[00:00:00] . Broadcasting live from atop the Rocky Mountains, the crossroads of the West. You are listening to the Liberty Roundtable Radio Talk Show.
[00:00:26] All right. Happy to have you along my fellow Americans. Sam Bushman live on your radio. Hard hitting news the networks refuse to use. No doubt starts now. This, my fellow Americans is the broadcast for May 31st in the year of our Lord.
[00:00:41] The goal always to protect life, liberty and property to promote God, family and country to do so on your radio in the traditions of our founding fathers.
[00:00:54] As you know, we reject revolution. We stand for peaceful restoration of the greatest country on the face of the earth. Unless, of course, it's the Jesus Revolution.
[00:01:03] Then we're in because we follow the Prince of Peace, right? Welcome to the broadcast. It is a freedom loving, faith filled, fantastic Friday. Hard hitting talk at your fingertips. No doubt starts now.
[00:01:16] The checks and balances brilliantly put in place by the founding fathers. Wow. That is one of the peaceful solutions we have at our fingertips.
[00:01:23] There's so much going on, so little time. Two hours of talk here to break it all down with me is Dr. Scott Bradley. He's the chairman of the Constitution Commemoration Foundation and he's the author of the book and DVD series.
[00:01:38] To preserve the nation. Incredible lecture series, ladies and gentlemen, freedom rising sun dot com to learn more about that. Let's just get you on the radio with us. Dr. Bradley. Welcome, sir.
[00:01:46] Well, good morning to everyone. It's a shall we say an active dynamic day in the in the current events of America. Can you believe it? That is an understatement, but absolutely true.
[00:02:01] Oh, oh man. Yesterday was a day of court cases like you wouldn't believe. I mean, we're talking lawfare nation, baby. It is out of control.
[00:02:10] So I had the opportunity yesterday to go to federal court. I was a character witness for Ken Kromar headline. Sam Bushman testifies in federal court as a character witness for Ken Kromar.
[00:02:25] And I thought I'd just kind of tell you there's some weird rules around testifying that just baffles me.
[00:02:31] So when I get there, they first try to take away my phone and everything. And anyway, I was able to keep my phone because I, you know, have a need to keep it.
[00:02:41] And I talked them into it and they let me keep it. So there you go. I couldn't record anything. Of course, I didn't even try because they asked me not to.
[00:02:48] And I respected the courts. So there you go. But they said I could have my phone if I just turned down my volume all the way, which I did.
[00:02:54] And I did not record a single thing. Of course, I would not if I said I won't. I will not. So I'm a trustworthy person in that regard.
[00:03:00] But I went into court. What I find fascinating is they first took me to the witness room and I said, hey, can I go in and watch the proceedings?
[00:03:06] And they go, yeah, but if you do, you can't be a witness.
[00:03:09] I'm like, so wait a minute, do I lose my rights as a witness? What's going on?
[00:03:12] And it's kind of interesting. You're not allowed to go in because they're afraid that you might collaborate or listen to what other people say and use that information.
[00:03:19] And so I was not able to watch anybody else that testified before me. And I kind of find that interesting.
[00:03:24] I understand they don't want you to collaborate, but at the same time, if I can't hear what other people say, that's kind of interesting because it's open to the public.
[00:03:31] Right. So you lose rights when you become a witness and someone say, well, Sam, it's not a right to be able to go into a public trial.
[00:03:38] Well, if it's a public place, I should have a right to go in. Well, no, Sam, if you're a witness that doesn't.
[00:03:42] Okay. Very interesting. Once you're a witness, you literally lose, you know, so whoever's not a witness could just simply go into court.
[00:03:49] But if you're a witness, don't you dare or you lose your ability to be a witness? I found that interesting.
[00:03:54] Something that I guess makes, you know, I guess makes sense on one hand. On the other hand, I don't really like that.
[00:04:01] I have less of a right to see what happens than everybody else does. Kind of interesting.
[00:04:05] That's number one. Number two, I don't know if you've ever heard of the law of the law.
[00:04:09] That's number one. Number two, I got in there.
[00:04:13] I got sworn in and I was told that I must tell the whole truth.
[00:04:18] Nothing but the truth, the whole truth. So think about the whole truth for a minute.
[00:04:22] So Ken Kromar started asking me questions and I started to elaborate and the objections came fast and furious as was predicted.
[00:04:31] And the judge sustained a lot of the objections and the judge started to get mad at me because I started putting out facts.
[00:04:39] I started saying things like, you know, back when Ken and I have been friends for 20 plus years, our children have gone to school together.
[00:04:48] You know, I started explaining all the details that like objection, this just isn't relevant.
[00:04:52] So I let the objections go for several times. But I got a lot of facts out though.
[00:04:57] And I talked about how we got an attorney fired for literally manipulating public records.
[00:05:01] And we brought that to the record on Budsman and they just shut me down, shut me down, shut me down.
[00:05:04] But the reason that that was factually valid and the whole truth was because if you understand that, then you understand Ken Kromar's commitment to honesty.
[00:05:14] You know, they were falsifying these records. What they do is that print them out, change the nature of the record and then claim when you ask a grandma request or a FOIA request that that record doesn't count because it's in a different form now.
[00:05:25] And I basically showed that the law says, hey, just because you changed the nature of a record, it doesn't change the fact that it's still part of that.
[00:05:31] Anyway, the attorney got caught with his pants down on that. This was a long time ago and they've had to vendetta against Ken ever since.
[00:05:38] And as a result, I basically tried to explain all that, but I got shut down over and over and over.
[00:05:43] Anyway, I eventually after so many objections, your honors and objections sustained, I said, you know what, your honor?
[00:05:50] I don't know what to say here about this, but with all their objections, I was asked to tell the truth.
[00:05:57] Nothing but the truth and the whole truth. And you're not the jury is just not getting the whole picture, your honor.
[00:06:03] Oh man, he went ballistic. He basically dismissed the jury.
[00:06:08] He threatened to hold me in contempt of court.
[00:06:12] He suggested that I was arguing with him.
[00:06:15] And then finally he scolded me and said, listen, I'm going to explain you the difference between a character witness and a fact witness.
[00:06:21] A character witness is supposed to tell about the character of Ken Kromar, but you're not to just deliver unsolicited facts.
[00:06:29] You're not a factual witness, you're a character witness.
[00:06:32] So I need you to keep your comments to that.
[00:06:34] If Ken asks you questions related to facts, I want you to not respond.
[00:06:38] I want you to and I didn't say this because he already was threatening to hold me in contempt of court and it's not going to help anybody for me to get in contempt of court.
[00:06:47] So I kept my mouth shut.
[00:06:49] But what I thought in my mind is and he didn't want the jury to hear this, but the jury got my information before they were forced to leave the room, which was I'm not able to tell the whole story here.
[00:06:59] You're not getting the whole picture.
