The Benny Show - 🚨BREAKING: BOMBSHELL Supreme Court Ruling Grants Trump IMMUNITY! MASSIVE Trump WIN | DC in PANIC with Brett Tolman, Mike Davis, Tom Fitton, Rep. Wesley Hunt and Will Chamberlain

Episode Date: July 1, 2024

Supreme Court rules in favor of immunity for official acts, Media continues assault Joe Biden and Will Chamberlain, Brett Tolman,Tom Fitton and Wesley Hunt Join The Show Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

When does fast grocery delivery through Instacart matter most? When your famous grainy mustard potato salad isn't so famous without the grainy mustard. When the barbecue's lit, but there's nothing to grill. When the in-laws decide that, actually, they will stay for dinner. Instacart has all your groceries covered this summer. So download the app and get delivery in as fast as 60 minutes. Plus enjoy $0 delivery fees on your first three orders. Service fees, exclusions, and terms apply. Instacart. Gro delivery fees on your first three orders. Service fees,

exclusions, and terms apply. Instacart, groceries that over-deliver. Breaking news right now from the Supreme Court. We are live early today to bring you a massive decision that is going to change the fabric of the country and potentially sink forever. Jack Smith's case against Donald Trump, Joe Biden's case against Donald Trump in Washington, D.C. This is the live feed at the Supreme Court. Go, let's just go.

We're gonna rock and roll this morning. The live feed at the Supreme Court right now. Outside of the Supreme Court, we have a decision. 6-3, upholding presidential immunity right now. Upholding presidential immunity. A massive win for Donald Trump. Let's go. Let's go. Let's go and read right now, ladies and gentlemen. Okay, so we have a monster win. This happened seconds ago, so you're going to have to stick with us. This is the program. We have a ton of legal experts that are going to come on. We are furiously and ravenously like animals reading this decision right now, but here

we go from the majority in an absolute win for Donald Trump criminally prosecuting a president. Let's put put up the decision, please. Criminally prosecuting a president for official conduct undoubtedly poses a far greater threat of intrusion on the authority and functions of the executive branch than simply seeking evidence in his possession. The danger is greater than what led the court to recognize absolute presidential immunity from civil damages and liability. That the president would be chilled from taking any bold and unhesitating action required by an independent executive is. And then they cite another court case. OK, so this is the this, so this is the absolute and total upholding of presidential immunity.

Under our constitution, reading further from the decision, under our constitutional structure of separated powers, the nature of the presidential power entitles the former president to absolute immunity. There it is. From criminal prosecution and actions under which his conclusive and preclusive constitutional authority, conclusive and preclusive. That means the assumption that the president has total immunity is upheld by the Supreme Court in a monster majority six three decision and is entitled at least the presumption of immunity from prosecution for his official acts

there is no if it there is no immunity for unofficial acts now this is what's very important ladies and gentlemen so now it of course uh gets remanded to who is going to decide what are official and unofficial acts but there is no other way to carve this turkey up. This is a monster loss for the regime. A monster loss. Because now you are going to be caught in court till kingdom come on whether Donald Trump, of course, this is during January 6th, was acting in an official capacity or an unofficial capacity. So what Donald Trump was giving speeches with the presidential seal in front of the White House, what do you mean? He was president of the United States. How are you

possibly going to reverse engineer that? Donald Trump was president of the United States. Donald Trump had every right to peacefully assemble. The First Amendment is quite clear on this, that you can redress your government, ladies and gentlemen. So this is absolute and total immunity. There's no other way to carve this up. They're going to try. I mean, based on my reading of this, and we're going to bring in a phalanx of legal experts here in just a moment to talk through this in a probably much brighter and more grounded way than I can. But my immediate reading here is that, and if you go to Donald Trump, give me a photo of Donald Trump during the speech on January 6th. Donald Trump's in front of the White House. Donald Trump's in front of the White House giving a speech and with the presidential

seal on it, with Secret Service on White House grounds, which is something that, of course, he would only have the right to. There is no way to cut this, carve this turkey up that this wasn't an official act. How was it? How is this not an official act? Ladies and gentlemen, we have major takeaways from Alina Haba. Here we go. Here's Donald Trump. Oh, this is unofficial. Well, I see the presidential seal. I see the freaking White House behind Trump and Trump's on White House grounds. Obviously, he's in the ellipse of the White House is where it's called. What it's called. Donald Trump has every due right under the First Amendment to say whatever he wishes about an election. And Donald Trump, of course, said march peacefully, patriotically.

The videos exist. Are you dumb? Are you stupid? Like the videos that exist march peacefully and patriotically. That's what Donald Trump said in his official role as president. I see I as somebody who went to community college see no other way than this to be an absolute and total exoneration of Donald Trump. Again, we'll see what the legal experts say on the program. Very quickly here, let's see what Alina Haba, the president's attorney, has to say on Fox News. Do we have these clips ready to rock? Okay, let's go. Alina Haba, very important take here, obviously friend of the show. She was on Fox seconds ago. We are in a breaking news environment. This decision was rendered. Five minutes ago.

OK, so roll with us here, baby. Alina, let's go. I want to bring in Alina Haba. She, of course, is an advisor to the president's campaign. She's a lawyer who has been in court with him in many different scenarios. And your initial reaction to this ruling as we have just been handed it and we're kicking the tires here. I want to give your thoughts, Alina. Yes, obviously, I haven't read the decision as it just came out, and I've read little parts of it. Here's what I think. I think that the justice has made the right decision. Nixon v. Fitzgerald outlined this. Absolute immunity is important for all

presidents. I've said it time and time again. I've argued on immunity for President Trump, and I think they did get right that they recognize absolute immunity exists. Another thing that I do think needs to be pointed out is that they said presumptive immunity exists for acts within the outer perimeter of his official acts. So what's going to happen now is that they basically have said, sorry, Jack Smith, you don't get to just impede and intrude on the executive branch. We get to have protections for presidents who are doing things while they are in office so that they don't come out and get targeted and criminally and civilly sued. It's incredibly important. It was a good decision. Obviously,

I believe absolute immunity should exist for the executive branch, but they did recognize it. And the presumptive immunity now will then get outlined, kicked back down to the courts, and they will look at it. But the presumption that any president and President Trump was acting within the perimeter, the outer perimeter of his official acts, is clear through this decision from what I've read so far. Obviously, I'll examine it and speak about it further on the network. But I think that this was a very, very good decision for us. Ladies and gentlemen, Will Chamberlain from the Article Three Project will be joining us in just a moment. I really do want to get to Alina Habas, though. Full take on all of this. If you are just joining us and I just see like

I see the audience like growing exponentially here. Here is the important breaking news in a in a monster majority six three decision. The Supreme Court has upheld presidential immunity and presumptive presidential immunity for official acts. Now, for unofficial acts that there is no immunity, but there is absolute and total presidential immunity. You remember during this hearing, the Supreme Court was acting asking like, OK, what about Barack Obama drone striking and murdering American teenagers? Does he have immunity for that? This is what they're talking about. I'm not saying that's right. I'm just saying it is what it is. We've played the clip for you time and time again. So there's absolute and total presidential immunity. No other way to carve up this Christmas ham than a massive win for Donald Trump. Again,

this is against the January 6th hearing in Washington, D.C. Judge Chapkin, who decided Donald Trump doesn't have immunity without even holding a hearing. This Obama judge, this psychotic leftist Marxist Obama judge just decided Trump has no immunity. We're going to try him. There is no other way to there is no other way to see this as an absolute and total victory for Donald Trump here, because now they're going to have to go back into the courts and figure out, oh, my God, what's what's an official act? What's an unofficial act? Who's going to decide that? It's a disaster for Jack Smith and Joe Biden. A nightmare. Ladies and gentlemen, Alina Haba continues. I just want to get to the president's attorney or their initial takeaway. She says this

is an absolute victory and the presumption of innocence for official acts. That's the language. And it's so that language is so important. Can we put the decision back up one more time? That language is so important here. Ladies and gentlemen, the presumption of innocence for official acts. This is what is going to absolutely atomize Jack Smith, atomize it, because Donald Trump was acting in official capacity as president United States presidential seal driving in the beast at the White House, speaking as president, saying March peacefully and patriotically. And the only person who's responsible for violence on January 6th is Nancy Pelosi, who did not accept Donald Trump's

offer of 10,000 National Guard troops to defend the United States Capitol, period. And then ignored calls from Stephen Sund, the Capitol Police security officer in charge, who's in charge of Capitol Police. She ignored calls for 80 straight minutes. We have that on the record. So there, ladies and gentlemen, is your criminal prosecution for January 6th. I look forward to starting that with a Trump DOJ. Really fast here. Here's Alina Habl one more time, and then we're going to bring in Will Chamberlain from the Article 3 Project.

Let's go. Alina, this is Brett Baer. The AP writes it this way. They say Supreme Court sends Trump's immunity case back to a lower court in Washington, dimming prospect of a pre-election trial. Is that what you all are hoping for? And that that would be the end result is that anything gets past the election on any of these cases that are pending? You know, Brett, that's let me first start by saying that the team here, the legal team for

President Trump, and I think the American people think that these cases should never have existed. Let's just be clear. But now we are in this political attack on a leading candidate because they can't win with their candidates. So we are where we are now as a legal as an attorney, as a legal spokesperson. I would just say this. Of course, it is a good day when the Supreme Court recognizes constitutional rights of presidents and the executive branch. But we should never have been in this situation to start with. This is a disgrace to America. So, yes, the lower courts, again, will have to hear it. It will, in my opinion, slow down Jack Smith's persecution and selective prosecution of President Trump.

And I don't see how this case could go forward before the election. But, again, I would say that there are still issues to be discussed, such as how Jack Smith even got into this position, how we allowed our democracy, how we allowed the republic to become one that targets political opponents. We should the fact that we've been in front of the Supreme Court so many times is frankly a sad day for the American people. It's election interference at its finest. But I'm happy today. I think that Chief Roberts, Chief Justice Roberts, made a good decision for what I'm seeing. Obviously, I need to read it fully. But recognizing Nixon v. Fitzgerald, upholding that decision and stating that absolute immunity does exist for presidents is a good thing. It's an important thing for all

Americans, both Democrat and Republican. Ladies and gentlemen, OK, joining us right now, and it's, again, an insane breaking news, the breaking news cycle right here. Alina Haba just said, I didn't have time to read the decision. It happened while she was live. All right. And we're live. This decision came down less than 10 minutes ago. So joining us now, a lawyer, attorney, absolute fighter, and very, very smart individual from the Article 3 Project, such an incredible group. Will Chamberlain joins us now to unpack all of this. All right, Will, I was filibustering there for like a second just to give you a chance to sink your teeth into this ruling. And now, please, the floor is yours.

What does this mean for Jack Smith's case against Donald Trump and presidents going forward and their ability to serve in that office? I'd characterize it as maybe a 95 percent win for Donald Trump in the sense of if you imagine what he's asking for as his ideal outcome, he got about 95% of it. And so it's a major W. I mean, the bottom line of the impact on Jack Smith's prosecution is that there is absolutely no chance that he will be they will be able to pull off a trial before the election. And that basic I mean, the Trump the court found basically it has three levels of analysis. First, it said, let's talk about powers that are explicitly granted to the president of the constitution, things like the power to declare war, the power to issue pardons, things that are just like clear, vested in the executive branch. Court said for those, there's absolute criminal unity. There's no chance at all that there's no way at all you can prosecute a former president for those acts.

