Speaker 1: Good morning, peeps, and welcome to wok F Daily with
Speaker 1: Meet your Girl Daniel Moody. Pre recording from the Home
Speaker 1: Bunker during our holiday rest week. Folks, as we wind
Speaker 1: down the last seven years of bringing you WOKF, I've
Speaker 1: wanted to give you some of our best of Revisit
Speaker 1: these conversations that I think are really important for us
Speaker 1: to hold on to as we trudge our way into
Speaker 1: this brand new world. Donald Trump in a couple of
Speaker 1: weeks is going to be sworn in as a forty
Speaker 1: seventh president of these United States, and he was most
Speaker 1: likely will be the last democratically elected president of these
Speaker 1: United States. And so I thought it was important to
Speaker 1: go back to a conversation that I had with our
Speaker 1: friend gentalb about Donald Trump running for office in the
Speaker 1: first place as a twice impeached former president with multiple indictments,
Speaker 1: and recognizing that we have long since left precedented times.
Speaker 1: This is not normal. And I think that it's so important,
Speaker 1: folks to remind ourselves of that, because they want to
Speaker 1: make the abnormal seem normal. They want to make it
Speaker 1: seem okay that a white supremac apologist, a man that's
Speaker 1: multiple has multiple indictments, a man that said, can you
Speaker 1: do me a favor though, A man that's been accused
Speaker 1: of sexual harassment and adjudicated for rape, a man that
Speaker 1: has called Mexicans rapists and murderers, that said that black
Speaker 1: people come from shithole countries. A man that has ripped
Speaker 1: families away from each other and pledges to do mass
Speaker 1: deportations in his second term. None of this is normal,
Speaker 1: and we should never normalize it. We should never allow
Speaker 1: ourselves to just say, well, you know, it is what
Speaker 1: it is. We have to remember our power in these moments.
Speaker 1: We have to remember our light in these episodes of darkness,
Speaker 1: and we have to remember to remember who we are.
Speaker 1: So in this conversation with Gentobb that we revisit, we
Speaker 1: talk about all the ways that this isn't the America
Speaker 1: that we want to be living in, and so what
Speaker 1: do we do. Take a listen, folks, I am always
Speaker 1: so happy when one of my friends, fellow nerd Avenger,
Speaker 1: just fellow colleague in the space, who loses their mind.
Speaker 1: Regular bathists try to keep direct with the news cycle.
Speaker 1: Gentib joins Okay daily. You know her. She's a law
Speaker 1: professor and the author of Big Dirty money and other
Speaker 1: people's houses. And she is the host of Booked Up
Speaker 1: with Gen Tobb, Jen.
Speaker 2: Danielle.
Speaker 1: Where to begin in all honesty in the legal landscape
Speaker 1: or minefield that is America these days? But because I
Speaker 1: don't have my medication present, let's not talk about the
Speaker 1: Supreme Court, shall we? Let's just talk about the Donald Trump.
Speaker 1: But so here's what we know. Judge Aileen Cannon, who
Speaker 1: should have recused herself but didn't and is still overseeing
Speaker 1: Jack Smith's documents case against Donald Trump. Folks. I know
Speaker 1: that there are so many cases, so it's hard to
Speaker 1: keep track, but let us start with the document's case
Speaker 1: has set a court date for May twenty fourth, I
Speaker 1: believe twenty twenty four. Uh so five twenty four, twenty four,
Speaker 1: ha ha on us, Jen, what do you make of
Speaker 1: Aileen Cannon's moves thus far? Uh? In this in this
Speaker 1: case and whether or not we will we'll see pushback
Speaker 1: from the Department of Justice by way of Jack Smith
Speaker 1: because he said he was ready to go in December.
Speaker 1: We knew that that was unlikely. But but where what
Speaker 1: are you thinking so far about her moves and then
Speaker 1: the timing of this trial?
Speaker 2: Well, in my past life, Danielle, Like I don't know,
Speaker 2: pre COVID, pre Trump, and even maybe up until a
Speaker 2: few weeks ago, I tend to be a glass half
Speaker 2: full person. Now I'm a the glass has been smashed
Speaker 2: into pieces against the wall and I'm just drinking coffee
Speaker 2: straight from straight became the staff, you know, kind of person.
