Speaker 1: Good morning, peeps, and welcome to woka F Daily with
Speaker 1: me your Girl, Danielle Moody recording from the home bunker, Folks,
Speaker 1: I am very excited for this episode to welcome our
Speaker 1: friend Glenn Kirshner, host of Justice Matters and MSNBC legal analysts,
Speaker 1: back to woke F to give us. Let me tell
Speaker 1: you something. This is a thorough, thorough review of where
Speaker 1: Donald Trump's cases, all of his legal woes and drama stand.
Speaker 1: As we prepare, I don't know. I'm not holding my breath, folks,
Speaker 1: because I don't want to pass out for whether or
Speaker 1: not Donald Trump is going to be indicted. Is it
Speaker 1: going to come from Georgia or the Georgia white Republican
Speaker 1: politicians going to fire Fannie Willis from her job because
Speaker 1: you know, they don't want their good old buddy indicted.
Speaker 1: Is it going to come from New York because the
Speaker 1: Manhattan DA has called him in for an optional interview
Speaker 1: before they drop an indictment. Is it going to come
Speaker 1: from the federal government? Probably not, because Merritt Garland is
Speaker 1: pretty much a jellyfish. So coming up next, my in
Speaker 1: depth conversation with thirty year former federal prosecutor Glenn Kirshner. Folks,
Speaker 1: I am very excited for the first week launch relaunch
Speaker 1: of woke F to welcome back our friend, former federal prosecutor,
Speaker 1: MSNBC legal analysts and the host of Justice Matters, Glenn Kirshner,
Speaker 1: onto woke F to bring us the latest rundown on
Speaker 1: all of the legal news that is plaguing Donald Trump,
Speaker 1: that is currently plaguing Fox News, and where we stand
Speaker 1: in our hunt for indictments. Glenn, It's been a while,
Speaker 1: so it's wonderful to have you back. Let's start with
Speaker 1: New York, where I am right now. Just recently, we
Speaker 1: have an announcement that comes down from the Manhattan District Attorney.
Speaker 1: Now you know all too well that I've gone hard
Speaker 1: on Alvin Bragg since he came into the position as
Speaker 1: District Attorney, because I thought that Sivance had things set
Speaker 1: up and ready to go. Alvin Bragg comes in, pumps
Speaker 1: the brakes too. High level prosecutors quit because they say
Speaker 1: that they wanted to move forward with an indictment. Alvin
Speaker 1: Bragg said, Nope, we're not ready. Now we've seen over
Speaker 1: the last couple of months and about face of sorts.
Speaker 1: Talk to us about the latest news that everyone saw,
Speaker 1: which is that the Manhattan District Attorney now is inviting
Speaker 1: I use that in quotation marks Donald Trump in for
Speaker 1: a quote unquote interview. What does this mean? Yeah, the
Speaker 1: backstory of how Alvin Bragg got to this place is
Speaker 1: really curious and contorted, and you know, we could engage
Speaker 1: in some informed speculation about what the heck has gone
Speaker 1: on thus far. But you know, yesterday the New York
Speaker 1: Times broke a story that gives us a concrete indication
Speaker 1: of where the grand jury investigation into Donald Trump's hush
Speaker 1: money payments of Stormy Stormy Daniels is right now, and
Speaker 1: it looks like it is very close to being indicted. Danielle,
Speaker 1: We've both been fooled before, we've both been let down before.
Speaker 1: But let's talk about what this reporting means. So the
Speaker 1: New York Times said that Alvin Bragg's prosecutors reached out
Speaker 1: to Donald Trump's legal team and invited him to appear
Speaker 1: before the grand jury this week. What does that mean? Okay,
Speaker 1: First of all, Donald Trump is the target of this
Speaker 1: criminal investigation. He's the person that the prosecutors are intending
Speaker 1: to indict. So That means they won't subpoena him, because
Speaker 1: you don't subpoena the target of an investigation because the
Speaker 1: subpoena is a court order. It is a compulsion order
Speaker 1: saying you must appear and you must testify. Well, the
Speaker 1: target of the investigation has a Fifth Amendment right against
Speaker 1: self incrimination, so he or she does not have to testify.
