Speaker 1: Good morning, keeps, and welcome to wok F Daily with
Speaker 1: me your girl Daniel Moody Recording from the Home Bunker. Folks,
Speaker 1: I'm very excited to welcome back to okay F Daily
Speaker 1: our friend Glenn Kirshner. Glenn and I pre tape this
Speaker 1: ahead of today's court appearance by Donald Trump and Jack
Speaker 1: Smith before Judge chunkin to discuss a gag order. And
Speaker 1: in this conversation with Glenn, we go and we talk
Speaker 1: about all of Trump's legal woes, but in particular between
Speaker 1: what is happening in down in Georgia this month, as
Speaker 1: well as what will be happening as you're listening to
Speaker 1: this in Washington, d C. You know, and here's what
Speaker 1: I will say, folks, as you've been, you know, listening
Speaker 1: to the show. There are so many more important things
Speaker 1: that are happening in the world and in this country,
Speaker 1: but it is still really important to keep an eye
Speaker 1: on the person that ushered in this political healthscape that
Speaker 1: we are currently living with, where you know, lawlessness reigns supreme.
Speaker 1: And you know, again, while I recognize and you know,
Speaker 1: through the conversations that I have on this show and
Speaker 1: have stated, particularly over last week, that we know that
Speaker 1: there are more important things and more important places to
Speaker 1: be putting our energy. But it is important also to
Speaker 1: keep an eye on and a foothold in what is
Speaker 1: transpiring inside of our judicial system. For right now, it
Speaker 1: continues to hold and I'm just looking friends, you know,
Speaker 1: at the the Federal Circuit. I'm not even going to
Speaker 1: touch what is happening at the Supreme Court and what
Speaker 1: continues to happen there in that grifting, you know place.
Speaker 1: But how these judges move with regard to recognizing the
Speaker 1: threat and the danger to our country that Donald Trump
Speaker 1: continues to impose is going to be important because what
Speaker 1: they are doing is setting the stage for how we
Speaker 1: will measure things moving forward. And what we know is
Speaker 1: that Donald Trump has continued to break the rules, move
Speaker 1: the gold posts, understanding that the rules don't apply to him.
Speaker 1: And you know, you can look no further than George
Speaker 1: Santos right in Congress. You can look at Bob Menendez
Speaker 1: in the Senate. You can look at these people who
Speaker 1: have broken our norms right and broken the law and
Speaker 1: are currently indicted. But why did these people think that
Speaker 1: they could get away with certain behaviors and certain actions.
Speaker 1: Well because what's good for the goose is good for
Speaker 1: the gander, And so it's really important for us to
Speaker 1: keep an eye on what is happening and how our
Speaker 1: judiciary shakes out, because this is our last hold, you know,
Speaker 1: between this andful fledged authoritarianism. So what happens over the
Speaker 1: next several months and the course of twenty twenty four
Speaker 1: is going to have deep implications as to where this
Speaker 1: country ends up come, you know, a year from now, which, frankly,
Speaker 1: sometimes I do wish I had a crystal ball, But
Speaker 1: then sometimes I'm really glad that I don't, because a
Speaker 1: part of me doesn't want to know, but then a
Speaker 1: part of me wants to know. So I can tell
Speaker 1: us all how to prepare for what is coming next.
Speaker 1: But coming up next with this conversation is our friend
Speaker 1: Glenn Kirshner. Folks, it has been a while since we've
Speaker 1: had our friend MSNBC legal analyst and the host of
Speaker 1: Justice Matters, Glenn Kirshner on Woke a f Daily to
Speaker 1: give us a primer into where we are in the
Speaker 1: legal dull drums of Donald Trump. Glenn, let's start out
Speaker 1: with Georgia and what is transpired there, because Jim Jordan,
Speaker 1: who just well, as of this recording, has lost his
Speaker 1: bid to be the news speaker for the Republican Party,
Speaker 1: has been weaponizing his position as the chair of the
Speaker 1: House Judiciary Committee in many ways. But I would love
Speaker 1: for you to give us a primer into what he's
Speaker 1: been trying to do and what Fannie Willis has called
Speaker 1: him out on.
