Speaker 1: Good morning, peeps, and welcome to will Gate FP Daily
Speaker 1: with Meet your Girl Danielle Moody, recording from the Home Bunker. Folks,
Speaker 1: you know, there has been so much legal news that
Speaker 1: has come up over the past couple of weeks as
Speaker 1: it pertains to Donald Trump, the continuation of the investigation
Speaker 1: into January sixth, and you know, all of the fraud
Speaker 1: that the Trump family and organization has been a party
Speaker 1: two four decades plus. Now every week I do some
Speaker 1: type of TikTok video and if you're not following me
Speaker 1: on TikTok, you should. Danielle Moody underscore is my name
Speaker 1: on there? And I do a video. And when I
Speaker 1: do a video, people oftentimes in the comments section are like,
Speaker 1: when the fuck is Donald Trump going to be indicted?
Speaker 1: When the fuck is Donald Trump going to be arrested?
Speaker 1: How were we going to pretend that we are a
Speaker 1: nation of laws when it is evident that if you
Speaker 1: have the right melanin or lack thereof, if you have
Speaker 1: the right bank account with the right amount of zeros
Speaker 1: or can lie about it, and if you have connections
Speaker 1: to power, then the laws don't apply to you. How
Speaker 1: do we expect to continue in this way, when we
Speaker 1: know that members of the Republican Party should absolutely have
Speaker 1: been indicted and be in jail by now and have
Speaker 1: had a trial. That we know that there is a
Speaker 1: mount everest's worth of criminal offenses that Donald Trump has committed.
Speaker 1: But because he was a former president of the United States,
Speaker 1: and also the only reason why he ran to be
Speaker 1: president of the United States wasn't because he gave a
Speaker 1: fuck about this country or had any ideas about how
Speaker 1: to usher us into the future. It was a cover, right,
Speaker 1: like everything else in his life was a fucking cover,
Speaker 1: because so long as he was president of the United States,
Speaker 1: he would have access to pertinent information that he could
Speaker 1: sell to the highest fucking bidder, hence enter in classified
Speaker 1: informations or the empty folders that once read classified, and
Speaker 1: that he knew that he would be able to weaponize
Speaker 1: to the Department of Justice to go after his enemies
Speaker 1: or protect his quote unquote friends. We know all of this, right,
Speaker 1: but yet Donald Trump continues to walk free. There are
Speaker 1: only two people, two women, black women, who are the
Speaker 1: ones that are standing between Donald Trump and either bankruptcy
Speaker 1: are possibly criminal charges, and that is Fannie Willis in Georgia,
Speaker 1: and Tish James in New York. So coming up, I
Speaker 1: am in conversation one again with Adrian Lawrence, who is
Speaker 1: the host of the Young Turks is Overruled and the
Speaker 1: author of Staying in the Game, the playbook for beating
Speaker 1: workplace sexual Harassment, and Adrian I will get into a
Speaker 1: conversation about where we actually think all of this is headed.
Speaker 1: Because friends, you know, you know that we talk every
Speaker 1: week with our friend Glenn Kirshner, who walks us through
Speaker 1: and unpacks a lot of the bullshit that we see.
Speaker 1: And you know that Glenn, like Adrian, is very even minded, right,
Speaker 1: Like these are attorneys, they understand the rule of law.
Speaker 1: They are measured right in terms of their approach to things.
Speaker 1: But in this conversation with Adrian and past conversations with Glenn,
Speaker 1: they too are reaching their limit for bullshit. They too
Speaker 1: are getting to a place where it's like, how much
Speaker 1: more evidence do we need to see before us before
Speaker 1: we recognize that the only reason that Trump isn't in
Speaker 1: prison right now, the only reason why we haven't seen
Speaker 1: a series of indictments is out of political fear. How
Speaker 1: will it look? And my question is why aren't they
Speaker 1: asking or concerned about how their in action actually looks,
Speaker 1: because I really don't care anymore about these investigations. I mean,
Speaker 1: I appreciate the fact that Tish James has been extraordinarily diligent.
