Speaker 1: Good morning, Peepsen. Welcome to wige f Daily with Meet
Speaker 1: your Girl Danielle Moody recording still from the COVID Bunker. Friends,
Speaker 1: it is not often that we get to start off
Speaker 1: the week on a high note, and so I'm really
Speaker 1: excited to welcome back to Wika f our friend, our good,
Speaker 1: good friend Glenn Kirshner, who in our conversation, you know,
Speaker 1: we will talk about the ups and downs of where
Speaker 1: we are with the Department of Justice and the legal
Speaker 1: net that has yet to capture Donald Trump. But you
Speaker 1: know who it did capture. You know who is inside
Speaker 1: the net, Steve Bannon. Steve Bannon has been indicted again,
Speaker 1: as we talked about late last week, on twenty five
Speaker 1: additional charges of defrauding Oh Trump supporters out of roughly
Speaker 1: a million dollars that they thought that they were paying into,
Speaker 1: you know, to build that pesky wall that he decided
Speaker 1: to pocket. And we know that Donald Trump had no
Speaker 1: problem with him defrauding his supporters because he pardoned him.
Speaker 1: But the reality here, dear friends, is that we may
Speaker 1: not see for quite some time Donald Trump in an
Speaker 1: orange jumpsuit, which we all know that that motherfucker belongs in.
Speaker 1: But justice is coming down on Steve Bannen, and as
Speaker 1: Glenn will walk us through, he is facing upwards of
Speaker 1: fifteen years in prison in federal prison for the crimes
Speaker 1: that he has committed. Now, Glenn and I neither one
Speaker 1: of us believe that he will see fifteen years. But
Speaker 1: I just have to say this that any time that
Speaker 1: Steve Bannon spends off of a microphone, off of our
Speaker 1: goddamn screens, off of the radio, off of our consciousness,
Speaker 1: and is locked in a cell somewhere is good for America.
Speaker 1: It means that America is safe from his bullshit, from
Speaker 1: his lies, from his white supremacist fantasies. And that's really
Speaker 1: where I am in terms of wanting justice to prevail
Speaker 1: with Donald Trump and all of the sick offense, is
Speaker 1: that the reality is that putting them in jail will
Speaker 1: make this country safer. You know, that was supposed to
Speaker 1: be the point of prison in the first place. But
Speaker 1: as Glenn will talk to us about, it seems that
Speaker 1: when it comes to quote unquote white collar crimes, crimes
Speaker 1: against society, crimes against this nation, this justice system does
Speaker 1: not rain down nearly as hard as it does on
Speaker 1: you know, loose cigarettes, a counterfeit twenty dollar bill, or
Speaker 1: suspicion of a backpack being stolen. In those cases, if
Speaker 1: you are black, you are You're dead. It's not even
Speaker 1: an either or you are dead. And so what we
Speaker 1: will think about and talk about in this conversation with
Speaker 1: our Frank Glen Kirshner is when will we or will
Speaker 1: we ever make that shift to where it is those
Speaker 1: that are in positions of power that should be held
Speaker 1: to the highest standards and account and not those that
Speaker 1: are doing nothing more than harming themselves. Shouldn't that be
Speaker 1: how we look at our justice system. It isn't about
Speaker 1: the privilege and the money that allows you to walk
Speaker 1: away from unimaginable and unthinkable crimes, but it should be
Speaker 1: about how much harm you actually did. And I know
Speaker 1: that taking Steve Bannon off the street, taking Donald Trump
Speaker 1: off of his fucking golf course would serve this country
Speaker 1: a whole heap of good. Coming up next my conversation
Speaker 1: with our friend Glenn Kirshner. Hey, there, I want to
Speaker 1: tell you about another podcast I think you'll love, The
Speaker 1: Brown Girl's Guide to Politics, hosted by a Shanty Goehler,
Speaker 1: the president of Emerge BGG is the one stop shop
Speaker 1: for women of color who want to hear and talk
Speaker 1: about the world of politics. Join a Shanty this season
Speaker 1: as she talks to incredible women of color who are
Speaker 1: changing the face of politics and tackling some of the
Speaker 1: most important issues facing the United States, from reproductive justice
Speaker 1: to voting rights, to climate change and more. Tune in
Speaker 1: every Tuesday wherever you get your podcasts, get a behind
Speaker 1: the scenes look at Comedy Central's The Daily Show on
Speaker 1: Beyond the Scenes, an original podcast from The Daily Show
Speaker 1: with Trevor Noah. Every week, host Roy Wood Junior goes
Speaker 1: deeper with the notable guests and experts from the Emmy
Speaker 1: Award winning series. Together, they use comedy to tackle current
Speaker 1: topics from gentrification to gun laws and take a closer
Speaker 1: look at how and why these topics matter. Listen to
Speaker 1: Beyond the Scenes from The Daily Show with Trevor Noah
Speaker 1: on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcast, or wherever you get
Speaker 1: your podcast. New episodes every Tuesday. Folks. I am so
Speaker 1: happy to welcome back to Woke app after my long break.