Then it talked about the more broad categorization of official acts and that includes a lot of things um things like talking to your vice president getting advice um thinking about you know the law uh there's there's a there's a big a much bigger category of just generally official acts of the president that includes a lot That includes much of the conduct that Trump is alleged to have engaged in the indictment. There, the court found that there is a presumptive immunity, that if that's an official act, the president is presumed to be immune unless prosecutors can demonstrate that prosecuting a former president that will not intrude on the functions of the executive. So the idea, the overall thesis, the reason that they issued this decision is they say, the executive does a lot of things. It goes all over our

government. It is key to its functioning. If the threat of future prosecution for anything will intrude on the functions of the executive, make them hesitant, make them not do their job, then there can't be a prosecution for that. So and then there's the third layer, which really already everybody agreed to, including Trump's lawyers, which is unofficial acts, things that the president does in his personal capacity, like testifying in a deposition and lying, for example, the way Bill Clinton did all the way back when he was president. Those unofficial acts have no immunity, but everybody already agreed to that. That's not a loss that Trump's lawyers conceded to that from the outset. So can we go back to point number two that you just made? Because that does seem to be

the murky territory that they're attempting to bring these January 6th charges against Donald Trump on. Oh, you made phone calls and you asked people certain things and you tried to do certain things with Mike Pence and so on. What you're saying is that the court's ruling that there's no way you can bring charges against a president if he's just attempting to do the job of the presidency and if he's weighing and balancing certain options, which does seem to be exactly what they're going after Trump for. Just the just the questioning, right, of what options he had seems to be what they are hanging their hat on the criminal charges here. Again, I'm no lawyer. Yeah, no, I think I think you're right about that. And I mean, you got to understand what this means in terms of the prosecution and given that this finding. So what the court did is essentially what they call reverse and remand.

They said, we're reversing the holding of the DC circuit, which said that presidents have no immunity at all. And we're remanding for further proceedings at the district court level. And the district court before the prosecution or the trial begins, we'll have to have an evidentiary hearing to discuss whether or not the conduct alleged

in the indictment are official acts. And then if they are found to be official acts, whether or not they are entitled to presumptive immunity, right? The presumptive immunity that the court outlines. That's a two step process, right? First, is it official? Second, if official, is it entitled to presumptive immunity? And that's before the trial.

And then when that happens, Donald Trump can then appeal those two questions. Is it official? Is it entitled to presumptive immunity? So that's why I say, you know, we've got, you know, I saw Oren Kerr say years of litigation before you could conceivably get to trial on anything alleged in the indictment, because you're talking about the district court's going to have to have a hearing with all the briefing entitled, make a finding that finding is immediately appealable before trial, because it's still, we're still in the phase of immunity, right. If if you can't have pretrial immunity hearings, then there is no immunity. Effectively, it defeats immunity. The idea is you shouldn't even have to sit for a trial if you prevail and have immunity. So, yeah, I mean, it's a it's a big W for Donald Trump.

It didn't go quite as far as he wanted. He his lawyers presented the position that he should be absolutely immune for all official acts unless he's impeached and convicted for them. The Supreme Court said, no, it's only presumptive immunity for the broader category of official acts. And there are circumstances in which you could be prosecuted for those official acts, but you still have to go through this whole analysis of whether or not prosecuting a former president would intrude on the functions of the executive branch. So what you're saying is they've just created they didn't give Trump 100 percent victory. A 95 percent victory means that you've created so many gates and such a steep incline to try and make this case. You've presented effectively a 90 degree incline that you must roll the stone up to try and create a case against a president. That's a really good way of thinking

about it, right? You created a huge set of a huge obstacle course that a prosecutor has to surmount in order to bring a case against a former president for their official acts. And odds are that you won't. Really important question, Will, here, given the greater overall landscape that seems to be delivering W after W to Donald Trump. What happens if a current president is being prosecuted in an immunity case? Donald Trump is victorious. And what happens then, right, to this case? Where does it go? If Donald Trump prevails, at a minimum, all the prosecutions against him will be stated. They'll

be stopped because there's an OLC opinion that says the Department of Justice cannot prosecute a sitting president. And that's just a basic understanding of the fact that the Department of Justice reports to the president, so they can't prosecute their superior. That's not how our government functions. So if President Trump wins the election, you know, tack on every other delay, the fact that as long as he's president, DOJ can't do a thing to him. And there's a I think there's a reasonable chance that a DOJ under President Trump would simply announce that the prosecutions are shelved and there may be a way to just simply bury them outright and not allow them to continue. Yeah. I mean, we've heard speculation about that. What about going back into the

legal theory here? Is there any basis to say, yeah, a president can contest an election? Like, yeah, this happened here. Well, so the president, for example, one of the things I didn't get a chance to read the full opinion, right? I'm kind of reading the syllabus and extrapolating, but I did notice a section that dealt with, you know, a president is allowed to work with his attorney general to discuss prosecutions for election fraud, right? And that's within his power. That's an official act. He can't be prosecuted. And another thing that they said is you're not allowed to look at the president's motive when you do this analysis. So you're not allowed to say, well, he had improper motives.

He was doing it for his own personal political reasons. It doesn't matter. The question is, that's totally irrelevant. The question is whether or not, for the question of immunity, it's whether or not the power being exercised or the thing he was doing was itself an official act, was part of his job.

And if so, yes, then there's gonna be, at a minimum, presumptive immunity. So I think that, I don't think that really there's going to be at the end of, if for example, let's say, you know, God forbid, President Trump loses the election in November and this prosecution continues over the next three, four years. I think even at the end of all that, when you've sorted out all the immunity issues, there will be almost nothing left of this indictment. Wow. That's my guess. So completely atomized, completely eviscerated. Yeah. I mean, just from, again, from my quick skim of the kind of things that they're saying would be official acts and the kind of tests they're applying and how the court is thinking

about it, it suggests to me that the Jack Smith prosecution is basically dead in the war. Wow. Wow. OK, well, thank you for coming on and stating with such clarity what's truly happening here. The Article three project, obviously, you are all familiar with it. Make sure that you support the three project, the work that they're doing. They're changing the landscape of the country and also support Will, who has an awesome following himself and has landscape of the country and also support Will who has an awesome following himself and has some of the sharpest takes you could be careful around Will's takes you cut your finger on them because they're so they're good they're good right they're very clear-eyed and just like what we'd expect from the article three project godspeed uh will everyone go over their follow 333,000 followers come on come on baby three hundred and thirty three thousand followers. Come on. Come on, baby. On to a million.

Will Chamberlain, Godspeed, sir. Thank you. Donald Trump has weighed in. Donald Trump and his son have weighed in. Let's go, ladies and gentlemen, to truth social. Donald Trump's initial reaction here, exactly what we said off the top of the show, a massive win for Donald Trump. Our last guest, Will Chamberlain, just said it's a 95 percent win for Trump and that there is zero chance of this coming to trial, that this has effectively atomized. This is his words, atomized the Jack Smith prosecution. Donald Trump speaking for the first time. He's been quite quiet actually over the weekend. Big win for our constitution and democracy. I am proud to be an American, says Donald Trump. Donald Trump Jr. hopping in. Ladies and gentlemen, getting ready, throwing punches. Solid SCOTUS ruling today. I'm sure the corrupt prosecutors in D.C. and judges will work overtime to continue their lawfare. It's all they have

left. Who, baby, baby, we are rolling this morning. Everybody declaring absolute and total victory here. However, what about federal prosecutors, right? What about guys who made their bones and cut their teeth bringing federal prosecutions? What do they have to say about this? Well, our dear friend and former federal prosecutor, Brett Tolman, now executive director of Right on Crime, an incredible mind on these issues, joins the program now. Brett, thank you so much for being on the program. What a day, given your extensive experience and decades of prosecution for the federal government. Do you think the Supreme Court got it right here in the 6-3 decision? Yeah, I would say the Supreme Court got it right.

And it's a little heartbreaking to see three justices of the Supreme Court not joining this because the law is so established and the analysis that was used by the majority in this case is bulletproof. It's sound and it was reasonable. And what I mean by that, Benny, is it did not just simply grant immunity to Donald Trump. And it can't do that. That's not what the court does. The court is a court of final review and not one of first review. So what the court is in essence saying, here's your immunity. It's broad on constitutional authority and it is presumed on any official acts. That's such well-established law, Benny, that it's incredible, a win for the country. I think Donald Trump is right. It does root us back in

the Constitution. But how scary that three justices weren't able to reach that conclusion. And it tells you there's still politics in the Supreme Court. I apologize for putting you on the spot because I know this ruling came out 15, maybe 20 minutes ago. But have you read the dissent? Do you know what on earth? I assume this is the far left wing of Jackson, Sotomayor and Kagan. Am I correct there? Yes, it is. What could they possibly agree? Is the reasoning that that? So did they start off their dissent by saying that Barack Obama should go to Guantanamo Beach, be put in Guantanamo Bay for murdering an American teenager with a drone? Is that how the dissent started? Well, in essence, it is the unbelievable position,

especially coming from the left, that they want to rein in presidential immunity. They've never taken that position ever. In fact, they've taken the opposite position. But in the dissent here, what they're in essence trying to argue is that the unofficial, the official and unofficial acts where the majority draws a very big line, they want to engage in broadening what unofficial acts are. And so they want to strip immunity and broaden unofficial acts so that the president, for example, the Supreme Court said in the majority, him talking to the Department of Justice, which is a major part of Jack Smith's allegations that he was conspiring to pull down the election. Him talking to the Department of Justice is absolute immunity because it falls directly within his constitutional powers to have the conversation with his own branch, with his own branch, and he's the head of the executive, right? So the dissent doesn't want to recognize that.

And they don't want to recognize the breadth of it. And I think that's dangerous. It should apply as equal to a Democrat president as it does a Republican president. And right now, a lot of people are going to say on the left, Benny, they're going to say it's not as big a win as you think because the federal prosecutors can go back and now they have some guidance and now they'll be able to argue with a friendly judge which facts are unofficial and which are official. But that's not entirely true. The majority opinion indicated one thing that I don't think a lot of people are going to facts and then introduce evidence of what you think the president's motive was and then claim that those are unofficial acts on their face. So if he went out in the street and he got a gun and he shot somebody, that is obviously an unofficial act. We don't have those facts here. We have a president that has conversations that have been distorted. We have a president whose communications with

the vice president, the Department of Justice, with his own citizens, those have all been manipulated and distorted by Jack Smith. And so that distortion is okay when you have a judge and a jury, but the Supreme Court is saying, well, hold on, you have to actually analyze this according to our constitutional principles, because it's so important that we not allow for routine prosecution of the president, whether he, for, for acts that are official or constitutional. So I don't, this is so fascinating, Brett, like for, forgive me for, uh, just coming at this from a layman's, uh, community college graduates perspective, but isn't this minority report? Isn't this like, oh, we've seen what you wanted to do in your soul, right?

We've looked into your soul and we've divined through our magical powers what Donald Trump was thinking. Is that what they're arguing here? Yeah, it's a great point. What Jack Smith is attempting to do is to put his own interpretation of what Donald Trump did and put it into an indictment. Make it read like something conspiratorial. Make the public and your friendly judge and then potentially your jurors, make them actually read it in a way that implies guilt without ever having to do the analysis that the Supreme Court says should have been done. And that is to carefully analyze whether or not something the president

did while in office was unofficial or even whether it was directly under his constitutional authority. And if that's the case, immunity is absolute. If it's unofficial acts, it is presumed. And that is a heavy burden that the government has to overcome, but they were never required to overcome that. The judge just took and accepted, never required an analysis of whether or not it was an official or unofficial act. So what percentage of a win is this? more secure payments network, Visa provides scale expertise and innovative payment solutions. Learn more at visa.ca slash fintech. that the Supreme Court has now set as a threshold for prosecuting or proving that something is an unofficial act. Again, it seems like magical powers will be required to try and make these, to try and make these, to try and set up this fact pattern.

I think, I think an honest district court judge, a thoughtful district court judge, thoughtful district court judge, after reading this opinion, is going to have to have a very intense and thorough hearing where facts and evidence are presented to overcome the presumption of immunity. So the government has almost an entire new case they have to present. But Benny, I would say, certainly it's not 100% victory for Donald Trump, but I don't think realistically he or any of his team would have wanted, or they may have wanted, but I don't think they would have expected a 100% win,

meaning the Supreme Court says, we grant immunity, dismiss all the charges against him for any of his conduct. That was never going to happen. But it is a 90 or 95% of victory because especially, and I rate it that high, because let's look at one of the facts where the Supreme Court gave an opening to Jack Smith. He said when Donald Trump had the conversation, the court said when he had the conversation with Vice President Pence and he's telling him to reject the electors, that wasn't clearly under his constitutional authority. So it's not absolute immunity, but it might be official, but there are some aspects that may make it unofficial and the court needs to determine that.