Speaker 2: So but that being set, I am trying to find
Speaker 2: the silver lining in the storm cloud that Eileen Cannon
Speaker 2: has created for the future of democracy. Because May twenty four,
Speaker 2: there's only one good two good things about that date.
Speaker 2: One that's literally the last I think, like the last day,
Speaker 2: like when grades are due spring semester for my classes,
Speaker 2: so like I will be done teaching. So if that's
Speaker 2: going to take over all of my time, I'm ready.
Speaker 2: That's but you know, that's the one good thing, hardly
Speaker 2: enough to recommend the date.
Speaker 1: But the other good.
Speaker 2: Thing is it is so far out there as a
Speaker 2: preliminary date that I'm hoping that Jack Smith is ready
Speaker 2: to go on the insurrection case on the January sixth case,
Speaker 2: that we expect to be charged any day now, and
Speaker 2: that a judge in DC sees it as perfect timing.
Speaker 2: There's no In other words, The reason why, as you know,
Speaker 2: that the Justice Department pushed out the date to December
Speaker 2: from the judge's original summer date, which wasn't going to happen,
Speaker 2: was because there's some complications around how to share top
Speaker 2: secret type documents that will not be the case in
Speaker 2: the January sixth indictment, you know. And I think the
Speaker 2: Justice Department has brought hundreds of cases involving the rioters
Speaker 2: and has already the benefit of, as you know, the
Speaker 2: special Committee investigating the attack on the Capitol. They have
Speaker 2: done incredible amounts of work even before this Special Council
Speaker 2: got involved. I think they're ready to go one day
Speaker 2: in DT. So my hope is they ask for a
Speaker 2: November date October even for that case. The yeah and
Speaker 2: the only, the only true other than the selfish motive,
Speaker 2: the only true good thing about May twenty fourth is
Speaker 2: it gives the opportunity a wide open field to bring
Speaker 2: the most important case against this guy, which is trying
Speaker 2: to stage a coup to stay in office and the
Speaker 2: you know, ongoing lie that that is associated with all that,
Speaker 2: all the time between the November election when he lost,
Speaker 2: through the attack on the Capitol and his role all
Speaker 2: of that is feeding into his campaign and the undermining
Speaker 2: of what little we have left of our democratic institution.
Speaker 2: So that's the bright note. Now, if there I am
Speaker 2: hoping he asks for October or November or December date.
Speaker 2: If Jack Smith doesn't, you know, I give up. I
Speaker 2: really do. I don't know what to tell you.
Speaker 1: So, I mean, we have a couple of things that
Speaker 1: are brewing right and I think one of them is
Speaker 1: the fact that on Donald Trump's broke ass Twitter that
Speaker 1: I refer to, I guess he truth's on there. I
Speaker 1: don't really know what one does on that apparatus, but
Speaker 1: on that application.
Speaker 2: But.
Speaker 1: You know, he sent out a real ominous and threatening
Speaker 1: video the other day which was basically saying, if you
Speaker 1: come for us, will come for you. We're not afraid.
Speaker 1: You know which, Jen, I'm no lawyer. That's why I
Speaker 1: have you on the show. But he seems to be
Speaker 1: doing the same exact things that he did prior to
Speaker 1: January sixth. With the rollout of these indictments, you know,
Speaker 1: he sends up a flare, all of mainstream media jumps
Speaker 1: on the Trump train right, giving him once again all
Speaker 1: just the free press that he he uses that attention to.
Speaker 1: Then send out threats to Jack Smith and to others,
Speaker 1: and then sends out this video basically another digital stand
Speaker 1: back and stand by. So tell me how these kinds
Speaker 1: of things can be used in a court of law
Speaker 1: that he's doing.
Speaker 2: I think once there is an indictment, assuming there is one,
Speaker 2: and there's a judge assigned, that judge can issue in
Speaker 2: theory a kind of gag order related to specifically making
Speaker 2: threats to the prosecutor specifically related to other kind of
Speaker 2: I would say incitement activity. And the question is, you know,
Speaker 2: will the judge, Will the judge do that?
Speaker 1: Uh?
