Stay Connected to Dr. Steve moving forward on the new Turley Talks Platform at: https://fight.turleytalks.com
Join me and Ross Givens this Saturday, April 27th 11am EST and learn how you can use the same insider information Pelosi and others have used to make MILLIONS. You’re not going to want to miss out on this once in a lifetime FREE TRAINING! Click this link to register TODAY!!: https://turleytalksinsidertrading.com
*The content presented by our partners may contain affiliate links. When you click and shop the links, Turley Talks may receive a small commission.*
--
Thank you for taking the time to listen to this episode. If you enjoyed this episode, please subscribe and/or leave a review.
FOLLOW me on X (Twitter): https://twitter.com/DrTurleyTalks
Click here to partner with us and defy liberal culture! https://advertising.turleytalks.com/sponsorship
Sign up for the 'New Conservative Age Rising' Email Alerts to get lots of articles on conservative trends: https://turleytalks.com/subscribe/.
**(Note: This is a clip from our Friday livestream.)
Are we seeing the revitalization of conservative civilization? All over the world has been a massive backlash against globalization, its leftist leadership, and its anti-cultural liberal values. And it's just the beginning. I'm Dr. Steve Turley. I believe the liberal globalist world is at its brink, and a new conservative age is rising. Join me every day as we examine these worldwide trends, discover answers to today's toughest challenges, and together learn to live in the present in life of even better things to cover. This is Turley Talks. And by not taking it on an expedited basis, sort of taking it under regular order here, they've already created a significant delay here that means that this election case, however they rule, can't go to trial probably before the fall. And now we come to exactly what they're considering here, which is the question of whether a president has absolute immunity. And then there's a second question here, which is whether anything that Donald Trump has accused of would actually constitute a presidential act implicated in the immunity question. Yeah. Just making sure you're okay. Do you need... is everything okay? We hear someone yell. It's fine. We have a heckler here. Yeah, you know, I've got to say they obviously have been following the David Packer testimony. They're yelling fake news and they obviously want viewers to know that Donald Trump lied about JFK's assassination, tried to blame Ted Cruz. He's yelling fake news also because Donald Trump lied along with David Packer. They work together to lie about Ben Carson, to lie about Hillary Clinton. Fake news all around, so I want to thank him for actually framing it for us. We want to make sure you're okay, but also we want everybody watching to know that that person screaming fake news, obviously talking about all the lies that Donald Trump perpetrated about Hillary Clinton and all of his opponents in 2020. Go ahead. They're so leavant, they're so angry, they're so upset. They are... they are... that was Joe Scarborough, literally frothing at the mouth. Did you hear what he said that Trump blamed Ted Cruz for Kennedy's assassination? Have you blamed Ted Cruz for his assassination? He actually accused Trump of lying about Hillary. Yeah, let that hit you, I mean, that's the straw grasping that he's been resigned to. He's lowered himself to. He's so livid, he's so livid about what happened yesterday that the only thing that comes out of that, those froth lips is that Trump was lying about Hillary Clinton, you know, the woman who concocted, who fabricated a fake Russian dossier against Trump that sent Scarborough's own network MSNBC into a 24/7 feeding frenzy for three years, costing taxpayers tens of millions of dollars, and it all turned out to be a total and complete fraud. They are so angry about what happened yesterday at the Supreme Court that nuts ideological nuts like Scarborough can't even begin to think straight, and the beauty is he's not alone. We're going to see what the left wing activists disguised as journalists are admitting this morning after that disastrous Supreme Court hearing yesterday. Let's just sum it up for you. I'll make it easy for you. It's over. Jack Smith has lost. On Thursday of this week, just yesterday, Ross Givens and I held a free training where thousands of you attended, but we ran out of room. It was crazy how many people registered and it was just great to see all those who came. Ross is an insider trading expert whose recommendations have led to investment returns of over 200%, some of it hit as high as nearly 1500%, because he actually uses the exact same techniques that Nancy Pelosi does, but perfectly ethically and legally. Now because of the great success of that training yesterday, Ross has graciously decided to offer another free training tomorrow, Saturday, April 27th at 11 a.m. Eastern. You're not going to want to miss out on this once in a lifetime free training to learn how you too can learn how to trade like Pelosi, but legally and ethically. So click on that link in the description to register today. All right, gang, let's dive right in here. The left-wing activists disguised as journalists over at Politico are officially throwing in the towel on the Jack Smith trial happening ever coming to happen before November, which means of course that the other trials will be pushed past November as well. Here's how the piece starts, quote, "The already slim likelihood that Donald Trump will face a criminal trial brought by special counsel Jack Smith before the 2024 election appeared to dwindle further Thursday in the face of withering scrutiny from the Supreme Court's conservative majority." And you know what they wanted to put after that, they wanted to put darn it, darn it. The chances of this happening before November are slim to none, darn it. One by one, the court's sixth Republican appointed judges, including three nominated by Trump himself, took wax at Smith's effort to quickly and cleanly reject Trump's claim of immunity from criminal prosecution over his attempt to subvert the 2020 election. Stop. Stop. What is it with these woke activists disguised as journalists? Do any mean Trump's alleged attempt to subvert the 2020 election? I had to read this twice. The Supremes took wax at Smith's effort to quickly and cleanly reject Trump's claim of immunity from criminal prosecution over his attempt to subvert the 2020 election. Don't they mean alleged? His alleged attempt to subvert the 2020 election? This is so bizarre. I mean, it really is. I talked about this in the last night's livestream. It is so surreal reading pieces by so-called legal experts, legal commentators, who deny Trump the fundamental foundation of our legal system, which is the presumption of innocence. Again, I'm totally, I'm literally gobsmacked as you say across the pond. I'm gobsmacked. That's so-called legal experts presume Trump guilty before proven innocent. They've already tried and convicted him. There is more a mow than Matlock with them. How's that for an alliteration, right? But I digress