Speaker 1: Good morning, peeps, and welcome to Will Kate f Daily
Speaker 1: with Meet your Girl Daniel Moody pre recording from the
Speaker 1: Home Bunker, Folks. In today's conversation, I bring on one
Speaker 1: of my faves and longtime analysts that we go to
Speaker 1: every time there is a legal web to unravel, and
Speaker 1: that is Glenn Kirshner. And in today's conversation, Glenn and
Speaker 1: I look at what happened in twenty twenty three as
Speaker 1: it pertains to ninety one charges for indictments across multiple
Speaker 1: jurisdictions for Donald Trump. We talk about, you know, the
Speaker 1: latest news around Rudy Giuliani being forced to pay nearly
Speaker 1: one hundred and fifty million dollars to the two the
Speaker 1: mother and daughter, Ruby Freeman and Shay Moss that he
Speaker 1: defamed and whose lives he destroyed. We talk about what
Speaker 1: we think this unelected body, the black robes of the
Speaker 1: Supreme Court will do now that Jack Smith has kicked
Speaker 1: up a question to them, which is can former presidents
Speaker 1: be prosecuted or are they above the law? And Glenn
Speaker 1: gives us his thoughts about whether or not he thinks
Speaker 1: that the Supreme Court will rule in favor of democracy.
Speaker 1: Or not, but what this setup is going to look
Speaker 1: like for us in twenty twenty four, Make no mistake, folks,
Speaker 1: everything is on the fucking line. And I keep trying
Speaker 1: to get people to see that, to understand that, to
Speaker 1: wrap their minds around it, because we don't get another
Speaker 1: bite at this apple. Donald Trump gets in and he
Speaker 1: is telling you he's going to be a dictator. On
Speaker 1: day one. His a sycophants are telling you that they
Speaker 1: want people burned at the steak who are dissenters, that
Speaker 1: they're coming for everyone and everything, and they will bankrupt
Speaker 1: this society in order to seek their revenge. And no one,
Speaker 1: no one will be fucking safe. And so I think
Speaker 1: that it's really important for us not to be placing
Speaker 1: all of our bets on the fact that these legal
Speaker 1: cases will transpire and somehow Donald Trump will find himself
Speaker 1: in a jumpsuit before he finds himself back in the
Speaker 1: Oval Office. The decision on whether or not he makes
Speaker 1: it back inside the Oval Office is going to depend
Speaker 1: on all of us deciding that we are choosing democracy,
Speaker 1: not a person, not between Biden and Trump, but between
Speaker 1: our freedom and our annihilation as a country of laws
Speaker 1: that conversation with our friend Glenn Kirshner is coming up next, Folks.
Speaker 1: I am so excited to welcome back to WOKF Daily
Speaker 1: our friend, the host of Justice Matters MSNBC legal analyst
Speaker 1: Glenn Kirshner, to kind of round out twenty twenty three
Speaker 1: for us and shape the crystal ball and look into
Speaker 1: twenty twenty fourd's legal news. Glenn, I don't know that
Speaker 1: when you went to law school, when you were even
Speaker 1: a federal prosecutor, if you would imagine that your degree
Speaker 1: would be as worked at as it has been in
Speaker 1: twenty twenty three. I mean, the legal news. Your neck
Speaker 1: looks good, but I'm assuming that your head has been
Speaker 1: on a swivel for twelve plus months. Just give us
Speaker 1: like an overview and your impression of the legal drama
Speaker 1: that is played out in so many ways around Donald
Speaker 1: Trump in this country and what has like stood out
Speaker 1: for you.
Speaker 2: Yeah, Danielle, after retiring, I did thirty years as a
Speaker 2: federal prosecutor. I never thought my retirement would involve discussing
Speaker 2: what we're going to do about a presidential candidate who
Speaker 2: is the leading candidate for the Republican nomination, declaring that
Speaker 2: he will be a dictator on day one. That was
Speaker 2: not on my bingo card. So where we are at
Speaker 2: the moment, let me not bury the lead. I think
Speaker 2: twenty twenty four is do or die for democracy, plain
Speaker 2: and simple. In other times that would sound like hyperbolic nonsense.
