Speaker 1: Good morning, peepsen. Welcome to Okay f Daily with Meet
Speaker 1: your Girl Danielle Moody. Recording from the home Bunker, Folks,
Speaker 1: I have a jam packed legal show for you today
Speaker 1: with our friend Glenn Kirshner, host of Justice Matters and
Speaker 1: MSNBC legal analyst. Breaking news came out of Georgia with
Speaker 1: regard to Fannie Willis and the grand jury that she
Speaker 1: had called in order to review an interview roughly seventy
Speaker 1: five people, including Senator Lindsey Graham, who, if you all remember,
Speaker 1: tried his damnedest not to have to sit before the
Speaker 1: grand jury and answer any type of questions from Fannie
Speaker 1: Willis and her team. Also, we heard from Offensberger, the
Speaker 1: Secretary of State who received the call for the ken
Speaker 1: You find Me eleven thousand, seven hundred and some odd votes,
Speaker 1: and Rudy Giuliani among other cast of characters in the
Speaker 1: Trump Stopped the Steal who were trying to steal orbit.
Speaker 1: Glenn will give us the details about, you know, what
Speaker 1: was missed in mainstream media news, but what we need
Speaker 1: to actually be keeping our eyes on. He will also
Speaker 1: give us some details into the latest rounds of convictions
Speaker 1: in the Oathkeeper's trial, which is separate from the initial
Speaker 1: Oathkeeper's trial that featured the founder, Elmer Stewart Rhodes, and so, folks,
Speaker 1: what this episode lays out for me is that there
Speaker 1: is still a little bit, not a lot, but a
Speaker 1: little bit of hope in the way of Donald Trump
Speaker 1: and the architects of the insurrection being held criminally accountable
Speaker 1: for their crimes. Now, folks, I believe that we are
Speaker 1: going to see the scenario where Donald Trump is indicted
Speaker 1: by Fannie Willis apparently the only prosecutor that has a
Speaker 1: backbone in the whole of the United States that has
Speaker 1: evidence on Donald Trump that if in fact she does
Speaker 1: go after and indict Donald Trump and Rudy Giuliani and others,
Speaker 1: that we may see for the first time in America's history,
Speaker 1: a couple of things. One a criminal indictment of a
Speaker 1: former president of the United States, and that same former
Speaker 1: president of the United States, while under indictment running for
Speaker 1: president of the United States. If this does not spell
Speaker 1: fucking Banana Republic, I don't know what the fuck does.
Speaker 1: Because this is some shit, some messy ass political shit
Speaker 1: that you would hear about in other nations and think
Speaker 1: to yourself, Oh, that would never happen in America. America
Speaker 1: would never stand for it. Well, because Republicans don't stand
Speaker 1: for a fucking thing. Donald Trump was never impeached in
Speaker 1: the Senate, which gives him the ability to run for
Speaker 1: office again. And apparently we have no rules on the
Speaker 1: bucks that say that if you are currently indicted for
Speaker 1: a crime, that you can't run for office. Lord Jesus
Speaker 1: take the wheel. So coming up next my jam packed
Speaker 1: conversation with our friend Glenn Kirshner to walk us through
Speaker 1: where we are on the road to indictment for Donald Trump. Because, Folks,
Speaker 1: what we have seen is that, and I love this
Speaker 1: phrase that Glenn uses, is that the boots of the insurrection,
Speaker 1: those people that were literally on the ground in the
Speaker 1: Capitol building are receiving penalties. But the people and the
Speaker 1: person that pointed to the Capitol Building and told them
Speaker 1: to go take their country back, the person that tweeted
Speaker 1: and got them to Washington, DC in the first fucking place,
Speaker 1: is still golfing in Mara Lago while they're in federal prison.
