad, the ugly. We know Cohen's having
Speaker 1: his Maya Culpa moment right now, which is who Coen
Speaker 1: always was. He recognizes what he did was wrong in
Speaker 1: the past. We know that about him. That's his podcast,
Speaker 1: it's called Maya Culpa on Political Beatdown. He acknowledges in
Speaker 1: his books. He's acknowledged, this is what I did wrong
Speaker 1: in my life, and I want to make up for it.
Speaker 1: But he wasn't fighting on the cross exam. He was
Speaker 1: just telling the truth. On the other hand, just think
Speaker 1: about when Donald Trump sued Cohen. Let's talk about that,
Speaker 1: the civil case where Trump sues Cohen for five hundred
Speaker 1: million dollars and Cohen's like, all right, you're suing me.
Speaker 1: I guess I'm gonna have to testify. I'm ready. Well,
Speaker 1: let's take your deposition, then, Donald Trump, and let's have
Speaker 1: you testify about all the things that you think I
Speaker 1: did wrong. Delay, delayed, Delay. Trump says he's going to
Speaker 1: testify delay, delayed, delay. Then Donald Trump, right, as he's
Speaker 1: compelled to show up for his deposition, dismisses the case. Right,
Speaker 1: and what does he do here? Today? Donald Trump invoked
Speaker 1: his Fifth Amendment again self incrimination. He previously said only
Speaker 1: mobsters invoke the Fifth. Right, he said only mobsters invoke
Speaker 1: the Fifth, Whereas Michael Cohen has testified more than any American,
Speaker 1: Donald Trump has invoked the Fifth Amendment more than any American.
Speaker 1: Fifth Fifth. He invoked the fifth originally in the civil
Speaker 1: fraud trial, and then he gave this like meandering position.
Speaker 1: But Donald Trump is mister invoked the fifth and he
Speaker 1: did it again. And Donald Trump after saying I'm gonna
Speaker 1: toast the four Yeah, I have nothing to hide, and
Speaker 1: his lawyers saying he's got nothing to hide. He is
Speaker 1: a loser. He's a loser. He is a weak loser,
Speaker 1: cower at his core. He's not a tough guy. He
Speaker 1: is a loser. And he always shows us what a
Speaker 1: loser he is over and over again. And I think today, look,
Speaker 1: the jury can't be told Dina in a criminal case. Oh,
Speaker 1: he's invoking the fifth, so have an adverse inference. He
Speaker 1: has a constitutional right to invoke it. But here in
Speaker 1: the court of public opinion. We should say, Donald Trump,
Speaker 1: you are the biggest freaking cry baby loser that there is.
Speaker 1: You are a weak, weak loser. That's who you are.
Speaker 2: Diana, all Right, that was true, Bed, That was I
Speaker 2: just have to take that in for a second. Maybe
Speaker 2: he will hear it. He can't change his mind, unfortunately. Yeah,
Speaker 2: that he's obsessed with the cold right, I mean I
Speaker 2: don't understand that honestly, Like I know, we it's we're
Speaker 2: far from trying to understand Donald Trump, But his obsession
Speaker 2: with the cold courtroom, I don't know. I feel like
Speaker 2: a psychologist needs to like break that down. He is
Speaker 2: willing to lie all the time. Like in his press
Speaker 2: conference yesterday he says, how we you know he's the
Speaker 2: word we we you know didn't do the legers. He
Speaker 2: basically admitted to the whole crime. That's why he doesn't
Speaker 2: take the fifth because he did what he did. He
Speaker 2: has told us enough, you know, in his tweets he
Speaker 2: talked about it being a reimbursement, and in his press
Speaker 2: conference yea yesterday he says, we, you know, didn't you
Speaker 2: know do this like he did it? And that's you know,
Speaker 2: he has cheated his way through his entire life. He's
Speaker 2: so corrupt. He's done it with all of his businesses.
Speaker 2: He's doing it with his public company now. And he
Speaker 2: did it with our presidency. He did it as a candidate,
Speaker 2: he did it once he got in office, he did
Speaker 2: it once he lost the office. He's doing it again.
Speaker 2: And you know, Fox News, they have covered all thirty
Speaker 2: three of his little press conferences before and after the
Speaker 2: hearing where he just lies all the time about the
Speaker 2: judges and anything else, or yesterday and midst the entire crime.
Speaker 2: You know. But yes, he's not willing to go and
Speaker 2: sit in that stand because he can't. He did it,
Speaker 2: and he knows he did it. And I still think
Speaker 2: I really wish that we had had cameras or at
Speaker 2: least sound coming from that courtroom, because there was I
Speaker 2: really feel like people needed to hear how fair that
Speaker 2: judge was. He's really impressive. And that's why, you know,
Speaker 2: Trump couldn't do it, because there's no way he was
Speaker 2: going to be able to overcome the evidence in there.
Speaker 1: Look, I wish he actually wasn't such a loser, because
Speaker 1: it's just so embarrassing for our country that the leader
Speaker 1: of one of our two major political parties, is such
Speaker 1: a loser, Like he dresses up these maga Republican Congress
Speaker 1: members and they show up in their red ties that
Speaker 1: don't fit them, and then they parrot what he says.
Speaker 1: How unfair it is and how depressing the courtroom is,
Speaker 1: and the ultimate boot lickers. I truly wish that they
Speaker 1: weren't such losers, and like, you know, you know, that
Speaker 1: he was like at least somewhat competent, so you could
Speaker 1: be like, well, you know, at least they're somewhat you know,
Speaker 1: but like the the loser quality of it, how easy
Speaker 1: it is to call out the loser conduct and to
Speaker 1: predict what he's going to do, Like, look, he ain't
Speaker 1: going to debate. We all know he's gonna He's not
Speaker 1: going to debate. He's going to do the same thing
Speaker 1: he always does. Oh, we need a drug test, President Biden,
Speaker 1: we need to do a drug test. Oh. President Biden's
Speaker 1: not doing the Fox debate. It's unfair. Oh, Jake Tapper
Speaker 1: is the deep state. I'm not going to like I
Speaker 1: wish Dina it wasn't so predictable, because then I may
Speaker 1: not be as frustrated when corporate media doesn't cover it,
Speaker 1: like accurately, you know, like even like with that Wildwood,
Speaker 1: New Jersey event, right, there wasn't one hundred thousand people.
Speaker 1: There was like five to ten thousand people. And it's
Speaker 1: so easy to see it that the frustrating part is
Speaker 1: like when the Associated Press goes, oh, at eighty thousand
Speaker 1: and one hundred thousand people, and then I'm like, don't
Speaker 1: you realize that's Trump's people who are telling the maga
Speaker 1: mayor of Wildwood, who's under indictment, what the numbers are
Speaker 1: to tell the press so that they could use it
Speaker 1: to spread their propaganda. I wish it wasn't so easy
Speaker 1: to see it, because I think I may be less frustrated.