[00:07:00] You're not getting all the details.
[00:07:02] And the judge didn't like that.
[00:07:04] So he scolded me, said I got to keep my when they came back.
[00:07:07] He then told the jury flat out, hey, you can ignore everything that this guy said beforehand.
[00:07:12] And I don't understand that either because what about all the factual whole truth that I told?
[00:07:18] If it's truthful facts, they shouldn't be able to say ignore all that.
[00:07:25] But the judge literally instructed the jury to ignore a lot of what I said.
[00:07:28] Well, then I continued to proceed and I got a lot of other facts out about not being able to tell the whole truth.
[00:07:34] I got facts out about, you know, I asked one question on the stand.
[00:07:37] I said, you know what?
[00:07:38] I don't really understand if we're speaking of character and honesty.
[00:07:41] I don't understand how Ken Kromar were in court right now discussing whether he's guilty or not, but he already lost his house a long time ago.
[00:07:48] How does that work?
[00:07:49] Isn't that supposed to happen after like the trial?
[00:07:52] And all they went crazy.
[00:07:54] They didn't like that.
[00:07:55] They didn't like that.
[00:07:56] So anyway, bottom line is that I got a lot of information, I think, before the jury and I was able to be very polite.
[00:08:03] I apologize to the judge.
[00:08:04] I apologize to the jury.
[00:08:06] I said, I've never been to court before.
[00:08:07] If I'm out of line on this, I apologize.
[00:08:09] I don't mean to be out of line.
[00:08:10] I just feel like when someone asks me to tell the whole truth, I shouldn't be given short-term skirt.
[00:08:16] I got to tell the whole thing, you know?
[00:08:18] And the judge is like, that's not what that means.
[00:08:20] You got, you know, so anyway, we got a little crossways on that, but I testified.
[00:08:25] And I don't think it looks good for Ken.
[00:08:27] I think Ken's representing himself and I don't think it's going that well.
[00:08:30] My whole goal going to the jury was to testify about Ken Cromar's character.
[00:08:38] I believe he's an upstanding, honorable man doing the very best he can to obey the law and to advocate for the proper role of government.
[00:08:46] However, you know, the jury isn't getting the whole truth.
[00:08:49] The judge literally shut me down, dismissed the jury, gave me a bunch of stuff.
[00:08:55] I mean, the jury should have heard things like Sam, you can't tell the whole thing.
[00:08:58] You can only answer character questions, not factual questions.
[00:09:02] Don't you dare be putting facts on the record.
[00:09:04] So they struck everything I said, a lot of things that I said from the record.
[00:09:08] But see, if the jury understood that and that's what I was trying to get across, people will understand this is a sham trial.
[00:09:13] I'm telling you right now it's manipulated.
[00:09:15] It's not the whole truth, nothing but the truth.
[00:09:16] It's the truth guided by how good you are at objecting and how much the judge wants to allow onto the record.
[00:09:25] They control every bit of it.
[00:09:26] If I say, yeah, we got an attorney fired for falsifying records, objection.
[00:09:32] Well, that's relevant as could be because it shows why Ken's where he is today as a vendetta against him.
[00:09:38] And I tried to articulate a lot of that.
[00:09:40] Well, if the jury doesn't get any of that, then if we're going to talk about character, you got to understand the character of those that are attacking Ken's character.
[00:09:47] Don't you?
[00:09:48] I mean, it's not just a Ken character question because what about attorneys falsifying records?
[00:09:54] What about, you know, beyond budsman agreeing that we're right and the guy shouldn't have falsified record that attorney eventually got let go over this kind of thing.
[00:10:02] How do you not illustrate and document some of these things?
[00:10:05] Because it relates to honesty and integrity.
[00:10:08] And anyway, very, very interesting experience in court.
[00:10:12] But I walked away thinking it's a sham.
[00:10:14] The jury didn't get the whole story at all.
[00:10:16] The judge participated with the prosecution and manipulate everything they got.
[00:10:20] Okay, can't ask me questions.
[00:10:22] I gave answers.
[00:10:23] Finally, we got the juror, the judge to overrule several of their objections.
[00:10:30] And I got a little bit more information now.
[00:10:31] Let's skip the break.
[00:10:34] And so all I'm telling you is a very interesting day in court.
[00:10:37] I don't know how well Ken will do.
[00:10:39] My guess is they're going to give him time served and then a little bit more time.
[00:10:44] Fifteen years is what he could get for everything if they go full bore against him.
[00:10:48] But my guess is he'll get time served and he'll get slapped pretty hard, maybe some more time, a couple of years probation, maybe an ankle bracelet or something like that house arrest.
[00:10:59] I don't know what they'll do to him because he's not violent, not counting the other cases that have been kind of against him recently.
[00:11:04] He's never had any history with the law or anything else.
[00:11:07] Hopefully they'll be lighter with him.
[00:11:08] But my whole goal was to one give a character witness a Ken, as I mentioned.
[00:11:12] Number two was to paint doubt in the jurors minds in some way.
[00:11:17] And when the jury saw that Sam Bushman was a good, honest, mellow, well dressed gentleman, humble, apologizing to the court, apologizing to the judge, apologizing to the jury.
[00:11:28] But yet they, you know, Sam's a good, honest guy who swore he would tell the whole truth and the judge and the prosecution shut him down.
[00:11:35] And Sam wasn't able to tell the whole truth.
[00:11:37] I'm hoping that puts enough doubt in one.
[00:11:40] All we got to get is one jurors mind to hang that jury.
[00:11:43] And that's what I believe a fully informed jury would do in this situation.
[00:11:47] That's just my opinion to which I'm entitled.
[00:11:49] That's what I did in court.
[00:11:50] I have every right to report on it.
[00:11:51] I was never asked not to.
[00:11:53] So there you have it, Dr.
[00:11:54] Bradley. Any questions or thoughts?
[00:11:56] Oh, yeah.
[00:11:57] I've always got something to say.
[00:11:59] You know, Sam, you know, you got asked to be a character witness.
[00:12:03] One thing you did prove is you're a character, Sam.
[00:12:06] And it caused us to stir there.
[00:12:09] And honestly, the system that the system used to aren't supposed to be wise as serpents harmless as doves, doctor.
[00:12:16] Yeah.
[00:12:17] But the problem is, is the craftiness of the craft, the lawyerly craft has taken over our judicial system.
[00:12:24] I've talked many times on your show about how originally the American founding position was that the defendant,
[00:12:32] the accused was to be given every, every opportunity to be exonerated.
[00:12:39] I mean, if anything, the system was biased in favor of the accused today.
[00:12:43] It's absolutely the absolute opposite opposite of that.
[00:12:46] They were the founders were originally more interested in justice and they never were.
[00:12:53] And they never wanted an innocent individual to be convicted and punished for something they were not.
[00:13:01] They were not guilty of.
[00:13:02] And so they biased the system that way.
