WEBVTT - Running Out the Clock for Trump

0:00:11.760 --> 0:00:14.440
<v Speaker 1>Good morning, Peeves, and welcome to wok F Daily with

0:00:14.520 --> 0:00:19.560
<v Speaker 1>me your girl, Danielle Moody recording from the home Bunker. Folks,

0:00:20.400 --> 0:00:24.439
<v Speaker 1>I'm very excited. It's been so long since we've had

0:00:24.640 --> 0:00:28.680
<v Speaker 1>our friend MSNBC legal analysts and the host of Justice Matters,

0:00:29.040 --> 0:00:32.840
<v Speaker 1>Glenn Kirshner on wok F, and I'm very excited about

0:00:32.880 --> 0:00:37.400
<v Speaker 1>his return this week to break down all of the

0:00:37.520 --> 0:00:43.720
<v Speaker 1>legal woes surrounding Donald Trump and answer some very real questions.

0:00:43.800 --> 0:00:49.199
<v Speaker 1>Will we see anything transpire at the federal level with

0:00:49.360 --> 0:00:52.960
<v Speaker 1>any of these cases that are being brought against Donald Trump?

0:00:53.159 --> 0:00:56.880
<v Speaker 1>Or are we just all sitting ducks waiting for the

0:00:56.960 --> 0:01:01.120
<v Speaker 1>decisions from the Supreme Court that he is staffed? And

0:01:01.560 --> 0:01:05.120
<v Speaker 1>you know, is it that basically are the biggest wins

0:01:05.160 --> 0:01:07.640
<v Speaker 1>that we are going to get is in the Egene

0:01:08.040 --> 0:01:12.360
<v Speaker 1>Carol case and in the Tish James case, and up

0:01:12.440 --> 0:01:16.039
<v Speaker 1>next is the Alvin Bragg hush money case? Right Like?

0:01:16.600 --> 0:01:19.679
<v Speaker 1>Is it that? And that he will face absolutely no

0:01:19.800 --> 0:01:25.120
<v Speaker 1>federal charges whatsoever. And frankly, if he is able to

0:01:25.720 --> 0:01:29.000
<v Speaker 1>win election, all of this is just gonna go away

0:01:29.120 --> 0:01:32.240
<v Speaker 1>and then get really really really really really really really

0:01:32.400 --> 0:01:37.360
<v Speaker 1>really bad for everyone else who believes in democracy and

0:01:37.400 --> 0:01:41.600
<v Speaker 1>the rule of bloss So that conversation with my friend

0:01:41.760 --> 0:01:49.080
<v Speaker 1>Glenn Kirshner is coming up next. Folks. I am so

0:01:49.320 --> 0:01:52.160
<v Speaker 1>very happy to welcome back to wok F after a

0:01:52.400 --> 0:01:57.680
<v Speaker 1>long time away our friend Glenn Kirshner, MSNBC legal analyst

0:01:58.000 --> 0:02:03.320
<v Speaker 1>and the host of Justice Matters. Glenn, My goodness. I honestly,

0:02:03.320 --> 0:02:05.240
<v Speaker 1>I don't know how you keep your head on straight

0:02:05.320 --> 0:02:08.600
<v Speaker 1>with the bevy of legal news that you are now

0:02:08.639 --> 0:02:11.399
<v Speaker 1>having to follow, But I believe that the last nine

0:02:11.440 --> 0:02:18.280
<v Speaker 1>years have had you earn your law degree multiple times back.

0:02:18.400 --> 0:02:22.320
<v Speaker 1>But as of the time of this recording, Peter Navarro,

0:02:23.000 --> 0:02:30.080
<v Speaker 1>Donald Trump's former White House advisor, is now required to

0:02:30.280 --> 0:02:36.880
<v Speaker 1>report to prison by March nineteenth in Miami. Talk to

0:02:37.000 --> 0:02:40.000
<v Speaker 1>us about this because I forget all of who is

0:02:40.040 --> 0:02:43.160
<v Speaker 1>supposed to go to jail at this point, So remind

0:02:43.240 --> 0:02:47.720
<v Speaker 1>us about Peter Navarro, what he did and why he

0:02:48.080 --> 0:02:51.040
<v Speaker 1>is now getting ready to serve four months.

0:02:51.600 --> 0:02:58.040
<v Speaker 2>Yeah. Peter Navarro is infamous for giving the coup the

0:02:58.120 --> 0:03:02.480
<v Speaker 2>January sixth Coup a catchy name the Green Bay Sweep,

0:03:02.840 --> 0:03:06.560
<v Speaker 2>which was a famous power play by the Green Bay

0:03:06.600 --> 0:03:09.640
<v Speaker 2>Packers when they were being coached by Vince Lombardi. He

0:03:09.680 --> 0:03:14.480
<v Speaker 2>thought somehow giving a coup attempt acute name, I don't know,

0:03:14.639 --> 0:03:18.200
<v Speaker 2>distracted people from the fact that it was criminal. So

0:03:18.360 --> 0:03:21.320
<v Speaker 2>now Peter Navarro is about to be green Bay swept

0:03:21.600 --> 0:03:24.600
<v Speaker 2>right into the Federal Bureau of Prisons. He has a

0:03:24.680 --> 0:03:29.399
<v Speaker 2>report date. Judge Mato, who presided over Navarro's trial, gave

0:03:29.480 --> 0:03:31.880
<v Speaker 2>him a report date to the BP, the Bureau of

0:03:31.960 --> 0:03:36.200
<v Speaker 2>Prisons of March nineteen. So, but what people should know

0:03:36.320 --> 0:03:40.480
<v Speaker 2>is this is not a conviction of Peter Navarro for