Speaker 1: Glenn Kirschner, MSNBC legal analysts and the host of Justice
Speaker 1: Matters to make sense of where we are in this
Speaker 1: legal web that Trump and his sycophants and now federal
Speaker 1: Judge Cannon is weaving right in front of the American
Speaker 1: people's eyes. Glenn, Well, let's start off, you know, before
Speaker 1: we jump into Trump and that mess with the DJ
Speaker 1: right now, let's go to where we are with Steve Bannon.
Speaker 1: Saw a beautiful site this week, as I'm sure you did,
Speaker 1: which was Steve Bannon in a perp walk. I thought
Speaker 1: that it means it apparently looked like a fashion show
Speaker 1: runway with the amount of paparazzi and cameras that were flashing.
Speaker 1: Just what were your what were you? What are your
Speaker 1: thoughts and reflections on where Steve Bannon has finally found himself. Yeah,
Speaker 1: So Steve Bannon is indicted again for stealing money for
Speaker 1: defrauding Donald Trump's supporters. And before I jumped into the
Speaker 1: New York case in the new indictment, I still am astonished,
Speaker 1: Danielle that Steve Bannon stole from Donald Trump supporters. And
Speaker 1: when Donald Trump found out about it, he said, it's
Speaker 1: all good, Steve, I got you. I'm gonna pardon you
Speaker 1: for stealing from my supporters. Now we don't know if
Speaker 1: Steve Bannon got to keep the money he stole from
Speaker 1: Trump supporters. We don't know if Bannon split it with
Speaker 1: Donald Trump. I would frankly be surprised if Donald Trump
Speaker 1: didn't take a little cut for himself. But just think
Speaker 1: about how mind boggling it is that Donald Trump pardoned
Speaker 1: Bannon for stealing money from the people who were supporting
Speaker 1: Donald Trump. Well, he got away with it in the
Speaker 1: short term, but now it looks like it's all come
Speaker 1: home to roost. I will say, Alvin Braggs District Attorney's
Speaker 1: office decided to indict Steve Bannon, So I think we
Speaker 1: have to compliment Bragg's office when it does something well,
Speaker 1: but continue to demand questions on why Alvin Bragg killed
Speaker 1: the criminal case against Donald Trump. That by the accounts
Speaker 1: of the prosecutors working, the case was very strong and
Speaker 1: should have been brought. But look, we've got a twenty
Speaker 1: five count indictment against Steve Bannon. Now he's facing upwards
Speaker 1: of fifteen years in prison, which for him is kind
Speaker 1: of a de facto life term life sentence, and the
Speaker 1: case looks strong for a couple of reasons. One, there
Speaker 1: are some written communications that looks like they will sink Bannon.
Speaker 1: Plus there are I believe, cooperating witnesses. There were multiple
Speaker 1: code defendants that Bannon was in this conspiracy to defraud with,
Speaker 1: and we can't tell precisely how many are cooperating against him,
Speaker 1: but it appears that one or more of them are.
