How do they rationalize this?

And what's worse, Dale, they don't.

I mean, they but they don't have to really.

No, but the mainstream media never calls them to account the outrage that they would take if if a Republican said similar things don't work for a Democrat or prosecute you.

That would be in the a block of.

every CNN and MSNOW show that there exists.

Uh, Abby Phillips would be apoplectic on her show and Scott Jennings would just have to sit there and take it.

Could two people with the same name not run against each other? What's the DOJ's argument here? What's Donald Trump's argument here?

How do they rationalize this?

And what's worse, Dale, they don't.

I mean, they but they don't have to really.

No, but the mainstream media never calls them to account the outrage that they would take if if a Republican said similar things don't work for a Democrat or prosecute you.

That would be in the a block of.

every CNN and MSNOW show that there exists, Abby Phillips would be apoplectic on her show and Scott Jennings would just have to sit there and take it.

But meanwhile, there's just crickets from the other side when Democrats do it because they, well, they might have a point.

Could two people with the same name not run against each other? What's the DOJ's argument here? What's Donald Trump's argument here?

But the wave, how did we even get here?

yeah uh you know you import the third world you get the third world uh and i would add minneapolis and london and france and other cities around the around the country and around the world to that list you don't have to own a history book.

You can just remember two whole years ago where our country was, right? We had 20 million illegal immigrants come across the border.

During the Biden administration, we had sky high inflation.

Yeah, we still have inflation.

We inherited a lot of that inflation.

We had an over bloated, overfunded federal government That we had agencies that were giving out hundreds of billions of dollars to NGOs inside of the United States that would then give pennies on the dollar to their intended recipients overseas.

But how effectively are the Republicans communicating the administration's record to voters? And where might they be facing the greatest challenges?

But the wave, how did we even get here?

Yeah, you know, you import the third world, you get the third world.

And I would add Minneapolis and London and France and other cities around the country and around the world to that list.

You don't have to own a history book.

You can just remember two whole years ago where our country was, right? We had 20 million illegal immigrants come across the border.

During the Biden administration, we had sky-high inflation.

Yeah, we still have inflation.

But how effectively are the Republicans communicating the administration's record to voters? And where might they be facing the greatest challenges?

I've been watching a lot of military YouTubers, and they've been having a bunch of JAG officers on talking about this, including some of the people who were tasked at the time with with his defense and I thought one of them made a pretty interesting comment and I this is not really political or anything I just want to get your thoughts on this and I think this is just defense attorneys as a whole one of them was like I got to defend this guy I don't want to defend this guy I have to defend this guy like that's sort of like every person is entitled to a full-throated defense even if they're human garbage and obviously guilty right i mean and so like the people who have to do that job like as public defenders or in this case a military uh defense attorney and stuff like this those individuals they don't want to be there but they have to put as best of a defense up as they possibly can right how does that weigh on them

How does it weigh on the Jags themselves? Yeah, yeah.

Yeah, I mean, look, being a defense lawyer, it does put you in contact with having to defend individuals who are extremely guilty, evil, terrorists.

And, you know, the Jags that did defend the individuals that were, let's say, Gitmo or certainly Hassan, um you know they have a tough job to do it's super unpopular but if you believe in the justice system it's a necessary thing to do so um you know i mean but look i i don't believe as eugene vindman said right who handled some post uh trial appeals of hassan that that somehow this was uh an affront or an attack on uh you know, the norms of our legal system and the American justice system must uphold the rule of law and the dignity of our institutions.

This is a terrorist, killed 13 people, injured dozens others.

What dignity of our institutions are you talking about? So we're forced now to be dignified, maybe give this guy a sleeping pill or a sedative before his execution, right? I mean, just some of that doesn't square with me because the punishment is the punishment.

I mean, it is not a generation away from, well, he's got life in prison.

Would you say, as the kids say these days, she's cooked?

Like that's sort of like, every person is entitled to a full-throated defense even if they're human garbage and obviously guilty right i mean and so like the people who have to do that job like as public defenders or in this case a military uh defense attorney and stuff like this those individuals they don't want to be there but they have to put as best of a defense up as they possibly can right how does that weigh on them

How does it weigh on the Jags themselves? Yeah, yeah.

Yeah, I mean, look, being a defense lawyer, it does put you in contact with having to defend individuals who are extremely guilty, evil, terrorists.