Speaker 2: I think it's due or die time for democracy. So
Speaker 2: on the legal front, you know, we can look back
Speaker 2: at twenty twenty three as the year of becoming accountability,
Speaker 2: because accountability is not here. But you know, it ain't
Speaker 2: nothing that We've got this big orange mob boss, right,
Speaker 2: the biggest orange criminal blowfish in the ocean, indicted in
Speaker 2: four felony cases too federal and to state. That's a
Speaker 2: really good start. That is at least getting after Donald
Speaker 2: Trump for some of the crimes he committed against we
Speaker 2: the people, the people of New York, the people of Georgia.
Speaker 2: But you know, the ending is as of yet unwritten.
Speaker 2: We don't know where things are gonna go. We don't
Speaker 2: know if he's actually gonna be held accountable. I mean,
Speaker 2: there is potentially a Supreme Court hurdle that we the
Speaker 2: people will have to overcome if we're gonna hold Donald
Speaker 2: Trump accountable for his crimes. There are jury trials. Jurors
Speaker 2: will have to sit in that wooden box as the
Speaker 2: conscience of the community, and here the mountainous evidence of
Speaker 2: Donald Trump's guilt, and they will have to conclude beyond
Speaker 2: a reasonable doubt that he committed those crimes and find
Speaker 2: him guilty. So, you know, we are far from home.
Speaker 2: But I do think twenty twenty three was the year
Speaker 2: of becoming accountability and twenty twenty four is do or
Speaker 2: die time. So you know where we are at the moment.
Speaker 2: We are kind of in this holding pattern because we
Speaker 2: know that. You know, let's focus on the case with
Speaker 2: the most imminent trial date, the DC four count indictment
Speaker 2: for Donald Trump trying to overturn the results of the
Speaker 2: presidential election being presided over by Judge Tanya Chutkin, and
Speaker 2: there's a March fourth trial date. Now, that trial date
Speaker 2: may or may not hold because there are there's what
Speaker 2: I call a legal belt d suspenders approach going on
Speaker 2: to the issue of whether Donald Trump can ever be
Speaker 2: prosecuted for his crimes. The reason I say it's belt
Speaker 2: and suspenders the issue of whether a president is absolutely
Speaker 2: immune against prosecution for all the crimes he commits while
Speaker 2: in office. That issue is sitting right now in the
Speaker 2: DC Federal Circuit Court of Appeals because Donald Trump appealed
Speaker 2: Judge Chutkin's ruling that Trump ain't king and he can
Speaker 2: be prosecuted, and it is also sitting at the Supreme
Speaker 2: Court sort of. And here's why I say sort of.
Speaker 2: Jack Smith did two things. Once Judge Chuckkins ruled that
Speaker 2: Trump can be prosecuted and Trump appealed, he filed emotion
Speaker 2: for an expedited appeal with the DC Federal Circuit Court
Speaker 2: of Appeals, and they instantly granted it. And that thing
Speaker 2: is on a very fast track. All briefs on that
Speaker 2: issue are due January second, and I can only imagine
Speaker 2: we're going to have an oral argument on January third,
Speaker 2: or very soon after all of the briefs are in.
Speaker 2: It may take a few days or a week or two,
Speaker 2: but it will be quick. Simultaneously, Jack Smith asked the
Speaker 2: Supreme Court to take up the issue immediately to leap
Speaker 2: frog over the appellate court. These two things aren't inconsistent
Speaker 2: because Jack Smith doesn't know which court might exercise jurisdiction,
Speaker 2: so he's going with the Belton suspenders just to get
Speaker 2: this issue resolved quickly, So you know, we have to
Speaker 2: sit here and wonder and gameplay about whether the Supreme
Speaker 2: Court will grab hold of this case or whether they
Speaker 2: will wait for it to run its usual course, albeit
Speaker 2: on an expedited tract, through the Appellate Court in DC,
Speaker 2: and then grab hold of the case.
Speaker 1: This was great explanation. And I have some follow up,
Speaker 1: which is this this Supreme Court, I mean, my god,
Speaker 1: I can't say enough terrible things about the grifting of
Speaker 1: Clarence Thomas, the just I mean abhorrent behavior in the
Speaker 1: overturning of precedent. This Supreme Court will probably go down
Speaker 1: if we still have history books, as one of the worst.