Speaker 1: They just plead the Fifth which is why prosecutors don't
Speaker 1: generally subpoena the target of an investigation. But here's what
Speaker 1: we do. We will invite them to come down and
Speaker 1: appear before the grand jury, not require them, not compel them,
Speaker 1: but what we say to them, and we deliver a
Speaker 1: specific letter to them. I'll talk about that letter in
Speaker 1: a minute. We say, we are inviting you to appear
Speaker 1: before the grand jury and provide your side of the story,
Speaker 1: because maybe the prosecutors got it wrong, maybe you didn't
Speaker 1: commit any of these crimes. Maybe we're looking at all
Speaker 1: of this evidence incorrectly. So we're inviting you to come in,
Speaker 1: set the record straight, tell your side of the story. Now,
Speaker 1: ninety eight times out of a hundred, defendants decline the invitation.
Speaker 1: They're not going to come and lay themselves bare under
Speaker 1: oath in the grand jury, when the only person in
Speaker 1: there is the prosecutor grilling them, asking them questions. Right,
Speaker 1: every once in a while a defendant will do it
Speaker 1: because he or she thinks they can talk their way
Speaker 1: out of it in the grand jury. Rarely does that
Speaker 1: work to a defendants or a target's advantage. So this
Speaker 1: letter we deliver, I tell this story because I think
Speaker 1: it's cute. We call this invitation letter a Maywest letter.
Speaker 1: We've been calling it that for decades. Why do we
Speaker 1: call it a may West letter? Well, people of a
Speaker 1: certain age, me maybe not. You remember the movie star
Speaker 1: Maywest from the thirties and the forties was the queen
Speaker 1: of the one liners at one point in time in Hollywood.
Speaker 1: Great actress, funny, and she has a number of famous lines.
Speaker 1: One of her most famous lines is she's standing in
Speaker 1: a bar with a gentleman who's in uniform. She says, yeah,
Speaker 1: I always did like a man in uniform. Why don't
Speaker 1: you come up and see me sometime. That's the famous line. Yeah,
Speaker 1: that's a that's the famous Maywest line. So what have
Speaker 1: prosecutors called this letter that we deliver inviting a defendant
Speaker 1: to see the grand jury a Maywest letter, Why don't
Speaker 1: you come up and see the grand jury sometime now.
Speaker 1: Nobody's asking prosecutors to play comedy clubs anytime soon, but
Speaker 1: somebody thought that was cute back in the day, so
Speaker 1: they name it a Maywest letter. So we only deliver
Speaker 1: that kind of a letter at the absolute tail end
Speaker 1: of the grand jury investigation, because we wanted to develop
Speaker 1: all of the evidence through the testimony. We wanted to
Speaker 1: subpoena all the documents and business records to the grand jury.
Speaker 1: We wanted to have it all in hand when we
Speaker 1: question the target. If the target chooses to testify, as
Speaker 1: I say, they generally don't, So this gives us the
Speaker 1: informed opinion that they are right at the end of
Speaker 1: the grand jury investigation, because inviting the target to testify
Speaker 1: as the last thing we do, and frankly, Danielle, we
Speaker 1: only do it if we know there's enough evidence to indict,
Speaker 1: and this is the last base we touch. So concretely,
Speaker 1: this is a pretty good indication that we could see
Speaker 1: an indictment of Donald Trump soon, at least on the
Speaker 1: hush money payments. Okay, So that's that's what I was
Speaker 1: going to follow up with, which is this is with
Speaker 1: regard to what Michael Cohen essentially became famous for what
Speaker 1: he also went to jail for, right, which is using
Speaker 1: the use of campaign finance money in order to payoff
Speaker 1: Stormy Daniels a high class escort in order to keep
Speaker 1: her quiet. Correct. Correct. So we know that all of
Speaker 1: this became very much reality TV when Stormy Daniels hired
Speaker 1: her attorney, Michael Cohen then decides to flip on Donald Trump.