Speaker 1: And why is that, Well, we can add race, and
Speaker 1: we can add gender to the reasons why her and
Speaker 1: Fannie Willis need to make sure that every fucking t
Speaker 1: is crossed and every eye is dotted, because we know
Speaker 1: that their work is going to be examined under a
Speaker 1: level of scrutiny that no white man would ever be under.
Speaker 1: But so where is the white man that actually does
Speaker 1: wield all of the power of the justice system in
Speaker 1: this fucking country paging Merrit Garland. I'm so sick and
Speaker 1: tired of hearing about how Merritt Garland is, you know,
Speaker 1: a more conservative prosecutor, that he's more timid in this,
Speaker 1: that and the other thing. And I keep asking myself,
Speaker 1: why the fuck out of all of the people that
Speaker 1: could have been chosen for Attorney General that Joe Biden
Speaker 1: could have chosen, why was it him? Why was it
Speaker 1: this man that slow walks every goddamn thing? Because I
Speaker 1: feel if we had had a Sally Yates, right, if
Speaker 1: you would have brought back, you know, any number of
Speaker 1: ages that had served under previous administrations that we would
Speaker 1: have seen indictments by now, and not because those people
Speaker 1: are reckless right in terms of how they work, but
Speaker 1: that they are certain that the longer this takes, the
Speaker 1: more that Americans lose faith in our systems, which is
Speaker 1: what the Republican Party and Donald Trump want because if
Speaker 1: you lose faith in agencies, if you lose faith in systems,
Speaker 1: right then you begin to detach. And what happens during
Speaker 1: that time then you say, well, we need a strong
Speaker 1: man in order to fix this, and in walks fascism,
Speaker 1: in walks a dictatorship. That's what they're banking on. So
Speaker 1: this slow walk is serving no one, is serving no one,
Speaker 1: not in this country where the temperature is at a
Speaker 1: fucking boiling point and doesn't show any signs of stopping
Speaker 1: anytime soon. So I get into this conversation with Adrian Lawrence,
Speaker 1: host of Overruled on The Young Turk's network, about how
Speaker 1: she thinks this series of lawsuits are going to end
Speaker 1: up for Trump and company. That conversation is coming up next.
Speaker 1: Get a behind the scenes look at Comedy Central's The
Speaker 1: Daily show Beyond the Scenes, an original podcast from The
Speaker 1: Daily Show with Trevor Noah. Every week, host Roy Wood
Speaker 1: Junior goes deeper with the notable guests and experts from
Speaker 1: the Emmy Award winning series. Together, they use comedy to
Speaker 1: tackle current topics from gentrification to gun laws and take
Speaker 1: a closer look at how and why these topics matter.
Speaker 1: Listen to Beyond the Scenes from The Daily Show with
Speaker 1: Trevor Noah on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcast, or wherever
Speaker 1: you get your podcast. New episodes every Tuesday. The Damage
Speaker 1: Report with John Idarola is one of the most popular
Speaker 1: shows on the TYT Network that serves as your daily
Speaker 1: breakdown of the genuine threats and challenges facing our country
Speaker 1: and world. These days, we're confronted with an overwhelming sea
Speaker 1: of shocking, confounding, and devastating news stories. The Damage Report
Speaker 1: is your life raft, helping you navigate the day's news
Speaker 1: and understand the damage caused by the corrupt establishment, politicians, corporations,
Speaker 1: and everything in between. Join the Damage Reports notorious fan club,
Speaker 1: The Dragon Squad, where you become part of the fantastic
Speaker 1: community of progressives. Create a fun dragon nickname that fits
Speaker 1: your personality. Collaborate and participate in fun activities like voting
Speaker 1: for the Garbage Person of the Week and much more.
Speaker 1: Listen to the Damage Report on Apple Podcasts, Spotify or
Speaker 1: wherever you get your podcast. If you like what you hear,
Speaker 1: be sure to subscribe so you never miss an episode. Folks,
Speaker 1: I am very happy to welcome back to woke af
Speaker 1: Daily Adrian Lawrence, who is the host of The Young
Speaker 1: Turk's Overruled and an attorney extraordinaire. Adrian, you, like me,
Speaker 1: have been in the tweets with regard to every new
Speaker 1: Day delivers us yet another Trump lawsuit delivers us more
Speaker 1: legal news that I'm sure has Morilago looked like it
Speaker 1: was made out of Heinz ketchup with the amount that
Speaker 1: is being own against the wall there. Last week was
Speaker 1: a huge week. We had Tiss James in New York
Speaker 1: laying out for not only New Yorkers but the country
Speaker 1: the fact that she believes that the Trumps run essentially
Speaker 1: a crime organization and that they've been defrauding the public
Speaker 1: for a well over a decade. You have more news
Speaker 1: with regard to Judge Derry, the Special Master, who was
Speaker 1: chosen by the Trump attorneys and agreed to by the
Speaker 1: Department of Justice, who is not playing games with Donald Trump.