0:03:40.720 --> 0:03:45.360
<v Speaker 2>crimes involving the attempted overturning of the presidential results. This

0:03:45.440 --> 0:03:49.000
<v Speaker 2>is in some ways, this is even worse. After he

0:03:49.040 --> 0:03:53.360
<v Speaker 2>criminally participated in the attempt to overturn the election's results,

0:03:53.520 --> 0:03:56.560
<v Speaker 2>he was subpoenated by Congress by the j sixth Committee

0:03:56.760 --> 0:04:00.960
<v Speaker 2>to testify about what he did and even more importantly,

0:04:01.400 --> 0:04:05.280
<v Speaker 2>about the evidence of criminality he could provide about Donald

0:04:05.320 --> 0:04:09.520
<v Speaker 2>Trump and others. And instead of complying with that lawfully

0:04:09.560 --> 0:04:14.800
<v Speaker 2>issued subpoena, he committed a crime himself to hide that

0:04:15.000 --> 0:04:19.640
<v Speaker 2>deeply incriminating evidence from Congress and from the American people.

0:04:19.960 --> 0:04:24.120
<v Speaker 2>He defied the subpoena. He blew it off and he

0:04:24.279 --> 0:04:27.680
<v Speaker 2>was charged with contempt of Congress, which is precisely the

0:04:27.760 --> 0:04:32.120
<v Speaker 2>crime one commits when they blow off a congressional subpoena.

0:04:32.160 --> 0:04:34.839
<v Speaker 2>He was charged with two counts of contempt of Congress.

0:04:34.960 --> 0:04:37.920
<v Speaker 2>He went to trial, he went down in Flames. I

0:04:37.960 --> 0:04:41.400
<v Speaker 2>watched some of that trial, and he was sentenced to

0:04:41.440 --> 0:04:45.000
<v Speaker 2>four months in prison as a result of those convictions.

0:04:45.240 --> 0:04:48.680
<v Speaker 2>He has been trying to delay that. You know, he's

0:04:48.760 --> 0:04:52.120
<v Speaker 2>appealed to the DC Federal Circuit Court of Appeal saying

0:04:52.120 --> 0:04:55.359
<v Speaker 2>please don't make me report, please put a stay in place,

0:04:55.480 --> 0:04:57.960
<v Speaker 2>but thus far they have declined to do that. So

0:04:58.040 --> 0:05:01.839
<v Speaker 2>he finally was given a report date to prison. Now,

0:05:02.200 --> 0:05:05.840
<v Speaker 2>I still fully expect if the rule if Danielle and

0:05:05.880 --> 0:05:08.200
<v Speaker 2>that word does a lot of heavy lifting in this

0:05:08.400 --> 0:05:11.400
<v Speaker 2>next sentence, if the rule of law is applied to

0:05:11.400 --> 0:05:14.640
<v Speaker 2>Peter Navarro as it should be applied, he should be

0:05:14.640 --> 0:05:18.800
<v Speaker 2>facing another big, mega indictment. Whenever we see the next

0:05:18.839 --> 0:05:23.640
<v Speaker 2>indictment drop by Jack Smith and or the Department of Justice. Remember,

0:05:24.200 --> 0:05:26.719
<v Speaker 2>in the indictment of Donald Trump for trying to overturn

0:05:26.760 --> 0:05:32.000
<v Speaker 2>the election, there are six unindicted co conspirators. We know

0:05:32.040 --> 0:05:34.880
<v Speaker 2>who they are. Now that doesn't include Peter Navarro. There

0:05:34.880 --> 0:05:38.279
<v Speaker 2>are others out there who I think have criminal responsibility,

0:05:38.680 --> 0:05:41.719
<v Speaker 2>and I will bet the full buck that's my betting limit,

0:05:41.800 --> 0:05:44.600
<v Speaker 2>that Jack Smith is not done indicting people, because he's

0:05:44.640 --> 0:05:48.040
<v Speaker 2>already put six people in there who he told us

0:05:48.040 --> 0:05:51.760
<v Speaker 2>in Trump's indictment have committed crimes. But I think he

0:05:51.839 --> 0:05:54.320
<v Speaker 2>wanted to try Donald Trump first, get him out of

0:05:54.360 --> 0:05:56.640
<v Speaker 2>the way, and then go about the business of holding

0:05:56.680 --> 0:05:59.960
<v Speaker 2>everybody else accountable. So I don't think this will represent

0:06:00.320 --> 0:06:05.520
<v Speaker 2>Peter Navarro's last criminal indictment or conviction necessarily, but it's

0:06:05.560 --> 0:06:07.120
<v Speaker 2>the first. Here's the other thing that I have to

0:06:07.160 --> 0:06:10.919
<v Speaker 2>point out, because what a difference a judge makes. Yeah,

0:06:11.200 --> 0:06:15.680
<v Speaker 2>so two people went to trial. Two people committed precisely

0:06:15.760 --> 0:06:19.600
<v Speaker 2>the same crime contempt of Congress two counts, Peter Navarro

0:06:20.080 --> 0:06:23.840
<v Speaker 2>and Steve Bannon. Steve Bannon also wanted to hide the

0:06:23.880 --> 0:06:27.239
<v Speaker 2>evidence that could incriminate Donald Trump, so he blew off

0:06:27.560 --> 0:06:31.599
<v Speaker 2>congressional subpoenas as well. He went to trial, he got convicted,

0:06:31.800 --> 0:06:36.320
<v Speaker 2>he got the identical sentence as Navarro, four months in prison.