Speaker 1: It was like a complex Rubik's cube, and I was like, oh, oh,
Speaker 1: you got me, good, you got But it's so obvious,
Speaker 1: it's so flagrant. He's posting like bring back the Reich videos.
Speaker 1: I mean, it's so absurd that it even makes it
Speaker 1: doubly triply infinitely worse that it's so obvious in our face,
Speaker 1: and yet people are so easy to be manipulated by
Speaker 1: the corporate media of what is actually going on here.
Speaker 1: And you said at Bestina that they're doing such a
Speaker 1: disservice that when and if there is a guilty verdict, Look,
Speaker 1: there ain't gonna be an acquittal. Let's be clear, right,
Speaker 1: it's either going to be hung with one with maybe
Speaker 1: one juror holdout. That's rogue that nobody saw coming, which
Speaker 1: I hope is not the case. I don't think is
Speaker 1: the case. There ain't gonna be an acquittal. So if
Speaker 1: and when there's a guilty verdict, the public feels confused
Speaker 1: because they're not being educated on the transcripts and what's
Speaker 1: really happening in the courtroom like you do, Dina and
Speaker 1: Karen Freeman, Agnifolo and Popac and we do here unbeat down.
Speaker 2: Oh absolutely. And I think part of the problem too
Speaker 2: with Trump and his circle is they do so many
Speaker 2: bad things that you know, people move on, right, like
Speaker 2: even just the press conference, Like I'm actually still just
Speaker 2: so bothered about the number of politicians that have showed
Speaker 2: up and disparaged our justice system like that to me,
Speaker 2: like if that had even happened, you know a few
Speaker 2: years ago, we would be I think more upset about it.
Speaker 2: But now it's reported like, oh Okay, somebody's showing up,
Speaker 2: somebody's showing up. I again, I think what he's doing
Speaker 2: today to our justicistm is what he did to our media.
Speaker 2: He's so damaged the reputation of our media. I think
Speaker 2: it's never come back. And I'm really worried he's doing
Speaker 2: that to our justice system. And we have elected a
Speaker 2: ficials participating in this and that today. The person who
Speaker 2: spoke today was talked about the ruling class, right, like
Speaker 2: the ruling class, you know, taking it to Donald Trump,
Speaker 2: and I'm like, you're the ruling class. I mean, I
Speaker 2: know a reporter said Donald Trump is the ruling class,
Speaker 2: but so are all those politicians if they don't think
Speaker 2: they're there because of power and privilege, Like that's the
Speaker 2: ruling class in our country. Do you think that everyday
Speaker 2: Americans can leave their jobs and go travel in front
Speaker 2: of a courtroom and have the luxury of speaking their
Speaker 2: opinion about it. No, if you on your job employers dime,
Speaker 2: can go and travel to a jurisdiction that has absolutely
Speaker 2: nothing to do with your job for the sole purpose
Speaker 2: of talking about something that has absolutely nothing to do
Speaker 2: with your job. You are the ruling class, and you
Speaker 2: are using that power and that privilege that those voters
Speaker 2: have given you not to do your job, but to
Speaker 2: disparage our justice system, which doesn't belong to Trump, It
Speaker 2: doesn't belong to Maga, it doesn't replong to those people
Speaker 2: in front of those microphones. It belongs to us, and
Speaker 2: as a lawyer and really just as like an everyday American.
Speaker 2: That really is almost one of the most upsetting things
Speaker 2: about this child.
Speaker 1: I want to show that clip of the Texas Lieutenant
Speaker 1: Governor Maga, Republican who showed up and said that. I
Speaker 1: also want to show you Donald Trump as he was
Speaker 1: leaving the courthouse moments ago. And then I want to
Speaker 1: show you as well some other clips you and I
Speaker 1: will go over. Let's do that, but let's take just
Speaker 1: our first quick break of the show.
Speaker 3: Have you ever wished that you had whiter and a
Speaker 3: brighter smile? Well before you visit a dentist used to
Speaker 3: know that they're whitening treatments. They're very expensive, and you
Speaker 3: know what, it's not just the price. You also have
Speaker 3: to book the appointment, schedule time away from work or
Speaker 3: family to sit in the dentist's office chair well to
Speaker 3: going this procedure. It's a hassle. Fortunately, now you can
Speaker 3: try smile actives at home or anywhere anytime. Smile Actives
Speaker 3: offers a safe and an affordable alternative to those expensive
Speaker 3: whitening procedures. You see, I've had past experience with these
Speaker 3: whitening agents, and I gotta tell you, I hated it.
Speaker 3: It causes these zingers afterwards. It's really uncomfortable. And I'm
Speaker 3: a big coffee drinker, and so I hate to say it.
Speaker 3: Your teeth gets stained. But that's why it's so important
Speaker 3: to you Smile Actives because it brings you a bright smile,
Speaker 3: and a bright smile makes a good impression. Smile Actives
Speaker 3: makes the teeth whitening gel that can simply be added
Speaker 3: to your toothpaste every time that you brush your teeth,
Speaker 3: so there's no change in your routine, there's no extra
Speaker 3: time and there's no MESSI strips, trays or lights simply
Speaker 3: adds Smile Actives pro whitening gel to your regular toothpaste.
Speaker 3: It's been formulated with polyclean technology to boost stain removal
Speaker 3: and deliver active whitening ingredients into teats, grooves, and crannies
Speaker 3: so that you get better whitening. Ninety seven percent of
Speaker 3: Smile Actives users in a clinical trial reported up to
Speaker 3: six shades wider on average. Listen to what I just said,
Speaker 3: up to six shades wider on average and all within
Speaker 3: thirty days. I mean, that's the kind of trial that
Speaker 3: I like. So what are you waiting for? Start getting
Speaker 3: comments on your wider, brighter smile in just days Visit
Speaker 3: smile actives dot com slash beat today to receive a
Speaker 3: special buy one, get one free offer with put delivery
Speaker 3: plus free shipping and handling. That's Smile Actives dot com
Speaker 3: slash Beat. Terms and conditions apply fecite for details.
Speaker 4: As you know, I'm a video editor, podcaster and co
Speaker 4: founder of the Midas Touch Network. We're doing a lot
Speaker 4: living in more heart healthy life fuels everything you do.
Speaker 4: Introducing three to one blood pressure support plus COQ ten
Speaker 4: from Superbats Heart Shoes Advanced paired with a healthy life style.