Speaker 1: He is no Judge Cannon. Then you had decisions coming
Speaker 1: from the Eleventh Circuit Court, who also like Judge Derry,
Speaker 1: Republicans three, you know, three out of two out of
Speaker 1: the three that were appointed to hear the case, our
Speaker 1: Trump appointees, who basically said that Judge Cannon doesn't really
Speaker 1: know what she's doing to my legal interpretation, because I
Speaker 1: don't have a law degree, I just watch Law and Order,
Speaker 1: Adrian help us make sense of all of this legal nonsense.
Speaker 1: I don't even know where to begin. I guess let's
Speaker 1: start with the Special Master and go from there. All right, Well,
Speaker 1: thank you so much for having me, Danielle. Yes, I
Speaker 1: very much understand kind of the feeling of where do
Speaker 1: I start. Given how many lawsuits and potential criminal actions
Speaker 1: are pending against Donald Trump, there is a lot going
Speaker 1: on when it comes to the Special Master. I think
Speaker 1: that Donald Trump and his legal team didn't necessarily anticipate
Speaker 1: that Judge Derry would be as on point as he is.
Speaker 1: He may have been a Reagan appointee, but he has
Speaker 1: been on the bench for a very long time, and
Speaker 1: he is not going to mess up his legacy doing
Speaker 1: anything like Judge Eileen Cannon did down in Florida when
Speaker 1: she granted the request of a special Master. I mean,
Speaker 1: let me ask you, this did Judge Eileen Cannon. Her decisions,
Speaker 1: even her written fee back, seem to have Donald Trump
Speaker 1: in a whole different level and space in terms of
Speaker 1: the eyes of the law. She was concerned about his
Speaker 1: reputational damage. She was concerned essentially with the decision to
Speaker 1: have a special master. That frankly, I guess maybe the
Speaker 1: FBI and the Department of Justice were lying and may
Speaker 1: have planted evidence as unsubstantiated from the Trump team. This
Speaker 1: is just you know, rhetoric out in the Twitter verse
Speaker 1: which Donald Trump can't be on. So in truth, social
Speaker 1: I guess what do you make of Judge Cannon's decisions
Speaker 1: and how we got essentially to this place with Judge
Speaker 1: Jury and with the Eleventh Circuit. So I can say
Speaker 1: this when it comes to being a judge, I clerk
Speaker 1: for a judge of the Chief Judge of the DC
Speaker 1: Court of Appeals right out of law school, so I
Speaker 1: have an inside look on how judges operate and how
Speaker 1: they do business. And that was a very fortunate experience
Speaker 1: that I had. I also do know that Judge Eilan
Speaker 1: Cannon also clerked for an appellate court judge of the
Speaker 1: A Circuit. She is no dummy. She is extremely smart
Speaker 1: and able to apply the law and applying the facts
Speaker 1: and coming out with something that should recognize our legal
Speaker 1: system and respect precedent. Where she went in this opinion
Speaker 1: is completely and totally out of pocket, and I think
Speaker 1: just about every legal analyst has said that, and now
Speaker 1: we have the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals saying that
Speaker 1: on record. You have to wonder what is going on here,
Speaker 1: because generally, if a judge post an opinion that doesn't
Speaker 1: go the way you think, at least the path that
Speaker 1: they got there would be one that is somewhat somewhat
Speaker 1: substantiated by the facts, by the analysis. In this case,
Speaker 1: Judge Eilan Cannon, I do not know where she was going,
Speaker 1: but where she ended up it's completely incongruent. It really
Speaker 1: does make you wonder if this is why judges need
Speaker 1: to be peached at the federal level in order to
Speaker 1: be booted out of off the bench. And that is
Speaker 1: something that I think needs to be considered in this situation.