Speaker 1: So something here just doesn't fucking seem right. So the
Speaker 1: question that we continue to ask on this show and
Speaker 1: everywhere is if the boots are going to be held
Speaker 1: responsible for the insurrection? When the fuck will the suits
Speaker 1: be held responsible for their strategy, plan and conspiracy to
Speaker 1: thwart a free and fair election. That conversation with our
Speaker 1: friend Glenn Kirshner is coming up next. Folks who know
Speaker 1: that whenever I have the opportunity to chat with our friend,
Speaker 1: the host of Justice Matters and MSNBC legal analyst and
Speaker 1: former federal prosecutor, Glenn Kirshner, I am always thrilled. Yet
Speaker 1: we never come with good news, But I'm always thrilled
Speaker 1: to just speak with you, Glenn, because you know you
Speaker 1: make me feel less crazy. A lot of news has
Speaker 1: been circulating around in the legal sphere, and I want
Speaker 1: to start with Fannie Willis in Georgia. I think that
Speaker 1: one of the things that still provides I don't know,
Speaker 1: that mustard seed of hope I talk about often is
Speaker 1: the possibility that Georgia, Fulton County and the find me
Speaker 1: the eleven thousand some odd votes call that Donald Trump
Speaker 1: made to State the Secretary of State Ravensburger the fake electors.
Speaker 1: That gives us probably about as close as we may
Speaker 1: see to an indictment of the architects around this quote
Speaker 1: unquote stop this steal. So I want to give you
Speaker 1: an opportunity to just bring us up to speed on
Speaker 1: the latest that has come down out of Georgia and frankly,
Speaker 1: how you are feeling with that breaking news, Danielle. What
Speaker 1: we heard Fulton County District Attorney Fannie Willis say an
Speaker 1: open court this week is the most concrete and direct
Speaker 1: thing we have ever heard a prosecutor who's investigating Donald
Speaker 1: Trump say about the likelihood of charges. I viewed this
Speaker 1: as an eleven on the legal Richter scale. I don't
Speaker 1: know that it got the play it deserves, but she
Speaker 1: said so just to set it up, you got the
Speaker 1: funky too grand jury system in Georgia. The regular grand
Speaker 1: jury can indict people but can't issue subpoenas. The Special
Speaker 1: grand Jury can issue subpoenas, but it can indict people.
Speaker 1: So Fannie Willis ran seventy five reluctant witnesses through the
Speaker 1: special grand Jury. That grand jury then authors a report. Really,
Speaker 1: I believe the prosecutors authored the report and presented to
Speaker 1: the Special grand Jury for its approval, talking about here's
Speaker 1: the evidence, here's who committed crimes. Here's you who should
Speaker 1: be indicted. That report then goes back to the regular
Speaker 1: grand jury. They look at it, they absorb it, the
Speaker 1: prosecutors make their arguments, and then the regular grand jury
Speaker 1: indicts people if that's what it believes is the right
Speaker 1: thing to do. So the news media went into court
Speaker 1: and brought suit to try to get that grand jury
Speaker 1: report released publicly. Fannie Willis herself, not one of her
Speaker 1: assistant prosecutors, went into court and said, Judge, we strongly
Speaker 1: object to the report's release at this time because if
Speaker 1: it was released, that would interfere with the defendants plural.
Speaker 1: She emphasized plural multiple times in the hearing, with the
Speaker 1: defendant's right to a fair trial. Danielle, you don't become
Speaker 1: a defendant unless you're indicted. That was Fannie Willis communicating
Speaker 1: people will be indicted. My second favorite word after defendants
Speaker 1: that Fannie Willis used was imminent. She said, Judge, and
Speaker 1: are charging decisions are imminent. Fannie Willis is no nonsense.
Speaker 1: She probably has all of the vertebrae and the strongest
Speaker 1: spine of all of the prosecutors who have looked at
Speaker 1: Donald Trump's crimes and when she says defendants are coming
Speaker 1: and the charging decisions are imminent, I take it to
Speaker 1: the bank. I don't know if imminent means days or weeks.
Speaker 1: I am. I am convinced that Fannie Willis has the
Speaker 1: goods and she's not afraid to use them, and that
Speaker 1: we're going to see the first indictments of Trump and
Speaker 1: company coming from Georgia. Okay, a couple of questions here,
Speaker 1: just to remind people what those what would those indictments?