Speaker 1: Three of them were appointed by Donald Trump. Gorsic Kavanaugh
Speaker 1: can So I'm looking at this and I'm saying to
Speaker 1: my Barrett, excuse me. And I'm looking at this and
Speaker 1: I'm saying, do we already know, Glenn, how this is
Speaker 1: going to play out? What are your beliefs and your
Speaker 1: hopes that we have justices who are appointed by Trump
Speaker 1: who are going to actually rule as if they were
Speaker 1: regular justices that were listening to cases.
Speaker 2: You know, I have very little confidence in the Supreme Court.
Speaker 2: As you say, not only have they been grifting, but
Speaker 2: they have enjoyed their status of being above the law.
Speaker 2: They have enjoyed operating under no mandatory rules of ethics.
Speaker 2: When Congress begged and pleaded and the American people begged
Speaker 2: and pleaded with them to please promulgate a code of
Speaker 2: ethics that applies to Supreme Court justices, what they gave
Speaker 2: us was a pamphlet of suggestions. It says the Supreme
Speaker 2: Court justices shouldn't act unethically, but they can. They can
Speaker 2: because the Code of conducts doesn't say they shall not
Speaker 2: act unethically, just says they shouldn't. These are suggestions, right,
Speaker 2: and there's no enforcement mechanism, and there's no punishment if
Speaker 2: they act unethically. One thing I'm confident in is that
Speaker 2: the Supreme Court loves being above the law, which is
Speaker 2: ironic because they're actually the last stop for a government
Speaker 2: institution to interpret the law and the constitution. But they
Speaker 2: consistently put themselves above the law. Here is why I
Speaker 2: am completely confident they will rule that a president can
Speaker 2: be prosecuted. A president is not a king. They can
Speaker 2: rule that way for one of two reasons, the right reason,
Speaker 2: for the wrong reason. The right reason that there is
Speaker 2: absolutely not one shred of support. There are three sources
Speaker 2: of law, statutes, case law that's precedent from an appellate court,
Speaker 2: and the Constitution. There is not one shred of support
Speaker 2: in any of those three sources of law that a
Speaker 2: president can't be prosecuted for his crimes. So they can
Speaker 2: get it right for the right reason. I will drop
Speaker 2: as a footnote that Kavanaugh wrote a paper twenty five
Speaker 2: years ago saying a president can be prosecuted once he
Speaker 2: leaves office. Not that consistency is a thing for these justices.
Speaker 2: We saw it in the Roe v. Wade arena when
Speaker 2: they promised us in their confirmation hearings that Roe had
Speaker 2: nothing to worry about from them, and then they overturned it.
Speaker 2: So consistency is not really their strong suit. But they
Speaker 2: can do it for the right reason, or they can
Speaker 2: do it for the wrong reason. The wrong reason is
Speaker 2: if they rule that a president is king above the law,
Speaker 2: can commit all the crimes he wants in office and
Speaker 2: can never be touched for them, then that will be
Speaker 2: putting the Supreme Court out of business. Because Donald Trump,
Speaker 2: aspiring dictator that he is, will come in he can
Speaker 2: literally order the Supreme Court justices summarily confined without charges.
Speaker 2: That would be a crime, but he can't be prosecuted
Speaker 2: for it. And if you tell Donald Trump he can
Speaker 2: do whatever he wants without the risk of prosecution, we
Speaker 2: know what Donald Trump will do. So because they love
Speaker 2: their supreme status, because they don't want to put a
Speaker 2: dictator in the oval office and announce he's above the
Speaker 2: law and can cut the legs out from under the
Speaker 2: Supreme Court, they will do for the wrong reason self preservation. Right.
Speaker 2: They may say, oh, oh, he's not king. He can't
Speaker 2: invite us all out onto Fifth Avenue and shoot us.
Speaker 2: He can't do it. Right, So, one way or another,
Speaker 2: for the right reason or the wrong reason, they're going
Speaker 2: to rule, in my opinion, that a president can be
Speaker 2: prosecuted for his crimes.
