1
00:00:00,440 --> 00:00:05,080
Speaker 1: I never thought anything like this could happen in America

2
00:00:05,800 --> 00:00:08,719
Speaker 1: could happen, but it did happen. For the first time

3
00:00:08,720 --> 00:00:12,639
Speaker 1: in our history, a former president was charged with a crime,

4
00:00:12,920 --> 00:00:17,400
Speaker 1: taken into custody, fingerprinted, and arraigned on thirty four felony

5
00:00:17,480 --> 00:00:21,919
Speaker 1: counts of falsifying business records. Trump pleaded not guilty and

6
00:00:22,160 --> 00:00:26,320
Speaker 1: only uttered ten words behind closed doors in the Manhattan

7
00:00:26,360 --> 00:00:30,640
Speaker 1: Criminal courtroom, But in a Grievanceville speech before supporters at

8
00:00:30,680 --> 00:00:34,400
Speaker 1: Mara Lago that evening, he attacked the indictment as politically

9
00:00:34,440 --> 00:00:38,240
Speaker 1: motivated and leveled attacks on the judge, the district attorney,

10
00:00:38,280 --> 00:00:42,560
Speaker 1: and their families. I have a Trump painting judge with

11
00:00:42,720 --> 00:00:46,440
Speaker 1: the Trump painting wife and family whose daughter worked for

12
00:00:47,040 --> 00:00:51,960
Speaker 1: Kamala Harris. The criminal is the district attorney because he

13
00:00:52,000 --> 00:00:56,360
Speaker 1: illegally leaked massive amounts of grand jury information. Manhattan DA

14
00:00:56,440 --> 00:01:00,280
Speaker 1: Alvin Bragg claims that Trump falsified business record at his

15
00:01:00,360 --> 00:01:03,920
Speaker 1: company relating to a one hundred thirty thousand dollars hush

16
00:01:03,960 --> 00:01:07,480
Speaker 1: money payment to porn star Stormy Daniels in an effort

17
00:01:07,480 --> 00:01:10,440
Speaker 1: to hide salacious news from the public in order to

18
00:01:10,440 --> 00:01:15,920
Speaker 1: win the presidency. Thirty four false statements made to cover

19
00:01:16,080 --> 00:01:20,360
Speaker 1: up other crimes. These are felony crimes in New York State.

20
00:01:21,520 --> 00:01:25,600
Speaker 1: No matter who you are, we cannot and will not

21
00:01:26,400 --> 00:01:30,760
Speaker 1: normalize serious criminal conducts. Joining me is Michael Moore, a

22
00:01:30,840 --> 00:01:34,000
Speaker 1: partner More Hall and the former US Attorney for the

23
00:01:34,000 --> 00:01:37,960
Speaker 1: Middle District of Georgia. Michael, it's a bare bones indictment.

24
00:01:38,120 --> 00:01:42,120
Speaker 1: Thirty four records. Trump is accused of falsifying. That's clear

25
00:01:42,200 --> 00:01:45,720
Speaker 1: and simple. But in order to bump these up to felonies,

26
00:01:45,959 --> 00:01:48,920
Speaker 1: the district attorney has to show that they were falsified

27
00:01:49,040 --> 00:01:52,840
Speaker 1: with the intent to commit, aid or conceal another crime.

28
00:01:53,080 --> 00:01:56,560
Speaker 1: But the indictment doesn't specify what those other crimes are,

29
00:01:56,800 --> 00:02:00,160
Speaker 1: and the district attorney was really ambiguous about them at

30
00:02:00,160 --> 00:02:02,640
Speaker 1: the press conference. So is that a weakness in the

31
00:02:02,680 --> 00:02:05,640
Speaker 1: case or is it the DA playing his cards close

32
00:02:05,680 --> 00:02:08,440
Speaker 1: to his vest I really think it's a weakness in

33
00:02:08,480 --> 00:02:12,040
Speaker 1: the case. A prosecutor's job is to do things in

34
00:02:12,080 --> 00:02:14,120
Speaker 1: a way that follows the law in the facts, but

35
00:02:14,200 --> 00:02:17,320
Speaker 1: also to give the public confidence in his or her

36
00:02:17,520 --> 00:02:20,280
Speaker 1: decision making and charge of decisions as they've moved forward.

37
00:02:20,840 --> 00:02:23,799
Speaker 1: And you know, without that information, I just don't think

38
00:02:23,840 --> 00:02:26,480
Speaker 1: the indictment does that when I looked at the indictment

39
00:02:26,639 --> 00:02:29,800
Speaker 1: in the statement of fact, I was underwhelmed. Would probably

40
00:02:29,840 --> 00:02:32,000
Speaker 1: be generous to say that. And I've heard a lot

41
00:02:32,040 --> 00:02:35,200
Speaker 1: of talk about the issue of everyone's treated the same

42
00:02:35,280 --> 00:02:37,200
Speaker 1: or should be treated the same under the law. But

43
00:02:37,240 --> 00:02:39,440
Speaker 1: the reality is you can do that while at the

44
00:02:39,440 --> 00:02:42,480
Speaker 1: same time recognizing the fact before us, if this is

45
00:02:42,520 --> 00:02:46,800
Speaker 1: a former president and historic prosecution in any manner, and

46
00:02:46,880 --> 00:02:49,160
Speaker 1: so I really felt like it needed to have more

47
00:02:49,800 --> 00:02:52,640
Speaker 1: meat on the bones than we saw in the indictment.

48
00:02:52,840 --> 00:02:54,120
Speaker 1: I think there's some things that are going to be

49
00:02:54,200 --> 00:02:57,200
Speaker 1: subject to appeal right away from the indictment that deals

50
00:02:57,200 --> 00:02:59,960
Speaker 1: with you whether or not the federal election laws can

51
00:03:00,120 --> 00:03:03,440
Speaker 1: be the crimes that are sort of the secondary tier

52
00:03:03,520 --> 00:03:06,320
Speaker 1: that allow the cases to be vowed from a mistermount

53
00:03:06,320 --> 00:03:08,000
Speaker 1: to a felony, and then with are not in a

54
00:03:08,080 --> 00:03:11,280
Speaker 1: potential tax violation in fact and cover that as well.

55
00:03:11,320 --> 00:03:13,480
Speaker 1: So we just begin to see, I'm sure what will

56
00:03:13,520 --> 00:03:16,959
Speaker 1: be a long pre trial motion process. So is what's

57
00:03:17,040 --> 00:03:21,800
Speaker 1: likely to happen that during discovery, defense attorneys get those

58
00:03:21,960 --> 00:03:25,760
Speaker 1: answers from the prosecutor about what the underlying crime is

59
00:03:25,840 --> 00:03:28,280
Speaker 1: or will they have to wait till trial. Now I

60
00:03:28,280 --> 00:03:30,920
Speaker 1: think they'll probably file a motion early on to demand

61
00:03:31,040 --> 00:03:33,480
Speaker 1: that there'll be more specifics given in the charge of

62
00:03:33,560 --> 00:03:36,080
Speaker 1: document and indictment for people who don't do it every day.

63
00:03:36,120 --> 00:03:38,160
Speaker 1: If you think about this, that the indictment is really

64
00:03:38,200 --> 00:03:40,520
Speaker 1: the document that has to be given to anyone who's

65
00:03:40,600 --> 00:03:42,360
Speaker 1: charged with the crime so that they can have a

66
00:03:42,400 --> 00:03:45,160
Speaker 1: complete and full understanding of what they're being charged with.

67
00:03:45,400 --> 00:03:47,960
Speaker 1: It's a notice document, and so this just simply I

68
00:03:47,960 --> 00:03:50,440
Speaker 1: don't think gave sufficient notice. So I imagine that the

69
00:03:50,520 --> 00:03:53,080
Speaker 1: lawyers were Trump will not only file them motion to

70
00:03:53,160 --> 00:03:56,480
Speaker 1: dismiss that they'll also then ask accord in the alternative

71
00:03:56,600 --> 00:04:00,680
Speaker 1: and maybe in second motions as well, for specific particulars

72
00:04:00,720 --> 00:04:04,720
Speaker 1: about the charges in question. The defense attorneys have said

73
00:04:04,720 --> 00:04:07,920
Speaker 1: they're going to be aggressive with motions. What kind of

74
00:04:07,960 --> 00:04:10,760
Speaker 1: motions can we expect, Well, I think it's likely that

75
00:04:10,800 --> 00:04:14,360
Speaker 1: you'll see an initial motion challenging the jurisdiction of the court,

76
00:04:14,520 --> 00:04:17,760
Speaker 1: probably raised on constitutional grounds. There will be arguments about

77
00:04:17,800 --> 00:04:21,080
Speaker 1: presidential immunity. I think you will have motions on the

78
00:04:21,120 --> 00:04:23,640
Speaker 1: indictment itself and whether or not it's sufficient. So you'll

79
00:04:23,640 --> 00:04:27,880
Speaker 1: see likely motions to dismiss, challenging the language of the indictment,

80
00:04:28,000 --> 00:04:31,359
Speaker 1: the notice given to a defendant in the indictment, the

81
00:04:31,400 --> 00:04:34,520
Speaker 1: sufficiency of each of the allegations that stated on the

82
00:04:34,560 --> 00:04:36,560
Speaker 1: face of the indictment. And you know, when you think

83
00:04:36,600 --> 00:04:38,760
Speaker 1: about that too, remember that a defendant doesn't have to

84
00:04:38,760 --> 00:04:41,359
Speaker 1: try to guess what's in the prosecutor's mind. He didn't

85
00:04:41,360 --> 00:04:44,240
Speaker 1: have to wait and guess what might be presented to

86
00:04:44,279 --> 00:04:47,119
Speaker 1: the jury. He's entitled to some notice in a case.