Speaker 4: The grape seed extract in Superbats is clinically shown to
Speaker 4: be nearly two times more effective at promoting normal blood
Speaker 4: pressure than a healthy lifestyle alone. New Superbeats Hearts Shoes
Speaker 4: Advance supports healthy COQ ten level and important nutrient for
Speaker 4: heart health. Superbeats Heart Shoes are incredibly delicious and so
Speaker 4: much better than any alternative supplements out there. I take
Speaker 4: my Superbeats Heart shoes each morning and it's really kickstarted
Speaker 4: my morning routine. After taking my Superbeats Heart shoes, I
Speaker 4: feel like I have more energy and I'm ready to
Speaker 4: take on the day. COQ ten generates ninety five percent
Speaker 4: of the cellular energy your heart needs, but it can
Speaker 4: decline with age, stress, and statin use. Superbeats Heart Shoes
Speaker 4: Advance is effective and contains clinically researched ingredients from super Beats,
Speaker 4: the number one doctor, pharmacist, and cardiologists recommended Beat brand
Speaker 4: for cardiovascular health. Soon find out how you can get
Speaker 4: a free thirty day supply on bundles of new super
Speaker 4: Beats Heartshoose Advance and save fifteen percent for a limited
Speaker 4: time only by going to super Beats Radio Promo code Beat.
Speaker 4: That's super b E E T Sradio dot com promo
Speaker 4: code Beat and that promo code is B E A T.
Speaker 1: Thank you to our pro Democracy sponsors right there. You
Speaker 1: can check out them and get the discount codes and
Speaker 1: the description below. It was good to see Cohen with
Speaker 1: that ad read right there. You know, I miss Cohen
Speaker 1: because he's my friend. I want to talk to him
Speaker 1: more as well, and we decided that we would take
Speaker 1: lots of our conversations to the podcast. But don't you worry.
Speaker 1: When this trial concludes, Michael Cohen will be back and
Speaker 1: in full effect, and we will make sure that we
Speaker 1: will hold those Patreon after shows and you'll get, you know,
Speaker 1: see Michael Cohen. If you want to join patreon dot
Speaker 1: com slash Political Beatdown in anticipation of Cohen's return when
Speaker 1: Cohen will meet with everybody and we do those zoom meetings,
Speaker 1: you can join at Patreon p A t R e
Speaker 1: o N dot com slash Political Beatdown. Diana, before we
Speaker 1: took that break, you mentioned that moment where Donald Trump
Speaker 1: had the Maga Republican congress members and Maga Republican politicians
Speaker 1: from DC and across the country. You know, Trump dresses
Speaker 1: them up. I'm making this up. Trump makes them wear
Speaker 1: these like long red ties and they all show up
Speaker 1: dressed up like they're like like there, Donald Trump, it's
Speaker 1: so weird. And so here here's you see them right there.
Speaker 1: Here is the Maga Republican Lieutenant Governor Patrick of Texas.
Speaker 1: And here's where he talks about the ruling class. This
Speaker 1: is what you reference Dina. Let me just show you
Speaker 1: how pathetic this is. So you have him speaking first,
Speaker 1: then this maga Republican Sebastian Gorka starts doing with the
Speaker 1: magas do like attacks the person asking the question. What
Speaker 1: the ridiculous question that you're asking about?
Speaker 5: This?
Speaker 1: How pathetic of a question. It's it's just so, it's
Speaker 1: such a pathetic sight to see. But let me show
Speaker 1: you then I'll get your reactions to the average America.
Speaker 5: What happens to any of you if the courts of
Speaker 5: New York come after any of you because of something
Speaker 5: you said, because you said something the ruling class didn't like.
Speaker 5: And that's what all these other countries are about. They
Speaker 5: shut down the ruling class. They want to be any
Speaker 5: They want to be sure that anyone that speaks up
Speaker 5: against the ruling class disappears.
Speaker 3: They want Donald Trump to disappear.
Speaker 5: They want to send him to jail. They want to
Speaker 5: take him off the main stage because they know here's
Speaker 5: their biggest danger, to take.
Speaker 3: In the ruling class down.
Speaker 5: No, you know why Donald Trump is not the ruling class.
Speaker 1: Be facing seven hundred and thirty years in prison? What
Speaker 1: a pathetic question? Seven hundred and thirty years and he's
Speaker 1: a member of the elite. That's pathetic. You're not a journalist,
Speaker 1: so it's not so bad, you know it. It is.
Speaker 1: It is a sight to behold. Indeed, let's go through
Speaker 1: some of the other clips. This was moments ago as
Speaker 1: Donald Trump exited the courthouse, where he starts like reading
Speaker 1: these notes and these articles that he gets from. He
Speaker 1: has this lady who gets paid by his political action committees,
Speaker 1: and Trump's political action committees had paid her over one
Speaker 1: hundred thousand dollars and her job, quite literally is she
Speaker 1: follows him around wherever he goes with a portable printer
Speaker 1: and then she prints right wing articles that she and
Speaker 1: Trump's campaign and lawyers think that Donald Trump will like.
Speaker 1: Then Trump takes a sharpie and he crosses out parts
Speaker 1: of those right wing articles that he doesn't like, and
Speaker 1: he sanitizes them. Often. He then posts them on his
Speaker 1: social media platform, like edited and manipulated, even the right
Speaker 1: wing ones if they have any references that he doesn't like.
Speaker 1: He hasn't posted as many because of the gag order.
Speaker 1: But anyway, she hands him over the paper and then
Speaker 1: he starts reading and he goes The judge hates Donald Trump.
Speaker 1: And then let me let me show you this clip.
Speaker 1: This is from moments ago. Let's play it low and
Speaker 1: so los judge Trump.
Speaker 5: Just take a love, take a look at it, take
Speaker 5: a look at where he comes shot.
Speaker 1: Just such a weird dude, Like when you watch him
Speaker 1: there again, this isn't like a this isn't even political commentary,
Speaker 1: Like he is exactly who my dad told me to
Speaker 1: just be careful if you see somebody like that at
Speaker 1: a bar or in a public space, you just avoid
Speaker 1: somebody like that because if he wasn't the leader of
Speaker 1: the Republican Park Party, you know he's he's the type
Speaker 1: of person that you see and look there are you know,
Speaker 1: there are issues out there, and I'm trying to be sensitive,
Speaker 1: you know to it who are like screaming on the
Speaker 1: corner of streets and you know, and I don't want
Speaker 1: and I'm not trying to let Donald Trump out by saying,
Speaker 1: oh mental, I mean, you know, he should be fully
Speaker 1: held accountable. But when you watch the ranting and raving,
Speaker 1: this is a non political analysis. Like just objectively, he's
Speaker 1: like a crazy person and he's like a baby, and
Speaker 1: like just even the descriptions of him in court like
Speaker 1: taking his little baby naps and then he wakes up
Speaker 1: and then his lawyers tell him what happened, and then
Speaker 1: he crosses his arms and he's like he's like, it's
Speaker 1: like a little bay. It's like a baby, and no
Speaker 1: offense to babies. Like like, here's this was a moment
Speaker 1: from about a half hour ago. Dina. So this is Annabauer,
Speaker 1: great reporter, she's reporting what's going on. She goes. So
Speaker 1: they're arguing about whether Trump can basically get an instruction
Speaker 1: on what's essentially an adviceive counsel light defense. We've been
Speaker 1: here before, just Merchhaan has rejected this kind of approach
Speaker 1: during pre trial proceedings as it doesn't exist under the law.