Speaker 1: Because it is completely and totally unfathomable that Eileen Cannon,
Speaker 1: who was appointed by Trump, would have come to this
Speaker 1: conclusion as a jurist of the court and had any
Speaker 1: sense our semblance of justice. It's completely and totally not possible.
Speaker 1: So I really do hope that the powers that be
Speaker 1: are doing whatever they need to do to take a
Speaker 1: good look at this individual and whether they are fit
Speaker 1: to serve. You know, that's such a good question that
Speaker 1: you bring up, because one, I'm very leery of these
Speaker 1: lifetime appointments that we appoint somebody at the age of
Speaker 1: thirty five, forty five, fifty five, and literally this is
Speaker 1: going to be the last job that they have that
Speaker 1: somehow they literally are above the law, They sit above
Speaker 1: the rest of us, and there is no way, I
Speaker 1: mean other outside of I guess Adrian like launching an investigation.
Speaker 1: What would be the pathway to finding out exactly why
Speaker 1: Judge Cannon would make these decisions in the way that
Speaker 1: she did. And usually when you appeal to the higher court,
Speaker 1: they don't smack up the lower court's decision. They find
Speaker 1: a way to be very thoughtful in terms of how
Speaker 1: they are deciding. But with the Eleventh Circuit Court. They
Speaker 1: didn't do that with Judge Cannon. They were very blatant,
Speaker 1: without you needing a law degree in terms of the
Speaker 1: language that they used, that they didn't understand her decision
Speaker 1: making process and were concerned about it. Yeah. Absolutely, they
Speaker 1: were not necessarily deferential or kind. They kicked her in
Speaker 1: her teeth, and for good reason. The fact is that
Speaker 1: the law, the facts, it was not supported here and
Speaker 1: how Cannon came to the conclusion she came to it
Speaker 1: makes it definitely, without a doubt, seemed to appear that
Speaker 1: she was, let's say, she was derelict of her duty
Speaker 1: to be an impersonal artiker of the law and decided
Speaker 1: to find any which avenue she could uplift Donald Trump.
Speaker 1: And given the circumstances, given that Donald Trump appointed her,
Speaker 1: it is extraordinarily problematic. And it does make a number
Speaker 1: of members of the judiciary look also potentially problematic because
Speaker 1: they were Trump appointees. And so I think it was
Speaker 1: very strong for the Eleventh Circuit to come together in
Speaker 1: their procurium decision as an anonymous all three or anonymous
Speaker 1: as in they're all operating together. Excuse me, but having
Speaker 1: all three judges two being Trump appointed judges. You've noted
Speaker 1: one being a democratic appointed judges. They all have different philosophies,
Speaker 1: they all have different outlooks, they have different politics, but
Speaker 1: they all managed to come together to say Eileen Cannon's
Speaker 1: opinion is junk. And that's exactly what they needed to do,
Speaker 1: because it is the truth, it is facts. And if
Speaker 1: we continue to have a judiciary that does not respect
Speaker 1: precedent or the law, what we're going to have is
Speaker 1: an all out fascist system, and that's exactly what we
Speaker 1: want to avoid. You know, it is really terrifying because
Speaker 1: I was honestly crossing my fingers and toes when we
Speaker 1: knew that this decision was going to be kicked up
Speaker 1: to the eleventh Circuit because I'm just like Donald Trump
Speaker 1: and Mitch McConnell installed over three hundred federal judges across
Speaker 1: this country in his short four year term, and so
Speaker 1: these are all lifetime appointments. And you brought up, you know,
Speaker 1: Judge Deary caring about his legacy, and like you said,
Speaker 1: you have insight because you could clerk for judges like
Speaker 1: I guess I want to ask you this, do they
Speaker 1: really care about their legacy? What are you? What is
Speaker 1: your opinion of how our courts are kind of stacked
Speaker 1: at this moment, and are these people thinking further than
Speaker 1: about who appointed that. Yeah, I think it really depends
Speaker 1: on the individual. Are they an individual of character and integrity,
Speaker 1: because I think those people they do care and they
Speaker 1: also care about the law. And we are seeing a
Speaker 1: number of Republicans take that stance because they know the
Speaker 1: difference between democracy and fascism and they do not want
Speaker 1: to enter the world of fascism. They want to win fair,
Speaker 1: shall we say, or at least win with minimal intervention
Speaker 1: when it comes to unfairness. And then there are people
