Deep Dive into the Trump Indictment: the Charges, the Hypocrisy & Next Steps

Summary

Podcast Summary: Deep Dive into the Trump Indictment: the Charges, the Hypocrisy & Next Steps

Podcast Information:

• Title: The 47 Morning Update with Ben Ferguson
• Host/Author: Premiere Networks
• Episode: Deep Dive into the Trump Indictment: the Charges, the Hypocrisy & Next Steps
• Release Date: June 12, 2023

Overview: In this episode of The 47 Morning Update, host Ben Shapiro engages in a detailed discussion with Senator Ted Cruz about the recent indictment of former President Donald Trump. The conversation delves into the specifics of the charges, examines perceived hypocrisies in the Department of Justice's (DOJ) actions, and explores the potential legal and political ramifications of the indictment.

---

1. Introduction to the Trump Indictment

Ben Shapiro opens the discussion by emphasizing the need to dissect the Trump indictment to help listeners understand its implications. He questions the severity of the charges and whether this indictment differs from previous legal actions, such as the one in New York, which some deemed frivolous.

2. Breakdown of the Charges

Ted Cruz provides a comprehensive analysis of the indictment, highlighting that it contains 37 counts primarily related to the willful retention of national defense information. He explains the nature of these charges, which include:

• Willful retention and failure to deliver classified documents.
• Corrupt concealment of these documents.
• Obstruction of justice related to federal investigations.

Cruz details that if the counts are run consecutively, Trump could face up to 310 years in prison. However, he contextualizes the severity by comparing it to historical precedents where presidents have retained classified documents without consequence.

Notable Quote:

"There are 31 counts of that. If those 31 counts, if Trump were convicted of it, and if they ran consecutively, he could be sentenced to 310 years in prison." ([00:33])

3. Double Standards in Prosecution

Cruz passionately argues that the DOJ is exhibiting blatant double standards by pursuing Trump while ignoring similar actions by other political figures, notably Joe Biden and Hillary Clinton. He questions why only Trump is being targeted and suggests that this selective prosecution is politically motivated.

Notable Quote:

"This is so obviously a double standard. This is a double standard driven by a Department of Justice that's blinded by hatred." ([08:33])

4. Legal Analysis and Comparisons

The discussion shifts to the legal intricacies of the indictment. Cruz points out that while the charges against Trump are substantial on paper, the application of these laws is inconsistent. He references past actions by presidents and DOJ officials, such as Sandy Berger and Hillary Clinton, to illustrate his point about perceived inconsistencies.

Notable Quote:

"Hillary Clinton is someone else who engaged, I believe, in obstruction of justice, who engaged in the willful destruction of evidence... This DOJ happily ignores it because she's on the team." ([17:37])

5. Court Proceedings and Trial Expectations

Ben Shapiro inquires about the potential court proceedings, including the possibility of a jury trial in Florida, the implications of allowing cameras in the courtroom, and the selection of the judge overseeing the case.

Cruz responds by explaining that the trial is likely to take months or even years due to pretrial motions and litigation over evidence exclusion. He mentions that the case is assigned to Judge Eileen Cannon, whom Trump appointed, potentially favoring a more impartial trial in Florida compared to Washington D.C.

Notable Quote:

"If Trump were convicted and sentenced to jail, he's still not ineligible to be president. Being convicted of a crime does not remove your eligibility to be president." ([37:46])

6. Political Implications and Impact on Elections

The conversation delves into the political fallout of the indictment. Cruz asserts that indictments like this boost Trump's poll numbers, particularly in the Republican primary, as his base rallies against what they perceive as political persecution.

Notable Quote:

"When Alvin Bragg brought his indictment, I said on this podcast, this will be worth 10 points in the polls for Trump. That prediction proved exactly right." ([43:33])

7. Future Scenarios and Precedents

Cruz draws parallels between the current situation and past events, such as President Nixon's pardon by Gerald Ford to prevent a protracted criminal trial. He warns that if Trump were convicted, it could set a dangerous precedent for the treatment of sitting and former presidents.

Notable Quote:

"But after Nixon resigned in disgrace, there was a very real possibility he would be prosecuted. John Mitchell, his Attorney General, was prosecuted and served, I think, 22 months in jail." ([38:02])

8. Conclusion

The episode concludes with Cruz emphasizing the DOJ's role in potentially undermining democracy through selective prosecutions. He warns of the dangers of using the legal system as a political weapon and underscores the importance of maintaining integrity and consistency in legal actions against public figures.

Notable Quote:

"The DOJ happily ignores [Hillary Clinton's actions] because she's on the team... These are the same goons that sent the IRS to Matt Taibbi's house the day he was testifying in front of the House of Representatives on Twitter." ([28:10])

---

Key Takeaways:

• Multiplicity of Charges: Trump's indictment comprises 37 counts, primarily focused on the retention and concealment of classified documents.

• Alleged Double Standards: There is a significant concern about the DOJ's selective prosecution, targeting Trump while seemingly overlooking similar actions by other political figures.

• Legal and Political Ramifications: The indictment could bolster Trump's standing within the Republican base, potentially impacting his candidacy and the broader political landscape.