Speaker 1: Justice Mershon then goes to Emil Bobe, Trump's lawyer, we've
Speaker 1: been here before. My answer has a change, and I
Speaker 1: understand the argument that you're making. My ruling is the
Speaker 1: jury will not hear that instruction from the bench. And
Speaker 1: the jury will not hear that argument. It is denied.
Speaker 1: It's not going to happen. Then Trump's other lawyer, Todd
Speaker 1: Blanche leans over, whispers something in Trump's ear. Trump leans back,
Speaker 1: and then like and like crosses his arms, and like
Speaker 1: the totality of these descripts, like a little baby boy,
Speaker 1: you know, and no offense to baby boys. But it's
Speaker 1: a little baby boy here he is speaking of this
Speaker 1: little baby man baby boy, he goes. The reason that
Speaker 1: he says, I'm not testifying is because I'm not allowed
Speaker 1: to say what I really would like to say. And
Speaker 1: you be very impressed by what I want to say,
Speaker 1: but I can't say it because I'm gagged here what
Speaker 1: watch this? This was moments ago as well, and you
Speaker 1: see what's happened there with you bought. And remember, I'm gay.
Speaker 3: I'm not allowed to say what i'd like to really say.
Speaker 2: He'd be very impressed, but I'm gay, So why would
Speaker 2: I take the chance.
Speaker 5: We want to defend our constitution, So at some point maybe.
Speaker 1: I will take the chance little man baby boy, no
Speaker 1: to no offense denon.
Speaker 2: Honestly, it's like a comedy show. I love your impressions, Ben,
Speaker 2: And in a way, maybe that's how we should be
Speaker 2: treating Trump. It's like, yes, he's serious to our democracy,
Speaker 2: but he's also why are we taking him considering him
Speaker 2: to be a serious person. He's not a serious person.
Speaker 2: He's not serious about the job. He's not serious about
Speaker 2: the country. He's not serious about anything. He's the ultimate victim.
Speaker 2: Like even when he's sitting there talking about the judge,
Speaker 2: how the judge is just like obsessively hates him. The
Speaker 2: judge doesn't care about him, Like really, he's got a
Speaker 2: ton of criminal defendants that come through his courtroom all
Speaker 2: the time, and he is not made one ruling that's
Speaker 2: really unusual, and he isn't going to because he cares
Speaker 2: more about his job in the rule of law. You're
Speaker 2: not that important to him Trump, You're just not. And
Speaker 2: but like in Trump's world, like he has to be
Speaker 2: the most important person at all times and all things.
Speaker 2: And you know, whether it's just do with the temperature
Speaker 2: or the judge or whatever, you know, and and that like, yeah,
Speaker 2: we have elected or we did elect at one point,
Speaker 2: like a complete narcissist baby. And you know, you know
Speaker 2: how he always talks about fair like, oh, things aren't fair.
Speaker 2: It's not fair. It's not fair. Like to me, that
Speaker 2: sounds like a child, you know, because if you have
Speaker 2: lived any semblance of life, I think you know life
Speaker 2: isn't fair. Like there's a lot of things that happen
Speaker 2: to really good people that are bad and you know,
Speaker 2: like I who still thinks that life can always be fair,
Speaker 2: like that to me sounds like a child, to be honest,
Speaker 2: like a child who has had no experience with life.
Speaker 2: You know, I would love it if, like in the closing,
Speaker 2: just to kind of like get under Trump's skin, the
Speaker 2: prosecutor was talking about how, you know, how David Pecker
Speaker 2: had to enter into the non prosecution agreement and Michael
Speaker 2: Cohen went to jail, and it would only be fair,
Speaker 2: you know, if Trump paid for his part in the proceedings.
Speaker 2: Let's be fair about this. I would love for them
Speaker 2: to use that just for my own personal thing and
Speaker 2: to see what Trump would do, because yeah, I I
Speaker 2: to me like, hey, if this thing is really fair,
Speaker 2: it's your turn. Donald Dean.
Speaker 1: It's so funny, but right, my brother Bridge a little
Speaker 1: base of the baby. He's a ridiculous person. And I
Speaker 1: mean this is the most not like in a non
Speaker 1: political way, you know, And that's why, you know, we
Speaker 1: do a lot of interview with you know, people who
Speaker 1: are kind of traditionally conservative, mainstream conservative people you know,
Speaker 1: who look at this too and go this just this,
Speaker 1: this is just not like normal behavior. I was laughing
Speaker 1: because my brother Bretscha sent me this article that The
Speaker 1: New York Times wrote about us, and it was like,
Speaker 1: how media outlets are covering Justice Mershon in Trump's criminal trial,
Speaker 1: and then they go like the right, then they go
Speaker 1: the left, and so this is how like the left
Speaker 1: is covering the criminal trial that might have touched like
Speaker 1: the left. And I'm like, what what is left about this?
Speaker 1: It's funny that if you and to me, that's you know,
Speaker 1: one of the issues that's out there is that somehow
Speaker 1: that baby ish, toddler like behavior from from Donald Trump
Speaker 1: is being you know, they use the words, oh, that's conservative,
Speaker 1: that's right wing, that's that's not mainstream conservative, that's not
Speaker 1: mainstream Republican thought to behave in this way, I go,
Speaker 1: it's so cold in freezing I mean, it's like seventy
Speaker 1: six degrees in the courthouse, by the way, Like there
Speaker 1: are people now who are going in there just to
Speaker 1: prove that it's not called in the courthouse, like like
Speaker 1: Frank Brendan, like it's not cold in the courthouse, like
Speaker 1: me saying, it's weird that he keeps on falling asleep,
Speaker 1: whining like a little man baby. He is this isn't
Speaker 1: a leftist perspective or viewpoint yet when the corporate media
Speaker 1: has to tell that they have to divide you into sides,
Speaker 1: and our audience knows that these aren't these aren't like
Speaker 1: side issues. This is just objective to thing like, look,
Speaker 1: there's it's not a lefty thing for me to take
Speaker 1: a look at Donald Trump saying we'll be right. This
Speaker 1: is what he said when he walked in. We're gonna
Speaker 1: be resting pretty quickly, resting meaning not resting, sleeping, like
Speaker 1: resting the case here like play this clip here, I.
Speaker 2: Am and will be doing something in the morning, and
Speaker 2: they're probably coming back at the afternoon, and we'll be
Speaker 2: wrestling pretty quickly.
Speaker 3: I won't rest.
Speaker 1: I want to rest sometimes to rest.
Speaker 5: But we are.
Speaker 1: He's quite literally been sleeping eighty percent of this case dita.
