Piers Morgan Uncensored - Trump Conviction: Biden backfire?

Episode Date: June 4, 2024

Donald Trump’s historic conviction has sent shockwaves through America’s political landscape. Many are calling the verdict ‘politically motivated’ while others joyfully celebrate; including some of Piers Morgan’s guests for his debate on the ruling. Canadian businessman Kevin O’Leary, criminal defense lawyer Mark Geragos, Daily Wire commentator Michael J. Knowles and progressive political activist Francesca Fiorentini hold nothing back as Piers discusses the potential backlash the case could cause for the Democrats down the line. Piers Morgan Uncensored is the global arena for fearless debate, bold opinions and major interviews. Subscribe for all-new and exclusive daily content.  YouTube: @PiersMorganUncensored X: @PiersUncensored TikTok: @piersmorganuncensored Insta: @piersmorganuncensored Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Well, former President Trump's bombshell guilty verdict has triggered a predictable outpouring of smugness and glee from celebrities and liberals. Barbara Sleicen said that Americans must not allow this felon anywhere near the White House again. Star Trek's George Takey, quipped that he should now be called 34 instead of 45. And Joy Beha from The View said she was so excited that she, quote, leaked a bit in Costco. Charming. But could these celebrations be short-sighted and short-lived? Trump campaign has raised a staggering $200 million since the guilty verdict rolled in. And he received a hero's revasion alongside Dana White at the UFC event in Newark on Saturday night.

Now even some of Trump's political enemies are rallying to his cause. Senator Mitt Romney, very much a moderate of the Republicans, said that Alvin Bragg may have won the battle for now, but he may have lost the political war. Democrats think they could put out the Trump fire with oxygen, its political malpractice. So is Trump a felon now even more likely to return to the White House? We're here to debate this. It's the Shark Tank Investor, Kevin O'Leary,

criminal defence attorney Mark Garagos, host of the Daily Wires at Michael Knowles and the very unconservative commentator Francesca Fiorentino. Welcome to all of you. Mark Garagos, let me start with you just for the legal perspective here. I think two things can be true at the same time.

One is that the jury did their job with the evidence placed in front of them. and that the verdict was a correct one from a legal perspective. And the second view, which can run concurrently with this, is this should never have got to court in the first place and dragging an American president through a criminal court process over something so relatively trivial, driven by apparent political partisanship on the part of the people driving it,

was a catastrophic error of judgment and a disaster for the country. Discuss? Well, look, I don't disagree. with you. You can have these two thoughts in your head. If you're going to bring a criminal case against one of the most reviled people in Manhattan and pick a jury in Manhattan and expect them to do anything but convict him, then I know nothing about the criminal law that I've been trying cases about. That was a slam dunk for the prosecution from the get-go. At the same time, I can tell you that it was, to my mind, it was

reprehensible that you take a case that is basically misdemeanors and with an expired statute of limitations and you do the mental gymnastics to contort this into a target crime that's not defined until closing argument and make those into felonies basically reviving an expired statute of limitations. I could go on and on about the legal nonsense that this is. But I'm not criticizing the jury. I criticize, number one, the prosecutor for bringing this case. Part of what makes the system work is prosecutors have to make hard decisions when to bring a case. Now, the jury did what they were given. That's on the judge. The judge, you know, there's no such thing as directed verdicts in criminal cases. This was basically a directed verdict based on the jury instructions.

I, as to the political, I'll just end it with this. I said 30 years ago when I was defending Susan McDougal, who was Bill Clinton's business partner in the Whitewater case, when she was being prosecuted by then independent counsel, Ken Starr, be careful what you wish for, Republicans, because the chickens are going to come home to Roos. Sure enough, that's where we are right now. And those chickens are going to keep coming home to Roos.