Speaker 1: completely on the other side who they just wanted to
Speaker 1: be elevated, to have a federal appointment, be able to
Speaker 1: serve for life. So essentially it makes it very difficult
Speaker 1: to get rid of them, and they're going to abuse
Speaker 1: their positions of power and hopefully and their eyes be
Speaker 1: able to pommel horse it into something else that might
Speaker 1: be very lucrative and helpful for them. I think that
Speaker 1: the problem with this whole situation is that now we
Speaker 1: have a judiciary that's wholly undermined. We have a Supreme
Speaker 1: Court that's been backed up by illegitimate judges, and so
Speaker 1: a lot of our country, a lot of our nation
Speaker 1: really does not feel that justice and democracy is something
Speaker 1: that is capable of being produced at this time, given
Speaker 1: the members of j Judiciary like Eileen Cannon. Does it
Speaker 1: really does our public opinion, Adrian, though, really matter when
Speaker 1: it comes to the Supreme Court and our feelings about
Speaker 1: what it is that they're doing, you know, justice John
Speaker 1: Roberts said, you know, you may not like what it
Speaker 1: is that how it is that we're deciding the you know,
Speaker 1: our decisions, but that doesn't mean that we're illegitimate. And
Speaker 1: I said, well, that's not the reason why the public
Speaker 1: thinks that you're illegitimate. It isn't because we don't like
Speaker 1: the decisions that are coming out. We're saying that you're
Speaker 1: throwing out precedent. And if precedent doesn't matter, then what
Speaker 1: does so does public opinion in the grand scheme of
Speaker 1: where we are right now? I just saw CNN will
Speaker 1: be doing a huge report on the Supreme Court and
Speaker 1: calling it supreme power. Does it matter what we think?
Speaker 1: I'd like to think it matters, but to some extent,
Speaker 1: and I guess to a large extent, it doesn't. You know,
Speaker 1: they saw clearly, the justices saw that they have Congress
Speaker 1: behind them, as Congress quickly stepped up to provided added
Speaker 1: protection for the justices after the dab's opinion reversing Roe v.
Speaker 1: Wade came out, and they feel like they are impenetrable.
Speaker 1: They sit up on this mount and they make these
Speaker 1: rulings despite being oftentimes out of touch with society and
Speaker 1: with individual's needs. The thing that a lot of members
Speaker 1: of the GOP and the right would say is that
Speaker 1: this is exactly how they felt when it was Roe v.
Speaker 1: Wade or Miranda v. Arizona, when you had things coming
Speaker 1: out of the court and Earl Warren being the chief
Speaker 1: judge at the time, reversing a lot of inequities and
Speaker 1: essentially throwing precedent to the wind because he was doing
Speaker 1: what was right under the law and also what further
Speaker 1: in advance our society and truly reflected it. And those
Speaker 1: advancements in societal change were great for our country. But
Speaker 1: then you saw a lot of people, particularly white people,
Speaker 1: responding in very adverse ways, particularly to brown b bored
Speaker 1: and whatnot, in the end ending up with deterioration of
Speaker 1: our educational system. So it's very difficult to say that
Speaker 1: what the public thinks necessarily matters. But I can tell
Speaker 1: you that what the oppressed think should matter, because those
Speaker 1: are the people that the justices should be looking to
Speaker 1: protect the most, because their voices are often the ones
Speaker 1: that are muddled and that are quieted. And so there
Speaker 1: are justices up there who recognize that, and they're actually
Speaker 1: applying the law, and they're following the steps, and they're
Speaker 1: doing exactly what they should do. Shout out to sodomyor
Speaker 1: But the rest of them are up there feeding their egos,
Speaker 1: really pushing toward this society that is not reflective of
Speaker 1: what the people want, and they are willing to trample
Speaker 1: and basardize precedent to get there, you know, just staying
Speaker 1: with the Supreme Court for one moment. Jinny Thomas is
Speaker 1: the wife of Clarence Thomas. As many people know, I've
Speaker 1: spoken about her at nauseam on this show. Um. She
Speaker 1: is getting ready or supposed to testify before the January
Speaker 1: sixth committee. Somebody made a really interesting point the other
Speaker 1: day and said, I don't know the name of any
Speaker 1: other Supreme Court justices spouse. I've never known the names
Speaker 1: of any Supreme Court justices, spouses or partners. Is Clarence
Speaker 1: Thomas and Jinny Thomas in your mind? Are they do?