Speaker 1: Tell us what would a trial look like? Because this
Speaker 1: is these are criminal charges. This is separate and apart
Speaker 1: from what Tish James has been doing as New York
Speaker 1: ag This is separate and apart. Her case is a
Speaker 1: civil one against the or against Trump Organization for reclamation
Speaker 1: of you know, upwards to a quarter of a billion dollars, right,
Speaker 1: So just remind us what the criminal possibility is here?
Speaker 1: What excuse me, what the criminal charge would be from
Speaker 1: the Manhattan DA. It's a great question and one that's
Speaker 1: really hard to answer because we don't know what kind
Speaker 1: of evidence was developed as a result of the prosecution
Speaker 1: of the Trump Organization. The very successful prosecution convicted on
Speaker 1: all counts for running a fifteen year long criminal scheme
Speaker 1: to defraud in the first degree, basically a massive tax
Speaker 1: fraud scheme being run by the Trump organization. And we're
Speaker 1: still scratching our heads as to why Donald Trump wasn't
Speaker 1: charged in that case. But what I'm confident of is
Speaker 1: that case probably produced a whole bunch of evidence that
Speaker 1: might be why we see Alvin Bragg having jump started
Speaker 1: this other criminal case against Donald Trump. That coupled with
Speaker 1: the fact that, remember, Congress finally got its hands on
Speaker 1: Donald trump tax returns, and some of the reporting is
Speaker 1: that these hush money payments we're taken as business expenses
Speaker 1: on his federal taxes and estate taxes. That adds additional
Speaker 1: crimes to the hush money payments. So when you ask
Speaker 1: what are the charges, really hard to say. The one
Speaker 1: obvious charge that's been kicked around a lot in the
Speaker 1: media is falsifying business records because Michael Cohen ginned up
Speaker 1: for Donald Trump a bunch of false documents making this
Speaker 1: look like it was part of Michael Cohen's legal services,
Speaker 1: when in fact, it was a hush money payoff to
Speaker 1: hide deeply damaging information from the American voters. And here's
Speaker 1: the thing. Falsifying business records in New York is a
Speaker 1: misdemeanor unless it is done in furtherance of, or to
Speaker 1: conceal other crimes. So I don't know what an indictment
Speaker 1: is going to include, but I have a feeling it's
Speaker 1: going to include several charges as a result of additional
Speaker 1: evidence that has come to light since Alvin Bragg first
Speaker 1: looked like he was killing the Trump investigation. So really
Speaker 1: hard to predict exactly what the indictment will include, but
Speaker 1: I suspect it will include more than just one or
Speaker 1: two minor charges. I think he's probably going to build
Speaker 1: on those hush money payment charges. So there could be
Speaker 1: a possibility of multiple indictments coming down because each of
Speaker 1: whatever the suspected criminal acts are would require their own indictment.
Speaker 1: This is not it wouldn't just be one blanket A
Speaker 1: great legal question, So there is a doctrine called joinder
Speaker 1: and severance. Joinder means prosecutors will try to bring all
Speaker 1: related charges in one indictment and try them all together,
Speaker 1: But there are lots of legal niceties that dictate when
Speaker 1: you can join charges together, and if the defense doesn't
Speaker 1: want them join together, they'll file emotion to sever joinder
Speaker 1: and severance. They'll try to break them all apart into
Speaker 1: separate trials. So one of the things that we will
Speaker 1: learn when we hopefully see the first indictment drop soon
Speaker 1: is how many related charges has Alvin Bragg been able
Speaker 1: to join together in one indictment, and how many might
Speaker 1: have to come in a separate indictment because they're not
Speaker 1: sufficiently related to the hush money payments. These are all
Speaker 1: sort of fine tuned legal decisions and tactical decisions that
Speaker 1: I'm sure Bragg's prosecution team is making as we speak
Speaker 1: switching gears. The big breaking news at least on Earth One,
Speaker 1: as I like to call it, with regard to the
Speaker 1: Dominion case and against Fox News, is all of the
Speaker 1: depositions that have now been made public where Fox King
Speaker 1: CEO Rupert Murdoch essentially through all of his famous faces
Speaker 1: and voices underneath the bus. We have now seen Glenn
Speaker 1: a treasure trove of text messages exchanging this. This is
Speaker 1: folks a defamation lawsuit that Dominion has filed in around
Speaker 1: I think it's one point six billion dollars against Fox
Speaker 1: News for their false um coverage. With regard to the
Speaker 1: fact that Dominion had something to do with stealing the
Speaker 1: election from Donald Trump in the treasure trove of text messages.