[00:13:04] And you can read the Bill of Rights and see those kinds of things woven in there.
[00:13:09] And this jury notification thing that was from the very beginning, juries could could basically cast off both the law and the facts if they wanted to.
[00:13:20] We could explain that at some length if we needed to.
[00:13:22] But but the fact of the matter is the current system is a filtering system that's biased in favor of the prosecution and the judge and the properties.
[00:13:31] You know, you talk about you being able to collaborate with other witnesses because you may have observed their testimony.
[00:13:37] Well, that's exactly what's happening with the prosecution and the judge generally speaking, the way they run things to basically assure a conviction.
[00:13:47] It's interesting.
[00:13:48] I have been in those situations.
[00:13:50] Hold on and to ensure that the jury doesn't get the real story because the real story of Ken Kromar is he's a good, honest person, whether this is the law or not about taxes.
[00:14:00] That's big time debatable.
[00:14:01] But he believes that you're doing everything that's lawful and right and honorable.
[00:14:06] Now, that's enough doubt alone to say if Ken truly believes it, maybe he shouldn't go to prison.
[00:14:11] Maybe there shouldn't be a conviction for this.
[00:14:13] There might be a scolding and you need to file your tax.
[00:14:16] This young man discussion.
[00:14:18] But if he truly honestly believes that there's no there's no criminal activity, there's no at all.
[00:14:24] And that's where the problem is, doctor, if the jury doesn't get that, how can they understand that view?
[00:14:29] See, and that's kind of where the facts versus character issue crosses.
[00:14:33] They want to divide that.
[00:14:35] How do you talk about someone's character without bringing any facts up?
[00:14:40] I don't understand how that's possible.
[00:14:42] No, no, it is absolutely a contrived situation.
[00:14:46] And you talk about the relevance of your testimony.
[00:14:49] I would I would submit to the court and this is a different case.
[00:14:54] We'll get to it. I'm sure today.
[00:14:55] But the the Todri kind of sleazy testimony of Stormy Daniels kind of relevant.
[00:15:06] It was.
[00:15:07] Oh, yeah, I mean, I know this is a family show, so I'm trying to be a little bit gentle and good work.
[00:15:14] But at any rate, no, was was that relevant?
[00:15:19] And the fact of the matter is, and I believe there's plenty that could support this position, that her Todri testimony was irrelevant to the let it roll case.
[00:15:33] They let it roll.
[00:15:34] This was a little bit.
[00:15:35] And honestly, Ken Starr went with this back in the Clinton indictment and impeachment and everything like that, where he did the Monica Lewinsky thing.
[00:15:45] I mean, that testimony honestly was so irrelevant to the magnitude, irrelevant, salacious, complete right.
[00:15:54] Yeah.
[00:15:55] Yeah. So anyway, they they do this that, you know, sex sells.
[00:15:59] And so the Monica Lewinsky thing, everybody, oh, I can identify with that or maybe in any way.
[00:16:04] And then this thing with West Army Daniels was similarly focused and it was something that the common man, if you will, would tune in and listen to.
[00:16:17] But the rest of the stuff was was so convoluted.
[00:16:21] And so so they allow irrelevant testimony when it's kind of conditioned when it benefits the prosecution.
[00:16:28] Right. Yeah.
[00:16:29] But when the prosecution is, we'll get to that with Trump's case here coming up too in more detail and we'll prove exactly what you're talking about.
[00:16:35] Doctor, the summation of this can cromar thing, I don't think it looks good for Ken because I think the average Americans is like, hey, I pay my taxes.
[00:16:42] You don't.
[00:16:44] Bad guy. Boom.
[00:16:45] And I think that's very, very hard to undo in the minds of Americans because we've been propagandized so long, so hard since 1913 on that.
[00:16:54] Never mind that nobody paid income tax till World War Two days and beyond anyway.
[00:16:59] And you know, factually speaking, hey, there is no law that requires people to file.
[00:17:04] If you study the nuances of the law, those who claim that it's all true.
[00:17:07] The problem is if you don't, you'll get caught in the nuances and go to jail just like we saw yesterday.
[00:17:12] But I will say this.
[00:17:13] I kind of walked away saying I did my very best for my dear friend, but I also walked away saying this.
[00:17:21] I believe I did a pretty good job and I'll tell you why the judge threatened to hold me in contempt of court because I was supposedly putting too many facts on the table and I'm not a factual witness.
[00:17:32] That's pretty telling.
[00:17:33] Why would the judge be concerned about that?
[00:17:36] OK, so I feel like I did a good job when he held me in contempt of court.
[00:17:39] Then I backed off so he didn't hold me in contempt.
[00:17:43] I feel like he dismissed the jury because he didn't want them to see that says volumes like if I'm a juror, I'm thinking why am I being dismissed right now?
[00:17:52] What are they going to say to this gentleman on the stand right now that I can't hear what on earth?
[00:17:58] I'm the juror.
[00:17:59] I'm supposed to know everything right.
[00:18:01] I'm supposed to know the whole truth, right?
[00:18:04] OK, so if I'm a juror and I get dismissed, I'm a juror and you're holding this guy in contempt because he's being detailed in his explanations of what you ask him.
[00:18:12] And then he apologizes if he's out of line in any way.
[00:18:16] I'm thinking with him dismissing the jury with him threatening to hold me in contempt of court with him trying to restrict me and colluding with the prosecution to shut me down.
[00:18:25] The jurors saw all that.
[00:18:28] And my hope that changes the game, but I walked away feeling like I did a pretty good job because the jury saw all that.
[00:18:35] The jury saw all that.
[00:18:38] And that to me is something.
[00:18:40] Look, the only hope we have is for there to be doubt in the jurors minds or technicality to save Ken at this point.
[00:18:46] And so I really hoped that I had done some of both of those things.
[00:18:51] But I felt like, hey, if the judge is that, you know, live it with me.
[00:18:55] If he had to dismiss the jury, if you had to just restrict me and clearly tell them, hey, Sam can only talk about the character, you got to keep your comments concise and only about Ken's character.
[00:19:05] And, you know, the jury saw.
[00:19:07] And I just kind of think isn't that our only hope in this situation?
[00:19:10] Doctor, you can hope for reasonable people that understand and connect the dots.
[00:19:21] My hope for that is diminished greatly.
[00:19:23] I mean, your efforts, I'm sure were magnificent.
[00:19:26] The problem we've got is that we seem to be a nation of people that have been through the public education process and have lost our ability to connect the dots and to see the the connectivity of so many things.
[00:19:39] And again, until the 1890s, the Sparks case in the Supreme Court, this jury notification thing was alive and well.
[00:19:47] Now the the the courts instruct the juries to discount anything, but what the law says and what the judge says.
[00:19:55] And that's an absolute travesty.
[00:19:58] The way the in fact, it's a fault.