Speaker 2: Yeah, you know, Danielle, I think we need to go
Speaker 2: back to Jim Jordan criminally defying a congressional subpoena himself.
Speaker 2: I mean, it is mind boggling to think that a
Speaker 2: member of Congress was subpoenaed to testify about incriminating information
Speaker 2: evidence about a president of the United States trying to
Speaker 2: overturn the results of a presidential election. Instead of providing
Speaker 2: that evidence to a Congressional committee and by extension, to
Speaker 2: the American people, he criminally defied the subpoena, thereby hiding
Speaker 2: from all of us the evidence of Donald Trump's January
Speaker 2: sixth crimes. That is something for which he has never
Speaker 2: been made to account. I hope the hell he is someday.
Speaker 2: But against that backdrop, he then tried to interfere, misuse
Speaker 2: his office and his power as chairman of the House
Speaker 2: Judiciary Committee to try to interfere in Alvin Bragg's prosecution
Speaker 2: up in New York. He didn't make a lot of
Speaker 2: headway there. Now he's trying to interfere in Fonnie Willis's
Speaker 2: RICO prosecution of Trump and others down in Georgia by
Speaker 2: basically demanding that she'd turn over all of the information
Speaker 2: and the documents and answer all kinds of questions about
Speaker 2: why she is choosing to prosecute somebody who violated the
Speaker 2: laws of the State of Georgia. He is abusing his position,
Speaker 2: his power, his authority. He, in my opinion, is very
Speaker 2: likely committing any number of crimes, including being an accessory
Speaker 2: after the fact to Donald Trump's crimes, because he's trying
Speaker 2: to help Donald Trump avoid and evade accountability prosecution. He's
Speaker 2: trying to cover up the evidence of Donald Trump's crimes.
Speaker 2: And it is mind boggling to me that the Department
Speaker 2: of Justice thus far has let him do it with impunity.
Speaker 2: So Fawnie Willis pushed back hard, sent the letter, i
Speaker 2: think her second letter just yesterday or in recent days,
Speaker 2: saying you either don't know, oh that the Constitution actually
Speaker 2: separates the powers of the federal government from the States,
Speaker 2: and you, mister fed have no right interfering in the
Speaker 2: state court prosecution of a criminal former president of the
Speaker 2: United States or anybody else. Either you don't understand the
Speaker 2: way the constitution works, or you're just affirmatively trying to
Speaker 2: obstruct justice and try to help Trump avoid accountability. Which
Speaker 2: is it? So she's not giving an inch, and now
Speaker 2: we have to see what the next move might be.
Speaker 1: So let's pretend for a moment that Jim Jordan isn't
Speaker 1: moving from a place of obstruction and malice and an
Speaker 1: accomplice after the fact, what authority and what position would
Speaker 1: he be coming from in order to demand information from
Speaker 1: the Fulton County DA on information on a case that
Speaker 1: is in Georgia. I just want folks to understand again,
Speaker 1: these are state crimes. Right that she has indicted Donald
Speaker 1: Trump and the other seventeen co conspirators on are state crimes.
Speaker 1: Jim Jordan is the chairman of the House Judiciary Committee.
Speaker 1: So tell me how this would make sense if, in fact,
Speaker 1: Jim Jordan wasn't just trying to obstruct the law, or
Speaker 1: is there an avenue for that to make sense?
Speaker 2: Yeah, I don't think I'm creative enough to come up
Speaker 2: with a legitimate argument as to why this makes sense.