0:06:36.400 --> 0:06:40.120
<v Speaker 2>But what a difference a judge makes. A Trump appointed

0:06:40.200 --> 0:06:44.520
<v Speaker 2>judge named Carl Nichols, who presided over Steve Bannon's case,

0:06:44.960 --> 0:06:48.679
<v Speaker 2>said I'm gonna let Steve Bannon remain out and about

0:06:49.160 --> 0:06:52.640
<v Speaker 2>during the pendency of his appeal. So his appeal was

0:06:52.720 --> 0:06:54.320
<v Speaker 2>I don't know, a year and a half ago now,

0:06:54.839 --> 0:06:58.120
<v Speaker 2>and he has still not spent one minute behind bars.

0:06:58.760 --> 0:07:03.320
<v Speaker 2>Peter Navarro's judge, judge Amik Meta, former public defender in

0:07:03.440 --> 0:07:06.920
<v Speaker 2>d C, was not a Trump appointee. He said, no,

0:07:07.400 --> 0:07:10.520
<v Speaker 2>Peter Navarro was convicted by a jury sentenced to four months,

0:07:10.680 --> 0:07:14.080
<v Speaker 2>and he'll do what every other defendant virtually does. He

0:07:14.120 --> 0:07:17.239
<v Speaker 2>will be ordered to surrender to the Bureau of Prisons

0:07:17.280 --> 0:07:21.920
<v Speaker 2>to serve that four month sentence. That's a disparity that

0:07:22.160 --> 0:07:25.400
<v Speaker 2>is really hard to explain in any other way other

0:07:25.480 --> 0:07:28.960
<v Speaker 2>than a Trump appointed judge really did a solid for

0:07:29.040 --> 0:07:33.040
<v Speaker 2>Steve Bannon, and a non Trump appointed judge applied the

0:07:33.120 --> 0:07:36.120
<v Speaker 2>law to Peter Navarro as it was intended to be applied.

0:07:37.600 --> 0:07:40.880
<v Speaker 1>So let me ask you this, because given that the

0:07:40.960 --> 0:07:44.920
<v Speaker 1>Supreme Court, and I'm talking about the Jack Smith Trump

0:07:45.120 --> 0:07:49.280
<v Speaker 1>documents in the end, the January sixth case, given that

0:07:49.360 --> 0:07:53.520
<v Speaker 1>the Supreme Court has now delayed, is working, you know,

0:07:53.880 --> 0:07:56.600
<v Speaker 1>as as the foot soldiers that they are for Donald

0:07:56.640 --> 0:08:00.560
<v Speaker 1>Trump to run out the clock in a lot of

0:08:00.600 --> 0:08:03.520
<v Speaker 1>ways on the question of immunity. We're not going to

0:08:03.640 --> 0:08:07.600
<v Speaker 1>hear that, Glenn until what April, I think is what

0:08:07.800 --> 0:08:12.280
<v Speaker 1>slated for twenty April twenty fifth for opening statements there

0:08:13.280 --> 0:08:17.520
<v Speaker 1>and give in the way that none of these outside

0:08:17.520 --> 0:08:20.560
<v Speaker 1>of the civil cases around Donald Trump seemed to be

0:08:20.680 --> 0:08:26.160
<v Speaker 1>moving at all on pace with our upcoming election in November.

0:08:27.520 --> 0:08:32.200
<v Speaker 1>Would Jack Smith, you think, do a pivot where he

0:08:32.240 --> 0:08:36.120
<v Speaker 1>would then decide, well, since this Trump case is not

0:08:36.520 --> 0:08:38.720
<v Speaker 1>gonna move at the time and the speed that I

0:08:38.760 --> 0:08:43.640
<v Speaker 1>wanted to that, then I go with the six unindicted

0:08:43.679 --> 0:08:49.000
<v Speaker 1>co conspirators, so that at least I'm continuing the cases

0:08:49.040 --> 0:08:52.360
<v Speaker 1>in the public as well as like the department, because

0:08:52.400 --> 0:08:57.040
<v Speaker 1>again we're not just talking about running out the clock

0:08:57.520 --> 0:08:59.640
<v Speaker 1>for Donald Trump, but it's running out the clock for

0:08:59.640 --> 0:09:02.800
<v Speaker 1>all of the people, because if he becomes president again,

0:09:03.200 --> 0:09:05.920
<v Speaker 1>everyone is off the hook. All of this goes away

0:09:06.000 --> 0:09:08.880
<v Speaker 1>because Jack Smith will no longer be a part of

0:09:09.080 --> 0:09:10.400
<v Speaker 1>that Department of Justice.

0:09:10.920 --> 0:09:14.760
<v Speaker 2>It's such a great point about the Jack Smith pivot, right,

0:09:14.800 --> 0:09:17.599
<v Speaker 2>should he just start bringing all of these other charges

0:09:17.840 --> 0:09:22.200
<v Speaker 2>that feel like they have been awaiting the resolution of

0:09:22.200 --> 0:09:28.240
<v Speaker 2>Trump's prosecutions that is an intensely sort of tactical decision

0:09:29.000 --> 0:09:33.480
<v Speaker 2>that Jack Smith and his team have to make. I

0:09:33.559 --> 0:09:38.080
<v Speaker 2>have a feeling at this point, because we're midway through March,

0:09:38.400 --> 0:09:41.600
<v Speaker 2>the Supreme Court will hear arguments in the absolute immunity

0:09:42.080 --> 0:09:45.640
<v Speaker 2>case on April twenty fifth. They have to issue, they

0:09:45.640 --> 0:09:49.319
<v Speaker 2>don't have to. They should issue their opinion by June thirty,

0:09:49.360 --> 0:09:53.240
<v Speaker 2>at the end of the term, hopefully sooner. So I

0:09:53.360 --> 0:09:57.320
<v Speaker 2>feel my sense, Danielle, is that the tactical calculation is

0:09:57.800 --> 0:10:00.880
<v Speaker 2>we've waited this long, and let's see if we can

0:10:00.920 --> 0:10:04.080
<v Speaker 2>get an opinion out of the Supreme Court that actually

0:10:05.080 --> 0:10:09.160
<v Speaker 2>is in keeping with the law, the precedent, and the Constitution,

0:10:09.679 --> 0:10:13.680
<v Speaker 2>meaning there's no absolute presidential immunity, and then let's get

0:10:13.720 --> 0:10:17.480
<v Speaker 2>one of these Donald Trump cases to trial before the election.