Speaker 1: What would those charges be? Glenn, because again we have
Speaker 1: been in this web of potential legal charges for Donald
Speaker 1: Trump what seems to be well, frankly my whole adult
Speaker 1: life because I live in New York. But then with
Speaker 1: regard to the stop the steal the election, the documents cases,
Speaker 1: blah blasso, tell us, just remind folks if this indictment
Speaker 1: were to come down, one, what would the charges be?
Speaker 1: And then two who do we think these defendants are?
Speaker 1: Because there again you said there were a parade of
Speaker 1: people that came in. We know that Senator Lindsey Graham
Speaker 1: had fought tooth and nail not to sit before the
Speaker 1: grand jury. We know that Rudy Giuliani also fought tooth
Speaker 1: and nail not to sit before the grand jury. So
Speaker 1: tell us who the cast of potential characters and her
Speaker 1: defendants plural would be, so you know the charges. Let
Speaker 1: me take one as an example. Under Georgia's state law,
Speaker 1: it is illegal to solicit election fraud, to ask an
Speaker 1: election official or a state government official to engage in
Speaker 1: some form of election fraud. And all she has to
Speaker 1: do to prove that crime beyond a reasonable doubt is
Speaker 1: push playing on the audio we actually see. I worked
Speaker 1: wire tap cases, Danielle, and when you caught conspirators talking
Speaker 1: dirty on the phone about their drug deals, I call
Speaker 1: that a push play trial. You push play the jurors
Speaker 1: hear the crime committed on audio tape, soliciting election fraud
Speaker 1: under the laws of Georgia as a felony that I
Speaker 1: think will be one of the lead counts against Donald Trump.
Speaker 1: I urged people to read the Brookings Institute deep dive
Speaker 1: into all of the laws that the publicly available evidence
Speaker 1: suggests Donald Trump and others committed. They cataloged more than
Speaker 1: a dozen felony and misdemeanors alike that were violated, arguably
Speaker 1: by what Trumpet Company did. The other big ticket crime.
Speaker 1: I think we're going to see indicted as conspiracy. Remember,
Speaker 1: Georgia has what I'll refer to as mini Rico laws.
Speaker 1: You have the federal Rico law, and then a lot
Speaker 1: of the states adopted their own versions of the Rico
Speaker 1: laws called mini Rico laws. And Fannie Willis there are
Speaker 1: some indications in the litigation and in the grand jury
Speaker 1: proceedings as they unfolded, that she was perhaps using George's
Speaker 1: Rico laws to go after this as a Rico crew,
Speaker 1: as a corrupt organization, as a group that was making
Speaker 1: a concerted effort to violate the Georgia's state election laws
Speaker 1: in order to get Donald Trump falsely corruptly declared the
Speaker 1: winner of the presidential election in Georgia. So I think
Speaker 1: we might seek a conspiracy charge together with the substitutive
Speaker 1: charges of election soliciting, election fraud and others. Who is
Speaker 1: likely to be indicted certainly Donald Trump, certainly, Rudy Giuliani
Speaker 1: and Jenna Ellis. I say that because there's a lot
Speaker 1: of reporting about how they made false statements to Georgia's
Speaker 1: state legislators trying to gin up these false claims of
Speaker 1: election fraud to try to undermine the elections results. I
Speaker 1: think they are likely defendants, and listen Lindsey Graham. One
Speaker 1: of the star witnesses against Lindsey Graham is Georgia's Secretary
Speaker 1: of State Brad Raffensberger, who has very publicly and openly
Speaker 1: and I believe also to the grand jury. Though we
Speaker 1: don't know precisely what he told the grand jury, he
Speaker 1: very openly has said Lindsey Graham called me repeatedly, and
Speaker 1: what he was saying to me I interpreted as Lindsey
Speaker 1: Graham urging me to toss out lawfully cast ballots. That's
Speaker 1: a quote from a Republican secretary of state about what
Speaker 1: a sitting republic senator from another state, not even from Georgia,
Speaker 1: was urging him to do commit election fraud, solicit election fraud. So,
Speaker 1: if there is a justice God, and I think that
Speaker 1: remains an open question, Lindsey Graham ought to be one
Speaker 1: of those names on the indictment. We will have to
Speaker 1: see if Fannie Willis is comfortable with the evidence she
Speaker 1: has supporting including Lindsay Graham as a criminal defendant. I
Speaker 1: hope she has the goods. Based on public reporting, it
Speaker 1: looks like she might and I hope she decides it's
Speaker 1: the right thing to do. Now, let me ask you this, Glenn,
Speaker 1: because this is something that I have been curious about.