Speaker 1: Bannon should be done by all accounts, let him go
Speaker 1: to trial and get convicted. Let's not forget he was
Speaker 1: indicted while he was pending sentencing in another federal case
Speaker 1: in which he's been convicted. He's facing up to two
Speaker 1: years in his contempt of Congress case in DC. One
Speaker 1: way or another, Bannon's going to prison, and that's a
Speaker 1: good thing because he's finally being held accountable for some
Speaker 1: of his crimes. So, Glenn, A couple of things. A
Speaker 1: couple of things here, which which is this um so Bannon?
Speaker 1: According to according to reports, right he stole upwards of
Speaker 1: like a million dollars right like this. This was part
Speaker 1: of the build the wall, M give me your money,
Speaker 1: U scam. And what I think is really interesting about
Speaker 1: how these criminals are being gone after. And this includes
Speaker 1: Alan Weisselberg, this includes you know, uh, folks like that,
Speaker 1: which is all about basically mob boss type shit, right,
Speaker 1: like money laundering, the theft, not paying taxes, like this
Speaker 1: is all of the things that these people get caught
Speaker 1: up in. And so my question here, and I you know,
Speaker 1: you really can't answer it, but it's just so bizarre
Speaker 1: to me. How do these people continue to like, cape
Speaker 1: for and defend Donald Trump and they're being told they
Speaker 1: stole from you? Right, Like this is a million dollars
Speaker 1: that Steve Bannon pocketed for his own personal use. This
Speaker 1: is not like a conspiracy of saying like, oh, you
Speaker 1: owe the government. It's like you stole from these people
Speaker 1: who thought that you were building a wall. And then
Speaker 1: Donald Trump put his stamp of approval on Bannon's theft
Speaker 1: by pardoning him. You're right, Daniel, I can't answer the
Speaker 1: question why do people continue to support Trump? Why do
Speaker 1: they continue to send him their hard earned money when
Speaker 1: he's not even running for office. He just said, hey, folks,
Speaker 1: send me money so I can put it in my pocket,
Speaker 1: and they do it. Some of them are gullible, let's
Speaker 1: face it. I don't want to be unkind, but some
Speaker 1: people don't have critical thinking abilities. Not that you need
Speaker 1: to think critically with you know, with the evidence that's
Speaker 1: out there about how Donald Trump continues to grift and
Speaker 1: steal from his own base, his own supporters. But I
Speaker 1: have to chalk it up to tribalism. You know. People
Speaker 1: are like, look, he may be a career com man,
Speaker 1: but one he hates folk the way we hate folk,
Speaker 1: and so we have that bond. Listen. I have always
Speaker 1: maintained hate is the strongest bond and the strongest motivator,
Speaker 1: much more powerful than love. Unfortunately I wish that wasn't
Speaker 1: the case, but that's my sense of human nature. And
Speaker 1: Donald Trump gives people someone and something to hate and
Speaker 1: to look down on. Listen. I've been rooting for the
Speaker 1: Washington football team, the Washington Commanders for a long time,
Speaker 1: even though I was born and raised on the New
Speaker 1: York Giants, because my pop was a New York Giants
Speaker 1: football fan, so I was. And then when I moved
Speaker 1: to DC nineteen ninety, I for some reason became a
Speaker 1: Redskins fan, now a Commander's fan for apparently no good reason,
Speaker 1: because they are perennial losers. Do I still kind of
Speaker 1: still pull for them. I still pull for them. That's
Speaker 1: a form of tribalism. It's like, look, Donald Trump might
Speaker 1: be a losing team. Budd He's our losing team. And
Speaker 1: I think there's also a hatred for the other when
Speaker 1: it comes to the political calculation. I hate Biden and
Speaker 1: Pelosi and Schumer and this one and that one. So
Speaker 1: all I really have is the career con man that's
Speaker 1: on my team. I'm gonna think that explains some of it.
