>> Speaker A: Welcome to another episode of the Cross examiner rocket Docket, where you are the judge here. We brief you on the news of the day so that you can issue a ruling. Get ready to hear the arguments because court is now in session.

>> Speaker B: We are looking at count one, guilty.

>> Speaker A: Count two, guilty. Count 19, guilty.

>> Speaker B: Count 20, guilty.

>> Speaker A: Count 33 and 34, guilty.

>> Speaker B: Uh, that is Donald J. Trump, defendant.

>> Speaker A: In New York versus Donald Trump, found guilty on all 34 felony counts. Uh, that is the verdict here in this case. Wow. Um, wow. Welcome to the Cross examiner podcast. This is a rocket docket. These are episodes where I’m going to react unscripted to current events as they, they come out. As you may have heard from the title and the announcement we just heard, Donald Trump is now the first former president of the United States to have ever been convicted of any crime. He was convicted of 34 felonies in relationship to a conspiracy to cover up and falsify business records with the goal of deceiving the american public during an election. We’ll get into the evidence here. We’ll get into, more importantly, what his supporters are saying. You know, the, the speaker of the House, senators, congressmen are saying, and Fox News pundits are saying they’ve got a lot of very important points to make as to how this was a flawed trial, how there were many specific, uh, decisions that were made that were. That ran against the law, how evidence was not allowed in that should have been allowed in, how they, they have evidence that exonerates the president, and how they are arguing that he actually didn’t do any of the things alleged that constitute a crime. But first, we will hear from President Trump himself as he leaves the courtroom, where he himself will specifically break down all the problems with this prosecution. Uh, how, how the evidence that he has that there was bribery or some other nefarious goings on that corrupted this trial, the evidence that he has that exonerates him, that contradicts all of the evidence that the prosecution claimed to have and all of the points of law that the judge got. Ron. So let’s hear from Trump on those issues, because I think this will convince anyone that this was a sham trial.

>> Speaker B: This was a disgrace. This was a rigged trial by a confession. Afflicted judge who was corrupt. There’s a rigged trial of disgrace. They wouldn’t give us a venue change. We were at 5% or 6% in this district, in this area. This was a rigged, disgraceful trial that the real verdict is going to be November 5 by the people. And they know what happened here. And everybody knows what happened here. You have a sore da and the whole thing. We didn’t do a thing wrong. I’m a very innocent man, and it’s okay. I’m fighting for our country. I’m fighting for our constitution. Our whole country is being rigged right now. This was done by the Biden administration in order to wound or hurt an opponent, a political opponent. And I think it’s just a disgrace. And we’ll keep fighting. We’ll fight till the end, and we’ll win, because our country’s gone to hell. We don’t have the same country anymore. We have a divided mess. We’re nation in decline, serious decline. Millions and millions of people pouring into our country right now from prisons and from mental institutions, terrorists, and they’re taking over our country. We have a country that’s in big trouble. But this was a rigged decision right from day one with a conflicted judge. You should have never been allowed to try this case. Never. And we will fight for our constitution. This is long from Oprah, thank you very much.

>> Speaker A: Why did others go for everything to tell him? I don’t know. If you heard what was shouted at the end. The first subtle question you probably didn’t hear was, are you going to drop out? Which I thought was great. The second, louder one was, why should voters vote for a convicted felony? Needless to say, Trump answered neither of those questions. But what he did say, the one substantive thing he said, was they wouldn’t give us another venue. A change of venue. What does that mean? Maybe this is where his whole case lies. Maybe this is something that the judge violated the law, or some constitutional concept or norm was violated. Maybe they will win that issue on appeal. Right, so what are we talking about here? Well, the constitution guarantees everybody from the young to the old, from the left to the right, male, female, wealthy, poor. A, uh, fair trial. That’s one of the things that we cherish about our country. The constitution guarantees everybody a fair trial. We all agree on that. Now, side note, the phrase fair trial does not appear in the constitution, just as the phrase separation of church and state does not appear in the constitution. Such as, uh, many other phrases don’t appear in the constitution. And I point this out because recently online, I’ve seen a plethora of christian nationalists, both online and in person, uh, all the way dating back to Michelle Bachmann was the first person I heard say this. They say separation of church and state is not in the constitution. That’s. That’s their claim. And they are self declared christian nationalists. Saying this, um, and their argument is the literal phrase, separation of church and state is not in the constitution. Well, neither is fair trial. But you all agree that. That the constitution guarantees a fair trial. It’s another lie of omission. It’s another insidious. Yes, that is true. What you are saying is true, but your conclusion is obviously false. But they rely on the ignorance or the, uh, cultiness of their followers to not