Speaker 1: And it's not a lefty thing to be like, oh,
Speaker 1: that's weird, that's weird. All corporate media, all media should
Speaker 1: just be saying that's weird. The sky is blue, the
Speaker 1: waters the water's blue, the grass is you know, the
Speaker 1: grass is green or whatever color, like we should just
Speaker 1: have an objective reality that that this is weird and
Speaker 1: and that to me is you know why we have
Speaker 1: here progressives and liberals and mainstream conservatives and independents and
Speaker 1: everybody just like, what the world is this? What do
Speaker 1: you make of that data?
Speaker 2: You know, it is kind of too bad that New
Speaker 2: York Times fed into that narrative, because again, I think
Speaker 2: that Donald Trump kind of really amplified it. If he
Speaker 2: didn't create that narrative, he certainly amplified it in twenty sixteen,
Speaker 2: this idea that all media has to be assigned either
Speaker 2: left or right. You know, before him, we didn't really
Speaker 2: have that that framework. But since him, you know, so,
Speaker 2: I think the New York Times honestly saying that kind
Speaker 2: of feeds into Again, I think the damage you did
Speaker 2: to our media in twenty sixteen was huge, and that
Speaker 2: was one of the things he did was label certain channels,
Speaker 2: and then now the New York Times kind of grabbing
Speaker 2: that label. To me, I think that reporter just never
Speaker 2: watched you. You know, That's what I think when I
Speaker 2: read that, because if you actually are watching the Minus
Speaker 2: Touch network, you see how much you guys are going
Speaker 2: into the weeds of the legal details and the facts
Speaker 2: of the case, and at that point you're just giving information.
Speaker 2: So I think that a reporter just hasn't really done
Speaker 2: their due diligence if they're just automatically going to lay
Speaker 2: but one thing or another. And the fact of the
Speaker 2: matter is is we have a Fox that has paid
Speaker 2: almost a billion dollars for their information for their lies
Speaker 2: that they had around the twenty sixteen election. So I
Speaker 2: don't think it's really fair to say, oh, this network
Speaker 2: is reporting the facts, and yes, these facts are bad
Speaker 2: to Donald Trump, like you said, the constant sleeping and
Speaker 2: the trial, Like, yes, that's bad to Donald Trump. If
Speaker 2: you're going to report that, it doesn't make them look good,
Speaker 2: but it's a fact. And then you have the other
Speaker 2: network who's willing to quite frankly, still report on his
Speaker 2: lies and talk about how the judge hates him. You know,
Speaker 2: I don't think the judge hates him technically. You know,
Speaker 2: he's saying things that are defamatory towards to the justice
Speaker 2: to quite be quite honest, he's saying that he's in
Speaker 2: the pocket of the Democrats and all that kind of stuff,
Speaker 2: and they're willing to amplify it. So to me, there's
Speaker 2: also like this unrecognition that we're not really just talking
Speaker 2: about different networks, even having different political points of view.
Speaker 2: We're talking about a huge network in this country who's
Speaker 2: willing to put people on the air who are going
Speaker 2: to lie. That's not journalism and it's a direct result,
Speaker 2: to be quite frank, of the rolling back of the
Speaker 2: regulations that happened years ago. So I kind of wish
Speaker 2: that was maybe more part of the article rather than
Speaker 2: just you know, deciding to feed into the Trump narrative
Speaker 2: that like a network has to be you know, liberal
Speaker 2: or conservative, or how about it just willing to be
Speaker 2: factual or not factual exactly.
Speaker 1: I mean, look the article. I mean, I'm glancing at
Speaker 1: it right now and I'll have to read the full thing.
Speaker 1: You know, it seems otherwise good. But that frameworks to me.
Speaker 1: That the framework to me though is you know, to
Speaker 1: your point and what I was saying before is is
Speaker 1: just is very unique to me. I mean, like our
Speaker 1: editor in chief, Ron Philipkowski was a lifelong Republican. Some
Speaker 1: of the videos here that do the best on the network,
Speaker 1: and sometimes even you know, are more liberal and progressive
Speaker 1: supporters like Ben can you stop interviewing the dissentas supporters?
Speaker 1: Stop bringing them come on and and I say, look,
Speaker 1: I genuinely want to show that there could be you know,
Speaker 1: adult conversations even with people who I very much disagree
Speaker 1: with on politics, and we could focus on issues that
Speaker 1: unite us, like when Maga attacks people who are in
Speaker 1: recovery from drugs and recovery from alcoholism, and they mock that.
Speaker 1: So I try to find areas where we could find commonality, like, look,
Speaker 1: we're not it's not okay to treat people like to
Speaker 1: mock Hunter Biden for his drug addiction in the past
Speaker 1: while he's in recovery. If you want to talk about
Speaker 1: other things, do that, but don't mock someone who's who's
Speaker 1: in recovery. And and I try to find these issues
Speaker 1: that bring us, that bring us together. So and I
Speaker 1: have former Arkansas Republican Governor Asa Hutchinson on the show.
Speaker 1: I've had John Bolton, you know, on the you know
Speaker 1: on the show, and we we have just difficult adult
Speaker 1: conversations all the time on it. But let me read
Speaker 1: for you from this article what it says it goes.
Speaker 1: Conservative media has been preoccupied for weeks with Justice Mershon,
Speaker 1: the New York judge presiding over the Manhattan criminal trial
Speaker 1: against former President Donald Trump. Liberal outlets have focused less
Speaker 1: on Justice Mershon, instead centering their coverage of the trial
Speaker 1: on the charges against mister Trump and the figures in
Speaker 1: his orbit. So when we talk about that framework right
Speaker 1: there in and of itself, right, the liberal media are
Speaker 1: focused on the charges and the crimes. Right, the conservative
Speaker 1: media is focused on attacking Justice Mershon's personality. Maybe that's
Speaker 1: not conservative when because if you were to be conservative,
Speaker 1: you would want to conserve the judiciary, you would want
Speaker 1: to conserve the institutions. You would want to conser the
Speaker 1: rule of law. So if you are a true conservative,
Speaker 1: you would apply the law. You would focus on the charges,
Speaker 1: you would focus on the facts. You would say, everybody
Speaker 1: has their day in court, and we have to respect
Speaker 1: the verdict of the jury the same way I respect here.