Speaker 1: But Danielle, none of these explanations are good explanations. So
Speaker 1: twenty five indictments. This is on top of what Bannon
Speaker 1: was charged with earlier in you know, in the year
Speaker 1: you said at the top, we're looking at five to
Speaker 1: fifteen years. What I have seen and what we've noticed,
Speaker 1: as it pertains to the insurrection, as it pertains with
Speaker 1: anybody with these quote unquote white collar dealings, is that
Speaker 1: they never get the maximum. Because this isn't Steve Bannon's
Speaker 1: first indictment, right, what are your what is your what
Speaker 1: are your thoughts about where this is going to land
Speaker 1: for him? Because frankly, you know, we know that Steve
Speaker 1: Bannon deserves more than fifteen years, right, Like, I mean,
Speaker 1: we know that, But where realistically do you think that
Speaker 1: we will find ourselves? Because I think that because Honestly,
Speaker 1: I think that any time that you take a microphone
Speaker 1: and cameras away from Steve Bannon, you are making America safer.
Speaker 1: So if that ends up only being five years, I'm like,
Speaker 1: that's five years without hearing his voice. I'm good with that.
Speaker 1: But yeah, shutting up Steve Bannon helps make America great, No,
Speaker 1: no two ways about it. But you know, it's a
Speaker 1: great question, and my heart sinks when you ask the question,
Speaker 1: what do I expect by way of a sentence for
Speaker 1: Steve Bannon? My hopes are high, My expectations are very low.
Speaker 1: You know. Now, maybe if he stole a backpack or
Speaker 1: sold loose cigarettes, he would be facing some real Well, no,
Speaker 1: he wouldn't, because he'd beat white and rich and influential
Speaker 1: and connected. Okay, if I'm being realistic, I think maybe
Speaker 1: we see five years in prison for Steve Bannon. Hopefully
Speaker 1: that's on top of consecutive two the one to two
Speaker 1: years he's likely to get down here in DC for
Speaker 1: his contempt of Congress convictions. I would hope for more,
Speaker 1: but I'll tell you, Danielle, I wish I could be
Speaker 1: a politican because I would run on a one plank platform.
Speaker 1: I would kick the living hell out of every ruling
Speaker 1: class criminal. I would. I would pardon all of the
Speaker 1: WE defenders and the non violent drug offenders, and I
Speaker 1: would make space for every ruling class criminal who's gotten
Speaker 1: away with defrauding, stealing, from abusing, running rough shot over
Speaker 1: we the people in a way that is criminal. When
Speaker 1: I say kick the hell out of them, I'm speaking figuratively,
Speaker 1: using the rule of law, not physically or you know, literally,
Speaker 1: But at some point, why can't you know? There's Stephen
Speaker 1: van zandt Bruce, Springsteen's lead guitarist, has this phrase that
Speaker 1: I have co opted, which I love. He says, where
Speaker 1: are all the tough good guys. We've got so many
Speaker 1: tough bad guys who are willing to run rough shod
Speaker 1: over we the people. Where in the hell are the
Speaker 1: tough good guys who are willing to fight back, who
Speaker 1: are willing to kick the hell out of the people
Speaker 1: who are kicking the hell out of us? I think
Speaker 1: that's a fair question, you know. And and when you
Speaker 1: say you know, and I love the term that you
Speaker 1: just use, ruling class criminals like I love that because
Speaker 1: you know, I feel like white collar crime right gets
Speaker 1: a wink in a nod. It's not even I feel
Speaker 1: like we know it. White collar crime gets a wink
Speaker 1: in a nod from our justice system, and I'm like,
Speaker 1: but their crimes are so much more egregious to me
Speaker 1: than any drug, you know, any drug offense, right, because
Speaker 1: particularly with the low level black, low level drug dealings
Speaker 1: of black and brown people who are in jail on
Speaker 1: you know, on attempt to distribute. But it was like
Speaker 1: a dime bag, do you know what I'm saying, Like
Speaker 1: you're talking about people like Alan Weisselberg and you know,
Speaker 1: and Steve Bannon that have defrauded tens of thousands of people, right,
Speaker 1: that have hurt so many, Like it is akin to
Speaker 1: how again the government gave a wink and a nod
Speaker 1: to Wall Street and big banks after they defrauded the
Speaker 1: American people with the housing scam. Right. So I'm like,
Speaker 1: why is it that those people that have the power
Speaker 1: and the access and the know how always get a
Speaker 1: slap on the risk. And it is the low level
Speaker 1: people who have no money, no power, and no access,
Speaker 1: no friends in high places that we lock up and
Speaker 1: throw away the key and we're only harming that individual,
Speaker 1: not right, The syndicate Yeah, who did more damage in
Speaker 1: every definition of the word damage. Who did more damage
Speaker 1: to more people? Steve Bannon or a kid who steals
Speaker 1: a backpack, and yet look at the disparity entreat and
Speaker 1: in punishment. You know, That's why I wish, I wish
Speaker 1: members of the Democratic Party would say, it's time to
Speaker 1: focus YEA, our law enforcement efforts on the ruling class criminals,
Speaker 1: because they're the ones doing the real damage, not the
Speaker 1: person selling loose cigarettes or passing a fake twenty or
Speaker 1: stealing a backpack. You know, that's not who's destroying America.