care as to whether or not they’re being lied to. So is that what we’re seeing here? Is there a right to change venue? What is venue? Venue is the location in which we are going to have a trial, the physical location. So, in this courthouse, in this county, with this jury pool, Trump is arguing here that he couldn’t have gotten a fair trial in the courtroom that he was in because the jury pool was tainted, that everybody in that district, whatever they, whatever district they pull their, their jurors from, would have been biased against him, to the point that they could not be an impartial juror. Even though we will seat them, we will interview them during voir dire, which is the jury selection process, and we will question them, and they will have to answer under oath a whole bunch of different questions to investigate how biased they may be. Um, his argument is the district was so biased because they are, who knows? Registered Democrats or they’ve heard about this trial and all their reporters have been. Have tainted them. They’ve. They’ve heard too much about this. So we need to move to somewhere where people haven’t heard about this. That’s typically the argument. If I’ve. If I’m a, ah, local bad guy in Pensacola, Florida, and people know about me in that small, little town, and the jury pool is very small, so it’s a very high probability that everybody would sort of view me as a bad guy, and then I’m on trial for speeding or beating somebody up. I might want to move to. To Miami, Florida, for a trial where nobody knows me, and then it’s just going to be based on the facts. So there’s two problems with this. First, regarding the. I am a Democrat, I am a Republican registered, and which seems to be one of Trump’s arguments, like, everybody here is registered Democrat. Well, that’s not true. You know, maybe 60, maybe 70, but not everybody. Second, that’s irrelevant. That is irrelevant as to whether or not you can be an impartial juror. I’m sure you yourselves are registered to a political party, whether it be independent, libertarian, Republican, Democrat, Green party, Communist, uh, party, whatever it may be, right. But I’m sure you realize that you can be impartial, right? That if you go to trial and there is a person who is maybe a party member of a party you don’t agree with, you can still be impartial and say, well, this is a speeding ticket, or this is an assault charge, or this is a theft charge. What do the facts say? And the defense attorney is going to get up and ask you questions about whether you can be impartial, and do you know this person? And what are your feelings about them, and what are your feelings about the law in general? And, um, I remember I was in a voir dire process once back in Texas. I had an uncle who was a judge, and the prosecuting attorneys, obviously, now that I look back on this, in an attempt to win favor from my uncle, invited me back to sit into their discussions to. I watched Vaudreuil, the jury selection, in a cocaine possession crime, right. And they. They invited me back to participate in their strategy discussions to decide which jurors they would want to strike back. Then I think they got three free strikes. You can strike jurors and say, I don’t want this person on my jury, and I don’t need to explain myself. And then for every jury. Excuse me. That reminds me, if you’ve ever watched 30 Rock, like one of their. Maybe their first episode, 2nd, 1st season, one of the characters appears in a film whose title is the rural juror. And, uh, it’s just a comedy of errors when it’s hard to pronounce the word juror and when you add other things onto it. So, anyway, you get to strike three jurors for free without having to explain yourself. And then in anything outside that three, you have to explain yourself, and you can’t strike them for unconstitutional reasons. The defendant is black. I don’t want any white jurors on my jury. You get three free strikes. But after that, you can’t write the judge and say, this is why I don’t want him on. He’s white. It has to be. He answered this question that says he doesn’t like black people. Yes. Okay, now. Now you get to kick him off. And that’s not one of your three strikes. So, in the voir dire process, with my experience with my uncle’s court, the charge was cocaine, uh, possession. And when they were asking questions of the juror, they asked a very telling question that I sort of latched onto, which was, if you find that the facts support or, uh, prove that this person intentionally possessed cocaine, could you convict them? And some people said no, and they were let go. And then the next question was, if the amount that this person was proven to have possessed was only trace amounts, a little bit of dust, let’s say, molecules of it, but they knew it was, let’s say, on the money that they had in their pocket, could you convict them? Because that’s what the law says. If you possess any amount under however much you’re guilty of a misdemeanor or a felony or whatever, and some jurors said no, and they dismissed them. That’s the level of questioning that you get in jury selection. So judges know this, defense attorneys know this, prosecutors know this. So to say that you can’t find a fair jury, twelve jurors and six, uh, alternates in New York City with millions of people, is ridiculous on its face, right? The second argument here is they were spoiled because of the news of the case. The first. The first argument being they have biases against Republicans. Oh, it’s. It’s Trump or it’s the Republicans. And I can’t be fair. Well, you can ask them that, and most people will tell. Tell the truth, and those. And some people may lie, and we can’t get past that. That’s the human, the