The Young Turks - Biden Copies Trump

Episode Date: June 5, 2024

Schemers behind Wisconsin's fake elector plot charged with felonies. Biden to issue executive order on southern border and limit asylum. Looming over Trump’s conviction: Reversal by the ""13th juror."" The former president has an extensive menu of options to pursue in his appeal." HOST: Ana Kasparian (@anakasparian), Cenk Uygur (@cenkuygur) SUBSCRIBE on YOUTUBE: ☞ https://www.youtube.com/user/theyoungturks FACEBOOK: ☞ https://www.facebook.com/theyoungturks TWITTER: ☞ https://www.twitter.com/theyoungturks INSTAGRAM: ☞ https://www.instagram.com/theyoungturks TIKTOK: ☞ https://www.tiktok.com/@theyoungturks 👕 Merch: https://shoptyt.com ❤ Donate: http://www.tyt.com/go 🔗 Website: https://www.tyt.com 📱App: http://www.tyt.com/app 📬 Newsletters: https://www.tyt.com/newsletters/ If you want to watch more videos from TYT, consider subscribing to other channels in our network: The Watchlist https://www.youtube.com/watchlisttyt Indisputable with Dr. Rashad Richey https://www.youtube.com/indisputabletyt The Damage Report ▶ https://www.youtube.com/thedamagereport TYT Sports ▶ https://www.youtube.com/tytsports The Conversation ▶ https://www.youtube.com/tytconversation Rebel HQ ▶ https://www.youtube.com/rebelhq TYT Investigates ▶ https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCwNJt9PYyN1uyw2XhNIQMMA Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

You're listening to The Young Turks, the online news show. Make sure to follow and rate our show with not one, not two, not three, not four, but five stars. You're awesome. Thank you. I'm so upset. Oh my God. The guy! All right, well, we have young Turks live from the Polymarket Studio in L.A. And also we have T. Brad M. 923 with us. Thank you for joining through t.y.t.com slash team.

Happens right away, just like that. We get on there, boom, people start joining. Right away. Right the way. And I love that. Okay, so guys, we have really important stories about the very serious crimes that Donald Trump committed, including the fake elector's scheme to steal the election. We're gonna lead with that in a minute, but we're gonna go to Trump's hush money trial case in a little bit.

And I'm gonna try to straighten out what no one, I don't think, has been able to clearly explain on whether Trump actually does have a good case on appeal or not. That's a little bit later in the show. We're gonna ask you to vote on it too. But now let's get started on the more important case. Yes, so we begin today's show with some breaking news in regard to the state of Wisconsin and some criminal charges for the key players of the fake elector scheme. Today, Wisconsin Attorney General Josh Call charged three main players in Donald Trump's

2020 fake elector scheme with felony forgery. Now, the fake electors out of that state have not been charged and will not be charged. That is part of the legal strategy that the attorney general is moving forward with. But the individuals who are facing charges include Kenneth Chesabro, who is the attorney and advisor to the campaign. He is the individual who orchestrated and kind of was the architect of the fake elector scheme. He also referred to the fake elector scheme as the fake elector scheme in email messages that he sent out, which was a dumb thing to do. Mike Roman is another individual who's getting charged. He was the head of the Election Day operations for the Trump campaign.

And finally, Jamie Troopis, who's Trump's attorney in Wisconsin. So they're being charged with helping the fake electors to submit the paperwork that stated that Trump was actually the real winner of the 2020 president. election and they weren't really subtle about their plan either. During or around the time of a December 14th 2020 meeting, Chesabro sent a message to Troopis and Roman that said, Wisconsin meeting of the deal or of the real electors is a go, the complaint said. Troopis responded with a thumbs up emoji, the complaint said. The complaint also details how the fake elector slate was delivered to Chesa Bro from Wisconsin

to Washington, D.C. on January 5th, 2021, by Alicia Gunther, a law student working part-time at the Republican Party of Wisconsin. Roman told her to deliver the paperwork only to Chesabro. Five minutes until I make the drop. Gunther texted at one point, according to the complaint. And then she says, I feel like a drug dealer. Now, the three men are due in court in September. Each one of them faces six years in prison and $10,000 in fines. Wisconsin Governor Tony Evers had an in-depth, sophisticated reaction to these charges, writing simply good. Now, Wisconsin's Attorney General stated that the investigation into the fake elector scheme is not done, and others may face charges, including maybe the fake electors themselves, but for

Now, it appears that he is in fact holding off on charging the fake electors who claimed that they were tricked into signing the documents. Yeah, so now it's a number of states, Georgia, Wisconsin and others, Arizona, etc., that are going after the fake electors scheme. Thank God, Merrick Garland took forever. I read a long blog today about Merrick Garland, and yes, people that have done this for a long time are confirming what I've been saying all along. He was so timid, so afraid.

All of this should have happened in 2021. Here we are all the way in 2024, and it's taking local prosecutors to do it. It should have been done at the federal level by Merrick Garland. I'm glad that the states are doing it now. I wish states started in 2021 as well. So we could have already been, this could have been adjudicated and you could know what kind of a criminal Donald Trump is and how he tried to steal this election. These are his lawyers, people working for him.

So guys, to give you a sense of how clear the guilt here. is. Number one, the 10 fake electors in Wisconsin have already admitted, yes, Biden won the election. So they knew that Biden had won the election, but they were trying to steal it for Donald Trump. And they knew, as Anna just read to you, that the real electors were voting at some point. And they knew that they were not the real electors. They were the fake electors. It is crystal clear. And then more quotes, one of the email says, quote, Nothing about our meeting with the president can be shared with anyone. Who says that about a perfectly good legal meeting?