Speaker 1: It's the ruling class criminals. Somebody's got to take them on. Yep,
Speaker 1: um Glenn. Now, I want to get back to back
Speaker 1: to the top with Donald Trump, the stolen nuclear documents
Speaker 1: that he had scattered all over his floor in Mara Lago,
Speaker 1: and where we are with the Judge Cannon, because this
Speaker 1: is the first time that I have had the opportunity
Speaker 1: to talk to you. What do we know? Firstly about
Speaker 1: Judge Cannon? We know that she was pointed under the
Speaker 1: Trump administration, But what do we know is she one
Speaker 1: of a myriad of people that actually shouldn't have this position?
Speaker 1: Does she actually have the resume that matches the position
Speaker 1: that she is in, or she just another like Trump flunkey. Well,
Speaker 1: let's start with she was a Federalist Society member since
Speaker 1: she was in her mid twenties. I when I was
Speaker 1: in my mid twenties, I wasn't longing for the good
Speaker 1: old days when slavery was still a thing. Is she
Speaker 1: has been a Federalist Society member since her mid twenties.
Speaker 1: She had zero qualifications to be a federal judge with
Speaker 1: a lifetime appointment. You can read up on her. There's
Speaker 1: a lot of good stuff, a lot of good investigative
Speaker 1: journalism that's being done about her, her plenary lack of qualifications.
Speaker 1: I mean she had to fill out a form and
Speaker 1: anticipation of her Senate Information hearing, It's like, have you
Speaker 1: published any scholarly legal articles? No? Have you published any articles? Well,
Speaker 1: when I was a reporter for a local paper, I
Speaker 1: published something about the opening of a yoga studio. Have
Speaker 1: you ever given a media interview about any topic that's
Speaker 1: related to the law. Well, no, but I was interviewed
Speaker 1: on the day I was getting married, and they published
Speaker 1: a nice picture of me and my fiance. This is
Speaker 1: what we're dealing with Danielle This is what we're dealing with,
Speaker 1: somebody who has zero qualifications. Let's remember she was confirmed
Speaker 1: by Mitch McConnell's Senate after Donald Trump lost the election,
Speaker 1: and I think she was confirmed to do precisely what
Speaker 1: she's done, rule in favor of Donald Trump, notwithstanding zero
Speaker 1: factual or legal support for Donald trump position. Thank goodness,
Speaker 1: the dj has swooped in filed a very targeted appeal,
Speaker 1: trying to split the baby and be very diplomatic. And
Speaker 1: if she does not reverse course, she will sort of
Speaker 1: lose whatever little lingering credibility as a federal judge. She
Speaker 1: might be able to sort of retain, but I don't know,
Speaker 1: you know, on the legal merits, she should absolutely reverse course.