Speaker 1: But we would not be saying, if you're a conservative,
Speaker 1: defund the FBI. You are a conservative, you would not
Speaker 1: be saying, defund these prosecutors. If you are a conservative,
Speaker 1: you would not be saying, defund the Department of Justice
Speaker 1: and take them down, or defund the Department of Education,
Speaker 1: or defund all of these Uh, defund the FBI. Look,
Speaker 1: I can have I could be very critical of when FBI,
Speaker 1: when DOJ when they overcharge I could have I could
Speaker 1: be very critical of the inequities of how the law
Speaker 1: is applied, how black and brown communities are charged at
Speaker 1: rates far greater than other communities, and how that needs
Speaker 1: to be addressed systemically. We could be very critical. There's
Speaker 1: also very important functions of the FBI and counter terrorism
Speaker 1: and dealing with insurrectionists and dealing with domestic terrorism. Right
Speaker 1: that we need to uphold law and order and if
Speaker 1: any types of protests go from kind of peaceful protests
Speaker 1: which are strictly protected under our constitution, to becoming violent
Speaker 1: in any way, law and order says, there should be
Speaker 1: criminal charges full stop. You don't go violent. That's not
Speaker 1: what the First Amendment protects. So if you are a conservative,
Speaker 1: you should be focused on the things that this is
Speaker 1: saying that that the liberal media is focused on. And
Speaker 1: then we're mentioned over here where it says and if
Speaker 1: you can see it, it says from the left, you know,
Speaker 1: you know, mightas touched. And again I appreciate that there's cover.
Speaker 1: I want to I appreciate that there's coverage of what
Speaker 1: we're doing because I'd love for the word to get
Speaker 1: out more and to bigger audiences. But it's an important
Speaker 1: point about how I feel about bringing people together, and
Speaker 1: that's such an important part of this network. I want
Speaker 1: to bring people together under commonality of pro.
Speaker 2: Democracy, absolutely, and you know it is because I think,
Speaker 2: you know, you have cared so much about this network
Speaker 2: that that kind of is doesn't feel great to be
Speaker 2: given this label like as if you're not reporting on
Speaker 2: the facts because you guys, you know, and now I
Speaker 2: get to be a part of this, like as lawyers
Speaker 2: have really come forward and really given it straight the
Speaker 2: law and the facts for so many years with the
Speaker 2: idea of giving people the information and then respecting them
Speaker 2: enough to be able to make a decision for them.
Speaker 2: And that's you know, to me, I think that if
Speaker 2: the day we start saying, you know, the other side
Speaker 2: isn't smart enough, like just as you know the judge
Speaker 2: canon right in Florida. You know, I saw someone social
Speaker 2: media where people were saying that she just wasn't smart
Speaker 2: and that's why she made all these rulings. And you know,
Speaker 2: to me, I'm like, that's not true, right, I mean
Speaker 2: she her and I actually went to the same were
Speaker 2: trained at the same law firm and tons of you know,
Speaker 2: big now Ted Boutrou is a big liberal partner who's
Speaker 2: argued a ton of important case came out of that
Speaker 2: law firm. It's not that she's not smart, it's that
Speaker 2: she's you know, was pointed by Trump and she's partisan.
Speaker 2: But the minute we start assuming that people that don't
Speaker 2: agree with us don't agree with us because they are
Speaker 2: not smart, to me, like, that's just wrong. I think
Speaker 2: it's offensive, and it's You're never going to be able
Speaker 2: to have a conversation with somebody when you do that.
Speaker 2: The thing is, is the problem with Trump and you know,
Speaker 2: the people who show up and start talking about ruling
Speaker 2: class even and though they have more power in this
Speaker 2: country than really like the vast majority of the rest
Speaker 2: of us, and they try to talk about the ruling
Speaker 2: class is you know, they're not even willing to talk
Speaker 2: like on facts that you can have a conversation with,
Speaker 2: like even Trump, you know, or they you know that
Speaker 2: article says how they talk about the judge. They talk
Speaker 2: about the judge. They don't point to anything really about
Speaker 2: the judge. The judge hates me. The judge hates me,
Speaker 2: That judge hates me. Well, you know what the judge.
Speaker 2: We aren't you know in uh, you know, back in
Speaker 2: England where the judge has more power. You know, our
Speaker 2: jury system. The jury is going to make a decision
Speaker 2: in this case, and yes, the judge had some legal
Speaker 2: ruling set is going to make. He's been upheld, you know,
Speaker 2: by the appellate court whenever that Trump tried to appeal it.
Speaker 2: He was just upheld recently in that expanded gag order.
Speaker 2: Trump had had a right to question the judge's discretion
Speaker 2: and lost. And he's done that so many times. The
Speaker 2: judge is not all powerful as much as they're trying
Speaker 2: to make him all powerful. Right, there was the grand
Speaker 2: jury who indicted him, there's the prosecution that even brought
Speaker 2: the case. Yes, the judge is the decider of the law.
Speaker 2: He gets questioned by his appellate court and who's backed
Speaker 2: him up. But it'll be the jury that has a verse.
Speaker 2: But you know, they don't want to talk about the
Speaker 2: fact that our justice system has a lot of inherent
Speaker 2: checks and balances. That a criminal defendant shows up in
Speaker 2: court is not at the complete mercy of the judge.
Speaker 2: That's how Trump is acting. I'm at the complete mercy
Speaker 2: of this judge. Like again, I'm a victim, Like I
Speaker 2: can't be helped but him and no other criminal defendant
Speaker 2: is ever at the complete mercy of that judge that
Speaker 2: sits in front of him. That's a complete, like again,
Speaker 2: disparagement of our justice system. It's a complete misinterpretation of
Speaker 2: our justice system. How do you have a conversation at
Speaker 2: that point? Right? You can't because you're talking two completely
Speaker 2: different set of facts. And that's the problem is that
Speaker 2: Fox is willing to like completely misinterpret or blatantly lie
Speaker 2: or give wrong facts. So you can't have that conversation
Speaker 2: because the set of facts are so completely different.
Speaker 1: Right, I mean, you go from law, then you go
Speaker 1: to business. Right. You referenced Trump Media. It did its
Speaker 1: ten Q as to post with the SEC. Because it's
Speaker 1: a publicly traded company. Ten Q is a quarterly report.
Speaker 1: So for the first three months of this year, it
Speaker 1: lost three hundred and twenty seven million dollars net loss
Speaker 1: of three hundred and twenty seven million dollars in the
Speaker 1: past three months. It's not like a political critique that
Speaker 1: I have on it. That's just data. Total revenue for
Speaker 1: Trump's media company, which is now what like three years old,
Speaker 1: So you'd expect it to be growing a little bit.
Speaker 1: Was what about seven hundred thousand dollars in revenue? So
Speaker 1: the net loss of three hundred and twenty seven million
Speaker 1: dollars on seven hundred thousand dollars in actual revenue, And
Speaker 1: then you have a company that's trading with a valuation
Speaker 1: of over six billion dollars. And if y'all just do
Speaker 1: the basic math, then you say there are two hundred
Speaker 1: million shares outstanding. You want to give a valuation of
Speaker 1: Trump Media based on just say, annual revenue, and you
Speaker 1: want to round up from seven hundred thousand to one million.