And I say, if you understand that opening, but then look at what happened in the Fisher case, the evidence of his conversation to Vice President Pence was directly, was the direct evidence on the obstruction of an official proceeding. So when you read it in the context of their most recent decision in Fisher, where they absolutely gut the use of the obstruction angle that Jack Smith attempted to do, then you say, okay, even if it's an unofficial act and he doesn't have immunity and that evidence can be admitted against him, it goes to the obstruction case. And the Supreme Court already said, that's a case you cannot bring Jack Smith. So in that regard, that's why I rate it as high as I do, because both of those, both of those decisions when read together is an absolute bloodbath on, on the prosecution by DOJ.

That is such an interesting point. And because Fisher happened on Friday, we weren't able to properly digest everything for the show. We had a show built out around the debate and not around Fisher. And so can you please give us just a 35,000 foot perspective of how these two joined together to make this prosecution damn near impossible now? Yeah, absolutely. The 1512 angle, that's the statute that Jack Smith attempts to use. Two out of the four charges against Donald Trump are steeped in section 1512. What that is, is a very simple statute that said, if you destroy documents or you forge documents or you do any otherwise do something with documents in order to manipulate or to obstruct an official proceeding, then that is a potential crime and a potential felony that could be brought. But the Supreme Court said it's limited to those documents. It comes from the Enron case when individuals started burning and shredding all kinds of documentary evidence. So Congress said if you do that kind of stuff, and it's in response to an official proceeding, then that can be an additional crime. The Supreme Court said that does not apply outside of the illegal use or the unlawful use or destruction or manipulation of documents. So the Supreme Court basically gutted the most important charges in the four-count indictment that Jack Smith brought against the president. Now, when you overlay what they just

ruled on immunity, you have to start to feel like the room is just closing in on Jack Smith. And it should, because everyone on the left will scream, but they're not rooted in the law. They're not rooted in their constitutional separation of powers or constitutional protections. And those two decisions will go down in history as quite phenomenal and important going forward to slap any president, Republican or Democrat, that unleashes multiple attempts to prosecute their political opponent. So I see those two as a phenomenal bookends of preserving our constitution in a way that we were dangerously close to losing. That seems like such a such a remarkable generational win. Yes.

And for the next hundred years of the American Republic, if we can keep it. And so like what what an optimistic outlook. Final question for you really quickly here, because it does seem if we're talking optimism here, Brett, it does seem that a lot of things are going right right now. And if you were to believe the betting markets, the smart money is on Donald Trump winning and winning quite decisively on election night in twenty twenty four. Now, not to get ahead of ourselves, but hypothetically, what happens to these charges when Donald Trump becomes president again?

Yeah, it's a great question, Benny. And I've been thinking about this because I don't know if they will fizzle and they'll fall apart in sort of that transition from if Donald Trump wins. What does the Department of Justice do? I mean, remember, it is driven by bureaucrats. The administrative state is probably the most significant in the Department of Justice of any organization. So if there's a case to be pursued, I think they'll continue. They may be trying to get the judges that are ruling on these, try to get them to identify unofficial acts that evidence they can use, and they might continue to pursue them. But day one, day one, if Trump wins in 2025, that first day, the new incoming attorney general or the acting attorney general that is appointed by the president will dismiss those cases. There's no question in my mind. I would like to see that happen. I would like to see that dismissal happen instead of Donald Trump having to grapple with the decision on issuing clemency to himself.

I think that would be uncomfortable. I don't think he would really like to do that. I think he'd like to see it just go away. And if DOJ were authentic right now, if they were very thoughtful in their analysis after these two rulings, there would be a dismissal of the case in DC. Jack Smith would file a document. And in that document, it would say, in the interest of justice, the United States moves to dismiss the indictments against Donald Trump. That would be the only document that should be filed at this point after the rulings by the Supreme Court. Incredible. Just a very quick follow up there. You believe that day, the 2025 inauguration, January 2020,, 25, that, that first, first act, these are gone.

These two, yep. The two federal cases should be dismissed. You know, I don't know what's going to, Florida is very interesting because it's certainly, there is certain, certainly enough conduct that they've alleged outside of when he was president, but there are acts that occurred while he was president relative to the classified documents that do seem to suggest that they may have to, you know, grapple with immunity, some portion of it, at least in that case as well. But yes, both cases, day one should be dismissed immediately. And then, you know, he can't pardon himself for a state crime conviction, but certainly he would have time to, you know, pursue the appeals, let the Supreme Court analyze

the heaping pile of trash that was the Alvin Bragg's case. And then, you know, Fannie Willis's case should fall apart. You know, it's more akin when you're a kid and you tried to find Legos to build something, but they didn't quite fit. Let it fall apart because they don't fit and it doesn't function. Something that does function quite beautifully and something that is really taking the country by storm

is Right on Crime, Brett's group. It is a wonderful group, Brett's group. It is a wonderful group. And it's so important right now to look at our judiciary and to look at the power there and to support the people that are fighting to ensure that we have constitutionalist, clear-eyed judges. And you can see the results of that today. Please go and support Brett's group. Support Brett by following on X for more razor sharp takes here. And Brett,

thank you so much. Running with the stampede. I love that. I love that X header right there. You have the wind at your back, sir. Thank you. Thank you, Benny, for everything you do and the voice you are right now. Very important. Godspeed, sir. Thank you. The stampede, ladies and gentlemen, the chariots are rolling, the horses are running, the cavalry is here. There's been a man who for decades actually has been at the lead of that cavalry long before, long before it was actually popular to do so. A man who actually, ironically, and I say this as a term of endearment, was slapped down on a presidential immunity case against Bill Clinton in a very creepy sock drawer challenge about Bill Clinton's files that he kept inside of a filthy sock drawer that if you, you know,

hit it with a ultraviolet light, man, you'd go blind. So what do we have here? We have the great Tom Fitton from Judicial Watch with the blinding truth on the program live now. Tom, I can't help myself with the sock drawer stuff. I can't. As soon as I read about all that, I didn't know about it until a couple of years ago. I just can't help myself. You're the only guy that has the cojones to go after Bill Clinton's sock drawer, and you lost on immunity. Even worse, what else was in the sock drawer? Yeah. Asking the tough questions. Tom, I'm correct that you lost that on an immunity ground. Yeah, kind of an immunity ground. The court said, what are we going to do?

Raid the former president's home for records? Yes. That's what the court said in defending Bill. And of course, the Justice Department agreed at the time and didn't want us to get the records either. So, of course, things went 180, right? When Trump came in and they ignored their own prior practice, that key precedent, and raided Trump on, which also may suffer a significant setback based on today's ruling. Because did the President Trump make those decisions to take those documents as president? Wasn't that an official act? The delineation of his presidential records?

He thinks yes. Of course. So let's jump into that. I mean, this must be you got a judicial watch. You might I don't see any pop champagne bottles or confetti yet. But what an incredible vindication over the last couple of releases from the Supreme Court. Today, you must be whistling Dixie. You know, it's kind of a vindication, not of Trump, but really of the Constitution. Yes.

If the president has immunity while he's in office, how could he not have immunity the day after he leaves office for official acts? And who's going to prosecute him even if he didn't have immunity? The next president? Why would that immunity only begin or why would that immunity even happen during his presidency? You know, they say he has immunity while he's in office. Well, why? And the Supreme Court said, why? And said it doesn't end after he leaves office because to let it end after he leaves office essentially guts the whole idea. And so the deep state can't engage in a decision against a sitting president or wait until he leaves office to retaliate against him, which is what's happened with Trump. Now, is it going to stop everything that's happening against Trump? Probably not. They're fanatics going after Trump. This is why they've lost at the Supreme Court not once but twice on key issues. Three issues, actually, now,

when you consider the crazy effort to keep him off the ballot. So they're going to go back before Judge Chutkin and try to argue down in Miami before Judge Cannon. Oh, well, these weren't really official acts that he did. And, you know, the court said we could look at his tweets. And we can't imagine why a president of the United States would have any interest in a federal election being run well and the accurate results being vindicated by Congress through the elector system set up under the Constitution. That can't be official. So they're going to try to run those silly arguments. I'm sure Judge Shepson is going to buy some of them and it will be back up before the court before you know it. So they'll continue to harass him, but it's a major victory. When these people came in and said it wasn't, you could be prosecuted as a president over

your discussions with your vice president, over your discussions as to who to pick as attorney general, it's insanity. Why is anyone surprised the Supreme Court ruled this way? What do you say to the three justices in the far left wing of the Supreme Court that seemingly attempted or wished to gut all presidential immunity today? I hear that decision is. I'm wiping away my tears. I hear that dissent is unhinged and that they're effectively arguing that Barack Obama should go to Gitmo for nuking an American teenager with a drone.

But of course, they know that's never going to be the case. This was an anti-Trump decision. They don't want to uniformly apply it. It's clear because the logic of it is, as you say, Benny, Biden can be prosecuted for all of his acts related to the border. Obama can be prosecuted for his addition against Trump and his spying on Trump. And they don't believe that, obviously. But they're pretending Trump is the worst. So they're willing to blow up our constitutional structure of government to, to get Trump. And, and that's what this is about. This is the, you know,

the left always says, you remember up in New York, the governor said after that crazy half billion dollar fine by the, the Democrat Gorin up there, the judge, she reassured businesses. Oh no, this is only about Trump. Yes. And so that's how you have to read this vision. How dare you give Trump a get out of jail free card? Because, you know, we don't think he deserves it. Other presidents might, but not him. Something that is really important that you brought up that we haven't discussed yet or or or really investigated is the application to the documents case. And since you brought it up, I'd love to have you expand on that. How does this apply to the raid on Donald Trump and to the documents case that is ongoing in Florida?

Seemingly not going well, according to every report that we've got. But nonetheless, the government pushes forward. How does this apply to Donald Trump and his handling of his own documents post-presidency? His decision to keep records as presidential versus personal are quintessential official acts, and they were done when he was president that's what was alleged seemingly in the indictment if i recall correctly so i don't know how that withstands scrutiny under this new decision but i'm sure there'll be lots of arguments about it and of course the fannie willa phyllis fannie willis case to the degree it's on life support is you you know, they're, they're, they're turning off the, they're withdrawing the feeding tubes now.

Uh, so yeah, we, we see the, the, a state of complete collapse. The, um, uh, the proposition that was, that has been floated now twice is that day one of a Donald Trump administration, that these charges either get shelved because you can't prosecute a sitting president. So constitutionally, they just go away or that an attorney general dismisses them outright. Your speculation on what happens day one of a Trump, a new Trump term as president? Well, I hope whoever is the acting AG at the time immediately dismisses any pending cases. And if I were President Trump, and I would appoint a special prosecutor to investigate this whole targeting of him and other innocent Americans in retaliation for the exercise of his First Amendment and the First Amendment rights of other Americans.

And this special prosecutor should not be part of the Justice Department. It should be separate and apart. I'd run it out of Florida if I were him or base him in Florida. That's where Trump lived and that's where he was victimized. And investigate the investigators. Investigate the Justice Department's abuse of power here. Investigate their collusion with Fannie Willis. Investigate Letitia James. All of these folks abused their powers, in my view, to deprive Trump of his civil rights under the color of law. And in the least, there needs to be an investigation there. Ladies and gentlemen, the great Tom Fitton of Judicial Watch, somebody who I know has the president's ear, somebody who I think Donald Trump just gave a address to your group at Mar-a-Lago

over the weekend. And hopefully he listens to your advice on this issue, because I'd love to see that happen. Tom Fitton, everybody go ahead and follow Tom. Obviously, millions and millions of Americans can't be wrong. Patriot and a man who scares the left probably more than anyone in Washington, D.C., currently in Washington, D.C. right now. Tom, thank you. Thank you, buddy. Appreciate it. Godspeed. We ain't done yet, baby. We ain't done yet. And by the way, your screen, if you did see, this is just what happens when you're live. Of course, we are always live on these important issues. And we're live within five minutes of this decision being handed down. We take that as a point of pride for the show. Tom's screen did freeze there. There was nothing

wrong with your phone. Sometimes that just sometimes that happens. His audio, though, my producers are telling me that his audio sounded good. So you could at least hear Tom, but his shot did freeze. Nonetheless, Tom Fitton, just an incredible just incredible slate of legal experts. So to to Donald Trump is now speaking to Fox News. We wanted to jump. We wanted to jump to Trump in a official statement directly to Fox News. He had a one line statement on Truth Social saying that this is a massive win for democracy and America. Here's Donald Trump's more thought through and robust and muscular statement to Fox seconds ago. Take on the other side. Former President Trump said, I have been harassed by the Democrat Party, Joe Biden, Obama and their

thugs, fascists and communists for years. And now the courts have spoken. This is a big win for our Constitution and for democracy. Now I am free to campaign like anyone else. We are leading in every poll by a lot and we will make America great again. OK. All right. Well, ladies and gentlemen, Donald Trump, um, sounding off again, a breaking news environment, uh, a quick recap of what we've discovered on our show here with three legal experts. And we will be joined shortly by a surrogate for Donald Trump on all of this surrogate who was at the debates, a surrogate who is, um, uh, as energetic as they come the great Wesley hunt congressman from Texas, uh, ladies and gentlemen., the great Wesley Hunt, congressman from Texas.