Don't share anything we just said with the president about this because the implication is obvious. We could be in legal trouble if that wasn't clear enough. Hold on I got to push back on that a little bit. I mean, we get internal emails at TYT saying these are internal emails. Do not forward them or share them with the public. So that's a fair point, Anna, but think about the context, right? No, I know about the context here. If they were having a, no, no, no, I mean it for Trump.

If these guys were having conversations with Trump about how to invade Iran, about our nuclear secrets, of course they can say don't share it with anyone else. Yeah. But they're having conversations with Trump about how to overturn the election. I know, I'm saying that statement alone is not necessarily indicative of criminality. Yeah, okay, but within this context, it heavily implies criminality. Yeah, I'm just saying that's like the weakest thing to cite. I mean, they were fake electors and they signed documents indicating that they were the real electors when they weren't. Like, yes, there's a lot of evidence against these individuals.

I'm not saying they're innocent, please understand that. But it doesn't necessarily mean anything if someone says, hey, keep that meeting between us. I say that approximately 28 times a day. I got you. But in this context, I think it is interesting data point, okay? Here's another data point. They're talking about January 6th and the need to make sure Mike Pence doesn't certify the election of the real electors. And they say, quote, obviously the discussion of such tactical options is highly confidential.

Now, again, you could interpret it generously and say, well, I mean, they're figuring out their legal options on how to overturn the election. And that's why it should be highly confidential. Or you could look at it as most rational people would and say, yeah, it should be highly confidential. Because we're trying to steal a freaking election here. And you don't want to admit it as much as we already have it admitted in emails, including the use of the first. phrase fake electors. So the fake electors scheme, you know, dates back to the 2020 presidential election. It is now 2024, Josh Call is not the new attorney general.

He's been attorney general in the state of Wisconsin since 2019. So like, I don't understand, like, it is good that he is pursuing this. I want you guys to understand, it is good that he is pursuing this. I wanna know why he didn't pursue it much earlier. Well, that's the irony we've pointed out in all these cases. Guys, to be clear, we have a position that is pretty unique. As far as I know, no one else has this position that I think is actually relatively obvious. I think the timing of these cases is political.

Yes. And so if they weren't political, you would have immediately started all of these investigations that are absolutely necessary in 2021. Instead, the Democrats waited and waited. And when I say Democrats, I don't mean the Matt Gates theory that it's all coordinated, et cetera. I mean individual Democratic DAs, prosecutors, the attorney general at the federal level. They all waited, they didn't want to prosecute Donald Trump. Now here's the part that no one else says, because everybody's on their zero or 100 side, right?

100%. And so the reality is they didn't want to prosecute Trump because he's one of the elites. And so they thought, well, we prosecute President Trump. Well, maybe they might prosecute President Biden or Attorney General Eric Holder who clearly broke the law under Obama, et cetera, et cetera. So protect elites, protect elites. So, but then they panic because, oh, Trump is going to run. And the idiots thought he wasn't going to run.

That's right. And so then they bring the cases they should have brought. They should have brought the cases. They should have brought them earlier. Now you bring them now and people legitimately go, why now? Okay, so look, the reason why I think it's a huge problem that the timing is politically motivated is because look at what the backlash following the verdict in the hush money case has been.

There has been a lot of backlash because it does appear to most people in the country, other than hyper-partisans on the left, that it was a politically motivated trial, a politically motivated case, and that it was unfair to Trump, which is why he literally raised hundreds of millions of dollars following that verdict. So Anna, you make a good point that it seems unfair to a lot of people, and we've talked about that. But let's be clear on the polling. 57% of the country thinks he definitely did it. Yes, they agree that he did it.

Yeah, and only 43% question why it was brought out, the legitimacy, etc. So actually the majority of the country does think he's guilty and that they're not questioning the charges that much. But if you watch media, there is a massive right-wing tsunami that makes it seem like. 99% of Americans don't think that this was legitimate. That's just not true. But there are legitimate issues about the timing that we keep bringing up. Because if you wait for two and a half years and then you start prosecuting just as he's running in the middle of the campaign, it looks terrible.

Yeah. Look, the polling also says while most people, most Americans, 57% as you mentioned, do believe that Trump is guilty of what he was charged with or indicted with. they also think it's politically motivated. Like the prosecution was politically. And by the way, we're among those two Americans. Yeah, that's exactly right. Look, I'm not bringing that up to say like, no, no, no, leave Trump alone.

There shouldn't be any concert. That's not what I'm saying, guys. I'm saying that the optics matter. And you don't want to turn your opponent into a martyr by making it pretty clear that the timing is politically motivated. So look, that's why I say we're pretty much unique here as far as I know. because one side says, no, Trump should be above the law. I don't care what laws he broke.

Everything is minor. So why, you're stealing national secrets, doing a coup attempt, who cares? It's all minor. It's all politics, right? He should be above the law. And the other side says, I don't see anything wrong with other politicians. I don't see anything wrong with the timing. Oh, yeah, of course you prosecute him right in the middle of a campaign.

Just waste two and a half years for no reason. Was it not a crime for those two and a half years? But if you turn on mainstream media right now, zero percent of the host. are talking about the timing, zero percent, right? And so they're all, and they're also pretending, other than the outrageous cases like Bob Menendez, where money and gold is falling out of his suits, right? They all say, no, Trump's the only one doing this.

