Speaker 1: Good morning, peeps, and welcome to woka F Daily with
Speaker 1: Meet your Girl Danielle Moody. Recording from the Brooklyn Bunker. Friends,
Speaker 1: I'm really excited about today's episode of woke F and
Speaker 1: it is because we haven't had the opportunity to unpack
Speaker 1: all the latest legal news with our friend Glenn Kirshner,
Speaker 1: and so I have put together a special thirty minute
Speaker 1: in depth interview with Glenn to walk us through where
Speaker 1: we are with regard to the Department of Justice. Finally
Speaker 1: hearing murmurings from the ever so mute Merritt Garland that
Speaker 1: he has finally decided or has been working behind the
Speaker 1: scenes to hold those not just the foot soldiers, but
Speaker 1: hold those that were the architects and they don'ts of
Speaker 1: the insurrection that had the ability to make it happen. Right,
Speaker 1: we have to understand that what we saw on January sixth,
Speaker 1: twenty twenty one wasn't just like your run of the
Speaker 1: mill event. It wasn't just something that happened out of
Speaker 1: the thin blue air. And I think that that is
Speaker 1: what's really important about what we are hearing from federal
Speaker 1: judges right who are saying that beyond a preponderance of
Speaker 1: a doubt that there is criminal ongoings here between John Eastman,
Speaker 1: donald Trump's attorney, and Donald Trump. And for those people
Speaker 1: that were in a war room, folks, they had a
Speaker 1: war room put together at the Willard Hotel. If you've
Speaker 1: never been to Washington, DC, the Willard Hotel is right
Speaker 1: by the White House, right. So these people were not
Speaker 1: just down to the Ellipses to air their grievances about,
Speaker 1: you know, their frustration that their man didn't win. They
Speaker 1: were putting together a reconnaissance team ahead of time to
Speaker 1: provide tours of the Capitol buildings so that the insurrectionist,
Speaker 1: the foot soldiers knew exactly where to go. They put
Speaker 1: together a PowerPoint presentation John Eastman laid out all of
Speaker 1: the ways that we can overthrow the government. They had
Speaker 1: a working war room where Rudy Giuliani and Steve Bannon
Speaker 1: were present, right. They had people like the Oath Keepers
Speaker 1: and the Proud Boys that had go team stationed across
Speaker 1: the water in Virginia. In the event that they were
Speaker 1: able to take over not only the Capitol building, but
Speaker 1: what we have learned through the over five hundred interviews
Speaker 1: that had been done already by the how Select Committee
Speaker 1: is that they had people in place, because the desire
Speaker 1: wasn't just to take the Capitol building. It was to
Speaker 1: take the house buildings, it was to take the Senate buildings.
Speaker 1: It was essentially to turn Washington, d C. Into Ottawa, Canada.
Speaker 1: And that was before Ottawa Canada actually happened. It was
Speaker 1: to lay siege to the federal government, to shut it down,
Speaker 1: to keep their king in place. So this was not
Speaker 1: a pop up protest allah the Black Lives Matter movement
Speaker 1: and the twenty twenty uprisings, that an incident then sparks
Speaker 1: these protests that would then happen. No, And so for
Speaker 1: Judge McFadden, the federal judge who says, well, these insurrectionists,
Speaker 1: they're non violent, and so they should just get a
Speaker 1: slap on the wrist and be sent home, what do
Speaker 1: you think happens when you don't provide responsibility and accountability.
Speaker 1: Then you have just shown people how much further they're
Speaker 1: able to push, what else they're able to get away with.
Speaker 1: And so if you do not make an example, and
Speaker 1: I if I were a parent, that is how the
Speaker 1: fuck I would parent? Right? You get but so much leash,
Speaker 1: so much room, right, but there are you level set
Speaker 1: on expectations, rules and order. That's what we believe the
Speaker 1: Constitution to be. It was an agreed upon document that said,
Speaker 1: this is how we are going to conduct ourselves in
Speaker 1: these United States. This is what it means to form
Speaker 1: a government for and by the people. Right, these are
Speaker 1: agreed upon political norms and our laws. Donald Trump, over
Speaker 1: the course of his four year reign, the reign of
Speaker 1: disaster over the United States, broke every single political norm
Speaker 1: that we ever knew or thought of. And then something
Speaker 1: we didn't he ran roughshod over the Constitution. That's what
Speaker 1: the fuck. He was probably crumbling up in his mouth
Speaker 1: and swallowing, because you know that's normal behavior to eat paper.
Speaker 1: So in this conversation that I have with Glenn for
Speaker 1: the first time in god, what feels like the two
Speaker 1: years that we have been in conversation about the fate
Speaker 1: of our democracy and about the fate of our institutions.