Speaker 1: Okay, so let's say right or wrong reason. They rule
Speaker 1: the way that they should, which is to say that
Speaker 1: no president is above the law, even though they themselves
Speaker 1: are the unelected black cloaks. What happens then with this
Speaker 1: Jack Smith case. We're looking at the documents case, we're
Speaker 1: looking at the insurrection case. Let's look at his two
Speaker 1: cases before we go down south.
Speaker 2: So what happens is the Supreme Court can decide this
Speaker 2: issue quickly or slowly. If they decided quickly, we should
Speaker 2: be in jury selection beginning on March fourth in Washington,
Speaker 2: DC for Dom Trump's election busting crimes democracy busting crimes.
Speaker 2: That is entirely up to the whim of the Supreme
Speaker 2: Court justices whether they want to act quickly or slowly.
Speaker 2: I still don't think. You know, listen, if they wanted
Speaker 2: to install Donald Trump back into the White House, give
Speaker 2: him the reins of power again, they could have done
Speaker 2: it in the election challenge cases, you know, a couple
Speaker 2: of years ago, and they didn't because they don't want
Speaker 2: a dictator in the Oval office because that puts them
Speaker 2: out of business. So, but we don't know how quickly
Speaker 2: they will resolve it. I think they'll do it quickly
Speaker 2: because I actually think they want to be rid of
Speaker 2: Donald Trump. I really do. They want to get back
Speaker 2: to a good, old, reliable Republican president that they're hoping
Speaker 2: for so they can keep the grift and the money
Speaker 2: flowing into their coffers without having a code of ethics
Speaker 2: that they're bound by. What does it do to the
Speaker 2: judge canon case? That's an interesting question. Let's assume Supreme
Speaker 2: Court acts quickly. They ruled it a president isn't king.
Speaker 2: Before I finish the thought, you know, if they rule
Speaker 2: that a president is king, Joe Biden doesn't have to
Speaker 2: leave the presidency.
Speaker 1: So this is what I You know, I was gonna
Speaker 1: wait right, and I was just like. And also the
Speaker 1: bullshit impeachment inquiry that they opened in the House, which
Speaker 1: we still don't know what the basis for that is,
Speaker 1: because they haven't told anybody that Republicans have done in
Speaker 1: the House is null and void because then a president
Speaker 1: is above the law, which is what it is that
Speaker 1: you've wanted all along. So it actually does not work
Speaker 1: in their favor. But I don't know if they think
Speaker 1: five steps ahead when it comes to Donald Trump.
Speaker 2: No, if Trump gets to commit crimes with impunity while
Speaker 2: in office, so does Joe Biden and every other president. Now,
Speaker 2: I think we all have a sense that Joe Biden
Speaker 2: wouldn't but he would be given permission by the Supreme
Speaker 2: Court to do it. So correct, there's a philosophical question
Speaker 2: there that I even I hesitate to articulate. I mean,
Speaker 2: if you know you're going to have a benevolent dictator
Speaker 2: or an evil dictator, and you have to pick a
Speaker 2: dictator because they're all above the law in the Supreme
Speaker 2: Court's opinion, who do you pick? Okay, philosophical discussion for
Speaker 2: another day. So, but here's what is interesting about the documents,
Speaker 2: and I don't I never just call it a documents case.
Speaker 2: In Florida, the Judge Cannon is presiding over because it's
Speaker 2: a document substruction of justice, espionage case. Those are the
Speaker 2: charges against him. Because that has a May twentieth trial date.
Speaker 2: If the DC trial starts on March fourth, it's going
Speaker 2: to go for probably six weeks, maybe a little longer,
Speaker 2: and it will bump right up very close to the
Speaker 2: May twenty trial date in Florida. Under those circumstances, I
Speaker 2: have every reason to believe the May twenty trial date
Speaker 2: will be vacated and will be pushed down the road.