Speaker 2: Here is the best Jim Jordan has. He can say,
Speaker 2: you know, the prosecutor's office in Georgia receives some federal funds,
Speaker 2: some federal grants, some federal money, and in our oversight capacity,
Speaker 2: we want to question members or representatives of the Fulton
Speaker 2: County District Attorney's office just to make sure that these
Speaker 2: federal funds are being spent appropriately and aren't being you know,
Speaker 2: misallocated to bring an inappropriate prosecution against the former federal official.
Speaker 2: As those words come out of my mouth, I don't
Speaker 2: believe them because it's bs. But that really is the
Speaker 2: only sort of legitimate potential hook Jim Jordan can hang
Speaker 2: his hat on demanding information from Fawnie Willis.
Speaker 1: Now, because Jim Jordan has the ability to just ignore
Speaker 1: subpoenas apparently with and face no criminal responsibility or contempt
Speaker 1: or anything like that, tell us where what position Fannie
Speaker 1: Willis finds herself in. As she is putting out now
Speaker 1: her second letter essentially stating that you are acting in
Speaker 1: the way of obstruction to my case, what could possibly
Speaker 1: happen with her Yeah.
Speaker 2: So if I were Fannie Willis, I would be doing
Speaker 2: precisely what she's doing. I would be standing on the
Speaker 2: Constitution's separation separation of powers. Right. The Tenth Amendment says,
Speaker 2: the powers enumerated to the federal government are few, they
Speaker 2: are limited, and all of the other powers are reserved
Speaker 2: for the states or the people. And I would stand
Speaker 2: on that separation of powers. So here is the next
Speaker 2: play for Jordan. He can try to subpoena her, and
Speaker 2: if she refuses to comply, I don't know if he's
Speaker 2: technically issued a subpoena or they've just been sending letters
Speaker 2: back and forth at this point. And then if she
Speaker 2: refuses to apply and stands on the separation of powers
Speaker 2: as provided by the Constitution, he can then move it
Speaker 2: into court to try to have the court enforce the subpoena,
Speaker 2: which he did up in New York when Alvin Bragg
Speaker 2: told him to, you know, stick your subpoena, you know awhere,
Speaker 2: And then there was some negotiating and Alvin Bragg ended
Speaker 2: up presenting some information to Jordan and to his committee.
Speaker 2: So I assume this will probably move into the courts,
Speaker 2: and then we'll have to have a court decide if
Speaker 2: this is a righteous subpoena or if it's a violation
Speaker 2: of the separation of powers and the subpoena is being
Speaker 2: used nefariously by Jim Jordan to try to obstruct a
Speaker 2: state court prosecution.
Speaker 1: And what court would that go through? Would that be Georgia,
Speaker 1: would it be Washington d C. Where Jim Jordan supposedly
Speaker 1: is right as the chairman, Like, what circuit would that
Speaker 1: be moving through if he chooses to make that move.
Speaker 2: It's a great question. I think technically you might be
Speaker 2: able to bring it in both DC and in Georgia.
Speaker 2: But if we look at New York as a guide,
Speaker 2: I believe Jordan and the committee filed in New York
Speaker 2: because I know it was a New York State New
Speaker 2: York federal judge that took up the question of the
Speaker 2: enforceability of Jordan's subpoena when he was subpoenaing stuff from
Speaker 2: Alvin Bragg trying to interfere in the New York prosecution.
Speaker 2: So it may very well be a Georgia federal court
Speaker 2: will take this up if it if it gets that far.
Speaker 1: I mean, but you know, here's here's what I have
Speaker 1: seen at least outside of of the Cannon Court, is
Speaker 1: that you know, it is clear that these judges, regardless
Speaker 1: of who they've been appointed by, are really not interested
Speaker 1: in frivolousness, right, Like, so what what even if you know,
Speaker 1: let's let's shake the crystal ball for a minute, even
Speaker 1: if it were to go up through the courts, is
Speaker 1: there a strong enough case or does this look kind
Speaker 1: of like all of Donald Trump's attorney's attempts to slow
Speaker 1: things down or to obstruct where it's a waste of
Speaker 1: the court's time.