Establishment politicians are so pure. And that's why MAGA and a lot of independents go, I don't believe mainstream media, they're full of crap. I see politicians doing terrible things all the time. And these liars tell me that they're all pure, but Trump's the only bad guy. No, they're all terrible. You guys aren't wrong about that.

Not all, but I could show different crimes very specifically for different individuals that are not prosecuted. That's exactly right. I mean, just look at Congress alone, look at their stock portfolios, and just look at how year after year, they beat the S&P 500 with their stock portfolios. As if they're, oh, they must be the most intelligent investors, right? Or maybe they're trading individual stocks based on insider information, like, which is incredibly gross and something that you and I would be prosecuted for and be sent to prison for in a heartbeat. But the other thing I wanted to mention is, Jank, other than the optics and how it could potentially

lead to Americans seeing Trump as a martyr, there's also the, you know, the reality of the federal cases and how those were prosecuted too late in the game and might end up just being dismissed once Trump is elected. You know what I'm saying? No, it's a debacle. If you care, if you care about consequences for the fake elector scheme, for the mishandling of classified documents, well, then you should be incredibly frustrated with the Democrats who sat on their hands for two years, thinking, well, we don't have to prosecute because it's

not like he's going to run again, right? Yeah, look, maybe a quick and easy way to summarize this is, most of media, whether it's mainstream media or right-wing media, either say Merrick Garland, the Democrats, et are totally innocent and Donald Trump is totally guilty. Or they'll say it in reverse. Merrick Garland and Democrats are totally guilty and Donald Trump is totally innocent of all these charges. No, they're both guilty.

The Democrats at Merrick Garland are guilty of waiting two and a half years because they didn't want to prosecute any of their own beloved elites and then decided to prosecute because Donald Trump was running against them. Okay. So for people on the left that is apparently a very controversial position, then I I want anyone, people on the left or anyone in mainstream media to tell me, why did you wait two and a half years? No one has ever been asked that question on cable news.

No one has ever answered that question on cable news. So they are guilty for delaying this and making it political. And Trump is also guilty. If you don't think that Trump broke these laws, what the hell are fake electors for? When they know where the real electors are, they know when the real electors are voting. They had a scheme to actually end our democracy, but no one will believe that because the Democrats cry wolf all the time. Guys, they implemented fake electors in New Mexico. Like this, this is like the point that no one ever brings up.

I bring it up all the time because I just think it's so indicative of what the intentions were here. The Trump campaign had no litigation in regard to the results of the 2020 presidential election in New Mexico. Okay? They implemented fake electors in New Mexico anyway. So the reason why that's so important guys is because they knew for a fact that they had lost New Mexico. Exactly. They're not even bothering to bring any of the nonsense lawsuits they brought in the other states. Exactly.

They know with 100% certainty they lost in New Mexico. They're like, who cares? Let's get some fake electors in New Mexico because they never thought it was a legitimate challenge. The counts, the recounts were legitimate, the hand recounts were legitimate, asking to verify the election is super legitimate. But they were done. Sometimes in some states three times over. They definitely lost and they knew it for a fact. And they're like, who cares? Let's just cheat. Let's get in fake electors. Let's make sure January 6th is delayed either by Mike Pence or a riot so that we can kick it back to the states, put in the fake electors. That's a legitimate coup attempt. And again, you could, I'm super mad at Trump and all these guys who got charged. And I hope they all go to jail for it.

But I'm also super mad at Merrick Garland. Yeah, me too. Well, you've got a coup attempt and you're not going to prosecute that for two and a half years because you love the elite so much that you think even your opponents. No, no, no, no, no. We should never prosecute anyone who's wealthy and powerful. You disgust me. There's no defense from Merrick Garland.

All right, well, let's, we got a massive block in regard to Biden's executive order on immigration. So why don't we take a break? And when we come back, we're going to have one of those rare segments where a Republican senator agrees with Joe Biden. Come right back. They knew and they let it happen. All right, well, people are now starting to ask for Aspect shirts. Oh my god. The chaotic neutral drag says Aspect, that's my, that was my ass. Dude, I'd wear that shirt, Jake, L.O.L.

This was my ass. And ouch, my Nards writes, wait, Aspect, I'd wear that for pride. Oh, my God. You spate that ass. Okay, I don't know. All right, I'm gonna talk to the thugs at shoptyt.com. See if we can make that happen. Okay, and finally, Jack C.

Sondbag and Jeffrey Tucker, you guys are American heroes for joining. Dawn Whitehead, thank you for gifting a membership and Lady Fookin T. Five memberships, you're awesome. Anna. Well, big news on Biden and what he plans to do in regard to immigration. So let's get right to it. We came to a clear, clear bipartisan deal. It was the strongest border security agreement in decades.

But then, Republicans in Congress, not all, but walked away from it. Why? Because Donald Trump told them to. He told the Republicans it has been published widely by many of you that he didn't want to fix the issue. He wanted to use it to attack me. So today, I'm moving past Republican obstruction and using the executive authorities available to me as president to do what I can on my own to address the border. Frankly, I would have preferred to address this issue through bipartisan legislation. A rare sight with President Joe Biden vocally calling out Republicans for essentially listening to Donald Trump and killing the bipartisan Senate bill that did seek to reform immigration, although do so in a way that was far more favorable to what conservatives have been demanding for decades. Now, today, President Joe Biden has decided, all right, well, since you guys decided to destroy that bill, I'm going to go ahead and sign an executive.

order on immigration, which would give him the power to shut the border down, should there be a massive influx of asylum seekers attempting to cross the border through non-legal ports of entry. So that's an important element to the story to keep in mind, and we're going to revisit that in just a moment. But it's also important to keep in mind that this executive order will run into legal challenges. In fact, the ACLU is already giving comments to the press, discussing the lack of constitutionality with this executive order. And back in 2018, Donald Trump attempted to implement an extremely similar asylum ban, and that was struck down in the federal courts.