Speaker 1: But will she look at who she is, look at
Speaker 1: what she was installed to do, and look at what
Speaker 1: she's done. She actually said in her ruling that I'm
Speaker 1: going to do this in part because I'm concerned about
Speaker 1: the reputational harm to Donald Trump. First of all, if
Speaker 1: we can stop laughing at that sentence, the reputational harm
Speaker 1: to Donald Trump an abject career criminal. But the other
Speaker 1: thing is that's not part of the law. That's not
Speaker 1: why you rule. Because you're concerned with the president's reputational harm,
Speaker 1: and that is something that you are You've never expressed
Speaker 1: a concern about with respect to anybody else. I mean,
Speaker 1: we could go issue by issue by issue, but it's
Speaker 1: pretty How do you how do we, Glenn, How do
Speaker 1: we not scrub these people from the positions that they
Speaker 1: were put in that they shouldn't be in. How is
Speaker 1: this woman not being being told to recuse herself? How
Speaker 1: how do you get these people up before a panel
Speaker 1: of their peers? Right, I'm just so confused about how
Speaker 1: you can just pick literally, you know, a pumpkin out
Speaker 1: of a patch and say here's a lifetime appointment and
Speaker 1: we just all go along with it because it's the
Speaker 1: way that things have always been done. You do things
Speaker 1: the way that they've always been done, if in fact
Speaker 1: they've been done correctly, if they haven't been yours telling
Speaker 1: me that we just have to go along with it,
Speaker 1: I just I don't understand. Well. The way things were
Speaker 1: done in the Obama administration is when he would propose
Speaker 1: a name to as a person to nominate to the
Speaker 1: federal bench, he would await the American Bar association's rating,
Speaker 1: and if the person was rated not qualified, then he
Speaker 1: declined to nominate that person. And that I think is
Speaker 1: an appropriate way to vet. It's not the only way,
Speaker 1: but an appropriate way to vet judicial nominees. But Mitch
Speaker 1: McConnell and Donald Trump didn't care judges. Potential judges could
Speaker 1: be rated not qualified, completely unqualified, and they didn't care.
Speaker 1: As long as they had the right ideology, they would
Speaker 1: cram them down America's throat on party line votes. That's
Speaker 1: what Mitch McConnell and Donald Trump were about, and that
Speaker 1: is why we have a Supreme Court that I think
Speaker 1: is on the verge of being entirely illegitimate. And when
Speaker 1: the courts become illegitimate, that's dangerous because you're sending the
Speaker 1: message to the American people that the rule of law
Speaker 1: is illegitimate, and therefore, why would anybody bother abiding by
Speaker 1: the rule of law. You know, that is kind of
Speaker 1: a recipe for anarchy down the road. If we don't
Speaker 1: write our judicial ship. There are still opportunities to do it.
Speaker 1: I don't see a lot of movement in that direction,
Speaker 1: but there are still opportunities to do it. Okay, So
Speaker 1: the DOJ and I saw, you know, another friend, Joyce
Speaker 1: white Van said that the DOJ is giving Judge Bannon
Speaker 1: a gift that she should take, and you know, and
Speaker 1: other legal scholars on the right and on the left
Speaker 1: have said exactly the same thing, which is surprising because
Speaker 1: I would assume that everybody on the right, you know,
Speaker 1: is just going to go along for the get along.
Speaker 1: Is the DOJ gambling here? Yeah, I mean they are gambling,
Speaker 1: and no matter what position they took, it would have
Speaker 1: been a gamble. And I agree that That's why I
Speaker 1: said it was kind of a split debate right approach,
Speaker 1: because they're giving the judge an opportunity to save face,
Speaker 1: to reverse course, in part because DJ basically made its
Speaker 1: best argument as to why we really need to continue
Speaker 1: the investigation. We need to continue to be able to
Speaker 1: protect our national security, and basically, your stop work order, Judge,
Speaker 1: has endangered everyone and everything. Giving you an out, we're
Speaker 1: giving you an out. We're giving you an opportunity to
Speaker 1: save face, to continue to move forward with you know,
Speaker 1: maybe the Special Master looking at this small batch of
Speaker 1: information that may have some attorney client privilege attached to it.
