Judging Freedom - Trump Legal Woes_ George Santos Charged_ Murdaugh lawsuit_ ATF confiscations

Episode Date: May 10, 2023

See omny.fm/listener for privacy information.See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Hi everyone, Judge Andrew Napolitano here for Judging Freedom. Today is Wednesday, May 10, 2023. It's about 9 40 in the morning here on the east coast of the United States. We have a lot of hot topics for you today, from the ATF back to confiscating weapons that they claim are machine guns, to the charges against Congressman George Santos, to the jury verdict against former President Donald Trump. So the Trump rape trial is over. The jury found that the former president did not rape E. Jean Carroll, but he did sexually abuse her and he defamed her. And they awarded a judgment of $5 million, some compensatory, that is for the harm to her body and her peace of mind and her reputation as a result of what Trump did. And some punitive, that is to punish the former president for this behavior.

I have to get a little graphic here. Rape is the entry by the penis into the vagina. Sexual assault is the touching of the private parts with some part of the body other than the penis. So they obviously found that he did pull her clothing down and touch her private parts with his fingers, but they also found that he did not enter her body with his penis. Sorry for being so graphic, but that's the distinction under the laws of the state of New York under which this trial was held, and it's pretty much the law everywhere in the union. Trump did not come into the courtroom. That's considered thumbing your nose to the jury. Defendants are not required to be in the courtroom in civil cases the way they

are in criminal cases. They're absolutely required to be there in criminal cases, but in civil cases, they're not. So you want the jury to rule in your favor. The least you can do is show up, pay attention to the evidence, stare your accuser in the face as she's testifying, take the witness stand and testify yourself. That's not what happened. The Trump lawyers put no case on whatsoever. They did a great job, a terrific job, a textbook job of cross-examining E. Jean Carroll, the plaintiff. The judge allowed in a lot of evidence that I wouldn't have allowed in if I were trying it. The Access Hollywood tape was played five times. Two ladies who don't even know E. Jean Carroll testified that they suffered the same type of sexual assault, unreported, uncomplained about, but at the hands of Donald Trump in one case 40 years ago. I just wouldn't allow that old irrelevant evidence in. But the

court rules give the judge discretion to allow it in, and he did allow it in, and the jury verdict was unanimous against the former president. I will also tell you $5 million for a 15 or 22nd encounter in a lady's dressing room is a lot of money, even for someone who claims to have the wealth that Trump does. So this jury came down on him pretty hard. The jury is anonymous. The jurors thus far have chosen not to speak. The judge advised them against speaking publicly, but since the trial is now over, they are free to speak as they wish. Even though the jury disbelieved that the rape occurred, the jury believed everything else that E. Jean Carroll said. How did Trump resist this?

They played a videotape of his deposition, and the deposition did not go well for him. When the plaintiff's lawyer showed, Trump, of course, said, the reason I didn't rape her is because she's not my type. Look at her. She's not my type. That's the way he sometimes speaks, for better or for worse.

Yet when they showed Trump a picture of E. Jean Carroll, taken at the time, in the era in which the alleged rape occurred, the mid to late 1990s, he looked at the picture and he said, oh, that's my former wife, Marla Maples. So she obviously was his type. The deposition did not go well for him. I don't know why the lawyers chose to use that deposition as Trump's defense rather than Trump's very combative and at times very persuasive personality in the courtroom for his defense. Can this be appealed? Yes. It cannot be

appealed on the basis of the jury was wrong to believe Ms. Carroll. It can only be appealed on the basis of the judge made mistakes. He shouldn't have allowed the Access Hollywood tapes to be played five times. He shouldn't have allowed these two other ladies to testify about similar circumstances that he shouldn't, but the rest of the evidence is sufficient to produce the outcome that was produced, then the appellate court will say, OK, we disagree on this, but it's harmless. But if the judge makes regular, consistent, systematic mistakes so that all of them taken in the aggregate resulted in an unfair trial, then the appellate court will throw this decision out and order a new trial before the same judge. If Trump can demonstrate a sort of internal, visceral animosity by the judge towards Trump, and if a new trial is ordered, then the appellate court can order it to be tried before another judge. I don't think there was that level of animosity, but I wasn't in the courtroom. And because I wasn't there, I cannot assess the credibility of E. Jean Carroll. But I can say that the jury believed the overwhelming majority of what she said. They gave her a huge settlement, a huge amount of money,