Speaker 2: Yeah, it's a great question. I do think the courts
Speaker 2: have held strong on for example, all of the election challenges.
Speaker 2: They held strong when Judge Aleen Cannon literally abused her
Speaker 2: judicial authority. Not my opinion, that's what the Eleventh Circuit
Speaker 2: Court of Appeals ruled. She abused her judicial authority and
Speaker 2: did an enormous favor for Donald Trump that the law
Speaker 2: did not allow. By and large, the federal courts have
Speaker 2: held fairly strong. I have a feeling though this is
Speaker 2: probably slightly different than Trump and his lawyers filing frivolous
Speaker 2: federal suits or cases. And here's what I predict will happen.
Speaker 2: Sort of much of what we saw in New York
Speaker 2: when okay, there was a little bit of negotiating, and
Speaker 2: ultimately Alvin Bragg provided some information, you know, probably that
Speaker 2: had something to do with federal money, federal grants, federal
Speaker 2: funds that were being used by the New York District
Speaker 2: Attorney's office, because that's actually a legitimate area for oversight.
Speaker 2: But we all know that's not what Jim Jordan is doing.
Speaker 2: Has Jim Jordan subpoena district attorneys from the other forty
Speaker 2: nine states to find out how federal funds and grant
Speaker 2: money are being used, of course not because they're not
Speaker 2: prosecuting his political benefactor, Donald Trump. So this is as
Speaker 2: transparent as it gets.
Speaker 1: Okay, well, let's shift gears now and move over to
Speaker 1: Jack Smith. Now, what we have seen of Jack Smith
Speaker 1: and his cases is that most recently, he is trying
Speaker 1: to present to Judge chuck In, who is overseeing the
Speaker 1: January sixth case, a potential gag order for Donald Trump,
Speaker 1: who let me just remark and say that if Donald
Speaker 1: Trum for anybody else other than a person with the
Speaker 1: name Donald Trump, Donald Trump would be in jail. He
Speaker 1: has threatened judges, he has threatened law clerks, he has
Speaker 1: threatened jurors, he has weaponized his social media platforms and
Speaker 1: put people in harm's way. There is no way that
Speaker 1: if he was not the former twice impeached president of
Speaker 1: the United States, that he would be out right now.
Speaker 1: So now here comes Jack Smith working to try and
Speaker 1: get a gag order. Talk to us about this, because
Speaker 1: what we've seen is these limited gag orders. Judge anger On,
Speaker 1: I feel like I'm maybe butchering his name put one
Speaker 1: in place, not for himself, but after Donald Trump posted
Speaker 1: the picture of his law clerk with Chuck Schumer. So
Speaker 1: what do you make of this?
Speaker 2: You know, it's about time somebody imposed a gag order
Speaker 2: on Donald Trump. And as much as I think in
Speaker 2: the moment, we were all celebrating the fact that some
Speaker 2: judge stepped up and tried to protect somebody from Donald
Speaker 2: Trump's dangerous, indeed often deadly rhetoric by imposing a gag order,
Speaker 2: there was a momentary celebration there. But Danielle, it highlights
Speaker 2: the extreme injustice and the unequal application of the rule
Speaker 2: of law. And here's how Donald Trump, as you just cataloged,
Speaker 2: has been endangering witnesses, grand jurors, prosecutors, judges, and all
Speaker 2: of their respective family members. And he's been doing it
Speaker 2: with impunity. But what happens when somebody close to a judge,
Speaker 2: somebody that a judge obviously feels very protective about his
Speaker 2: law clerk, gets put in harm's way by a Donald
Speaker 2: Trump instant gag order. Well, isn't it not? See I'm
Speaker 2: not laying into Judge Ngeron here because he did the
Speaker 2: right thing. But it highlights that if you're close to
Speaker 2: a judge, if a judge feels protective about you, in
Speaker 2: particular instant gag order, no motions and replies and oppositions
Speaker 2: and oral arguments and decisions, and written a snap gag
Speaker 2: order to protect somebody that the judge feels protective about.