[00:20:01] So I asked some questions to some experts in this.
[00:20:04] I said, didn't the judge literally perjure himself?
[00:20:07] And I know because the judge isn't sworn in.
[00:20:10] But yes, he did, because if he says dismiss everything, Sam says, and Sam's told to tell the whole truth and those truths.
[00:20:16] There's some facts in that truth and they dismiss those facts.
[00:20:19] They're dismissing the whole truth, right?
[00:20:21] And the judge literally counseled them to do that while I sat on the stand.
[00:20:25] And you think about that.
[00:20:26] It's not a perjury, I guess, if you're not sworn in.
[00:20:29] But he literally defrauded the court, didn't he?
[00:20:32] I mean, that's my opinion.
[00:20:33] Well, you may have that opinion of the courts would probably argue that because they have this lawyerly craft.
[00:20:40] It's a priest craft, really.
[00:20:43] They're completely immersed in their trickery.
[00:20:47] But the fact of the matter is, the judge did take an oath to uphold.
[00:20:52] Now you're getting some right to show he purged himself for his own right there in front of me.
[00:20:58] That's my opinion.
[00:20:59] So so he set aside the concept of justice that isn't as incorporated into everything in Americanist that was originally there.
[00:21:09] And if you look at what the the Fifth and Sixth Amendments, for example, talk about and this ability to to cross examine and all this kind to bring it out, bring facts, truth.
[00:21:21] By the way, could that question in my mind is, is would there be any possibility of Ken calling you back as a fact witness?
[00:21:30] No, I mean, they say I don't have any.
[00:21:33] It is there is a fact witness.
[00:21:34] You can be a professional witness, but they say I don't have any professional skills that would put me in that category.
[00:21:39] So you so they limit that.
[00:21:40] So see, that's what I mean is every way you turn, they're getting a contrived narrative.
[00:21:45] Think of a think of a murder board that, you know, sleuths and people like that put in place.
[00:21:50] You know, you've seen those murder boards that have the timeline and who the possible potential criminals are and this kind of stuff.
[00:21:58] They they eliminate and they write it all up on a board.
[00:22:00] Think about that.
[00:22:01] They're painting in my humble opinion, to which I'm entitled, they are painting this picture of this.
[00:22:06] We're going to have everybody tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth.
[00:22:09] They say that over and over and over as they weave together this.
[00:22:12] We're going to reject this.
[00:22:14] We're going to shut this down.
[00:22:15] We're going to call a fact witness separate from a character witness separate from a you can't testify at all separate from it.
[00:22:21] And the judge controls every nuance of this to the point where they create a crime board of prosecution.
[00:22:28] The judge in bed with the prosecutors do and come hell or high water, there's nothing you in the defense can really do to change that narrative unless you get lucky and hit on something that comes out that they didn't intend.
[00:22:39] And that because it relates to character or relates to, in other words, if the exact right questions are asked.
[00:22:45] So if Ken would have asked me different questions, I could have got a whole lot more on the table.
[00:22:51] And so they're they're creating this this this storyboard narrative of a very nuanced hidden, manipulated truth line truth board.
[00:23:04] That's what they're creating when they do this stuff, doctor.
[00:23:07] Well, that's that's absolutely the case.
[00:23:11] And it's interesting to me that fact witnesses can be bought and paid for.
[00:23:17] Let me just put it this way.
[00:23:18] I'll give you one example I know of in another world, another life that I was in.
[00:23:22] I'm not talking about multiple mortal probations or anything.
[00:23:26] I was talking about a different career, different realm of today.
[00:23:28] Yes, same life, exact mortal tabernacle.
[00:23:31] But anyway, so there was a dean of a college of science.
[00:23:37] This guy is supposed to be the pinnacle of his profession and his specialty was in a certain area.
[00:23:45] And I mean, I don't want to give too many issues because quite frankly, this was a criminal case that the this fact witness was bought and paid for.
[00:23:58] Anyway, this particular area that this guy that was supposedly at the pinnacle of his profession in in in science and he especially in this specific area,
[00:24:10] he had been asked to testify as a fact witness in a court case against a Joe Blow that was going to get ramrodded down the system.
[00:24:19] And they were going to be what maybe we can pick this up after the break.
[00:24:24] I know we have a heartbreak here, but no, no, you're good.
[00:24:27] We'll take a heartbreak. Dr. Bradley will pick this up right after the pause.
[00:24:31] We're talking about court cases for two hours.
[00:24:33] There's three of them. We're just on the first one.
[00:24:35] So we've got to get after it.
[00:24:36] We'll do it all in seconds.
[00:24:37] You are listening to the one and only Liberty Roundtable Live.
[00:24:46] Pursuing liberty using the Constitution as our guide.
[00:24:55] You're listening to Liberty News Radio.
[00:25:03] USA News.
[00:25:04] I'm Ryan Daniels.
[00:25:05] The presumptive GOP nominee for president in 2024 now becomes the very first ever to be convicted of criminal charges by a jury of his peers.
[00:25:17] This one in New York after the panel heard more than a month of arguments and testimony.
[00:25:21] And after roughly two days of deliberations in the jury room, they returned with the guilty verdict Thursday afternoon.
[00:25:29] The Biden campaign says the guilty verdict proves, quote, No one is above the law.
[00:25:36] A campaign spokesman followed that saying it is, however, the Biden campaign's belief the former president's future is best decided at the ballot box.
[00:25:46] Trump himself with reporters outside the courthouse afterward.
[00:25:49] This was a great disgraceful trial.
[00:25:53] The real verdict is going to be November 5th by the people and they know what happened here and everybody knows what happened here.
[00:26:00] It is worth noting Donald Trump can still be elected president if convicted.
[00:26:06] The Constitution requires candidates be at least 35 years old, a natural born U.S. citizen and a resident of the U.S. for 14 years.
[00:26:14] It does not prohibit a convicted felon from holding the highest office in the land.
[00:26:19] House Republicans are requesting access to Anthony Fauci's private emails and cell phone records.
[00:26:26] Congressman Brad Wenstrup made the request for the subcommittee investigating COVID-19 origins.
[00:26:31] The panel seeks communications about the Wuhan Institute of Virology and the pandemic's origins, citing new evidence that Fauci may have used personal accounts for official government business.
[00:26:43] One police officer and two others are reportedly dead after a mass shooting reported in Minneapolis, Minnesota.
[00:26:51] City officials said a total of six people were shot, including two police officers and four civilians.
[00:26:57] This is USA News.
[00:26:59] The inventor and CEO of MyPillow is always looking for ways to solve everyday problems.
[00:27:05] Have you ever picked up a towel set because it felt really soft in the store?
[00:27:09] But then when you go to use it, it's not very absorbent.
[00:27:12] It's basically a towel that's leaving you out to dry.
[00:27:15] That's why MyPillow has developed the MyPillow Towels.
[00:27:19] Towels that work.
