On Sunday's Meet the Press, moderator Chuck Todd used the opening segment of the program to argue with former President Donald Trump's lawyer Joe Tacopina. No matter how many times he explained to Todd how campaign law works, he continued to insist the political prosecution of the former President by a radical Soros-backed prosecutor needed to be litigated in court.
After Tacopina explained the entire case to Todd and gave his defensive argument, Todd acknowledged how "it sounds like you have a defense ready to go." This led Tacopina to respond "I'm ready."
Instead of leaving it there, Todd returned to his partisan line of questioning: "if you're a prosecutor, you know, you're making these claims. Great. Show us your proof of it. It seems like there's enough at dispute here that actually this belongs in a court of law to resolve this."
Tacopina bluntly told the Democrat activist Todd "of course, it doesn't belong in a court of law, Chuck."
"Listen, again, you can't bring a case, cobble two misdemeanors together to make a felony to meet the statute of limitations when not one misdemeanor exists. There is no crime here," Tacopina added.
Undeterred by reality, Todd tripled down: "there is a campaign finance crime that he has pled guilty to, that involves the former President, so there’s a crime at the core of this issue."
This led Tacopina to explain in painstaking detail why the entire case is illegitimate (click "expand" to read):
A million different crimes. The guy was committing tax and medallion frauds, other frauds, other perjury. Listen, if you want to just say it, fine, but if you let me answer which is when Michael Cohen pled guilty he said something that was so crucial to campaign finance law, and it’s what every expert has used. Even if you accept the word of a convicted perjuror and liar, a guy who has lied in every forum he's ever been in, he said when he pled guilty that this was done for the benefit of the campaign and for personal embarrassment to the client and his family including his young son Barron.
Once he said the “and” part, it takes it out of campaign finance law. It’s personal funds. It had to be used exclusively for the campaign. It’s like me buying a suit to go on the campaign so I can look better than if I had an old raggy suit on. That’s a personal expenditure. It’s not a campaign expenditure. Even though it benefits the campaign. It’s not a campaign expenditure. So when Michael Cohen said it was both for personal and campaign uses, or reasons that takes it out of exclusively campaign finance law and there is no crime. I’m telling you, Chuck. That’s the law on campaign finance.
From there, Todd still wouldn't concede. Instead, he simply said "we're gonna find out. It is a very murky law on campaign finance. But it does like I said it sounds like this is why you might need a court of law to figure this out."
It's clear that no amount of facts or logic will deter leftists like Todd from their half a decade quest to see Trump behind bars. Regardless of what you think of the man himself, all fair-minded people know this is a political prosecution by a corrupt third-world District Attorney doing the bidding of one of the evilest men in the world: George Soros.
This segment was made possible by Prevagen. Their information is linked.
The transcript is below. Click "expand" to read:
NBC’s Meet the Press
3/26/2023
10:16:03 a.m. EasternCHUCK TODD: It sounds like you have a defense ready to go. But everything you described—
JOE TACOPINA: I'm ready.
TODD: If you're a prosecutor, you know, you're making these claims. Great. Show us your proof of it. It seems like there's enough at dispute here that actually this belongs in a court of law to resolve this.
TACOPINA: Of course, it doesn't belong in a court of law, Chuck. Listen, again, you can't bring a case, cobble two misdemeanors together to make a felony to meet the statute of limitations when not one misdemeanor exists. There is no crime here. There’s not even a bad act, okay? Again detractor of Donald Trump or not—
[crosstalk]
TODD: There is a campaign finance crime that he has pled guilty to, that involves the former President, so there’s a crime at the core of this issue.
TACOPINA: Wrong.
TODD: Well, that's not what the federal government says.
TACOPINA: You’re wrong.
TODD: Michael Cohen served time. What did he serve time for?
[crosstalk]
TACOPINA: A million different crimes. The guy was committing tax and medallion frauds, other frauds, other perjury. Listen, if you want to just say it, fine, but if you let me answer which is when Michael Cohen pled guilty he said something that was so crucial to campaign finance law, and it’s what every expert has used. Even if you accept the word of a convicted perjuror and liar, a guy who has lied in every forum he's ever been in, he said when he pled guilty that this was done for the benefit of the campaign and for personal embarrassment to the client and his family including his young son Barron.
Once he said the “and” part, it takes it out of campaign finance law. It’s personal funds. It had to be used exclusively for the campaign. It’s like me buying a suit to go on the campaign so I can look better than if I had an old raggy suit on. That’s a personal expenditure. It’s not a campaign expenditure. Even though it benefits the campaign. It’s not a campaign expenditure. So when Michael Cohen said it was both for personal and campaign uses, or reasons that takes it out of exclusively campaign finance law and there is no crime. I’m telling you, Chuck. That’s the law on campaign finance.
TODD: We're gonna find out. It is a very murky law on campaign finance. But it does like I said it sounds like—
TACOPINA: For sure.
TODD: This is why you might need a court of law to figure this out.