Speaker 1: For the first time ever, this actually felt like a
Speaker 1: more dare I say it, folks, Dare I say hopeful
Speaker 1: conversation where we feel like there is actual movement here.
Speaker 1: But the thing that I'm still hung up on on
Speaker 1: this good Monday The thing that I'm still hung up
Speaker 1: on is the fact that we have a compromised Supreme
Speaker 1: Court justice. We have a compromised Supreme Court justice. The
Speaker 1: things that set America apart from other nations, from dictatorships, authoritarianism,
Speaker 1: from fascism, from banana republics, from all of these makeshift right,
Speaker 1: these makeshift governments, is the fact that we have a
Speaker 1: rule of law and a code of conduct that we
Speaker 1: all agree on. Right, Clarence Thomas with his decision not
Speaker 1: to recuse himself from hearing the Trump case, with regard
Speaker 1: to his records that the House Select Committee was asking
Speaker 1: for him being the lone dissenter on that, and knowing
Speaker 1: knowing that his wife was in communication with the White
Speaker 1: House on the day of the insurrection. So having all
Speaker 1: of that information, Glenn will tell us that even a
Speaker 1: first year law student, and fuck it, I say, even
Speaker 1: somebody that just binge watches the first season of Law
Speaker 1: and Order would know what it means to recuse yourself
Speaker 1: from a case because you do not want, particularly at
Speaker 1: the Supreme Court level, you do not want the appearance right,
Speaker 1: the appearance that there is wrongdoing happening because you are
Speaker 1: at the highest court of the land. So the fact
Speaker 1: that we have a sitting Supreme Court justice whose wife
Speaker 1: was at the insurrection and then she decided that, oh,
Speaker 1: she needed a sweater. It was too chilly outside, so
Speaker 1: she decided to leave right, oh, just in time. But
Speaker 1: then make sure that she was on the horn the
Speaker 1: whole time with the chief of staff. And now we
Speaker 1: have four hundred and fifty seven minutes worth of tape
Speaker 1: that we don't know where it is. And for those people,
Speaker 1: I got to tell you something. So folks know that
Speaker 1: I am new to TikTok, right because what I have discovered,
Speaker 1: and this is something that you know if you are,
Speaker 1: if you have a business or in business, and you're
Speaker 1: a person of a certain age like I am, and
Speaker 1: you're thinking to yourself, well, this platform isn't for me.
Speaker 1: What I realize, with the seriousness that our democracy, that
Speaker 1: our country is in right now, that I need to
Speaker 1: find mediums wherever I need to disseminate information wherever people
Speaker 1: are getting their information. So if that is a sixty
Speaker 1: second fifteen second TikTok, if that is a forty five
Speaker 1: minute podcast, if that is national television, you will see
Speaker 1: me in all of those places and spaces because I
Speaker 1: think that the times that we are living in are
Speaker 1: so consequential. But somebody said to me on TikTok that, oh, well,
Speaker 1: you know, Donald Trump was probably just using his cell phone,
Speaker 1: so I don't understand the big deal. Let me tell
Speaker 1: you something about these fucking maga apologists, Like this is
Speaker 1: the thing that actually does want to keep me away
Speaker 1: from social media because sometimes when I go through the
Speaker 1: comments in places, particularly like TikTok, who don't know me
Speaker 1: because I'm new to the platform, they say some wild shit.
Speaker 1: And that's when I realized that Donald Trump was right,
Speaker 1: that he could in fact shoot somebody in the middle
Speaker 1: of Fifth Avenue and nothing would happen to him, that
Speaker 1: he would probably gain supporters as opposed to losing them.
Speaker 1: Because the way that these people will twist themselves into
Speaker 1: fucking pretzels to come up with any explanation as to
Speaker 1: why there would be no incoming or outgoing calls for
Speaker 1: a four hundred and fifty seven minutes while the Capitol
Speaker 1: Building is under siege is so fucking absurd that you
Speaker 1: would have to detach yourself from reality in order for
Speaker 1: that to even make sense, right, Like, it makes absolutely
Speaker 1: none Nixon resigned because of eighteen minutes that were lost.
Speaker 1: Donald Trump went rogue for a fucking work day. That
Speaker 1: is warranting much more scrutiny than it's receiving right now
Speaker 1: in the mainstream press. And I will continue to say
Speaker 1: and call them out and be like, why is that?