And, you know, the Jags that did defend the individuals that were, let's say, Gitmo or certainly Hassan, You know, they have a tough job to do.

It's super unpopular.

But if you believe in the justice system, it's a necessary thing to do.

So, you know, I mean, but look, I don't believe, as Eugene Vindman said, right, who handled some post-trial appeals of Hassan, that somehow this was an affront or an attack on – you know, the norms of our legal system and the American justice system must uphold the rule of law and the dignity of our institutions.

Would you say, as the kids say these days, she's cooked?

... ever in the history of ever and it n- never has once happened? Isn't this a violation of our political norms, J-Town?

Right.

When Fani Willis' paramour, uh, went to the White House o- on multiple occasions, it was because they typically meet with nobodies from Fulton County, uh, who aren't engaged in anything significant in the world.

Uh, that makes great sense to everybody.

And then when you talk about the raid on Mar-a-Lago and how the DC and the Miami field office, uh, branches of the FBI, field offices rather, uh, were against it altogether, but J. Bratton, others, Paula Hate, who's the deputy director of the FBI, all signed off on it, um, despite the privileges that Trump had maintained.

And you know why? You know what the big mover was there? I was reading this this morning and it just...

We've talked about this, Dale.

Um, is that something that's gonna happen? I- I- if, if Democrats win, are they actually gonna try to impeach even if they only have, like, 51 or 52 or whatever in the, in the, uh, Senate?

Is the federal government, I guess a better way to put this, is the federal government required to provide those things I just mentioned, student loans for those things? Or can the federal government, who hands out these dollars, say, "Guys, you're not paying this stuff back, so we're not gonna give you $250,000, uh, to go to the University of Florida to watch terrible football games and get a job paying 35K a year"?

100%.

And, uh, the...

I mean, look, the federal government, uh, you know, when you think about our...

You know, we have a, a right to a national defense, let's say, right? But the federal government could zero out the defense budget.

Uh, I mean, there, there is no guarantee that the federal government is ever going to give you a dollar for anything that you think you need.

Um, so I mean, our rights are enshrined in our personal, uh, in our bodies, in our human rights.

And if you've said all that, you shouldn't be handed the case.

Do they, do they have any legitimate argument here?

Well, in the D.C.

Circuit, they do, because D.C. has created a rubric by which the media does get due process for the removal of their hard passes to enter the White House.

Now, that is out of whole cloth.

The Supreme Court has not adopted that.

But at the same time, the D.C.

Circuit has.

Is that an accusation that he should be tried for something? Is he just working the jurors in the next trial? What does that mean that he's broke multiple laws? And why is the attorney for Lindsey Clancy making that argument?

Do they, do they have any legitimate argument here?

Well, in the D.C.

Circuit, they do, because D.C. has created a rubric by which the media does get due process for the removal of their hard passes to enter the White House.

Now, that is out of whole cloth.

The Supreme Court has not adopted that.

But at the same time, the D.C.

Circuit has, so they're going to prevail.

Is that an accusation that he should be tried for something? Is he just working the jurors in the next trial? What does that mean that he's broke multiple laws? And why is the attorney for Lindsey Clancy making that argument?

Do I have a case here, and should Donald Trump go to jail for it?

Well, in reverse order, absolutely not.

And, you know, look, there is a case here.

There's a lot of D.C.

Circuit precedent.

Cheryl versus Knight comes to mind.

Kareem versus Trump, which was the I believe the Playboy case in 2020.

Does he have any legal recourse on this, or is this just part of playing the game?

Do I have a case here, and should Donald Trump go to jail for it?

Well, in reverse order, absolutely not.

And, you know, look, there is a case here.

There's a lot of D.C.

Circuit precedent.

Cheryl versus Knight comes to mind.

Kareem versus Trump, which was the I believe the Playboy case in 2020.

Does he have any legal recourse on this, or is this just part of playing the game?

I mean, what is to stop them from doing that in the long arm of the law?

yeah well i mean and how is bernie sanders going to prove that the ai changed ever so slightly like what's the what's the software upgrade there that that is proof that it has changed in such a way that it would now be criminal um and what's the baseline that bernie sanders thinks ai is currently at this this entire doj last week took down 200 000 chinese bots using ai mind you that we're doing nothing but online influence campaigning in the United States to defeat servers and defeat AI.

Why would China want to do that? China is doing that because they want to win the AI race.