human condition. Uh, you can find out if they’re lying through other stuff, and people do do that. Uh, and you have jurors that not only get disqualified if they lie, but actually go to jail for lying under oath while they’re being questioned. So it’s a very serious thing. The, um, second. The second problem with it is Trump is the one who poisoned the jury pool. Trump has been screaming about this nonstop since it started. Over 90% of the people charged with this particular crime is falsifying business records with the intent of covering up other crimes or facilitating other crimes. They plead guilty, the charges may even be reduced as a plea deal from felonies to something else. And the max fine, if you don’t go to jail, the max fine is $5,000 per count. Right? So most people just are like, uh, let’s just get it over with. I’ll take the political hit, I’ll take the business hit, the reputational hit, and, uh, plead guilty, maybe get a deal going, and then get it out of the way. And that way, in Trump’s world, what that would mean is you take the hit. Yes, I pled guilty. Let’s say he pled guilty to some lower level, to one fell. I will. I will plead guilty to one count. So you get your conviction, and I can get this over with, and then we’ll walk away from that. And in all future speeches, you know what he will say? I pled guilty because it’s a corrupt thing, and I don’t want them to derail the election. Right, it’s corrupt. But I. I’m focused on the election. I’m focused on you, the american people. He could even do something that he never does. Well, that’s not true. He does do this sometimes, but he could say, the buck stops here. Something happened in my organization that was screwed up. People made mistakes. I forgive them. I. The buck stops with me. I take responsibility. I didn’t do it, but I’m going to plead guilty. Now, there’s some plea agreements where you can’t go out, and the plea agreement says, you can’t go out and say, I didn’t do it after you made the agreement. But there’s ways that Trump, Trump’s very adept at talking around legal boundaries. So he would say what he needs to say to convey to his followers. It’s not true, but I pled guilty to it to get on with things. And we know what would happen. We’ve seen what would happen with this. Look at the pussy grabber tape. The people inside the Trump campaign, when that hit the news, they all have said, on the record, off the record, they’ve all said, we thought that was the end of the campaign, and they were shocked when it didn’t move the needle that much. What do you think? Pleading guilty to a few felonies of, with Trump saying, uh, my company mixed up some business records, and I’m just moving on. That would be a nothing burger. So he could have avoided all of this, and he chose not to. You can bet his attorneys were advising him, hey, let’s do a plea deal. Let’s spin it this way. This is the best thing for your reputation. Trust us. Nope, he ignored them. He drove it to trial. He screamed about it for months and months and months, every day prior to the trial he was doing during jury selection, he was poisoning the well. It was nothing but headlines in that district. He was speaking in front of the court to the point that the judge had to issue a, uh, gag order that he violated ten times. This is what we’re talking about. And now he’s coming out and saying they wouldn’t change the venue. I can’t get a fair trial because everybody’s biased against me here. No, you’re the one poisoning the well. If anything, you had an advantage because you went out there and tried the case in the press. So point one, change of venue. Bullshit. But maybe his supporters, his political supporters have some more substantive objections to how the trial went. Some, perhaps, who are lawyers themselves. Let’s start with Marco Rubio. What did he say? I don’t have a sound clip. He posted it to twitter, probably because he doesn’t want his voice associated with these words. But this is what he wrote. Judge and Trump case in New York City just told jury they don’t have to unanimously agree on which crime was committed as long as they all at least pick one. And that among the crimes the can pick, I think they means that among the crimes they can pick from are ones Trump wasn’t even charged with in all caps. This is exactly the kind of sham trial used against political opponents of the regime in the old Soviet Union. This is from Marco Rubio, who went to law school, is a lawyer. Okay, so let’s remember that this was echoed by Trump. He said the almost exactly the same thing on Wednesday. He said, New York Supreme Court Justice Juan Merchant is, quote, not requiring a unanimous decision on the fake charges against me. Close quote. Is that true? Well, the Trump one is definitely not true. That is a lie. That is a lie. Uh, what is what Rubio said that you don’t, the jurors don’t have to unanimously agree on which crime was committed as long as they all at least pick one kind of true. Um, it’s. It’s. I give it nine, um, out of ten pinocchios. If I was going to do a lying scale, the one pinocchio he doesn’t get is, is there is an element in here that we should, we should talk about what was the crime they’re talking about. So the crime is falsifying in New. Being in New York. This is a state crime. Falsifying business records with the intent to further some other crime. Okay, so the crime he’s being charged with is what I just said, the intentional falsifying of business records in order to further some other crime. What Marco Rubio and Trump and everybody else is making this argument is arguing against is the judge ruled. And this is supported by case law and other decisions by higher courts in New York. This is not