Now, current law also allows people to ask for humanitarian protection, no matter how they enter the country. And so legal experts say that Biden's order likely will be struck down because of that. Now, the legal justification, though, for the Biden ban on asylum seekers, people briefed on the order said, stems from a section of the Immigration and Nationality Act known as Section 212F. That provision says the president can suspend the entry of foreigners if he finds that the entry of aliens or any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental. And I should let you know that it's also the exact same section of immigration law that Trump used to justify his asylum ban. And obviously it didn't work because it got struck down in the courts. So my point is, Biden's executive order today will be challenged in the courts and very likely will be struck down in the courts because this has already happened and it's happened in 2018 under Donald Trump.

So I have more details, including the number of asylum seekers that would have to try to enter the country to allow for Biden to basically shut the border down. So let's go to Graphic 3 here. In May, the border patrol, I'm sorry, graphic 2. The Senate bill would have allowed the president to shut down the border to asylum seekers if a daily threshold was surpassed. The order is designed to mimic that provision at 2,500 illegal crossings a day, and that's according to people who are briefed on the order, and that threshold will easily be met. Just to give you an idea, in May, the Border Patrol arrested about 3,500 migrants crossing the border a day down from a recent high of about 10,000 a day in December, according

to people familiar with the matter. So I don't think that this is a real solution. I don't think this is even a band-aid on a very obvious problem with this broken immigration system. But this is, in my opinion, done for political reasons, and I'll get to why I believe that in just a moment. But I'm curious what you think, Jank. Yeah, this is dumb and everything about this is dumb.

So let me explain all the different ways that this is ridiculous. So number one, this is obviously just political theater, because as Anna already explained, Trump already tried this same exact thing, and the courts voted it down. So they, Biden's team knows for a fact, the courts are going to strike it down. So they're doing something illegal, the same thing that Trump did, just so that he looks tough on the border. So that's a dumb way to approach this issue. Second is, the flow is much lower now of undocumented immigrants than it was a couple of months ago. Much, much, much lower, okay?

Right? So did Biden do anything tough in the meanwhile? No, he literally hasn't done anything because the Republicans blocked it. So what happened? I thought it was like our actions that dictated. If Biden comes into office, they pour in. If Trump comes in office, no one comes. These kind of dumb conversations. No, the ebbs and flows of undocumented immigrants is based on the home countries. When Venezuela explodes, we get lots of Venezuelan immigrants. When there's a terrible cartel violence in Mexico, we get more immigrants from Mexico. But no one ever addresses the actual issue. Instead, we all argue like dumbasses about things that don't matter and don't affect it at all.

So this is a just giant waste of time. So can I jump in real quick? There's one point of clarification that I think is important because Biden, when he first got elected into office, after he got inaugurated, he did reverse some Trump-era immigration policies. One of them was the remain in Mexico plan, which had asylum seekers literally remain in Mexico until their asylum claims were heard. So Biden gets elected, and he keeps his promise to voters. I mean, voters wanted to reverse this, and he reversed it. Soon after that, there was a pretty big influx of migrants trying to cross the border.

And Biden was asked at that time whether he regretted reversing Trump's orders. And he's like, no, I should have done it faster. And then fast forward to a few years later, he's hitting up Mexico trying to forge that deal again so they can do remain in Mexico again. And at that point, you know, Lopez Obrador, the president of Mexico is like, nah man, no. Yeah. Wasn't willing to play ball like he was willing to do with Trump for some reason. Yeah, so look, let me be clear on a couple of things. It's never zero and a hundred, right?

There's always some sort of gradation in the middle. So the overwhelming majority of the issue is from the home countries. Can we do things differently here that could make a difference? Like having a lot more judges process these cases quicker, yes. Having more border patrol to stop more people coming in, yes. So there are things we can do to make a difference, but they are overshadowed by the what's going on in the home countries, which is a much, much larger factor, but a factor that we never ever discussed in America.

I'm the only person, well, I guess, who also ran for president, but in any in media, etc. that talks about doing a Marshall Plan for these countries so they don't have a reason to come here. But I know, helping other countries that aren't killing innocent civilians with bombs. Well, that doesn't help a defense contractor, so that doesn't get done, right? So let me go to the third thing that's dumb in this, which is people constantly saying there's an open border. There is not an open border.

And when Biden does this, he makes it appear like there's an open border. Look at every story that we read you guys in the course that we show. 3,500 people arrested at the border, 10,000 people in earlier months when the flow was gigantic, 10,000 people arrested at the border, and that's how we know how many people are coming in. Well, if it's an open border, why are we arresting them? No, we arrest them, that's not the real issue. The issue is, do you release them into the country or don't you? And that is so explosive and so hard to adjudicate, because both that,

Both Democrats and Republicans, the voters, are kind of conflicted on that issue. They're not sure what they want on that issue, so we never address it. So the two largest factors, should we release or not release, and what's happening in the home countries are not at all addressed. Instead, we play silly little games. So, and look, this is an incredibly difficult and complicated matter. Anyone who claims that it's easy is lying to you because, you know, Jank, you make a really good point, right? What can we do to improve conditions on the ground, in the home country so people don't feel the need to try to come immigrate here, right?