Speaker 1: So a couple of what was late last year the
Speaker 1: Trump organization, by being prosecuted in New York was found
Speaker 1: guilty of seventeen different charges, and one of the biggest
Speaker 1: being all sorts of fraud. Right, does that type of
Speaker 1: conviction play into the character of the people that we
Speaker 1: are talking about? Meaning, I know that Fannie Willis has
Speaker 1: her own you know, slight of evidence as it pertains
Speaker 1: to the particular crimes that took place in Georgia. But
Speaker 1: Donald Trump has and the Trump or well, I should say,
Speaker 1: the Trump organization with his name on it, has been
Speaker 1: in you know, has been charged and found guilty of fraud. Right,
Speaker 1: So does that play in or does that play in
Speaker 1: in a legal sense or just in people's minds? Yes,
Speaker 1: that's a great question. It certainly plays in factors in
Speaker 1: when it comes to common sense, our commons, right, Right,
Speaker 1: does the factor in, you know, in a legally exploitable way?
Speaker 1: The answer is generally no, because you know, there's common
Speaker 1: sense and then there's legal sense, and rarely do those
Speaker 1: two things meet. Unfortunately, here's where it does factor in
Speaker 1: in a couple of ways. First of all, any information
Speaker 1: or evidence developed by one prosecutor in one jurisdiction, Ken
Speaker 1: and I'm sure will be shared with other jurisdictions that
Speaker 1: are investigating the same people for similar crimes, because I
Speaker 1: think it's too important for the Department of Justice and
Speaker 1: the prosecutors in Georgia and the prosecutors in New York
Speaker 1: not to be communicating with one another about the evidence
Speaker 1: of crime that they're finding by Trump and his criminal associates.
Speaker 1: So it would be stupid, encounter productive if prosecutors weren't
Speaker 1: coordinating with one another to use and exploit, in an
Speaker 1: appropriately legal sense, evidence that the other jurisdiction has developed.
Speaker 1: But it's not like if Donald Trump personally gets charged
Speaker 1: in both Georgia and New York, it's not like the
Speaker 1: New York jury will be told. Oh and by the way, folks,
Speaker 1: he did some crimes down in Georgia too. Even if
Speaker 1: he had already been convicted of those crimes and was
Speaker 1: now on trial in New York, that evidence probably wouldn't
Speaker 1: come in into the new prosecution unless a judge ruled
Speaker 1: that it was relevant somehow it wasn't what we call
Speaker 1: uncharged misconduct that was likely to unduly prejudice the defendant's
Speaker 1: right to a fair trial. These are legal issues that
Speaker 1: would have to be litigated and sorted out. It may
Speaker 1: be that a judge rules, yeah, what he did in
Speaker 1: Georgia was so inextricably intertwined, that's a legal term. With
Speaker 1: the crimes he committed in New York that a judge
Speaker 1: would rule they were relevant for certain purposes and therefore
Speaker 1: admissible at his New York trial. The other place that
Speaker 1: directly comes in is if you're convicted of a crime
Speaker 1: somewhere and you go to trial after you've been convicted,
Speaker 1: and you take the stand and testify, you can be
Speaker 1: cross examined with the prior crime you committed. You can
Speaker 1: be it's called impeaching the witness with a conviction, And
Speaker 1: the law generally says, if you take the stand in
Speaker 1: your own defensive trial and you have criminal convictions in
Speaker 1: your past, those you're admissible for the jury to use
Speaker 1: to decide whether you're telling the truth today, So they
Speaker 1: go to your credibility. So those are the different ways
Speaker 1: that stuff does or doesn't factor in when it comes
Speaker 1: to multiple jurisdictions finding crimes and trying people. So to
Speaker 1: close the loop just on Georgia before we move on
Speaker 1: to trumping companies other crimes. So give us your hypothesis
Speaker 1: on a timeline here. Okay, So Fannie Willis says, imminently, right,
Speaker 1: you said, we don't know if that is days or weeks.