So, Francesco, my question for you is, I understand how joyous you must be feeling that Donald Trump has been convicted because he slept with a porn star 20 years ago and may have shuffles and business papers about it. But why is it good for America that one of your 46 presidents has been treated in such a humiliating manner over something so trivial? Why do you guys not see that this might help him

rather than hinder him in the election? I happen to believe, peers, that it's good for America when you hold the person who has the highest office in the land to the standards of the American law. And in this case, New York State law, where he committed these crimes, I happen to believe that it is a telltale sign of coming totalitarianism, fascism, skirting of the law when you allow a president to simply do whatever he wants and actually never hold him accountable. Well, look, the reality is this, is that these aren't crimes. that were on the books in every single state.

These are crimes that are on the books in New York State, as we talked about, all right? And so he knew exactly what he was doing. In fact, this is the most important part, is that David Pecker of the National Enquirer refused to keep on paying his hush money payments because the dude was tired of getting paid back in expired Trump stakes, and he was like,

no, I'm not gonna do it this time, especially not with a porn star. And so Michael Cohen had to do the payments on behalf of Donald Trump. Michael Cohen already spent three years mostly on house arrest, but he was already sentenced to three years over this. This is squarely Trump's making. This is nothing to do with his base.

It has nothing to do with protecting American democracy, like happened on January 6th, according to them. This has to do with Trump making his bronze-bronzer-stained bed with a porn star trying to cover it up and then getting caught doing it. And out of interest, before I go to Michael, out of interest, why is it? Is Bill Clinton able to have sex with an intern in the Oval Office when he's president and lie to the American people about it on national television?

And why is he able to pay off Paula Jones $850,000, four times as much, five times as much as the Trump payment to Stormy Daniels to get rid of a sexual harassment claim, again, while he's president? And he has no criminal court recourse for that. Why is that deemed to be better than what happened with Trump and Stormy? I don't think anyone is making that case, Pierce. I'm not here. What's the difference?

What's the difference? Or any predator. The difference is that he didn't cook the books financially using his own, like, using back channels in order to pay that person off. So paying somebody off who says you sexually harassed her, paying a nearly a million dollars while you're the president of the United States and then having sex with an intern in the Oval Office and lying about it, that's fine because he's a Democrat.

No, peers, only the leftists in your mind are making that argument. Sorry? I said, only the Democrats and the leftist mob in your mind are making that argument that you're opposing to it. I will say this about Stormy Daniels. I think it's incredible that she accepted $130,000 from Michael Cohen, because honestly, if I had the misfortune of sleeping with Donald Trump, no matter what the circumstances, let's say I had mad cow and then I did DMT on an empty stomach, If I had the misfortune of sleeping with Donald Trump,

there is no amount of money you could pay me to keep quiet about it because I would never tell a single soul. I would fake my own death and move to the Galapagos and pretend to be a bird. I mean, I would say it's very unlikely you would ever get the author, but you do look quite like Karen McDougal, funny enough. Oh, so I'm not cute enough to a... No, I just said you are.

I said you're very much in New Zealand. That actually is a compliment, yes. Yeah, it was actually a compliment. Go to Michael. Michael, look, I do think there's a ridiculous double standard here that will come back and bite the Democrats. For the reasons that Mark Garagos said about, historically, you've seen this coming a mile off

where both parties starting to ratchet up this concept of kind of going after each other's leaders in criminal courts. I mean, you see this normally in banana republics, not in the United States of America. And it really does worry me as someone who loves America and loves Americans, what this is leading to. Because if all that happens in each term of office

is one party trying to incarcerate the other's leader, I don't know where that leaves America in a few years' time. Well, this will only come back to bite Democrats if they lose their grip on power, and obviously they don't think that they will. This is why President Biden the other day when he was walking out of a press briefing was asked, Mr. President, Donald Trump says

that you are imprisoning him because he's your political rival. What do you say to that charge? Well, we have it. We'll stop you there. We have the clip. Let's play the clip. Mr. President, can you tell us, sir, Donald Trump refers to himself as a political prisoner and blames you directly? What's your response to that, sir? Do you think the conviction will have an impact on the campaign? I mean, you look like Jack Nicholson and the shining at the end of that. But, yeah, I mean, Michael, to pick up your point there, and that's the clip you're referring to. Yes, and it's pretty clear this is not a man who thinks that he has to be accountable to the American people. When you look at the federal charge against Trump, there was a poll that came out when that charge was brought that showed 62% of Americans think that it's primarily politically motivated.