[00:27:20] I know, it's mind blowing.
[00:27:21] Towels that actually dry you.
[00:27:23] The six piece towels that includes two bath towels, two hand towels and two washcloths.
[00:27:27] They come in a variety of colors.
[00:27:29] And right now you can receive a six piece set for only $39.98 with promo code USA.
[00:27:34] Go to MyPillow.com right now and click on the radio listener special.
[00:27:38] MyPillow products come with a 10 year warranty and they have a 60 day money back guarantee.
[00:27:43] To receive this amazing offer on the six piece set of MyPillow Towels, just go to MyPillow.com.
[00:27:49] Click on the radio listener special and enter promo code USA or call 800-951-8175.
[00:27:56] That's MyPillow.com.
[00:27:58] Promo code USA.
[00:27:59] Do you treasure your liberty?
[00:28:01] Well at LovingLiberty.net we most certainly do.
[00:28:05] And we want to help protect your liberty too.
[00:28:07] Become part of the family.
[00:28:09] Everyone knows that the core of any society is the family.
[00:28:13] Therefore, the government should foster and protect the integrity of its family.
[00:28:17] We the people.
[00:28:18] Won't you join us as a Loving Liberty sponsor to help us promote the principles in the 5,000 year leap?
[00:28:25] Let's restore the miracle that changed the world at LovingLiberty.net.
[00:28:29] As you are aware, America is divided over every fault line possible.
[00:28:34] This is intentionally fostered by those who do not love God, family or country.
[00:28:38] We believe a peaceful future as a free people absolutely depends on civility.
[00:28:43] Clarion Call for Civility is looking for funding and volunteers at every level to make our hopes and efforts a reality.
[00:28:49] Please donate, sign our pledge and help us in our sacred cause.
[00:28:53] Please visit CallForCivility.com for more details.
[00:28:57] CallForCivility.com
[00:29:00] How many times do I have to tell you?
[00:29:03] I swear it just goes in one ear and out the other.
[00:29:06] Don't you understand English?
[00:29:09] Your children are probably too polite to tell you.
[00:29:12] Hello, those things on the side of your head aren't turnips.
[00:29:15] But they get just as frustrated when you won't listen to them as you do when they won't listen to you.
[00:29:22] Do I need to speak slower?
[00:29:24] In fact, few things show children how much they're valued and respected more than a parent's willingness to listen.
[00:29:31] Tell me what you did at work today.
[00:29:33] Studies show when parents listen, children develop better listening skills themselves.
[00:29:38] They also tend to have more self-confidence and are more likely to avoid alcohol and drugs.
[00:29:44] Now sit down here and tell me all about it.
[00:29:47] When you really listen, love is what they'll hear.
[00:29:50] Thank you for sharing that with me.
[00:29:52] From the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
[00:29:55] For more tips on strengthening your family, visit Family.Mormon.org.
[00:30:01] I want to dedicate this song to Mr. Rupert Murdoch.
[00:30:09] Okay, so before the break we were talking about a case that I had some personal knowledge about.
[00:30:15] That a subject matter expert, a fact expert, a fact testifier if you will,
[00:30:24] was hired by the prosecution to bring his expertise to a case and testify on behalf of getting a conviction.
[00:30:36] It just so happened that because of, for whatever reasons, this individual that was at the height of his professional ascendancy if you will,
[00:30:46] had some respect for my opinion about some things and he was conflicted.
[00:30:52] And he brought his conflicting feelings and shared them with me and asked me what I thought he ought to do.
[00:31:02] Basically what it was is there was a quote unquote scientific solution to a conviction that they were trying.
[00:31:09] It was a non-issue.
[00:31:11] It was something that was not in any way, shape or form relevant to what society was thinking or doing at any time.
[00:31:20] It was a stupid law.
[00:31:22] And this guy was supposed to be able to bring DNA, scientific, hard fact evidence to the case that would allow the prosecution to get a conviction.
[00:31:31] But there was none.
[00:31:33] There was absolutely none.
[00:31:35] Nothing whatsoever.
[00:31:37] I mean we went out and talked about this.
[00:31:40] We had a sit down meeting and this guy kind of unveiled the complete utter nonsense.
[00:31:48] Of him even being there to testify because there was no relevance whatsoever in terms of science or DNA or anything else that they were trying to pay for this.
[00:31:58] It meant nothing to society and yet this individual if convicted faced prison time.
[00:32:03] And I said, I almost said his name.
[00:32:08] He I said no.
[00:32:10] If it were me, I would I know I know the prosecution's paying your salary.
[00:32:16] Your your fee for coming there and testifying.
[00:32:19] But truth is truth.
[00:32:20] Facts are facts and you this is what you ought to do.
[00:32:24] Well anyway he went away wringing his hands and shaking his head.
[00:32:28] And after the case was over, I asked him what did he do?
[00:32:33] He said in essence he rolled over for the prosecution.
[00:32:37] He gave them the testimony that they wanted and they got their conviction.
[00:32:42] And I knew for a fact from our personal conversations one on one me asking him truth and what it really fit in the whole scheme of things.
[00:32:50] And the fact of the matter was he convicted this poor sucker that was there for something that never should have been brought to court to begin with.
[00:32:59] And facilitated his conviction.
[00:33:02] And it was because he was bought and paid for by the prosecution.
[00:33:06] This this was a travesty of justice and the law.
[00:33:09] But these kind of things happened in today's prosecutorial kind of mentality.
[00:33:16] And a lot of it can be tied back, I think, to back in 1895.
[00:33:21] There was a SPARF, S-P-A-R-F, the United States Supreme Court decision.
[00:33:28] It was a 5-4 decision.
[00:33:29] It was irrelevant really to a lot of things we're talking about right now.
[00:33:33] Except until that time there was a really firm understanding that the juries had the right to judge both the law and the facts.
[00:33:43] And if the law and the facts would not allow justice to be carried out, the jury could ignore those things and come back and acquit the person.
[00:33:51] This was commonly carried out and mostly, by the way, it was carried out in favor of slaves to prevent them from being turned back over to their masters or whatever if they escaped.
[00:34:03] So this was used as a civil rights defense in so many ways.
[00:34:07] And there's a whole bunch we could talk about.
[00:34:10] But in this case in 1895, the Supreme Court decided it's the duty of a jury to apply the law as given by the court to the facts of a case.
[00:34:22] As opposed to hearing the whole truth and nothing but the truth and then having a fully informed jury judge the reality of the situation as a loving, kind neighbor would do.
[00:34:35] Love thy neighbor as thyself.
[00:34:37] So in the case of Ken Kromar, even if you felt like Ken's guilty, he did something wrong.
[00:34:41] But yet you're like, look, they're going to hand in the book.
[00:34:43] He's going to get 15 years for this.
[00:34:45] That's completely wrong.
[00:34:47] The penalty doesn't match the crime.