And by the way, let me just also note, obviously a healthy immigration system is a good thing. Okay, immigrants tend to be incredibly motivated people. Like, you want those kinds of people to come to this country, but obviously, resources are finite, and you can't just have open borders and allow anyone to come in. You have to have a better system to process these people, see if their asylum claims are legitimate asylum claims, you know, the other issue is, you know, if you're coming into the United States seeking asylum for economic reasons, well, asylum doesn't cover economic reasons. And a lot of the migrants coming in are coming here for economic purposes, but they're

taking advantage of an asylum loophole where, you know, the smugglers essentially tell them, just say that you're leaving your home country because you're afraid for your life. Look, there's a solution here that Democrats will be uncomfortable with. And I, and maybe some Republicans as well, which is that we don't release them. But if, meaning like if the arrest of the border and you're asking for asylum, we're not going to deport you, we're going to give you a real asylum hearing. But you got to wait for the asylum hearing in detention. And that takes six years.

That so. Because there's not enough personnel or judges to process the asylum claims, which is why the bipartisan Senate bill, even though it was awful in some ways, the money that was going to be allocated for additional personnel and judges was so important. You know what I'm saying? Yeah. And this executive order doesn't allocate resources. He can't do that unilaterally, he would need Congress to allocate the resources.

So look, here one more thing about the Marshall Plan. So who's our top trading partner? Obviously our best ally, Israel, right? That's why we funneled them so much of it. Oh, no, it's not Israel. Well, then it must be the UK or China, China's gigantic. No, it's Mexico. Mexico is our top trading partner, by a lot, okay?

So we have given $300 billion to Israel because there's such an important ally we hear over the years. If we had given $300 billion to Mexico, there'd probably be no illegal immigration at all, because Mexico would be a flourishing, amazing economy and democracy. And people from, even if they're coming from Latin America or South America, they'd stop at Mexico. They wouldn't bother coming to America. Instead, we've done almost nothing to help our neighbors. We funneled all sorts of money to Israel, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, et cetera.

And now we have this giant undocumented immigrant problem, and we wonder why it happened. So, but our politicians, they don't want to solve the problem. All they want to do is play theater. So this is nothing but theater on a case that is definitely going to be, a policy that's definitely going to be struck down. And they know it, that was the whole internal debate in the White House. Yeah, and final thing I'll say is that the idea that Biden is going to win political brownie points by being tougher on immigration through this executive order.

It's just a ridiculous idea. Like, look, there were a group of democratic lawmakers who apparently penned a left. to Biden begging him to do this executive order for their own political purposes, because they don't want Democrats to appear weak on immigration. But you're not gonna outright wing the right wing on immigration proposals. You get what I'm saying? Yeah, that's so right, Anna. If you're talking about now we're talking about politics rather than policy,

Joe Biden looks pathetic. So I'm sorry if I break your heart if you're a Democrat, but I gotta be honest with you guys. So when he's flip flopping on remain in Mexico, I'm against it, I'm in favor of it. Now all of a sudden he's doing the Trump policies and he went to the border on the same day that Trump did and begged Trump to do his policies, but Trump wouldn't let him. What do you think that looks like? Looks bad. It looks like weakness.

So the one giant advantage that Trump has, he's an idiot, he's terrible on policy, blah, blah, blah. But he comes out and goes, this is what's going to happen. This is this and this is that. projects confidence and strength. And you might hate that that works with voters. You might be like, oh, I wish we lived in a more cerebral world where they cared more about his policies and analyze them. But we don't live in that world.

We live in a world where people look for strong leaders. So Trump does that and Biden goes, me, Trump, can I please do Trump's policies? I change my mind. Rather, you got to come up with your own policies and then fight for them. So you look strong, but Democrats never do that. think that that's like an affront to civility to actually fight for policy proposals that their voters love. We're gonna go on air today.

Something interesting happened and it involved a Republican senator. So, believe it or not, one of Joe Biden's biggest political opponents in the Senate actually agrees with him on immigration. Now, in order to understand the statement from the Republican senator, let's just quickly take a look at what Biden said today in announcing his immigration executive order. We came to a clear, clear bipartisan deal. It was the strongest border security agreement in decades. But then Republicans in Congress, not all, but walked away from it.

Why? Because Donald Trump told them to. He told the Republicans it has been published widely by many of you that he didn't want to fix the issue. He wanted to use it to attack me. So today, I'm moving past Republican obstruction and using the executive of authorities available to me as president to do what I can on my own to address the border. Frankly, I would have preferred to address this issue through bipartisan legislation. There you have President Joe Biden calling out Republicans who cave to Donald Trump's demands

to destroy, demolish a bipartisan immigration bill in the Senate that had all sorts of goodies that Republicans have been asking for for decades on immigration policy. Now believe it or not, even though you have Biden calling out his political opponents as aggressively as Biden can, turns out there's one Republican senator who actually agrees with him. Let's take a look at who it is. Everybody who comes on this floor and says our border is broken, we should do something about it, you're absolutely right. And unfortunately, we didn't get there. President Trump opposed to Senate bill. We couldn't find a better way forward that would get 60 votes. I hate that.