87
00:04:47,200 --> 00:04:50,840
Speaker 1: And so they'll challenge the indictment on sufficiency, I feel certain,

88
00:04:51,120 --> 00:04:53,279
Speaker 1: and there'll be some challenges as well on this sort

89
00:04:53,320 --> 00:04:56,680
Speaker 1: of new idea about whether or not you can have

90
00:04:56,800 --> 00:05:00,520
Speaker 1: as a basis for a state criminal prosecution and allegation

91
00:05:00,600 --> 00:05:04,800
Speaker 1: that is so inextricably tied to federal election law and

92
00:05:04,880 --> 00:05:08,600
Speaker 1: a federal statute, and is that actionable in the criminal

93
00:05:08,640 --> 00:05:11,520
Speaker 1: courts in New York. That's some of the initial motions

94
00:05:11,560 --> 00:05:13,760
Speaker 1: I think we'll see. You're going to have other motions

95
00:05:13,760 --> 00:05:16,080
Speaker 1: as well. They'll probably be a motion to change the

96
00:05:16,240 --> 00:05:18,160
Speaker 1: venue or the place where the trial would be held.

97
00:05:18,200 --> 00:05:21,360
Speaker 1: I'd expect very likely that you'll see motions to disqualify

98
00:05:21,560 --> 00:05:25,200
Speaker 1: the prosecutor and likely to ask the judge to accuse himself.

99
00:05:25,240 --> 00:05:28,320
Speaker 1: You know, these will be aggressive defense attorneys, as they

100
00:05:28,320 --> 00:05:31,240
Speaker 1: should be, and every defendant under the Constitution has a

101
00:05:31,320 --> 00:05:33,680
Speaker 1: right to a zealous defense, and so I expect that

102
00:05:33,760 --> 00:05:36,159
Speaker 1: you'll see this. But again, it will be especially so

103
00:05:36,400 --> 00:05:40,520
Speaker 1: because of the enormity of this case and the ramifications

104
00:05:40,600 --> 00:05:43,719
Speaker 1: of this case really not just now, but in fifty years,

105
00:05:44,000 --> 00:05:46,080
Speaker 1: what this means and whether or not there could be

106
00:05:46,120 --> 00:05:49,799
Speaker 1: local charges against the formal president for some conduct even

107
00:05:49,880 --> 00:05:52,240
Speaker 1: while the president may have been in office. Are you

108
00:05:52,320 --> 00:05:57,640
Speaker 1: basically saying that, despite what Bragg says, that Trump can't

109
00:05:57,640 --> 00:06:01,200
Speaker 1: be treated just like any other defense. I think that

110
00:06:01,200 --> 00:06:04,479
Speaker 1: that's right. I think that you try to treat people fairly,

111
00:06:04,720 --> 00:06:07,360
Speaker 1: but you can't get around the circumstances that we're in.

112
00:06:07,440 --> 00:06:09,240
Speaker 1: And you don't have to look any further the fact

113
00:06:09,240 --> 00:06:11,320
Speaker 1: that you know, we had to have the courthouse closed

114
00:06:11,400 --> 00:06:14,640
Speaker 1: basically to allow Trump to appear in court for security reasons.

115
00:06:14,720 --> 00:06:17,000
Speaker 1: That's treating it different than any other defendant. I mean,

116
00:06:17,000 --> 00:06:19,560
Speaker 1: that's just the reality that we're in. I think, given

117
00:06:19,800 --> 00:06:23,040
Speaker 1: the charges against a formal president, there'll be security issues

118
00:06:23,040 --> 00:06:25,400
Speaker 1: that go on throughout the trial. There'll be scheduling an

119
00:06:25,400 --> 00:06:27,680
Speaker 1: appearance issues that go off throughout the trial. There may

120
00:06:27,720 --> 00:06:32,080
Speaker 1: be appeals where the federal courts are more actively involved

121
00:06:32,080 --> 00:06:34,920
Speaker 1: in the case because the charges involved a formal president.

122
00:06:35,000 --> 00:06:38,679
Speaker 1: You basically matters move more quickly towards the Supreme Court

123
00:06:38,920 --> 00:06:42,480
Speaker 1: because of that, as we deal with constitutional issues that

124
00:06:42,560 --> 00:06:45,400
Speaker 1: are not president in every other case. And I think too,

125
00:06:45,480 --> 00:06:47,800
Speaker 1: I mean, I do think that you know, a prosecutor

126
00:06:48,240 --> 00:06:51,240
Speaker 1: has to also use his or her discrestion and bring

127
00:06:51,240 --> 00:06:53,680
Speaker 1: in cases. And you'd like to say, and I think

128
00:06:53,760 --> 00:06:56,200
Speaker 1: prosecutor would tell you that every time they ever see

129
00:06:56,240 --> 00:06:58,920
Speaker 1: a violation of any crime anywhere and if your station,

130
00:06:58,960 --> 00:07:01,600
Speaker 1: they bring charges. But that's just not the case. And

131
00:07:01,640 --> 00:07:05,240
Speaker 1: you can think, I'm sure about circumstances where people get

132
00:07:05,240 --> 00:07:08,479
Speaker 1: a warning when they violated speeding on him, some drivers

133
00:07:08,480 --> 00:07:11,600
Speaker 1: get a warning, somebody does not, or cases where somebody's

134
00:07:11,800 --> 00:07:14,640
Speaker 1: charged with an offense that could prohibit them from going

135
00:07:14,680 --> 00:07:17,720
Speaker 1: to college and complete the scholarship that the prosecutor decides

136
00:07:17,760 --> 00:07:19,960
Speaker 1: to reduce the charge so that they're not thrown out

137
00:07:19,960 --> 00:07:22,560
Speaker 1: of college. You can go down a list of examples

138
00:07:22,600 --> 00:07:25,960
Speaker 1: that are very much real life examples about how prosecutor

139
00:07:26,000 --> 00:07:27,880
Speaker 1: has to think about things. And I think this is

140
00:07:28,000 --> 00:07:30,680
Speaker 1: an example of when even though the law has an

141
00:07:30,680 --> 00:07:34,240
Speaker 1: even hand and Lady Justice is blind, you still have

142
00:07:34,320 --> 00:07:37,160
Speaker 1: to think about what we're doing as it relates to

143
00:07:37,240 --> 00:07:40,040
Speaker 1: the United States and what case may be the case

144
00:07:40,160 --> 00:07:42,080
Speaker 1: if you're going to bring one forward that should be

145
00:07:42,120 --> 00:07:45,320
Speaker 1: a league case against a former president of the United States,

146
00:07:45,320 --> 00:07:47,280
Speaker 1: And is this the case? I mean, is this in

147
00:07:47,360 --> 00:07:50,200
Speaker 1: fact the case that basically is the best to knock

148
00:07:50,240 --> 00:07:52,280
Speaker 1: the king off the throne? And I think that's going

149
00:07:52,320 --> 00:07:54,960
Speaker 1: to be the question today. Remember as well that you know,

150
00:07:55,000 --> 00:07:58,400
Speaker 1: the former disc attorney did not prosecute, the Department of

151
00:07:58,440 --> 00:08:02,400
Speaker 1: Justice declined to prosecutor case like this, and yet here

152
00:08:02,440 --> 00:08:05,000
Speaker 1: we are. And you know, one thing they have to

153
00:08:05,000 --> 00:08:07,360
Speaker 1: be thinking about, I'm certain is you know they had

154
00:08:07,360 --> 00:08:10,000
Speaker 1: a very sort of a similar type of case. It

155
00:08:10,040 --> 00:08:12,320
Speaker 1: wasn't exactly it would say, among the facts, but you

156
00:08:12,360 --> 00:08:15,480
Speaker 1: had a former presidential candidate who had been charged similarly

157
00:08:15,760 --> 00:08:18,640
Speaker 1: in the Edwards case, and ultimately he was acquitted at trial.