Speaker 1: Let's say that it's it's weeks from the moment that
Speaker 1: an indictment comes down. How long are we going to
Speaker 1: an actual trial? Knowing that Donald Trump's main defense has
Speaker 1: always been to tap dance and run out the clock.
Speaker 1: So there's good news and bad news. The bad news
Speaker 1: is criminal trials, once there's an indictment, once somebody's been
Speaker 1: charged and hauled into court for the first time and
Speaker 1: a trial date has been set, criminal trials can take
Speaker 1: a while. I wouldn't expect a trial date to be
Speaker 1: set after Donald Trump has been indicted for between six
Speaker 1: months and a year out. That is just kind of
Speaker 1: a rule of thumb how long it takes to get
Speaker 1: a case to trial. So the bad news is we'll
Speaker 1: still have to wait for a little bit. The good
Speaker 1: news is when we see Donald Trump forever running out
Speaker 1: the clock in litigation, right, always trying to delay his
Speaker 1: day of reckoning. That can be done in civil cases,
Speaker 1: civil lawsuits, and that up to this point is the
Speaker 1: only thing we've seen Donald Trump involved in because he
Speaker 1: hasn't been charged criminally with anything, right, But it can't
Speaker 1: be done in criminal cases. Why because as judges are
Speaker 1: making decisions, you know, on motions, on what evidence can
Speaker 1: be admitted, and all these decisions that have to be
Speaker 1: made in the run up to a criminal trial, none
Speaker 1: of those are appealable. So a defendant delay his trial
Speaker 1: date by filing these appeals that go up and down
Speaker 1: and up and down the appellate court chain the way
Speaker 1: you can in civil cases. The only time you can
Speaker 1: appeal anything, with a couple of very minor exceptions, the
Speaker 1: only time a defendant can appeal anything is after you've
Speaker 1: gotten the trial, you've been convicted, you've been sentenced, your
Speaker 1: case is over. Then you can file an appeal of
Speaker 1: your conviction. So Donald Trump cannot weaponize the delay in
Speaker 1: the court system in the criminal case the way he
Speaker 1: always has been able to do in a civil case.
Speaker 1: Oh that is good news, Glenn. Okay, So switching gear
Speaker 1: is out of Jorge Jeff and and pulling back and
Speaker 1: looking at where what has happened recently with the next
Speaker 1: slate of Oathkeepers. Right a couple of weeks ago, the
Speaker 1: last time that we had you on the show, we
Speaker 1: had the convictions come down of seditious conspiracy for the
Speaker 1: former founder of the Oath Keepers and two other people,
Speaker 1: and then they had separate trials that were set up
Speaker 1: for the next slate. Tell us what happened with those
Speaker 1: cases and how, if at all, it is going to
Speaker 1: inform this sloth like Department of Justice, an Attorney General
Speaker 1: that is signaling to me and anyone who I think
Speaker 1: pays attention that he ain't doing not a goddamn thing
Speaker 1: as it pertains to going after Donald Trump and the
Speaker 1: architects of this crime. Because frankly, what I said the
Speaker 1: other day on Twitter, Glenn is that I look at
Speaker 1: who is in the House of Representatives right now and
Speaker 1: realize that Merritt Garland is to blame for why these
Speaker 1: people have not been indicted for their involvement in the insurrection.