Speaker 2: You know, the the he's gotten away with so much
Speaker 2: and a judge has to be careful in what they
Speaker 2: do because if they're not going to actually enforce in order,
Speaker 2: then it becomes a victory for him. You know, what
Speaker 2: does that look like in other words, of a judge
Speaker 2: makes an order and then do some sort of contempt
Speaker 2: citation against them, is you know, is he going to
Speaker 2: actually bring him into court? You know, we saw similar
Speaker 2: activity during the Carol two trial. It was Carol two
Speaker 2: because it was brought second even though charged, you know,
Speaker 2: she filed the the defamation and sexual assault case. This
Speaker 2: was the second case, even though it went first and
Speaker 2: there were things that you know, the Donald Trump was
Speaker 2: doing on Twitter, and the judge I was in the courtroom,
Speaker 2: you know, said to his lawyers, you got to talk
Speaker 2: to your client, and sometimes he took down what he
Speaker 2: was saying off Twitter. But then when he continued that
Speaker 2: behavior after he lost the case, now that's become part
Speaker 2: of the next case. I mean, Carol want it's been
Speaker 2: added to that case against him. Now this is all
Speaker 2: about a civil case. Right, You're more concerned about him
Speaker 2: stand back, stand by kind of language actually creating violence.
Speaker 2: I remain a little bit less concerned because when he
Speaker 2: was indicted his first federal indictment as opposed to the
Speaker 2: Manhattan DA indictment, the first federal grand jury indictment, we
Speaker 2: didn't see that much support for him around the courthouse
Speaker 2: in Florida. Now I realized this is probably this is
Speaker 2: different because these are the same people, right, this is
Speaker 2: all about But however, there are a lot of people
Speaker 2: who were charged and either serve time or are going
Speaker 2: to serve time, who feel abandoned by Donald Trump, in
Speaker 2: other words, he so they may not come and also
Speaker 2: they may themselves not want to get arrested again. So
Speaker 2: we've got to think about that. So I don't know
Speaker 2: if you're if you're worried.
Speaker 1: You know, the thing is, I wasn't stating that as
Speaker 1: a way to say that I'm worried that his words
Speaker 1: will incite the same type of violence as January sixth.
Speaker 1: It was really about whether or not the prosecution can
Speaker 1: show a pattern of behavior and did yeah, a pattern
Speaker 1: of behavior and basic intent with his continued language. Now
Speaker 1: you could have yeah, because my thought was if Donald Trump,
Speaker 1: let's say, had been a normal human being and you're
Speaker 1: caught doing something and then you decide I'm going to
Speaker 1: back away from that said behavior so that my attorneys
Speaker 1: can say that this was an isolated event, caught up
Speaker 1: in passion, whatever bullshit kind of you know, defense is
Speaker 1: going to be created. You could say that that was
Speaker 1: an isolated of it. But over the last few years
Speaker 1: since January sixth, we've watched Donald Trump continue to use
Speaker 1: social media as a way to either virtually assault people, right,
Speaker 1: make them a target in an attack, the same way
Speaker 1: that he did with the voting staff in uh in Georgia. Right.
Speaker 1: And so my question really is like, how is the process,
Speaker 1: how do you feel, how can the prosecution use Donald
Speaker 1: Trump's continued behavior or there for their case.
Speaker 2: Yes, so it's more of a legal analysis that you're
Speaker 2: asking me for. So yeah, So two ways. One if
Speaker 2: they if the prosecution wants to bring in evidence like
Speaker 2: as a pattern of behavior this is how he tries
Speaker 2: to obstruct and try to stir up violence. In terms
Speaker 2: of admitting evidence that his lawyers are obviously going to
Speaker 2: want to exclude that kind of evidence, and they want
Speaker 2: to narrow what a jury can hear, right, And so
Speaker 2: the tension in our rules of federal rules of evidence is,
Speaker 2: first of all, only things that are considered relevant can
Speaker 2: be admitted. This would obviously, you know, I think it's
Speaker 2: relevant to his intent and so on. So but the
Speaker 2: next thing is and of course the other side, his
Speaker 2: defense will say it's not. But even if a judge
Speaker 2: thinks it's relevant, the judge then has to decide whether
Speaker 2: something is two what's called too prejudicial to be probative.