• Historical Context: Comparisons to past presidencies highlight fears of setting negative precedents regarding the treatment of former leaders.

• Future Uncertainties: The unprecedented nature of indicting a former president leaves many legal questions unanswered, including potential implications for future presidencies and the integrity of the DOJ.

---

This episode serves as a critical examination of the Trump indictment, questioning the motivations behind the charges and highlighting the broader implications for American politics and the rule of law.

Transcript

[Ben Shapiro]

Senator, always a pleasure to be with you in studio. There is so much this Trump indictment that needs to be broken down. That's going to be the goal today for people to understand this indictment. Let's walk through exactly what they have charged Donald Trump with and also your overview. How serious is this in your opinion? Scale 1 to 10. We've seen, like in New York, there was not a lot of people worried about that indictment. They thought it was frivolous. They thought it was kind of absurd, statute of limitations. There's going to be a lot of problems in court. Is this different?

[Ted Cruz]

Well, the last podcast we did on Friday, we did it right after news of the indictment broke, but the indictment wasn't public. What has changed between then and now is we now have the indictment, so we can see specifically what they brought. I will say now, having reviewed the specific indictment, it's pretty underwhelming. There's not a lot of there there. We talked quite a bit before the indictment about how I believed it was extremely likely that the Department of Justice was going to indict Donald Trump. That Merrick Garland, I believe, wants to indict Donald Trump. I think he came into office wanting to indict and to prosecute Donald Trump. But we also talked about the problem that he couldn't just base it on the classified documents because it so happened just about everyone else had did the same damn thing. And so we discussed on this podcast how I believe they would really build their case as an obstruction case. What's interesting is they did that. But the bulk of the indictment focuses on the classified documents. So if you look at the indictment, there are 37 counts in the indictment. It starts with criminal offenses concerning the willful retention of national defense information, withholding a document of record, corruptly concealing a document of record, concealing a document in a federal investigation, a scheme to conceal. And if you look at it, all right, so counts 1 through 31. So the bulk of the indictment are multiple counts of willful retention of national defense information. And by the text of it, the terms of that crime are serious. Whoever having unauthorized possession of access to or control over any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance or note relating to the national defense, or information relating to the national defense, which information the possessor has reason to believe could be used to the injury of the United States or the advantage of any foreign nation willfully communicates, delivers, transmits, or causes to be communicated, delivered or transmitted, or attempts to communicate, deliver or transmitted or cause to be communicated, delivered, or transmitted the same to any person not entitled to receive it or willfully retains the same and fails to deliver it to the officer, employee of the United States entitled to receive it. Whoever being entrusted with or having lawful possession of or control of any document, writing, code, book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, note, or information relating to the national defense through gross negligence, permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of his trust or to be lost, stolen, abstracted or destroyed, or having knowledge that the same has been illegally moved from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of its trust or lost or stolen, abstracted or destroyed, and fails to make prompt report of such lost, theft, abstraction, or destruction to his superior officer. The consequence of all of that is that you face a maximum fine of $250,000 and imprisonment of not more than 10 years or both. Now, there are 31 counts of that. If those 31 counts, if Trump were convicted of it, and if they ran consecutively, he could be sentenced to 310 years in prison. Now, on the face of that, all that sounds serious. Yeah, except for the problem that this is the President of the United States. This is a President of the United States. And every president of the United States has taken papers from his time as president that goes back, I suspect, back to George Washington. This is a general statute that if you or I are working in government, we have a classified document and we shove them down our underwear like Sandy Berger, who was the national security adviser to Bill Clinton did. That's the kind of statute that can be used to go after you. In this instance. The press has been breathless about the allegation that Trump stored classified documents in his bathroom, in his shower. And the Biden Department of Justice media production office helpfully took a picture which they conveniently released to the world because this is a media production. And I say that tongue in cheek, it should not be a media production. But they are engaged in politics here. We've all seen the picture of the boxes stacked up in the marble bathroom with the chandelier. And there's something titillating about that. That's an odd place to store classified documents in a shower. Although I have to ask you something. Number one, every president has taken records. So just saying, oh, if you have a national security record, you're obviously a felon. Well, if we're going to lock up all our former presidents, you know, I'm not sure Jimmy Carter is going to last long in doing hard time. Bill Clinton, on the other hand, could do quite well behind bars. But secondly, okay, fine, you've got an embarrassing place for documents to be, which is a bathroom and shower. Is that any more embarrassing than in a cardboard box in a garage next to an antique Corvette? Yeah, that would be where Joe Biden.

[Ben Shapiro]

Kept his documents, or classified documents on a server in Hillary Clinton's basement in her bathroom.