Speaker 1: Why is it that Hunter Biden's laptop still remains a
Speaker 1: point of conversation, but four hundred and fifty seven missing
Speaker 1: minutes from the White House doesn't. And it makes me
Speaker 1: beg the question who was in cahoots with who? So
Speaker 1: coming up next, Friends, my conversation with our friend Glenn Kirshner,
Speaker 1: host of Justice Matters and MSNBC Legal analyst. Folks, it
Speaker 1: has been a long time since we have had a
Speaker 1: good conversation with our friend MSNBC Legal analysts and the
Speaker 1: host of Justice Matters, Glenn Kirshner. On Glenn dare I say,
Speaker 1: I think this episode, this segment maybe one that we
Speaker 1: land on something good ish. A lot has transpired with
Speaker 1: regard to the insurrection investigations the Department of Justice. Take
Speaker 1: us through what has happened this week, because this week
Speaker 1: has had my head on a swivel. As I'm sure
Speaker 1: it has yours, but a lot has happened. So let's
Speaker 1: start at the beginning. We have some movement, it seems,
Speaker 1: from our friends at the Department of Justice. What have
Speaker 1: you been hearing? Yeah, so rarely do we get to
Speaker 1: say it's been a pretty good week for justice. Now,
Speaker 1: it hasn't been all sunshine and rainbows. Right, we'll break
Speaker 1: to the you know, some of the less optimistic stories.
Speaker 1: But you know, there were some really block buster developments
Speaker 1: reported first by the Washington Post, and there was a
Speaker 1: follow up article in the New York Times. And what
Speaker 1: we learned is that the Department of Justice is involved
Speaker 1: in a criminal probe of matters and in ways we
Speaker 1: knew nothing about. So, first of all, we learned that
Speaker 1: they are criminally investigating the funders, the planners, and the
Speaker 1: organizers of the insurrection, and most pointedly of the pre
Speaker 1: insurrection pep rally on the Ellipse right at which Donald
Speaker 1: Trump and company launched the attack. So what does that
Speaker 1: tell us? It tells us they are absolutely working their
Speaker 1: way up the command structure of the insurrection, and they're
Speaker 1: doing it criminally. We need to remember the January sixth
Speaker 1: Congressional Committee has been doing it all along, but they
Speaker 1: can't bring criminal charges. The Department of Justice has been
Speaker 1: investigating this criminally. Second big development is they've also expanded
Speaker 1: their criminal probe into not just the fake electors, but
Speaker 1: the Trump loyalists and lackeys who were pushing the fake
Speaker 1: elector scheme to criminally overturn the elections results. So the
Speaker 1: DOJ is getting after it. They're not just getting after
Speaker 1: the foot soldiers of the insurrection, you know, the mopes
Speaker 1: who actually broke into the Capitol. They're getting after the
Speaker 1: command structure of the insurrection and other efforts, other avenues
Speaker 1: that Trump and company used, like the fake electors to
Speaker 1: try to undermine the elections results. And then this was
Speaker 1: buried in the Washington Post article. But I actually think
Speaker 1: it's the biggest revelation. They said that for the past
Speaker 1: two months, and I wrote it down because I wanted
Speaker 1: to quote it precisely. The Department of Justice has been
Speaker 1: subpoenaing quote, officials informer President Trump's orbit, quoth what does
Speaker 1: that tell us? For two months They've been issuing grand
Speaker 1: jury subpoenas two officials that had been in Trump's orbit
Speaker 1: when he was president, and Danielle we knew nothing about that.
Speaker 1: It's true. And so you and I've been talking about this,
Speaker 1: and I've said, where the hell is Merrit Garland? I
Speaker 1: put his face on a milk carton. We've been screaming
Speaker 1: about it. Why do we see no evidence that they're
Speaker 1: criminally investigating. Well, now we know they have been, including
Speaker 1: by issuing grand jury subpoenas, and we know nothing about it.
Speaker 1: That gives me lots of optimism. That stuck has been
Speaker 1: going on for quite some time, and you know, at
Speaker 1: the bottom of it all, we shouldn't hear anything about it.
Speaker 1: We often do because when they start issuing grand jury subpoenas,
Speaker 1: we have leakers, liars and lawyers, you know, and the
Speaker 1: liar piece I always use George Popadopolis, right, We subpoena
Speaker 1: him and he goes into the grand jury and then
Speaker 1: he steps to the cameras and lies like crazy about
Speaker 1: what's going on in the grand jury. But that liar
Speaker 1: reveals that there's a grand jury investigation. The lawyers, the
Speaker 1: people who represent the witnesses who get subpoena to the
Speaker 1: grand jury, because you know what, the criminal defense bar,
Speaker 1: the white collar bar in DC, they all like to say,
Speaker 1: I got the biggest client and they talk. So it's
Speaker 1: the liars, it's the lawyers, and then it's the leakers.