news. Okay? This is settled law in New York, but they will appeal it. Maybe, maybe they can get some, some conservative judge to listen. But this is settled law. The question is, when I instruct the jury, as the judge, I’m going to give you jury instructions when I instruct them how to find a guilty charge. How to find a guilty verdict, I should say, um, I give them a bunch of instructions. Every jury gets instructions when they go away. You listen to the testimony, you take your own notes, then at the end, the judge gives you instructions. These, uh, are the elements you must find. Let’s put it this way. You must find the following in order to return a guilty verdict. One, that Trump intentionally falsified business documents, at least one, for each charge. Two, that he did so with the intent to further some other crime. Now, the question is, the defense attorneys are going to say, hey, we want to modify those instructions so that you say, you must all agree as to which crime he was attempting to further. And the prosecutors say, no, that’s not a proper instruction. That’s not the law in New York state. See, for example, these other courts that have already ruled on this, and they’ve already said, no, no, no. The element that you must prove as a prosecutor is that he. That the intent was to further some other crime. You don’t have to prove which crime was actually being furthered. And there were many that were being furthered. Here you have federal crimes of. Of election interference and failing to report election contributions. There are local crimes about, um, I’m giving Michael Cohen checks that I know are going to result in him filing fake tax returns and documents, uh, with, uh, his, um, possibly the. The bar. All sorts of things that are going to be for a crime that Trump furthered by falsifying his documents. So when Rubio says that jurors are allowed to pick from crimes he wasn’t even charged with, that’s 100% accurate. Absolutely. He has, you know, and you want to know why? And this will come up later. The feds just declined to prosecute this case. They had a federal case that they could have prosecuted in this area, because there are federal laws about election interference, election fraud, falsifying business records with the intent of interfering in election, all sorts of stuff they could have charged. And contrary to other claims, we’re going to hear from Trump and the GOP that are screaming, this is a witch hunt. This is the Biden’s DOJ coming in and interfering in New York. No, it’s not the DOJ. Biden’s DOJ. It’s not his DOJ. It’s fairly independent. It’s much more independent than it was under Trump. And it’s. It’s a history of independence, of the DOJ is very important to our country. But even if you call it Biden’s DOJ, they could have prosecuted, and they declined to do so. So when your uncle, uh, Uncle Walter, Aunt Bertha are out there saying, um, these things at the Thanksgiving table or at the family reunion, you can point that out. The DOJ declined to prosecute this. Now you’re going to get the conspiracy heads that are unsavable, that are going to say, oh, well, that was just a crafty, democratic ploy to have the states handle it. No, that’s not how it works. Um, more importantly, you don’t have any, any evidence of that. We’ve never had any evidence of that. There’s no communications, no letters, no memos, nothing that. That have to do with conspiracy or an undue influence by the executive on this, any of these trials. So, no Marco Rubio. I’m going to give him the benefit of the doubt. And as between the choice of he’s a blathering idiot and he is an evil, lying son of a bitch, I’m going to go with the latter. He’s an attorney. He knows how to read the law. People online, I’ll put one, as I said up there, are drawing him pictures like, I know you went to law school, but here’s a diagram of the crimes. It’s very simple to understand. Anybody can understand it. So the judge gave the appropriate instructions. So that will be appealed. I’m sure that issue will be appealed. I’m sure that it will be the first thing that they cite in why this case should either be a mistrial or whatever they’re going to ask for. But I don’t think they’re going to win. I’m not a, um, New York state attorney. I’m relying on other New York attorneys who are reporting on this to tell me this. But that’s what they’re talking about there. So that’s not any substantive attack on the trial itself, because it’s an intentional lie of omission, which is the theme of this podcast. Somebody telling you something that’s true, that the judge told the jury they don’t have to unanimously agree on which crime was committed, as long as they all pick one, and that some of those crimes were crimes that Trump wasn’t even charged with. All of that is true. All of that is irrelevant. And he knows it. He knows it. He is not a doofus. He is not a gee shucks, Mister Trump. I just like you. He is a manipulative, machiavellian, lying thief. I can’t put it any cleaner. I can’t put it any clearer. I should say he can’t get cleaner. Let’s look at the next thing that people are saying. So the next thing that they’re saying. Here’s something a, uh, Fox News pundit, uh, Katie Czerkowski, said on Fox. Quote, in many cases, the judge will actually give the jury a written copy of their instructions. But since he failed to do that in this case, we have to ask why. I forget what you said there, or Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey on Wednesday. I’ve tried many jury trials in my day. You give jurors paper instructions every time. This is an illicit witch hunt prosecution. So the argument here is Judge Merchant didn’t give written instructions to the jury. That’s