[Ted Cruz]

At the end of the day, the biggest problem the Department of Justice has is the screaming hypocrisy. This breathlessly says, my God, he had a classified document. Off with his head. And it doesn't say a word about why they have no concerns at all about Joe Biden, about all of the documents he had. Not in one place, not in two places, in multiple places left, with no security left, stacked in the garage, unlocked garage. This is so obviously a double standard. This is a double standard driven by a Department of justice that's blinded by hatred. I think they've convinced themselves that Trump actually is Adolf Hitler, and so nothing else matters if you're going after Hitler. Everything is justified. And, well, yes, Joe Biden did the same thing. Well, yes, Hillary Clinton did the same thing, but they're not Hitler. This is how their thinking goes. They're not Hitler. So it's fine. We like them. They're on our team. So it's not a crime if they do it. But, boy, isn't this a good excuse to go after the devil? Looking at this indictment, I think the same thing today that I thought last week when it was announced, this is garbage. It's not the same kind of garbage that Alvin Bragg's New York indictment is. That's just legally frivolous. It's legally frivolous on the face of it.

[Ben Shapiro]

Scale to 1 to 10, how concerned are you over that indictment? 1 to 10.

[Ted Cruz]

The Bragg one?

[Ben Shapiro]

Yeah.

[Ted Cruz]

1.5.

[Ben Shapiro]

And what about this one?

[Ted Cruz]

4.5.

[Ben Shapiro]

What's the biggest difference then?

[Ted Cruz]

There's several things. Number one, this is the Department of Justice.

[Ben Shapiro]

Unlimited funds, unlimited lawyers, unlimited time.

[Ted Cruz]

When the Department of Justice comes after you, it is a lot more serious. It just is. DOJ has resources, has power. It has the ability to devote massive resources and typically, far more talented prosecutors than Alvin Bragg has at his disposal. Alvin Bragg, on the face of it, the indictment is really reaching. It's trying to create crimes where none exist. In this instance, what they allege is arguably criminal for someone who's not the President of the United States. The problem with it is the Double standard and the political persecution, rather than whether or not this is in fact a violation of law, the pundits on CNN will all say, ah, they've shown a violation of law. My response is, great. Explain to me why, if you want to prosecute Trump, are he and Biden going to be cellmates? If you bring twin prosecutions for the same thing and put Hillary in, have the three of them, you want to prosecute all three of them? We can talk about that. Now. That would be absurd.

[Ben Shapiro]

Sure.

[Ted Cruz]

But that would at least be consistent to say, okay, any of you who had a classified document, we're going to prosecute all of you. All right, that I could understand. This is so serious. Off with all their heads. But that's not what they're saying. With zero explanation. They say, when the guy we don't like, who used to be President of the United States, who is a leading candidate to be the next President of the United States, when he does it, we will come after him and try to put him in jail. When our boss does it, who, What? Never heard Joe Biden, who's that guy?

[Ben Shapiro]

So when you go to court on this, let's paint that picture of what this looks like going forward. Is there going to be a jury trial? I think it's pretty clear there's not going to be a plea deal here. And before we explain how that would actually go down, will we even get to see it? Will there be allow there to be cameras in that courtroom? I want to tell you about our friends over at Patriot Mobile. If you're sick and tired of woke companies, we've seen this with what's gone on with Budweiser, we've seen this with Target. The list now goes unfortunately on and on. And if you're just sick and tired of having your money, go to companies that don't align with your values. There is a choice. Now, with your cell phone, it's called Patriot Mobile. They're the only conservative Christian cell phone provider in the country. You get the best coverage, the same coverage you're used to right now, except when you pay your bill, you're actually standing and supporting causes that you believe in. The first and the Second Amendment, the rights of unborn children, protecting and supporting our veterans and those that have served this country. That's what Patriot Mobile does with your money every month when you pay your bill. So make the switch and stand with people that stand with what you believe in. 878 Patriot's the number. That's 878 Patriot or online at patriot mobile.com verdict patriot mobile.com verdict or 878 Patriot. Use the promo code verdict and you'll also get free activation and the best deals of the year. Senator, if this thing moves forward, which I think it's going to. Are we going. Is he preparing for a jury trial? And it's in Florida? Some people have asked question, why is it in Florida? Why didn't it happen somewhere else? How did they pick Florida, and what will that look like?

[Ted Cruz]

Well, they picked Florida because they allege that's where the crimes occurred, that they occurred at Mar A Lago, that that's where Trump, they allege, illegally stored the classified documents. That's where he refused to turn over the classified documents. That's where they allege he engaged in obstruction of justice. And so you bring the crime where the alleged crime. You bring the case where the alleged crime occurred. Look, I think being in Florida is better than being in D.C. if this goes to a jury trial, Trump is likely to get a more fair jury in Florida than he would in D.C. d.C. Would be hopelessly stacked against him. You know, looking at this indictment, the double standard is a massive problem for doj. And right now, Merrick Garland and Jack Smith have done nothing to address this. That being said, the obstruction claims are where the greatest legal peril is. But let's start on the double standard. Listen to Jack Smith when he's laying out this indictment, and listen to what he has to say.

[Jack Smith]

Today, an indictment was unsealed charging Donald J. Trump with felony violations of our national security laws, as well as participating in a conspiracy to obstruct justice. This indictment was voted by a grand jury of citizens in the Southern District of Florida. And I invite everyone to read it in full to understand the scope and the gravity of the crimes charged. The men and women of the United States intelligence community and our armed forces dedicate their lives to to protecting our nation and its people. Our laws that protect national defense information are critical to the safety and security of the United States, and they must be enforced. Violations of those laws put our country at risk. Adherence to the rule of law is a bedrock principle of the Department of Justice. And our nation's commitment to the rule of law sets an example for the world. We have one set of laws in this country, and they apply to everyone. Applying those laws, collecting facts, that's what determines the outcome of an investigation. Nothing more and nothing less.