0:10:17.800 --> 0:10:20.400
<v Speaker 2>You know what, Donald Trump could literally be in a

0:10:20.480 --> 0:10:25.400
<v Speaker 2>federal criminal trial on November fifth at the rate we're going.

0:10:25.840 --> 0:10:28.280
<v Speaker 2>But I think it's a great question should he pivot,

0:10:28.320 --> 0:10:30.400
<v Speaker 2>should he begin to bring some of these other cases.

0:10:30.880 --> 0:10:35.199
<v Speaker 2>I think that is probably something that is being robustly

0:10:35.280 --> 0:10:38.520
<v Speaker 2>discussed among Jack Smith and his team right now.

0:10:43.600 --> 0:10:46.360
<v Speaker 1>Walk down the dark tunnel with me for a minute.

0:10:47.640 --> 0:10:52.959
<v Speaker 1>If the Supreme Court, Glenn decides to, you know, do

0:10:53.040 --> 0:10:56.960
<v Speaker 1>what they did with Ruby Wade affirmative action, which is

0:10:57.720 --> 0:11:03.760
<v Speaker 1>just throwout precedent, right, throw out the Constitution, like they

0:11:03.760 --> 0:11:07.720
<v Speaker 1>did personally with their decision to say that Donald Trump

0:11:07.760 --> 0:11:10.920
<v Speaker 1>remain on the ballots even though you participated in an insurrection.

0:11:11.080 --> 0:11:14.640
<v Speaker 1>And that's clearly what the fourteenth meant. And this section

0:11:15.040 --> 0:11:20.320
<v Speaker 1>two that they were talking about was made for. If

0:11:20.360 --> 0:11:24.440
<v Speaker 1>they do what they have been doing, talk to me

0:11:24.520 --> 0:11:27.760
<v Speaker 1>in this dark tunnel about what happens next.

0:11:28.200 --> 0:11:30.560
<v Speaker 2>I feel like we've been living in this dark tunnel

0:11:30.600 --> 0:11:33.480
<v Speaker 2>since twenty sixteen, twenty seventeen. I don't know that we've

0:11:33.480 --> 0:11:36.080
<v Speaker 2>ever emerged. I think there's some cracks of light that

0:11:36.200 --> 0:11:40.679
<v Speaker 2>shine through every now and then. But I find it

0:11:40.840 --> 0:11:43.160
<v Speaker 2>hard to believe that, even with all of the bad

0:11:43.640 --> 0:11:46.880
<v Speaker 2>Supreme Court precedents we've had to contend with over the

0:11:46.960 --> 0:11:49.840
<v Speaker 2>last couple of years, I find it really hard to

0:11:49.880 --> 0:11:52.320
<v Speaker 2>believe that they will announce that a president of the

0:11:52.440 --> 0:11:56.800
<v Speaker 2>United States is a de facto dictator who can commit

0:11:56.840 --> 0:12:00.320
<v Speaker 2>all the crimes he wants to stay in office, because

0:12:00.320 --> 0:12:03.240
<v Speaker 2>that also means a president of the United States could

0:12:03.240 --> 0:12:06.040
<v Speaker 2>commit all the crimes he wants against the Supreme Court

0:12:06.360 --> 0:12:11.120
<v Speaker 2>to minimize marginalize their power and their authority. I mean,

0:12:11.559 --> 0:12:15.040
<v Speaker 2>none of that makes sense to me, because the Constitution

0:12:15.200 --> 0:12:19.599
<v Speaker 2>provides that a president can be prosecuted. Indeed, the impeachment

0:12:19.679 --> 0:12:24.080
<v Speaker 2>judgment clause says, even if he is impeached and convicted

0:12:24.080 --> 0:12:26.560
<v Speaker 2>in the Senate trial, he can still be prosecuted for

0:12:26.760 --> 0:12:29.640
<v Speaker 2>the same conduct, which kind of cuts against the notion

0:12:29.760 --> 0:12:32.960
<v Speaker 2>that somewhere hidden in the words of the Constitution is

0:12:33.040 --> 0:12:37.640
<v Speaker 2>absolute presidential immunity. When the opposite is actually stated in

0:12:37.640 --> 0:12:41.559
<v Speaker 2>the Constitution. He can be prosecuted even after being impeached.

0:12:42.080 --> 0:12:46.480
<v Speaker 2>So I think, for every conceivable reason, the Supreme Court

0:12:46.559 --> 0:12:49.920
<v Speaker 2>can't possibly. And I catch myself anytime I say the

0:12:50.000 --> 0:12:53.920
<v Speaker 2>Supreme Court can't possibly because I didn't think they would

0:12:53.960 --> 0:12:57.800
<v Speaker 2>revoke women's constitutional privacy rights. I didn't think they would

0:12:57.840 --> 0:13:01.880
<v Speaker 2>kill the prospect of equal educational opportunity for minorities. I

0:13:01.880 --> 0:13:07.240
<v Speaker 2>didn't think they would sanction business discrimination cloaked in religious piety.