If you win the AI race, you win the space race, you win the military race, you win the medical research race, and so many other things.

And so there is a very deliberate component to some who want to defeat AI because it helps communist China.

It helps communism.

The irrational fears, the AI-ophobia that is going on in this country right now.

Which jurors actually in the wrong here? Is this okay to do?

Uh, what's to stop those people from going, "Well, you know, I, you guys seem to forget that I, we're very rich, and we'll just go move our server for, farm off to Ghana or something"? I mean, what is, what is to stop them from doing that in the long arm of the law?

Yeah.

Well, I mean, and how is Bernie Sanders gonna prove that the AI changed ever so slightly? Like, what, uh, what's the, what's the software upgrade there that, that is proof that it has changed in such a way that it would now be criminal? Um, and what's the baseline that Bernie Sanders thinks AI is currently at? This, this entire...

DOJ last week took down 200,000 Chinese bots, using AI, mind you, that were doing nothing but online influence campaigning in the United States to defeat servers and defeat AI.

Why would China wanna do that? China's doing that because they wanna win the AI race.

If you win the AI race, you win the space, you win the space race, you win the military race, you win the medical, the, uh, uh, uh, research race, uh, and so many other things.

Um, and so there is a very deliberate component to some who want to defeat AI, uh, because it helps Communist China.

Okay

What should we expect to see today from each side?

Well, I, I don't believe that the prosecution should use more than 20 minutes.

I mean, the evidence is overwhelming.

It speaks for itself.

If you have to really argue at this point that there is probable cause, right? So a better than a coin toss chance that Tyler Robinson killed Charlie Kirk, then you've lost already.

You don't have any faith in your case.

Uh, I mean, I can...

Is that the case from your experience? Does it take longer to complete a trial than it once did a- as a general matter across the states?

So when we look at the timeline of these things, you know, the tyler robinson trial the way that it's working through is would you call that standard would you call that delayed what should we be expecting here oh

they're both delayed and and now for a mental health defense it it is not unreasonable to go a couple of years you know these doctors they evaluate over a period of months a patient uh and then it takes them months to create their report and then there'll be a counter expert to that report takes them six months so you can build in 18 months from right away, uh, after the from a grand jury.

Um, b long it's going to take th four years is too long.

U we're just, you know, I d it's going to go in Utah, preliminary.

This is bett is that Tyler Robinson mur He's confessed to it to, I people at least right on So and his DNA is all over the gun, the shell casings, the Dremel that put the disgusting remarks on the shell casings.

So, you know, honestly, this should never take this long for a preliminary hearing.

This judge is treating it like it's a mini jury trial.

Jay, I want to get you back on here because one of the things that I certainly have been wondering is, and I think all of us, is how much of this that we see going on on social media, how much of this actually makes its way into a jury room? Obviously, this is the kind of thing that you hope is covered in voir dire, you hope is screened for, but it doesn't mean that juries are not susceptible to it because jurors are human beings too.

So when we look at the timeline of these things, you know, with the Tyler Robinson trial, the way that it's working through, would you call that standard? Would you call that delayed? What should we be expecting here?

Oh, they're both delayed.

And now for a mental health defense, it is not unreasonable to go a couple of years.

You know, these doctors, they evaluate over a period of months a patient and then it takes them months to create their report.

And then there'll be a counter expert to that report takes them six months.

So you can build in 18 months from right away after the charges are referred from a grand jury.

because that's how long it's going to take the experts.

Jay, I want to get you back on here because one of the things that I certainly have been wondering is, and I think all of us, is how much of this that we see going on on social media, how much of this actually makes its way into a jury room? Obviously, this is the kind of thing that you hope is covered in voir dire, you hope is screened for, but it doesn't mean that juries are not susceptible to it because jurors are human beings too.

So I know judge graph he's allotted two hours each for the prosecution and the defense to make their closing arguments this is not a trial it feels like a trial in so many ways but it's not what should we expect to see today from each side

well i don't believe that the prosecution should use more than twenty minutes i mean the evidence is overwhelming it speaks for itself if you have to really argue At this point, that there is probable cause, right? So better than a coin toss chance that Tyler Robinson killed Charlie Kirk, then you've lost already.

You don't have any faith in your case.

I mean, I'm not involved in the case whatsoever.

I've talked about it more on your program than I have anywhere.