In a political climate where it appears that both sides have trouble agreeing to the facts of any political issue, it is nice to see a Republican senator acknowledging reality. Yeah, which of course he'll flip-flop on later because he's Lindsey Graham and he's one of the the most servile creatures that's ever entered the halls of Congress. So the minute he needs Trump to start a war and Trump is president, he'll go back groveling and start licking his boots, a place where he belongs. So, but for now, Biden is in charge and probably Lindsey Graham is pushing for him to keep the war on Gaza going. So he's like, oh, Biden might not be so wrong.

I mean, look, as long as he's sending $20 billion for more disastrous wars in the Middle East, Maybe I'll lick his boots for one or two licks. Oh, wow, congratulations, Lizzie Graham. But anyway, he is correct on this, whether it is intentional or for political reasons. There's no question he's right. And look, a lot of the Trump supporters, at least this is what I was noticing on social media, were justifying what Trump did in getting Republicans to kill that bill because they were arguing, well, we don't even need that bill.

Through executive action, Biden can just do his own immigration policy without the help of Congress. Except the executive order that Biden signed today is going to be challenged in the courts. It will be struck down, just like Donald Trump's immigration executive order having to do with asylum seekers dating back to 2018 was struck down. The Biden administration has cited the same legal justification that Trump had cited in 2018. And that got struck down. So what Biden did today will be struck down. And even if it doesn't, even if magically the courts change their minds and they side with Biden on this, the executive order doesn't allocate the necessary resources in order to process asylum seekers quickly

and decide whether or not they have a just asylum claim or whether they should be deported back to their home country. And so the problem will continue to fester, and if you think an executive order is going to solve it, you would be mistaken. All right, last thing on that for me. So Biden puts out this executive order that he knows is going to be struck down, so he's full of crap. Trump, on the other hand, had all the Republicans vote against their own immigration bill. So he's full of crap. So if you are despondent about our choices, you're not wrong. There's, I mean, and by the way, if you say, hey, yeah, Jenk, but they're all politicians.

they're all greasy liars of different degrees, and this is the kind of stuff we've been having to deal with all of our life, you're also not wrong. So there's very few magical politicians who actually mean what they say and actually deliver on their promises. Trump and Biden often take it to comical lengths. But the core of what Lindsey Graham said that was right today is Trump did order the Republicans to turn around on a bill they wrote, supported, and we're definitely going to vote for. are now pretending was a bad bill and then saying, I can't believe Biden didn't fix the immigration

problem. When they actively chose not to fix it, because Donald Trump ordered them to for political reasons so that he himself can gain, but make sure that the American people were hurt. When we come back from the break, we're going to talk about the likelihood of Donald Trump winning appeal in his hush money payments conviction. That story is fascinating. Lots of legalese, but luckily we have a Columbia Law School graduate here to kind of break it down with with us and help us understand what's going on here. Not a big deal. No, it's just not a big deal. Not at all. But nevertheless, I'm going to explain it clearly to you guys, which no one else is doing. That's the important part. All right. So let's take a break. We'll be right back. All right, back on TYT, Jank and Anna with you guys, but also Minette Darden, Deborah Gwynne, Kate Mick, and Kathleen Barbary. They all just joined by hitting the join button below and became American heroes. And speaking of which, John Crills, thank you for a gifting five memberships on YouTube.

You guys are the best. Anna. Well, let's revisit the criminal convictions that Donald Trump is seeking to. to appeal. This was a verdict that we were expecting is we're going to appeal and we're going to win on appeal. I mean, that's the goal. President's going to cooperate with the pre-sentence investigation and we're going to speedily appeal this unjust verdict.

I think this case is replete with reversible error. We plan to vigorously defend President Trump's rights in the appellate courts all the way up to the U.S. Supreme Court if necessary. It's abundantly clear that Donald Trump's legal team intends to appeal the criminal convictions that Trump is now dealing with as a result of the hush money trial, he was convicted on 34 counts of falsifying business documents. But there were some elements to how the trial was conducted that the legal team plans to focus on during appeal. And according to reporting by Politico, there is a pretty good possibility they might win on appeal. So before we discuss

what the fallout would be if the verdicts were in fact reversed, let's talk about what the arguments are here. So Trump's first chance to challenge the verdict will come within 30 days of his sentencing on July 11th. At that point, he can appeal with New York's first judicial department. Now, that court has such broad discretion to review jury findings that it's sometimes called the 13th juror. Okay, now the way the appellate division, according to Politico, is structured, could also cut in Trump's favor. The division is dubbed the 13th juror in New York because judges are allowed to make decisions based on the facts of the case, not only the law, and just to further elaborate on that, you have former Manhattan District Attorney Diana Florence

who told Politico that this particular appellate court could give Trump an advantage. It's a loophole, if you will, that exists very uniquely in this appellate division of New York, given there's an inherent kind of bias with white color defendants who are treated less severely. To that extent, it could cut in his favor. Okay, in a little bit, what we're gonna do is I'm gonna explain to you guys, does Donald Trump have a good case on appeal? So it's a really interesting case, and we're gonna do a poll on it. In fact, we're putting it up in the chat right now, if you're watching live. Very curious what you think, but hear me out on what the issues on appeal are first. That's coming up in a little bit.