Speaker 1: Just assume it does four million for the year. Give
Speaker 1: it a ten times multiple. But who the heck would
Speaker 1: give it a ten times multiple on revenue when you're
Speaker 1: losing three hundred and twenty seven million dollars. But then
Speaker 1: you'd have a forty million dollars valuation. So with two
Speaker 1: hundred million outstanding shares, what would the value of one
Speaker 1: share be? Quite literally, in my opinion, if you just
Speaker 1: did the math, it would be like a penny stock.
Speaker 1: But when facts are discarded and narratives arise, you have
Speaker 1: these incongruities, right, So you go from the law. You
Speaker 1: go to business, and then you go into our politics,
Speaker 1: which I'll leave you at this finally, which is you know,
Speaker 1: Trump like posting this like Hitler stuff, you know, and
Speaker 1: then blaming on a lower blaming it on a lower
Speaker 1: level staffer for posting on a look. Donald Trump has
Speaker 1: posted q and non memes or amplified or uploaded q
Speaker 1: Andon memes over one thousand times. Almost not a day
Speaker 1: goes by where Donald Trump doesn't post some pro j
Speaker 1: six thing and saying that the storm is here, and
Speaker 1: you know, all of these incredibly, and if anybody else
Speaker 1: did any of these things, it would be like game
Speaker 1: over for their pulling. There was a time in our
Speaker 1: politics if you spelled potato wrong, if you went whoo,
Speaker 1: that could end your career. Trump just posting death cult
Speaker 1: memes every day using language that's very similar to like
Speaker 1: Hitler language, and then posting what he posted yesterday, you know,
Speaker 1: and then it's like, oh, well, Trump's social media account
Speaker 1: posted it. Not Trump's social media account, it's Trump posted it.
Speaker 1: Why do you create this like barrier when the media
Speaker 1: reports on, oh it's Trump's social media account that, but
Speaker 1: like it's some bot, like it's some ai that spits
Speaker 1: this out. Meanwhile, we know from the criminal trial that
Speaker 1: it's either Trump or Dan Scavino who posts. No one
Speaker 1: else has posting privileges at all, not lower level staffers.
Speaker 1: And then why don't we hold someone accountable for posting
Speaker 1: such heinous things. That's why we cover that here on
Speaker 1: the Midas Touch network every day. So we go from
Speaker 1: the courtroom to business to politics, and we as Americans
Speaker 1: should just objectively look at that behavior and just be repulsed.
Speaker 1: We should be repulsed by this behavior right here by
Speaker 1: Donald Trump and Maggot. It ain't conservative at all.
Speaker 3: It is.
Speaker 1: It is as nihilistic and as destructive as as you get. Dina,
Speaker 1: give you the give you the last word.
Speaker 2: You know, he he tells us who he is every day.
Speaker 2: He tells us who he is every day. And even
Speaker 2: with that posting of that really heinous video, we didn't
Speaker 2: hear from him saying, oh this is awful. It was
Speaker 2: an invertn it was like a campaign statement. We didn't
Speaker 2: hear from him because he was certainly okay with it.
Speaker 2: We didn't hear from him because he has used those
Speaker 2: words before, using vermin and you know, the immigrants poisoning
Speaker 2: the blood. He is okay with this, and politically, for
Speaker 2: whatever reason, he gets away with every in part because
Speaker 2: his supporters, I think, don't believe it. They think, oh,
Speaker 2: he's just talking, and they're willing to give him a pass.
Speaker 2: But our justice system doesn't work that way. It works
Speaker 2: in the evidence, the books, that what he said in
Speaker 2: the books, what he said in his tweets, what he
Speaker 2: said in the tape, what he said to Hope Hicks,
Speaker 2: what he said to Michael Cohen. He can't walk away
Speaker 2: from that. They the jury saw it. We all heard
Speaker 2: it in the transcripts. Whether or not people were willing
Speaker 2: to read them and follow along, you can still access them.
Speaker 2: Trump supporters, you can still access them if you don't
Speaker 2: believe anything we say. But what he said may not
Speaker 2: matter in politics, but it will matter to that jury.
Speaker 2: And I agree with you. I think we're going to
Speaker 2: get a conviction here, if not, maybe a hun trial,
Speaker 2: but if nothing else, I think he has at least
Speaker 2: had to finally had some sort of, you know, consequence
Speaker 2: to his actions.
Speaker 1: So we expect Michael Cohen, and here's what we did
Speaker 1: for those just joining now. Michael Cohen will join us
Speaker 1: as soon as there's closure in this criminal trial, which
Speaker 1: would be the verdict. So Cohen will be back hosting
Speaker 1: the show, as you know, soon as the end of
Speaker 1: next week or the week after that. When Cohen comes
Speaker 1: back to I mean, I'm sure he's got a lot,
Speaker 1: a lot to say. Make sure you subscribe to be
Speaker 1: Could you imagine the the Cohen return is going to
Speaker 1: be an episode that I'm just going to want to watch.
Speaker 1: I think I'm just going to start and I'm going
Speaker 1: to go, Michael go, and that's That'll be the That'll
Speaker 1: be the interview Patreon dot com slash political Beatdown, because
Speaker 1: we're also going to have a meeting when we're able
Speaker 1: to do so with Michael Cohen and myself the defense
Speaker 1: for those just joining too. Prosecution rested yesterday, Defense rested today.
Speaker 1: Jury instructions by and large are complete next week on Tuesday,
Speaker 1: after Memorial Day, there will be summations and then the
Speaker 1: jury will get the case, likely on next Tuesday, so
Speaker 1: we could have a verdict as early as Tuesday. We'll
Speaker 1: see if there's going to be court on Wednesday or
Speaker 1: not for deliberation. I know that's being discussed. There could
Speaker 1: be a verdict on Thursday. There I think there will
Speaker 1: be a verdict before the end of the day on Friday.
Speaker 1: So next week is going to be a historic week.
Speaker 1: And for those who thought that this case was going
Speaker 1: to go into June or July, I mean, this case
Speaker 1: is going to be over in May, which you know.
Speaker 1: I don't want to end the show on this note.
Speaker 1: It also just shows you what this corrupt right wing
Speaker 1: Supreme Court is doing by not and very intentionally and
Speaker 1: maliciously by not ruling on the Washington, d c. Federal
Speaker 1: criminal case, because with a verdict in May, that would
Speaker 1: actually potentially allow a criminal trial if the Supreme Court
Speaker 1: actually did their job to take place in August or
Speaker 1: early September. But you know, the Supreme Court with Justice
Speaker 1: Alito hanging upside down flags and showing sympathy for stop
Speaker 1: the steal and then blaming it on his wife shows
Speaker 1: all of you the importance of elections, because the president
Speaker 1: is the one who picks the Supreme Court justices then
Speaker 1: confirmed by the Senate. I want to leave with this too,
Speaker 1: and I think it's important for everybody watching. I just
Speaker 1: want to say what an honor it is to do
Speaker 1: this show with Michael Cohen. Michael Cohen was under a
Speaker 1: direct testimony, cross exam, redirect for a total of twenty
Speaker 1: one hours or so, twenty one hours, and he did
Speaker 1: it with gray and with dignity, and with a maya culpa,
Speaker 1: and we're acknowledging what he did wrong in the past.