Ladies and gentlemen, so the update is that if you were to consolidate the three legal experts that we've had, Brett Tolman, Tom Fitton, and Will Chamberlain on the show so far, they've said that this is a demonstrable win for Donald Trump, that Donald Trump has gotten 95% of what he asked for here, that the threshold for the government to now roll these, consider this prosecution a boulder. And what is the path towards the top of the mountain? The top towards the path to the, towards the top of the mountain, uh, has just been, uh, steepened to 90 degrees by the Supreme court, uh, with various other boulders to come crashing down on you as you try to roll the stone. The best metaphor that we can give you, the Supreme court has now put, uh, a obstacle course that seem seemingly according to experts is insurmountable to get a court to agree with the idea, Joe Biden, the idea, the idea, the idea that speaking to your vice president or speaking to your Department of Justice is somehow not an official act. And a president can be criminally prosecuted for speaking to his vice president, for being in front of the White House with a presidential seal

and saying march peacefully and patriotically? No. No, ladies and gentlemen. This is what has happened at the Supreme Court. Of course, the three lunatic Marxists on the left decided not to join with the majority here in an insane ruling that should tell you everything about why we need to vote for Donald Trump in November. Because if like what happens if the Supreme Court gets staffed further with sociopaths like Kagan and Jackson and Sotomayor, Sotomayor like and so do my or so do my or like seeming seemingly like can't can't even breathe unaided like she is so unbelievably stupid such an unbelievably low iq and dumb individual so to my or like if you listen to these questions and we've done a couple of shows where we we listen to the questions that the supreme court asks like what like what is with this lady? Like she, she is a truly actually dumb, like truly low,

like smooth brained. Uh, anyway, if you don't want justices like that, if you want actual wise justices, uh, then please, please, uh, know that you must vote for Donald Trump and Donald Trump's justices delivering and decisions like this, obviously disappointing and other decisions, but that is the way of life. Okay. You're never going to get 100 percent of what you want. Jonathan Turley, one of our favorite legal experts, sounding off on Fox News on this issue, stating definitively what a victory for Donald Trump this is. Yeah, I'm reading through this opinion. I can't see how this doesn't induce cardiac arrest with the special counsel. At one point in the opinion, they say, look, this is a quote, the indictment's allegations

that Trump attempted to pressure the vice president to take particular acts in connection with his role with the certification proceeding thus involve official conduct. And Trump is at least presumptively immune from prosecution for such conduct. The court then goes on to say that the burden, of course, is on Jack Smith. He has to show that this does not pose any intrusions into the executive branch. And the court says that this, quote, may well hinder the president's ability to perform his constitutional functions. So here the court is imposing a very significant burden on Jack Smith when this goes back to the judge. We talked about how this trial judge has proven to be very favorable towards Jack Smith. She's certainly been motivated to try to get a trial before the election.

But the court here is giving much more clear lines than some people expected. They're saying that there is a presumption here that you have to deal with. The burden is high. And the court indicates that it may view this as something that could hinder a president's authority. Trey, the Biden campaign clearly is indicating that they think this is a loss, at least in the way they wrote that statement that Dana read. I want to just read for one second about the dissent from Justice Sotomayor, who writes the dissent with Kagan and Jackson. Today's decision to grant former presidents criminal immunity reshapes the institution of the presidency. It makes a mockery of the principle foundational to our constitution and system of government

that no man is above the law. Whatever happens, as you read through this decision, it does expand the power of the executive. It is pretty consequential if we look at it big picture, Trey. Well, I always think it was consequential. I mean, who else has plenary pardon power? Who else can order the killing of an American citizen overseas? It's always been the president. So presidents have always enjoyed powers that the rest of us do not. I read that dissent as just, they must not have read the majority opinion because the majority opinion is pretty simple. Unofficial acts have no immunity at all. Official acts, there is a, there is immunity. We're going to presume that it was official

and- So, cutoff point there for the clip, but it is what it is. We are live ladies and gentlemen, and we are rolling. Uh, we are going to be joined by Wesley Hunt in just one moment. Uh, we do have official statements from one of our favorite commentators who is, uh, right in front of the Supreme court, Mike Davis. Um, guys, have we efforted Mike? Let's just see. Let's just see. Let's just do our, our best to get Mike on the, either on the phone or on, uh, or on camera. Um, again, Mike is in front of the Supreme court. I want to put up Mike statement on this. You all know Mike Davis. We have been rolling with Mike for years on this program. My statement on the Supreme Court presidential immunity decision. The great Mike Davis potentially joining us on the show. Our

producers are efforting live right now. We've had Will Chamberlain of the Article 3 Project, Mike's group on. The Supreme Court of the United States followed a 40 year old precedent and correctly ruled the president United States. president, is immune from criminal prosecution for his official, not personal, acts. Federal judges and members of Congress are immune from criminal prosecution for their official acts. The Supreme Court today made clear, and so is the president. This is a critical decision to protect the separation of powers of the presidency and therefore our country. We would not be here today but for the fact that President Biden politicized and weaponized his Justice Department to destroy his political enemy. The Supreme Court rebuked Biden's republic-ending tactics. No longer does

President Obama have to fear imprisonment for his drone strikes of two American citizens, nor does Biden for his illegal release of violent criminal migrants into America, although maybe he should. The Supreme Court is our line of defense against tyranny, including Biden's unprecedented lawfare and election interference against Trump. Supreme Court has delivered one of the most monumental decisions in its history that linked with the Fisher decision is such an important moment, as was talked about by Brett Tolman. So now between those two decisions, the Fisher decision on Friday and this decision today on presidential immunity, you have atomized Jack Smith. Jonathan Turley, they're saying that there's cardiac arrest going on in the special counsel's

office. They're over and now they're watching a presidential election that is spiraling into into Donald Trump's lap, looking more and more like a hundred point electoral victory romp on election night decided at 9 p.m. This is going to be a wild next couple of months, ladies and gentlemen. Here we go. Mike Davis talking in front of the Supreme Court. This is on Real america's voice uh ladies and gentlemen but mike saying effectively uh effectively this and we love hearing mike's voice in these moments here we go three liberal justices put their partisan politics and their trump derangement above their most important job which is to follow the constitution and part of following the constitution is protecting the presidency and therefore our country.

Do these liberal justices think that the Trump 47 Justice Department should prosecute President Obama for his extrajudicial drone strike on two American citizens? Do these three liberal justices think that the Trump 47 Justice Department should prosecute President Biden for the migrant crime that he caused with his illegal mass parole of over 10 million illegal immigrants? Do these three liberal justices think, well, they probably do. They think that the Trump 47 Justice Department should prosecute President George W. Bush for lying about weapons of mass destruction and the hundreds of thousands of deaths. these three liberal justices are a disgrace for ruling the way that they did they are just purely partisan hey hang on mike stay right there because i'm gonna come back about absolute versus limited

uh immunity stay right there we have senator rand paul joins us now senator paul before i get to tony fauci uh i got it three liberal jobsliberal justice. Whoops. Ladies and gentlemen. Okay. Again, we are live. It is an important day. There's so much happening. Steve Bannon is reporting to prison today as a political prisoner. We have some remarkable footage from that and we'll cover that in just a moment. Again, we wish to speak with the great Wesley Hunt, a member of Congress from Texas, in just a moment about the Supreme Court decision as Wesley Hunt is a spokesperson for Donald Trump. And we will ask about Steve Bannon, who is, again, reporting to prison this morning. Judge Jeanine on this decision, I think an important voice in all of this. Judge Jeanine on Fox News talking about

what this means for Donald Trump. Judge Jeanine Pirro, she's here with us as well in studio and great to have you as well. I love watching lawyers take notes. I used to watch Andy do it during impeachment. I'm always like, what are they writing down that I need to know? You know, first of all, Dana, what is so important about this is there is nothing about immunity in the Constitution or in federal statutes. So we've had to rely for a couple of centuries on how the courts interpret this. So this is, in a sense, as Gorsuch said, a decision for the ages. But obviously, the immediate impact of this is clearly to slow down Jack Smith. Not that that was their intent, but the effect is that. And the idea that prosecutors

who may have another agenda want to go and indict a president or an ex-president for actions while he was president. This this court is basically saying there is presumptive immunity. They, of course, mention absolute immunity. But right now, within this case, there is presumptive immunity. And so it will go back to the district court as to whether or not the official act, what it is specifically, and it will slow the whole thing down. But I think Elena Haba is right. I think that there are a lot of issues even before we get to that.

And also, if you recognize the Supreme Court decision, it downgraded some of the obstruction charges regarding the rioters. And so I think that impacts some of the charges against the president as well. So that's been watered down in this indictment against the president. So I think Jack Smith has been hurt by this. But more important is the fact that there is a confirmation that there is absolute immunity as well. There should be when there is an official act of the president. So, again, what we are hearing across the spectrum of really smart people, smarter than us, right? Who study this stuff and who do this every single day is that this is an absolute and total win for Donald Trump. But this charge that Jack Smith has in Washington, D.C. might as well have been

completely and totally atomized and eviscerated today. Brett Tolman going as far as to say that the Department of Justice should just drop these charges. Now, the Department of Justice should just say, you know what? If in the interest of justice, we are now dismissal. We are pushing for dismissal of this. And oh, baby, that would be a that would be a 24 seven wall to wall daylight special. And we would love to cover it. What will happen when Donald Trump wins an election victory? How does Donald Trump get to an election victory in November. Joining us now, a strong surrogate for the Trump team, somebody who has been banging the drum, let's just say, across the country on stage with Donald Trump, speaking with Donald Trump, traveling with Donald Trump, and who is a very strong

surrogate for the president. The great Wesley Hunt, congressman from Texas, joins the show live now. Okay, so I don't see any champagne bottles that have been emptied. I see no confetti yet in your shot, Wesley. I'm not saying that you're allowed to pop champagne during this interview. I already did, Benny. Already did. Okay. All right. Great. We love it when the interviewer is already... It's everywhere. We love it when the guest is already lubed up and ready to go and loose and ready to rock. And so you've got to be loose this morning. I mean, you've got to be celebrating because this just seems to be another absolute W for the president.

Oh, absolutely. This absolutely cripples Jack Smith's argument. Today is a very great day for President Trump. It's a very great day for our cause. And look, the courts ruled in favor of the country. They ruled in favor of America. This is really a no-brainer. I mean, of course, presidents have immunity. They've had immunity in the past. And now what they've done is they've codified it for the future, regardless of who's president. And what I would have thought, if this would have gone a different way, I would have thought that Barack Obama and George Bush and the rest of them would have been, and Bill Clinton of all people, would have been freaking out. I mean, could you imagine being a former president and then the country gets to go, and then the DOJ and the country gets to go after you for past decisions that you made while you were the current president? The only reason why this is happening is because President Trump came

back and he ran for president again, and they didn't see this coming. And what they tried to do was throw him in jail for all of this erroneous charges against him. And then now today was a victory for America. And then I also want people to know this. This is why you always have to keep faith in this country. We will get it right. It may be tough. It may be rough. We may have to have a lot of conversations here,

maybe some rough conversations. But at the end of the day, the Supreme Court got it right. And I thank God that President Trump appointed those three conservative judges in 2016 through 2020 during his presidency to ensure this victory. Again, this is a great day for us. On to November. And now President Trump gets to get back on the campaign trail without worrying about all this garbage. This is really important for you because you're a member of Congress. And presumably you'll be a member of Congress for as long as you you because you're a member of Congress and presumably

you'll be a member of Congress for as long as you wish, a very popular member of Congress. But this covers immunity for your official acts as well, right? Like presumably if the president doesn't have immunity for official acts, as the three left wing judges tried to argue, then you wouldn't have any immunity and somebody could just sue you for anything, right? Like any Palestinian protester could sue you for walking down the hallway, right? And crossing their path. That's absolutely correct. And we have to be able to make decisions and operate in the best interest of this country. That's what we were elected to do, Benny.