Speaker 1: Knowing that many of those House members were in fact
Speaker 1: involved in the stop to Steal rally and involved in
Speaker 1: given recognisance tours to who would then become insurrectionists. Yeah,
Speaker 1: don't let me forget to talk about the sloth like
Speaker 1: pace of the Department of Justice at the end of
Speaker 1: this answer. But I want to start with the Oathkeepers trial.
Speaker 1: So the first Oathkeeper's trial was against five Oathkeepers, kind
Speaker 1: of some of the upper echelon of the Oathkeepers organization,
Speaker 1: including the president, the leader, Elmer Stuart Rhodes, the guy
Speaker 1: with the eye patch because as a firearms instructor he
Speaker 1: shot his own eye out. You can't make that up.
Speaker 1: So Elmer Rhodes and his top lieutenant, Kelly Megs were
Speaker 1: convicted of the lead charged seditious conspiracy, the attempted violent
Speaker 1: overthrow of the government, and all five of those defendants
Speaker 1: were convicted of several other charges. And that was the
Speaker 1: first seditious conspiracy conviction in more than a decade in
Speaker 1: the United States. These cases aren't often brought, and when
Speaker 1: they are, they're not always successful. So that was actually
Speaker 1: a really big deal. Now then, and I attended that
Speaker 1: entire seven week trial, and the evidence was powerful, it
Speaker 1: was overwhelming, proved beyond a reasonable doubt the guilt of
Speaker 1: these five Oathkeepers. Then we went to part two of
Speaker 1: the oath keeper's trial four more defendants, and I didn't
Speaker 1: attend that trial. Again, my fellow former colleagues and my
Speaker 1: friends were the prosecutors and that one as well, and
Speaker 1: the jury just hands down convicted all four of those
Speaker 1: oath keepers of seditious conspiracy and other charges related to
Speaker 1: the insurrection. And of course the Proud Boys are on
Speaker 1: trial right now, and I would bet buck my betting limit.
Speaker 1: I'm not a high roller. I would bet a buck
Speaker 1: that they are all about to be convicted of seditious
Speaker 1: conspiracy as well. It's almost becoming routine that the federal
Speaker 1: prosecutors are indicting the boots of the insurrection for seditious conspiracy. Now,
Speaker 1: of course, the Department of Justice hasn't managed to rise
Speaker 1: above the boots of the insurrection, the people that Donald
Speaker 1: Trump told to attack the capital and start to take
Speaker 1: on the suits of the insurrection. The suits are out
Speaker 1: there holding dinner parties and fundraisers and playing golf and
Speaker 1: you committing any other number of crimes because they haven't
Speaker 1: been held accountable for any of their crimes. With Respected
Speaker 1: DJ's sloth like pace. Here's what has me so upset.
Speaker 1: What the Department of Justice is doing by waiting now
Speaker 1: more than two years to hold accountable bowl the suits
Speaker 1: of the insurrection, the people who organized, funded, orchestrated, and
Speaker 1: incited and directed the attack on the Capitol. What they
Speaker 1: have done is they've sent a powerful message that if
Speaker 1: you in the future try to overthrow our democracy, let
Speaker 1: me tell you what's going to happen. We're going to
Speaker 1: give you a full two years and counting to come
Speaker 1: up with your next move, maybe to try to do
Speaker 1: it again, maybe to avoid accountability, maybe to tamper with witnesses,
Speaker 1: but we will give you a full two plus years
Speaker 1: to try to come up with your next move. That
Speaker 1: is law enforcement insanity, because you're not deterring crime, you're
Speaker 1: encouraging crime. This is something I don't understand from a
Speaker 1: department that I served for more than for nearly quarter
Speaker 1: of a century. This is not the way it worked
Speaker 1: when I was there, right, I understand this is an
Speaker 1: unusual case, But frankly, there are more reasons to hold
Speaker 1: these people accountable immediately for trying to kill our democracy,
Speaker 1: not less reasons. So the sloth like pace I think