158
00:08:19,040 --> 00:08:21,440
Speaker 1: There were some tausid but Jerry hung on, but they

159
00:08:21,440 --> 00:08:24,400
Speaker 1: were ultimately dismissed and not pursuing further by the government.

160
00:08:24,480 --> 00:08:28,679
Speaker 1: So all those calculations have to be in a prosecutor's mind.

161
00:08:29,160 --> 00:08:31,480
Speaker 1: You can see if you think about even the Southern

162
00:08:31,520 --> 00:08:34,200
Speaker 1: District of New York declining to move forward. They have

163
00:08:34,280 --> 00:08:37,920
Speaker 1: to be thinking about things like witness credibility and availability

164
00:08:37,920 --> 00:08:41,040
Speaker 1: of evidence on the statements that have been made. Those

165
00:08:41,080 --> 00:08:44,840
Speaker 1: are real life calculations that go into a decision or

166
00:08:44,840 --> 00:08:46,960
Speaker 1: whether or not to move forward the case, even though

167
00:08:47,679 --> 00:08:52,600
Speaker 1: you may be satisfied in your gut that something illegal

168
00:08:52,760 --> 00:08:57,680
Speaker 1: was done. Before the arraignment, Trump called the DA an animal.

169
00:08:58,040 --> 00:09:00,360
Speaker 1: He posted a picture of himself with a base ball

170
00:09:00,480 --> 00:09:03,400
Speaker 1: bat next to a photo of the judge, and during

171
00:09:03,400 --> 00:09:08,520
Speaker 1: the arrayment, the judge warned him about dangerous rhetoric. Yet

172
00:09:08,559 --> 00:09:11,880
Speaker 1: hours later at Marlogo, we attacked the judge, the DA

173
00:09:12,040 --> 00:09:16,520
Speaker 1: and their families. Inexcusable. It's inexcusable. I thought that his

174
00:09:16,720 --> 00:09:19,439
Speaker 1: comments have been outrageous. You know. I think a prosecutor

175
00:09:19,480 --> 00:09:22,920
Speaker 1: expects in some regards to not have friends and on

176
00:09:22,960 --> 00:09:25,120
Speaker 1: the other side of the versus mark, and that is

177
00:09:25,120 --> 00:09:27,800
Speaker 1: because you're essentially doing a job that would likely result

178
00:09:27,840 --> 00:09:30,760
Speaker 1: in a criminal conviction and maybe jail time against the

179
00:09:30,800 --> 00:09:33,800
Speaker 1: dependence that you're prosecuting, and so you sort of expect

180
00:09:33,800 --> 00:09:37,640
Speaker 1: as part of your job to have names used against you.

181
00:09:38,320 --> 00:09:42,200
Speaker 1: I think that when you bring in family members, children, spouses,

182
00:09:42,520 --> 00:09:45,839
Speaker 1: the spouses and family members of the court, those types

183
00:09:45,840 --> 00:09:48,960
Speaker 1: of things, It's inexcusable, it's ill advised. I think, at

184
00:09:49,000 --> 00:09:50,640
Speaker 1: the end of the day, can come back to bite

185
00:09:50,679 --> 00:09:54,120
Speaker 1: people who do that. And I also I'm not surprised

186
00:09:54,160 --> 00:09:57,000
Speaker 1: at all given what we witnessed during the Trump administration

187
00:09:57,480 --> 00:10:00,480
Speaker 1: and certainly during the campaign time. I'm about his use

188
00:10:00,559 --> 00:10:02,760
Speaker 1: of that kind of rhetoric. You know, you remember, this

189
00:10:02,840 --> 00:10:06,880
Speaker 1: is the same person who's mocked people in hurtful and

190
00:10:07,320 --> 00:10:10,280
Speaker 1: hateful ways, and so I'm not surprised by it. I

191
00:10:10,320 --> 00:10:13,199
Speaker 1: think if you're a lawyer trying to represent a quiet

192
00:10:13,280 --> 00:10:15,520
Speaker 1: like that, you have your hands full and you have

193
00:10:15,559 --> 00:10:19,120
Speaker 1: a great deal of frustration that you can't probably fully

194
00:10:19,120 --> 00:10:21,680
Speaker 1: expressed to somebody who's a former president of United States.

195
00:10:21,720 --> 00:10:24,600
Speaker 1: But I'm sure that every lawyer was cringing when the

196
00:10:24,600 --> 00:10:27,800
Speaker 1: attacks got cut loose on the judge. I also don't think, frankly,

197
00:10:27,800 --> 00:10:30,160
Speaker 1: that they were just at homitive attacks. I think it

198
00:10:30,200 --> 00:10:33,000
Speaker 1: was an effort to force an accusal by this judge

199
00:10:33,080 --> 00:10:36,600
Speaker 1: and debate him a little bit. Given the recency of

200
00:10:36,640 --> 00:10:38,640
Speaker 1: the comments and the warnings that have been given by

201
00:10:38,679 --> 00:10:42,360
Speaker 1: the court to Trump and his team. But to do

202
00:10:42,440 --> 00:10:47,040
Speaker 1: anything that incites violence, to do anything that places a

203
00:10:47,200 --> 00:10:51,720
Speaker 1: famine member of a prosecutor or a judge, or anybody

204
00:10:51,760 --> 00:10:54,080
Speaker 1: involved in the system. I mean, to do anything that

205
00:10:54,160 --> 00:10:58,040
Speaker 1: puts those people in harm's way and at risk is inexcusable.

206
00:10:58,040 --> 00:11:00,920
Speaker 1: It needs to be addressed on its own, outside of

207
00:11:01,080 --> 00:11:03,160
Speaker 1: what may or may not come in the way of

208
00:11:03,200 --> 00:11:06,320
Speaker 1: a gag order. You know, this is not normal conduct.

209
00:11:06,800 --> 00:11:08,920
Speaker 1: This is not something that's allowed. I can tell you

210
00:11:08,880 --> 00:11:11,920
Speaker 1: a fact in Georgia that did that, they'd find themselves

211
00:11:11,960 --> 00:11:15,000
Speaker 1: locked up in the jail, their bond revolte. But somehow

212
00:11:15,360 --> 00:11:18,440
Speaker 1: he has done things to our system and sort of

213
00:11:18,480 --> 00:11:21,200
Speaker 1: trained us to think that, at least as it comes

214
00:11:21,200 --> 00:11:23,600
Speaker 1: from him, that this is a normal conduct. Well, there's

215
00:11:23,640 --> 00:11:26,400
Speaker 1: nothing normal about and it's one of the great damages

216
00:11:26,440 --> 00:11:29,800
Speaker 1: I think he's done to America and to our institutions,

217
00:11:30,000 --> 00:11:33,000
Speaker 1: and that is to do away with the norms of

218
00:11:33,120 --> 00:11:37,959
Speaker 1: decency and professionalism and the psychicety for our institutions that

219
00:11:38,040 --> 00:11:40,640
Speaker 1: have kept our Democrats are strong. Even if they make

220
00:11:40,679 --> 00:11:42,959
Speaker 1: a motion and they've sort of hinted at making a

221
00:11:43,040 --> 00:11:47,320
Speaker 1: motion for the judge to recuse himself. Judge oversaw the

222
00:11:48,080 --> 00:11:52,040
Speaker 1: tax fraud trial against the Trump Organization and CFO. Do

223
00:11:52,080 --> 00:11:55,240
Speaker 1: you think that he would ever recuse himself. I think

224
00:11:55,040 --> 00:11:58,160
Speaker 1: he could. And let me say this, I don't think

225
00:11:58,200 --> 00:12:01,120
Speaker 1: that's the fact that he may accused himself or consider

226
00:12:01,120 --> 00:12:03,800
Speaker 1: accused himself, is any sign of weakness or wrong doing.

227
00:12:03,920 --> 00:12:06,280
Speaker 1: I think judges and prosecutors are to do things that

228
00:12:06,400 --> 00:12:08,880
Speaker 1: make sure that there's no appearance of any conflict of

229
00:12:08,960 --> 00:12:11,880
Speaker 1: interests and no appearance of any impropriety in any way,

230
00:12:12,240 --> 00:12:14,520
Speaker 1: even if there is none, it's to protect the system

231
00:12:14,559 --> 00:12:17,480
Speaker 1: and the process from the appearance of that. To me,

232
00:12:17,640 --> 00:12:20,480
Speaker 1: that seems like a pretty clear reason for the judge

233
00:12:20,480 --> 00:12:23,439
Speaker 1: to refuse himself, and that is because his daughter, if

234
00:12:23,440 --> 00:12:27,000
Speaker 1: she's working for the campaign, is basically in the throes

235
00:12:27,320 --> 00:12:31,280
Speaker 1: of an upcoming election season against that campaign's opponent or

236
00:12:31,400 --> 00:12:34,200
Speaker 1: likely opponent, you know, if the likely opponent is going

237
00:12:34,240 --> 00:12:36,559
Speaker 1: to lose. And that may mean that the daughter, my

238
00:12:36,720 --> 00:12:39,199
Speaker 1: virtual work on the campaign stands to gain income or

239
00:12:39,240 --> 00:12:41,679
Speaker 1: continues employment as a campaign or whatever it is she does.

