Speaker 1: Good morning, Peeves, and welcome to wok F Daily with
Speaker 1: me your girl, Danielle Moody recording from the home Bunker. Folks,
Speaker 1: I'm very excited. It's been so long since we've had
Speaker 1: our friend MSNBC legal analysts and the host of Justice Matters,
Speaker 1: Glenn Kirshner on wok F, and I'm very excited about
Speaker 1: his return this week to break down all of the
Speaker 1: legal woes surrounding Donald Trump and answer some very real questions.
Speaker 1: Will we see anything transpire at the federal level with
Speaker 1: any of these cases that are being brought against Donald Trump?
Speaker 1: Or are we just all sitting ducks waiting for the
Speaker 1: decisions from the Supreme Court that he is staffed? And
Speaker 1: you know, is it that basically are the biggest wins
Speaker 1: that we are going to get is in the Egene
Speaker 1: Carol case and in the Tish James case, and up
Speaker 1: next is the Alvin Bragg hush money case? Right Like?
Speaker 1: Is it that? And that he will face absolutely no
Speaker 1: federal charges whatsoever. And frankly, if he is able to
Speaker 1: win election, all of this is just gonna go away
Speaker 1: and then get really really really really really really really
Speaker 1: really bad for everyone else who believes in democracy and
Speaker 1: the rule of bloss So that conversation with my friend
Speaker 1: Glenn Kirshner is coming up next. Folks. I am so
Speaker 1: very happy to welcome back to wok F after a
Speaker 1: long time away our friend Glenn Kirshner, MSNBC legal analyst
Speaker 1: and the host of Justice Matters. Glenn, My goodness. I honestly,
Speaker 1: I don't know how you keep your head on straight
Speaker 1: with the bevy of legal news that you are now
Speaker 1: having to follow, But I believe that the last nine
Speaker 1: years have had you earn your law degree multiple times back.
Speaker 1: But as of the time of this recording, Peter Navarro,
Speaker 1: Donald Trump's former White House advisor, is now required to
Speaker 1: report to prison by March nineteenth in Miami. Talk to
Speaker 1: us about this because I forget all of who is
Speaker 1: supposed to go to jail at this point, So remind
Speaker 1: us about Peter Navarro, what he did and why he
Speaker 1: is now getting ready to serve four months.
Speaker 2: Yeah. Peter Navarro is infamous for giving the coup the
Speaker 2: January sixth Coup a catchy name the Green Bay Sweep,
Speaker 2: which was a famous power play by the Green Bay
Speaker 2: Packers when they were being coached by Vince Lombardi. He
Speaker 2: thought somehow giving a coup attempt acute name, I don't know,
Speaker 2: distracted people from the fact that it was criminal. So
Speaker 2: now Peter Navarro is about to be green Bay swept
Speaker 2: right into the Federal Bureau of Prisons. He has a
Speaker 2: report date. Judge Mato, who presided over Navarro's trial, gave
Speaker 2: him a report date to the BP, the Bureau of
Speaker 2: Prisons of March nineteen. So, but what people should know
Speaker 2: is this is not a conviction of Peter Navarro for
Speaker 2: crimes involving the attempted overturning of the presidential results. This
Speaker 2: is in some ways, this is even worse. After he
Speaker 2: criminally participated in the attempt to overturn the election's results,
Speaker 2: he was subpoenated by Congress by the j sixth Committee
Speaker 2: to testify about what he did and even more importantly,
Speaker 2: about the evidence of criminality he could provide about Donald
Speaker 2: Trump and others. And instead of complying with that lawfully
Speaker 2: issued subpoena, he committed a crime himself to hide that
Speaker 2: deeply incriminating evidence from Congress and from the American people.
Speaker 2: He defied the subpoena. He blew it off and he
Speaker 2: was charged with contempt of Congress, which is precisely the
Speaker 2: crime one commits when they blow off a congressional subpoena.
Speaker 2: He was charged with two counts of contempt of Congress.
Speaker 2: He went to trial, he went down in Flames. I
Speaker 2: watched some of that trial, and he was sentenced to
Speaker 2: four months in prison as a result of those convictions.