Speaker 2: How about we feel protective regarding the witnesses Donald Trump
Speaker 2: is endangering every day and the jurors and the prosecutors
Speaker 2: and their family, just the way Judge Ngern felt protective
Speaker 2: of his law clerk. And how about we use the
Speaker 2: rule of law as it was intended to be used,
Speaker 2: and we gag Donald Trump from endangering all those other
Speaker 2: people who maybe aren't so close to the judge. You know,
Speaker 2: you can see that there's more injustice than there is
Speaker 2: justice right in this snap gag order that was issued
Speaker 2: by Judge Ngeround. But the silver lining, which I'm always
Speaker 2: looking for, and sometimes it's peeking out behind the big
Speaker 2: dark cloud that is Donald Trump, the silver lining is
Speaker 2: I think this will make it even easier for Judge
Speaker 2: Chuckkin on Monday. I'll be in the courtroom when this
Speaker 2: argument is held to impose a far more sweeping gag order.
Speaker 2: Because even after Jack Smith filed the motion with Judge
Speaker 2: Chuckin seeking a broader gag order, what did Donald Trump
Speaker 2: do said that one of the really compelling witnesses against him,
Speaker 2: General Mark Milly, should be executed Danielle. If a defendant
Speaker 2: on release in four felony cases ever threatened to witness,
Speaker 2: that person would be in pre trial detention so fast
Speaker 2: it would make their head spin. And this is the
Speaker 2: continued failure of our institutions of government to take responsibility
Speaker 2: for a president, former president, who continues to try to
Speaker 2: kill our democracy. And I wish I had an explanation
Speaker 2: for why we are allowing it to go.
Speaker 1: On, because, honestly, Glenn, I mean, I just want to
Speaker 1: remind folks, because you've talked about this for so many
Speaker 1: years on this show. But like you have prosecuted, you know,
Speaker 1: mob bosses, drug lords, you know, murderers. If any of
Speaker 1: those people involved in rico cases that you've tried over
Speaker 1: the last thirty years need any of the things that
Speaker 1: Donald Trump has done, stated said at rallies on social media,
Speaker 1: what would happen to that person?
Speaker 2: They would be in pre trial detention instantly. Because the
Speaker 2: standard to detain somebody pending trial if they're on release
Speaker 2: in a federal felony case is is there clear and
Speaker 2: convincing evidence that the person poses a danger to any
Speaker 2: person or to the community. The answer to that is
Speaker 2: a resounding yes. Donald Trump poses a danger to witnesses
Speaker 2: and judges and prosecutors and their family members and jurors
Speaker 2: and you name it. And so you know, anybody else,
Speaker 2: anybody else would be instantly pending trial. Not only that,
Speaker 2: he's also on pre trial release presently, and he has
Speaker 2: been violating the terms of his release with impunity. That's
Speaker 2: a reason to revoke his pre trial release. Separate and
Speaker 2: apart from whether he's a danger to the community and
Speaker 2: a flight risk, he is either unable or unwilling to
Speaker 2: abide by conditions of release. There are so many reasons
Speaker 2: to detain impending trial, not the least of which is
Speaker 2: it will end up taking away his megaphone. It will
Speaker 2: bring the temperature of the country down, It will give
Speaker 2: it will give the people some hope of a fair
Speaker 2: and impartial jury being impaneled to try the case against him.
Speaker 2: You know, and our system of government, our institutions, refuse
Speaker 2: to take responsibility and do what the law really demands.
Speaker 2: They're just ignoring it.
Speaker 1: I mean, Glenn, is it the belief then that the
Speaker 1: risk of putting Donald Trump in pre trial tension is
Speaker 1: greater than letting him be free? Do you know what
Speaker 1: I'm saying?