Speaker 2: In fact, Danielle, on March first, three days before the
Speaker 2: trial in DC is scheduled to kick off, Judge Cannon
Speaker 2: has invited everybody down, prosecutors and the defense attorneys, for
Speaker 2: what's called the scheduling conference. What that means is if
Speaker 2: on March fourth, when they're all down in that courtroom
Speaker 2: in Florida. They know that three days later the trial
Speaker 2: in DC will begin. At that point, I can all
Speaker 2: but promise Judge Cannon will vacate, that is, cancel the
Speaker 2: May twenty trial date in Florida, and they'll be picking
Speaker 2: a new date well down the road. Because it actually
Speaker 2: is unfair in my experience, to make a defense team
Speaker 2: spend two months in trial in the highest profile case
Speaker 2: in our nation's history, only to immediately go into another
Speaker 2: lengthy trial that is also one of the highest profile
Speaker 2: prosecutions in our nation's history. People do need to breather,
Speaker 2: they need time to prepare. I get all that, so
Speaker 2: I don't think you're going to see these trials go
Speaker 2: back to back.
Speaker 1: And I'm also like, I don't care, don't work for
Speaker 1: a criminal. Let's put a pin in Jacksmith. Now that
Speaker 1: we have some kind of murky understanding of where things
Speaker 1: could go, it looks like arch depending all on the
Speaker 1: Supremes and what it is that they decide to do
Speaker 1: with the question of can a president be above the law?
Speaker 1: And I think to all of the points that you made,
Speaker 1: I think that the decision is going to come to
Speaker 1: self preservation. I do not think that they are going
Speaker 1: to rule because you know, they care one way or
Speaker 1: the other about the country or dictatorship. They care about
Speaker 1: it so much as they care about their own skin.
Speaker 1: So that's in one space. I want to move now
Speaker 1: to the ruling that we all saw out of Georgia
Speaker 1: with regard to Juliani. And so Rudy Giuliani was found
Speaker 1: absolutely and we knew this libel for the character destruction
Speaker 1: that he did on Shay Moss and Ruby Freeman. This
Speaker 1: decision that came out of the Georgia courts was about
Speaker 1: how much money he would need to pay to make amends,
Speaker 1: and it has come out Glenn too close to one
Speaker 1: hundred and fifty million dollars. Now we know there's going
Speaker 1: to be appeal, appeal, appeal, appeal. How does this decision
Speaker 1: land with you? And how do you think that it
Speaker 1: plays into the other case that Rudy Giuliani is a
Speaker 1: part of, which is the larger Rico case that that
Speaker 1: we have Fannie Willis has in Georgia playing out.
Speaker 2: You know, it lands pretty well with me in theory.
Speaker 2: I think one hundred and fifty million dollars in both
Speaker 2: compensatory damages for the harm he did to Shay Moths
Speaker 2: and Ruby Freeman, and seventy five million of that is
Speaker 2: impunitive damages to punish him, to send the message anybody
Speaker 2: else looking to lie about, defame and call all sorts
Speaker 2: of racist names and endanger the lives of our election workers,
Speaker 2: you can expect the same fate. Rudy Giuliani will die penniless.
Speaker 2: Now he may die penniless trying to hide whatever assets
Speaker 2: he can try to hide. But there are lots of
Speaker 2: vehicles in the law. Listen, what we always say is
Speaker 2: half the battle is winning a money award like this
Speaker 2: a civil judgment. The other half is collecting it, Okay,
Speaker 2: but there are also you can attach property, you can
Speaker 2: put leans on homes, you can garnish wages, you can
Speaker 2: do all sorts of stuff to get after Rudy Giuliani's money.
Speaker 2: But I think the signal it sends. And I was
Speaker 2: sitting in the courtroom in DC watching some of the
Speaker 2: closing arguments, watching Rudy Giuliani sit there, not fifteen feet
Speaker 2: away from the women he lied about defamed. Who's lie
Speaker 2: he put in danger people saying sending messages. This is
Speaker 2: right after he launched his lies about them. Saying we
Speaker 2: want to see you hanging from a tree in your
Speaker 2: front yard, and we want to be so close, we
Speaker 2: want to hear your next snap. And the horrific circumstances
Speaker 2: that Shay's fourteen year old son had to go through.