They just don't seem to care. And so this has been a ratcheting up, as we've all noted on the panel, of trends that have been built up for some years now. Some would say going back to Richard Nixon. But certainly in the early Trump campaign, the Democrats tried to stop him from being president by spying on him and cooking up fake intelligence, ironically enough, with Russia. That didn't work. Then they tried to throw him out by impeaching him twice. That didn't work. Then they tried to kick him out by rigging the election and changing all the voter rules in some cases in contravention of state constitutions leading up to that election.

That did get him out of office and he did leave office, but then he didn't go away. He kept running again. So then they indicted him four times. Now they've convicted him. They're going to threaten to throw him in prison. Pretty soon they're going to threaten to send him to St. Helena. But this has absolutely nothing to do with the law. As was noted earlier, at most you're talking about a misdemeanor that would have already expired under the statute of limitations. I'm not even convinced that there was really a misdemeanor that Trump committed. So my fellow panelists here is celebrating that the rule of law has been vindicated and overturned 234 years of American legal tradition.

I would challenge her to see if she could possibly articulate how and what crime Trump committed because so far Alvin Bragg, the DA has failed to do so. The judge in the case, Judge Mershon, has failed to do so. And they can't do it because Trump didn't commit any of the crimes for which he's been convicted. Well, let's just ask quickly before I go to Kevin. Francesca, just on that point, what crime did Trump commit? It was campaign. It was financial crimes.

It was white-collar crimes. That is exactly what they charged him. He was convicted on. What was the crime? It's New York State law. No, I understand. What was the crime? I don't even, like, it is literally,

you just got convicted on 34 counts. Francesco, what was the crime? Of, like, cooking the actual books. What was the crime? You are not allowed. So you are not allowed to use your own financial, like your own money to pay off somebody. And then he logged it as something different. He logged it as just a regular payment, but he was actually paying off this porn star to keep quiet,

which if he hadn't been running for president would not have mattered, but he was. And so it impacted campaign finance laws in New York State. Okay. That is what one more chan just oversaw this. Alvin Bradd brought these charges because Michael Cohen and six was already sentenced to three years to do it. Let's just go before. Kevin, I'd be very

very, very patient. I will come to you. Look, I'm no expert. Let me just say, hang on. You are no expert, by the way. The campaign finance laws of federal laws. Hang on, Francesca, I want to go to Mark. You're the lawyer. Is anything Francesca just said, is that actually the crime? Look, let me just say, I like Francesca a lot.

And we probably agree on 80% of our worldviews. However, Francesca, the way you just described it, call me afterwards and I'll educate you because that's not what happened. There was no theory that was given to the jurors. The jurors were told it could have been campaign finance, it could have been tax, it could have been false books. They were told they didn't have to specify and specifically told they did not have to agree unanimously. That's what irks me. lifelong Democrat, no fan of Trump, never voted for Trump, never will. But I will tell you, as somebody who has spent his entire career,

was kind of taking on unpopular causes and holding the government accountable, I have to tell you, I do that for a reason. And the reason is this kind of shenanigans, and that's the best light I can spin it, on in the criminal courts, has no place in a federal election. No, I agree. The campaign finance laws were federal, not state, and the state laws had nothing. Okay, I want to go. I want to go to, hang on, I want to go to Kevin, be waiting very patiently. Kevin, you are a very successful businessman, as Trump has obviously been in his career, too.