Speaker 1: In Rupert Murdoch's own testimony, I guess his own his
Speaker 1: own deposition under oath, he says, oh, no, we knew
Speaker 1: that the election wasn't stolen, and oh I should have
Speaker 1: done something sooner, maybe before January sixth, who knows, Um, Glenn,
Speaker 1: I want to get your thoughts on what the public
Speaker 1: outside of the Fox, you know, sphere, because they're not
Speaker 1: covering this at all, what the public has learned, And
Speaker 1: in your opinion, does Dominion have a really strong case here?
Speaker 1: Dominion has an incredibly strong case. Defamation cases are often
Speaker 1: difficult to prove because you have to prove actual malice.
Speaker 1: You have to prove that either these anchors and executives
Speaker 1: were recklessly disregarding the truth of what they were putting
Speaker 1: on air, or even beyond that, that they were intentionally
Speaker 1: sponsoring lies. And here's the thing, Danielle, as you say,
Speaker 1: these text messages and emails, and then there was a
Speaker 1: zoom meeting that was reported out by Peter Baker of
Speaker 1: the New York Times, who got an got his hands
Speaker 1: on a zoom recording of the Fox executives and Fox
Speaker 1: anchors in the days after the election talking about how
Speaker 1: they had messed up by correctly calling the election for
Speaker 1: Joe Biden, right, And what I said is, you know,
Speaker 1: that would be like a bunch of surgeons getting together
Speaker 1: for an emergency meeting after an operation and saying, how
Speaker 1: did we mess up by saving the patient? I mean,
Speaker 1: that's kind of what Fox News was saying. We mess
Speaker 1: up by calling the election correctly, but it hurt our
Speaker 1: revenue stream, so we have to start lying about things.
Speaker 1: This defamation suit is so strong that I think the
Speaker 1: evidence has blown right past recklessness and dominion will be
Speaker 1: able to fairly easily prove actual intentional lying, because, as
Speaker 1: Rupert Murdoch said, it ain't about the blue, and it
Speaker 1: ain't about the red, It's about the green. So I
Speaker 1: think the only thing left to decide is what our
Speaker 1: dominions damages in the words, how much money should Fox
Speaker 1: be made to pay. I cannot imagine Fox will go
Speaker 1: to trial. I have a feeling they will settle, And
Speaker 1: the question is do they get one point six billion,
Speaker 1: do they get more impunitive damages? Do they get less?
Speaker 1: Because they can't prove the valuation of the damage that
Speaker 1: Fox did to Dominion voting systems. But I think liability
Speaker 1: is a lock and it's going to be all about
Speaker 1: the amount of the judgment that Fox has to pay
Speaker 1: to Dominion. So here I have a couple of questions,
Speaker 1: right because I'm not a lawyer, I just play one
Speaker 1: on the podcast because I started to really think about this, Glenn,
Speaker 1: and I said to myself, if Dominion is able to
Speaker 1: prove malicious intent, which is essentially what the Zoom called
Speaker 1: the text messages, they knew who Sidney Powell was when
Speaker 1: they were putting her on the air. They themselves called
Speaker 1: her a crackpot, a Looney Tunes, and they put her
Speaker 1: on the air to spout her conspiracy theories. One my
Speaker 1: first question is what is the Department of Justice do
Speaker 1: with this information? Knowing that had Fox News not been
Speaker 1: the megaphone of Donald Trump and the Big Lie, would
Speaker 1: the insurrection have gotten the legs that it had, Because
Speaker 1: what you would have had and I'm not taking Donald
Speaker 1: Trump's tweet and all of his lies on social media
Speaker 1: off the table, I'm adding on Fox megaphone of hour
Speaker 1: after hour for the election from then until January sixth,
Speaker 1: ginning up the very people who would arrive at the
Speaker 1: Capitol to then try and overthrow a free and fair election.