And by the way, we're not trying to skirt justice. We're not trying to obfuscate the law. We are trying to do the right thing by the American people. And the idea that you would put us in this position and then take that right away from us is absolutely absurd. It's actually what separates us from every other country in the world. We are a constitutional republic, and that constitutional republic must be preserved. This doesn't happen in other countries. Other countries have dictators. Other countries go after their political opponents before and

after they even running against them. We have got to preserve that. We've got to protect that in this country and the Supreme court got it right. Benny. So speaking of getting it right, I know that you were with the president in Atlanta. I know that you have been a surrogate for the president on the trail. Again, I guess I hearken back to the, are you sick of winning? You're going to get so sick of winning. You're going to get so sick of winning, but it doesn't seem like there have been some huge W's over the last couple of days. Tell me about Atlanta.

What was it like there? What was it like in the green room? What was it like spinning on behalf of Donald Trump? And of course, your takeaway from the debate since you were there. You know, this is to back kind of to your point. This has been one hell of a week for President Trump and one hell of a week for our movement. This lawfare against President Trump is falling apart. Joe Biden's debate performance was a complete and utter abomination. The Chevron decision that came down this week. Now this decision, what a week for President Trump. But I was in Atlanta at a watch party. I actually was not in the green room, but I was there. We were all watching what Joe

Biden did. The Democrats have been lying to us for the past four years. This man cannot operate as a president, and we put it on full display. And thank God that President Trump had the guts to even accept this thing. Imagine Joe Biden doing a Fox-run debate in the heart of Texas, in the heart of a red state, in the heart of a red city, and walking into the lion's den and performing this way. No one would ever expect President Trump to do as well as he did under those circumstances. And he absolutely knocked it out the park. And now there is a clear contrast between who the president should be here in November. And unfortunately, they only have four more months left. It's going to be very hard to replace this guy.

And we all saw that President Trump is going to do very, very well in November. I saw some polling after the debate. And I mean, the shift is unbelievable. We have never seen an incumbent president polling this bad and worse than President Trump in modern history. Again, man, I am so ecstatic. I'm so proud of what we're going to do in the next few months to drive this thing home. And the world saw who's running our country, and we know it cannot be that guy. So if you were at a watch park, I just want to, because this was such a remarkable moment. These are moments you just, you never get again.

And I know you're a military man. I know you're an athlete. I liken this to like missing the field goal at the end of the game in the Super Bowl, right? And you have a 30 yard field goal and you just, you shank it. And a hundred million people are watching and you'll never get that back, right?

You'll live with that forever if you're that kicker. And so if you're striking out of the bottom this is joe biden's moment and i wanted to get just your to relive your reaction to a single moment okay a single moment i don't i know we don't have a ton of time but a single moment i want to play for you just really quickly and to get your reaction since you were there in Atlanta with the president. Let's go. Not the right way to go. What I've done since I've changed the law, what's happened? I've changed it in a way that now you're in a situation where there are 40% fewer people coming across the border illegally. That's better than when he left office. And I'm going to continue to move until we get the total ban on the total initiative relative to what we're going to

do with more border patrol and more asylum officers. President Trump? I really don't know what he said at the end of this. I don't think he knows what he said either. Look. What was your reaction when you saw that? That was the highlight. That was the highlight of the whole thing. He just basically just killed him with that one shot. We live here in Texas. We know we've had 11 million people enter this country illegally. We know with one stroke of a pen, Joe Biden destroyed President Trump's policies that kept Americans safer. We had a protected border. And then now we have animals entering our country. People are dying. And this man is going to stand on stage and tell a bold-faced lie to the American public as if we weren't living it. Another thing that stuck out to me was this,

though. When Joe Biden said that no American soldiers died under his watch for the first president in modern history, that's a bold-faced lie. Because I watched those 13 brave Americans die in Afghanistan, and then I watched them return home, and I watched this man stand on the tarmac and check his watch repeatedly as if he had somewhere else to be. And then he's still on Afghanistan, and then I watched him return home, and I watched this man stand on the tarmac and check his watch repeatedly as if he had somewhere else to be. And then he's still on that stage and told that bold-faced lie as a combat veteran, as a military man, that completely disgusted me. And when he made that comment, actually, I was in the room. You should have heard the groans. Everyone knew immediately, like, this guy doesn't even have any idea what happened three, two, three, four years ago.

It's absolutely ridiculous. But that shot right there, what you just played, was the end of a Biden presidency. So I would like to just explore that for just a quick second. Because we're seeing on our social media feeds a lot of gold star families that became gold star families during the Biden administration popping off and being like, what are you talking about? You skipped our dignified transfer. My husband died, for instance, during your administration. And Joe Biden doesn't recognize that. Isn't that the most sovereign duty of a commander in chief? It most certainly is. Also, what these Gold Star families know is that their

loved ones will still be alive for President Trump or in office. Because keep in mind, in the last 18 months of his presidency, not a single life was lost in Afghanistan because we had strong leadership. And these Gold Star families were completely disgraced last night, a few nights ago, based on those comments. How could you possibly forget the fallen? We always remember the fallen. And what President Trump often do when someone was lost, he would call their families. He would show compassion. He would be with the families because that is the American champ. That is the soldier's champ. And when Joe Biden was talking about how no one, the people in the military don't like him, the people in the military don't respect him. What a bunch of crap. Have you seen President Trump's reception when he's around first responders and military people juxtaposed to how Biden is received? If he even goes to any of the events at all, again, lying. The left is saying that President Trump was lying during the debate. I don't know what he was lying about because Joe Biden was lying the entire time.

And sadly enough, he didn't even know he was lying because he really has no idea where he is. So as you are on the campaign trail and you appear regularly with Donald Trump, and I'm sure you have a lot of plans. I assume you'll be speaking at the RNC in a couple of weeks. What is the path forward through November 5? The path forward is this. We have to continue to expose Joe Biden and his administration for what it is. It is an absolute and complete disgrace. We cannot rest on our laurels. We cannot rest on that moment. We have to keep pushing and keep driving to November. Byron Donalds and I were both in Atlanta doing multiple events in the Black community, and they were very well received, contrary to what the corrupt left's media would actually say. We have got to get Black voters to the polls. We are polling at record highs for a

Republican president. But polling is one thing. We've got to get these people out to vote. And that's exactly what I intend on doing. Keep driving this message home. And you were right. We are coming up here on the convention. It's going to be a great day for us. President Trump will be the official man for the job. And at that point, we got to keep on pushing.

We got to keep on going. We can't rest on our laurels. Keep driving the point home with a binary decision. Either you want a geriatric patient or you want President Trump to come back and save this country. It really is that simple, Benny. And you know it and I know it. I don't think I would ever say this on this program, Congressman. But I want to take this official opportunity to thank Hunter Biden. Because according to reports, Hunter Biden is the one who convinced Joe Biden to stay in the race. And so Hunter is the smartest guy he knows. So well done. They were apparently having a little family conference this weekend,

and Joe Biden is sticking with it. So here we go. Buckle up. Here we go. And Hunter Biden needs his dad to stand because eventually he's going to need his dad to pardon him at the end of the day. So it's definitely selfish. Yeah. Well, we know you sit on a number of committees, Congressman. We look forward to the continuation of these investigations, the increasing in your majority in the House and victory in November. And we say, Godspeed. You're one of the most energetic voices. You always give us a little extra pep in our step when you're on the program.

Two hundred and ten thousand Americans. Can't be wrong. Go ahead and follow the congressman and keep up with his incredible travels and some really great family photos, actually. Thank you, baby. Yeah, that, actually. Thank you, baby. Yeah, that's right. Thank you.

Godspeed, Congressman. Enjoy your Fourth of July. This is the holiday for this nation. What a great week to have after the victory that we had last week to actually celebrate this country and celebrate our Independence Day. Yes, that's exactly correct. Happy Fourth of July. Thank you for your service, service. Thank you, brother. All right, ladies and gentlemen, we are rocking and we are rolling here on the program. We have

some, uh, we have some salt for you, uh, that has been gathered by our intrepid producers. Executive producer ALX has found some giant, giant rock salt from MSNBC. MSNBC reacting to these decisions. I'm not sure if we are ready with our salt, but ladies and gentlemen, I see salt shakers pouring through the comment section section and we would never, ever deny you an opportunity to pour your salt on these libs. So here we go. Let's go. We got back to back clips here from MSNBC. And these are going to be MSNBC initially reacting to the decision and saying that Clarence Thomas is Donald Trump. And then we have MSNBC analysts arguing that this decision will allow presidents

to order assassinations. Oh, OK. So they're having a real one on MSNBC. Let's play these back to back. Yeah. All right. Get your salt flowing. We'll put up your salty, salty comments live on screen. But whoo, baby, the libs having a real one. Libs are not doing well. Everybody check their meds. Everybody, you know, therapy couches are filling up around the country. Here we go. Let's salt these lips. Opinion, because the words used sound very Trump like. In this case, there has been much discussion about ensuring that

a president is not above the law. But as the court explains, a president's immunity from prosecution for his official acts is the law. The Constitution provides for an energetic executive because such an executive is essential to the security of liberty. I say that sounds Trumpy because Trump always calls himself energetic and he's got the stamina and he's got the force of will and he's got the the the energy. I'm going to say that again. To be president of the United States, it's a way that he's contrasted himself against many candidates. So what he's trying to do right now with with president. This decision today makes it so imperative that the person who holds the office understand

the limits on and exercises those powers with restraint. Because the thing that is not dealt with here is the hypothetical that was dealt with in the Court of Appeals about SEAL Team 6. And it is unclear how they actually studiously avoid dealing with that because you could make the argument that that is official conduct at the very least. Presumably, how would you make that argument? You'd sit there and say, I have determined as commander in chief that this is necessary. And the way that Judge Pan in the lower court phrased it was, what if the president decides that a political adversary is a threat to democracy and orders

the killing? And why isn't that now an official act with a presumption of immunity? And you don't remember, you don't look at motive. You can't consider that he's doing it to get rid of his adversary. I want to bring in Melissa Murray, but Chuck, you're- Okay, baby. So salty. Oh, Andrew Weissman. Oh, Andrew Weissman. What a sleazeball, that guy. What a rat. Man, that guy's- He's the guy who led the Mueller investigation, right? He's the guy who dragged that thing out. Andrew Wiseman is such scum. It's so great to see him in a panic over all of this. The panic is delicious.

The salt, it fills our cup. And again, we are ramping up to July 4th. So it's just so unbelievably delicious. What does fill our cup? Well, what used to fill our cup this morning, it's all dry to full cups of our wonderful Blackout Coffee. Ladies and gentlemen, that keeps us going, lets us go rip-roar during these live breaking news environments, allows us the energy to fight the left and to fight the corporate press. Our Black coffee uh here from our brigade mug you should totally check these out these are amazing tank shells right here uh blackout coffee black is the

way that i take it uh fills our cup and the reason why is because well one they're an incredible american company that actually makes their product here family owned christian and conservative company that also does not ever compromise on taste and quality. They will never, ever sell out. They're not grifters. They're not trying to betray you like other coffee companies or like tractor supply or whatever. They are for real. Ladies and gentlemen, please support them by going to blackoutcoffee.com slash Benny. Use the coupon code Benny for 20% off your first order. Blackoutcoffee.com slash Benny. Be awake, not woke.

All right, baby. Someone who can't, someone who's not awake is Joe Biden. Let's just go quickly through the news here. Again, we, you know, you never know with these things, but we had a pre-planned show all around this breaking news with immunity at the Supreme Court. It's nice to see it hit, baby. It's nice to see it hit, baby. It's nice to see it hit. Something that's hitting Joe Biden. I'm not sure if he's

cognizant enough to actually know, but 72% of Americans say that Joe Biden needs to drop out. This according to CBS. Increasing number of voters don't think Biden should be running after a debate. Oh baby, it's getting bad. Look at that. Does Biden have the mental cognitive ability to serve as resident? 72% say they do not. He does not. Now that was at 65% and now it's just jumped. Ooh, baby. Only 20% of America says that Joe Biden has the cognitive capacity. This is a clip that was all over our social media this weekend to just show you the visual evidence of Biden's decline. Let's go. I continue to think we have to make fundamental changes in civil rights. And those civil rights, by the way, include not just only African Americans, but the LGBT community.