Do you think, in all honesty, if you were caught up in something like this, and I'm not for a moment suggesting you would want to have a one-night stand with Stormy Daniels? But if you went down this road and ran for office, not run for office, if you just ran for, say, to be. CEO of a company. Do you think it would ever have led to a criminal case? Because the argument is that a regular business guy who's not actually running for the presidency would be treated very differently. And therefore, the law has not been seen to be fairly applied here. I think half the country in the US believes this is politically motivated, which is not a good thing. It's having more impact on the state of New York, which is seen as unstable. Whether the case has flaws in it or not will be solved for in the appellate system. So most people assume because of the

importance of the situation that it will go through the appellate system as quickly as possible, if necessary to the Supreme Court. In the end of the day, these things balance themselves. The damage done to New York started back in the other litigation around real estate. Quietly, large projects, those are over a billion, are not being started in New York currently. people are waiting until things stabilized. And I've moved projects out of New York to places like Oklahoma, North Dakota, West Virginia, Montana, Pennsylvania, much more stable environments. It's too difficult to work in that unstable environment.

And the real problem is you can't raise institutional capital right now. The capital from around the world thinks New York's a little off-kilter. There's something else to consider about Alvin Bragg, which I think history will prove to be correct. You've got to remember, Donald Trump, only 24 months ago, in the middle of the first term of Biden, did not have control of his party. But a third of them were rebelling, if you want to use that word,

because they were concerned about the controversy around Trump, and they were looking for a new leadership. And he was challenged. But something happened that changed everything. And this is the law of unintended consequences. Alvin Bragg started charging Trump. And immediately the entire Republican Party coalesced behind him almost in 48 hours. Of course, the country bi-Africated into this being a political witch hunt using lawfare, you know, as a tool.

And we're still debating that. But here's what's really interesting. If Trump becomes president, I think he has a big debt to Alvin Bragg. Alvin Bragg is the kingmaker. He made Trump president by polarizing the country so much and motivating the base so much that in the last 42 hours,

Trump has passed $60 million in fundraising. That's an all-time record for him. So what's happening here is this unusual time, and I understand that you may not like that as an unintended consequence if you're Alvin Bragg, but I think history will show he made Donald Trump presidents one more time.

And that's just the way it is. You know what? I completely agree. I think it's one of the most willful. I'll come to Francesca, a response. It seems to be one of the most willfully stupid acts of self-harm. I've seen any political party commit. You had Trump right on his knees, done. Done.

And you've revived the rotting political corpse of this guy, and you've now got him roaring back to the White House. and the only thing, as Mitt Romney of all people who hates Trump and represents by absolutely the most moderate part of Republican Party, when even he says Democrats think they can put up a Trump fire with oxygen is political malpractice. He's right, because the only thing that could further guarantee a Trump victory is if they try and put him in jail on July the 11th,

which, by the way, I wouldn't put it past them. Yeah, it's remarkable times. We haven't seen polls out since the verdict. And so everybody's waiting to see what happens with the unintended consequence of this in terms of just independent voters. And so here's the thing to realize, if you polled 1,000 independent voters and they will decide the election, most people agree with that in states like Michigan, Pennsylvania, Georgia, et cetera. I bet you, and we've had the same on this panel we're debating it, 99% of them have no idea what this case was about at all. and have no idea what exactly he did, and I'm not sure they care. The fact that more than half of them think it's politically motivated is unsettling.

And as I said earlier, we'll get finished off in the appellate system. But this is a remarkable time in American history, and not that great for the American brand as you started talking about the beginning. This is more like a Venezuela kind of Cuba, banana Republic story. You've got the porn star, all this stuff. It's really not what G7 countries do to their leaders. I completely agree. Is this Franceschi?

I just don't get... You're laughing, but Mitt Romney, for Mitt Romney to come down so squarely on the side of Trump. I do... I do want to just say, look, so the crimes were falsifying business records. Now, the reason I didn't know that before is because I'm not a lawyer and I'm not the journalist who is anchoring this entire show who should have told you that it was falsifying business records. Now, on the other point... Those aren't felonies.