and the jury's verdict was unanimous. As we speak, Representative George Santos, a Republican of Long Island, New York, is in federal custody. He was indicted yesterday by a federal grand jury in the Eastern District of New York, way out at the east end of Long Island, which is where this federal courthouse is, the allegations are wire fraud, mail fraud, and just plain fraud in his prior life before he was a member of the House of Representatives and signing two documents to the House of Representatives, again, prior life, prior to when he was in Congress, in which he allegedly committed perjury, in which he lied under oath about campaign finances. This is a crazy,

crazy case involving thousands of money for dogs and involving tricking people about the value of a boat, involving tricking people who were his benefactors and his donors in the campaign. This is going to unravel and destroy this young man's life. This is the guy that apparently lied about so much of his background. He is not being charged with those lies. Members of Congress, you ready for this, can lie, just like you and I can lie. The only lies that are criminal are those which are told under oath, verbally or in writing. But if you deceive somebody and they rely on that deception to their detriment and you become enriched by that deception, that's called fraud. That's called a crime. That is essentially what Congressman Santos has been indicted for. Almost unheard of that a member of Congress is in jail,

but he is. He'll be released early today on his own recognizance and go back to Washington. He's innocent until proven guilty like everybody else. He'll probably be removed from a congressional committee. He may have been removed already, but he still is the member of Congress from that eastern part of Long Island. And unless until he resigns or is expelled, he'll be a member of Congress. If he is convicted and doesn't resign, he'll be expelled. A jury trial in a case like this wouldn't happen for at least a year and a half, meaning another election will occur probably before the jury trial occurs, unless, of course, he and the government enter into a guilty plea. Alex Murdaugh is back in the news. Remember him? The guy that was convicted of blowing away his wife and his son because they were aware

of his drug use and his financial deception and fraud. The former king of the hill of trial lawyers descended from a family of very famous and very powerful trial lawyers in a little town in South Carolina, now serving a life term. He looks a lot different because his head is shaved and you only see him in an orange jumpsuit. He's now being sued by an insurance company. All right, here's what happened. His maid slipped and fell on his property and suffered a fatal injury and died. He sued himself, his own insurance company, for his own negligence. The insurance company paid $3.4 million to the estate of the maid. So far, so good. It's actually lawful to sue yourself when your own negligence harmed somebody and that person isn't around to file

the lawsuit. So he filed the lawsuit for the estate of the maid. The $3.4 million is deposited in his trust account, ready to be distributed. One-third to his law firm, their fee, two-thirds to the estate of the deceased maid. He steals it all. He steals it all and dissipates it so it doesn't exist anymore. Now the insurance company wants their money back because it didn't go to the maid's family. Now the maid's family wants their money. So the insurance company, in behalf of the maid's family, is suing Alex Murdaugh, his law firm that gave him control over this money, the bank that held the money that allowed him to steal it, all in an effort to get the $3.4 million back so they can give it to the Maid's family. Alex is in jail for the rest of his life. I don't

know what his estate is worth, but another mess caused by another guy who can't stop lying. The ATF, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms is up to their old tricks again. They are judge, jury, and executioner. You're going to see this in a minute, almost literally. The ATF has declared a new form of trigger to be a machine gun. So you squeeze a trigger and a round comes out. You release the trigger and it's ready for another round to come out. That's called semi-automatic. Those are the 300 million guns that are in the United States.

You squeeze a trigger and hold it back and all the rounds in the gun come out. That's called automatic. Unlawful in the United States since 1934, except for the government, which has them. It's interesting because when Justice Scalia wrote the Heller decision, there's a section in there about what guns can you legally own. And he says, whatever guns the bad guys have and whatever guns, ready for this, the government has. So one wonders if the automatic, the prohibition on automatic weapons, which civilians are prohibited from owning, shouldn't apply also to the government. Because if the government owns them, then under the Heller decision we should

be able to own them as well okay the atf comes up with a new regulation that if you have a gun where the trigger goes back real quickly too quickly for the atf's comfort that is an automatic weapon even though you have to pull that trigger each time you want a round to come out of. The trigger goes back too quickly for the ATMs, ATFs comfort. I said ATM, I meant ATF, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, ATF. These are the thugs. These are the bureaucrats. You'll see them in a minute that regulate our guns. create the rule they enforce the rule they decide who has violated the rule they are judge jury and executioner here's what happened last week when they approached the guy who understands his constitutional rights this is about a minute

so the reason why we're here is because um i don't know, I'm sure you're aware that just recently the ATF classified the FRTs, the force reset triggers, as machine guns. So we are aware that you may have purchased some of these FRTs. Okay. So now we are having, like, the whole agency is basically reaching out to these purchasers. That's incredible. And we have to pick them up. You know, they're illegal. So I won't be answering any questions today.