Speaker 1: Are we to believe that they there is some type
Speaker 1: of separation inside of their of their household, that Jinny
Speaker 1: Thomas isn't being treated with deference because of being part
Speaker 1: of the Washington elite like it's Clarence. Are we just
Speaker 1: supposed to believe that Clarence Thomas didn't need to recuse
Speaker 1: himself from cases? Like what do you make of this
Speaker 1: saga inside of the Supreme Court with the Thomas's. Yes,
Speaker 1: the situation with the Thomas's, I think, in large part
Speaker 1: is contributing to the undermining of the court and its legitimacy.
Speaker 1: Without a doubt, there is no separation. Get out of here.
Speaker 1: It's like, that's why it's husband and wife. And that's
Speaker 1: also why the law recognizes a marital privilege. So the
Speaker 1: things that you say to your spouse, you don't have
Speaker 1: to testify against them. They are protected because of the
Speaker 1: sanctity of that relationship. So you can't tell me that
Speaker 1: as a couple, Jenny and Clarence Thomas are not out
Speaker 1: here sharing scorecards, sharing Intel's contacts, people that they know
Speaker 1: and also being able to open various doors for each
Speaker 1: other to advance their agenda of creating a society that
Speaker 1: is not reflective of the one in which the vast
Speaker 1: majority of people in the United States seek out and
Speaker 1: by virtue of the fact that they are still being
Speaker 1: treated with kid gloves. That Jenny Thomas is being invited
Speaker 1: to Congress as those who were invited to brunch is
Speaker 1: also part of the problem, because we are supposed to
Speaker 1: be a society where everyone is treated fair and equally.
Speaker 1: In what we had was an attempt at a coup
Speaker 1: to completely overthrow our government, and this woman clearly played
Speaker 1: a role in that. So to treat her like again
Speaker 1: you're inviting her to brunch, that speaks to the fact
Speaker 1: that we have injustice built into our system. And it
Speaker 1: also undermines what our members of Congress and the one
Speaker 1: six committees say is they're imperative to get to the truth,
Speaker 1: the thought that they need to adhere to some sense
Speaker 1: of decency and decorum, and to give her the respect
Speaker 1: she deserves because she's the wife of a Supreme Court justice.
Speaker 1: Get out of here, m M. I couldn't have said
Speaker 1: about it myself, you know, Adrian. It is not lost
Speaker 1: on me that the two people who are out front
Speaker 1: potentially holding Donald Trump accountable, whether it be his crimes
Speaker 1: of fraud, whether it be him trying to undermine the election,
Speaker 1: are two extraordinary black women. It is. It is not
Speaker 1: lost on me that is Fannie Willis and Tish James
Speaker 1: that are out there that are holding this wealthy, white,
Speaker 1: privileged man trying to hold him accountable. What do you
Speaker 1: make of how they are being perceived in the media
Speaker 1: about how they have been driving force each of their
Speaker 1: individual investigations. How has that been landing for you, and
Speaker 1: how do you think that it's landing with the public.
Speaker 1: So I would say when it comes to members of
Speaker 1: the GOP and the far right, of course it's massogyn
Speaker 1: no war for days. They're going after both Willis and
Speaker 1: James in any way possible that undermines their work or
Speaker 1: makes them seem like they are not being impartial or
Speaker 1: not following or abiding by or pursuing justice in the law.