I hear you that most Americans don't care about falsifying business records. I agree with Kevin and I agree with peers. However, I will say this. Most Americans also are very much go on gut. And they don't like that a candidate has been, is now a convicted felon. But moreover, this candidate is someone who, and it is not the crime. However, we know, cheated on his pregnant wife with a porn star in a hotel in Lake Tahoe and then bragged about it and then tried to pay her to shut up.

and also paid another playboy bunny to also be quiet about their relationship. Bill Clinton had sex with an intern in the oval office. You're going back to Bill Clinton because it's the only thing you have. It was not a bad thing to have. He was, unlike Trump, he was president at the time. You know, I don't mean to pick on Francesca too much here, but it's very telling that even the liberals who are going on television to defend this ruling have to Google in the breaks to figure out what the crime was.

And even then, I'm sorry to say, misrepresent what the actual supposed crime was. I know, Google it because it's literally not my... Well, excuse me, one second, Frances. I said he's cooking with books. That's the same thing. It's not, yeah, it's not a felony, not a crime. But anyway, that's a point for another time. The reason why even the great offenders of this conviction can't...

To you as well. The reason that they can't articulate this is because it's not really a crime. That's why they had to upend 234 years of precedent for this. And it gets back to a point that you made earlier peers. and that you made Kevin, which is that Alvin Bragg really overplayed his hand. Sure, he overplayed his hand to some degree, but what else were they going to do? Donald Trump was always going to be the Republican nominee in 2024. A lot of people feel that he was jipped in 2020.

He's the biggest guy in the party. It was going to happen. And Trump poses a real threat to the liberal establishment. He's not a Mitt Romney-type Republican. He has different views from the so-called Uniparty on things like trade, on things like immigration and things like foreign policy and war. Trump posed a major threat. That's why they took such extraordinary measures for the last eight years to take this guy out. They weren't able to do it politically. They weren't even really able to do it at the ballot box. So what's left? The only thing

left to do is to try to throw him in prison so that he can't campaign for the election. I agree, it's backfiring. This is not a federal case, Michael. You know that. It's not even a federal case. Why do you think that it's not a DOJ case? It's not a Biden case. It's not a Merrick Garland thing. It's New York state law. So the idea that this is somehow politically motivated is all made up in your head because what you do on your show every day is you groom your audience for fascism and you set them up for a complete takeover of the DOJ.

This is all about allowing Trump to get away with any crime he wants as you sort of slighted and- Francesca. You know, laid out very nonchalantly just a little bit ago. He was impeached twice. Doesn't really matter that he tried to, blackmail the leader of Ukraine into digging up non-existent dirt on Joe Biden. But that doesn't matter to you or your followers who you want to make sure.

You want to make sure that when Trump is elected, he can get away. He can get away with getting rid of the Department of Education. All I would point out is that it's not my party that's imprisoning its political opponents. Right. I was about to say, I was about to say one of the key tenants of faculty. is you imprisoning your political opponents. Let me come back to Mark Gerrigo. I want to play a clip from Donald Trump at the weekend.

This is talking to Fox and Friends. We talked about the prospect of maybe going to jail. The judge could decide to say, hey, house arrest or even jail. It could face what that could look at. I'm okay with it. I saw one of my lawyers the other day on television saying, oh, no, you don't want to do that to the press. I said, you don't beg for anything.

You just the way it is. I don't know that the public would stand it, you know? I'm not sure the public would stand for it. with a... You say it would be tough for the public to take. You know, at a certain point, there's a breaking point. Now, Mark, the question I was going to ask you is that a lot of people think the way Trump

has been trashing the judge, the court, the process and everything night after night when he comes out to TV cameras, that under normal circumstances, you could trash talk your way into a prison sentence. Is that remotely possible here? Well, let me give you the legal analysis, and then I'll give you the political. There is no instance I can think of where you're convicted of 34 felonies in state court in America, in any jurisdiction,

while you are found in contempt nine times and a judge threatening to put you in jail, where when you're convicted, the judge doesn't remand you, meaning put you in jail right there pending sentencing. Obviously, that was not going to happen here. Obviously, at least to me politically, this judge is not going to put him in jail on July 11th. I don't even think he's going to give him house arrest. My friend Alan Dershowitz suggested something that I had not thought of. I have been speculating that the judge will give him 30, 60 or 90 days in jail, but stay it pending the appeal.