[00:34:49] I'm going to say no on this because of that reason.
[00:34:51] See, there's all kinds of fully informed decisions that can and should be made by the last line of defense we have for true due process and appropriate moral behavior by the court.
[00:35:02] That's what it was intended for.
[00:35:03] And that's been jettisoned, doctor.
[00:35:05] It has indeed.
[00:35:07] I'll give you just a quick example of that and maybe we can move on.
[00:35:10] I know we've got a lot to talk about and maybe we're not done with this and you can decide.
[00:35:14] We've set the stage for a lot here for the next case is coming up, too.
[00:35:17] So we've done a lot of good, even though it feels like we're kind of stuck on this.
[00:35:20] I don't think so because we're making some valid critical points that need to be made here as the courts have really morphed into the Founders of the United States.
[00:35:29] The courts have really morphed into the founders used to love the court because they felt like, hey, this is where we can get appropriate.
[00:35:36] The whole truth, nothing but the truth, appropriate justice and mercy on the table.
[00:35:42] Now our founding fathers will be rolling over in their graves away.
[00:35:45] They literally put this storyboard of deception on the table and pretend it's the whole truth and literally abuse people that are trying to tell the whole truth, which is what happened to me on the stand yesterday.
[00:35:55] Really?
[00:35:56] Sure.
[00:35:57] Well, give you just a what if scenario.
[00:36:01] Let's say the law says thou shalt not kill anybody with a handgun.
[00:36:05] And let's say that a hundred and ten pound woman is attacked by a two hundred and eighty pound brute that is attempting to molest her.
[00:36:14] And she uses a handgun to prevent that crime from happening.
[00:36:18] She broke the law.
[00:36:20] Well, if the court says the law says you can't kill anybody with a handgun and the court instructs the jury to find the case in light of the facts of the case and what the law says, according to the way the judge applies it.
[00:36:35] That woman is going to get convicted.
[00:36:37] But with a jury that says, heck no, maybe something stronger than that, they're going to say, no, this woman was being brutalized by some monster of a guy.
[00:36:48] And the only defense she had was a handgun.
[00:36:50] She took that defense and it was a rightful outcome.
[00:36:53] This guy paid with his life and not guilty.
[00:36:57] OK, now I got a case in Utah.
[00:37:00] I mean, I'd like to use this case because the woman involved's last name is Bradley.
[00:37:05] To my knowledge, she's not related to me.
[00:37:07] So if I mean, if I am, I'm shocked.
[00:37:10] But at any rate, Utah has had a history of selecting bad senators right from the very get go.
[00:37:17] When they became a state and one of those senators was quite a scoundrel in terms of a lot of things.
[00:37:26] And he kept a mistress on the side.
[00:37:29] Her name was Bradley, and he was not treating her properly in their relationship and not living up to his responsibilities and so on and so forth.
[00:37:42] And so one time in a hotel room in Washington, D.C., she killed him.
[00:37:47] She shot him.
[00:37:49] And by golly, I mean, here's this dude that's pretty highly placed in society and everything like that ends up waking up dead in a hotel room.
[00:37:58] And so she had a trial and she was found not guilty by the jury.
[00:38:05] They felt like the facts in the matter were such that it didn't warrant a, you know, a conviction.
[00:38:12] And so these had some pretty high profile cases.
[00:38:16] I mean, like I say, they're pretty high profile applications.
[00:38:19] And what's happened today since this 1895 case has been that the juries have been bamboozled into thinking that they they have a responsibility to do exactly as instructed.
[00:38:33] Now, the judge cannot and this may apply in another discussion we're going to have in a few minutes, hopefully.
[00:38:38] But but the judge may not direct the jury to return a guilty verdict.
[00:38:43] I mean, that this 1895 case said that, too.
[00:38:46] And I believe that they have nuanced ways.
[00:38:49] Let me just stop you. Exactly nuanced ways to say that very thing without saying that.
[00:38:54] And we'll explain that in detail in a minute.
[00:38:56] But go ahead.
[00:38:57] OK, well, so anyway, I think the Trump case is one in which the jury felt that they didn't have any other they didn't have any other options.
[00:39:07] And I was there's another case I personally sat through the entire thing in the peanut gallery.
[00:39:13] I was not a jury jury member, but I had enough interest that I went there and sat through the whole case.
[00:39:21] And and there was some OK, there was a law that the individual that was charged was being charged under.
[00:39:28] I had read the law thoroughly.
[00:39:30] The law was poorly written by the Utah legislature.
[00:39:34] It had enough wiggle room to drive, you know, deuce and a half trucks through or whatever.
[00:39:40] Pick a big truck if you don't want to do staff is I mean, it was like what does this mean?
[00:39:46] What does that mean?
[00:39:47] What does the intent here?
[00:39:48] What this is?
[00:39:50] It was so muddy and murky that I just I mean, I thought, holy cow, this is this has got to be brought before the jury.
[00:39:57] Well, anyway, the defense attorney attempted to bring forth the law and have it entered into the record.
[00:40:05] And the first of all, the prosecuting attorney ballistically came out of his seat, probably happened to you when you were testifying, Sam came out of his seat like he was launched on the Intercontinental Ballistic Mission.
[00:40:16] And he was objection, Your Honor.
[00:40:18] And there was this the judge and the prosecuting attorney went on this like a dog on a bone.
[00:40:25] I think they were fully aware that this was a poorly written law.
[00:40:29] The person that was being charged was being charged on a law that a normal human being would not have understood.
[00:40:35] A normal intelligent being would not have understood.
[00:40:38] Well, anyway, the prosecution or the judge were both convinced that the jury did not meet the law.
[00:40:45] The jury did not need to see that law.
[00:40:48] All they needed to hear was that the judge said this is what the law says.
[00:40:54] And that's where I'm starting to have a big problem.
[00:40:57] See, well, if I had been on the jury, if it had been me, I would have as we retired for, you know, to be able to do our deliberations.
[00:41:05] I would have sent a note out to the judge to send in that law in its entirety.
[00:41:12] And if the judge had denied that, I would have returned to the fact that we haven't hung jury then, Your Honor,
[00:41:18] because without understanding what this person is being convicted of, we cannot in good conscience go forward.
[00:41:26] I mean, that's how it was.
[00:41:27] I have the Kren Kromar.
[00:41:28] That's the case with a lot of these situations that we're dealing with.
[00:41:32] But again, the judges just doggedly pursue and leave the jury to believe things that are factually false.
[00:41:38] So when the judge said yesterday, dismiss all that this man said, ignore the conversation that just happened.
[00:41:42] We're taking it off the record or whatever.
[00:41:44] What he really said was don't pay attention to any facts.
[00:41:46] This guy sworn to tell the truth was literally laying out his truth.
[00:41:50] Ignore all those facts.
[00:41:51] Ignore that reality.