So let's get to the specific arguments that the Trump legal team could make upon appeal. So there's the legal theory that allowed for prosecutors to transform 34, typically misdemeanor counts of falsifying business documents into a felony. So that is an argument that has been made. I actually think that's a pretty decent argument, right? The argument is that they trumpeted up, no pun intended, misdemeanor charges, to felonies in order to convict Donald Trump of felonies. And then there's also an issue with the instructions given to jurors. Basically, to prove the underlying crime, jurors had to agree that Trump used unlawful means,

but did not have to agree on a single unlawful act. So let me break it down even further because this sounds a little confusing. But basically, Trump was charged with falsifying business documents in order to cover up a crime. Now, the jurors did not have to unanimously agree on what that crime was, right? So the crime can be a campaign, breaking campaign finance laws, right? But not every juror had to agree that that was the crime that Donald Trump was trying to cover up by falsifying business document. Actually, why don't we pause there? Because I am super curious to hear your feedback on this because I actually think those are decent arguments, but maybe I'm wrong.

So let me explain. So first of all, the poll, in case you haven't seen it in the live chat, does Trump have a legitimate case for appealing his commission? No, but I broke the yes is down to two things. Yes, but he should lose the appeal and yes, and he should win the appeal. Okay, so now let me explain how it's gonna break down. So step one, in order to convict Donald Trump, you have to go through three steps in this case. Convict him of a felony. Step one is, did he falsify business records? This is the easiest one. It's gotta be unanimous.

If you heard that it doesn't have to be unanimous, that's not true, that's only true for step three. It must be unanimous and it is a misdemeanor by itself. Almost no one disputes this. Even people debating on Trump's side go, well, it's just a misdemeanor, but he definitely falsified business records. and that's what the conviction was about. Now, step two is, was there a conspiracy or an attempt to affect an election by unlawful means?

That must also be unanimous, okay? If yes to step one and step two, then felony. But there's a lack of clarity here because what does unlawful means mean? So there's a lot of things that could be unlawful. Did they try to affect the election in an unlawful way? Well, that's why you have to go to the underlying crime to see if he did violate that law. That's why there's a step three. So when you get to step three, what were the unlawful means?

There were three options that the prosecution and the judge gave them. Violations of federal election law, that is a slight problem because that has already hit the statute of limitations, but it's not clear that it matters if it hit the statute of limitations as long as you're using as an underlying crime. of tax law. That also almost certainly happened, but was it connected enough to this particular falsifying of business records and the falsification of other business records as it relates to these records. So I need you to pause for a second. You're right about the statute of limitations running out. That is a problem, and it is unclear whether or not that's going

to be an argument that could help Trump reverse the convictions. But in regard to the crimes that were committed, remember Michael Cohen is front and center in this case because Michael Cohen was the one who paid the hush money payments or payment $130,000 to Stormy Daniels. He has served time in prison for it, and I went back to see what he was found guilty of. And so I'm gonna read from the DOJ, this was the press release dating back to 2018 on what Michael Cohen pled guilty to. Cohen 51 of New York, New York pleaded guilty to five counts of willful tax evasion, one count of making false statements to a bank, one count of causing an unlawful campaign contribution, that was the hush money payment, and one count of making an excessive

campaign contribution. That's also the hush money payment. Right, so remember Donald Trump falsified business documents in order to reimburse Michael Cohen, who took out an equity line of credit on his home in order to pay the hush money payment to Stormy Daniels. Yeah, now there's an extra layer of complexity here, but it's okay. I'm gonna break it down simply. Michael Cohen is charged by the Southern District of New York, which is a federal case,

because they broke a federal law on campaign finance violations. And that's super clear, he admitted it, he went to prison for it, and Donald Trump did it with him. He was his co-conspirator. But Donald Trump is not charged in a federal case because that statute of limitations has run out. And in fact, the reason it ran out is because Merrick Garland is a weakling and he would not pursue this case. Bingo, yes. He should have pursued it in 2021. I went and read law blogs about it, and they agree.

He was timid, and the prosecutors in the Southern District, which are federal prosecutors, read the tea leaves and thought, it doesn't look like the Attorney General wants us to pursue this case against Trump. So it's actually Biden's Attorney General that ironically protected Trump against this case at the federal level. Yeah, guys, look. Okay, I'm going to come back to the New York case. This was a federal case.

It was. This was a federal case. And they should have pursued it federally as they did with Michael Cohen. So a lot of complexity there. But overall, so since they didn't pursue it, then New York pursues it. And Alvin Bragg is the Manhattan district attorney. So that is related to state, not federal. He pursues the case, but he could still have a federal crime as the underlying crime

in order to have unlawful means that support the falsifying of business records. Okay, again, everyone agrees he falsified the business records, but is there an underlying crime that turns the misdemeanor into a felony? So now, the really interesting part is Judge Merchant says you could take any of the three potential crimes as the underlying crime, and you don't have to be unanimous on that. And that's when people flip out and go, oh, what do you mean? In a jury case, you always have to be unanimous. No, the theory is this and it'll be tested in the appeals. No, you've got through, let me give you an easier case so you could wrap your head around because that's what I needed, right? So let's say the underlying crime was a bank robbery.

And in that bank robbery, Donald Trump assaulted someone, killed someone, and also lied on his taxes about where he got the money from the bank robbery. So that's three different potential crimes. What the judge is saying, and apparently what New York law is saying is, we don't really care if you thought he did the assault but he didn't do the murder, or he did the tax evasion but didn't do the assault or the murder, because all you need is one underlying crime. So as long as you think there was one underlying crime, you don't have to be unanimous about which underlying crime he did in that particular case. So that's why that then turns the misdemeanor into a felony. Now, they're going to say, and that that leads to the two major issues, in my opinion, A lot of other issues in the appeal, but to me, these are the two I'm unsure about. So number one is, does the jury have to be unanimous in the underlying crime? It's possible that the progressives, the liberals on the court will side with Donald Trump. Because if you say they don't have to be unanimous on the underlying crime, more people will be convicted.

