Speaker 1: Greetings and welcome to woke a F with me Danielle Moody.
Speaker 1: I've been using my podcast to expand the scope of
Speaker 1: wokeness from strictly a political lens to include art, relationships, spirituality,
Speaker 1: and so much more. But sometimes we've still got to
Speaker 1: talk about politics on woke a F. Daily every Thursday
Speaker 1: is think Thursday, where I'm joined by two fabulous legal
Speaker 1: guests to break down what's going on in law and government.
Speaker 1: I encourage you to head over to patreon dot com
Speaker 1: slash woke a F and subscribe for just five dollars
Speaker 1: so that you don't miss a single enlightening conversation. But
Speaker 1: since we are living through the historic second impeachment of
Speaker 1: a president who's already left office, I wanted to give
Speaker 1: you a healthy taste of this week's think Thursday discussions.
Speaker 1: First up, former federal prosecutor Glenn Kirshner, who you may
Speaker 1: know from MSNBC Peacock and his own Patreon show. He
Speaker 1: reacted to the opening statements in the impeachment trial and
Speaker 1: gave a legal breakdown of why the impeachment trial of
Speaker 1: citizen Trump is in fact not unconstitutional. Glenn, I feel
Speaker 1: like I don't know. For the last several months, every
Speaker 1: week is another historic week in America. I would like
Speaker 1: to get back to a time when we are bored,
Speaker 1: but that is not the case yet. So we've had
Speaker 1: now our opening statements from both the house managers impeachment managers,
Speaker 1: as well as Donald Trump's last minute substitute B string
Speaker 1: I guess team of lawyers. I want to get your
Speaker 1: initial reactions before we dig in to specifics. So what
Speaker 1: were your overall feelings on what you saw this week?
Speaker 1: And a lot to unpack. So in Impeachment the Sequel,
Speaker 1: Part two, I will say my first impression watching the
Speaker 1: two teams of lawyers is if I ever need lawyers,
Speaker 1: I'm going to Raskins, Nogoose and Cicillini. I Am not
Speaker 1: going to showing and cast right because it really it
Speaker 1: was embarrassing. It wasn't the B team, it was the
Speaker 1: you know, maybe the W team. They were way down
Speaker 1: in the alphabet. I heard Nicole Wade say she counted
Speaker 1: him up, counted Trump's defense teams up. This is the
Speaker 1: seventh defense teams he's had and over the last four years. Yes,
Speaker 1: and he's clearly scraping the bottom of the barrel. So
Speaker 1: it was an embarrassment, and even some of the Republican
Speaker 1: senators said it was an embarrassment. So look, the presentation
Speaker 1: by the three House managers the prosecutors in substance was powerful.
Speaker 1: It was you know, they hit the right legal notes,
Speaker 1: the right factual notes, the right procedural notes, and most
Speaker 1: importantly from an old career trial prosecutor, the right emotional notes.
Speaker 1: You know, the opening montage was put together chronologically in
Speaker 1: a way that I hadn't seen it done before, relating
Speaker 1: kind of almost in real time, how the insurrection unfolded,
Speaker 1: and importantly how it was inspired by Donald Trump. Then
Speaker 1: when the defense team started its presentation, you know, it
Speaker 1: was laughable. But I'll try to leave all the jokes aside.
Speaker 1: That the problem that they had, and they really didn't
Speaker 1: handle it well, is that there are there are two
Speaker 1: enormous hurdles for them to overcome argument that the Constitution
Speaker 1: doesn't allow us to try at a Senate impeachment trial
Speaker 1: a former president who was impeached while he was president.
Speaker 1: The first is the plain language of the Constitution. It
Speaker 1: says that the Senate shall have the power to try
Speaker 1: all impeachments period there's no footnote, there's no caveat, there's
Speaker 1: no asterisk that said the Senate shall have the power
Speaker 1: to try all impeachments unless the president resigned or was
Speaker 1: out of office right quick before the trial kicked off. Right,
Speaker 1: it's a silly argument that the Constitution prohibits it, because
Speaker 1: the contrary is true. The Constitution expressly provides for it
Speaker 1: with no caveats. The second is so the plain language
Speaker 1: of the Constitution kills the defense argument. But the second
Speaker 1: is precedent. When we talk about precedent, Danielle, as you know,
Speaker 1: we're usually talking about court cases, Right, the Supreme Court
Speaker 1: has said X Y and Z, and that's why X
Speaker 1: Y and Z is precedent. Well, because there's this thing
Speaker 1: called the political question doctrine, which says courts are not
Speaker 1: permitted to touch to decide to litigate uniquely political questions
Speaker 1: like impeachment. There will never be court precedent, Supreme Court
Speaker 1: or otherwise on the ins and outs of an impeachment
Speaker 1: hearing because it's a political question. So what do we do.