0:13:07.320 --> 0:13:09.640
<v Speaker 2>I didn't think they would do any of that because

0:13:09.679 --> 0:13:11.720
<v Speaker 2>I happened to believe in the rule of law and

0:13:11.760 --> 0:13:15.160
<v Speaker 2>the Constitution I have all my life. So but I'm

0:13:15.160 --> 0:13:18.320
<v Speaker 2>going to say it again, foolish though it may seem,

0:13:19.400 --> 0:13:21.800
<v Speaker 2>I can't conceive of them saying a president is king,

0:13:22.480 --> 0:13:25.880
<v Speaker 2>because if they do that, they're giving away their own

0:13:26.240 --> 0:13:30.000
<v Speaker 2>supreme status as the Supreme Court. Doesn't make sense to me,

0:13:30.480 --> 0:13:34.720
<v Speaker 2>but maybe that is just how desperate they are to

0:13:34.840 --> 0:13:39.160
<v Speaker 2>keep the billionaire Republican donor dollars flowing into their coffers.

0:13:40.400 --> 0:13:42.920
<v Speaker 1>Our job, right is to analyze and kind of look

0:13:42.960 --> 0:13:46.920
<v Speaker 1>for the what if I'm like, is the decision in

0:13:46.920 --> 0:13:52.160
<v Speaker 1>front of them black and white, meaning that there reson

0:13:52.320 --> 0:13:58.439
<v Speaker 1>some type of twisty, you know, decision that both exempts

0:13:58.640 --> 0:14:05.000
<v Speaker 1>Donald Trump from prosecution but also continues to have the

0:14:05.040 --> 0:14:08.480
<v Speaker 1>president exists but not above the law. Like, is there

0:14:08.520 --> 0:14:13.240
<v Speaker 1>a world in which they give Donald Trump something? Or

0:14:13.480 --> 0:14:17.760
<v Speaker 1>is the decision that black and white either the president

0:14:18.160 --> 0:14:22.280
<v Speaker 1>is now akin to a king or not?

0:14:23.440 --> 0:14:26.720
<v Speaker 2>I think, first of all, the Supreme Court justice is

0:14:26.760 --> 0:14:32.040
<v Speaker 2>the right wing block, including the people who have been

0:14:32.120 --> 0:14:36.600
<v Speaker 2>taking money from Republican billionaires and violating our federal laws

0:14:36.640 --> 0:14:42.920
<v Speaker 2>by refusing to abide by financial disclosure laws with impunity.

0:14:42.960 --> 0:14:47.480
<v Speaker 2>They certainly have absolute immunity because Congress, neither Congress nor

0:14:47.520 --> 0:14:50.600
<v Speaker 2>the Department of Justice, the executive branch, do anything. Hope

0:14:50.640 --> 0:14:52.760
<v Speaker 2>to hold them accountable, so they kind of have the

0:14:52.800 --> 0:14:57.240
<v Speaker 2>facto absolute immunity themselves. I think it's black and white.

0:14:57.440 --> 0:15:00.800
<v Speaker 2>But what I will say is they can contort the

0:15:01.080 --> 0:15:05.160
<v Speaker 2>Constitution and their interpretation of it in ways that make

0:15:05.240 --> 0:15:10.000
<v Speaker 2>no sense to regular people or even legal constitutional scholars,

0:15:10.040 --> 0:15:13.640
<v Speaker 2>like they just did in the Fourteenth Amendment disqualification arena.

0:15:14.080 --> 0:15:16.840
<v Speaker 2>So you know, I think it's black and white. Will

0:15:16.840 --> 0:15:18.880
<v Speaker 2>they see it that way? Could they say? Well, you

0:15:18.920 --> 0:15:22.480
<v Speaker 2>know what, moving forward, we're going to say presidents should

0:15:22.480 --> 0:15:25.360
<v Speaker 2>be counseled that they might not have absolute immunity, but

0:15:25.800 --> 0:15:28.520
<v Speaker 2>we're going to find a way to excuse whatever it is.

0:15:28.600 --> 0:15:32.440
<v Speaker 2>Donald Trump did by saying, well, maybe because the issue

0:15:32.480 --> 0:15:35.200
<v Speaker 2>had never been litigated before, he was under the misimpression

0:15:35.240 --> 0:15:38.200
<v Speaker 2>that he had some level of immunity. So therefore we're

0:15:38.240 --> 0:15:41.080
<v Speaker 2>going to say you can't prosecute him. I mean, I

0:15:41.160 --> 0:15:45.920
<v Speaker 2>will put nothing past this Supreme Court, even though their

0:15:46.000 --> 0:15:49.200
<v Speaker 2>rulings don't often make sense, nor do they comport with

0:15:49.240 --> 0:15:53.320
<v Speaker 2>the Constitution or the way the Constitution has been interpreted

0:15:53.760 --> 0:15:55.480
<v Speaker 2>for half a century now.

0:15:56.280 --> 0:15:59.640
<v Speaker 1>I mean, it's just it's it's wild. It's wild that

0:15:59.640 --> 0:16:03.880
<v Speaker 1>we can depend on the Supreme Court to actually look

0:16:03.960 --> 0:16:07.080
<v Speaker 1>at the rule of law and follow it. Tell us

0:16:07.240 --> 0:16:11.640
<v Speaker 1>where we are then, with Donald Trump's attorneys in the

0:16:11.720 --> 0:16:14.920
<v Speaker 1>hush money case, which so the only cases that have

0:16:15.000 --> 0:16:20.640
<v Speaker 1>gone forward in any type of way is Egene Carroll's case,

0:16:20.680 --> 0:16:23.360
<v Speaker 1>which Donald Trump just posted the ninety one million dollar

0:16:23.440 --> 0:16:26.960
<v Speaker 1>bond but then has continued to defame her and has

0:16:27.040 --> 0:16:31.520
<v Speaker 1>done so now on CNBC and squawk Box, and the

0:16:31.600 --> 0:16:35.120
<v Speaker 1>hush money case, both coming out of New York. His

0:16:35.320 --> 0:16:39.720
<v Speaker 1>lawyers just recently have said, well, we shouldn't be able

0:16:39.760 --> 0:16:42.400
<v Speaker 1>to move forward with the hush money case because we're

0:16:42.440 --> 0:16:46.200
<v Speaker 1>waiting on whether or not the president is immune.