[00:41:53] Ignore that whole aspect of the case.
[00:41:55] And that's where, you know, in my opinion, the judge is a criminal.
[00:41:59] I'm just going to say it flat out.
[00:42:01] You literally said, Sam, tell the whole truth.
[00:42:04] And when they asked me questions, I tried to elaborate and give examples and concrete situations for the points that I was making about character.
[00:42:11] For example, this this issue where we forced this truth about the records, that's because of Ken Kromar's honesty.
[00:42:20] And I wanted to basically give an example and then tie it to a character trait that was necessary.
[00:42:25] You know, that was essential here.
[00:42:26] But I can't do it if I don't have facts.
[00:42:27] If I just say, hey, he's an honest guy, then they're going, well, how do we know that?
[00:42:31] Well, if I give you the concrete example, because when he made some grandma requests for records and he got back things that he knew weren't correct or true or honest,
[00:42:41] he doggedly pursued that to get the facts on the case to the point where an attorney got let go over it to the point where we proved they were manipulating and falsifying the record results.
[00:42:52] OK, that is absolutely germane to an honest person, to a person who believes in the proper role of government, to a person.
[00:43:00] OK, but if you can't give that fact, then I can say, well, he's an honest guy.
[00:43:04] He really is. I promise. But they don't have any they don't have any backstory.
[00:43:09] They don't have any context for reality on that at all.
[00:43:12] So see, that's kind of what I mean. And the judge participated just as much in the prosecution at trying to shut me down.
[00:43:19] Now, sadly, they had dismissed the jury and then instruct the jury in a lie, in my opinion, and threatened me with contempt of court and all that to get that stopped.
[00:43:29] I still believe I got out way more than they had hoped. But this is the game that's played that you that you spoke of, Dr.
[00:43:35] Bradley, to the degree. And that's why I'm so hard on them, because look, I was only there.
[00:43:42] To give the jury an understanding of the historical context of who Ken is and why he's doing what he's doing and what the relevant realities are, how do we get here and why are we here?
[00:43:53] And that's important for the jury to understand in context, if they don't get that, then they're making decisions in a vacuum, doctor.
[00:44:01] Well, the jury, I mean, excuse me, the judge was only applying this deal of the jury will only be applying the law as given by the court to the facts of a case.
[00:44:11] Now, that is I mean, this is a priest craft, a craft of some sort in which these lawyerly types are doing this.
[00:44:21] And by the way, you know, you talk about the FOIA requests and maybe this will come up again in a later conversation today.
[00:44:26] I don't know. But this is how the Fauci cabal in his criminal endeavors avoided the FOIA requests, because what they did is they had they had been instructed on how to misspell words and put in different formats.
[00:44:44] So that when they were doing emails, you know, but within those that were facilitating the criminal activity, that when somebody put in a FOIA request for blah, blah, blah, this specific information, there's nothing here.
[00:44:58] They do a database search where there's nothing that's, you know, that says those words.
[00:45:04] There's there's no, you know, nothing that connects this to what the request is.
[00:45:09] And so it comes back as the blank space.
[00:45:11] Nothing found.
[00:45:12] Exactly like I was trying to highlight, we caught them doing in similar but manipulated ways.
[00:45:18] We caught them and the attorney got fired.
[00:45:19] The on button was odd and spudman for the state of Utah for the records, you know, was livid about it.
[00:45:25] You know, all this happened.
[00:45:26] Well, I think the jury should know that because all Ken was trying to do is hold government accountable.
[00:45:32] And that's when the vendetta against Ken started.
[00:45:34] That's when this all started to unwind and go to go south.
[00:45:38] And so you think there's no retribution payback?
[00:45:41] There is. And see the jury, if they never get any of that, they won't know the truth on any of that.
[00:45:45] So it's the whole truth except for the truth.
[00:45:47] We don't want to be on the docket, right?
[00:45:50] Well, see, here's the deal.
[00:45:51] Ken will be the sacrificial gold or whatever you want to call him.
[00:45:55] And it may be a pretty heavy penalty for one guy to pay because they can't let him win.
[00:46:00] This is too many ramifications for future cases.
[00:46:03] But if you stop and think about the Fauci facade that happened
[00:46:08] and the criminal activity that was perpetrated, not just on the United States,
[00:46:12] but on the entire world based upon that monstrous attempt of that man
[00:46:18] to seize control of everything that we hold dear.
[00:46:22] That this is a I mean, you can see how this manipulation, these processes
[00:46:28] are being magnified over billions of people.
[00:46:32] And literally, Ken's case could have a great effect if it ultimately had the outcome
[00:46:37] that it could have if the truth were known.
[00:46:40] That would have millions of people, hundreds of millions of people.
[00:46:43] Flat out shut down the IRS, the criminal activity, the IRS is judged during execution.
[00:46:47] Well, in one, it would shut that down if we really got the truth out completely on this baby.
[00:46:51] And that's why, as Dr.
[00:46:53] Bradley says, they can't let him win.
[00:46:54] That's the bottom line.
[00:46:57] Well, and I've talked to Ken in a number of occasions about this.
[00:47:00] And tragically, they can't let him win.
[00:47:04] And if they have to, they will run this to the ground.
[00:47:09] And I believe that if ultimately and finally they looked like they were going to win,
[00:47:14] they would kill the case by killing Ken.
[00:47:16] And that's it. That is a huge charge.
[00:47:20] Amen. But our prayers are that that never happens, ladies and gentlemen.
[00:47:24] And our prayers are that somehow there's a technicality or somehow
[00:47:29] there's a juror that heard what I had to say and realized, why is this good,
[00:47:32] nice dressed, blind gentleman on the stand trying to tell the whole truth as they asked him to?
[00:47:38] Why is he being shut down at every syllable that comes out of his mouth?
[00:47:42] Why is the judge dismissing us as jurors?
[00:47:45] Why when we come back into they say dismiss everything he said when he said
[00:47:49] that we've got an attorney fired and they were falsifying and manipulating records
[00:47:53] and we caught him at it.
[00:47:54] I want to hear the rest of that story.
[00:47:56] And hopefully there's somebody on the jury that has enough sense to see what happened
[00:48:00] there and can't even said, you see what just happened, Sam, to me on the stand.
[00:48:05] I said, yes, I do.
[00:48:06] And so hopefully the jury understood that.
[00:48:09] And that's the only hope we have is that somebody there is fully informed doctor.
[00:48:14] Well, again, they've done everything in their power for the last 130 years
[00:48:20] to prevent that from happening.
[00:48:22] In fact, I've known of cases where people have been
[00:48:25] arrested outside courtrooms who were trying to inform juries
[00:48:29] or anybody that was going in about a fully informed jury thing.
[00:48:32] This was this was kind of a popular thing to do 30 years ago,
[00:48:37] you know, where you tried to provide fully informed jury information
[00:48:42] to anybody and everybody.