He wants to get rid of the ability of Medicare for the ability to... I did not oppose busing in America. What I opposed is busing ordered by the Department of Education. That's what I opposed. Making sure that we're able to make every single solitary person eligible for what I've been able to do with the COVID, excuse me, with dealing with everything we have to do with. Look, if. You will determine the outcome of this election, vote, vote, vote. If you're able to vote early in your state, vote early.

If you're able to vote in person, vote in person. Vote whatever way is the best way for you, because you will. He cannot stop you. And I'm going to continue to move until we get the total ban on the total initiative relative to what we're going to do with more border patrol and more asylum officers. President Trump? I really don't know what he said at the end of this. I don't think he knows what he said either. Look, this is my favorite. That was my favorite from the debate. What was your favorite line from the

debate? Another Trump banger was when Trump laughed out loud about Joe Biden's golf handicap. And then when Joe Biden says he we finally beat Medicare and Donald Trump's like, yeah, you beat Medicare, you beat it to death. These are good lines. But Donald Trump didn't need to body Joe Biden. Right. Like Donald Trump. I think many, many of the people who were helping Donald Trump prepare for this debate were on our show. Laura Trump, of course, being one of the Trump family members were on our show saying, listen, the point of this debate is to be presidential. It's not to like bloody Joe Biden into a pulp that looks like elder abuse. Let's let Jill Biden be the elder abuser. And also let's let the

corporate press be the elder abuser. Joe Biden receiving nothing, just complete disrespect this weekend, much deserved disrespect from the corporate media of all places. It seems like they have caught up to what we've been reporting for a long time. That's of course a lie. The corporate media simply have been trying to hide Joe Biden's state from you. They've known Joe Biden's state for a long time. Hunter Biden has text messages from 2008 saying that his dad has dementia. We've covered him on the show time and time again. We seem to be the only people like that care about this piece of government evidence. But we cover them on the show time and time again. Hunter Biden saying,

yeah, my dad has dementia. He said it in his own text messages to a physician in the family. government evidence, but we cover them on the show time and time again. Hunter Biden saying, yeah, my dad has dementia. He said it in his own text messages to a physician in the family. This was in 2008. Tucker Carlson also up with a with a banger of a tweet this morning from his sources. I guess we'll pull that up. But here we go. National polls. Look at this. Look at the savagery of the national polls here. Here's Face the Nation. We begin this morning with reaction to the first presidential debate of 2024. Our polling unit asked voters how they view the candidates now, including their cognitive health. The results are not encouraging for the president. The number of voters who say President Biden has the cognitive ability to serve has dropped from 35 percent earlier this month to 27 percent after the debate. That's the lowest number since CBS began asking voters that question last September.

Nearly three quarters of all registered voters now say he shouldn't be running, and nearly half of Democrats say he shouldn't remain the. And nearly half of Democrats say he shouldn't remain the nominee, an extraordinary number for an incumbent who didn't face a competitive primary. Okay, ladies and gentlemen, must have been a strange audio glitch there in that clip as the audio cut out. But well, speaking of cutting, a absolute gangland shanking occurred of Joe Biden on his favorite show that is the king of DC Sunday morning shows, the much lauded legendary meet the press, uh, took a hammer to Joe Biden, a shit, a shank, a prison shank to Joe Biden, metaphorically. And, um, I mean, I don't even, I don't even know how, there are no words

for this open with Kristen Welker, who is like this, you know, Biden acolyte who seemingly loves Joe Biden and hates Donald Trump. Somebody got a hold of the prompter and then they committed like an act of violence, all right, against Joe Biden's campaign in 2024. Here we go. On Friday, in a stunning move, the New York Times editorial board called on President Biden to serve his country and drop out of the presidential race. NBC News has learned that President Biden is expected to address his campaign with his family at Camp David.

That's according to five people familiar with the matter. Now, he and First Lady Jill Biden arrived there late last night to join their children and grandchildren in a trip planned before Thursday's debate. The campaign was always going to be a topic of conversation, but now undoubtedly Thursday's debate will be front and center. Senior Advisor Anita Dunn addressed the matter on Saturday. You all did not have any kind of conversations about, oh, should Joe Biden drop out of this race? The conversation that we had is, okay, what do we do next? Okay, that is, if there's one thing that we're about, it's, okay, Barack Obama said bad debates happen. We had a bad debate.

What do we do next? And, you know, the president, above all, is focused on what do we do next? What do I need to go do? President Biden, who agreed to the earliest general election debate in modern political history, had one goal, to persuade voters who are skeptical about his age and fitness for office that he is up to serve another four years. Mr. Biden has consistently told voters, watch me. Yikes. So you heard you heard the dumpy, washed up, dusty mothball Biden advisor there, Anita

Darn, because nobody ever changes any staff ever in Democrat politics. The same old washed up junk from the Clinton era continues to get jobs. James Carville continues to be relevant somehow. And nonetheless, Anita Dunn there saying, well, you know, Barack Obama loves Joe Biden and wants him to be the nominee. Well, I give you Tucker Carlson reporting from seconds ago. Actually, from 4 a.m. in the morning. Tucker Carlson is in Australia right now. So here we go. A banger, by the way, from Tucker. From an unusually good source comes Tucker Carlson's quote. And by the way, an unusually good source. Let me just remind you that Tucker Carlson, I'm not saying this comes from Hunter Biden. I'm just saying that Tucker Carlson was neighbors with Hunter Biden in Washington, D.C. And exactly where Tucker Carlson's house was

in Georgetown. And Tucker's talked about it regularly, that his neighbor in Georgetown and Tucker Carlson lived in D.C. for a very long time, for decades. His neighbor was Hunter Biden. And that neighborhood in Georgetown is where all of the fancy people in Democrat politics live. And so Tucker Carlson knows many of them and is in communications with many of them still to this day. It's where obviously some of the sourcing comes from. I'm not saying this comes from Hunter Biden. I'm just saying you can't get better connected than Tucker on these issues. Here we go.

Obama's tweet supporting Joe Biden was disingenuous. And if you want a buildup here, Obama, you don't need to see the tweet. Obama just says, Joe Biden is the nominee, right? That's it. He's like, bad debates happen. Joe Biden, the nominee, right? That's it. He's like, bad debates happen. Joe Biden, the nominee. Obama's tweet supporting Joe Biden was disingenuous.

In private, Obama is telling people Biden can't win. He is therefore in favor of an open convention. This is incredible. Obama will not say whom he supports, nor as of yesterday afternoon, had he met personally with Biden to deliver the message. Relations between the Obamas and the Bidens have never been warm. At times they've been hostile, but recently they've deteriorated further, mostly due to Jill Biden,

the absolute Lady Macbeth wench of the White House. She is a monster, by the way, a monster. Like, just pause for a moment. Are you married? Do you have a boyfriend, girlfriend? Do you have somebody that you love? Just put yourself in the hypothetical. And maybe you've been there. I've been there with my own grandmother. I've been there with my own family members where they've deteriorated in their old age and they need special care. And could you imagine doing what Joe Biden's doing to Joe Biden? Joe Biden knows. She knows what's going on. She knows what's happening with Joe.

Could you imagine doing that to your loved one? What a monster. You must be demonic. You are truly a witch. She's a witch. Yeah, dude. Could you imagine doing that to your loved one over my dead body? I have a wife who I love very, very much. We have three children together.

We've been married for seven years. And could I possibly imagine if she was in some type of state and we'll all get old, right? And who knows what will happen? Who knows what God's plan is for all of us? But like over my dead body, would somebody be like abusive, which is what's happening with Joe Biden in that state? Like to my wife, you'd have to kill me. If that, you know, if someone was going to try and take advantage of or abuse my wife for, for power in some type of dilapidated state, I'm sure you feel the same way if you're married or if you just have an elderly person in your family right now that needs special care as hundreds of millions of people in America do. Could you imagine them taking advantage of your Nana

or your loved one in a way that Jill Biden is taking advantage of Joe Biden. What a monster she is. Truly. I mean, truly, she is the Lady Macbeth of the White House. OK, so here we go. Continuing with Tucker Carlson. My apologies for that. I just you know, my wife and I were talking about this this weekend. I just it makes me angry. I will, quite frankly, Jill Biden in the in the hours and days after the debate, she kept her husband cloistered away from anybody who might convince him to drop out. Jill Biden is the driving force behind her husband's reelection campaign, just as he was in 2020, when other members of the family, including Biden's sister, Val, considered him too impaired to run. The next generation of potential Democratic candidates understand this is all an

opportunity, and they are circling, particularly Gretchen Whitmer, who is promoting herself aggressively. So this is Tucker's breaking news here. So this is what Tucker said. This, of course, has gone thermonuclear, six million views, 67,000 likes, 15,000 retweets at time of recording, and we are live right now. So here it is. So it's live. Yeah. Ladies and gentlemen, not good. Not great. You can see, of course, Jill Biden. After the debate, treating her husband like a like a like a two year old who's potty training. Here we go. Joe, you did such a great job. You answered every question. You knew all the facts.

And let me ask the crowd, what did Trump do? Why? Yes. Don't feel bad for Joe Biden. Let me tell you something you shouldn't do. You should never feel bad for Joe Biden. Joe Biden is getting, you know, the biblical treatment of an evil leader. I don't need to go into it, but just go check what happens with evil leaders in the Bible, in the Old Testament, New Testament. Go check what happens with evil leaders in the Bible, in the Old Testament, New Testament. Go check what happens with like immoral, villainous, murderous liars who are leaders, who get an opportunity to lead nations and do despicable work and who defy God when doing that. I mean, it's biblical what's happening to Joe Biden.

Let's just call it what it is, right? Okay. So ladies and gentlemen, this is what Tucker, this is what Tucker has to say. Um, and the, the cope is real. Now we told you on Friday, watch what Nancy Pelosi does. According to reports, Nancy Pelosi is like the last, the last, uh, individual who is hanging on for dear life, like to Joe Biden, with a clause in Joe Biden, like trying from a institutional Democrat perspective, like keep Joe Biden on the ballot. And there's no real obvious choice or push or strategy for what they could do if Joe Biden doesn't remain on the ballot. I mean, it's not good, actually. It's a nightmare of a strategy and becomes very, very bad very

quickly for the Democrat Party. It descends into total chaos with riots and just a nightmare. Maybe no candidate at all. They're up against a wall here. So it is a proper nightmare for Democrats. Nancy Pelosi, ladies and gentlemen, what did she have to say? We said on Friday's show, watch what Pelosi has to say. What's Pelosi talking about? What does she say over the weekend? Oh, and you're going to love this. Here's here's what. So Nancy slammed like five dirty martinis, wobbled her way into a TV studio and had this to say about Donald Trump. My people are very much Biden, Kamala Harris. And this is an opportunity for Joe Biden to go out there and show he has the stamina and the rest. And by the way, while the press and for some reason they don't, there are health care professionals who think that that Trump has dementia,

that his connection, his thoughts do not go together. I can't even talk like that because I do have my real teeth, okay? I do still have my real teeth and I have my real brain still in my skull. But there are people who think that Trump has dementia. This is like Nancy, this is the coat. So the play is going to be that Trump has dementia. God, okay, thanks. It's so good. It's so good. Here is Donald Trump at his first rally after the debate saying, hey, is Biden going to drop out? What does Trump have to say? Many people are saying that after last night's performance that Joe Biden is leaving the race. But the fact is,

I don't really believe that because he does better in polls than any of the Democrats they're talking about. You've seen that, Glenn. These polls come out with some of the names they're being like Gavin Newsom. He can't run California. He's one of the worst governors. No, he's a bad governor. He can't run. He can't run California. People are leaving one of the most beautiful places on earth in terms of weather, in terms of everything else. You can't do any better than California. He's doing a terrible job. But he gets up and he says, oh, California is doing great. But like a machine gun, but it's doing bad. People are leaving so fast and he'd be easy. But he's got lousy poll numbers

and you take a look at some of the others. Then, of course, Kamala is somebody that will be on the scope. It might have been Joe Biden's single best decision, putting her as vice president. Might have been Joe Biden's single best decision, putting her as vice president.