[Ted Cruz]

So those remarks literally need a laugh track. Yeah, like a studio audience would start laughing at that because he could give the Exact same speech substituting the word Joe Biden for the words Donald Trump. Yeah, he could give the exact same speech substituting Hillary Clinton for Donald Trump. Now, obviously he's not. Why? Because they like those guys. They're on the team. And so all the moralizing. We have one set of laws for all people who are enemies of the White House.

[Ben Shapiro]

It's a lie, it's propaganda.

[Ted Cruz]

It is demonstrably absurd. I'm actually. He's a pretty good actor. I'm impressed that he said that With a straight face like that, you stand up and say, oh, we apply this fairly and uniformly to everyone. As long as we don't like you.

[Ben Shapiro]

Yeah, it's like, well, if that's true, then why isn't the special counsel having a press conference right now with Joe Biden and the classification of documents, classified documents he had at his house next to his Corvette. Do you expect that will put any pressure on them now to have the same press conference?

[Ted Cruz]

No, they're not going to. I think they're shameless. I think they're so bought in that, that, that they don't care, that they believe they are hunting the devil, they're hunting Hitler, and everything is justified. The name of it now, where the legal exposure is more significant concerns obstruction of justice. And we talked about this before, that that if they're going to distinguish Trump from Biden, their best talking point is, well, once it was discovered Biden handed it over, Trump didn't. So that's why it's different. And I will say in the indictment, there are two exchanges that are not great, that we're going to hear about a lot on tv.

[Ben Shapiro]

So prepare for it.

[Ted Cruz]

Prepare for it. If there are. If there's a trial, we will hear about it on trial. One exchange is, this was caught on tape where he's talking about the documents and Trump says, quote, all sorts of stuff, pages long. Wait a minute. Let's see here. I just found. Isn't it amazing? This totally wins my case. You know, except it's like high, highly confidential, secret. This is secret information. Look, look at this. He points out in another section of the transcript, he said, you know, when I was president, I could declassify this, but I can't now. And a Trump aide on the tape says, that's a problem. That exchange will be played in court as evidence of willfulness. What Biden would argue is that he didn't know he had the documents, that he wasn't aware that he didn't willfully.

[Ben Shapiro]

Violate the statute, and once he Found out he had them, he gave them back.

[Ted Cruz]

And Biden will argue then that he didn't obstruct. There's another portion of testimony from Trump's former lawyer who says Trump, in responding to the subpoena, advised his two attorneys. And he was talking about Hillary Clinton's lawyer, and he says, quote, he was great. He did a great job. You know what he said? He said that it. That it was him, that he was the one who deleted all our emails, the 30,000 emails, because they basically dealt with her scheduling or going to the gym and her having beauty appointments. And he was great. And he. And she didn't get into any trouble because he said he was the one who deleted them. And according to Trump's lawyers, he said that several times during the day, quote, related that story more than once during that day. Now, look, on obstruction, Hillary Clinton is someone else who engaged, I believe, in obstruction of justice, who engaged in the willful destruction of evidence, who deleted 30,000 emails, who used bleach bit to erase the evidence of it, who use hammers to smash cell phones. Yeah, Hillary Clinton's conduct is serious. This DOJ happily ignores it because she's on the team, and they're on her team.

[Ben Shapiro]

The argument, I'm sure, is gonna be, I was joking. I was talking about the double standard of Hillary Clinton. Would that play in court in that capacity? I'm clearly talking about how ridiculous this subpoena is. I'm talking about how absurd it is. They're coming after me wanting all these documents. Hillary Clinton, this is what she was doing, and no one batted an eye. So I was remarking on that he might.

[Ted Cruz]

Presumably that is what he would say. There's another portion from his lawyers where they said that Trump suggested that they just pluck out the classified documents. The prosecution will argue that the jury should conclude from that that Trump was instructing them to destroy evidence in violation of a subpoena. I want to be clear. I think all of this is garbage. But, look, when you're representing a client, it helps when a client speaks carefully and precisely.

[Ben Shapiro]

So how does this play in court? I mean, we saw that he called for an expedited. He wants to move quickly with this going to a trial. How much say so does the DOJ have in that? Who ultimately will decide? How are they gonna choose the judge here? Which court does this go to? And are we gonna watch this on TV like we watched O.J. simpson? Is the whole world gonna stop and we're gonna see cameras? And is Trump gonna have to Be there every day, sitting there as a defendant at that table.

[Ted Cruz]

Look, that is certainly possible. This could proceed quickly. I think it's likely to take a long time. It's gonna take, at a minimum, months. It could take years. Part of it depends on what the pretrial motions are, what litigation arises out of trying to exclude evidence. There are all sorts of pretrial steps that could delay a trial for years. It's possible we see a trial quickly. I think that's pretty unlikely. But it depends on the initial reporting is this was assigned to Judge Eileen Cannon, who is a judge that Trump appointed. Assuming that's true, that's a good development for him not to have a judge who is predisposed to be antagonistic and hostile to him.