Speaker 1: So what, if anything, that's my first question. Does the
Speaker 1: Department of Justice do if this case is cited in
Speaker 1: dominion's favor. Well, this is probably going to come as
Speaker 1: no shock to you, but my opinion is the oj
Speaker 1: will do exactly nothing. Now, I'm not saying that there
Speaker 1: is criminal liability that could be easily proved based on
Speaker 1: Fox's lies that obviously inspired violence. But I'm also not
Speaker 1: saying that we should just throw up our hands and
Speaker 1: say nothing we can do about it. Freedom of the press,
Speaker 1: freedom of speech. We can't prove a connection, a direct
Speaker 1: connection between Fox's lies and the violence on January sixth.
Speaker 1: But here's here's what really ticks me off. I believe
Speaker 1: that there are things the executive branch could do. I
Speaker 1: believe there are regulations the FCC could enact. I believe
Speaker 1: there are executive orders Joe Biden could sign in the
Speaker 1: name of protecting our democracy and protecting the American people
Speaker 1: that could begin to chip away at what we have
Speaker 1: abdicated for years, which is that you know what Fox
Speaker 1: and other phone news agencies can lie as much as
Speaker 1: they want, sponsor as much hate speech as they want,
Speaker 1: even when that hate speech is reasonably likely to incite
Speaker 1: imminent violence. There's just nothing we can do about it.
Speaker 1: You know what. That is not a satisfactory answer, because
Speaker 1: that's the answer that's gotten us here. Let me just
Speaker 1: add this, Danielle. Do you think the Republicans and we
Speaker 1: have broad, sweeping First Amendment speech protection and First Amendment
Speaker 1: freedom of the press protection. I love it, I embrace it,
Speaker 1: I welcome it, but it can't be unlimited. Yeah. There's
Speaker 1: a test called the Brandenburg test. It tests when speech
Speaker 1: enjoys First Amendment protection, even hate speech, or it loses
Speaker 1: First Amendment protection. And it says, basically, if speech is
Speaker 1: likely to end intended to inspire ima in lawless conduct,
Speaker 1: it doesn't enjoy First Amendment protection. And people will say,
Speaker 1: but you can't prove it was intended to Maybe you
Speaker 1: can prove it was likely too, because that's an objective standard.
Speaker 1: And so what we do, Danielle, is year after year
Speaker 1: we see hate speech that's inciting violence and we say, oh,
Speaker 1: Brandenburg tests fifty years ago, too high a bar. We
Speaker 1: can never overcome it. So we do nothing. Do you
Speaker 1: think the Republicans sit around and say, we want to
Speaker 1: revoke women's constitutional privacy. But Row versus Wade, fifty year
Speaker 1: old president, nothing we can do bullshit. Yet they do
Speaker 1: is they pass forward leaning legislation in the States, They
Speaker 1: signed bs executive orders, they promulgate regulations, and they try
Speaker 1: to take away our rights. Donald Trump had to go
Speaker 1: through four Muslim bands with executive orders before he could
Speaker 1: push it through the courts. Why why are we not
Speaker 1: doing the same thing. Why is Joe Biden not doing
Speaker 1: the same thing for good? Signing forward leaning executive orders?
Speaker 1: Trying to protect the American people. Go into court and
Speaker 1: defend them, and if you lose, you go back. You'll
Speaker 1: learn the lesson of the loss based on what the
Speaker 1: court said. You rewrite it, you rechool it, and you
Speaker 1: do it again. Donald Trump did that for evil. We
Speaker 1: can do it for good. But we refuse to because
Speaker 1: we are the ones who throw up our hands and say,
Speaker 1: fifty year old precedent, nothing we can do. Well, you
Speaker 1: know what precedent changes with the times. If it didn't,
Speaker 1: we would still be living with plus e versus Ferguson.