0:16:46.800 --> 0:16:50.880
<v Speaker 2>Right, So the first You're right, only civil cases have

0:16:50.960 --> 0:16:53.200
<v Speaker 2>gone all the way through the system to verdict, and

0:16:53.280 --> 0:16:57.480
<v Speaker 2>Donald Trump loses everyone. I mean just an unabated string

0:16:57.480 --> 0:17:00.280
<v Speaker 2>of losses. He just lost one in the UK as well,

0:17:00.400 --> 0:17:03.680
<v Speaker 2>so he's kind of an intercontinental loser at this point

0:17:03.760 --> 0:17:07.840
<v Speaker 2>in courts. So no criminal case has yet gone to trial,

0:17:07.840 --> 0:17:11.040
<v Speaker 2>but we are virtually on the eve of the trial

0:17:11.160 --> 0:17:15.479
<v Speaker 2>in New York. That's the twenty sixteen election interference trial,

0:17:15.840 --> 0:17:19.440
<v Speaker 2>in which he paid hush money to hide deeply damaging

0:17:19.520 --> 0:17:23.000
<v Speaker 2>information from the American voters and then committed thirty four

0:17:23.040 --> 0:17:26.880
<v Speaker 2>crimes of falsifying business records to cover up the true

0:17:26.960 --> 0:17:32.400
<v Speaker 2>nature of those crimes. Well, he literally just filed as

0:17:32.440 --> 0:17:36.359
<v Speaker 2>of the time of our discussion today, emotions saying, well,

0:17:36.400 --> 0:17:39.520
<v Speaker 2>wait a minute, wait a minute. Shouldn't we really wait

0:17:39.760 --> 0:17:44.960
<v Speaker 2>until after the Supreme Court decides the absolute presidential immunity

0:17:45.000 --> 0:17:47.840
<v Speaker 2>case before I should be forced to go to trial

0:17:48.200 --> 0:17:50.560
<v Speaker 2>in New York. And the answer is not just no,

0:17:50.760 --> 0:17:56.080
<v Speaker 2>but hell no. Sport Sport is my editorial edition. And

0:17:56.640 --> 0:18:01.360
<v Speaker 2>here's why. There are really three reasons. One, you committed

0:18:01.400 --> 0:18:06.400
<v Speaker 2>these crimes as a candidate, not as the president. Two,

0:18:06.920 --> 0:18:10.960
<v Speaker 2>you committed falsification of business records crimes and violation of

0:18:11.000 --> 0:18:14.280
<v Speaker 2>the New York state law in your capacity as a

0:18:14.320 --> 0:18:18.280
<v Speaker 2>businessman as part of the Trump organization. These were not,

0:18:18.440 --> 0:18:24.680
<v Speaker 2>you know, presidential falsification of records. You were falsifying business records.

0:18:25.000 --> 0:18:28.760
<v Speaker 2>And three, and maybe most importantly, people might not remember

0:18:28.800 --> 0:18:31.320
<v Speaker 2>when he was first indicted in this case in New York,

0:18:32.000 --> 0:18:35.119
<v Speaker 2>he tried to get it removed from state court into

0:18:35.280 --> 0:18:40.239
<v Speaker 2>federal court right claiming that I'm a federal officer. And

0:18:40.400 --> 0:18:44.160
<v Speaker 2>guess what at that time, I'm holding up a paragraph

0:18:44.240 --> 0:18:47.679
<v Speaker 2>from the court ruling when he tried to get it

0:18:48.040 --> 0:18:51.399
<v Speaker 2>transferred from state court to federal court. And it says

0:18:51.520 --> 0:18:56.680
<v Speaker 2>Trump first raises an immunity defense. Trump has expressly waived

0:18:57.080 --> 0:19:02.320
<v Speaker 2>any argument premised on the theory of app salute presidential immunity.

0:19:02.600 --> 0:19:05.680
<v Speaker 2>And they give the brief site where the Trump lawyers

0:19:06.080 --> 0:19:10.680
<v Speaker 2>waived it. Here's what you can't do, Danielle. You can't

0:19:10.720 --> 0:19:15.600
<v Speaker 2>be involved in litigation in a case expressly waive an

0:19:15.600 --> 0:19:19.400
<v Speaker 2>issue and then on the eve of trial saying we've

0:19:19.480 --> 0:19:22.840
<v Speaker 2>changed our minds, we want to now raise the issue,

0:19:23.000 --> 0:19:26.679
<v Speaker 2>so you can't take me to trial tomorrow. That's not

0:19:26.920 --> 0:19:30.879
<v Speaker 2>the way it works. He waived it. So, first of all,

0:19:31.160 --> 0:19:34.520
<v Speaker 2>he doesn't have a legitimate underlying claim. But even if

0:19:34.560 --> 0:19:37.280
<v Speaker 2>he did, he waived it. That's kind of the belt

0:19:37.320 --> 0:19:42.840
<v Speaker 2>and suspenders of being able to reject Donald Trump's president argument.

0:19:42.880 --> 0:19:46.080
<v Speaker 2>Here's the other thing. He waved it, frankly, for good reason,

0:19:46.160 --> 0:19:50.760
<v Speaker 2>because nobody believed there was any such thing as presidential immunity.

