Thanks for listening to Reasonable Doubt on Podcast One.

This is Beyond a Reasonable Doubt with your hosts, Mark Gargis and Gary Smith.

Wow, this is welcome to BRD. I can barely hear, but I'm here at the New York Christmas party.

Coming on the heels of, I've been all over the country and actually this is the first time I've spoken post-small-ed verdict, right, Gary?

That's absolutely right. I mean, we've had some tax, but there's been nothing public.

Yeah, and apparently I can't quite figure it out, but I'm told by Tina who is the New York partner who's there in Chicago that it was guilty on five out of the six counts.

Correct. That's what I'm hearing as well. Maybe you can enlighten me on this, but depending on which media outlet you read, some, I would say the CNNs of the world are saying that the max he could get is a three-year sentence, and then others are saying that it is at the judge's discretion to to sentence him concurrently or, you know, or not.

So he could have 15 potentially. This judge, you know, I've been under a informal gag order, I suppose, because Tina's trying this case. I am not trying this case.

I was admitted pro-hoc, which is basically the Latin term for particular, that particular time when the case was dismissed.

So now I'm not under any kind of restrictions, even though I don't think I was before, but I was deferring to the judge. This was such an outrage.

I was a judge who hate just because ideologically you don't buy anything he was selling or you think it was a hoax or this or that. This was the criminal justice system at its worst. You had nothing but this was a kind of a, a, a,

gang bang, prosecutorial gang bang to get back at somebody who was already determined to have been punished, who had $10,000 forfeited, who had to do community service, and they dismissed the case.

This whole thing, this rose by the woman, this retired judge, white, by the way, who then insinuates herself in and gets this current judge white, old white man, by the way, to then appoint, by the way, an old white man, a Dan Webb to prosecute this case as the office of special counsel or special prosecutor.

Anybody who listens to this broadcast Gary, you'll know this because you've been with us for six years. You will know, I don't believe that there can ever be any justice when you've got a special prosecutor because they have one object and that's conviction and whether it's Ken star, Robert Mueller or anybody else, Dan Webb, it's a complete to me bullshit concept that should not be in the wash and be allowed in the wash.

This was an outrage. This, this, this court proceeding with Jesse was fixed to begin with from start to finish and, you know, you can share it if you're somebody who thinks it was a hopes, I personally don't buy that.

I understand it respect the jury's verdict, but you know why I respected jury's verdict because the judge basically decided he was going to get a conviction in all costs and he was not going to admit evidence that was relevant.

He was going to take the jury and it was frankly a, like I said, a prosecutorial gang man.

With that in mind, do you see grounds for him to appeal?

I've said all along privately because I was trying to observe his illegal informal, whatever you want to call it, gag order.

He didn't care. He was looking for a conviction. He didn't care if he got reversed, he didn't care about anything else. All it was.

That was a way to show for originally this was a way to take out Kim Fox, who was a progressive prosecutor.

And if you look at the timeline, if you look at everything that happened, it was all designed to take out Kim Fox, appointing Dan Webb, who was supporting one of his biggest benefactors was the father of the guy who was running against Kim Fox.

...