Speaker 2: It doesn't yet, But it doesn't matter. It doesn't matter
Speaker 2: what the risk is because here and I agree with you,
Speaker 2: that there are people who are taking extraneous factors, factors
Speaker 2: that have nothing to do with the law and the facts.
Speaker 2: Extraneous factors. I often call it politics, but it's not
Speaker 2: really politics. It is perhaps, you know, national security, Like,
Speaker 2: won't people you know, flood the won't his supporters flood
Speaker 2: the streets and start shooting? Okay, here's the thing that
Speaker 2: would be horrific, And I don't ever want to see
Speaker 2: that happen in America. But it doesn't matter because you
Speaker 2: do not make prosecutorial decisions based on extraneous factors, because
Speaker 2: once you do, the rule of law means nothing because
Speaker 2: you're no longer applying it as it was intended to
Speaker 2: be applied. I'm not going to say I don't care
Speaker 2: if his supporters take up arms. I don't think they
Speaker 2: will because they are by and large weaken, cowardly people. Yes,
Speaker 2: some of them are well armed, but I don't think
Speaker 2: they're going to put them in themselves in harm's way
Speaker 2: if Donald Trump is detained pending trial. But we are
Speaker 2: putting the nation in harm's way if we don't apply
Speaker 2: the law as it was intended to be applied and
Speaker 2: detain Donald Trump pending trial.
Speaker 1: With a couple of minutes that we have left, you're
Speaker 1: going to be in court come come Monday, where Judge
Speaker 1: Chunkin will rule. Right, I'm assuming on whether or not
Speaker 1: to impose a larger, more encompassing gag order.
Speaker 2: And she may not rule instantly, Okay, listen to the arguments.
Speaker 2: She may take a couple of days, but she'll rule
Speaker 2: pretty promptly.
Speaker 1: So what would that can can you just walk us
Speaker 1: through what would be included in that gag order and
Speaker 1: then if broken, what would be what would be the penalty?
Speaker 2: Yeah, I suspect I obviously don't know how Judge chuck
Speaker 2: In will fashion any restriction on Donald Trump's speech and posts,
Speaker 2: but I suspect it will be you may not speak
Speaker 2: publicly or post publicly about witnesses, prosecutors, court or court
Speaker 2: staff family members in a way that good could be
Speaker 2: perceived as threatening, intimidating, harassing. And then she's going to
Speaker 2: have to fashion a number of restrictions to prevent him
Speaker 2: from infecting the jury pool, from continuing to flood the
Speaker 2: you know, the airwaves and continue to spew into the
Speaker 2: public square disinformation that you know, the people who are
Speaker 2: going to be jurors, they're absorbing it, they're hearing it,
Speaker 2: you know. And so she's going to have to find
Speaker 2: some creative way to limit Donald Trump's ability to poison
Speaker 2: the jury pool. And the other thing that was just
Speaker 2: taken up in a recent motion filed by Jack Smith
Speaker 2: is with respect to once the jurors come into the courtroom,
Speaker 2: the hundreds of them who are summoned into you know,
Speaker 2: for jury selection, what Donald Trump may not do. For example,
Speaker 2: this is what Jack Smith just filed emotion regarding they said. Look,
Speaker 2: you can look at social media and look at any
Speaker 2: publicly available information. For example, if jurors are posting publicly
Speaker 2: things about themselves, but you can't contact them, you can't
Speaker 2: communicate with them, you can't friend them trying to draw
Speaker 2: more information out of them. And you can't have your
Speaker 2: cruddy associates like Roger Stone and Steve Bannon and these
Speaker 2: other knuckleheads. You can't have them friend them or communicate
Speaker 2: them with them as your surrogates, et cetera, et cetera.
Speaker 2: These are perilous times for jurors as much as anybody else.
Speaker 2: So Judge Chuckin, who is up to the task. I
Speaker 2: used to try murder cases against her back in the day,
Speaker 2: and I've been in her court more recently as she's
Speaker 2: presided over Jay six cases. She's up to the task.