[00:48:43] And again, every time I've been called a jury duty, they've dismissed me
[00:48:47] because of my honesty in my in my answering of questions
[00:48:53] that they know they don't want me on a jury.
[00:48:55] And that's a tragic thing.
[00:48:59] The jurors were I mean, the one of the main problems
[00:49:02] that Thomas Jefferson saw with the
[00:49:06] with the constitution that was sent to him by James Madison
[00:49:10] after the convention of 1787 was that it didn't have a bill of rights,
[00:49:15] if you will.
[00:49:15] And he was concerned that the jury process was not well enough protected.
[00:49:21] Now you go and read, you know, Article three of the Constitution.
[00:49:24] Yeah, it says juries and blah, blah, blah.
[00:49:26] But he wanted I mean, and so did all of the people
[00:49:30] that saw that it could be someday abused.
[00:49:33] Now, really, the the guys that were in the convention said
[00:49:36] we didn't give the government enough power to abuse anybody's rights,
[00:49:40] but they wanted it more specifically protected.
[00:49:43] So other clarifying statements were added in the Bill of Rights.
[00:49:47] They're protected more fully, more explicitly this jury thing.
[00:49:52] And then in 1895, that had the guts cut out of it by a Supreme Court,
[00:49:56] a five four Supreme Court decision.
[00:49:58] Now, again, the basis of the decision or the the whole court case
[00:50:02] was not over this issue of jury nullification.
[00:50:06] This was a kind of a peripheral issue that came out of it.
[00:50:11] But it's been so destructive to the way of the juries
[00:50:14] were meant to be operated in the United States from the very beginning.
[00:50:18] And if need be, we could do a whole review on Jefferson and other statements
[00:50:24] about the importance of a jury having that autonomous,
[00:50:27] independent capability of judging both the law and the facts
[00:50:31] to prevent something like happened.
[00:50:33] And I keep trying to segue into this.
[00:50:34] And I know it's going to be the next hour.
[00:50:36] What happened with the Trump case when you had a judge?
[00:50:39] Indeed, we have an absolute need, ladies and gentlemen,
[00:50:43] for a fully informed jury.
[00:50:45] That's critical.
[00:50:45] And we've lost that in America today.
[00:50:47] And boy, how do you repaying the price?
[00:50:50] The problem is both sides of the aisle have bought into this lie.
[00:50:53] And there's only the few of us that are holdouts.
[00:50:55] And they want you to believe that we're somehow anti-government.
[00:50:57] And that, again, does nothing but escalate the lies about that.
[00:51:03] Trump quote, I was just convicted in a sham
[00:51:08] rigged trial.
[00:51:10] I'm a political prisoner.
[00:51:12] It's the first time a former president has convicted or been convicted of a felony
[00:51:16] crime. Donald has been charged with dozens of other felonies
[00:51:21] across three additional cases, two federal and one in Georgia.
[00:51:27] And so you kind of start and go, OK, Donald was convicted.
[00:51:30] Now what? Well, he's on appeal.
[00:51:32] We'll talk about that.
[00:51:32] Many say that the appeal won't go anywhere.
[00:51:34] But people are starting to ask questions like this, doctor,
[00:51:37] that I thought you could spend a little bit of time on before we drill into the
[00:51:39] details of the case.
[00:51:40] Kind of a convicted felon still run for president, number one.
[00:51:44] Number two, will Trump spend time in jail or prison
[00:51:49] over any of this?
[00:51:50] You know, there's a difference that people need to know between jail and
[00:51:52] prison. Jail is usually just, you know, locally
[00:51:56] where it's a year or under, oftentimes, or if it's,
[00:52:00] you know, somebody that's not violent.
[00:52:01] A lot of times they go to jail instead of prison or, you know.
[00:52:04] But there's a difference in jail and prison.
[00:52:05] But will he do time, if you will, in either case for all this?
[00:52:09] And can he still run for president?
[00:52:10] People are wondering about all these things now because this has never
[00:52:13] happened before. Uncharted territory, right?
[00:52:17] Well, it is absolutely.
[00:52:18] It's the first time in all of our history that someone such as Trump,
[00:52:22] either a former president or a presidential candidate,
[00:52:26] has been a convicted felon.
[00:52:28] I mean, they convicted him with 34 felonies and we could talk at length
[00:52:32] and maybe we will next hour, I don't know about those 34 convictions.
[00:52:36] But then the 54 that are still facing him in his trials.
[00:52:40] I mean, this ain't done yet, kids.
[00:52:42] But the answer to your question is, could he serve as president?
[00:52:45] The answer is yes.
[00:52:47] The Constitution does not have any exception of presidential
[00:52:50] service from a felon.
[00:52:52] And so that will not prevent that from happening if.
[00:52:56] And I believe that it's
[00:52:58] more firmly drawn the battle lines this conviction has.
[00:53:02] And those that are in his favor will be even more in his favor.
[00:53:06] And I believe that the donations that are coming in for him now
[00:53:09] will testify of that.
[00:53:11] But I also believe that, you know, there may be some,
[00:53:16] shall we say?
[00:53:19] There'll be a walking through the motions, perhaps of him being convicted
[00:53:23] doing the perp walk with the cuffs on or maybe they'll leave the cuffs off.
[00:53:27] I don't know where he has to go down and get, you know, mug shots
[00:53:31] and processed and everything like that.
[00:53:34] I don't believe he'll spend much time in the jail to begin with.
[00:53:38] But I believe that ultimately and finally, they can.
[00:53:42] I'm of the opinion that the convictions will be overturned.
[00:53:45] But but this is this is a long drawn out process.
[00:53:48] It's not going to just happen, you know, by the wave of a magic wand.
[00:53:52] I think this we're a long ways from the end of this thing.
[00:54:02] When we get back, Sam, maybe we can talk about what Jefferson said.
[00:54:06] We're going to talk about what Jefferson said.
[00:54:07] We're going to dig into this Trump case in detail because there's a lot of unique
[00:54:11] twists and turns to this, what we've got to drill into, folks.
[00:54:14] I'm telling you right now, it's lawfare heaven in America.
[00:54:16] And that will, in my opinion, be the great destruction
[00:54:19] of the freest, most greatest country on the planet.
[00:54:22] I believe lawfare will be one of the ways that they completely destroy
[00:54:25] this nation if we allow it.
[00:54:28] Let me say that again. If we allow it, we can stop it.
[00:54:31] We'll talk about that, too, because we're always finding solutions on your radio.
[00:54:35] Dr. Scott Bradley is with me.
[00:54:36] Freedoms Rising Sun dot com.
[00:54:38] Check out his incredible, you know, bit shoot and
[00:54:43] all those different forms where you can watch videos.
[00:54:45] We'll talk about that, too. Coming up.
[00:54:47] Hang tight. Our one in the can to coming up.
[00:54:48] God save the.