240
00:12:41,880 --> 00:12:44,360
Speaker 1: And I don't know that, but let's just use as

241
00:12:44,360 --> 00:12:47,120
Speaker 1: an example. That's a good reason to set aside and

242
00:12:47,200 --> 00:12:50,280
Speaker 1: let another judge here. Now. Doesn't mean that this assigned

243
00:12:50,400 --> 00:12:52,960
Speaker 1: judge would do anything different because of that. But it

244
00:12:53,080 --> 00:12:56,800
Speaker 1: lets the public have a confidence and it lets the detractors.

245
00:12:57,080 --> 00:13:00,800
Speaker 1: It takes the steam out of their engines to say, Okay,

246
00:13:00,840 --> 00:13:03,040
Speaker 1: we've got to judge now who has no connection, no

247
00:13:03,160 --> 00:13:06,960
Speaker 1: familiar connection at all, to Trump's opponents. You're never gonna

248
00:13:07,000 --> 00:13:09,240
Speaker 1: make everybody happy, but it gives the appearance of the

249
00:13:09,240 --> 00:13:12,920
Speaker 1: process that there's no no possibility of favoritism or more

250
00:13:12,960 --> 00:13:15,880
Speaker 1: slant and rudely drink thing like that. Yeah, this judge

251
00:13:15,920 --> 00:13:18,480
Speaker 1: may have done nothing different, he may do nothing different

252
00:13:18,480 --> 00:13:21,760
Speaker 1: through the trial. But it's more about protecting the appearance.

253
00:13:21,760 --> 00:13:24,160
Speaker 1: And you know, an example that Democrats want to talk

254
00:13:24,200 --> 00:13:27,160
Speaker 1: about is the Class Thomas situation. You know, we've heard

255
00:13:27,200 --> 00:13:31,080
Speaker 1: for years now and especially very recently about concerns about

256
00:13:31,520 --> 00:13:35,080
Speaker 1: text messages that the justice's wife may have made and

257
00:13:35,559 --> 00:13:37,800
Speaker 1: money so she may have received and our organization may

258
00:13:37,880 --> 00:13:39,679
Speaker 1: or may not have received. I mean, there's been all

259
00:13:39,720 --> 00:13:42,560
Speaker 1: these kinds of this talk out there, and there's this

260
00:13:42,760 --> 00:13:45,160
Speaker 1: clamor from the Democrats said, well, they've got he's got

261
00:13:45,240 --> 00:13:46,920
Speaker 1: to accuse himself, he's got to step day, he's going

262
00:13:46,920 --> 00:13:48,920
Speaker 1: to do this. You know that the appearance is bad.

263
00:13:48,960 --> 00:13:50,959
Speaker 1: He could have a confident to venture as well. The

264
00:13:51,080 --> 00:13:53,800
Speaker 1: same may be truth here, and that is it's again

265
00:13:54,040 --> 00:13:57,360
Speaker 1: there's nothing to say, but the justice is ruled a

266
00:13:57,440 --> 00:13:59,599
Speaker 1: particular way because he was told to do that, of

267
00:13:59,679 --> 00:14:01,960
Speaker 1: because he was doing a particular favor for his wife

268
00:14:02,000 --> 00:14:05,440
Speaker 1: or anything else. But it calls into question the decisions

269
00:14:05,520 --> 00:14:09,520
Speaker 1: that he's made because of this potential appearance of the conflict.

270
00:14:09,720 --> 00:14:12,600
Speaker 1: Now in the Trump case, you know, every decision that

271
00:14:12,640 --> 00:14:15,920
Speaker 1: this judge makes may be called into question because of

272
00:14:15,920 --> 00:14:19,320
Speaker 1: the impossible appearance of a conflict of interest, whether in

273
00:14:19,400 --> 00:14:21,920
Speaker 1: fact there's anything to it or not. So it's simply

274
00:14:22,000 --> 00:14:27,640
Speaker 1: a way to protect the public's belief in public confidence

275
00:14:27,760 --> 00:14:31,960
Speaker 1: in the judicial process. Let's say it remains with this judge.

276
00:14:32,000 --> 00:14:35,160
Speaker 1: He set the next major court date for December fourth.

277
00:14:35,520 --> 00:14:39,880
Speaker 1: The prosecution was pushing for opening arguments to begin sometime

278
00:14:39,920 --> 00:14:43,600
Speaker 1: in January of twenty twenty four. Trump's defense asked for

279
00:14:43,760 --> 00:14:46,760
Speaker 1: a few more months, maybe sometime in spring of twenty

280
00:14:46,800 --> 00:14:49,240
Speaker 1: twenty four. Do you think the judge will be able

281
00:14:49,320 --> 00:14:53,680
Speaker 1: to keep this on a tight timeline. It's unimaginable to

282
00:14:53,720 --> 00:14:56,080
Speaker 1: me that he would. Number one, he won't be handling

283
00:14:56,160 --> 00:14:58,520
Speaker 1: this on at all without appeals to the courts in

284
00:14:58,640 --> 00:15:02,880
Speaker 1: a locatory appeals or intermediary peoples. And also, I don't

285
00:15:02,920 --> 00:15:05,840
Speaker 1: think there's any way possible to consider that a court

286
00:15:05,960 --> 00:15:09,680
Speaker 1: is going to make a candidate for office come try

287
00:15:09,720 --> 00:15:13,360
Speaker 1: a case a few months before a primary election or

288
00:15:13,400 --> 00:15:15,920
Speaker 1: in the middle of a presidential election season. I just

289
00:15:16,120 --> 00:15:18,200
Speaker 1: have a hard time of imagining that that's going to

290
00:15:18,240 --> 00:15:21,640
Speaker 1: be allowed. And again, I mean that throws into the

291
00:15:21,720 --> 00:15:25,320
Speaker 1: debate I guess about as we go forward. Does that

292
00:15:25,360 --> 00:15:27,400
Speaker 1: mean that every time a presidential elections comes up, a

293
00:15:27,680 --> 00:15:30,480
Speaker 1: local partition's going to charge the candida to the other

294
00:15:30,480 --> 00:15:32,080
Speaker 1: side and try to get up into court so they

295
00:15:32,120 --> 00:15:35,040
Speaker 1: can't campaign. I mean, that's that's one of the very

296
00:15:35,040 --> 00:15:37,520
Speaker 1: real concerns. I think that's out there as we think

297
00:15:37,560 --> 00:15:40,200
Speaker 1: about this this case. If they wanted to try the case,

298
00:15:40,240 --> 00:15:42,120
Speaker 1: it should have been tried a long time ago. But

299
00:15:42,240 --> 00:15:45,080
Speaker 1: we've now suddenly waited until pretty much in the middle

300
00:15:45,440 --> 00:15:48,960
Speaker 1: and certainly the warm up of the presidential campaign season.

301
00:15:49,120 --> 00:15:51,280
Speaker 1: And I just have a hard time believing that the

302
00:15:51,320 --> 00:15:54,520
Speaker 1: courts will allow a candidate to be sidelined for a

303
00:15:54,520 --> 00:15:56,880
Speaker 1: case it could have been brought years ago. Speaking of

304
00:15:57,240 --> 00:16:00,560
Speaker 1: should have tried it, sooner. What is happening in Georgia.