[Ben Shapiro]

Can the DOJ immediately say, well, he appoint her so she should be taken out of the courtroom for this. We want another judge. Is that something they could fight for?

[Ted Cruz]

They could try to do that. I don't think that motion would succeed.

[Ben Shapiro]

Why is that? Because most people think, well, it'd be simple to say, hey, this woman's bias. He appointed her legally. How does that work?

[Ted Cruz]

So instead, you should have a judge that was appointed by Biden and to be biased against him. Look, we're in untreaded territory because no Department of Justice has ever prosecuted a president before.

[Ben Shapiro]

With good reason.

[Ted Cruz]

We haven't been in this circumstance before. I think as a matter of law, it is not the case that every judge appointed by a president is naturally biased to be predisposed to support that president. Particularly with district court nominations. You often see instances where Republicans appoint district judges who the Democrat senators in that state pushed, who can be very, very liberal. You see case instances where Democrats appoint district judges where you have particularly Republican senators from those states where the judges are relatively conservative. And so as a legal matter, it's not a straight up proxy that whoever appointed the judge, they're just a partisan for that president. And by the way, they're not supposed to be. They're supposed to be fair and impartial. The overwhelming problem here is the obvious double standard. And here, listen to Trump explaining and actually explaining quite accurately the double standard.

[Donald Trump]

Every time I fly over a blue state, I get a subpoena. It's no coincidence they indicted me the very same day that it was revealed that the FBI hid explosive evidence that Joe Biden took a $5 million illegal bribe from Ukraine. Next, Hunter will probably be charged with some very minor offense so that the FBI and DOJ can pretend that they're fair. They Want to pretend they're fair. We got Hunter for jaywalking. As far as the joke of an indictment, it's a horrible thing. It's a horrible thing for this country. I mean, the only good thing about it is it's driven my poll numbers way up. Can you believe this?

[Ted Cruz]

So I will say that right there, that legal analysis is exactly spot on. What's interesting is a lot of what Trump is saying. There is what we've been saying on verdict for months.

[Ben Shapiro]

Yeah.

[Ted Cruz]

With regard to Hunter Biden, I believe they're going to indict Hunter Biden. I think they'll do it soon. And it may not be for jaywalking, but it's going to be for something personal and small that can be explained. He's a poor, troubled soul with a.

[Ben Shapiro]

Substance abuse problem that doesn't connect him to his father.

[Ted Cruz]

That's the critical point. Build that wall to protect Joe Biden and just make Hunter Biden the scapegoat. And that's gonna let Jack Smith, that's gonna let Merrick Garland say, look how evenhanded we are. We indicted a Trump and a Biden. See, we're fair. And nobody who's paying attention at all will buy that. But for some people who are not paying attention, that may sound persuasive. Look, the point Trump made also there was really important, which is this indictment came literally the day that we learned that there's an informant, an informant that the FBI has relied upon, an informant that the FBI has trusted in previous cases who came forward and alleged that Joe Biden received a $5 million bribe from Burisma, the Ukrainian natural gas company that was paying Hunter Biden a million dollars a year. And that we know Joe Biden took official acts to benefit. He bragged the infamous son of a bitch exchange. He bragged about holding a billion dollars in American aid hostage to force Ukraine to fire the prosecutor who was going after the corrupt oligarch who owned Burisma. So if you look at bribery, you need a quid pro quo. We know there's a quo. We know that Joe Biden took official action that benefited Burisma. If, in fact, he deposited $5 million from Burisma, Joe Biden should be charged and prosecuted for bribery. To be honest, that is the most grave allegation against a president that we've seen in our lifetimes. That is literally being on the take and being bribed. It's like Abscam. It's showing up with a paper bag full of cash. Here's the favor we want, Will you do it? If it is correct, and by the way, it may be false. This is, at this point, an allegation from an anonymous informant to the FBI that the FBI is trying mightily to stonewall and. And cover up. If it's false, then Joe Biden ought to clear his name. If it's false, Joe Biden ought to say, release it. Bring the witness forward. Have him testify. Joe Biden should be angry. I am angry that you are impugning my character by saying I took a bribe. The fact that he's not doing that, that he says, where's the money? That is incredibly troubling in the fact that it's literally the same day. Look, these are the same goons that sent the IRS to Matt Taibbi's house the day he was testifying in front of the House of Representatives on Twitter. Censorship at the behest of the federal government. Jackbooted thugs behave this way.

[Ben Shapiro]

Yeah.

[Ted Cruz]

This is not behavior that demonstrates integrity, that demonstrates respect for law, that demonstrates all those great things Jack Smith talks about in his speech.

[Ben Shapiro]

Say it all you want to, but it's just not true. And the proof is the fact they're coming after him for everything. And everyone else gets to walk around. And even, like we heard, there was.