true. Again, these are lies of omission. Missouri attorney general. It’s probably true that the Missouri attorney general has tried many jury trials and that every juror in Missouri gets written jury instructions from the judge. Probably true. He then says, dot, dot, dot, this is an illicit witch hunt prosecution. That’s an opinion that is unrelated to the first claim of, hey, in Missouri, we give, uh, written instructions. You want to know why? I bet you already know why. Because in New York, you don’t give written instructions. Let that sink in. You’re going to have a whole bunch of conservatives yelling about this when they know in New York, you don’t give written instructions. And they also know the defense has the, uh, the ability to move that the written instructions be used in their case for whatever reasons they want to give. And sometimes judges will grant that. But in the vast majority of cases in New York, you do not give written instructions to the jury. So again, same pattern. I am going to yell about something that’s true, and then I’m going to follow it up with an opinion, and you’re going to think that I am providing evidence of some conspiracy or bias. Again, he said, I’ve tried many jury trials in my day. You give juror Pa, jurors paper instructions every time. This is an illicit witch hunt prosecution. The Missouri attorney general surely knows that he is lying and he should be ashamed of himself, that he is choosing party over the rule of law. This is the world we live in. People with incredible power are in the tank for Trump to such a degree that they are going to undermine the confidence in our entire justice system, one of the pillars of our country, one of the things that holds us back from returning to days of chaos and blood in the streets. These people are so greedy, so self deceived and so cultish that they’re willing to throw all of that away to make themselves feel better or to gain personal success. So, no, that is not a valid argument. What else are we hearing from people? Ah, merchant barred a, ah, key expert from testifying. Okay. Trump said, quote, we had the leading election expert in the country, Brad Smith, ready to testify. The judge wouldn’t let him do it. It. We also had the RNC co chair, Laura Trump. Sounds familiar. Daughter in law say he wouldn’t even allow the defense to call a witness. That would have shown what a sham and total waste of time this entire trial is. And finally, Representative Dan, uh, mauser from Republican from Pennsylvania said the judge, quote, did not want the most important expert witness, the former commissioner of the Federal election commission, who knows the laws very well, the judge would not allow him. All of them. Again, 100% true. 100% true. One must ask oneself, what does it take for a judge to not allow a witness to testify? Now, not being an attorney, you may puzzle at this, but if you were put in that place, right in asked, why would a judge not allow a witness to testify? I bet you can come up with some reasons. Okay, those reasons can’t include they’re a known fraudster or they’re a convicted felon or things like that. You let people testify, and then you let the two parties fight over reputation, right? You let them fight over their history and their behavior. This is what’s called attempting to impeach a witness, right? If I bring an expert on and I say, you know, the expert says xYz, then my opponent can get up and say, isn’t it true that in the past you said the same thing and you were proved wrong and that you were lying and that you took money in order to lie under oath? That’s called impeaching a witness to say the jury shouldn’t trust you. That’s happens all the time. But what does it take for a judge to say you’re not even allowed to testify? That happens all the time, too. This happens all the time. I would love to go and testify at a trial. Mean me being I, as in, uh, like, uh, a hypothetical eye. Not me personally, I would not want to do this, but I would love to go testify at my friend’s trial and give my opinion as to whether or not he, uh, broke the law. Right? Let’s say a friend of mine broke the law. I would love to go and testify and say, he’s a great guy. Uh, I like him a lot. I’ve never known him to break the law. And here is why he didn’t break the law. Because the law says this and that. That means uh, he couldn’t have done it, because this is how you’d have to interpret the facts. Interpretate. Interpret the facts. This is what happens when I just record off the top of my head. So I was. I would have been able to say everything up until where I started rendering an opinion as to what the law said. The judge would let me testify that my, my. It’s called character witness. We’ve all heard this. My friend’s a good guy. I’ve never known him to commit a crime. I could be an alibi, like he was with me when the alleged time was committed. I could testify to any of that. But when I start to say, this is what the law in New York says, or in Maryland says, or South Dakota says, the prosecuting attorney would immediately object. You’re giving an opinion about what the law is. A, you have to be an expert. I’d have to be proven to be an expert in that area before I can give opinion. And b, the job of the judge is to explain what the law is to the jury, not a bunch of experts. We don’t have trials about what the law in that state is. The judge’s job. The way that we argue about what the law is, is we have the two parties make motions to the judge on what evidence to exclude, what witnesses to exclude, and what the jury instructions should be. That’s really important, because the jury instructions, more than anything, walk them through sort of a logical flowchart as to