305
00:16:00,760 --> 00:16:06,080
Speaker 1: Da Willis started her investigation just days after recording was

306
00:16:06,120 --> 00:16:09,160
Speaker 1: made public. In January twenty twenty one, she had this

307
00:16:09,280 --> 00:16:12,760
Speaker 1: special grand jury where seventy five witnesses, including some high

308
00:16:12,840 --> 00:16:17,840
Speaker 1: level Trump people, testified. Eighteen people have been notified their

309
00:16:17,920 --> 00:16:22,640
Speaker 1: targets of the investigation. So what is she waiting for? Well,

310
00:16:22,640 --> 00:16:25,440
Speaker 1: I mean, that's a good question, and that's another example

311
00:16:25,480 --> 00:16:27,560
Speaker 1: of where the case could have been brought a long

312
00:16:27,600 --> 00:16:32,240
Speaker 1: time ago in a more clean fashion and with an easier,

313
00:16:32,480 --> 00:16:34,960
Speaker 1: simpler target of a case, rather than what I think

314
00:16:34,960 --> 00:16:37,520
Speaker 1: she's doing, and that now all appearances is she's looking

315
00:16:37,560 --> 00:16:41,720
Speaker 1: at this is more of an organizational type conspiracy or

316
00:16:41,720 --> 00:16:46,480
Speaker 1: agreement to overthrow the election. And that's led to this

317
00:16:46,600 --> 00:16:49,080
Speaker 1: idea for whether there's going to be a Rico prosecution

318
00:16:49,120 --> 00:16:52,160
Speaker 1: and wi be a Rico indictment in those cases take

319
00:16:52,360 --> 00:16:56,160
Speaker 1: a long time after they indicted. So I see no

320
00:16:56,200 --> 00:16:59,640
Speaker 1: way even if she got an indictment tomorrow from the

321
00:17:00,240 --> 00:17:03,480
Speaker 1: grand jury against Trump and whoever else, I see no

322
00:17:03,560 --> 00:17:07,000
Speaker 1: way that her case could ever wrap up before the

323
00:17:07,040 --> 00:17:09,640
Speaker 1: election in twenty four And you know there's a case

324
00:17:09,680 --> 00:17:12,680
Speaker 1: going on in in Lina, right now against a rapper,

325
00:17:13,160 --> 00:17:17,479
Speaker 1: and it's a Rico prosecution, and they've spent months and

326
00:17:17,600 --> 00:17:19,840
Speaker 1: months trying to get a jury to have been unable

327
00:17:19,880 --> 00:17:22,680
Speaker 1: to do that, and in part because people can't acknowledge

328
00:17:22,680 --> 00:17:25,360
Speaker 1: and can't say with any certainty that they can take

329
00:17:25,640 --> 00:17:28,520
Speaker 1: a year off what they're expected for the trial. And

330
00:17:28,560 --> 00:17:31,120
Speaker 1: so I just think it's going to be next impossible

331
00:17:31,560 --> 00:17:33,720
Speaker 1: for that case to move forward before the election. She

332
00:17:33,720 --> 00:17:36,119
Speaker 1: could certainly give the indictment. I see no way she

333
00:17:36,119 --> 00:17:37,840
Speaker 1: could get the case tried. They could be through the

334
00:17:37,840 --> 00:17:41,280
Speaker 1: emotions process and the appeals process and working on that

335
00:17:41,359 --> 00:17:43,760
Speaker 1: to be an electory appeals, But to get to a

336
00:17:43,800 --> 00:17:46,240
Speaker 1: trial and have any kind of conclusion, I think there's

337
00:17:46,240 --> 00:17:48,120
Speaker 1: no way. And so then you get into the question

338
00:17:48,160 --> 00:17:50,639
Speaker 1: of what if he wins, if he wins broke the primary,

339
00:17:50,680 --> 00:17:52,600
Speaker 1: and if he happens to win an election, what do

340
00:17:52,640 --> 00:17:54,960
Speaker 1: you do then and what happens to the case. And

341
00:17:55,000 --> 00:17:57,320
Speaker 1: I think that you know, we know that the courts

342
00:17:57,359 --> 00:17:59,200
Speaker 1: are not going to make somebody come in and answer

343
00:17:59,320 --> 00:18:04,040
Speaker 1: who is president States after state criminal charges, because they've

344
00:18:04,040 --> 00:18:06,560
Speaker 1: got other things to tend to, like whether or not

345
00:18:06,560 --> 00:18:09,359
Speaker 1: the nuclear missiles are safe and those kinds of things.

346
00:18:09,480 --> 00:18:11,879
Speaker 1: So you know, those are big considerations that have to

347
00:18:11,880 --> 00:18:14,960
Speaker 1: come down. But this again, sometimes you know, you don't

348
00:18:14,960 --> 00:18:17,160
Speaker 1: always want the perfect to be the enemy of the good.

349
00:18:17,280 --> 00:18:20,000
Speaker 1: And so this is a kind of example where maybe

350
00:18:20,080 --> 00:18:24,200
Speaker 1: you don't want the complex, the more complex and complete

351
00:18:24,200 --> 00:18:25,760
Speaker 1: to be the enemy of the good. And that is

352
00:18:26,200 --> 00:18:28,760
Speaker 1: could she have moved forward on a case that was

353
00:18:29,119 --> 00:18:31,880
Speaker 1: more targeted. Could she have moved forward baby on account

354
00:18:31,880 --> 00:18:34,120
Speaker 1: if she wanted to charge or an account of attempting

355
00:18:34,160 --> 00:18:37,600
Speaker 1: to influence Secretary Raffersburger that performance kids duties by way

356
00:18:37,640 --> 00:18:40,040
Speaker 1: of that phone call, because she's done something like that,

357
00:18:40,119 --> 00:18:44,280
Speaker 1: and without going through this lengthy, lengthy investigation that I

358
00:18:44,320 --> 00:18:47,600
Speaker 1: think so. But often again she may have evidence that

359
00:18:47,640 --> 00:18:50,600
Speaker 1: we all know about. She certainly has been involved in

360
00:18:50,600 --> 00:18:52,919
Speaker 1: the case, and I have no insight knowledge about what

361
00:18:53,040 --> 00:18:55,080
Speaker 1: she's considering and reviewing. So I don't want to sec

362
00:18:55,080 --> 00:18:57,320
Speaker 1: against everything she's doing. But I would have liked this

363
00:18:57,440 --> 00:18:59,840
Speaker 1: thing that they were going to bring a case because

364
00:18:59,880 --> 00:19:02,440
Speaker 1: of these timing issues. And there again kind of takes

365
00:19:02,440 --> 00:19:05,760
Speaker 1: this full circle for this idea about or people treated differently, Well,

366
00:19:05,840 --> 00:19:08,119
Speaker 1: you are treated differently if you're a sitting president and

367
00:19:08,200 --> 00:19:10,800
Speaker 1: you're charged with a crime. Or your schedule for trial

368
00:19:10,840 --> 00:19:13,040
Speaker 1: you would charge before your president and your schedule try

369
00:19:13,080 --> 00:19:16,040
Speaker 1: you are treated different. That's just that's just real. There's

370
00:19:16,040 --> 00:19:19,280
Speaker 1: no real way around that. Those are considerations that have

371
00:19:19,400 --> 00:19:22,440
Speaker 1: to be out there, you know, and we'll say kind

372
00:19:22,440 --> 00:19:24,520
Speaker 1: of it's sat here as we've taught long. You know,

373
00:19:24,520 --> 00:19:27,840
Speaker 1: another example, you think about people or they treated differently

374
00:19:27,880 --> 00:19:30,200
Speaker 1: under the law, Well, you have a lot of people

375
00:19:30,240 --> 00:19:32,960
Speaker 1: when they're convicted, they're immediately carted off to jail. They're

376
00:19:33,000 --> 00:19:36,600
Speaker 1: handcuffed in the courtroom and taking to jail. Sometimes that's different.

377
00:19:36,920 --> 00:19:39,760
Speaker 1: If you're having to be a pregnant mother, you know,

378
00:19:39,840 --> 00:19:41,840
Speaker 1: you're given a certain amount of time. There are other

379
00:19:41,920 --> 00:19:45,280
Speaker 1: things that considerations that are made. So there are differences

380
00:19:45,320 --> 00:19:50,480
Speaker 1: that life and circumstances bring, and that's sometimes the beauty

381
00:19:50,520 --> 00:19:53,960
Speaker 1: of judicial and prosecutors discretion as you work through those

382
00:19:54,000 --> 00:19:57,960
Speaker 1: things to still give people confidence in judicial process. And

383
00:19:58,320 --> 00:20:03,040
Speaker 1: during this Moralogo speech, Trump kept coming back to the

384
00:20:03,119 --> 00:20:06,479
Speaker 1: investigation that reportedly is the one that bothers him the

385
00:20:06,520 --> 00:20:09,120
Speaker 1: most or concerns him the most, and that's the Special

386
00:20:09,200 --> 00:20:14,800
Speaker 1: Counsel's investigation into the classified documents. And as he's done before,

387
00:20:15,040 --> 00:20:20,520
Speaker 1: Trump admitted that he had those documents sent to Morolago,

388
00:20:20,960 --> 00:20:24,760
Speaker 1: and there's additional reporting from the Washington Post that the

389
00:20:24,800 --> 00:20:29,200
Speaker 1: Special Council has information that he actually went through boxes

390
00:20:29,240 --> 00:20:32,800
Speaker 1: of documents after he got the subpoena. So there's another

391
00:20:32,840 --> 00:20:38,120
Speaker 1: one where I'm like, well, why aren't you bringing the indictment? Right?