Speaker 2: But it's going to be challenging to fashion the kind
Speaker 2: of you know, narrowly tailored restrictions on his speech and
Speaker 2: his posts that will accomplish all of this, but that
Speaker 2: won't run a foul of the First Amendment.
Speaker 1: If this happens, Glenn, he violates it.
Speaker 2: He will violate then what well, Judge chuck In, don't
Speaker 2: play she will probably. Now let me tell you, in
Speaker 2: my experience, I have had lots of people violate conditions
Speaker 2: that were set by the court, both pre trial and
Speaker 2: like post trial when they were in a probationary status.
Speaker 2: Judges ordinarily like to give a defendant one stern warning,
Speaker 2: a good finger wag, and then says, if you do
Speaker 2: it again, here are the consequences up to an including
Speaker 2: you will be revoked on release and you will be
Speaker 2: detained pending trial. And it's in that way they basically
Speaker 2: put the keys to the jail cell in the defendant's hand,
Speaker 2: and they warn them, if you violate the condition one
Speaker 2: more time, I will lock you up. Your freedom is
Speaker 2: in your hands, not mine. I would suspect now there
Speaker 2: may be an intram money fine, which doesn't matter because
Speaker 2: he'll just grift more money from his base pay the fine.
Speaker 2: But I suspect that is the direction in which we're heading,
Speaker 2: and it's only a question of how quickly we get there.
Speaker 2: I do think, I do think there's a very real
Speaker 2: possibility that Donald Trump will end up in a jail cell,
Speaker 2: not just after he is convicted and sentenced, but while
Speaker 2: he is pending trial.
Speaker 1: And last question for you, last last question, the ordering
Speaker 1: of this actual trial happening. What are we looking at? It?
Speaker 1: Is it March? I forget?
Speaker 2: What is the March fourth? Yeah, March fourth, jury selection
Speaker 2: begins in DC. As of right now, May twentieth is
Speaker 2: the trial date for the document's trial down in Florida.
Speaker 2: But Trump's lawyers have been yelling and screaming and whining
Speaker 2: about wanting to continue that. We will see if Trump
Speaker 2: appoint e Judge Aleen Cannon caters and cowtows to Donald
Speaker 2: Trump and moves that trial date or holds fast with
Speaker 2: that May trial date. I don't think Judge Chutkin will
Speaker 2: move the March trial date. It might slip a couple
Speaker 2: of weeks if there are some exigent circumstances. But I
Speaker 2: think we're going to see a trial this winter into
Speaker 2: early spring, and that will result in Donald Trump's first
Speaker 2: criminal conviction.
Speaker 1: And we have Cheeseboro and Powell, and that is still
Speaker 1: slated for the end of this.
Speaker 2: Month, October twenty third, they begin jury' selection unless one
Speaker 2: or both of them plead guilty, and then the question
Speaker 2: is how many other defendants in that what started out
Speaker 2: as a nineteen code offend in case one pledged guilty recently,
Speaker 2: and he will undoubtedly testify against Sidney Powell because they
Speaker 2: were charged with some crimes in common. The question is
Speaker 2: how many more of these plea offers that we know
Speaker 2: Fannie Willis has extended to other defendants are accepted? Did
Speaker 2: how many defendants drop out, plead guilty, flip and cooperate,
Speaker 2: and how many are left to go to trial?
Speaker 1: All right, well, Glenn, we will leave it there today
Speaker 1: and hopefully get back to you soon to get a
Speaker 1: better sense. As the month goes on. In these the
Speaker 1: jury selection begins and chunk and rules to see where
Speaker 1: we land, and I hope it will land Donald Trump
Speaker 1: in prison. Let me just say that, but we appreciate
Speaker 1: you as always.
Speaker 2: Thanks Danielle.
Speaker 1: That is it for me today. Dear friends on woke
Speaker 1: a f as always, Power to the people and to
Speaker 1: all the people. Power, get woke and stay woke as fuck.