Speaker 1: Once an investigation, a grand jury investigation, is open, it
Speaker 1: can leak out, and mind you, it can leak out
Speaker 1: from the Department of Justice. It can be FBI agents
Speaker 1: improperly leaking. It can be prosecutors improperly leaking. It can
Speaker 1: be the staff of the Department of Justice one hundred
Speaker 1: and ten thousand of them improperly leaking, leaking. Flyers and
Speaker 1: lawyers usually end up revealing that there's a grand jury investigation.
Speaker 1: Now we know there has been one for at least
Speaker 1: a couple of months, and I'm betting longer and we
Speaker 1: know nothing about it is very encouraging. So let me
Speaker 1: ask you this, because you know, on this show we
Speaker 1: have talked about grand juries. We've talked about the differences
Speaker 1: in different types of sitting juries. Is there a difference
Speaker 1: between a federal grand jury, right and what we have
Speaker 1: seen and discussed with regard to the Manhattan District Attorney
Speaker 1: before Alvin Bragg came into his position when Sidevance had
Speaker 1: called a special grand jury. Is there any delineation between
Speaker 1: these types of grand juries and what folks need to
Speaker 1: understand if there are any differences to note. You know,
Speaker 1: their jobs and their procedures and their goals are largely
Speaker 1: the same. Federal grand jury will hear evidence in federal
Speaker 1: cases involving federal crimes and violation of federal laws new
Speaker 1: York state. They're exclusively restricted to what crimes may violate
Speaker 1: New York state law, not federal law. Now, there are
Speaker 1: some significant differences. Federal grand juries typically sit for about
Speaker 1: eighteen months at a time, maybe one two, three days
Speaker 1: a week, so they can hear long term investigations. Most
Speaker 1: state grand juries sit for a much shorter period of time,
Speaker 1: often four or six weeks, so they have to do
Speaker 1: their work quickly, or they have to get special permission
Speaker 1: from the court to impanel an extended grand jury like
Speaker 1: they did in New York. And then there's a special
Speaker 1: grand jury that was impaneled in Georgia to look into
Speaker 1: Trump's selection crimes down there. So you know, they're large.
Speaker 1: They're very similar bodies with similar goals. One is all
Speaker 1: about federal law. One is all about the state law
Speaker 1: in the state in which the grand jury sits. Okay,
Speaker 1: so we have a couple of federal judges that have
Speaker 1: been making some noise with regard to the case. The
Speaker 1: first one that I want to discuss, but briefly, is McFadden,
Speaker 1: who said that essentially he's a Trump appointee, has been
Speaker 1: hearing some of the lower level insurrection cases and has
Speaker 1: basically said these are non violent offenders, they shouldn't be
Speaker 1: serving any time, and made the comparison between their involvement
Speaker 1: in an attempt to overthrow the government and protests during
Speaker 1: the Summer's uprising in twenty twenty. Can you speak to that,
Speaker 1: and you know what we should take, what we should
Speaker 1: glean from that insight that he provided with the several
Speaker 1: quotes that he offered up. All right, I'm going to
Speaker 1: take a deep breath, and I'm going to pause for
Speaker 1: a second because I know Trevor McFadden from the days
Speaker 1: he was at the US Attorney's office. I was discouraged
Speaker 1: when I saw that he sat on some Trump litigation
Speaker 1: a couple of years ago for a period of time
Speaker 1: that was inexplicable, that was negligent in my view, and
Speaker 1: I began to have my questions even before, but certainly
Speaker 1: as a result of that Trump litigation. He did not
Speaker 1: seem to be handling in an expeditious manner. Now, when
Speaker 1: I hear his criticism, it reinforces the fact that, unfortunately,
Speaker 1: we are now left with asking the question who appointed
Speaker 1: that judge? And when we hear it's Donald Trump, and
Speaker 1: we know that Mitch McConnell crammed him and others down
Speaker 1: America's throat. And these people are extreme ideologues, many of them,
Speaker 1: many of them unqualified to serve according to the American
Speaker 1: Bar Association rating. I don't know if McFadden falls into
Speaker 1: that category. I don't believe he does. I don't think
Speaker 1: the ABA rated him unqualified. But I don't have confidence
Speaker 1: in Judge McFadden's fairness and independence. Unfortunately, but he's only
Speaker 1: one judge, and there are hundreds of Federal Court judges,
Speaker 1: and his view will be marginalized, It will be disregarded
Speaker 1: by the other judges, and it will stand out like
Speaker 1: a sore thumb as somebody who is out of the
Speaker 1: mainstream in dealing with insurrection cases. Because here's the thing, Daniel,
Speaker 1: there are so many cases. Every judge in federal court
Speaker 1: is carrying a healthy dose of insurrection cases. So I'm troubled,
Speaker 1: disappointed in McFadden. But I'm not surprised. Um, you did
Speaker 1: a very good job, Glenn. I tried to remain as professional.