[Ted Cruz]

Apparently, by the way, to any reporter, look, there are no reporters who actually do their jobs anymore in the corporate media. But to any reporter, the next time you talk to any Democrat senator, ask the following question. If it is proven true that Joe Biden received a $5 million bribe personally from Ukraine in exchange for government policy, should he be impeached? Yes or no? I don't think any reporter will ask a Democrat senator that question. I will say, for a Democrat senator, I don't know how the heck they'd answer it because they'd backpedal and they.

[Ben Shapiro]

Hypotheticals. I don't answer hypotheticals.

[Ted Cruz]

Yeah, look, that's easy. Anyone who is convicted of bribery, who's guilty of bribery, yes, they should be impeached. And it doesn't have to be a high crime or misdemeanor. Remember, the Constitution said bribery, treason, or other high crimes and misdemeanors. Bribery is explicitly laid out if you have a corrupt public servant who is on the take. That is why impeachment exists. If Joe Biden received $5 million from Burisma, Joe Biden ought to go to prison.

[Ben Shapiro]

And that 5 million is separate from the 5 million his son got. A lot of people in the media have not covered that at all. This isn't 5 million that went into a bunch of bank accounts divided up.

[Ted Cruz]

Yeah. The allegations to Joe directly.

[Ben Shapiro]

Right, Joe directly. Five million. And Hunter got another five million.

[Ted Cruz]

I don't know if it's five. He got a million a year over several years. I'm not sure it's fully five, but. But it is millions.

[Ben Shapiro]

Yeah. Separate cash for the two men, separate payoffs for the two men. Not commingled. 10% for the big guy, which is something the media loves to make sure they overlook. I want to tell you about our friends Augusta Precious Metals real quick. And if you are close to retirement or you are in retirement, you know how important it is to protect your wealth. Especially when we've seen the ups and downs, the economy, interest rates, where they are some bank failures. And that is where gold can come in. To help you with your IRA or your 401k. You need a company that you can trust. And the company that I use is Augusta Precious Metals. Now, Augusta Precious Metals will sit down with you and talk to you to see if gold's even right for you. If you are in retirement, if you have saved $100,000 or more, ask them about their free guide to gold and the web conference they will do with each and every person that they will sit down with. You talk about your finances personally, not in general, and you'll get the peace of mind of knowing that you are protecting your hard earned assets. Call them 877-the-4-GOLD- IRA. You're going to get the Free Investor's guide on gold. You're also going to get that web conference for free. 877-the-number4gold IRA. Or visit Augusta precious metals.com that's AugustaPreciousMetals.com I gotta ask you a question about election interference here. The idea of a presidential frontrunner having to go to court, having to go into a jury trial, this charade, which I would say is probably gonna be bigger than the O.J. simpson trial in all reality, especially if we get to watch it. Is that on its face, not election interference, that you're trying to put a guy at a defense table and tie him up in courts? I would assume this court case could last weeks, if not months, easily. While he's also trying to leave and go run for president at the very same time. I mean for Democrats to obsess, election interference and Russia collusion, which was a lie and they knew it was a lie, but this is actual election interference, is it not?

[Ted Cruz]

Of course it is. And it's blatant and in your face. That's why the Department of Justice has standards that it does not typically bring a prosecution on the eve of a campaign to not interfere with the campaign. It's why the standard should be exceptionally high for when you would prosecute a former president or. Or a candidate for president. Doesn't mean it should never be met. It just means it should be exceptionally high. Now, look, Jack Smith has some experience in this. Jack Smith prosecuted Bob McDonnell, who was the governor of Virginia. He brought the case against Bob McDonald. And by the way, McDonald at the time was a plausible candidate for president. He wasn't a front runner, but he was one of the plausible candidates for president. He was governor of Virginia at the time. He was popular in Virginia. Jack Smith brought a case, he got a conviction. Conviction went to the U.S. supreme Court, and the Supreme Court unanimously vacated the conviction, threw it out, concluded it was contrary to law. Now the damage was done. You know what? Jack Smith had interfered in that election. He had accomplished the real purpose, ruined.

[Ben Shapiro]

A man's life and changed the outcome of an election. And he was in charge.

[Ted Cruz]

Yes, and the Supreme Court unanimously threw it out. But they threw it out years later when all the damage had been done. For a president to be indicted, the threshold should be exceptionally high. It shouldn't be jaywalking. It shouldn't be keeping books that wrongfully reflect how hush money was paid, as Alvin Smith has in his ridiculous indictment. And it shouldn't be possessing presidential records just like every other president has done. The threshold needs to be significant because there's an obligation to respect the electoral process. There's an obligation to respect democracy. This indictment shows contempt for democracy. They're not indicting him because they think he's going to lose the election in November. They're indicting him because they're afraid he's going to win the election in November. That means they are perfectly happy to say we have power and we're going to use power to stop the damn voters from putting someone we don't want into the White House.

[Ben Shapiro]

Same thing they tried to do in 2016. We won. Yes, we're going to overthrow the will of the people. We're going to use documents we know aren't real.