Speaker 1: They were trying to be diplomatic, Yes, it's a gamble.
Speaker 1: But here's the thing, no matter what position they took,
Speaker 1: it was going to be a gamble. And I think
Speaker 1: it was smart to give the judge who already entered
Speaker 1: this horrific ruling, an opportunity to both reverse course and
Speaker 1: do the right thing, but also save face and keep
Speaker 1: a little bit of what she wanted to do up
Speaker 1: and running to the extent that little bit doesn't really
Speaker 1: mean anything to the Department of Justice because it won't
Speaker 1: impede DJ's investigation. But the reason I say, no, matter
Speaker 1: what they did would be a gamble because if they
Speaker 1: just went hard, they said, judge, you're out to lunch.
Speaker 1: We're appealing everything. Where does that appeal go the Eleventh Circuit?
Speaker 1: The eleventh Circuit is lousy with Trump appointees. So when
Speaker 1: I say lousy, that's my old Brooklyn term. Man in
Speaker 1: places lousy with cops, that means there's a lot of
Speaker 1: So that was going to be a gamble too, because
Speaker 1: in theory, when a case gets appealed to a federal
Speaker 1: circuit court, it's supposed to be a random selection of
Speaker 1: judges from that bench that that make up the three
Speaker 1: judge panel that will hear the appeal. But you know what,
Speaker 1: if you get three Trump appointees and they're not honest
Speaker 1: brokers of the law, then they might uphold what Judge
Speaker 1: Cannon did. If you got a mixture of Trump appointees
Speaker 1: and non Trump appointees, maybe you get a legitimate ruling.
Speaker 1: Maybe you don't. So that's why I say, no matter
Speaker 1: what DJ did, it was going to be a gamble.
Speaker 1: But what they did was in the most diplomatic way possible.
Speaker 1: They're like, Judge, we would like you to reconsider this piece,
Speaker 1: but you know what, you can go ahead and keep
Speaker 1: that piece of your ruling in play even though it
Speaker 1: really won't have an So I think it's a smart gamble. Okay,
Speaker 1: So last question for you, what's the timeline here? What
Speaker 1: it like? You know, because we keep kicking this can
Speaker 1: down the road. Everybody is waiting with bated breath for
Speaker 1: Donald Trump's indictments to come. And I believe that regardless
Speaker 1: of this ruling, they still have a whole heap of
Speaker 1: evidence to be able to charge Donald Trump with and
Speaker 1: roll out indictments. We have heard that the Department of Justice,
Speaker 1: whether or not this is true or just gossip, is
Speaker 1: going to wait until after the midterm elections, which is
Speaker 1: in you know, sixty sixty days are less to roll
Speaker 1: out their indictment parade. What say you? You know, first
Speaker 1: of all, with respect of the timeline of the litigation
Speaker 1: in Florida over the Special Master and the classified documents,
Speaker 1: it's impossible to predict because this is completely within the
Speaker 1: discretion of the federal judges who are involved, both trial
Speaker 1: court and appellate court judges. And whereas I want to,
Speaker 1: you know, if we can go to Georgia for a minute.
Speaker 1: When you look at the way Judge Lee Master Lee
Speaker 1: Master May, I'm forgetting her name. There's so many judges
Speaker 1: in the mix. Judge May is handling the Lindsay Graham litigation.