392
00:20:38,160 --> 00:20:40,680
Speaker 1: I mean, it seems like a fairly clear case. Either

393
00:20:40,720 --> 00:20:43,240
Speaker 1: you had the documents or you didn't. I mean, and

394
00:20:43,359 --> 00:20:46,359
Speaker 1: either you responded to the subpoena or you didn't. Least

395
00:20:48,119 --> 00:20:51,119
Speaker 1: pretty clear issues. I think the Special Council has moved

396
00:20:51,119 --> 00:20:54,040
Speaker 1: fairly quickly since he's been assigned, and we know that

397
00:20:54,080 --> 00:20:57,600
Speaker 1: he's put some some pressure and interviews on various members

398
00:20:57,600 --> 00:21:00,520
Speaker 1: of Organslation, and he's continuing to look at that. But

399
00:21:00,560 --> 00:21:02,360
Speaker 1: it does seem like a case that could be very clear.

400
00:21:02,400 --> 00:21:05,879
Speaker 1: I'm sure that when Trump was making his comments about

401
00:21:06,080 --> 00:21:08,800
Speaker 1: I think he said he was openly and clearly or

402
00:21:08,800 --> 00:21:11,479
Speaker 1: something like that packing up his boxes or bringing boxes

403
00:21:11,520 --> 00:21:14,360
Speaker 1: down the monologue. I'm sure his lawyers will probably crawling

404
00:21:14,480 --> 00:21:17,120
Speaker 1: under one of the Golden League tables, you know, down

405
00:21:17,119 --> 00:21:19,600
Speaker 1: there in that country club as they listen to that.

406
00:21:19,720 --> 00:21:21,320
Speaker 1: Think I have he had just kind of admitting to

407
00:21:21,400 --> 00:21:24,160
Speaker 1: things that he didn't need to do. And I'm sure

408
00:21:24,160 --> 00:21:26,720
Speaker 1: he'll have a reason and there'll be some excuse this

409
00:21:26,840 --> 00:21:29,239
Speaker 1: is what he really meant. But you know he can

410
00:21:29,359 --> 00:21:31,439
Speaker 1: be his own worst enemy. I'll bet there was a

411
00:21:31,480 --> 00:21:34,400
Speaker 1: note taker in the Special Counsel's office, you know, using

412
00:21:34,400 --> 00:21:36,560
Speaker 1: a highlighter and and to be marking that on a

413
00:21:36,560 --> 00:21:38,879
Speaker 1: transcript somewhere, and it's likely to show up later in

414
00:21:38,880 --> 00:21:41,200
Speaker 1: a court prositing. That's why I think Jack Smiths cases

415
00:21:41,240 --> 00:21:45,560
Speaker 1: are the stronger. The DA in New York, the Dam Georgia,

416
00:21:45,640 --> 00:21:47,800
Speaker 1: and the Special Counsel. They should have met somewhere for

417
00:21:47,840 --> 00:21:50,720
Speaker 1: a summit, I mean in secret, if Camp David or

418
00:21:50,720 --> 00:21:53,760
Speaker 1: whatever they need to do, you know, to meet somewhere

419
00:21:53,840 --> 00:21:56,320
Speaker 1: and talk about what are we doing so that I

420
00:21:56,320 --> 00:21:58,480
Speaker 1: don't step on your toes, you know, so that you

421
00:21:58,480 --> 00:22:00,919
Speaker 1: know we work in a way that's productive. We can

422
00:22:00,960 --> 00:22:03,640
Speaker 1: talk about time and lawforce nats whos do this all

423
00:22:03,680 --> 00:22:06,639
Speaker 1: the time and deconfliction. So if you've got the DA

424
00:22:06,760 --> 00:22:08,720
Speaker 1: working on a case and the FBI working on the

425
00:22:08,760 --> 00:22:11,040
Speaker 1: case and the higher s agents looking at the case,

426
00:22:11,359 --> 00:22:15,120
Speaker 1: they deconflict so they don't put their sources in jeopardy.

427
00:22:15,160 --> 00:22:18,359
Speaker 1: So the investigations not compromised in some way that they

428
00:22:18,400 --> 00:22:21,560
Speaker 1: can protect lawforcement officers that may be on the sane.

429
00:22:21,880 --> 00:22:23,840
Speaker 1: They deconflict, well, they should have been sort of a

430
00:22:23,880 --> 00:22:29,000
Speaker 1: deconfliction between these three prosecutors saying, okay, who has the

431
00:22:29,040 --> 00:22:32,800
Speaker 1: case it's going to survive? Exeppellent question, what happens if

432
00:22:32,840 --> 00:22:35,320
Speaker 1: your case gets the Supreme Court first and they rule

433
00:22:36,000 --> 00:22:38,719
Speaker 1: you know this way, that may kill off nine diement?

434
00:22:39,000 --> 00:22:40,840
Speaker 1: What happens if you know? There has to be a

435
00:22:40,840 --> 00:22:44,919
Speaker 1: discussion and there's nothing wrong, that's not a conspiracy against Trump,

436
00:22:44,960 --> 00:22:49,160
Speaker 1: that's a that's just law enforcement officers getting together when

437
00:22:49,160 --> 00:22:52,159
Speaker 1: you're talking about are you going to bring charges against

438
00:22:52,160 --> 00:22:54,720
Speaker 1: their former president? And I hope they did it. There's

439
00:22:54,760 --> 00:22:57,320
Speaker 1: no indication that they have, but I would hope that

440
00:22:57,359 --> 00:22:59,719
Speaker 1: there's been some discussion. I mean, the charges of them,

441
00:22:59,760 --> 00:23:04,560
Speaker 1: that'sation between jack Smith group and the Fulton DA are

442
00:23:04,640 --> 00:23:09,200
Speaker 1: so overlapped that surely there's been some discussion about who's

443
00:23:09,240 --> 00:23:11,840
Speaker 1: bringing what you know, who's got the best venue to

444
00:23:11,840 --> 00:23:15,800
Speaker 1: bring it in, whose laws he's going to be more favorable,

445
00:23:15,960 --> 00:23:18,680
Speaker 1: who can support a conviction if you know, if they

446
00:23:18,720 --> 00:23:21,359
Speaker 1: get one. Surely they've talked about that, but I don't know,

447
00:23:21,680 --> 00:23:24,280
Speaker 1: there's no indication they are. That's amazing to me. I

448
00:23:24,320 --> 00:23:26,360
Speaker 1: mean one of the first motions I think. I mean,

449
00:23:26,480 --> 00:23:28,640
Speaker 1: it would be filed down here depending on what she does.

450
00:23:28,960 --> 00:23:31,000
Speaker 1: But if she charges him with anything to do with

451
00:23:31,040 --> 00:23:35,520
Speaker 1: the phone call, and especially anything that between January one

452
00:23:35,680 --> 00:23:39,560
Speaker 1: and inauguration day in twenty twenty, I imagine you going

453
00:23:39,600 --> 00:23:41,679
Speaker 1: to see a moast of transferred to federal court and

454
00:23:41,720 --> 00:23:44,360
Speaker 1: they look, he was president and he was doing such

455
00:23:44,400 --> 00:23:46,399
Speaker 1: and such as his position as president nited states he

456
00:23:46,480 --> 00:23:49,280
Speaker 1: was called as a candidate but also president calling to

457
00:23:49,440 --> 00:23:52,159
Speaker 1: check on middle extra time. I mean, they'll make some motion,

458
00:23:52,400 --> 00:23:54,280
Speaker 1: but surely they thought about is the case will be

459
00:23:54,359 --> 00:23:57,600
Speaker 1: in federal court or stake core but in thanks so

460
00:23:57,720 --> 00:24:01,200
Speaker 1: much for joining us. Michael. That's Michael More, former US

461
00:24:01,240 --> 00:24:03,960
Speaker 1: Attorney for the Middle District of Georgia and a partner

462
00:24:04,000 --> 00:24:09,200
Speaker 1: at Moore Hall. Jury selection begins in the one point

463
00:24:09,280 --> 00:24:13,760
Speaker 1: six billion dollar defamation suit over Fox News airing of

464
00:24:13,840 --> 00:24:17,679
Speaker 1: false claims that Dominion voting systems rigged the twenty twenty

465
00:24:17,680 --> 00:24:23,240
Speaker 1: presidential election. Fox's list of witnesses includes current host Maria Bardaromo,

466
00:24:23,400 --> 00:24:27,800
Speaker 1: Tucker Carlson, Sean Hannity and Janine Pierro and Rupert Murdoch

467
00:24:27,840 --> 00:24:31,000
Speaker 1: and his son Laughlin will have to testify if they're

468
00:24:31,000 --> 00:24:34,480
Speaker 1: subpoenaed by Dominion. The trial should shed light on why

469
00:24:34,560 --> 00:24:38,600
Speaker 1: Fox repeatedly allowed guests like Rudy Giuliani and former Trump