Speaker 2: He has been trying to delay that. You know, he's
Speaker 2: appealed to the DC Federal Circuit Court of Appeal saying
Speaker 2: please don't make me report, please put a stay in place,
Speaker 2: but thus far they have declined to do that. So
Speaker 2: he finally was given a report date to prison. Now,
Speaker 2: I still fully expect if the rule if Danielle and
Speaker 2: that word does a lot of heavy lifting in this
Speaker 2: next sentence, if the rule of law is applied to
Speaker 2: Peter Navarro as it should be applied, he should be
Speaker 2: facing another big, mega indictment. Whenever we see the next
Speaker 2: indictment drop by Jack Smith and or the Department of Justice. Remember,
Speaker 2: in the indictment of Donald Trump for trying to overturn
Speaker 2: the election, there are six unindicted co conspirators. We know
Speaker 2: who they are. Now that doesn't include Peter Navarro. There
Speaker 2: are others out there who I think have criminal responsibility,
Speaker 2: and I will bet the full buck that's my betting limit,
Speaker 2: that Jack Smith is not done indicting people, because he's
Speaker 2: already put six people in there who he told us
Speaker 2: in Trump's indictment have committed crimes. But I think he
Speaker 2: wanted to try Donald Trump first, get him out of
Speaker 2: the way, and then go about the business of holding
Speaker 2: everybody else accountable. So I don't think this will represent
Speaker 2: Peter Navarro's last criminal indictment or conviction necessarily, but it's
Speaker 2: the first. Here's the other thing that I have to
Speaker 2: point out, because what a difference a judge makes. Yeah,
Speaker 2: so two people went to trial. Two people committed precisely
Speaker 2: the same crime contempt of Congress two counts, Peter Navarro
Speaker 2: and Steve Bannon. Steve Bannon also wanted to hide the
Speaker 2: evidence that could incriminate Donald Trump, so he blew off
Speaker 2: congressional subpoenas as well. He went to trial, he got convicted,
Speaker 2: he got the identical sentence as Navarro, four months in prison.
Speaker 2: But what a difference a judge makes. A Trump appointed
Speaker 2: judge named Carl Nichols, who presided over Steve Bannon's case,
Speaker 2: said I'm gonna let Steve Bannon remain out and about
Speaker 2: during the pendency of his appeal. So his appeal was
Speaker 2: I don't know, a year and a half ago now,
Speaker 2: and he has still not spent one minute behind bars.
Speaker 2: Peter Navarro's judge, judge Amik Meta, former public defender in
Speaker 2: d C, was not a Trump appointee. He said, no,
Speaker 2: Peter Navarro was convicted by a jury sentenced to four months,
Speaker 2: and he'll do what every other defendant virtually does. He
Speaker 2: will be ordered to surrender to the Bureau of Prisons
Speaker 2: to serve that four month sentence. That's a disparity that
Speaker 2: is really hard to explain in any other way other
Speaker 2: than a Trump appointed judge really did a solid for
Speaker 2: Steve Bannon, and a non Trump appointed judge applied the
Speaker 2: law to Peter Navarro as it was intended to be applied.
Speaker 1: So let me ask you this, because given that the
Speaker 1: Supreme Court, and I'm talking about the Jack Smith Trump
Speaker 1: documents in the end, the January sixth case, given that
Speaker 1: the Supreme Court has now delayed, is working, you know,
Speaker 1: as as the foot soldiers that they are for Donald
Speaker 1: Trump to run out the clock in a lot of
Speaker 1: ways on the question of immunity. We're not going to
Speaker 1: hear that, Glenn until what April, I think is what
Speaker 1: slated for twenty April twenty fifth for opening statements there
Speaker 1: and give in the way that none of these outside
Speaker 1: of the civil cases around Donald Trump seemed to be
Speaker 1: moving at all on pace with our upcoming election in November.