Speaker 2: I mean, you know, there are no words for how
Speaker 2: disgusting this is. Ye, So I think it sends a
Speaker 2: message you're looking to mess with our election workers, the
Speaker 2: good people who are working the polls, trying to promote
Speaker 2: free and fair elections. Yeah, you got real trouble coming
Speaker 2: your way. And I look at this in conjunction with
Speaker 2: the fact that three states have now criminally charged fake electors.
Speaker 2: Yeah right, so and Wisconsin brought a suit and successfully
Speaker 2: sued the fake electors. So accountability is spreading, and the
Speaker 2: message should be spreading that you want to play this way. Oh,
Speaker 2: you're going to pay. You're going to pay, even if
Speaker 2: it takes a long time, You're gonna pay. Hopefully that
Speaker 2: deter that message of deterrence, both civilly and criminally is spreading.
Speaker 1: So you know, as we close out and you we
Speaker 1: are now looking at twenty twenty four, we have four
Speaker 1: cases ninety one charges an election coming up. Caucuses all
Speaker 1: of these things are happening at the same time. Glenn,
Speaker 1: I'm asking you to take it out and dust it
Speaker 1: off your crystal ball. Do these trials impact the election?
Speaker 1: Will any one of them be decided by October, you know,
Speaker 1: November twenty twenty four.
Speaker 2: I think the answer is yes. They at least one
Speaker 2: of the criminal cases will come to fruition with a
Speaker 2: verdict and a sentencing before November twenty twenty four. I
Speaker 2: think the most likely candidate is the DC trials, scheduled
Speaker 2: to begin on March four. Really, we are at the
Speaker 2: whim of the timing of the Supreme Court resolving this
Speaker 2: absolute immunity claim. But even if they take a month
Speaker 2: or two to decide it and that pushes the trial
Speaker 2: day till let's say June, it can still be tried
Speaker 2: and resolved well in advance of the November election. So
Speaker 2: I'm guardedly optimistic that we will get a jury verdict,
Speaker 2: a guilty verdict, a sentence to incarceration. I also happen
Speaker 2: to believe Judge chuck In will order him remanded to
Speaker 2: the Federal Bureau of Prisons. I don't think she will
Speaker 2: leave him on release pending appeal, because that is not
Speaker 2: the norm. When somebody is convicted of crimes, and these
Speaker 2: are democracy busting crimes, they are to report to prison,
Speaker 2: begins serving their term, and then they can take as
Speaker 2: long as they want to appeal conviction. So I think
Speaker 2: one of the cases will at least come to fruition.
Speaker 2: Will it impact the elections, that's anybody's guests, because sadly,
Speaker 2: you can be a convicted felon and run for president.
Speaker 2: You can be an imprisoned felon and run for and
Speaker 2: be elected to the presidency, which is probably something we
Speaker 2: ought to try to take up and the future, but
Speaker 2: that is the reality. So will it hurt Trump's numbers
Speaker 2: enough to finally get him out of the game of
Speaker 2: trying to kill our democracy? That I don't know. I
Speaker 2: forever am believing that at some point the Republican Party
Speaker 2: will stop slicing themselves up with a thousand cuts by
Speaker 2: continuing to support him, because they're going to do the
Speaker 2: party in if they continue down that road. It feels
Speaker 2: like the Republican Party is circling the drain as we
Speaker 2: speak now. At some point, don't you have to turn
Speaker 2: away from a convicted, imprisoned felon who's serving life. I
Speaker 2: would think so if you care about preserving and rebuilding
Speaker 2: your political party. But what do I know?
Speaker 1: I know, and that is just the sickest thing that
Speaker 1: I think I have heard that you know, I don't
Speaker 1: see them turning away. I see them turning Donald Trump
Speaker 1: into a political prisoner and a martyr, and you know,
Speaker 1: and the fame and the legend of him growing even
Speaker 1: more so. It's you know, we will see and time
Speaker 1: will tell. And I hope Glenn, that you will be
Speaker 1: checking in with us throughout the year because the news
Speaker 1: is going to keep coming and so are the hits, unfortunately,
Speaker 1: but we always appreciate you your time and your analysis.
Speaker 2: It's great being with you. Danielle. In twenty twenty four
Speaker 2: is do or die for democracy, and I think we
Speaker 2: should all do.
Speaker 1: Yeah, one hundred percent. 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.