470
00:24:38,680 --> 00:24:43,360
Speaker 1: campaign lawyer Sidney Powell to falsely claim that Dominion conspired

471
00:24:43,400 --> 00:24:48,320
Speaker 1: with foreign hackers and corrupt Democrats to ensure Joe Biden one,

472
00:24:48,760 --> 00:24:53,000
Speaker 1: even though many Fox employees knew that was bogus. Sydney,

473
00:24:53,200 --> 00:24:56,160
Speaker 1: we talked about the Dominion software. I know that there

474
00:24:56,160 --> 00:25:01,320
Speaker 1: were voting irregularities. Tell me about that. Let's to put

475
00:25:01,359 --> 00:25:05,639
Speaker 1: it mildly. The Dominion software system has been tagged as

476
00:25:05,720 --> 00:25:10,399
Speaker 1: one allegedly capable of flipping votes, and don't forget still

477
00:25:10,440 --> 00:25:14,000
Speaker 1: serious questions about the integrity of Dominion. Fox is going

478
00:25:14,040 --> 00:25:17,840
Speaker 1: to trial facing a major legal setback. The trial judge

479
00:25:17,880 --> 00:25:20,480
Speaker 1: has ruled that it's crystal clear that none of the

480
00:25:20,560 --> 00:25:23,800
Speaker 1: statements made on Fox relating to Dominion in the twenty

481
00:25:23,840 --> 00:25:28,480
Speaker 1: twenty election are true, taking that question away from the jury.

482
00:25:29,000 --> 00:25:32,080
Speaker 1: Joining me to preview the upcoming trial is David Korsnick,

483
00:25:32,160 --> 00:25:34,720
Speaker 1: an expert in defamation law and a partner at Miller

484
00:25:34,800 --> 00:25:38,520
Speaker 1: Coorsnick Summer's Raymond David tell Us about the ruling that

485
00:25:38,600 --> 00:25:43,000
Speaker 1: Fox can't dispute that it broadcast falsehoods when it allowed

486
00:25:43,080 --> 00:25:47,240
Speaker 1: allies of Donald Trump to float harmful claims about dominions

487
00:25:47,359 --> 00:25:51,199
Speaker 1: supposedly rigging voting machines. Well, first of all, it's a

488
00:25:51,280 --> 00:25:55,480
Speaker 1: really methodical and careful decision, and what he's doing here

489
00:25:55,800 --> 00:25:59,200
Speaker 1: is kind of shaping the battlefield to this trial. There

490
00:25:59,200 --> 00:26:03,199
Speaker 1: are issues that have been determined on summary judgment, and

491
00:26:03,240 --> 00:26:05,760
Speaker 1: there are issues that are open for the trial. The

492
00:26:05,760 --> 00:26:08,240
Speaker 1: ones that are closed and that he ruled on, but

493
00:26:08,320 --> 00:26:11,919
Speaker 1: no jensonable person could think otherwise is that the statements

494
00:26:11,960 --> 00:26:17,160
Speaker 1: about dominion are false. There's no contrary evidence that would

495
00:26:17,240 --> 00:26:19,800
Speaker 1: make that an issue of fact that a journey needs

496
00:26:19,840 --> 00:26:23,439
Speaker 1: to decide where an open question was in this motion

497
00:26:23,920 --> 00:26:27,840
Speaker 1: which statements were fact and which are non actionable opinion.

498
00:26:28,280 --> 00:26:32,040
Speaker 1: And the judge actually does, in the appendix go through

499
00:26:32,119 --> 00:26:37,720
Speaker 1: every single alleged statement broadcast and identifies those lines within

500
00:26:37,800 --> 00:26:42,280
Speaker 1: them that are factual assertions and not non actionable opinions.

501
00:26:42,440 --> 00:26:46,200
Speaker 1: All of that shot. So, how much of a blow

502
00:26:46,400 --> 00:26:51,080
Speaker 1: to Fox is this decision. It's significant, but not surprising,

503
00:26:51,520 --> 00:26:55,480
Speaker 1: It's most significant for Fox in terms of the fact

504
00:26:55,520 --> 00:26:58,280
Speaker 1: that it hoped that they could get rid of some

505
00:26:58,400 --> 00:27:00,920
Speaker 1: of the claims by getting a ruling that they were

506
00:27:00,960 --> 00:27:05,320
Speaker 1: matters of opinion is now behind them and didn't succeed.

507
00:27:05,880 --> 00:27:07,919
Speaker 1: By the way, some of it did succeed in the

508
00:27:08,000 --> 00:27:11,080
Speaker 1: sense that the judge isolates those statements that are fact,

509
00:27:11,359 --> 00:27:15,400
Speaker 1: and he highlighted those that were clearly non actionable opinion.

510
00:27:15,960 --> 00:27:19,640
Speaker 1: So to some extent they probably did winnow down some

511
00:27:19,720 --> 00:27:23,240
Speaker 1: of the claims to get some of them excluded his opinion,

512
00:27:23,720 --> 00:27:26,520
Speaker 1: But within each broadcast, the court found that there were

513
00:27:26,640 --> 00:27:31,520
Speaker 1: statements that were assertions of fact and therefore actionable. Fox

514
00:27:31,560 --> 00:27:35,480
Speaker 1: tried a First Amendment defense that it was simply reporting

515
00:27:35,480 --> 00:27:40,960
Speaker 1: on newsworthy statements from public figures. How did that defense fair? Overall?

516
00:27:40,960 --> 00:27:44,280
Speaker 1: It didn't farewell. In other words, that they wanted to

517
00:27:44,280 --> 00:27:47,119
Speaker 1: say that these were just neutral and fair reports of

518
00:27:47,400 --> 00:27:51,000
Speaker 1: public perceivings. Some of them were, and the court doesn't

519
00:27:51,000 --> 00:27:55,320
Speaker 1: explicitly identify those that get thrown out, so those didn't

520
00:27:55,320 --> 00:27:58,280
Speaker 1: go well either. I just think one thing about this

521
00:27:58,320 --> 00:28:02,560
Speaker 1: case that is some ways really remarkably different than most,

522
00:28:02,760 --> 00:28:05,800
Speaker 1: and that is that rarely do you ever in a

523
00:28:05,880 --> 00:28:10,080
Speaker 1: case get the degree of insight into the internal editorial

524
00:28:10,119 --> 00:28:14,920
Speaker 1: deliberations of the news organization about a particular story or

525
00:28:15,000 --> 00:28:18,440
Speaker 1: set of stories. There's a thing called the reporter's privilege

526
00:28:18,680 --> 00:28:23,080
Speaker 1: which was litigated in order to prevent the disclosure of

527
00:28:23,480 --> 00:28:28,240
Speaker 1: internal deliberations within Fox about what they were broadcasting. And

528
00:28:28,400 --> 00:28:32,560
Speaker 1: normally that will work, but in this case it did partly.

529
00:28:32,880 --> 00:28:35,360
Speaker 1: When you read some of the motion papers, you see

530
00:28:35,400 --> 00:28:39,200
Speaker 1: that they're redactions, and that's probably because some of those

531
00:28:39,240 --> 00:28:43,280
Speaker 1: redacted statements were protected by the reporter's privilege, and some

532
00:28:43,320 --> 00:28:47,320
Speaker 1: of them may even be confidential sources that are under

533
00:28:47,360 --> 00:28:51,400
Speaker 1: New York law absolutely privileged. There are other kinds of

534
00:28:51,480 --> 00:28:54,920
Speaker 1: statements that are only conditionally privileged, and those are the

535
00:28:54,920 --> 00:28:58,240
Speaker 1: ones that the plaintiff dominion were able to get. How

536
00:28:58,280 --> 00:29:00,480
Speaker 1: did they get them? How did they over fund the

537
00:29:00,560 --> 00:29:02,880
Speaker 1: burden that you have to meet in order to beat

538
00:29:02,920 --> 00:29:06,120
Speaker 1: the privilege or crack it. It's really interesting. This is

539
00:29:06,280 --> 00:29:10,320
Speaker 1: unique about this case is that the Fox reporting was

540
00:29:10,400 --> 00:29:14,480
Speaker 1: itself the subject of months and months of reporting by

541
00:29:14,520 --> 00:29:18,640
Speaker 1: other news organizations, and many of its employees had left

542
00:29:18,760 --> 00:29:22,200
Speaker 1: in distress and anger over these issues. They'd fired some

543
00:29:22,280 --> 00:29:25,000
Speaker 1: of them too, including some of the people who called

544
00:29:25,000 --> 00:29:28,080
Speaker 1: the Arizona stuff and so on. So you had all

545
00:29:28,080 --> 00:29:32,360
Speaker 1: these sources out there talking to news organizations and saying, oh, well,

546
00:29:32,400 --> 00:29:35,280
Speaker 1: Suzanne Scott spent this email to me. I don't have it,

547
00:29:35,360 --> 00:29:37,920
Speaker 1: but this is what she said. So and so had

548
00:29:37,960 --> 00:29:40,920
Speaker 1: this meeting and they talked about this, and I heard

549
00:29:40,920 --> 00:29:43,200
Speaker 1: it and I was in. Once you have that kind

550
00:29:43,200 --> 00:29:47,000
Speaker 1: of particularity, once you know what you're looking for as

551
00:29:47,000 --> 00:29:50,400
Speaker 1: a plaintiff, you can then meet the burden that you

552
00:29:50,520 --> 00:29:53,360
Speaker 1: have to meet in order to crack the reporter's privilege.