Speaker 1: Come on, folks, get off your asses and do it.
Speaker 1: Be forward leaning, be aggressive, go into the courts. Don't
Speaker 1: be afraid of the legal challenges, Embrace them. And that's
Speaker 1: what we need to do on the gun on the
Speaker 1: proliferation of guns front, That's what we need to do
Speaker 1: on the hate speech inspiring violence front. We need to
Speaker 1: be forward leaning. The way the Republicans are for evil,
Speaker 1: we can be forward leaning for good. I'm not advocating violating,
Speaker 1: and I think that everything that you're saying is one
Speaker 1: hundred percent right, and all the things that we've been
Speaker 1: screaming from the rooftop since Donald Trump came down that escalator,
Speaker 1: since he started with this executive order, since he started
Speaker 1: with policies that were reprehensible and enough to have Amnesty
Speaker 1: International look at Americans say you know what, I think
Speaker 1: that you're doing something a little wrong here, right enough
Speaker 1: for us to be referred to as a backsliding democracy.
Speaker 1: It's like you have to. If they are leaning in
Speaker 1: on hate and you are not doubling down on good,
Speaker 1: then I don't know what we're doing right. I honestly don't.
Speaker 1: Because my feeling, Glenn, is that when I'm seeing this
Speaker 1: dominion case unfold, and I'm saying to myself if I'm
Speaker 1: the Department of Justice and I'm the Department the Department
Speaker 1: of Civil Rights, and I'm saying, you know what, if
Speaker 1: this is ruled in dominion's favor, then we have probable
Speaker 1: cause to begin an investigation into Fox News and how
Speaker 1: they helped insight oh A Riot, how they helped be
Speaker 1: the arm because as as all of these papers lay out,
Speaker 1: it shows that Fox Fox was not there as analysts,
Speaker 1: they were not there as journalists reporting what was happening.
Speaker 1: They were an extension of the campaign. They were an
Speaker 1: extension of the administration. Tucker Carlson is still doing it, yes,
Speaker 1: with his piecemealing of the coverage the videotapes that Kevin
Speaker 1: McCarthy gave him. And I said, why did Kevin McCarthy
Speaker 1: Glenn still have forty thousand hours of that video footage
Speaker 1: in his possession? Why was that not in the possession
Speaker 1: of the Department of Justice. Well, it was in the
Speaker 1: possession of the Capitol Police, and I guess Congress had
Speaker 1: possession of it courtesy of the J six investigation. So
Speaker 1: I think once Congress has it, they have it. And
Speaker 1: when the leadership changed hands, I used the term leadership
Speaker 1: loosely when it comes to Kevin McCarthy. Come on, you
Speaker 1: know he decided to use it for evil period. The
Speaker 1: other thing that has been gnawing at me. And again
Speaker 1: I'm not an attorney, but if Fox is caught red
Speaker 1: handed lying about the election and has to pay out
Speaker 1: billions of dollars to Dominion in the end, it all,
Speaker 1: if it all goes the way that justice should tell
Speaker 1: me whether or not, you think that it is a
Speaker 1: possibility that Fox would then be held liable in some
Speaker 1: type of way for COVID deaths and spreading the lies
Speaker 1: about COVID being a hoax, about COVID being a democratic trick,
Speaker 1: and that because of their consistent lies, a quarter of
Speaker 1: the population remained unvaccinated and they contributed it to the
Speaker 1: deaths of a million. Yeah, I think civil liability if
Speaker 1: they can mine Fox for discovery and get the kind
Speaker 1: of evidence of intentional lies about COVID the way they
Speaker 1: found about the election, I do think civil liability is
Speaker 1: something that people could pursue. The challenges the element of causation, Right,
Speaker 1: did Foxes lies cause or directly contribute to a particular
Speaker 1: person's death. That's a tough element to prove. Now it's
Speaker 1: going to be easier, somewhat easier in the civil context
Speaker 1: because the standards is just a preponderance of the evidence
Speaker 1: fifty one percent more likely than not. I have actually
Speaker 1: argued that Donald Trump and company have criminal liability for
Speaker 1: COVID deaths because they had a duty to protect the public.