0:19:51.000 --> 0:19:54.600
<v Speaker 2>What's changed, well, since that time in twenty twenty three,

0:19:54.880 --> 0:19:58.400
<v Speaker 2>when he expressly said I'm not raising it, we now

0:19:58.440 --> 0:20:01.800
<v Speaker 2>have four judges who have ruled there's no such thing.

0:20:02.200 --> 0:20:06.160
<v Speaker 2>Judge Chuckin in the trial court, and three appellate court

0:20:06.240 --> 0:20:09.880
<v Speaker 2>judges in the DC Circuit Court of Appeals unanimously, they've

0:20:09.920 --> 0:20:14.119
<v Speaker 2>all said there's no such thing. So this motion to

0:20:14.240 --> 0:20:18.960
<v Speaker 2>try to now derail his March twenty fifth criminal trial

0:20:19.040 --> 0:20:23.399
<v Speaker 2>date in New York should be rejected. It should be

0:20:23.560 --> 0:20:27.520
<v Speaker 2>laughed at of court. My only lingering concern, And first

0:20:27.520 --> 0:20:30.520
<v Speaker 2>of all, Judge Juan Rashan, who's presiding over the case,

0:20:30.760 --> 0:20:34.359
<v Speaker 2>has been strong and definitive, made all the right calls.

0:20:34.600 --> 0:20:38.080
<v Speaker 2>He seems fearless. He really is sitting as a judge

0:20:38.080 --> 0:20:40.879
<v Speaker 2>without fear or favor the way it's supposed to be.

0:20:41.600 --> 0:20:44.680
<v Speaker 2>The only lingering concern is, well, the Supreme Court did

0:20:44.720 --> 0:20:47.080
<v Speaker 2>take this up and it doesn't seem to apply to

0:20:47.119 --> 0:20:50.520
<v Speaker 2>Trump's conduct because he wasn't president at the time, and

0:20:50.560 --> 0:20:54.199
<v Speaker 2>it doesn't, and he did waive it previously. But you know,

0:20:54.520 --> 0:20:58.439
<v Speaker 2>maybe the safer thing is to just wait for the

0:20:58.480 --> 0:21:02.080
<v Speaker 2>Supreme Court to rule. I don't think Judge Murshawn will

0:21:02.119 --> 0:21:08.000
<v Speaker 2>do that, but it's not out of the realm of possibilities.

0:21:07.440 --> 0:21:11.040
<v Speaker 1>Right, I think that it would make I mean, in

0:21:11.080 --> 0:21:13.280
<v Speaker 1>what world are we living in where anything makes sense?

0:21:13.359 --> 0:21:18.440
<v Speaker 1>But in a world that things make sense? He wasn't president.

0:21:18.640 --> 0:21:22.240
<v Speaker 1>That's the thing that we know, right the Access Hollywood tape,

0:21:22.720 --> 0:21:27.080
<v Speaker 1>this hush money it was prior to twenty seventeen.

0:21:27.560 --> 0:21:30.760
<v Speaker 2>Now, the only thing he did he was writing reimbursement

0:21:30.840 --> 0:21:34.440
<v Speaker 2>checks out of the Oval Office, which is pretty disgusting

0:21:34.480 --> 0:21:37.439
<v Speaker 2>when you think about it. The man was continuing his

0:21:37.560 --> 0:21:41.840
<v Speaker 2>criminal course of conduct from the Oval Office by writing

0:21:41.880 --> 0:21:45.280
<v Speaker 2>these reimbursement checks to Michael Cohen, who he had make

0:21:45.480 --> 0:21:48.480
<v Speaker 2>the hush money payments in the first instance. So the

0:21:48.520 --> 0:21:51.400
<v Speaker 2>other thing that Trump's lawyers are saying, well, wait a minute,

0:21:51.480 --> 0:21:54.879
<v Speaker 2>he was making statements when he was president. So maybe

0:21:54.880 --> 0:21:59.520
<v Speaker 2>there's some presidential immunity that attaches. Because the prosecutors in

0:21:59.560 --> 0:22:02.240
<v Speaker 2>New York to introduce some of those statements into evidence

0:22:02.800 --> 0:22:07.199
<v Speaker 2>that legal dog won't hunt. But my concern is I

0:22:07.280 --> 0:22:10.560
<v Speaker 2>just hope Judge Murchon doesn't say, look, we've waited this long.

0:22:10.880 --> 0:22:13.120
<v Speaker 2>It's about to be argued in the Supreme Court. Maybe

0:22:13.119 --> 0:22:15.040
<v Speaker 2>we should wait a little longer. I don't think there's

0:22:15.040 --> 0:22:18.760
<v Speaker 2>a legal reason to do that, but state courts are

0:22:18.880 --> 0:22:22.639
<v Speaker 2>often they often feel like, you know, maybe we just

0:22:22.800 --> 0:22:26.639
<v Speaker 2>need to kind of back down when the federal courts

0:22:26.640 --> 0:22:29.640
<v Speaker 2>are involved or the Supreme Court is involved in some

0:22:29.720 --> 0:22:33.200
<v Speaker 2>issue that could become relevant to my state court case.

0:22:33.280 --> 0:22:36.000
<v Speaker 2>I don't think he will, but you know, who knows.

0:22:35.880 --> 0:22:37.800
<v Speaker 1>When will we know about that decision?