Speaker 1: every day works to the extreme detriment of the health
Speaker 1: and continued viability of our democracy. You know, Glenn, I
Speaker 1: gotta tell you, you know, I speak to so many
Speaker 1: legal folks, and you know, the other day I spoke
Speaker 1: with Ellie Mistol, who is the Justice correspondent for the nation,
Speaker 1: and Ellie said to me, in no uncertain terms, ding,
Speaker 1: Llen ain't happening. He's like, I knew that when Merrick
Speaker 1: Garland was appointed to be Attorney General, anyone else, Doug Jones,
Speaker 1: Sally Yates would have been the people that had the
Speaker 1: backbone and the fortitude to get this done. And we
Speaker 1: kept saying, oh, Merrek Garland just needs more time, but
Speaker 1: people knew, based on the cases that he has overseen,
Speaker 1: based on the kind of person that he is, that
Speaker 1: if you wanted justice to be done, an accountability to
Speaker 1: be delivered to the feet of Donald Trump and his minions,
Speaker 1: Merrick Garland won the guy. And he also wouldn't have
Speaker 1: been the guy apparently to sit on this type of
Speaker 1: vicious Supreme Court either, right. So I'm just I wonder
Speaker 1: I want to get your thoughts on that assertion by
Speaker 1: other friend of the show, Ellie Misstell. Yes, the first
Speaker 1: of all, I love Ellie and I missed the days
Speaker 1: when he and I would sit around that round table
Speaker 1: with David up with and it was so liberating because
Speaker 1: we got to talk about everything for the entire hour
Speaker 1: instead of just two or three minutes at a time.
Speaker 1: And I was not only in formed by Ellie, but
Speaker 1: I was always amused because the dude, he is unique
Speaker 1: in his ability to inject humor with deadly serious information
Speaker 1: and make you laugh and learn at the same time.
Speaker 1: My hat's off to Ellie, and I can't disagree with
Speaker 1: his observations that because it hasn't happened yet, there is
Speaker 1: a sense that it ain't never going to happen. I
Speaker 1: did agree. I still think it's going to happen. Justice
Speaker 1: has been delayed, Will it be entirely denied? I don't
Speaker 1: think so. And here's why Merrick Garland has obviously turned
Speaker 1: out to be not the right man for the moment.
Speaker 1: Right he has not risen to meet the urgency of
Speaker 1: the moment, as we just discussed, because tomorrow's aspiring dictator
Speaker 1: will have years to plan his next move after he
Speaker 1: tries to overthrow our democracy. That's a significant failing of
Speaker 1: Merrick Arland's Department of Justice. However, I still don't believe it.
Speaker 1: I know so many of the people who work there,
Speaker 1: I worked with so many of them. I still don't
Speaker 1: believe that they have reached the conclusion that we're prepared
Speaker 1: to give our democracy away to Donald Trump and to
Speaker 1: whoever rises up in Donald Trump's image next, because they
Speaker 1: will be giving it all away if they don't hold
Speaker 1: Trump and Jeffrey Clark and John Eastman and Rudy Giuliani
Speaker 1: and Bannon and Flynn and Stone and Jenna Ellison and
Speaker 1: Sidney Powell, and I could go on and on and
Speaker 1: on accountable for trying to unlawfully and unconstitutionally overturn our democracy,
Speaker 1: because if they decide we're not going to charge those
Speaker 1: people for those crimes, they will in fact have given
Speaker 1: our democracy away. I still, in my heart of hearts,
Speaker 1: can't conceive of a scenario or a reason that they
Speaker 1: would reach the conclusion we're giving our democracy away. We're
Speaker 1: done here. I just don't. I don't see a declination
Speaker 1: of charges. They've taken too long. They will come too late,
Speaker 1: maybe not too late, to save our democracy for the
Speaker 1: time being. Listen, maybe one of the best things that
Speaker 1: I would love to chat with Ellie about this, maybe
Speaker 1: one of The best things that happened is these matters
Speaker 1: were taken out of Merrick Garland's hands when he appointed
Speaker 1: Jack Smith. Now I am not prepared to sing Jack