Alan thinks that he will impose a state. prison sentence of, say, two years and just hang it over his head. And that's somewhat diabolical, because if you've got that state prison sentence over his head and he does not win the election in November, there's all kinds of mischief that could happen after that. So I don't think, if I'm a betting man, I don't think he's going to go into jail or into custody on July 11th. If he was somebody other than Trump, he would be in custody right now. I mean, Kevin, the whole idea. Yes, that's a really important point.

And everyone needs to remember that. Yeah, it is an important point. Kevin, you know, just, again, I'm across the pond at the moment. But I love America. And this is just this whole idea that we're even discussing the possibility of incarcerating an America president. I made the point the other day that if it was for running an illegal drone program that killed thousands of innocent people,

or it was wholesale corruption on a very serious scale of the heart of government, or something of that magnitude, then, okay, I'd understand taking action against an American president. But the idea that Trump is going through all this and may end up with a suspended sentence or a hung sentence hanging over, whatever it may be, is Mark just articulated.

The idea that an American president left all right is facing this, potentially happening in six weeks, week's time in election year. I mean, it sends a shutter down my spine, if I'm honest, because I don't know what it makes America as a country. Well, it's, it has never happened before in a G7 country and happened once, I believe, in a G20 country, but I think was acquitted. This isn't really about Trump anymore from the perspective you're talking about. It's about the American brand. It's about the executive. It's about the White House. It's about the American economy. It's about people's perception about investing in it.

There's a pretty big discomfort, and I know this from both Democrats and Republicans. There's many outcomes of this sentencing, but I don't think anybody contemplates that he would be jailed. That would not go over well, I think, at all. I don't think that would be... This judge has a huge responsibility on his shoulders because it hasn't been tested by the appellate court, so it would be wise, perhaps to be very, very lenient. And I would suggest probation maybe or something less so that he can go on with the political process

of running his Republican conference, decide if he's going to be and who his vice president is going to be and setting up for the election just months away at that point. And as many have said on both sides of the party, let the people decide this situation on November 5th if they make Trump president again, then we're talking about the overall. office. We want to be careful not to get in his way as he governs the land. I would have thought

bringing the Porn Star case after the election would have been better. It was really unusual to listen. And I was in London, where you are, talking to sovereign wealth and institutional investors. As you know, I'm trying to buy TikTok, so I'm trying to line up a syndicate. And Stormy Daniels' testimony was embarrassing, talking about condoms and... penis size and what does that have to do with state finance or federal finance law? It has nothing. It was really trashy and and and not at the level you would want to brand a G7 or G20 country. And I think most people are embarrassed about it to be honest. I agree with you. And talking to your TikTok, Trump joined it, Francesco at the weekend.

He got three million followers immediately. But also this happened at the UFC fight. Dana White let him out. And this is just after he's been convicted of 34 counts of this crime. Take a look at what the crowd reacted was. Pretty cool for Sean Strickland to have a moment there with Donald Trump after a win. President Trump, you're the man, bro.

It is a damn travesty what they're doing to you. I'll be donating you, my man. Let's get it done. I mean, that followed the interest. Sorry, Mark. By the way, Pierce. If I have spent the last two days having people talk to me at a conference I'm at telling me that one of the phenomenons on TikTok, as Kevin invoked it, is people saying, I'm voting for the felon, I'm voting for the felon. I'm telling you, you want a poll?