Speaker 1: But at the same time as well, I am actually seeing,
Speaker 1: as I would see based on being a member of
Speaker 1: the media and illegal analysts, they're not getting hit as
Speaker 1: hard as say Kamala Harris is getting hit when it
Speaker 1: comes to m you are in the media in general,
Speaker 1: it does seem that our society does appreciate the work
Speaker 1: that they're doing. But at the same time, it reminds
Speaker 1: me of a lot of kind of the unfairness and
Speaker 1: inequities that befall us Black women our society, where it's
Speaker 1: all left up to us, it's all on our backs,
Speaker 1: where there are so few of us in positions of
Speaker 1: power to hold even these white men accountable. There are
Speaker 1: so many other wealthy white men in positions of power
Speaker 1: who could have done something long ago. There's even one
Speaker 1: right now that could do something, named Merritt Garland, Yet
Speaker 1: it seems that he is sitting on his hands time
Speaker 1: and time again, or wants to approach it with kitty gloves.
Speaker 1: Yet it's always seems to be these black women who
Speaker 1: are out here sticking their neck outs and facing a
Speaker 1: lot of the hate, the slander, and I do not
Speaker 1: doubt that the Magomenians are not threatening them, or going
Speaker 1: after them, or putting them in situations where their families,
Speaker 1: lives and what not are threatened. Yet they are still
Speaker 1: expected to pursue justice despite the fact that society is
Speaker 1: literally structured to hold them down and to keep them down,
Speaker 1: you know, just finally on this one point, you know,
Speaker 1: there is somebody else who could be doing more heavy
Speaker 1: lifting and is currently not, and that is Alvin Bragg,
Speaker 1: the Manhattan DA who had a truckload of evidence that
Speaker 1: was left to him by Sivance and hadn't and hasn't
Speaker 1: decided to pursue that in any real way, so much
Speaker 1: so that two of his prosecutors, you know, quit. What
Speaker 1: do you make of that? I, of course I don't
Speaker 1: have any concrete evidence. I did read those prosecutors letters,
Speaker 1: and it was really interesting how all of a sudden
Speaker 1: Brad got put into office and then hey, they kind
Speaker 1: of seemed to drop the case, even though there was
Speaker 1: so much meat there and there was so much substance
Speaker 1: in terms of going after the law. It almost seems
Speaker 1: like somebody got bought out to a certain extent, right,
Speaker 1: And that's what it's conveyed to me, and that we
Speaker 1: should not be trusting a person in that position. And
Speaker 1: so I think that that's kind of the hope of
Speaker 1: Trump and co. In order to see who they can
Speaker 1: get into these positions of power who are willing to
Speaker 1: look the other way or to act like this is
Speaker 1: something we need to drop, which is why Trump and co.
Speaker 1: Are pushing for this delay, delay, delay tactic and all
Speaker 1: of their cases again hoping that there is going to
Speaker 1: be a changeup in power on who's pursuing things. Fortunately,
Speaker 1: with Latisha James, there has not been that change up
Speaker 1: at the Attorney general level. But when it comes to
Speaker 1: the Manhattan Dah, my god, I don't know that there
Speaker 1: is going to be any justice or semblance of it there.
Speaker 1: And to the extent that there is, I think it
Speaker 1: will be because he'll have absolutely no other choice whatsoever.
Speaker 1: It's either prosecute or your corruption is going to be
Speaker 1: put on full display. You know, I feel that I
Speaker 1: felt the same way, and I felt that, you know,
Speaker 1: Tish James in her press conference in her referrals saying
Speaker 1: that she was referring both to the IRS and to you,
Speaker 1: the Department of Justice into these places that basically she said,
Speaker 1: I did all your homework for you. I've done all
Speaker 1: the work. I've crossed all the teas and dotted all
Speaker 1: the eyes, and so maybe you just take this here
Speaker 1: folder and open it and open up and invest. So
Speaker 1: much so that Alvin Bragg had to make a statement
Speaker 1: on social media that said that he is continuing with
Speaker 1: the investigation into Trump and Trump organization, and I'm like, oh,
Speaker 1: is that right? Final question for you, Adrian, is this
Speaker 1: again myriad of lawsuits against Donald Trump? There are so
Speaker 1: many it is honestly hard for me to keep track
Speaker 1: of what we are talking about when we are talking
Speaker 1: about it, because it seems like every week brings another suit.