I don't have any comments on this subject. I won't be giving you anything. Okay, so you... Are you refusing to give us the trigger? I'm not refusing anything. I won't be answering any questions. Okay. So you, um, are you refusing to give us the trigger? I'm not refusing anything. I won't be answering any questions. Okay. Um, but okay. So we are aware that you do, you did purchase FRTs again. You wouldn't be in trouble if you just gave those up to us or if you sold them, you can tell me you sold them. Sure. You know, and you, again, you're not going to be in trouble for that. I so um we're just here honestly like just to pick them up sure sure it's a bigger it's a bigger

conversation than what you're having right now you know you you decide as you go the rules right um again that's not something i decide it's not i know you guys are just here you guys are just here yeah i don't disagree with you i understand i I don't want to be here anymore than you want me to be here. Sure. Well, the problem is you are the people who go and knock on the doors, right? So when they make new laws and you break them, or you go against the citizens, because they've spoken what they buy and what they do, the citizens are speaking, but the government is making their decisions on what they think. They're not being servants to the citizens, right? Wow. There's a lesson in understanding the freedom of speech in the Second Amendment.

If the ATF shows up at your door and they don't have a warrant, they obviously didn't, or they would have showed it to him, simply say, I have nothing to say to you, goodbye. And if they don't leave, call the local police and tell the local police there are two people at my front door with guns and they won't leave. You'll see an army of local police show up and escort the ATF out. They have no right to be judge, jury, and executioner. They have no right to decide which of your weapons are lawful and which are not. They have no right to confiscate anything from you without a warrant. That's what we call black letter law, meaning it's the law of the land. It is beyond dispute. Try to have the courage that this man had. I have nothing to

say to you. I'm not refusing your request. I'm just not answering it. Have a nice day. Goodbye. And again, if they don't leave, call the police. California Governor Gavin Newsom, he was championed black reparations. The idea that somehow the taxpayers today owe money to the descendants of slaves has changed his mind. Well, why did he change his mind? Because he can't afford it. commission that he appointed recommended $1,200,000 to every African American living in the state of California, whether that person can trace his ancestry to a slave or not. California, of course, was a free state. There was no legal slavery in California. I don't defend slavery at all. It's the worst thing that ever happened in the history of the world, that a human being would own another human being as property. Roundly, soundly condemned. Took a long time to eradicate it. generation uh owes money to descendants of slaves is absurd the present generation had nothing to do with slavery there's i guess i can safely say there isn't a human being on the planet today who was involved in the enslavement of african americans in the united states so the reparations

commission in california uh came up with the idea that it will cost $630 billion, with a B, to give all the African Americans in California $1,200,000 in cash, tax-free, to compensate them for the vestiges of slavery. Is it any wonder that the governor of California has changed his mind? Look, this whole thing about reparations is absolute, absolute nonsense. Absolute nonsense. Everybody wants a freebie. It's the problem with democracy. It's the problem with democracy. Thomas Jefferson and Alexander Hamilton hated each other and disagreed on everything imaginable involving the government except this one thing. They both agreed that when the public treasury becomes a public trough and people learn that they can take money from it by sending people

to Washington who will do so. They will only send people to Washington who will promise to bring home the bigger piece of the pie. The have-nots will gang up on the haves and take their wealth away from them. This reparations nonsense is another example of that happening. It's a defect in democracy. It's why we have an independent judiciary to prevent the theft of life, liberty, and property without due process. I don't care if California has the $630 billion sitting around in a bank account. They don't. I don't care if the legislature of California decides. They don't. I don't care if the legislature of California decides to give it away. I don't care if the governor signs that legislation.

The Constitution doesn't permit it because it's theft of property without a trial, without due process. At some point, enough is enough. And Gavin Newsom, whose former wife is my friend, Kimberly Guilfoyle, now the fiance of Donald Trump Jr. and my buddy from Fox News, a crazy thing, a wonderful, wonderful woman. But Gavin Newsom, the champion of reparations, has finally seen the errors of his way. Governor Newsom, welcome to the truth. More as we get it. Larry Johnson at three o'clock this afternoon, Eastern. Why have all the Ukraine battle plans for their so-called spring offensive suddenly popped up on the internet? Can Ukraine possibly pull this off? You know what Larry will say. More as we get it. Judge Napolitano for judging freedom.