whether or not they should. You know, if you find this and you find this, or you find this other thing, either way, if those, if either one of those is true, then you can say that they’re guilty of this. You know, New York penal code 175.10, right? That’s the judge’s job. We don’t have a trial to call witnesses to tell the jury what the law of the jurisdiction is. That’s what they wanted to do with this witness, and that’s the only thing they wanted this witness to testify about. So technically, they’re lying. The judge did not prevent the witness from testifying. What the judge did is say that witness cannot testify as to what the actual law is. And since that is the only reason Trump wanted to pull this guy in, that meant they decided to not have this guy testify. So they are saying the judge wouldn’t let him testify. They’re leaving out the. About his interpretation of the law, which is, on its face, ridiculous. You, you can see how it would turn into a circus. Every trial would turn into a mini trial of what the law is before we could even try, have a trial on the facts. We just don’t do that. It’s never been done in the 800 years since the Magna Carta. Right? We, we just don’t do that in our culture. It’s a waste of time. And Trump, uh, knows that. I don’t know. I don’t know if Trump knows that. Maybe he’s the idiot I think he is and he doesn’t. I kind of think he knows that. I’m, I’m pretty confident Laura Trump knows it, and I’m damn sure that Representative Mouser knew that from Pennsylvania. So again, more outright lies or lies of omission. What else are they saying? Quote, this is from Trump on Wednesday. A lot of key witnesses were not called. Why didn’t they call those witnesses? They didn’t call them because they would have been on our side. Trump on Wednesday, again, you have a lot of big players, very big players that would have solved their problem or actually would have given us the win. Again, talking about witnesses, quote, unquote, they didn’t call. I don’t know what the fuck he’s talking about here. So a lot of key witnesses were not called. Why didn’t they call those witnesses? He’s implying here. Let’s explain who he’s talking about. He’s talking about Alan Weisselberg for sure. Alan Weisselberg was the longtime Trump organization. Trump Organization. Is the company involved here. Chief financial officer, the CFO. He was involved. Prosecutors at least say that he was present at the crucial meetings where there are handwritten notes where Trump agrees. Yes. This is the scam that we’re going to do. We are going to have Cohen submit fake invoices, calling it legal services. And they, those services are going to be inflated because he paid 130 grand of his own money to us. Uh, uh, to stormy. Excuse me. We need to pay him back. So if we pay him for legal fees, he’s going to have to pay tax on that. So we actually, he has to actually charge us for more than 130 grand in legal fees so that once tax is taken out, he will be paid in full. He will get cash, 130. So we’re gonna have him submit these fake invoices. We will then have Trump.org pay out checks, log those as legal services in our, in our, uh, books, and then pay checks to Michael Cohen, uh, so that he is made whole. That’s the crime. Right. That’s the falsify. Falsifying of business records. And we have handwritten notes from the Trump meeting. Saying that that’s the plan, and they’re saying why? Well, if you’re saying Alan Weisselberg was there, why didn’t you call him as a witness? Well, for one reason is he recently pled guilty to perjury. He’s, he’s in prison, right? He’s a perjurer. Second reason is, and this is more important, he’s not going to be a prosecution witness. If he’s not cooperating, then he’s a defense witness. Who calls defense witnesses. That’s right. You got it. The defense. So when Trump stands up and says, they didn’t call these witnesses, that’s not their fucking job. If you’re talking about the prosecutors, it’s your own defense attorney’s jobs. And what astounds, uh, me about this one is every, I won’t say every, every always gets you in trouble. The vast majority of citizens of the United States, at least, who are adults, know this concept. You call your witnesses, the other side calls their witnesses. They’ve watched the people’s court, they have watched law and order. They under, they have gone to court for their traffic tickets, and they’ve seen this in works. I, the prosecution, am not going to call your best friend to come up and testify about what such, what a great guy you are. I’m going to call the cop who witnessed you speeding. If you’ve got a friend you want to bring in to say, no, no, no, I was at that meeting. That’s not the way it happened. You can call him and they aren’t making the argument. Oh, we weren’t allowed to call him. Notice that’s what, that’s, he knows he can’t say that because that’s just honest. Well, I don’t know if he knows. He can’t say that. Maybe hasn’t thought to say that. He lies all the time, but even if you’re in prison, you can be, uh, subpoenaed, you can be summoned to court and forced to travel there and testify. Trump could have done that, his lawyers could have done that. He chose not to. Yet he gets in front of his fans, his cultists, and says they didn’t call witnesses. That would have been favorable to me. How can a Trump supporter hear that and think of anything other than, well, that’s not their job. That’s ridiculous argument. I don’t know. I don’t know how you can follow this guy and not think that he thinks you’re an idiot because that’s what he’s relying on. So these are the things that we’re hearing. I think it probably behooves us to see what the actual evidence was. I described it, but I will put