Speaker 2: It's this concept of you know, for example, when a
Speaker 2: defendant is trial for a particular let's say, you know,
Speaker 2: breaking into a grocery store to steal formula for their
Speaker 2: kid or something. God forbid, we prosecute for that, you know,
Speaker 2: whether they had been caught doing, you know, shoplifting something
Speaker 2: else at a different time. You know, if a jury
Speaker 2: gets to hear the other shoplifting, it's going to make
Speaker 2: them think, oh, this is a bad person. I'm going
Speaker 2: to convict them. And so the defense is going to
Speaker 2: want to say, you know, that's not really relevant. What
Speaker 2: they were shoplifting before was you know, I don't know Amazon,
Speaker 2: you know, gift cards or whatever, and that just has
Speaker 2: nothing to do with this. However, you know, the idea
Speaker 2: would be, well, if the way that this person did
Speaker 2: this was similar, then we can look for a pattern
Speaker 2: of behavior. But the idea is it's relevant because it
Speaker 2: shows this person has the intent to take things that
Speaker 2: aren't theirs. But a lot of judges would exclude that earlier,
Speaker 2: that earlier evidence because they would say, you know, that's
Speaker 2: going to make a jury try him for being a
Speaker 2: bad person, and we don't do that in America. You're
Speaker 2: supposed to be tried for your your actual offenses. So
Speaker 2: it's going to really be up to what a jury,
Speaker 2: what the judge is, and how the judge rules. So
Speaker 2: that's going to be an evidentiary battle. The second way, though,
Speaker 2: I think is interesting, is if his tweeting or his
Speaker 2: it's not even tweeting xing, or his his what that
Speaker 2: we call him now is true thing whatever, if his
Speaker 2: public statements are directed toward this particular case, and it
Speaker 2: could be seen as trying to influence witnesses or tamper
Speaker 2: with them, or somehow create threats against physical or other
Speaker 2: threats against jurors or the court. That could be its
Speaker 2: own kind of separate case, you know. And I don't
Speaker 2: know if you saw this, but the other day I
Speaker 2: saw like it was it Mike Huckabee. Did you see
Speaker 2: this thing going around on threads like he put up?
Speaker 2: It could have been on true social maybe it was
Speaker 2: an interview on the news, But what I saw is
Speaker 2: he was on air or something saying the most important
Speaker 2: values are loyalty, and he was like saying it was
Speaker 2: a very weird, like if you don't get it, like
Speaker 2: they're all out there sending signals for people to not
Speaker 2: not squeal, you know, not rat out the mob boss.
Speaker 2: And the closer he gets to this prospect of being
Speaker 2: convicted for something in federal court, maybe he believes jail time,
Speaker 2: which I don't think would happen. But the closer he
Speaker 2: gets to that, the more desperate his moves will become.
Speaker 2: And so I think we should keep our eye on
Speaker 2: both both avenues.
Speaker 1: So let's now take a little trip down south to Georgia,
Speaker 1: right where we are waiting yet and again, folks, you
Speaker 1: know Jen and I are having this conversation at a
Speaker 1: time when they're when you know, we're doing our best
Speaker 1: to read the tea leaves and shake a magic eight ball,
Speaker 1: but we have no idea when and if these things
Speaker 1: are actually coming down the pike. My assumption is yes,
Speaker 1: it is why from Georgia because Fani Willis had sent
Speaker 1: up a flair months ago telling us that between July
Speaker 1: and September for law enforcement to prepare, so we know
Speaker 1: that those things are are underway. Part of Jen I
Speaker 1: guess the rumors that are circulating is that Fannie Willis
Speaker 1: the DA in Georgia could potentially be looking at racketeering charges.
Speaker 1: So Jen, talk to us about this, what if this big?
Speaker 1: What if that we don't know yet? Why would this
Speaker 1: be a BFD.
Speaker 2: Well, it would be a BFD because of what activity
Speaker 2: you can scoop up once you decide something is racketeering
Speaker 2: or a racketeering conspiracy. So there is a federal RICO law,
Speaker 2: and there are than state ones. And the people think
Speaker 2: of RICO racketeering Influenced Corrupt Organizations Act law. They think
Speaker 2: of it as being something to get organized crime. But
Speaker 2: that's not the only thing it can be used for.