Speaker 1: In your professional opinion, knowing who we are dealing with
Speaker 1: and what system we are dealing within, do you believe
Speaker 1: that we will see Donald Trump and company indicted or
Speaker 1: is this just all really good media spin and press
Speaker 1: and eventually it will go the way of all of
Speaker 1: his other cases, which is nowhere all right, So I
Speaker 1: don't know necessarily if we are going to see an indictment.
Speaker 1: I know that the basis for it is there. I
Speaker 1: still think that our society, largely our government, is playing
Speaker 1: by these rules of decorum and gentlemen's agreements when it
Speaker 1: comes to white men who are wealthy and powerful and
Speaker 1: also keeping a president above the law. I think that
Speaker 1: that is something that is important to them, even though
Speaker 1: they speak otherwise, because you know, if they are going
Speaker 1: to take down one wealthy privilege, very powerful white man,
Speaker 1: then they can do it to the rest of them.
Speaker 1: And so our society is too much invested in seeing
Speaker 1: certain individuals not face accountability. So I do see this
Speaker 1: as more of a charade. But I do think that
Speaker 1: the best chances of the takedown would probably be James,
Speaker 1: largely in part because she could hit it where business
Speaker 1: happens and where matters, and also in New York, where
Speaker 1: a lot of people do not respect nor care for him,
Speaker 1: and so you're more likely to get a jury who
Speaker 1: is not going to apply but actually hold him accountable.
Speaker 1: And if you shut him down to the point where
Speaker 1: any banks who do business in New York, which would
Speaker 1: be every major bank and every general bank, and he
Speaker 1: cannot open up or take any more loans out, I
Speaker 1: think that that would be the death nail for him,
Speaker 1: even beyond any kind of criminal indictment. You know, I
Speaker 1: think that you're right, because I mean, right now, what
Speaker 1: is she looking at Roughly two hundred and fifty million
Speaker 1: dollars in damages, and we don't even know if Donald
Speaker 1: Trump is worth that. We will find out, but we
Speaker 1: don't even know if he's worth that. So if she
Speaker 1: does have the ability, even if it is not to
Speaker 1: put him in prison, but to put him into bankruptcy,
Speaker 1: to wipe out his financial capabilities. I think that that
Speaker 1: will go a long way. We will just see him
Speaker 1: then go back to panhandling his constituents. But what else
Speaker 1: is new? And if you don't think Milania won't be
Speaker 1: up and out of here the moment he broke broke,
Speaker 1: please girl, please, I think all his kids will be
Speaker 1: out of here the moment the moment daddy is broke broke.
Speaker 1: Where where you think they're going to be? Oh? Yeah, already?
Speaker 1: Put what picking out her witness protection name. I'm sure
Speaker 1: I swear it. Her and her little boo and the kids.
Speaker 1: They will flip flip. I believe it. I honestly, I
Speaker 1: believe it. I think the two I think the two
Speaker 1: sons are too stupid, but I believe, I absolutely believe
Speaker 1: that she has been setting up her exit for quite
Speaker 1: for quite some time. Yeah, I believe it too. Adrian Lawrence,
Speaker 1: host of the Young Turks, over ruled. Thank you so
Speaker 1: much for making the time to make sense of the
Speaker 1: legal nonsense that we find ourselves in in this country.
Speaker 1: Much appreciated. Please do come back again soon. Thank you.
Speaker 1: That is it for me, Dear friends on Woke app
Speaker 1: as always, Power to the people and to all the people. Power,
Speaker 1: get woke and stay woke as fuck. Get a behind
Speaker 1: the scenes look at Comedy Central's The Daily Show on
Speaker 1: Beyond the Scenes, an original podcast from The Daily Show
Speaker 1: with Trevor Noah. Every week, host Roy Wood Junior goes
Speaker 1: deeper with the notable guests and experts from the Emmy
Speaker 1: Award winning series. Together, they use comedy to tackle current
Speaker 1: topics from gentrification to gun laws and take a closer
Speaker 1: look at how and why these topics matter. Listen to
Speaker 1: Beyond the Scenes from The Daily Show with Trevor Noah
Speaker 1: on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcast, or wherever you get
Speaker 1: your podcast. New episodes every Tuesday.