up, uh, evidence on my website. We have copies of the documents. All right, we have a. A concurrent and concurrently written note by Jeffrey, uh, McCaunie, who was in the meeting on Trump Tower letterhead that says, michael Cohen, pay them for January 27, 2017, a bonus of 50 grand, 180 plus 180 times two for taxes, which ends up doing 112 of this at 30,035 grand a month. So the statement will be, we have this document where they’re. They’re writing out the formula. We have the email, uh, where Cohen is submitting phony invoices. We have the vouchers. These are the invoices that were created to incorrectly categorize this as legal expenses. And then we have the checks where Cohen was paid via check over time, according to the handwritten note we have. It all matches up. We. It all matches up for, uh, 35 grand per check. And the vast majority of those trump, uh, signed himself personally. We have all of this information. I will link to that on my website. I guess I was wrong in the. In the beginning when I. When I thought that, uh, people would bring forth substantive arguments as to why this trial was flawed. But wait, maybe, uh, these people are not the best to talk to. Maybe there’s other GOP people out there on Twitter because Twitter lit up. I’m gonna call it Twitter. It’s x. I feel weird saying x. Let’s just read all of the politicians and, uh, movers and shakers that are attacking this verdict. I’m just going to read them, and you can. We’ll stop if we see anybody in any of this. Say, here’s why he’s not guilty, rather than. This was a scam, right? Rather than. I don’t like this. Rather than crying, uh, tears and pounding the table. So, Donald Trump Junior, should we just skip it? I’ll read it. Guilty on all accounts, the Democrats have succeeded in their years long attempt to turn America into a third world shithole. November 5 is our last chance to save it. Dan Pagino, who is a crazy Twitter guy for the GOP. Dear liberal commie fuckwads. Warning you now, we will be drinking your delicious tears in November. Laugh now, motherfuckers. You’ll be crying soon. Bank on it. Caitlyn Jenner. Verdict reached. Donald J. Trump is being persecuted by corrupt state of New York and compromised DOJ Jim Jordan. The verdict is a travesty of justice. The Manhattan kangaroo court shows what happens when our justice system is weaponized by partisan prosecutors in front of a biased judge with an unfair process designed to keep President Trump off the campaign trail and avoid bringing attention to President Biden’s failing radical policies? Americans see through Democrats lawfare tactics, and no President Trump will be vindicated on appeal. Uh, you may remember Madison Cawthorn, uh, uh, the guy, the GOP guy that, uh, was caught having orgies and doing coke. Congratulations to Donald Trump on being elected president of the United States again today. Ron Desantis. Today’s verdict. They always say today’s verdict was a travesty. Today’s verdict represents the culmination of a legal process that has been bent to the political will of the actors involved. A leftist prosecutor, a partisan judge, and a jury reflective of one of the most liberal enclaves in America. There’s the, uh, change of venue argument again, all in an effort to, quote, get Donald Trump that this case involving alleged misdemeanor business records violations from nearly a decade ago, that this case was even brought, is a testament to the political debasement of the justice system in places like New York City. This is especially true, I should say, considering this same district attorney routinely excuses criminal conduct in a way that has endangered law abiding citizens in his jurisdiction. It is often said that no one is above the law, but it is also true that no one is, is below the law. If the defendant were not Donald Trump, this case would never have been brought. Ted Cruz. This is a dark day for America. This entire trial has been a sham, and it is nothing more than political persecution. The only reason they prosecuted Donald Trump is because Democrats are terrified that he will win reelection. This disgraceful decision is legally baseless and should be overturned promptly on appeal. Any judge with a modicum of integrity would recognize that this entire trial has been utterly fraudulent. Josh Hawley. This is the man who gave the fist pump to the January 6, uh, racist insurrectionists and then ran from them. Uh, in that famous video, he says, quote, this trial, in quotes, has been, from the beginning to end, a complete and total sham, a mockery of the criminal justice system and one of the most dangerous abuses of our political process in american history. Jesse Waters. Trump was found guilty because he, and this is a, ah, he’s a commentator on, on Fox News. Trump was found guilty because he beat Hillary and because he’s about to beat Joe Biden. We may be wounded as a country right now, but we’re not down. We’re going to get back up and vanquish the evil forces that are destroying this republic. Tucker Carlson. Remember that guy? Remember what did, what was he doing? Oh, yeah, he was lying about dominion voting machines. The last time we saw him, quote, import the third world, become the third world. That’s what we just saw. This won’t stop Trump. He’ll win the election if he’s not killed first. Ooh, now he’s going to become a martyr. Speaker Mike Johnson. Today is a shameful day in american history. Democrats cheered as they convicted the leader of the opposing party on ridiculous charges predicated on the testimony of a disbarred, convicted felon. This was purely political exercise, not a legal one. The weaponization of our justice system has been a hallmark of the Biden administration. And the