Speaker 2: And the idea with racketeering is that you uh the law,
Speaker 2: whether it's the Georgia one or the federal one, is
Speaker 2: designed to criminalize, to create, criminalize a pattern of racketeering activity.
Speaker 2: So that's how the language works. And then you have
Speaker 2: to say, well, what is racketeering activity and what is
Speaker 2: a pattern? Well, racketeering activity at the federal level is
Speaker 2: a little bit different at the state the federal level.
Speaker 2: The reason why RICO was established is so that you
Speaker 2: could turn into a federal crime or a pattern of
Speaker 2: state criminal behavior, so as well as a series of
Speaker 2: different federal crimes, so that we call them predicate offenses.
Speaker 2: So all of a sudden, someone who's just committing crimes
Speaker 2: like doing you know, black met or bribery or shaking
Speaker 2: people down, or murder. At the state level, you know,
Speaker 2: murdering people, you could now say, well, murder's usually a
Speaker 2: state offense. But now if it's a pattern of racketeering activity,
Speaker 2: if it's a if you have an enterprise, which is,
Speaker 2: you know, a group of two or more people working
Speaker 2: together to commit a series of murders, now all of
Speaker 2: a sudden, instead of just a state crime, you could
Speaker 2: charge that at the federal level, right or kidnapping, So
Speaker 2: think of that. That's the federal way. Similarly, things like
Speaker 2: wirefraud or counterfeiting or all kinds of other federal offenses.
Speaker 2: If someone is a pattern of it, if you've called
Speaker 2: you call it a pattern of racketeering activity. Now what
Speaker 2: you've done, If you've said, okay, Danielle, if you're at
Speaker 2: the hub of this group, if you're in charge of
Speaker 2: you know this activity. You if you set up this
Speaker 2: sort of racketeering enterprise and you're either making money or
Speaker 2: benefiting from this kind of behavior, even if you were
Speaker 2: not involved in all these underlying things, if you're part
Speaker 2: of this rico enterprise, you now can be tagged with
Speaker 2: all this other stuff. It's a way of creating a
Speaker 2: web around a sort of amorphous activity where you cannot see.
Speaker 2: So let's put Donald Trump at the center of this,
Speaker 2: and let's look at the let's look at the efforts
Speaker 2: to change the vote count in Georgia. The reason why racketeering, Now,
Speaker 2: let's look at the state level. The reason why racketeering
Speaker 2: would be helpful is if if Rico at the state,
Speaker 2: at the Georgia level, is also criminalizing a pattern of
Speaker 2: racketeering activity. Rico at the Georgia level has a whole
Speaker 2: bunch of other types of crimes, state crimes, and some
Speaker 2: of those are the you know, the activities that people
Speaker 2: like Giuliani and anyone he.
Speaker 1: Was working with Graham, Lindsey Graham.
Speaker 2: Or maybe any of the electors. And so all of
Speaker 2: a sudden, you have all these people doing all these
Speaker 2: different activities that were all furthering the efforts of Donald
Speaker 2: Trump to overturn the election in Georgia. And Rico helps
Speaker 2: because you might if you cannot find a phone call
Speaker 2: where every single person who did bad things in this
Speaker 2: puzzle was told by Donald Trump to do it, it
Speaker 2: doesn't really matter. Creating this Rico theory, Rico enterprise, you
Speaker 2: could now create liability for him. I don't know if
Speaker 2: that makes sense to you. That's what I'm trying to
Speaker 2: So that's why it's sort of a big deal, and
Speaker 2: you know it just it just as layers of liability
Speaker 2: and just yet another crime. And it also sounds bad.
Speaker 2: But remember he already settled Rico State Rico charges with
Speaker 2: his fake university. You know, it's not like he hasn't
Speaker 2: been tagged with RICO before. I just think people like,
Speaker 2: they think it sounds they think it sounds scary. But
Speaker 2: the other thing is that Fawnie Willis has had success
Speaker 2: using the Georgia Rico statute before. Wasn't she involved in
Speaker 2: the whole thing about teachers cheating helping students cheat on exams? Yes,
Speaker 2: So again, when you have.
Speaker 1: An organized crime ring, it doesn't need to be a mob.