And I can tell you, I can list 20 or 25 pieces of evidence that are very damning independently and then certainly when taken together against Tyler Robinson to include the multitude of confessions from Tyler Robinson that he admitted he killed Charlie Kirk.

So I don't think there's any question for the judge.

Is that the case from your experience? Does it take longer to complete a trial than it once did as a general matter across the states?

From a legal perspective, why is that important, and what is the distinction?

Right.

So speculation is, you, if you're speculating, you can't get to, uh, even probable cause or certainly not beyond a reasonable doubt.

But let me give you a great example, and this is what I would tell juries in my murder cases and my death penalty cases.

If you went to bed and then you woke up, and across your driveway there were deer tracks across the snow, you would know three things.

Now, you weren't there.

You didn't see any of the following, but you would, you would be able to reasonably infer that the following three things happened: one, that it snowed last night; two, that a deer crossed your driveway last night; and three, that the deer crossed the driveway after it snowed.

But had that been the case, would that be something that the defense would have reasonably brought up during a preliminary hearing?

absolute disgust.

It's they're a cabinet member.

They serve at the pleasure of the president, United States.

And you can't be independent of the president and work for him at the same time.

The the right question is if he and she asked this and he said he's not going to ask me to do that.

So it's a stupid question.

Fair enough.

What are we doing here? Like, are we pretending that there was like some sort of separation between these two guys? What are we doing? Why would we pretend this?

Is that correct?

Well, I, I contend it's one or the other.

Uh, I, I contend that he has a right to plead the Fifth even though he has a pardon.

That's what happened in the Burdick case.

Uh, and, uh, w- if, if he pleads the Fifth, the courts could say, "That's fine.

Can't be held in contempt for pleading the Fifth, but you've abandoned your pardon now, and anything in the last five years, any testimony perhaps in front of Rand Paul's committee, let's say, or Congress," well, if that testimony was false, like, "I didn't fund gain-of-function research," uh, uh, then, and we know from the declassified emails and, and his diary and other things what he really believed, uh, then that conduct, and during what was the pardon period, can be prosecuted.

It's one or the other.

Mm

Is that correct?

Well, I, I contend it's one or the other.

Uh, I, I contend that he has a right to plead the Fifth even though he has a pardon.

That's what happened in the Burdick case.

Uh, and, uh, w- if, if he pleads the Fifth, the courts could say, "That's fine.

Can't be held in contempt for pleading the Fifth.

But you've abandoned your pardon now, and anything in the last five years, any testimony perhaps in front of Rand Paul's committee, let's say, or Congress...

Mm

Your thoughts on this?

Yeah, I mean, we've been talking about this, you and I, Greta, on air and off air for years.

And you really do, on Greta.com, you really do expose really that two-month time frame between when the sting was being organized.

And then when they lost him, he slipped through the delicate hands of the FBI and fled to Peru.

And then I think Chile after that.

And nobody wanted to take accountability.

What was the oddest thing to me as a career prosecutor, Greta, is that the FBI went down already knowing that there was a wire fraud and an extortion complaint that could be filed against UR and Bandersloot for that money that they were exchanging in the hotel room.

It was like, you know, I don't know where the prosecutor went to law school.

What can be done here except us go, ha-ha, Fauci bad? I mean, is that it?

Well, I mean, if his pardon is good, right, and it's an auto pen pardon, then, yeah, it's good.

I mean, he testified in June of 2024 before the House Select Subcommittee on COVID and repeated much of the same nonsense that we all know Dr. Fauci is about.

I still believe that the auto pen pardons are illegitimate.

I just I don't believe for one second that Joe Biden, the only one who can pardon someone, knew about any of them.

Now, that's the rub.

How do you prove that? You would need someone to snitch right inside of the White House that he had no idea that Joe Biden said it was OK.

I mean, like that.

What can be done here except us go, ha-ha, Fauci bad? I mean, is that it?

Well, I mean, if his pardon is good, right, and it's an auto pen pardon, then, yeah, it's good.

I mean, he testified in June of 2024 before the House Select Subcommittee on COVID and repeated much of the same nonsense that we all know Dr. Fauci is about.

I still believe that the auto pen pardons are illegitimate.

I just I don't believe for one second that Joe Biden, the only one who can pardon someone, knew about any of them.

Now, that's the rub.

How do you prove that? You would need someone to snitch right inside of the White House that he had no idea that Joe Biden said it was OK.

I mean, like that.