decision today is further evidence that Democrats will stop at nothing to silence dissent and crush their political opponents. The american people see this as lawfare, and they know it is wrong and dangerous. President Trump will rightfully appeal this absurd verdict, and he will win. And it goes on. And it goes on. Lindsey Graham. I expect this case to be reversed on appeal. And for Donald Trump to be elected president in November, well, you know what? I’ll give him props. He’s not going down the, uh, the path of, uh, this country as shit. And it’s falling apart like Marjorie Taylor Greene, who, her only tweet was the United States flag upside down, which is a symbol of what? The January 6, uh, racist, christian nationalist insurrection on our capitol. Okay, that’s quite enough. Uh, you’ve gotten a taste of it. Not a single one of these say he’s not guilty. Not a single one of these say this is a substantive problem with due process. This is a, uh. Here is some evidence that should have been introduced that wasn’t allowed, that would have exonerated him. None of that. It’s screaming into the void. It’s pounding the table, it’s throwing the toys out of the pram. That is all they have, and they’re going to keep doing it. And what is its effect? The effect is it undermines the public’s confidence in the justice of, uh, injustice as a whole. In the United States, our rule of law is what sets us apart from ancient times when we settled problems with blood in the streets and family warfare. These people want to drag us back to there because they make money off of outrage. And if we let them, we are going to fall. I’ll wrap it up with the tweets that I started seeing coming out on Facebook and the tweets that I’ve seen coming out that really sum this up are. And I’ve seen this multiple times, and it’s just a single line that says Jesus was convicted, too. Wow. Like, to bring it full circle, right, to christian nationalism, which was the. Which was the driving force, as we’ve talked about before, in the January 6 insurrection, there’s people online comparing Donald Trump to Jesus again, because he was convicted. Well, you know who else was convicted? Jeffrey Dahmer was convicted. Right, right. It makes no sense to make that comparison. It just, uh, the other way to address that is like, wow, I didn’t realize that Jesus Christ was, uh, convicted after a trial under the federal rules of evidence, or their equivalent in New York, during which evidence was vetted and introduced that demonstrated that Jesus falsified, um, falsified business records with the intent to further some other crime. I didn’t realize Jesus had been convicted of that. Like, you can take either one. It’s nonsensical. Jesus was also convicted. He was right. Who cares? That’s not relevant. Are you saying that Donald is like Jesus in any way? I don’t get these cult heads. They aren’t christian anymore, and they’re not republican anymore. What the hell are they? The whole lot of them? I mean, it’s. It’s a madhouse, and it is dangerous when people ask, why do you care? As an atheist, why do you care? This entire thing is why I care. This is why I started the podcast. Because this sort of misinformation drives people to feel like their country is being ripped away from them, uh, unfairly, right? That there are evil, nasty beings conspiring to tear away their very soul and their very livelihood, and they’re starting with their dear leader. This is why we care. Don’t think for a second that these same arguments are not going to be repeated in churches across this country in violation of section 501 of the IR’s code. The IR’s knows that these churches, for a decade have been violating the no electioneering terms, uh, of being a charity. And yet the IR’s, even under Biden, is turning a blind eye. So pay attention. Between now and God, November, we’ve got five months to go. You won’t hear anything of substance about this. You’ll hear table pounding and crying, and that’s it. And when your aunt Bertha starts spouting off these talking points, maybe you can point out something you’ve learned here today. Right? We know what the evidence was. He had every chance to call any witness he wants. Nobody in the world can call a witness to argue what the law is, right? It’s not the prosecution’s job to call witnesses for the defense. He chose to go to trial instead of pleading. It’s a disaster of his own making. Why? Because, uh, he’s a crazy old man? Or he’s got the ego size of which we’ve never seen before in the history of the planet? Either way, there is no defending this guy. Yet. Tens of millions of people will vote for him, and all because they affiliate their tribalism, which draws from both their race and their religious beliefs into this newfound GOP maga mush and causes them to not care whether they believe things that are true or false. And that’s the threat. And that’s what we have to push back against. I hope you’ve enjoyed this summary. It went a lot longer than I intended, but, um, hopefully I’ll cut it down in the edit next. Uh, up. I am diving into a lot of different things. I will say that I have a wonderful interview coming up with doctor John Dillin. He is the founder and host of Mormon Stories podcast. We are going to get into Mormonism as an example of high, uh, pressure, high demand religions that cause, uh, a great deal of unhappiness around the world, uh, whose very formation contains an example of why we want separation between church and state. I hope you’ll tune in. Until then, stay safe. Stay rational. I’ll see you soon. Thanks for listening to this episode of the Cross Examiner Rocket Docket. If you enjoyed this podcast, please consider liking and subscribing. We’ll see you soon.