Speaker 1: Would Jack Smith, you think, do a pivot where he
Speaker 1: would then decide, well, since this Trump case is not
Speaker 1: gonna move at the time and the speed that I
Speaker 1: wanted to that, then I go with the six unindicted
Speaker 1: co conspirators, so that at least I'm continuing the cases
Speaker 1: in the public as well as like the department, because
Speaker 1: again we're not just talking about running out the clock
Speaker 1: for Donald Trump, but it's running out the clock for
Speaker 1: all of the people, because if he becomes president again,
Speaker 1: everyone is off the hook. All of this goes away
Speaker 1: because Jack Smith will no longer be a part of
Speaker 1: that Department of Justice.
Speaker 2: It's such a great point about the Jack Smith pivot, right,
Speaker 2: should he just start bringing all of these other charges
Speaker 2: that feel like they have been awaiting the resolution of
Speaker 2: Trump's prosecutions that is an intensely sort of tactical decision
Speaker 2: that Jack Smith and his team have to make. I
Speaker 2: have a feeling at this point, because we're midway through March,
Speaker 2: the Supreme Court will hear arguments in the absolute immunity
Speaker 2: case on April twenty fifth. They have to issue, they
Speaker 2: don't have to. They should issue their opinion by June thirty,
Speaker 2: at the end of the term, hopefully sooner. So I
Speaker 2: feel my sense, Danielle, is that the tactical calculation is
Speaker 2: we've waited this long, and let's see if we can
Speaker 2: get an opinion out of the Supreme Court that actually
Speaker 2: is in keeping with the law, the precedent, and the Constitution,
Speaker 2: meaning there's no absolute presidential immunity, and then let's get
Speaker 2: one of these Donald Trump cases to trial before the election.
Speaker 2: You know what, Donald Trump could literally be in a
Speaker 2: federal criminal trial on November fifth at the rate we're going.
Speaker 2: But I think it's a great question should he pivot,
Speaker 2: should he begin to bring some of these other cases.
Speaker 2: I think that is probably something that is being robustly
Speaker 2: discussed among Jack Smith and his team right now.
Speaker 1: Walk down the dark tunnel with me for a minute.
Speaker 1: If the Supreme Court, Glenn decides to, you know, do
Speaker 1: what they did with Ruby Wade affirmative action, which is
Speaker 1: just throwout precedent, right, throw out the Constitution, like they
Speaker 1: did personally with their decision to say that Donald Trump
Speaker 1: remain on the ballots even though you participated in an insurrection.
Speaker 1: And that's clearly what the fourteenth meant. And this section
Speaker 1: two that they were talking about was made for. If
Speaker 1: they do what they have been doing, talk to me
Speaker 1: in this dark tunnel about what happens next.
Speaker 2: I feel like we've been living in this dark tunnel
Speaker 2: since twenty sixteen, twenty seventeen. I don't know that we've
Speaker 2: ever emerged. I think there's some cracks of light that
Speaker 2: shine through every now and then. But I find it
Speaker 2: hard to believe that, even with all of the bad
Speaker 2: Supreme Court precedents we've had to contend with over the
Speaker 2: last couple of years, I find it really hard to
Speaker 2: believe that they will announce that a president of the
Speaker 2: United States is a de facto dictator who can commit
Speaker 2: all the crimes he wants to stay in office, because
Speaker 2: that also means a president of the United States could
Speaker 2: commit all the crimes he wants against the Supreme Court
Speaker 2: to minimize marginalize their power and their authority. I mean,
Speaker 2: none of that makes sense to me, because the Constitution
Speaker 2: provides that a president can be prosecuted. Indeed, the impeachment
Speaker 2: judgment clause says, even if he is impeached and convicted
Speaker 2: in the Senate trial, he can still be prosecuted for
Speaker 2: the same conduct, which kind of cuts against the notion
Speaker 2: that somewhere hidden in the words of the Constitution is
Speaker 2: absolute presidential immunity. When the opposite is actually stated in
Speaker 2: the Constitution. He can be prosecuted even after being impeached.
Speaker 2: So I think, for every conceivable reason, the Supreme Court
Speaker 2: can't possibly. And I catch myself anytime I say the
Speaker 2: Supreme Court can't possibly because I didn't think they would
Speaker 2: revoke women's constitutional privacy rights. I didn't think they would
Speaker 2: kill the prospect of equal educational opportunity for minorities. I
Speaker 2: didn't think they would sanction business discrimination cloaked in religious piety.