Speaker 1: She's like, bam bam, bam damn. Forty eight hours, dam
Speaker 1: another decision. Lindsay, you lose, you lose, you lose, go
Speaker 1: to the grand jury and testify. That's the way the
Speaker 1: federal Judiciary judiciary ought to be operating. Now, whether that's
Speaker 1: the way the federal judiciary judiciary down in Florida operates
Speaker 1: or not in the judge canon Special Master Arena, I
Speaker 1: don't know, but that's what they need to do with
Speaker 1: respect to indictments. I'm almost angry each time I see
Speaker 1: a new criminal investigation into Donald Trump. Now it's his pack, right,
Speaker 1: And you know why not, because I'm upset that they're
Speaker 1: investigating yet more crimes by Donald Trump. But each one
Speaker 1: seems to bring with it more delay. Oh, you gotta
Speaker 1: give DJ all the time you need to now investigate
Speaker 1: this new thing that should not result in the old things,
Speaker 1: all of the other crimes now being on hold for
Speaker 1: some reason. But it feels like with every new crime
Speaker 1: that's investigated, the old crimes, whether it's the campaign finance
Speaker 1: conspiracy with Michael Cohen, or the ten counts of obstruction
Speaker 1: of justice that Bob Muller found, or the insurrection, or
Speaker 1: it's like, for God's sakes, indicte something. The way federal
Speaker 1: prosecutors do business, Danielle, is we indict something and then
Speaker 1: we build superseding indictments. We had charges, we had defendants,
Speaker 1: we had conspiracy counts. There is this insane, inexplicable paralysis.
Speaker 1: It looks like to me from the outside looking into
Speaker 1: the Department of Justice that you know has resulted in
Speaker 1: zero indictments, and now as you say sixty day pause,
Speaker 1: we know we typically don't indict anybody sixty days before
Speaker 1: an election. That's not precisely the way DJ operates. There
Speaker 1: is an internal, unwritten norm, not a rule, not a law.
Speaker 1: It's the norm. We try not to take any overt
Speaker 1: law enforcement action that could interfere with the election or
Speaker 1: be perceived as political or partisan. First of all, Donald
Speaker 1: Trump ain't on the ballot, so there's no reason to
Speaker 1: pause your law enforcement activity for Donald Trump. It doesn't
Speaker 1: matter if that might have a ripple effect. That's not
Speaker 1: a good reason to take a law enforcement pause. But
Speaker 1: there's another reason not to take a law enforcement pause.
Speaker 1: We have insurrectionists running for reelection. Think about the insanity
Speaker 1: of having insurrectionists running for reelection to Congress a sixty
Speaker 1: day election holiday, which will simply give them the opportunity
Speaker 1: to get re elected to more firmly entrenched themselves inside
Speaker 1: government so they can keep trying to kill us our
Speaker 1: democracy from within. This sixty day Norman tradition might have
Speaker 1: had a place decades ago, it doesn't have a place
Speaker 1: in today's environment. Oh, Glenn, you know, I, just like you,
Speaker 1: patience has worn thin. I get excited by what we
Speaker 1: see and here, and then I just wait for the
Speaker 1: other shoe to drop. I think, like what most people think,
Speaker 1: and like what you've said, I think that Judge Cannon
Speaker 1: is going to not take the gift that she has
Speaker 1: been given. And you know, and we will just have
Speaker 1: to see where this moves. But I will tell you
Speaker 1: that I believe that Georgia has moved from simmer to
Speaker 1: a slight boil, and I think that we are going
Speaker 1: to see the movement there before we see the indictment
Speaker 1: parade coming from the DOJ. That is just that is
Speaker 1: just my opinion, Glenn Kirshner. As always, we appreciate your
Speaker 1: time and insight, and we will pick this up again
Speaker 1: next week and see where we land. Appreciate you. I'll
Speaker 1: see you next week, Daniel. That is it for me today.
Speaker 1: Dear friends, on Woke a f as always, Power to
Speaker 1: the people and to all the people. Power, get woke
Speaker 1: and stay woke as fuck. Get a behind the scenes
Speaker 1: look at Comedy Central's The Daily Show Beyond the Scenes,
Speaker 1: an original podcast from the Daily Show with Trevor Noah.
Speaker 1: Every week, host Roy Wood Junior goes deeper with the
Speaker 1: notable guests and experts from the Emmy Award winning series.
Speaker 1: Together they use comedy to tackle current topics from gentrification
Speaker 1: to gun laws, and take a closer look at how
Speaker 1: and why these topics matter. Listen to Beyond the Scenes
Speaker 1: from the Daily Show with Trevor Noah on the iHeartRadio app,
Speaker 1: Apple podcast, or wherever you get your podcast. New episodes
Speaker 1: every Tuesday.