Speaker 1: It doesn't need to be a mob association. Hollywood has
Speaker 1: allowed us to make that connection, but that is not
Speaker 1: the only connection that it has. And if we're looking
Speaker 1: and we're talking about all the ways in which Donald
Speaker 1: Trump has a legal tsunami against him, it is to
Speaker 1: pull back and say, this is an organized crime ring
Speaker 1: that has engulfed an entire political party. And there are
Speaker 1: many mechanisms, much in the same way that you know,
Speaker 1: organized crime members have different hands in different jars.
Speaker 2: And what's super interesting is when you say organized crime ring.
Speaker 2: What becomes super interesting is how is the ring defined,
Speaker 2: who's in it right and who's not in it right,
Speaker 2: because that will tell us more about you know, who
Speaker 2: flipped who didn't based on whether they're charged or not.
Speaker 2: And you know, we've got to go back to that
Speaker 2: to remember this special grand jury report, when that woman
Speaker 2: was making the rounds, who was absolutely giddy going on television. Yeah,
Speaker 2: so she told us, you know, there are not going
Speaker 2: to be any plot twists. There are lots of people's names.
Speaker 2: We're not going to be surprised to see them. You know,
Speaker 2: I would like to see those.
Speaker 1: Lastly, Jen, just to think about all the ways in
Speaker 1: which for a normal person the walls would be closing
Speaker 1: in and this would just amount to, you know, guilty
Speaker 1: verdict after guilty verdict. But we know that in the
Speaker 1: America that we live in, where rich, white, cis hetero men,
Speaker 1: very rarely are held to account, let alone those that
Speaker 1: were former presidents of the United States. I want to
Speaker 1: turn your attention to Michigan for a moment and the
Speaker 1: sixteen sixteen Republican of fake electors who were caught up
Speaker 1: in that scheme, who were charged with felonies for their
Speaker 1: quote for their role in the alleged false elector's scheme.
Speaker 1: How does that? How does what is happening in Michigan
Speaker 1: tie in to what is happening in Georgia and as
Speaker 1: a larger part of this overall twenty twenty scheme by
Speaker 1: Trump and company.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I mean it tells me. I mean, first of all,
Speaker 2: I'm so proud of the women from my home state.
Speaker 2: You know, you know, we don't come to play. I
Speaker 2: mean I recognize, I recognize those women as people that
Speaker 2: some people I grew up with him that I admire.
Speaker 2: And what it tells me is a couple of things.
Speaker 2: In Michigan, the Attorney General, Dana Nessel took this case
Speaker 2: back after she had referred it over to Merrick Garland.
Speaker 2: So remember Merrick Garland, you know, as in my view,
Speaker 2: was not in a big hurry to do justice when
Speaker 2: it came to anything Donald Trump was involved in. And
Speaker 2: only when he announced his plan to run for office
Speaker 2: does he appoint Jack Smith. And only I think shortly
Speaker 2: after maybe they found those documents at Biden's house? Did that?
Speaker 2: Do you even do that? Like he should have a
Speaker 2: pointed some long time ago, and he also should have
Speaker 2: done something about the flake collectors in Michigan and the
Speaker 2: other states. And so I admired Dana Nessel for saying,
Speaker 2: you know what, I don't have to wait forever. I'm
Speaker 2: going to bring this case. And she, you know, she
Speaker 2: brought this case against these against these these people. It
Speaker 2: was sixteen of them, and the kinds of charges she
Speaker 2: used were ordinary state charges. I love this one. One
Speaker 2: crime called uttering and publishing. When I worked in the
Speaker 2: courthouses when I was a teenager and I had some
Speaker 2: summer jobs, they're uttering publishing was something you charge people
Speaker 2: with if they wrote a bad check. It's kind of
Speaker 2: any kind of sort of false written statement. Others were
Speaker 2: charged with, you know, other charges included for each of
Speaker 2: them election law forgery, and these are these are serious,
Speaker 2: serious felonies. These are you know, when they're at this level,
Speaker 2: when it's not just passing a bad check, when it's
Speaker 2: actually trying to falsify the electoral slate and and and
Speaker 2: you know, give an opportunity for overturning a lawful election.
Speaker 2: We're talking about fourteen years for each of these offenses.