Speaker 2: I didn't think they would do any of that because
Speaker 2: I happened to believe in the rule of law and
Speaker 2: the Constitution I have all my life. So but I'm
Speaker 2: going to say it again, foolish though it may seem,
Speaker 2: I can't conceive of them saying a president is king,
Speaker 2: because if they do that, they're giving away their own
Speaker 2: supreme status as the Supreme Court. Doesn't make sense to me,
Speaker 2: but maybe that is just how desperate they are to
Speaker 2: keep the billionaire Republican donor dollars flowing into their coffers.
Speaker 1: Our job, right is to analyze and kind of look
Speaker 1: for the what if I'm like, is the decision in
Speaker 1: front of them black and white, meaning that there reson
Speaker 1: some type of twisty, you know, decision that both exempts
Speaker 1: Donald Trump from prosecution but also continues to have the
Speaker 1: president exists but not above the law. Like, is there
Speaker 1: a world in which they give Donald Trump something? Or
Speaker 1: is the decision that black and white either the president
Speaker 1: is now akin to a king or not?
Speaker 2: I think, first of all, the Supreme Court justice is
Speaker 2: the right wing block, including the people who have been
Speaker 2: taking money from Republican billionaires and violating our federal laws
Speaker 2: by refusing to abide by financial disclosure laws with impunity.
Speaker 2: They certainly have absolute immunity because Congress, neither Congress nor
Speaker 2: the Department of Justice, the executive branch, do anything. Hope
Speaker 2: to hold them accountable, so they kind of have the
Speaker 2: facto absolute immunity themselves. I think it's black and white.
Speaker 2: But what I will say is they can contort the
Speaker 2: Constitution and their interpretation of it in ways that make
Speaker 2: no sense to regular people or even legal constitutional scholars,
Speaker 2: like they just did in the Fourteenth Amendment disqualification arena.
Speaker 2: So you know, I think it's black and white. Will
Speaker 2: they see it that way? Could they say? Well, you
Speaker 2: know what, moving forward, we're going to say presidents should
Speaker 2: be counseled that they might not have absolute immunity, but
Speaker 2: we're going to find a way to excuse whatever it is.
Speaker 2: Donald Trump did by saying, well, maybe because the issue
Speaker 2: had never been litigated before, he was under the misimpression
Speaker 2: that he had some level of immunity. So therefore we're
Speaker 2: going to say you can't prosecute him. I mean, I
Speaker 2: will put nothing past this Supreme Court, even though their
Speaker 2: rulings don't often make sense, nor do they comport with
Speaker 2: the Constitution or the way the Constitution has been interpreted
Speaker 2: for half a century now.
Speaker 1: I mean, it's just it's it's wild. It's wild that
Speaker 1: we can depend on the Supreme Court to actually look
Speaker 1: at the rule of law and follow it. Tell us
Speaker 1: where we are then, with Donald Trump's attorneys in the
Speaker 1: hush money case, which so the only cases that have
Speaker 1: gone forward in any type of way is Egene Carroll's case,
Speaker 1: which Donald Trump just posted the ninety one million dollar
Speaker 1: bond but then has continued to defame her and has
Speaker 1: done so now on CNBC and squawk Box, and the
Speaker 1: hush money case, both coming out of New York. His
Speaker 1: lawyers just recently have said, well, we shouldn't be able
Speaker 1: to move forward with the hush money case because we're
Speaker 1: waiting on whether or not the president is immune.