Speaker 1: I don't know about what kind of imprints may be
Speaker 1: on your tongue right now from mightn it, but you
Speaker 1: did a very good job. So talk to us about
Speaker 1: the other federal judge who is judge is it? Is
Speaker 1: it Carter? David Carter? Carter, So David Carter, David Carter
Speaker 1: also has been making some news. Tell us about this
Speaker 1: because this is actually good news, and this is huge.
Speaker 1: And I think at first, blush, we may not have
Speaker 1: appreciated what Judge Carter found and ruled because we hear
Speaker 1: so much about Donald Trump's crimes. It's like, oh, look,
Speaker 1: another judge said, Donald Trump committed some crimes. Here's why
Speaker 1: this is so important. Now. First of all, this was
Speaker 1: in the context of treasonous lawyer John Eastman, who wrote
Speaker 1: a memo how to overturn Democracy for fun and profit,
Speaker 1: and then when he got caught, he said about his
Speaker 1: own memo, and you can't make this up. Anybody who
Speaker 1: took my memo seriously is quote crazy. So he was
Speaker 1: bad mouthing his own legal memo. Why, because that's consciousness
Speaker 1: of guilt because he got caught right, So then he
Speaker 1: wanted to hide all of his emails and other written
Speaker 1: communications from the J six Committee by claiming, oh no,
Speaker 1: they all enjoy attorney client privilege with Donald Trump. And
Speaker 1: he litigated that. And here's what federal judge in California,
Speaker 1: David Carter said. First of all, you lose on seven
Speaker 1: or eight different grounds your claim that these were protected
Speaker 1: and can't be turned over to the J six Committee.
Speaker 1: So turn them over. And one of the ways you
Speaker 1: lose is by the application of a little thing called
Speaker 1: the crime fraud exception. He found that there was, by
Speaker 1: a preponderance of the evidence. I'll talk about how important
Speaker 1: that is in a minute, by a preponderance of the
Speaker 1: evidence that Donald Trump committed the crimes of obstructing the
Speaker 1: official congressional preceding the vote certification. And he found, by
Speaker 1: a preponderance of the evidence that Donald Trump and John
Speaker 1: Eastman were in a conspiracy to commit offenses against the
Speaker 1: United States. Now, when I say he found that by
Speaker 1: a preponderance of the evidence, there are whole lots of
Speaker 1: different evidentiary standards in the law, both civil and criminal.
Speaker 1: A preponderance is simply more likely than not fifty one
Speaker 1: that's the standard that applies to civil trials. A jury
Speaker 1: has to decide by fifty one percent whether the defendant
Speaker 1: wins or whether the plaintiff wins. Right, But in criminal trials,
Speaker 1: we all know that to hold to convict somebody, you
Speaker 1: need proof beyond a reasonable doubt. That the granddaddy of
Speaker 1: all burdens of proof, a very high standard. But here's
Speaker 1: the thing. Judge Carter found that Donald Trump committed these
Speaker 1: crimes by a preponderance of the evidence fifty one percent
Speaker 1: more likely than not. The evidentiary standard, Danielle to indict
Speaker 1: somebody for a crime is probable cause significantly below the
Speaker 1: evidentiary standard that Judge Carter concluded was already met a
Speaker 1: higher burden showing that Donald Trump committed crimes. So you
Speaker 1: know when I saw that, like j you've got a
Speaker 1: federal judge who said you have more than enough evidence
Speaker 1: to indict Donald Trump for these crimes. And Danielle, what
Speaker 1: did we get out of DJ? Like the next day
Speaker 1: we got leaks that they've expanded their criminal investigation in
Speaker 1: all these ways. I don't believe for a minute that
Speaker 1: was a leak. I think that was what I would
Speaker 1: call a covert press release. They let that they let
Speaker 1: that come out because of the public clamor when a
Speaker 1: federal judge has already concluded that there's more than enough
Speaker 1: evidence to charge Donald Trump with a crime. So let
Speaker 1: me ask you this, because I am a cynic and
Speaker 1: everybody knows that, and I also understand pr and communications
Speaker 1: because that's part of the work that I do. How
Speaker 1: likely is it that this, you know, covert press release
Speaker 1: on the part of the Department of Justice is just
Speaker 1: to keep the peanut gallery happy enough, but it is
Speaker 1: the perception of their being work done, but actual work,
Speaker 1: actual indictments, we won't see. So what is the likelihood
Speaker 1: that me, as a deep cynic, am wrong and that