[Ted Cruz]

And it's what DOJ and FBI did throughout the Trump presidency from within the deep state. They waged war on him. They're now doing it openly and brazenly at press conferences. And this is designed to be politics. I'll tell you the kind of allegation that would merit this. If you have an allegation that Donald Trump received a $5 million bribe from Ukraine or China or anyone else, and you can demonstrate that he received the bribe in exchange for official conduct. That's the kind of case that should be brought. But they don't have that allegation. They don't have that evidence. They do have the allegation about Joe Biden. That is the type of crime that would clear the threshold for what should be brought against a president or a former president or a major presidential candidate. The irony is they announce this political persecution on the same day that news breaks about Joe Biden. It's not complicated to understand the magic act going on. Pay no attention to what's over here. Watch over here. Watch the fuzzy rabbit.

[Ben Shapiro]

The insane part of this conversation is this is all could happen. This trial, before we vote, what if it is delayed till after? What if, hypothetically, Donald Trump wins the primary and then it's the general, and then they say, okay, now we're going to go to a court case, or even worse, what if he wins the general? He's now the President of the United States of America. Could they haul him down to Florida for a jury trial and you could see the President of the United States of America. Well, he's supposed to be doing the job at the White House, sitting on a jury trial. What happens then?

[Ted Cruz]

So we're in uncharted territory then. The Department of Justice has an existing legal opinion from the Office of Legal Counsel that says that DOJ will not indict a sitting president.

[Ben Shapiro]

But they've already indicted him, and he's not the sitting president.

[Ted Cruz]

That's why you're getting into uncharted legal territory. I don't know what DOJ would conclude if he's already been indicted and the trial is proceeding.

[Ben Shapiro]

I can't even believe we're having this conversation.

[Ted Cruz]

It's so insane, it would be utterly insane. The fact that he's indicted as a legal matter does nothing to prevent him from running for office. Doesn't disqualify him from the ballot, doesn't make him ineligible. You can be indicted. Sadly, the left uses indictments as political weapons quite frequently. You could even end up with his being convicted. I don't think that's going to happen. But if he were convicted and sentenced to jail, he's still not ineligible to be president. Being convicted of a crime does not remove your eligibility to be president. I don't think we will see that scenario, because much like the Bob McDonnell case that Jack Smith brought, I mean, they literally brought in a guy who had been engaged in political prosecutions before that were absolute failed disasters. They brought him in and said, hey, can you come do it again?

[Ben Shapiro]

Unanimous failure by the Supreme Court standards.

[Ted Cruz]

Yes. And unanimous means including the lefty justices.

[Ben Shapiro]

Right.

[Ted Cruz]

Like the justices appointed by Democrats on the far left. All of them agreed. No, this conviction cannot stand.

[Ben Shapiro]

So you could have a president that is convicted and it could work its way all the way up to the Supreme Court.

[Ted Cruz]

Yeah.

[Ben Shapiro]

So then the other question. If he is the president and these.

[Ted Cruz]

Charges, by the way, that's why Gerald Ford pardoned Richard Nixon. We might have found this out. Richard Nixon, I believe, committed multiple crimes. As you know, I write about this at length in my last book, Justice Corrupted how the Left Has Weaponized the Legal System. The whole first chapter walks through the criminal conduct of the Nixon White House, of the Nixon Department of Justice. And in many ways, Barack Obama succeeded in doing what Nixon tried to do, and now Biden does so openly and brazenly. But after Nixon resigned in disgrace, there was a very real possibility he would be prosecuted. John Mitchell, his Attorney General, was prosecuted and served, I think, 22 months in jail. If Nixon had been prosecuted, the scenario you're talking about of the entire country watching TV like the OJ Trial and seeing the President dragged through this garbage, it would have been a nightmare. And it's why Gerald Ford stepped forward and pardoned him. And I think pardoning him was an act of real courage because it probably single handedly ensured that Ford would lose the election and Jimmy Carter would be elected.

[Ben Shapiro]

Yeah, he knew that. He was doing it, too.

[Ted Cruz]

He knew that. He knew that when he was signing the pardon, he was likely dooming his own election to be president, that he was gonna cost himself the job he was in. But he did it, I believe, because he believed it was better for the country to spare the country the nightmare of the President going through an extended criminal trial. We've come a long way from that moment to now. Biden and Merrick Garland and Jack Smith gleefully hoping and praying they can drag the country through a criminal trial directed at the former President and a leading candidate to be the next president.

[Ben Shapiro]

Can a president, a sitting president, pardon himself?

[Ted Cruz]

That is an unclear question. Also, it has been debated. There are differing views. History has never tested it. And who knows, we may find out if Joe Biden decides to pardon himself for taking a $5 million bribe that he could do. He could probably, as I said, it's untested. He could try. He could certainly try. I'll point out that if Joe Biden were to pardon himself for taking a $5 million bribe, even the tiny, at times, not very reliable House majority in the House would be forced to impeach him.

[Ben Shapiro]

Then what about his son? They indict Hunter Biden. Hunter Biden gets some indictments to come down. Can he just say, it's my son, I love him, he's the smartest guy I know.

[Ted Cruz]

Yes.

[Ben Shapiro]

And impeach him. And is that something the House could deal with? I mean, sorry, impeach.