Speaker 2: Right, So the first You're right, only civil cases have
Speaker 2: gone all the way through the system to verdict, and
Speaker 2: Donald Trump loses everyone. I mean just an unabated string
Speaker 2: of losses. He just lost one in the UK as well,
Speaker 2: so he's kind of an intercontinental loser at this point
Speaker 2: in courts. So no criminal case has yet gone to trial,
Speaker 2: but we are virtually on the eve of the trial
Speaker 2: in New York. That's the twenty sixteen election interference trial,
Speaker 2: in which he paid hush money to hide deeply damaging
Speaker 2: information from the American voters and then committed thirty four
Speaker 2: crimes of falsifying business records to cover up the true
Speaker 2: nature of those crimes. Well, he literally just filed as
Speaker 2: of the time of our discussion today, emotions saying, well,
Speaker 2: wait a minute, wait a minute. Shouldn't we really wait
Speaker 2: until after the Supreme Court decides the absolute presidential immunity
Speaker 2: case before I should be forced to go to trial
Speaker 2: in New York. And the answer is not just no,
Speaker 2: but hell no. Sport Sport is my editorial edition. And
Speaker 2: here's why. There are really three reasons. One, you committed
Speaker 2: these crimes as a candidate, not as the president. Two,
Speaker 2: you committed falsification of business records crimes and violation of
Speaker 2: the New York state law in your capacity as a
Speaker 2: businessman as part of the Trump organization. These were not,
Speaker 2: you know, presidential falsification of records. You were falsifying business records.
Speaker 2: And three, and maybe most importantly, people might not remember
Speaker 2: when he was first indicted in this case in New York,
Speaker 2: he tried to get it removed from state court into
Speaker 2: federal court right claiming that I'm a federal officer. And
Speaker 2: guess what at that time, I'm holding up a paragraph
Speaker 2: from the court ruling when he tried to get it
Speaker 2: transferred from state court to federal court. And it says
Speaker 2: Trump first raises an immunity defense. Trump has expressly waived
Speaker 2: any argument premised on the theory of app salute presidential immunity.
Speaker 2: And they give the brief site where the Trump lawyers
Speaker 2: waived it. Here's what you can't do, Danielle. You can't
Speaker 2: be involved in litigation in a case expressly waive an
Speaker 2: issue and then on the eve of trial saying we've
Speaker 2: changed our minds, we want to now raise the issue,
Speaker 2: so you can't take me to trial tomorrow. That's not
Speaker 2: the way it works. He waived it. So, first of all,
Speaker 2: he doesn't have a legitimate underlying claim. But even if
Speaker 2: he did, he waived it. That's kind of the belt
Speaker 2: and suspenders of being able to reject Donald Trump's president argument.
Speaker 2: Here's the other thing. He waved it, frankly, for good reason,
Speaker 2: because nobody believed there was any such thing as presidential immunity.
Speaker 2: What's changed, well, since that time in twenty twenty three,
Speaker 2: when he expressly said I'm not raising it, we now
Speaker 2: have four judges who have ruled there's no such thing.
Speaker 2: Judge Chuckin in the trial court, and three appellate court
Speaker 2: judges in the DC Circuit Court of Appeals unanimously, they've
Speaker 2: all said there's no such thing. So this motion to
Speaker 2: try to now derail his March twenty fifth criminal trial
Speaker 2: date in New York should be rejected. It should be
Speaker 2: laughed at of court. My only lingering concern, And first
Speaker 2: of all, Judge Juan Rashan, who's presiding over the case,
Speaker 2: has been strong and definitive, made all the right calls.
Speaker 2: He seems fearless. He really is sitting as a judge
Speaker 2: without fear or favor the way it's supposed to be.
Speaker 2: The only lingering concern is, well, the Supreme Court did
Speaker 2: take this up and it doesn't seem to apply to
Speaker 2: Trump's conduct because he wasn't president at the time, and
Speaker 2: it doesn't, and he did waive it previously. But you know,
Speaker 2: maybe the safer thing is to just wait for the
Speaker 2: Supreme Court to rule. I don't think Judge Murshawn will
Speaker 2: do that, but it's not out of the realm of possibilities.
Speaker 1: Right, I think that it would make I mean, in
Speaker 1: what world are we living in where anything makes sense?
Speaker 1: But in a world that things make sense? He wasn't president.
Speaker 1: That's the thing that we know, right the Access Hollywood tape,
Speaker 1: this hush money it was prior to twenty seventeen.