Might have been his best because nobody wants that. I do. I'd be very happy with that. But they don't poll as well as this guy. I mean, I don't want to speak against myself, but maybe. And they polled everybody. They polled Michelle Obama. She polls very badly. No, she polls terribly. Michelle Obama, people, you know, they polled Michelle Obama. She polls very badly. No, she polls terribly. Michelle Obama, people, you know, they they polled many people. And it's hard to believe. But crooked Joe Biden polls better than those people.

All right, baby. OK, we have some breaking news now. And we also have a confirmation that Mike Davis is joining the program. Ladies and gentlemen, Mike Davis in front of the Supreme Court. He will be joining the program. This is part of the beauty of just, you know, doing it live. Eff it, we'll do it live, as they say. So Mike Davis will be joining the program momentarily. Such an important voice on these issues, on the heels of something that is also particularly dark and unprecedented in this country, ripping obviously Donald Trump off the ballot, attempting to prosecute presidents for official acts, and then locking up dissidents, political dissidents, something that we've never seen in this country before, but something that we're seeing obviously in the January 6th cases, some of which have been gutted

on Friday, praise God, but also that we are seeing today with Steve Bannon, who ignored a subpoena from an unlawful committee, the January 6th committee in the house. And now they are, they have sentenced Steve Bannon to prison. Now, Steve Bannon is in front of the prison right now, or was moments ago. This is Danbury prison. And Steve Bannon, in a very Steve Bannon-esque way, is doing a rally there. We are obviously deeply in favor of an immediate pardon by President Trump of Steve Bannon. This is one of the most evil things that we've ever seen. Steve Bannon arguing executive privilege against the January 6th committee. Steve Bannon worked in the White House and worked directly for Donald Trump and was a co-campaign manager for Donald Trump in 2016

when he won. And so you should be, he should be able to argue executive privilege here, obviously. And they're going after Steve Bannon because he has a massive audience because he speaks the truth and he's a friend of our show.

And so we wanted to show you here, Steve Bannon in front of the prison, doing a rally in front of the prison, man. Careful who you make a martyr, as they say. Here's Steve. I'm going to prison if this is what it takes to stand up to tyranny if this is what it takes to stand up to the garland corrupt criminal doj if this is what it takes to stand up to Nancy Pelosi,

if this is what it takes to stand up to Joe Biden, to Joe Biden, I'm proud to do it. Father, can you say a few words? I'm not authorized to talk to the media. You're not? No. Well, thank you for coming. I agree with your positions, and I'll be praying for you.

I'm in the St. Ignatius Retreat House 15 minutes away. You are? Yeah. I'll get you whatever you need. Father, don't praying for you. I'm in the St. Ignatius Retreat House, 15 minutes away. You are? Yeah, I'll get you whatever you need. Father, don't pray for me. Pray for our enemies. Yeah. Pray for them. They're the ones who are going to need the prayers.

Thank you, Father. St. Michael the Archangel, defend us in battle. Be our protection against the wickedness and the snares of the devil. May God rebuke him, we humbly pray. And do thou, Prince of the Heavenly Host, by the power of God, cast into hell Satan and all evil spirits who wander through the world seeking the ruin of souls. Amen.

Ave Maria Putissima. God bless you. Just, I mean, if you don't believe that there is a spiritual reawakening in this nation, then you are blind. Or you just don't have a pulse anymore. There is something really powerful happening. I just, it's hard to believe that that clip is, that clip is real. I believe as of right now, ALX confirmed this. I believe that Steve Bannon has surrendered to prison for a four month term, and that clip was broadcast moments ago, and Steve Bannon will be then heading into federal prison for the defiance of a subpoena.

It is a, by every weight and measure, a political prisoner of Nancy Pelosi right now. So this is exactly what Steve Bannon said in a bombshell ABC News interview that aired yesterday. Just an incredible Steve Bannon just owning it, owning this ABC News segment from STEM to Stern and shadowboxing and making such profound points. I can't believe ABC News broadcast it. Here we go. Some of those who served Trump and crossed him say they're worried. Stephanie Grisham, who was the communications director, the press secretary, communications director for chief of staff for the first lady. She says. You're not talking about people like that. That's ridiculous.

She says that she's worried about being charged with treason. That's absurd. I'm talking about people in positions of authority. For instance, Esper. Andrew McCabe, the former deputy. He says he might have to leave the country. He ought to be very worried. He's definitely going to be investigated.

So is Comey. So is Esper. I believe Milley will. People, look at what happened in, look what happened at Milley, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs, former chairman of the Joint Chiefs. Yes, because look at the conversation. We don't know what conversations he had outside the military chain of command when he was chairman of the joint chiefs, when he talked to the Chinese, when he talked to Nancy Pelosi.

We have to investigate all that. If you haven't done anything, you shouldn't worry. Well, they're worried because Trump and you are talking about retribution. You're talking about... It's not retribution at all. First off, the 50... Wait, wait, wait. Those were his words, not my words. He is your retribution.

And what he says by retribution, he said, like he said last night on the debate stage, his retribution is a very successful, more successful second term. What we're saying is we want justice. We want to have full investigations. And then if criminal charges come up, then criminal charges come up. I mean, you made a promise on your show that the attorney general will be in prison. 100%. So you're not just talking about investigation.

Is Bill Barr on the retribution list? I think Bill Barr has to be investigated. Not retribution. You keep talking retribution. No, because Trump said retribution. And you said retribution. Justice. It's justice. So Bill Barr needs to be investigated. Bill Barr needs to go to prison with Merrick Garland. I didn't say that. Well, I'm asking you. I didn't say that. We have to see. I'm not going to prejudge somebody. We have to see. So Bill Barr could be going to prison as part of this retribution campaign, that's not retribution. It's justice. It's incredible. This, I mean, watching a clip like that, this is the first time I've seen the

full clip. I've watched it along with you to have a journalist, John Carl sit there while the Biden DOJ is unlawfully locking up hundreds, at the very least, 350 Americans had their lives destroyed by, in the Fisher case, 1512 C2 is the actual federal statute, a document statute written about Enron that Merrick Garland got together with a team of his cockroaches and rats in Washington, D.C., these scumbag lawyers, and they were able to twist and bend and break American law in order to lock up 350 of their political enemies. The bloody cheek that John Carl has to sit there across from Steve Bannon, who's going to federal prison for defying a subpoena of an unlawful January 6th committee. The cheek. These people disgrace and humiliate themselves. Meanwhile, Donald Trump is facing hundreds of

years in prison on 91 federal charges. The Supreme Court having to rebuke again and again, a reminder that the Supreme Court had to rebuke states ripping Trump off the ballot. We forget so quickly that that was the goal of multiple states you had a you had half a dozen states leftist states saying we are going to remove donald trump from the ballot like a traffic judge in in illinois tried to do it to you it reached levels of insanity and john carl doesn't say a peep about any of those people. Doesn't cry a single tear. Doesn't ask a single question. He's in the room with cringe Jean Pierre every single day. Doesn't say a damn thing. And he has the audacity to march in there with Steve Bannon and be like,

well, Trump might try to lock up actual legitimate criminals. We're so sad about it. Preview of things to come. Ladies and gentlemen, a preview of things to come. Somebody who's been previewing this on our program for a long time. In fact, one of our first guests when we started this program three, four years ago, I've lost count. One of our first guests was Mike Davis. Mike Davis, when, you know, he wasn't a household name as he is now, wasn't the viceroy, the soon to be viceroy of Washington, D.C. Mike Davis joins the program now after years of correct, correct legal theorizing on this program and an emphasis on the Constitution, law and order, and a optimistic projection as to what's going to happen in the future for these monsters who have so manipulated and destroyed our Constitution. Joining us now, ladies and gentlemen, I think only

via audio, but nonetheless, crisp and clear is Mike Davis. Mike, how are you, sir? Just checking the audio here. I am I am doing great. And, you know, it's it's always nice to be right. Like I am today. And it's always nice to rub the Democrats' noses in today's victory when they said that there's no chance the Supreme Court was going to side with President Trump and hold that the president of the United States, any president of the United States, is immune from criminal prosecution for their official acts. The Supreme Court just did that six to to three, with the Chief Justice,

John Roberts, you know, no MAGA warrior, writing the majority opinion. And it's a big, this is a big win for Trump. It's a big win for the Constitution. It's a big win for the presidency. And therefore, it's a big win

for our country. And I would say, it's actually, it's not surprising, but it's pretty sad that the three liberal justices could not set aside their partisanship and follow the Constitution and put their country before their party. And with the three liberal justices writing their deranged dissent.

So it looks like, again, a clear victory for Donald Trump. We've had other legal scholars on the program saying this is a 95 percent victory for Donald Trump and that this atomizes Jack Smith's case. Others saying that there are there is a there is a cardiac arrest happening right now in the special counsel's office. What say you, Mike? Yeah, this Jack Smith's cases are effectively over. We had the Fisher case that gutted two of the four charges by Jack Smith in D.C. for January 6th against President Trump for the non-crime of Trump objecting to the presidential election, which is allowed by the Electoral Count Act of 1887 in the First Amendment. And then with this presidential immunity case, it really gutted the rest.

There might be 10% of Jack Smith, 10 or 20% of Jack Smith's case that remains after this. But even if everything Jack Smith alleges is true, there's no crime. This is true. There's no crime. This is nonsense. And even John Roberts is seeing this, you know, again, not exactly a MAGA warrior. He understands how destructive Jack Smith's prosecutions are, Biden's blatant Democrat lawfare and election interference against Trump. And so this is, this is a good night, Jack Smith and the special counsel's office. They may be able to limp, limp along. They're not going to be able to try president Trump before the election. Trump's going to win. Trump's acting attorney general should dismiss

these cases on day one. And then that acting attorney general should open a criminal probe on president Biden and Merrick Garland and Jack Smith and Jay Bratz and all these other Biden Democrats who orchestrated this illegal conspiracy to violate the constitutional rights of President Trump. His top aides like Peter Navarro and Steve Bannon who are in prison, his lawyers like Jeff Clark and John Eastman, his supporters on January 6th, parents outraged by gender chaos in schools and the resulting rapes in high school bathrooms. Christians, including 75-year-old Christians, go into prison for praying at abortion clinics. While Biden and his Justice Department give amnesty to Joe Biden and James Biden and Hunter Biden, every son of Biden, who's taken more than

$20 million from our worst enemies in this foreign corruption. They've given the industry to BLM, Antifa, abortion industry activists, Hamas, trans terrorists. We have a politicized and weaponized justice system under Joe Biden, and they must face severe legal, financial, and political consequences for what they have done. They have tried to destroy Trump. And in the meantime, they're trying to destroy the presidency in our country, and they must pay a severe price for this. Mike, you'd have to probably take a canoe to work in Washington, D.C. the day that the acting attorney general on January 20, 2025,

dismisses these charges outright because of the leftist tears that will flow through the city. I don't think we'll ever hear a louder shrieking demon scream that day. We may hear louder into the future, but that will be ear-piercing that day. Can you game theory for us how that will happen, how that would happen? Some on the show have speculated that the DOJ just couldn't continue the prosecution outright because they'd be prosecuting a sitting president, and that's unconstitutional. Uh, but what you're saying is that the attorney general should just, uh, strangle this, like, like strangle this in the cradle on day one, on day one, on day one, Trump's acting attorney general would order Jack Smith to dismiss these charges with prejudice. And then he should fire Jack Smith and his entire office, and then he should open a criminal probe for conspiracy against rights under 18 U.S.C. 241

and 242. They have politicized and weaponized the Biden Justice Department and these Biden Democrat prosecutors and these Biden Democrat law firms and actors, people like Andrew Weissman. This is a criminal conspiracy to violate the constitutional rights of President Trump, his copies, his lawyers, his supporters. And this is unacceptable. This is how the Roman Republic fell. It was the welfare by the Roman insiders against Caesar that made him desperate. And he crossed the Rubicon from Gaul into Rome. And it led to the Civil War and the fall of the Roman Republic. And I'm not saying we're going into civil war, but there must be legal, political, financial consequences, severe legal, political and financial consequences for what Joe Biden, his White House team, Merrick Garland, Lisa Monaco,