Speaker 1: we wouldn't hear or see any type of leak if
Speaker 1: they weren't actually committed to seeing this through as opposed
Speaker 1: to providing just crumbs to the public to shut us
Speaker 1: all up. Yeah, so you're the cynic and I'm the
Speaker 1: Pollyanna naive. One who shouldn't be naive after thirty years
Speaker 1: is a fed But I don't think this was a
Speaker 1: disinformation campaign by the Department of Justice, particularly because they
Speaker 1: said the reporting was for more than two months. They've
Speaker 1: they've been subpoenaing, using the grand jury subpoena power as
Speaker 1: part of a criminal investigation to get evidence from former
Speaker 1: officials Donald Trump's orbit. You can you know, listen if
Speaker 1: it was like we're hard at work and we're expanding
Speaker 1: our criminal probe, that's one thing. Boy, These were concrete
Speaker 1: details about investigative steps that have been taken. I don't
Speaker 1: think that's disinformation. Okay, So here we are now we
Speaker 1: have it activated Department of Justice. Right, the Department of
Speaker 1: Justice has woken up from its year plus slumber with
Speaker 1: regard to the insurrection Donald Trump is. We can assume
Speaker 1: that when we say Trump's orbit, donald Trump himself is
Speaker 1: being investigated. Right. Judge Carter says, oh my god, Like
Speaker 1: there is more than enough information to go through. Here.
Speaker 1: We have the House Select Committee that has now asked
Speaker 1: for subpoenas for Ivanka Trump, for Jenny Thomas, who I
Speaker 1: want to get to next, and for others. If I
Speaker 1: am in Donald Trump's circle, what am I feeling right
Speaker 1: now after this week? Yeah, pressure bursts pipes. So they're
Speaker 1: coming for Donald Trump's closest criminal associates, which may end
Speaker 1: up being his family members as well, and they are
Speaker 1: coming for Trump. I believe that everything we're learning puts
Speaker 1: the truth to what Garland and Monco number two Lisa
Speaker 1: Monico in the Department of Justice have been saying over
Speaker 1: and over, and they feel like it's all they can say,
Speaker 1: which is that we are going after everybody who committed
Speaker 1: crimes at any level of government. They keep saying that
Speaker 1: over and over, but we haven't seen any evidence of it.
Speaker 1: So we are skeptical at best, disbelieving at worst. I
Speaker 1: think we are now finding reasons to believe them. Here's
Speaker 1: the one concern I continue to have. I always compare
Speaker 1: the Department of Justice to a big, old steamer ship.
Speaker 1: It takes a very long time to gain steam and
Speaker 1: momentum and begin moving in the direction of accountability. And
Speaker 1: they're investigating this enormous criminal conspiracy, the biggest ever in
Speaker 1: the history of our nation, and a conspiracy designed to
Speaker 1: end our democracy in the way they would traditionally investigate
Speaker 1: these enormous cases. And what I don't think they appreciate
Speaker 1: is the urgency of the moment, with public safety at
Speaker 1: risk and our democracy hanging in the ballots, which to
Speaker 1: me suggests that maybe you should consider being on a
Speaker 1: more accelerated track than you ordinarily would, because there's nothing
Speaker 1: ordinary about this series of crimes. Got it okay? So
Speaker 1: the Thomas is right. The only celebrity couple that should
Speaker 1: have been in the news for the last week plus
Speaker 1: should have been Clarence and Jenny Thomas. To remind folks,
Speaker 1: it was discovered visa Viann interview that Jenny Thomas gave
Speaker 1: that she was in fact at the precursor to the insurrection,
Speaker 1: which was the stop the Steel rally on the Ellipses
Speaker 1: on January six. Then she went home because it was
Speaker 1: too cold out, because that's Jenny Thomas's version of I
Speaker 1: didn't inhale, but go ahead, right, So she she goes home,
Speaker 1: but then when she's home, she decides to die a
Speaker 1: up Mark Meadows multiple times, apparently right on January six,
Speaker 1: insurrection is happening. We have seven hours plus of phone
Speaker 1: log records from the White House missing Glenn. So we've
Speaker 1: accelerated from eighteen minutes in the age of Nixon to
Speaker 1: an entire work day for Donald Trump to an entire
Speaker 1: normal American work day is missing. But we know that
Speaker 1: Jenny Thomas was on the horn to Mark Meadows, and
Speaker 1: that Clarence Thomas was the loan dissenter, the loan dissenter
Speaker 1: in providing the House Select Committee with access to the
Speaker 1: phone logs because he said, Clarence Thomas, it was unnecessary.