Speaker 1: Smith's praises and call him the hero. Because we had Muller,
Speaker 1: we had Garland, now we have Jack Smith. How many
Speaker 1: times you would fool us? But I do think Jack Smith,
Speaker 1: given his credentials, his bona fidays, his body of work,
Speaker 1: the guy goes after politicians left, right and center, brings
Speaker 1: the hard cases when some loses. Some has gone after
Speaker 1: war criminals. I mean, if ever there was a prosecutor
Speaker 1: who seems to be up to the task right and
Speaker 1: he has proven that he has done things moving in
Speaker 1: one hundred miles an hour that Merrick Garland never did,
Speaker 1: but he should have done eighteen months ago. So listen,
Speaker 1: if that's a little bit of hope, because now it
Speaker 1: is in Jack Smith's hands. If he gets it right, great,
Speaker 1: If he gets it wrong, we're losing our democracy. Is
Speaker 1: their last question for you, Glenn, Is there a scenario
Speaker 1: and I, oh my god, I don't even want to
Speaker 1: say it, but I'm going to say it. Is there
Speaker 1: a scenario where charges are brought for Joe Biden and
Speaker 1: Donald Trump to have this perception of, oh, we go
Speaker 1: after everybody like is because again, the Justice Department, you know,
Speaker 1: Mulla report said we don't indict sitting presidents documents, documents,
Speaker 1: because the media is not making any any distinction between
Speaker 1: the crime that Donald Trump committed and the mistake that
Speaker 1: Joe Biden and now Mike Pence may have committed. First
Speaker 1: of all, as much as I disagree with the Department
Speaker 1: of Justice policy, the OLC Office of Legal Counsel memo
Speaker 1: that says you can't indict a sitting criminal president, you know,
Speaker 1: that's what kept Donald Trump out of hot water, plus
Speaker 1: a corrupt Attorney General, Bill Barr. As much as I
Speaker 1: disagree with that memo because I think it moves us
Speaker 1: in the direction of being a banana Republic, Joe Biden,
Speaker 1: based on that memo, can't be indicted, certainly not while
Speaker 1: he's president. I don't embrace that. I don't celebrate that.
Speaker 1: I don't think Joe Biden committed crimes based on the
Speaker 1: available evidence. You know, right, you know, Joe Biden and
Speaker 1: now Mike Pence went through their stuff for whatever, prompted
Speaker 1: by what we don't know precise found things that they
Speaker 1: shouldn't have, and immediately both of them. I'm no fan
Speaker 1: of Mike Pence, but both of these people said, Okay,
Speaker 1: we found stuff that shouldn't be in our papers. Please
Speaker 1: take them national Archives. DJ. We need to let you know,
Speaker 1: come in and search, do what you need to do.
Speaker 1: There's no criminal intent there. There may not even be
Speaker 1: a criminal act. But those are not prosecutable cases. And
Speaker 1: Merrick Garland, in his zeal to be perceived as fair
Speaker 1: and even handed to everyone, he's not gonna say, well,
Speaker 1: I have if we're going to charge Donald Trump, then
Speaker 1: we have to charge Mike Pence and Joe Biden too,
Speaker 1: to give the superficial appearance of fairness. That's not fairness.
Speaker 1: If Mike Pence and Joe Biden didn't commit crimes, it's
Speaker 1: an abuse of power. So I am less worried about that.
Speaker 1: But Danielle, it feels like today we need to worry
Speaker 1: about everything. That's what I'm saying. That's what I'm saying.
Speaker 1: So I'm like, while in a normal a society, that
Speaker 1: would seem like something we don't need to worry about.
Speaker 1: Nothing surprises me in America today. As always, Glenn, I
Speaker 1: appreciate your thorough, thorough look into where we are in
Speaker 1: the march to indictment, and it looks like once again
Speaker 1: all eyes are on Georgia. So whenever that comes been down,
Speaker 1: we will want to be with you immediately, so appreciate
Speaker 1: me talking. That is it for me today, dear friends
Speaker 1: on Woke a f as always power to the people
Speaker 1: and to all the people. Power, get woke and stay
Speaker 1: woke as fuck.