Speaker 1: He did what witnesses are supposed to do. He went
Speaker 1: up there, he told the truth, the good, the bad,
Speaker 1: the ugly, and he told the truth. And that is
Speaker 1: what you're expected to do when you take the stand.
Speaker 1: All of the narratives that the media tried to conjure
Speaker 1: up about how Cohen was going to behave is exactly
Speaker 1: how the maga lawyer Robert Costello, who Trump wanted to
Speaker 1: get called to the stand, who did get called to
Speaker 1: the stand, behaved right. That's exactly how Costello did. He
Speaker 1: showed up wearing like a pink shirt, started like mocking
Speaker 1: the judge. The judge had to, you know, clear the courtroom.
Speaker 1: That's what a maga lawyer does. And Cohen's not a
Speaker 1: maga lawyer anymore. Cohen's had his may culpa. And I
Speaker 1: have not even just a soft spot in my heart,
Speaker 1: but I think that people deserve mayculpus? Do I think?
Speaker 1: I think people you know, you can't always be judged
Speaker 1: by what you do in the past. Sometimes you can,
Speaker 1: but not all all the time with some types of conduct,
Speaker 1: and I think that you could make up for it
Speaker 1: sincerely and honestly and reform yourself and become a better
Speaker 1: person and then be part of delivering the truth and
Speaker 1: fighting for what's right. And that's why I'm honored to
Speaker 1: host the show with Michael Cohen so much. And I
Speaker 1: know that's why the Beatdown Brigaders who have got to
Speaker 1: meet Michael Cohen in a way that they've never even
Speaker 1: seen him before. When when we have a long form
Speaker 1: show like this, we get to really meet someone's personality
Speaker 1: and you learn about Cohen's love for his wife and
Speaker 1: his love of his family, how he's been married for
Speaker 1: thirty years, how he's the son of a Holocaust survivor
Speaker 1: and what that means to him. Why Cohen became a lawyer,
Speaker 1: you know all of that. You know, when you get
Speaker 1: to understand the person, That's what I've always tried to
Speaker 1: do here on the show. And finally, I want to
Speaker 1: thank you, Dina. You and I Dina, we have to
Speaker 1: I've said this to you, I say it live again.
Speaker 1: We have to create a Dina show, and whether it's
Speaker 1: a Dina and Ben show, or Dina and someone else show,
Speaker 1: or maybe Dina you lead the morning show after the
Speaker 1: trials completed, and we keep doing those morning shows with
Speaker 1: you leading it. I'd love to hear from all of
Speaker 1: the Brigaders and Midas Mighty what you think is the
Speaker 1: best format for that. Diana and I are still discussing
Speaker 1: that now, but we're definitely got to give Dina a show.
Speaker 1: We're just going to figure out how to do that together. So, Dina,
Speaker 1: thank you so much. We appreciate you, and we appreciate
Speaker 1: everybody here as well, and we're so grateful to have you. Dina.
Speaker 2: It has really been such a privilege to sit in
Speaker 2: for Michael Cohen's you know, beloved show and be able
Speaker 2: to you know, be here for you when he can't
Speaker 2: be here. And he did do a phenomenal job in
Speaker 2: his testimony. He did what he needed to do. I
Speaker 2: think the prosecution is probably very happy with his testimony.
Speaker 2: You know, you can't control the outcome and these things,
Speaker 2: but he showed up and did for sure what the
Speaker 2: prosecution I think probably even beyond honestly, the expectations of
Speaker 2: the prosecution. You know, I can't see what else he
Speaker 2: could have done better. And his testimony. I think his
Speaker 2: testimony he did an excellent job. And I'm sure it
Speaker 2: is killing him not to come during this time, but
Speaker 2: that in itself is also being so responsible because the
Speaker 2: last thing he wants to do is, you know, have
Speaker 2: anything happen that can then be used by Trump and
Speaker 2: his team during these like precious last days days of
Speaker 2: the trial. And I will definitely be tuning in when
Speaker 2: he's back because I cannot wait to hear all the
Speaker 2: behind the scenes, and hopefully it's behind the scenes in
Speaker 2: his in his involvement and what I think will ultimately
Speaker 2: be a conviction.
Speaker 1: We don't do two finger salutes with no Cohen. I
Speaker 1: give the fists bump of the day to Dina for
Speaker 1: filling in. Thank you, Dina against the vista and I
Speaker 1: see a lot of people in the comments who are
Speaker 1: mad at me, and they know that I just got married,
Speaker 1: and they're saying, Ben, why are you doing the show?
Speaker 1: And you should be you should I see it do better?
Speaker 1: What are you doing?
Speaker 3: Ben?
Speaker 1: Why are you doing this? You need to get out
Speaker 1: of there. I see people making baby emojis towards me.
Speaker 1: I see that. So my wife and I we went
Speaker 1: to Palm Springs. We met a bunch of My Mighty
Speaker 1: people who were there as well were coming over, so
Speaker 1: we did. We did a mini moon. She's with her
Speaker 1: family right now, and you know, I want her to
Speaker 1: be able to spend some time there, and I'm going
Speaker 1: to be joining her and her family there soon. So
Speaker 1: all of you saying, don't worry, it's where I'm going
Speaker 1: next that she's with her family. We just got back
Speaker 1: and I had to let the dogs out anyway, and
Speaker 1: so that's that's why I'm doing this. But like all
Speaker 1: of your you know, words of support and your well
Speaker 1: wishes were so inspiring to me. We even kept an
Speaker 1: honorary seat at the wedding for all the Brigaders and
Speaker 1: the Midas Mighty. Cohen obviously wasn't able to make it.
Speaker 1: Cohen was invited, but obviously Coen couldn't make it. But
Speaker 1: we had an honorary Beatdown Brigade and Midas Mighty seat
Speaker 1: for everybody. And so thank y'all, so so much for
Speaker 1: all of your wishes. I mean that it means the world.
Speaker 1: And we're going to do a honeymoon. We did the
Speaker 1: mini moon, We're going to do honeymoon over the summer.
Speaker 1: We're just planning it because obviously we're going to get
Speaker 1: a verdict soon, so let me deal with the verdict
Speaker 1: and then we're going to do a honeymoon and then
Speaker 1: we've been so anyway, that's what's happening. So don't don't
Speaker 1: don't get mad at me. MICUs Mighty. I'm I'm taking
Speaker 1: your words to heart. Thank you everybody, Thank you Brigaders,
Speaker 1: and shout out to the Midas Mighty. I have a
Speaker 1: good one.