I'll give you a poll. Take a look of what's happening there at the UFC fight and take a look at what's happening on TikTok. Yeah. I mean, we're watching the end. This is when he came in. I mean, the place went completely nuts. And the trouble is Francesca. I spend a lot of time in New York and L.A.

I have a place in L.A. And I spend a lot of time working in New York. But I also do a lot of crime documentaries, ironically, which take me down to rural Florida, rural Texas, Alabama, places like that. And let me tell you, none of them agree with you. They all agree with that crowd at the UFC. And if I was a Democrat, I'd be quite unnerved

that you've thrown the kitchen sink at this guy. and this is how a lot of the public are reacting. Yeah. I mean, it makes sense that he would be cheered at UFC. I mean, you know, it's a sportful of actors, and we have this guy who's been pretending to be a serious politician for years now. Look, the one thing about that interview

to give the Fox News. You're not besperching the UFC. Hang on. Hang on. Fact check. You'll think you're WWE, the actors. The UFC, they're real fighters. Yes, I'm sorry. I don't have cool, good. I'm glad. Look. There's a big difference. One is acting, one is hardcore elite fighting. They're very different things.

I don't have video feed, but I bet it's dope and I stand corrected, peers. But I will say this. With the interview that he gave on Fox and Friends, I do think it matters. Because what he said was, the American people aren't going to stand for this. And in some ways he's saying, you know, he's warning Judge Mershan. And I sort of agree. that I don't think Judge Mershon, even though all y'all think that it's some sort of political hit job, they're not going to put him in jail.

Sadly, for me, I hope they give him some sort of like community service, soup kitchen situation. I'd love to see that whatever is on his head in a hairnet. That'd be incredible. Or just, like, make him work one day in his life. Just a single day.

Maybe on minimum wage. I'd like to see what you do at, like, a Home Depot, you know? Or just, like, do a landscaping job from one of the many immigrants that you want to do. deport from this country, anything. That would be more of a punishment than actually sitting in a jail cell. But what he was really saying is, hey, American people basically stand up for me. In effect, do another January 6th for me. And we all saw what happened, no matter what you think

of that day, which I'll remind you so many Republicans distanced themselves from what happened that day. But the other thing that happened is all these folks who loved Trump, who followed him, who believed in him, were arrested and then charged rightfully. so for trespassing, for rioting, for threatening the lives of Congress people. And Trump has faced absolutely no music over that. And of course he has. Hang on, hang on. She might, he might never actually face the music until after the election. He's been charged with very serious crimes in relation to that. It just won't that one happen before the election. Instead, the Democrats collectively, through political reasons and legal reasons and so on, came up with

the mad idea of going first with the stormy case. And that has been a total disaster because no one takes it seriously. Michael Knoss, final point to you, Trump said, my revenge will be success. These are bad people, and he said, it's going to be success, will be the best revenge.

Do you think that's how this plays out? It's the only way that it can play out, because I think most of us on the panel have accepted, there is not going to be some fair, legal conclusion to all of this. The only way that this plays out is if the political

system in America is not wholly corrupt. It's only substantially corrupt. Biden smirks when he jokes about jailing his political opponents, but it's not wholly corrupt, and the American people can bring enough civil pressure to bear to push this guy back into the Oval Office. That is going to be

the only way that this ends. If he doesn't win the election, Michael will absolutely respect the results of Biden. Well, you know what you'll say, Francesca? And this time with good reason, you'll say, hey, for two months of the election year, when I should have been campaigning, I was being put through a criminal court trial

over having sex with the porn star 20 years ago. And you know what? A lot more people will have empathy with him this time than when he falsely claimed the other 2020 elections stolen from him without any evidence. So unfortunately, again, the Democrat machine to shut Trump down has played right into his hands.

But anyway, we've got to leave you there. Brilliant debate. Thank you all so much. Kevin O'Leary, Mark Garagos, Manchester Finitini, and Mike I'm Michael Knowles. I appreciate it. Thank you.