Speaker 1: And the law of involuntary manslaw says, if you engage
Speaker 1: in a grossly negligent act or you have a duty
Speaker 1: to act and protect the public and you fail to
Speaker 1: do that, and that failure is grossly negligent. We know
Speaker 1: Donald Trump's failure was intentional because he lied to the
Speaker 1: American people about it. And if you're grossly negligent conduct
Speaker 1: was reasonably likely to result in death or serious bodily
Speaker 1: injury to another, check And the third element is that
Speaker 1: you're grossly negligent conduct thereby caused the death of another.
Speaker 1: That's the sticking point, right causation. How can you Well,
Speaker 1: it's important to know that in the law, causation is
Speaker 1: defined as your conduct being a substantial factor in bringing
Speaker 1: about death, not that you killed them. Not do you
Speaker 1: shot him or strangle them, or bludgeoned them or saved them.
Speaker 1: Your conduct of lying to the American people mocking reporters
Speaker 1: when they protected themselves by wearing masks. Your conduct was
Speaker 1: a substantial factor in bringing about death. Therefore, the causation
Speaker 1: element is satisfied. I know we're doing crim law one
Speaker 1: on one now, but I actually have maintained all along
Speaker 1: that Trump and Mike Pence as the head of the
Speaker 1: Coronavirus Task Force, and Jared Kushner liar that he was
Speaker 1: let's let it run rampant through the United States because
Speaker 1: it's killing more Blue voters than red voters. I think
Speaker 1: they have criminal exposure for involuntary manslaughter. But that's just
Speaker 1: from an old career homicide prosecutor. Okay, Oh, Glenn, how
Speaker 1: I wish that your title was attorney general, um, because
Speaker 1: I just I need somebody with a backbone. They'd all
Speaker 1: I can tell you, blues or draw, they would all
Speaker 1: be indicted. If you're interested. I have a documentary that
Speaker 1: just premiered on Peacock. Yes, please, who killed Robert Juan?
Speaker 1: The reason I raised this is because three privileged, connected,
Speaker 1: influential men covered up the murder of this young Asian
Speaker 1: American lawyer named Robert Juan, found dead in their guest room,
Speaker 1: and they said, we don't know what happened. They covered
Speaker 1: it up for years. I investigated them. They thought they
Speaker 1: got away with it. I said, I don't care if
Speaker 1: I can't prove who killed Robert Juan. I'm charging you
Speaker 1: all with a conspiracy to cover it up, obstruction of justice,
Speaker 1: and tampering with evidence, because that's what you do for victims.
Speaker 1: That's how you lean forward and you bring cases that
Speaker 1: you might not win. The reason I mentioned it and
Speaker 1: this is a case that is near and dear to
Speaker 1: my heart. It's a two part documentary that just premiered
Speaker 1: on peacocks Streaming. There is a tip line because these
Speaker 1: three men who covered up the crime of murdering Robert Juan,
Speaker 1: they did it in two thousand and six. They've run
Speaker 1: their mouse and I hope somebody will drop a dime.
Speaker 1: Somebody will call in the tip line, talk to our
Speaker 1: homicide detective who's still at the police department in Washington, DC,
Speaker 1: and say I've got some information so you can help
Speaker 1: us answer the question who killed one Robert. Oh, Glenn,
Speaker 1: thank you so much. Thank you for that which folks
Speaker 1: do check it out on Peacock the two part series
Speaker 1: and Glenn, thank you as always for making the time
Speaker 1: to join Woke app, particularly during our relaunch week with
Speaker 1: iHeart We Just We appreciate you, your voice, your analysis,
Speaker 1: and your fierce compassion for justice and fight for justice.
Speaker 1: Appreciate you and I appreciate all those qualities in you, Danielle,
Speaker 1: which is why I love you know, doing this every
Speaker 1: week for as long as we've been doing it. Thank you.
Speaker 1: That is it for me today. Folks on Woke f
Speaker 1: as always Power to the people and to all the people. Power,
Speaker 1: get woke and stay woke as fuck.