continuing, continuing here with a piece instead during more than two and a half hours of oral argument, the justices forecast a result that could require lower courts to spend months analyzing various aspects of Trump's election plot. Is that alleged? From organizing fraudulent slates of electors to leaning on his justice department to so false doubts about the results, alleged, alleged, right? This is the all to characteristic presumed guilt coming through, left wing activists disguised as objective journalists. That's why I call them that. The purpose of those additional lower court proceedings, several conservative justice suggested, would be to determine if some of the acts alleged. He finally said it. Thank you. Some of the acts alleged in the special counsel's indictment, count is sufficiently official presidential duties that they ought to be shielded from criminal charges. Even if Smith were to win every single one of those battles, it would virtually ensure that a trial could not possibly happen until after the election. The trial in this case was initially scheduled to begin in March of this year. But the proceedings in the trial court have been frozen for months while Trump has pursued his claim that he enjoys absolute immunity from any charges touching on his official acts. It's Ralph, man, and dude, I mean, come on. It's an inside joke here. Yeah, that's, by the way, what they just said there is it's that's not quite right. Again, we talked about this last night when analyzing the Supreme Court justices concerns. Trump is emphatically not arguing that he can do whatever he wants, that that's what presidential immunity means. He could run around literally like shooting and maiming and killing anybody wants. And as long as he's president, he could just stand there and say, yeah, yeah, you can't touch me. That's not what anyone is arguing. This is not emphatically the Trump team's argument. Presidential immunity, the presidential immunity that Trump's team is arguing for simply states that criminal prosecution of a former president must be predicated on impeachment and conviction. Impeachment in the House conviction in the Senate. That is the constitutionally prescribed procedure for holding a president accountable for his actions while in office. If he is not being held accountable to your liking, then you need to mobilize and vote in a new Congress. Otherwise, if criminal prosecution is not based on congressional impeachment and conviction, then every single subsequent president from here on in will be swamped with indictments after he leaves office. The law will now be permanently weaponized against every single president like it is in the Banana Republic. Trump himself said it. If I don't got immunity, neither does Biden. So when I come in, look out, right? That's exactly what Gorsuch and Kavanaugh and Alito and Thomas and Roberts were so clearly concerned here. They kept pressing Jack Smith's representative. And again, this is something that Politico won't ever tell you. They're so embarrassed by how blatantly they got caught in their weaponized legalism. They won't even tell you this. Those justices kept pressing Jack Smith's representative, his lawyer. But on earth is your guarantee, your safeguard against the weaponization of the law against future presidents, if it is not the constitutionally prescribed process and procedure of impeachment and conviction. And of course, Jack Smith's counsel had no coherent coherent answer for that. You know what he actually said, in effect? Well, because we've got the right lawyers. We've got the right lawyers. We've got the attorney, we've got the right attorney generals. And of course, it's like, dude, did you just see what happened in Arizona? Now they're suing the lawyers. Oh, we got the right lawyers. Oh, you got the right law? Oh, good. We'll hang them too. This counsel had no coherent answer for that because there is none without the objective standard of prior congressional impeachment and conviction, post presidential prosecution will be used as a weapon against every single subsequent president from here on end. Every president from now on will be sued multiple, multiple times. This is about maintaining the integrity of the executive office that it looks like the Democrats are hell bent on destroying. Regardless, the wacko left us over Politico are clearly throwing the towel in here. Whatever the justices ultimately decide, they're admitting this, whatever the Supreme Court justices ultimately decide and that decision may not be given till June, the lower courts will be spending months resolving the issues and questions that the justices are going to put before them. And every single one of those decisions is appealable to the Supreme's, everyone, because it bears directly with their ruling on this. So there is no way this is happening before November. And Politico's not alone in their despondency. The LA Times now is throwing in the towel. They're recognizing the Democrats, law, fair against Trump is could put it's over. There's a highlight from their admission quote, it got worse for the prosecution, more or less out of nowhere. Justice Brett Kavanaugh suggested that one of the charges against Trump. I love that more or less out of nowhere. Don't you love that? Who would ever think this way, right? Justice Brett Kavanaugh suggested that one of the charges against Trump conspiracy to defraud the United States actually relies on a statute that's so broad and vague that it could be misused by future prosecutors against future presidents. Justice Samuel Lito jumped in at to second the suggestion, taking up the criticism of the prosecution that Trump's lawyers hadn't even raised. They didn't have to raise it. It's just, this is exact. This is the can of worms you open up when you try to basically destroy the presidency. Once the court just heard arguments in a separate case that could invalidate two of the four charges against Trump, those under a federal obstruction statute and opinion invalidating another charge could force Smith to soldier on with only one remaining charge against Trump conspiracy against rights. That charge relies on the electorate's right to have votes counted, which is a somewhat indirect approach to accountability for Trump's pernicious post-election conduct. They are so freaking livid. I mean, the towel is just, dude, the towel's just being thrown in guy. I mean, they're basically admitting defeat here, just like Scarborough, they're frothing at the mouth, they're getting their last insults in, they're weeping and gnashing their teeth because they're blatant and deliberate attempt at thwarting the democratic process through their pathetic law affair has just been dealt its most severe blow. Thanks so much for listening to this episode of the "Truly Talks" podcast. Don't forget to subscribe, leave us a five-star review and share this episode with your friends. Help us defeat the fake news media and rank us the number one news and commentary podcast all over the world. Come back again tomorrow for another episode celebrating the rise of a new conservative age. [music]