[Ted Cruz]

I mean, he can pardon Hunter. Yes. He can unquestionably pardon Hunter of federal offenses. He can't pardon him of state offenses. So there may be state offenses in addition to federal offenses. I will say if he were to pardon Hunter in a way that was pardoning him of corruption that involved corruption implicating Joe Biden, you're getting into murky legal territory here. But that is the sort of thing that the Democrats for years said concerning Donald Trump was obstruction of justice. That when Trump talked about pardoning different players, they argued that's obstruction of justice. If you use the pardon power to prevent our investigation. If Joe Biden were to do that for Hunter in such a way as to block or to try to block investigation into Joe Biden's own corruption that could be arguably characterized as obstruction of justice by Joe Biden, I got one.

[Ben Shapiro]

More question I want to ask you about the political campaign. Before we do that, let me tell you about our friends at Chalk. If you're a guy and you're dealing with a real issue that a lot of guys are dealing with and that's low testosterone, you need to check out chalk choq.com they can help you get your edge back. If you feel like you've got weakness and you're just kind of sitting around and you've just lost some of that edge, that is where chalk comes in. Now, Chalk is here to help guys just like you boost your Testosterone up to 20, 20% over 90 days. Now there's a male vitality stack. You can go to chalk. Choq.com I've been taking it now for several months. I can tell you it works. You're if you feel like you've got fatigue after workouts or you just don't feel like you can work out the way you used to check out Chalk Ch. Com. Go there. Use the promo code Ben. You're going to get 35% off any chalk subscription for life. So check them out. CHOQ promo code Ben. 35% off any shop subscription for Life chok.com Total political question to end this on. Every time that Donald Trump gets indicted, he said it in his video, his poll numbers go up. It seems that the country, at least conservative voters, are rallying behind him. When these things happen, the more they keep coming after them, is it almost helping solidify his ability to get the nomination? That's totally different. In general election, you've run for president, you know this. But in a primary, it seems like when they do this, he raised more money.

[Ted Cruz]

Yeah.

[Ben Shapiro]

And more people are like, all right, you know what? Screw it. The system's rigged, and I'm gonna stand by someone that's being persecuted by the Democratic Party, by the DOJ of this and this administration of Joe Biden.

[Ted Cruz]

Look, that's clearly playing out. When Alvin Bragg brought his indictment, I said on this podcast, this will be worth 10 points in the polls for Trump. That prediction proved exactly right. And within a week, he was up 10. In this instance, this latest indictment, I think it probably will prove good for Trump in the polls, particularly in the primary.

[Ben Shapiro]

Yeah.

[Ted Cruz]

I don't know. In the general, Democrats are hoping this will hurt Trump in the general, and it might. I think the data are unclear right now in terms of how it would impact him in the general, but in the primary, look, if you're a Republican, whether you like Trump or don't like Trump, you look at this, and this is such obvious garbage. It's such a double standard. You see virtually all of Trump's opponents in the primary being forced to go defend him. Yeah, because it's such an obvious double standard that you can't. You can't credibly say anything else. Look, they don't like defending Trump. His opponents don't like it at all. It pisses them off that they have to go out on TV and defend him. But that dynamic. And listen, at least with Bragg, more than a few observers have suggested that was one of the reasons Bragg brought the indictment, was that he wants Trump to be the nominee. The Democrats believe Trump cannot win the general, and so they're quite open about their strategy. Do everything they can to get him.

[Ben Shapiro]

The nominee, and then we'll beat him in the general.

[Ted Cruz]

Right. With a candidate who can't tie his shoes, who will lock in the basement and will never let speak, but will run a whole campaign on how much we hate Donald Trump. And so that dynamic, I suspect it will continue to play out this way. I don't think you'll see the same bump from this indictment that you saw from the Alvin Bragg indictment, mostly because I think that it just solidifies the base.

[Ben Shapiro]

It doesn't expand it at this point.

[Ted Cruz]

Yeah, I think that distance has already been traveled, that the people who popped up because of the Bragg thing, they're still there. They're still there. But I think as a short term political matter for Trump is a good development. Longer term, that's murkier to figure out.

[Ben Shapiro]

It's gonna be interesting. Thank you for answering all these questions. I know so many of you had questions. We're going to keep answering them. Don't forget, hit that subscribe or Auto Download button or Follow button. If you're listening to the show on Apple, you can hit the follow button there On Apple. You'll get every single episode, especially when there's breaking news. We've been doing a lot of episodes after midnight lately, it seems like because of the breaking news. So make sure you hit that subscribe, auto download or Follow button. We publish Monday, Wednesday and Friday. And also you can follow the senator and us on social media as well. We'll see you back here in a couple of days.

[Ted Cruz]

Oh, oh, oh, O'Reilly save on your next oil change at O'Reilly Auto Parts. Choose Castrol Edge full synthetic motor oil to provide maximum performance and protection for your Engine. Get a $15 gift card after rebate when you buy 5 quarts of Castrol Edge for $34.95 plus 2 times o rewards points offer. Valid in store and online@o'reillyauto.com oh, oh, oh, O'Reilly Auto Parts.