Speaker 2: Now, the only thing he did he was writing reimbursement
Speaker 2: checks out of the Oval Office, which is pretty disgusting
Speaker 2: when you think about it. The man was continuing his
Speaker 2: criminal course of conduct from the Oval Office by writing
Speaker 2: these reimbursement checks to Michael Cohen, who he had make
Speaker 2: the hush money payments in the first instance. So the
Speaker 2: other thing that Trump's lawyers are saying, well, wait a minute,
Speaker 2: he was making statements when he was president. So maybe
Speaker 2: there's some presidential immunity that attaches. Because the prosecutors in
Speaker 2: New York to introduce some of those statements into evidence
Speaker 2: that legal dog won't hunt. But my concern is I
Speaker 2: just hope Judge Murchon doesn't say, look, we've waited this long.
Speaker 2: It's about to be argued in the Supreme Court. Maybe
Speaker 2: we should wait a little longer. I don't think there's
Speaker 2: a legal reason to do that, but state courts are
Speaker 2: often they often feel like, you know, maybe we just
Speaker 2: need to kind of back down when the federal courts
Speaker 2: are involved or the Supreme Court is involved in some
Speaker 2: issue that could become relevant to my state court case.
Speaker 2: I don't think he will, but you know, who knows.
Speaker 1: When will we know about that decision?
Speaker 2: We could know. So the motion was just filed by
Speaker 2: Trump's lawyers. I don't even believe there's There hasn't been
Speaker 2: a response yet from Alvin Bragg's prosecutors. He will certainly
Speaker 2: oppose it, and then I think Judge Murchon will have
Speaker 2: to decide it quickly because you know, March twenty fifth
Speaker 2: is a trial date. So we're bumping up against it
Speaker 2: right right now.
Speaker 1: And just tell us before I let you go, this
Speaker 1: is a criminal case. What Alvin Bragg has brought with
Speaker 1: the hush money case is a criminal case, which means
Speaker 1: that jail time right is a part of it. This
Speaker 1: is thirty four counts right of fraud. If we go
Speaker 1: through this criminal trial, what would Bragg be looking at
Speaker 1: in terms of if Donald Trump is found guilty in
Speaker 1: terms of quote unquote jail time.
Speaker 2: So I think under the laws of New York, falsifying
Speaker 2: business records is categorized as a Class E felony, which
Speaker 2: carries up to four years but no mandatory prison time.
Speaker 2: So it would be within the discretion of the judge.
Speaker 2: Here's what I don't know, and I don't think we
Speaker 2: can know until there's a conviction, and if we have
Speaker 2: to see on what charges, on what counts he's convicted,
Speaker 2: and and then we also have to see how the
Speaker 2: judge views this course of conduct of falsifying all of
Speaker 2: these business records. There are two ways to sentence somebody.
Speaker 2: When you have crimes that span over time and involve
Speaker 2: a course of conduct. Think of it as like spreading
Speaker 2: out one crime into a whole bunch of discrete you know,
Speaker 2: lesser criminal act. All of the sentences can run together
Speaker 2: or run concurrently with one another, such that he would
Speaker 2: only be facing a maximum of four years, or they
Speaker 2: can all run separately on top of one another. That
Speaker 2: we call that the sentences running wild in DC or
Speaker 2: running consecutives to one another. So what we don't know
Speaker 2: at this point. Even though falsifying a business record as
Speaker 2: a class he felon, he carries up to four years,
Speaker 2: we don't know how many four year sentences might end
Speaker 2: up potentially being in play.
Speaker 1: Okay, so this is something to watch as we head
Speaker 1: into the depths of March or the depths of hell
Speaker 1: the same same. Thank you, Glenn as always for making
Speaker 1: the time for wok av and I tell you you know,
Speaker 1: it has been some years and I can't believe that
Speaker 1: we are not talking about the conclusion of these cases,
Speaker 1: how for how long we've been talking about them. But
Speaker 1: I appreciate you and your analysis greatly, Danielle.
Speaker 2: I feel I feel like we're still just getting warmed
Speaker 2: up here. You know. We we got a long we
Speaker 2: got a long way to go, but we're gonna stay
Speaker 2: stay at it until.
Speaker 1: Until the end, right, yeah, until the end, whatever that
Speaker 1: end is. That is it for me today. Dear friends
Speaker 1: on wok f as always, power to the people and
Speaker 1: to all the people. Power, get woke and stay woke
Speaker 1: as fuck.