That's exactly right, yeah. Right? And usually the liberal justices are for laxer law enforcement. It's a very gross generalization, but generally speaking. But then ironically, Alito and Thomas, who are brutal against criminal defendants, are going to have to turn around and go, this is the one criminal defendant that we think has special rights. So it's a super interesting case if it goes all the way to the Supreme Court. And lastly, is it relevant that the statute of limitations has run out on federal election law violations if that is the underlying crime that some of the jurors thought he was violating? So those are good issues. So I don't know which way the courts are going to decide because I'm not as well versed in the New York case law as you need to be to adjudicate those very difficult, complicated legal questions.

Those are not questions of fact. Those are questions of law. Can you apply the law or not? I'll color this jury. I'll bias this jury by saying I think I'm at yes, but he should lose the appeal. But I have a lot of questions. And I'd love to be part of that system that adjudicates. that I'd be fair about it, and I'm not ruling definitively at all. I'm going to have to see what the judges say on appeal. Yeah, look, the, you know how they say watching a debate is never going to change your mind on what you already believe? That got tested for me yesterday because for the first time I heard someone make an argument

on Pierce Morgan show of all places that changed my mind a little bit. And it was Mark Garagos, who is not a Trump supporter, lifelong Democrat, and he broke down the issues with this trial, and I was like, he's got a point. So I look, I do think that there's some novel legal theory here that if Trump fails in reversing the convictions, if he fails or loses on appeal, I am worried about what like the ramifications will be for other defendants moving forward. It sounds like some of these legal standards for conviction have been loosened specifically for Donald Trump, that's what I'm concerned about. And if it is, if we set a precedent with

Donald Trump, who's to say that it won't be implemented for other people who are far less powerful? Yeah, so last couple of things here, I'm going to give you the poll result in a sec, but so I watch that peers more than thing. Garrigos was interesting and maybe we should invite him on and have a conversation about it. Yeah. But understand that he also has a bias. His bias is not against Donald Trump at all, but he's a criminal defense attorney. So, He does not want, like, the people that he defends being prosecuted with an underlying charge that is, you know, could be one of three crimes, right? Okay, that is a good point. There is a bit of a conflict of interest there, but for all of the restorative justice folks out there, consider how this loosened standards for criminal convictions. Okay, like that is a problem, in my opinion.

Yeah, so you've got to be principled no matter what. Right. So look, if you're, and so, and by the way, that debate was enormously unfair. It was four against one. Yeah, Francesco was the only person. Yeah, Francesca was the only one who was against Trump and four other people kept saying, oh yeah, yeah, for sure, oh yeah, he's, and Pierce Morgan drives me nuts on this issue. He makes it sound like, oh my God, Donald Trump is so innocent on everything. They're just trying to frame him.

No, Pierce Morgan doesn't know the difference between a legal settlement that isn't hidden from the public in a nefarious way and a hush money payment like I look you can find what Bill Clinton did in sleeping with an intern and then whatever the settlements he paid and other court cases to be immoral and I certainly do but that is different from a secret nefarious hush money payment right before the election yeah he's got to stop making the Clinton thing it's bad it's a bad point yeah it just makes no sense it's not about covering up the sexual affair, you know us, we don't care about the sex, we don't care about covering, we just care of you broke a law or not. Anyways, so look guys, the poll will be up on

YouTube community for the Youngter's channel as well. But in the live chat, it's decisive. 83% say no, he does not have a legitimate case in appealing his conviction. Eighty, 17% say yes, but he should lose. So far, 0% say yes and he should win the appeal. Hold on, so the people who say yes and he should lose or, oh, yes, and he should win the appeal. How many, 0%? 0%. And then there are people who say yes, he has a good argument for appeal, but he should lose anyway. Legitimate, and that's why I phrased it that way. Is it a legitimate case for appeal?

I think it is a legitimate case for appeal. Yeah, I agree, yeah. Because and I'm curious to see, I'm sorry, I'm curious to see if it does make it to the Supreme Court, what they decide. I'm not a legal expert. I just think like this does open a door to unfairness in other criminal. prosecutions, which I am concerned about. Yeah, and guys, the reason I make that distinction is because the Trump team often has total trash arguments, conspiracy theories, 2,000 mules, just junk.

This is a rare case that I think they have interesting matters of law, not fact, to decide an appeal. That's why I'm in the 17% that I'd say, yeah, it's a legitimate case for appeal. But knowing what I read about the law, I think that he will lose. But I'm curious to see what the judges do. So if you look, if you're watching the show live Monday through Friday, 6 to 8 p.m. Eastern, we're gonna do more of these interactive polls because we want to get your opinions on them. That's why we put it in the chat, but we also want to hear what you say in the YouTube community poll.

So happy to have you participate in that as well. All right, well, we're gonna take a break. And when we come back for the second hour of the show, we've got a lot more news to get to, including some progressive backstabbing involving Mondare Jones and Jamal Bowman. Jamal Bowman. This story is insane. You do not want to miss it. And later in the show, we'll also give you some updates on the Hunter Biden trial, which is taking place as we speak. We'll be right back.