Speaker 1: Make this make sense that these people are not being investigated,
Speaker 1: that they are still being politely asked. Jenny Thomas is
Speaker 1: being politely asked to come and sit before the Select Committee,
Speaker 1: and we don't have a bust open investigation and looking
Speaker 1: at her phone records and Clarence Thomas phone records and
Speaker 1: their financial records as it pertains to one six. Yeah,
Speaker 1: this is some of the sort of deepest and most
Speaker 1: troubling form of corruption and it really begins to make
Speaker 1: us look like a banana republic. And you know, the
Speaker 1: facts as we know them involve Jenny Thomas badgering, pressuring,
Speaker 1: not that the pressure was not welcome, but pressuring Mark Meadows,
Speaker 1: the chief of staff of the President of the United States,
Speaker 1: pressuring him to unconstitutionally overturn the results of a free
Speaker 1: and fair presidential election, telling Mark Meadows to completely run
Speaker 1: rough shot over the expressed views of the American voters.
Speaker 1: And she did it. When you read some of her
Speaker 1: texts she did it from a complete platform of lies.
Speaker 1: One of the texts said, Mark, there are ballot fraudsters
Speaker 1: right now being detained on barges off of Gitmo, preparing
Speaker 1: to be tried by military terry tribunals for sedition. You
Speaker 1: must and I'm going to take liberties with The message
Speaker 1: was so you must overturn the elections results. That's not
Speaker 1: just Q and on nonsense. Those are flat out provable lies.
Speaker 1: So what does that provide? It provides corrupt intent for
Speaker 1: Jinny Thomas, which makes her Danielle a spoke in the
Speaker 1: wheel of the hubb and Spoke conspiracy. That is, the
Speaker 1: conspiracy to overturn the election. So this is nothing to
Speaker 1: play with now, people, Oh, it's this wife of a
Speaker 1: sitting Supreme Court justice. So that's the third rail. We
Speaker 1: can't grab hold of it. Well, there seemed to be
Speaker 1: a lot of third rails and not a lot of
Speaker 1: trains rolling down the tracks. She should be subpoenaed like
Speaker 1: any mere mortal by the J six Committee. She should
Speaker 1: be investigated criminally by the Department of Justice because she
Speaker 1: is yet another, if not high government official, the spouse
Speaker 1: of one of the highest government officials in our land,
Speaker 1: Clarence Thomas, who is not only pressuring the White House
Speaker 1: to criminally overturn the election, but who says in her text,
Speaker 1: and I'm talking to my best friend about this. She
Speaker 1: always uses the term best friend to describe her husband. Now,
Speaker 1: what does Clarence Thomas do with this? Oh, dear Clarence.
Speaker 1: Now listen, we are not our spouse's keeper, right, We
Speaker 1: are not necessarily accountable for everything our spouse chooses to
Speaker 1: say or do so. But because she says I'm talking
Speaker 1: to him about these things, mind you, Danielle, At the
Speaker 1: same time Donald Trump is saying I'm going to take
Speaker 1: the election fight to the Supreme Court, then a case
Speaker 1: comes up for review whether Jenny Thomas's text messages, which
Speaker 1: are part of the information that the National Archives has,
Speaker 1: because Jinny and Mark Meadows are going hot and heavy
Speaker 1: in the text exchange about overturning the election results, and
Speaker 1: let me just add a footnote. When she throws all
Speaker 1: that bs into the mix about why they should overturn
Speaker 1: the election results because people are being detained on barges
Speaker 1: outside of Gitmo, Mark Meadows doesn't say, miss Thomas, that's
Speaker 1: you're that's true that I feel your pain. But that's
Speaker 1: not a good reason. He just feeds into it and
Speaker 1: accepts it, right the chief of staff. So now the
Speaker 1: Supreme Court has asked whether Donald Trump should get to
Speaker 1: hide all of those text messages from the J six
Speaker 1: Committee and from the public by extension, or whether they
Speaker 1: should all be turned over and revealed Thomas's wife's text messages.
Speaker 1: Thomas absolutely has a conflict, a direct textbook conflict. He
Speaker 1: cannot sit in judgment over a case involving his wife's
Speaker 1: incriminating text messages, so he must recuse himself. But he doesn't,
Speaker 1: and so that shows the Supreme Court cannot be trusted
Speaker 1: to police itself. So then not only does he refuse
Speaker 1: to remove himself from the case, as any first year
Speaker 1: law student would tell you, is mandatory for an ethical judge,
Speaker 1: he's the only of the nine justices who votes in
Speaker 1: favor of taking that case, so inferentially he can bury
Speaker 1: his wife's incriminating text messages. This is Banana Republic territory.