Speaker 2: There's like one, two, three, four, or five, like six
Speaker 2: different felonies here in several counts each to My hope
Speaker 2: is that other states, not just Georgia and Michigan where
Speaker 2: this was going on, the prosecutors decide that they're not
Speaker 2: going to wait around for the federal government. Jacksonith's obviously
Speaker 2: very busy at this point and whatever else he's not
Speaker 2: working on, I wouldn't leave it to Merrick Garland, and
Speaker 2: hopefully they step up.
Speaker 1: I mean, but isn't that just a fucking travesty that, like,
Speaker 1: you know, in Merrick Garland's attempt to not play politics,
Speaker 1: to restore integrity into an institution, That's exactly what he's
Speaker 1: been doing. That's exactly what he's done. And what we
Speaker 1: know to be true is that if Donald Trump had
Speaker 1: not announced his run for reelection, then Merrick Garland would
Speaker 1: have done absolutely nothing.
Speaker 2: You know, if it weren't for I think the big
Speaker 2: in addition to that, one hundred percent agree, I think
Speaker 2: the biggest game changer was the testimony.
Speaker 1: Of Cassidy Hutchinsons.
Speaker 2: And yet again, you know, look, there's you know, people,
Speaker 2: people who are closest to the activity, who don't have
Speaker 2: fancy titles, always know what's going on in this world.
Speaker 2: But here she is, this young woman and not only
Speaker 2: did they not take her seriously, they tried to destroy her,
Speaker 2: you know, afterward. And you know, my question for you is,
Speaker 2: why did she go Why did her lawyers when they
Speaker 2: decided to seek her own counsel, why did they feel
Speaker 2: safe going to the commission, and why did they not
Speaker 2: go to the Justice Department first? And there's a reason. Yeah,
Speaker 2: because I you know, and I don't know. I I
Speaker 2: have a lot, you know, I'm very disappointed. I you know,
Speaker 2: as you know, I believe a special counsel should have
Speaker 2: been appointed right away at the outset. But we're where
Speaker 2: we are. But if there had been a special counsel
Speaker 2: appointed the minute Marek Garland was sworn in in March
Speaker 2: of twenty twenty one, we may have actually had some
Speaker 2: trials by now. This is ridiculous.
Speaker 1: That's not what they's not that's not what they wanted,
Speaker 1: and that's not what he wanted.
Speaker 2: But we're really it's a terrible situation for the country
Speaker 2: to be in. You know, I'm not someone who's who's
Speaker 2: happy that Donald Trump is going to most likely be
Speaker 2: the candidate for the Republican Party, because they all know
Speaker 2: the only way that he can win is if there's
Speaker 2: a third party candidate. I mean, that's how Bill Clinton won.
Speaker 2: Ross Perot was there. It's very hard, even under normal circumstances,
Speaker 2: for anyone to either party to win the presidential election
Speaker 2: the way the electoral College is set up, in the
Speaker 2: way our country has always been divided. And now we're
Speaker 2: in a real danger of Donald Trump being re elected.
Speaker 2: And you know, I blame that on the Justice Department
Speaker 2: because and I'm not saying it because this is not
Speaker 2: a partisan issue. I'm saying someone who tried to overthrow
Speaker 2: the election should not be running again. And and that
Speaker 2: is if you don't if you don't understand that, then
Speaker 2: you really don't know what you're doing in your job.
Speaker 2: And I don't understand how that was in his priority
Speaker 2: day one.
Speaker 1: Honestly, that is a that is a question that I
Speaker 1: don't think we'll ever have an answer to, my friend,
Speaker 1: but we will have to leave it here today. Genob,
Speaker 1: thank you so much for making the time to join
Speaker 1: wo KF read some tea leaves with me here because
Speaker 1: Lord only knows what's coming. But I'm sure it's not good.
Speaker 1: But but I'm sure we'll have you back to unpack
Speaker 1: it all when it does come to fruish.
Speaker 2: Well, I'm glad that you say that, because it's nothing good.
Speaker 2: It's going to happen in this space, if something even small,
Speaker 2: even the essence of something good, I guess yeah, then
Speaker 2: I can you know, have a little a little rejoicing.
Speaker 1: Yeah, yeah, Oh we'll see. That is it for me today,
Speaker 1: Dear friends on Woke af AS always, power to the
Speaker 1: people and to all the people. Power, get woke and
Speaker 1: stay woke as fuck.