553
00:29:53,520 --> 00:29:56,920
Speaker 1: Otherwise you can. So let's discuss what will be before

554
00:29:56,960 --> 00:30:00,320
Speaker 1: the jury and what dominion will have to prove. What's

555
00:30:00,360 --> 00:30:04,520
Speaker 1: called actual malice. So actual malice is a technical term

556
00:30:04,520 --> 00:30:06,960
Speaker 1: and it's got nothing to do with malice. What it

557
00:30:07,200 --> 00:30:10,440
Speaker 1: is is a state of mind about truth and falsehood.

558
00:30:10,640 --> 00:30:14,160
Speaker 1: Publishing something knowing that it is false or with a

559
00:30:14,280 --> 00:30:18,200
Speaker 1: high degree of awareness of its probable falsehood. That's the

560
00:30:18,240 --> 00:30:22,520
Speaker 1: definition of it. What it is not is biased. You're

561
00:30:22,560 --> 00:30:27,360
Speaker 1: allowed to be biased. It is not irresponsible journalism. You

562
00:30:27,400 --> 00:30:30,720
Speaker 1: can be irresponsible but still not act with actual malice.

563
00:30:31,120 --> 00:30:34,120
Speaker 1: You can be careless, you can be irresponsible, you can

564
00:30:34,160 --> 00:30:37,680
Speaker 1: be grossly irresponsible, which is the lower standard in private

565
00:30:37,720 --> 00:30:41,560
Speaker 1: figure cases. The plaintiff has to show that the defendant

566
00:30:41,600 --> 00:30:44,680
Speaker 1: published something that was false and at the time they

567
00:30:44,720 --> 00:30:47,680
Speaker 1: did that they published it, they knew it was false

568
00:30:48,080 --> 00:30:51,840
Speaker 1: or had a high degree of awareness of its probable falsehood.

569
00:30:52,040 --> 00:30:55,360
Speaker 1: And what's really kind of scary here for the defendants

570
00:30:55,360 --> 00:30:59,040
Speaker 1: in this case is that there's a lot of traffic

571
00:30:59,080 --> 00:31:02,320
Speaker 1: within their organizations and indicate that they're highly aware of

572
00:31:02,360 --> 00:31:05,120
Speaker 1: its falsehood and that the people who are expressing that

573
00:31:05,480 --> 00:31:07,280
Speaker 1: are And this is what the jury is going to

574
00:31:07,360 --> 00:31:13,000
Speaker 1: have to decide participants. In the shape of those broadcasts,

575
00:31:13,240 --> 00:31:15,840
Speaker 1: you know, there's this big thing about what is Rupert

576
00:31:15,920 --> 00:31:19,200
Speaker 1: Murdoch think and what is Lachlan think and so on.

577
00:31:19,600 --> 00:31:22,520
Speaker 1: It looks like they're kind of calling audibles too the

578
00:31:22,560 --> 00:31:24,600
Speaker 1: news team as to what it ought to do, but

579
00:31:24,760 --> 00:31:27,560
Speaker 1: the planiff doesn't need them in order to land the

580
00:31:27,720 --> 00:31:31,479
Speaker 1: proof of actual malice, which by the way, is pretty daunting. Normally,

581
00:31:31,560 --> 00:31:34,640
Speaker 1: you have to prove it with not just preponderance of

582
00:31:34,680 --> 00:31:37,200
Speaker 1: the evidence, which is the usual thing, but you have

583
00:31:37,280 --> 00:31:40,400
Speaker 1: to prove it with clear and convincing evidence. But somewhere

584
00:31:40,440 --> 00:31:44,120
Speaker 1: between preponderance of the evidence, which is more than fifty

585
00:31:44,160 --> 00:31:47,920
Speaker 1: percent likely, but less than what is required in a

586
00:31:47,920 --> 00:31:52,280
Speaker 1: criminal case, which is beyond a reasonable doubt. Some who've

587
00:31:52,280 --> 00:31:54,960
Speaker 1: looked at all the emails and techs seem to think

588
00:31:55,040 --> 00:31:58,640
Speaker 1: that it won't be that difficult to prove actual malice here.

589
00:31:59,000 --> 00:32:01,560
Speaker 1: I don't think that it will be difficult. I think

590
00:32:01,600 --> 00:32:04,680
Speaker 1: that there could be some open questions about, you know,

591
00:32:05,080 --> 00:32:10,520
Speaker 1: how soon did Fox editors and producers recognize that these

592
00:32:10,520 --> 00:32:14,080
Speaker 1: statements about demeaning were false. It seems pretty early in it.

593
00:32:14,240 --> 00:32:17,479
Speaker 1: You see the judges laid out both a timeline of

594
00:32:17,520 --> 00:32:21,800
Speaker 1: their awareness of falsehood and a timeline of the different publications.

595
00:32:21,880 --> 00:32:25,600
Speaker 1: So there could be some early on that don't meet

596
00:32:25,680 --> 00:32:28,480
Speaker 1: the actual analyice standard. We'll see what the jury does

597
00:32:28,480 --> 00:32:32,600
Speaker 1: with that. But as the understanding of the falsehood of

598
00:32:32,640 --> 00:32:36,440
Speaker 1: these statements kind of traits all levels of the news organization,

599
00:32:36,720 --> 00:32:39,520
Speaker 1: then I think it's not going to be hard for

600
00:32:39,720 --> 00:32:44,280
Speaker 1: the plaintiff to show that. So how likely is it

601
00:32:44,320 --> 00:32:46,800
Speaker 1: that there'll be a settlement on the eve of trial.

602
00:32:47,360 --> 00:32:49,400
Speaker 1: It just looks to me like a really hard one

603
00:32:49,440 --> 00:32:51,680
Speaker 1: to settle. If I had to guess, and this is

604
00:32:51,720 --> 00:32:53,720
Speaker 1: just a guess, I think it's going to go to

605
00:32:53,760 --> 00:32:55,720
Speaker 1: a trial. Why do you think it's hard to settle?

606
00:32:55,800 --> 00:32:59,600
Speaker 1: Just explain that, because I think that the plaintiff may

607
00:32:59,640 --> 00:33:03,960
Speaker 1: have little incentive to do that, and Fox itself may

608
00:33:04,000 --> 00:33:08,000
Speaker 1: be hoping to be able to contain some of this

609
00:33:08,200 --> 00:33:11,800
Speaker 1: on appeal. Keep in mind that if a plantiff gets

610
00:33:11,840 --> 00:33:15,280
Speaker 1: to a trial in a libel case, often the plantiff

611
00:33:15,320 --> 00:33:18,719
Speaker 1: can prevail, but typically on appeal a lot of it

612
00:33:18,760 --> 00:33:21,960
Speaker 1: gets really carved back and cut back. So I think

613
00:33:22,000 --> 00:33:24,680
Speaker 1: Fox's biggest incentive is that it doesn't want to have

614
00:33:24,680 --> 00:33:27,480
Speaker 1: a trial with all of these witnesses being hauled in

615
00:33:27,680 --> 00:33:30,920
Speaker 1: to court and questioned in a public way. I mean,

616
00:33:31,280 --> 00:33:33,800
Speaker 1: right now, all these things are just on paper, but

617
00:33:33,840 --> 00:33:36,800
Speaker 1: when they have to testify in court and have Earlson,

618
00:33:36,920 --> 00:33:39,920
Speaker 1: that Murdoch and you name it all in there, bad

619
00:33:40,280 --> 00:33:43,920
Speaker 1: R goes right against what they seem mostly preoccupied with

620
00:33:44,160 --> 00:33:48,840
Speaker 1: about appearing to be doubtful about what their viewers believe truth.

621
00:33:49,080 --> 00:33:51,640
Speaker 1: It's going to be a fascinating trial, Thanks so much.

622
00:33:51,960 --> 00:33:56,040
Speaker 1: That's defamation law expert David Korsnick. Coming up next is

623
00:33:56,080 --> 00:33:59,520
Speaker 1: Obamacare headed to the Supreme Court for a ninth time.

624
00:34:00,000 --> 00:34:00,800
Speaker 1: This is Bloomberg