Speaker 1: When you have a Supreme Court justice acting in a
Speaker 1: case involving incriminating information about his wife, communicating it to
Speaker 1: the White House in a case that the White House
Speaker 1: says we're gonna take up to the Supreme Court. This
Speaker 1: is banana. Banana Republic's laugh at us. They're like, we
Speaker 1: may be corrupt, but at least we ate the United States.
Speaker 1: I mean, my god, Glenn, you do not need a
Speaker 1: law degree to understand the corruption that is running. When
Speaker 1: they say there is something rotten in the state of Denmark,
Speaker 1: they are talking about the US Supreme Court that is
Speaker 1: supposed to be beyond reproach. And so given all of
Speaker 1: this that we know, I am outdone by the silence
Speaker 1: from Democrats. There are only a handful that are saying
Speaker 1: that we need to be having an investigation into this.
Speaker 1: Chuck Schumer got up on a pressor and said, oh, well,
Speaker 1: you know, there should be some type of ethics rules
Speaker 1: for the Supreme Court. And I'm saying, some type of
Speaker 1: ethics rules, you'll put them in. Declarence Thomas is about
Speaker 1: to overturn Roe v. Wade. You have all of these things,
Speaker 1: these major cases that are coming up that are going
Speaker 1: to affect the day to day lives of the American people,
Speaker 1: and we know that this man is corrupt. I just
Speaker 1: I mean, if we had people in power who had sense, Glenn,
Speaker 1: what would be the natural order that we would be
Speaker 1: taking once information, blockbuster bombshell information like this came to light,
Speaker 1: anybody who cares about the legitimacy, the credibility of the
Speaker 1: Supreme Court would conclude there has to be the opening
Speaker 1: of an impeachment inquiry by the Judiciary committee, whether House
Speaker 1: or Senate. I don't pretend to know the sort of
Speaker 1: little jurisdictional breakdown who takes the lead on what judiciary issues.
Speaker 1: There needs to be an impeachment inquiry of Justice Clarence Thomas.
Speaker 1: I mean, I am. I got to tell you, and
Speaker 1: I wrote a piece, you know, talking about how I
Speaker 1: believe that mainstream media is complicit in all of this
Speaker 1: because it's not front page news, it is not a
Speaker 1: one above the fold. And I'm telling you we were,
Speaker 1: you know, back in Nixon days. We're talking about missing
Speaker 1: eighteen minutes. We have ours, we have text messages, we
Speaker 1: have spouses of sitting Supreme Court justice attending the precursor
Speaker 1: to a violent attempt to overthrow the government. I don't
Speaker 1: understand how there is not an alarm that is ringing
Speaker 1: and a sense of urgency that is beyond anything that
Speaker 1: we have ever seen activated, right now in our Congress,
Speaker 1: in our White House, I honestly don't get it, and
Speaker 1: it can't be just oh well, we have fear if
Speaker 1: what if the case, you know, the case isn't made.
Speaker 1: I'm like, if you're not making the case to the
Speaker 1: American public at this point on these issues, how were
Speaker 1: they to be trusted? Oh, Glenn Well, I thank you
Speaker 1: so much for taking the time to join us and
Speaker 1: run through. I mean, I'm happy, for the first time
Speaker 1: we have good ish news, and I'm hoping that in
Speaker 1: the coming weeks that we will uncover more that the
Speaker 1: Department of Justice has been doing and get more insight
Speaker 1: into who is being targeted within Trump's orbit and who
Speaker 1: they have subpoena because my hope is that we will
Speaker 1: see something before we head to midterms in but a
Speaker 1: handful of months. Yeah, I feel like the accountability snowball
Speaker 1: is beginning to gather some mass and some momentum, and
Speaker 1: I think it's moving in the right direction. And even
Speaker 1: DJ has apparently had enough and I think is beginning
Speaker 1: to send signals that listen. I know y'all say every
Speaker 1: day we're not doing anything. We are. We've been, in fact,
Speaker 1: using the Grand Jury to criminally investigate. Nobody's known about
Speaker 1: it because we're not supposed to tell anybody about it.
Speaker 1: But we are moving, still too slowly, but at least
Speaker 1: I think we can credit that they're moving. Yeah, I
Speaker 1: appreciate you, Gonn. We will pick this up again next week.
Speaker 1: Will happen. That is it for me here, Friends, as always,
Speaker 1: Power to the people and to all the people. Power,
Speaker 1: get woke and stay woke as fuck.