0:22:39.000 --> 0:22:42.000
<v Speaker 2>We could know. So the motion was just filed by

0:22:42.200 --> 0:22:45.320
<v Speaker 2>Trump's lawyers. I don't even believe there's There hasn't been

0:22:45.520 --> 0:22:49.280
<v Speaker 2>a response yet from Alvin Bragg's prosecutors. He will certainly

0:22:49.600 --> 0:22:52.480
<v Speaker 2>oppose it, and then I think Judge Murchon will have

0:22:52.520 --> 0:22:55.960
<v Speaker 2>to decide it quickly because you know, March twenty fifth

0:22:56.000 --> 0:22:58.239
<v Speaker 2>is a trial date. So we're bumping up against it

0:22:58.359 --> 0:22:59.080
<v Speaker 2>right right now.

0:23:04.200 --> 0:23:07.200
<v Speaker 1>And just tell us before I let you go, this

0:23:07.280 --> 0:23:10.600
<v Speaker 1>is a criminal case. What Alvin Bragg has brought with

0:23:10.840 --> 0:23:13.919
<v Speaker 1>the hush money case is a criminal case, which means

0:23:14.240 --> 0:23:18.480
<v Speaker 1>that jail time right is a part of it. This

0:23:18.520 --> 0:23:23.160
<v Speaker 1>is thirty four counts right of fraud. If we go

0:23:23.240 --> 0:23:28.440
<v Speaker 1>through this criminal trial, what would Bragg be looking at

0:23:28.480 --> 0:23:32.239
<v Speaker 1>in terms of if Donald Trump is found guilty in

0:23:32.320 --> 0:23:34.040
<v Speaker 1>terms of quote unquote jail time.

0:23:34.480 --> 0:23:37.600
<v Speaker 2>So I think under the laws of New York, falsifying

0:23:37.640 --> 0:23:42.320
<v Speaker 2>business records is categorized as a Class E felony, which

0:23:42.359 --> 0:23:46.320
<v Speaker 2>carries up to four years but no mandatory prison time.

0:23:46.400 --> 0:23:49.040
<v Speaker 2>So it would be within the discretion of the judge.

0:23:49.040 --> 0:23:51.919
<v Speaker 2>Here's what I don't know, and I don't think we

0:23:52.040 --> 0:23:56.040
<v Speaker 2>can know until there's a conviction, and if we have

0:23:56.119 --> 0:23:59.480
<v Speaker 2>to see on what charges, on what counts he's convicted,

0:23:59.800 --> 0:24:01.520
<v Speaker 2>and and then we also have to see how the

0:24:01.600 --> 0:24:05.359
<v Speaker 2>judge views this course of conduct of falsifying all of

0:24:05.400 --> 0:24:08.720
<v Speaker 2>these business records. There are two ways to sentence somebody.

0:24:08.960 --> 0:24:12.359
<v Speaker 2>When you have crimes that span over time and involve

0:24:12.400 --> 0:24:14.840
<v Speaker 2>a course of conduct. Think of it as like spreading

0:24:14.880 --> 0:24:18.439
<v Speaker 2>out one crime into a whole bunch of discrete you know,

0:24:18.720 --> 0:24:24.280
<v Speaker 2>lesser criminal act. All of the sentences can run together

0:24:24.560 --> 0:24:27.720
<v Speaker 2>or run concurrently with one another, such that he would

0:24:27.760 --> 0:24:30.480
<v Speaker 2>only be facing a maximum of four years, or they

0:24:30.480 --> 0:24:33.920
<v Speaker 2>can all run separately on top of one another. That

0:24:34.040 --> 0:24:37.280
<v Speaker 2>we call that the sentences running wild in DC or

0:24:37.359 --> 0:24:41.280
<v Speaker 2>running consecutives to one another. So what we don't know

0:24:41.320 --> 0:24:44.399
<v Speaker 2>at this point. Even though falsifying a business record as

0:24:44.440 --> 0:24:46.520
<v Speaker 2>a class he felon, he carries up to four years,

0:24:46.760 --> 0:24:49.440
<v Speaker 2>we don't know how many four year sentences might end

0:24:49.520 --> 0:24:52.399
<v Speaker 2>up potentially being in play.

0:24:53.280 --> 0:24:56.360
<v Speaker 1>Okay, so this is something to watch as we head

0:24:56.480 --> 0:24:59.480
<v Speaker 1>into the depths of March or the depths of hell

0:25:00.040 --> 0:25:05.640
<v Speaker 1>the same same. Thank you, Glenn as always for making

0:25:05.680 --> 0:25:08.080
<v Speaker 1>the time for wok av and I tell you you know,

0:25:08.280 --> 0:25:11.679
<v Speaker 1>it has been some years and I can't believe that

0:25:11.800 --> 0:25:16.520
<v Speaker 1>we are not talking about the conclusion of these cases,

0:25:16.600 --> 0:25:18.760
<v Speaker 1>how for how long we've been talking about them. But

0:25:18.920 --> 0:25:22.879
<v Speaker 1>I appreciate you and your analysis greatly, Danielle.

0:25:22.920 --> 0:25:25.000
<v Speaker 2>I feel I feel like we're still just getting warmed

0:25:25.040 --> 0:25:26.560
<v Speaker 2>up here. You know. We we got a long we

0:25:26.680 --> 0:25:28.400
<v Speaker 2>got a long way to go, but we're gonna stay

0:25:28.480 --> 0:25:29.840
<v Speaker 2>stay at it until.

0:25:29.720 --> 0:25:32.800
<v Speaker 1>Until the end, right, yeah, until the end, whatever that

0:25:32.920 --> 0:25:41.800
<v Speaker 1>end is. That is it for me today. Dear friends

0:25:41.920 --> 0:25:45.800
<v Speaker 1>on wok f as always, power to the people and

0:25:45.880 --> 0:25:49.400
<v Speaker 1>to all the people. Power, get woke and stay woke

0:25:49.440 --> 0:25:49.840
<v Speaker 1>as fuck.