Jack Smith, Jay Brat, Jonathan Hsu, Gary Stern, Matthew Colangelo, Nathan Wade, Fannie Willis, Tish James, Alvin Bragg, all of these Democrat operatives, Andrew Weissman and the lawfare team on the outside, they have all colluded on this Biden Democrat lawfare and election interference against President Trump. They fear they can't beat Trump on November 5th, 2024. So they tried to bankrupt Trump. They're trying to throw him in prison for the rest of his life. They tried to take him off the ballots. They're even calling now, these Biden Democrats are now even calling for drone strikes and Trump's assassination by Biden. This is insane. These are the people who pretend like they're the defenders of democracy, who are destroying democracy because they don't accept the will of American voters. And so they want to just

they just want to bankrupt, take him off the ballot, imprison him and kill President Trump. This is insane. So, Mike, I did want to get your thoughts on this if we were if we were live on Friday and didn't do a full debate recap. I wanted to get your thoughts on this because you you sent out a tweet and it'll be up on screen here in a moment of you with a young man who was presumably prosecuted under 1512 C2, who have been attempted to be prosecuted by Merrick Garland under this bogus statute that was had the bark ripped completely off of it by the ruling on Friday. And so given the given your tweet here, January 6th political prisoner Brandon, a happy man after the Supreme Court delivered justice today in the Fisher decision. I wanted to get your take. Very important for me. What happens to these people who were persecuted unrighteously and illegally by the government? Can they sue the government? Can something happen

here to to get some justice for these political prisoners? Yeah, this Brandon Fellows was a nonviolent first-time offender who went into the Capitol on January 6th, and he got 35 months in jail. He got sentenced to longer than that, but he had to serve 35 months in prison for this, right? He was nonviolent, first-time offender. And that just shows you this is absolute political persecution by Biden and Merrick Garland, Matthew Graves, the U.S. attorney in D.C. who's going after all these January 6th defendants, Jack Smith, who's going after trump for january 6th jade these people these these

people in the biden white house and the biden justice fund these biden democrat prosecutors around the country have destroyed the lives of so many real americans in real america right and i'm not saying what happened on january 6th was good It was a lawful protest permitted by the National Park Service that got out of control and devolved into a riot. So what should have happened is they should have charged people who trespassed with trespass and the people who were violent more harshly. But what they wanted to do is they wanted to label them all as insurrectionists, even though there is no charge of insurrection, no evidence of insurrection,

because the Biden Justice Department and these D.C. courts, including Democrats and Republicans on these D.C. uniparty courts, they hate Trump, they hate his aides, they hate his allies, they hate his supporters. And so they wanted to send a message that they thought they were going to destroy Trump and destroy the MAGA movements after January 6th with these malicious persecutions, these malicious political prosecutions. These are political prisoners.

They are political prisoners right now in the federal prisons. Do dozens of them who were... It won't take long to tell you Neutral's ingredients. Vodka, soda, natural flavors. So, what should we talk about? No sugar added. Neutral. Refreshingly simple. those convictions in the Fisher case because the Biden Justice Department contorted, politicized, and weaponized a post-Enron obstruction of justice statute intended to go after corporate fraud for Biden and his Justice Department to go after Trump and Trump's political supporters. These are political prisoners. These people who were convicted under 1512 and are sitting

in prison right now should be released immediately. And really quickly, Mike, really quickly, I know we're tied for time. What happens to the people who were convicted under this statute that was is now illegal and was unconstitutionally decided? Like what can they again, like can can any of them get anything back? I mean, can they get like a modicum of decency can they, again, like can, can any of them get anything back? I mean, can they get like a modicum of decency, a lawsuit of, you know, civil rights action against the government? It's very hard, but they should bring civil rights lawsuits against these, against Biden and his White House staff and Garland, bring civil rights lawsuits against

them and, and let president Biden try to claim presidential immunity and let the courts figure that out, right? And so, yeah, there must be, what needs to happen is when Trump wins on day one, day one, Trump's acting attorney general must open a criminal probe on this. And day one, Trump's attorney general must ask the Office of Professional Responsibility and the Justice Department to open an internal ethics probe. And on day one, Trump's acting attorney general needs to fire Jack Smith and Matthew Graves and these other prosecutors who perpetuated this biggest injustice in American history, the January 6th prosecutions based upon this bogus political, unconstitutional, illegal reading of 18 U.S.C. 1512.

These prosecutors, these judges, these Democrat operatives, these Biden officials, they must face a severe legal, political, and financial consequences so this never happens again. Ladies and gentlemen, if you wish to see that happen, and I'm watching the watching the chat here, and obviously you do wish to see that happen. Go and support Mike. Follow him on

support the Article three project. Two scholars from the Article three project have been on this show, the great Mike Davis and Will Chamberlain earlier. And it is because of legal fighters like this that we can actually have wins in the courts. Remember, there was a time not too long ago where we had no wins. It was impossible for conservatives to win anything. It was just loss after loss. And so it's because of Mike Davis that we can have wins. Ladies and gentlemen, go ahead and follow him and support the Article 3 Project. God bless you, Mike. Godspeed. Thank you, Ben. Ooh, baby, what a day for our rights. What a day for our Constitution. It wouldn't be proper for us to carry on a show about the glories of our Constitution

and the glories of our First Amendment and the right to peacefully assemble and the right to redress our government of grievances without the thing that makes all of those rights possible, which is our Second Amendment, our Monday gun day brought to you by spikes tactical man. I love living in Florida. I love living in Florida. Try not to do like a Florida commercial every single day. We do broadcast from Florida. I did move my family down to Florida after an enormous amount of research and travel. Uh, we needed to get the hell out of a Washington DC hellscape. hellscape. We came to Florida because we just kind of made a bet that this was going to be like the place to build this business, to build the show and to raise a family. And who hot diggity damn were we right? Get a load of this.

Florida sheriff would be burglar got his butt pistol whipped by a 66 year old man. And the sheriff is going to give a commendation to the person who pistol whipped by 66 year old man. And the sheriff is going to give a commendation to the person who pistol whipped the burglar. The guy's going to get an award. So down here in Florida, you get an award for defending your home and defending your property and defending yourself against tyranny.

And that's the way it should be. That's actually the only thing that stops tyranny. You do understand that, right, Libs? Like, do you understand that? Okay, you're the fascist. Oh, okay, got it. Well, well, well, let's go ahead and read. Florida's Bevard County Sheriff William Ivey

said 29-year-old Blake Robinson was caught trying to burglarize a car. He got his butt pistol whipped by the vehicle's 66-year-old owner. Fox News reported on the incident that occurred on Thursday. Sheriff Ivey used his Facebook post to explain that the 66-year-old owner, 66 years old, whipping a 29-year-old, good for you, man, heard strange noises and went out to discover the scumbag rummaging through his car. The 66-year-old called 911, which is what you should do.

You always make sure that you alert the authority. And then says, and then according to the sheriff, during the early morning hours, the citizens called 911, heard a noise outside the residence, and he went back in and was met by this guy, Blake Robinson, who was making a stupid mistake of attempting to gain access to a car that, of course, was not his. That's illegal. Our victim went on to locate his phone so he could get a hold of local law enforcement. And then he was attacked and hit in the head before being thrown to the ground. Despite being

kicked in the head, Robinson, the victim, was able to defend himself, causing him to fall back so that he could get away. The deputies arrived on the scene and were able to quickly detain the burglar. All happy and good. The 66-year-old got up and, yeah, kicked the guy's ass. That's right, Mr. Tough Guy. Robinson got manhandled by a 66-year-old man who thankfully required only brief medical attention and was left without serious injuries. Ladies and gentlemen, don't rob people. Don't F around. You will find out. Thank God this is still America. In most places, you can defend yourself, which is our sovereign right, and it is actually your duty, especially if you're a father or if you're a head of a household.

It is your sovereign duty to you, your ancestors, and to all that is – to the way of nature for you to be able to defend yourself. It is why we are very proud to partner with Spikes Tactical. You see the wall of gorgeous AR uh ar-15s uh up on in our studio and um yeah don't come knocking if you want to stay walking that's the the rule here in florida you're spikes tactical monday gunday for you good news do we not play the stinger after that do we not play the stinger no i yeah i kind of play the stinger? No? Yeah, I kind of do. I love the stinger. Let's go, man.

Let's make that a tradition. We'll replay the stinger. That's a nice little bookend. I like the guitar riff. Okay, baby. We've been riffing. We've been live for two and a half hours here. We wanted to make sure that we brought you all of the news. We have defeated and destroyed the

corporate media in streaming numbers this morning because that is what we are here for. It is our obligation to you to bring you the good news. And we're going to be here for you. We thank you for being here for us. If you wish to be here for us, maybe a little more than just watching the live stream, please go to BennyJohnson.com. Please join the Benny Brigade. And, you know, it is inflation, but we have checked. This is for the cost of a McDonald's french fry per month. You can support our work here and ensure that we don't have to be have the shackles of some type of horrible corporate news company on us so that we can go live so we can talk to Mike Davis. We don't have to censor our guests. We don't have to censor ourselves and that we can push

forward and deliver to you the breaking news and the good news. Ladies and gentlemen, join the Benny Brigade today at BennyJohnson.com. Rejoice with us. The verse of the day is here. The good news we can always bring you. We've been bringing you a lot of good news recently, but some days we have no good news. You know, some days it's like Donald Trump has another 41 indictments, right? Like it's hard to spin that straw into gold. And so we make sure that we stay focused on the golden rules and the good book and on good news. And so our verse of the day is ever on this program to bring you the good news from our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ in the scriptures. From 1 Thessalonians 5.16, rejoice always, pray continually, give thanks in all circumstances, for this is God's

will for you in Christ Jesus. Man, does that apply to you? That's a tough verse for me, because, you know, there's ups and downs, and you have tough days, right? But the scriptures, the holy scriptures say rejoice always, pray continually, give thanks in all circumstances. This is what God commands us. And why can you do this? How can you do this? It's something we talk about a lot because on this show, again, we are obligated to bring you bad news sometimes, you know, sometimes we, we have, sometimes we have shows where nothing good is happening, right? How can you stay? How can you say that we are going to praise God in that circumstance, right? When you have a bad ruling, a tough ruling,

here's one, Donald Trump found guilty on 34 counts. How can you be happy in those circumstances, you know? And so on and so on and so on. And in your personal lives, right? And the lives with your family. And if you have kids, you know, you have rough days, right? And the lives with your family. And if you have kids, you know, you have rough days, right? How? It's simple. It's really simple, actually. And the older I get, the more I see this clearly. You just need to set your joy and your hope and your life on things that are immovable. Because if your hope is on like a man running for office or a political party or on, you know, human beings who are forever valuable and will forever disappoint you.

And that's just the nature of humanity, the fallen man. Then you will not be able to do it. our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, if your hope is in the God of your ancestors and the God that got your families through famine and drought and plagues and across an ocean to live in this, the greatest country on earth, if that's where your hope is in what bound up like, you know, your entire bloodline and gave them the power to move forward and the power to be confident and stand upright, then then then you'll be good. Right. So like set your hope, set your hope and your joy on that. Right. And not on men, no matter who they are, not on political parties and not on any of that.

Then you'll be set. Then you'll have something that is your rock and you can go out and do other good work from that, right? So let that be your rock. Ladies and gentlemen, we're going to rock it this week.

It's a great 4th of July week. We have some wonderful programming for you in this, the greatest country on earth. Stand upright, walk, and march with us. Happy Warrior. It upright, walk, and march with us.

Happy Warrior. It's your boy, Benny. See ya. Former MLB All-Star Sean Casey, a.k.a. The Mayor, keeps hitting it out of the park. Take my 30 years of experience. Take the wisdom and knowledge I've learned

from the failures when I got sent down my rookie year. All the injuries I had to overcome. Your mind is the most important tool you have in life. Be relentless. Keep charging. It matters how you most important tool you have in life. Be relentless. Keep charging. It matters how you talk to yourself, how you look at the world. That matters. We talk about that.

I don't know. I'm fired up. Baseball's back, and it's going to be incredible. I love it. The Mayor's Office with Sean Casey from Believe. Follow and listen on your favorite platform.