Speaker 1: We look to historical precedent, we look to political precedent,
Speaker 1: we look to procedural precedent, and we have all of
Speaker 1: that because this exact thing has been done before in
Speaker 1: our nation's history multiple times. And people have probably heard
Speaker 1: about the Marquee case. In eighteen seventy six, the Secretary
Speaker 1: of War, William bell Napp, he was impeached. He resigned
Speaker 1: because he didn't want the Senate to try his impeachment case.
Speaker 1: What did the Senate do? They tried his impeachment case
Speaker 1: even though he had resigned. So in our nation's history
Speaker 1: there is political precedent for the Senate to do exactly
Speaker 1: what the Senate is doing. Those are two big deal
Speaker 1: pieces of information or evidence or precedent that control this thing,
Speaker 1: the Constitution and our nation's history. And the Defense did
Speaker 1: nothing to talk about that. All they did was they
Speaker 1: were rambling. I don't know what they did. It was
Speaker 1: absurd and frankly obscene. And but here's the thing, Danielle,
Speaker 1: because we both saw it. Forty four spineless Republicans took
Speaker 1: the jurisdictional out we talk about in law enforcement, giving
Speaker 1: a suspect and out, like when we're trying to get
Speaker 1: a suspect in a homicide interrogation to admit that he's
Speaker 1: the one who killed the victim. But he didn't want
Speaker 1: to admit it, doesn't want to admit it, we give
Speaker 1: him an out. The out is usually a self defense out. Well,
Speaker 1: you know that guy had a gun, that guy you killed,
Speaker 1: and I heard he was going to pull it on you,
Speaker 1: so you kind of had to kill him in self defense.
Speaker 1: And then the suspect you can see the wheels turning.
Speaker 1: They're like, that's right, I killed him in self defense. Well, no,
Speaker 1: you didn't, because the facts don't support that. But I'm
Speaker 1: glad we've now gotten over the hurdle of the fact
Speaker 1: that you killed him. Let's continue the interrogation. It's called
Speaker 1: giving him an out. The forty four senators took the
Speaker 1: jurisdictional out and let me finish, not finish our conversation,
Speaker 1: but finish on this. You've heard this said in various ways,
Speaker 1: one hundred times by lawyers. You know, the lawyers. I'm
Speaker 1: not crazy about lawyers myself. Yeah, you've heard us say,
Speaker 1: we got the law on our side, Pound on the
Speaker 1: law right when we've got the facts on our side,
Speaker 1: Pound on the facts, when we've gotten either on our side,
Speaker 1: pound on the table, make some noise distract. I'm going
Speaker 1: to add one line based on what I saw yesterday.
Speaker 1: If you don't have the law on your side, and
Speaker 1: you don't have the facts on your side, then pound
Speaker 1: on partisanship and cowardice and weakness, because nothing resonates with
Speaker 1: those Republican senators like partisanship, cowardice, and weakness. And forty
Speaker 1: four of them took the out and that is despicable.
Speaker 1: It's unpatriotic. And if they are willing to sign up
Speaker 1: for insurrection, what the heck else are they willing to
Speaker 1: sign up for? This week on woke af Daily's Think
Speaker 1: Thursday show, I was also joined by legal analyst Midwind Charles,
Speaker 1: founder of Midwind Charles and Associates. Midwind tour into Trump's
Speaker 1: clown car legal team and the absurdity of Mitch McConnell
Speaker 1: delayed the Senate and impeachment hearing until after Trump had
Speaker 1: left office, only to claim that holding the trial after
Speaker 1: he left office would be unconstitutional. I love talking with
Speaker 1: Midwind because, like me, she cuts through the bullshit. So
Speaker 1: be sure to check out our full thirty minute conversation
Speaker 1: at patreon dot com slash woke af With respect to
Speaker 1: the attorneys who were representing Donald Trump, who quite literally
Speaker 1: deserve no respect but please go ahead. It seems as
Speaker 1: though they got their law degrees at Trump University. That
Speaker 1: was not. First of all, that was not lawyering. It
Speaker 1: was incoherent, it was unorganized, it was unclear what points
Speaker 1: they were trying to make, and most importantly, they didn't
Speaker 1: even address the very valid points that the House managers
Speaker 1: made in their opening, which is, if we don't go
Speaker 1: forward with this trial, you are effectively setting the precedent
Speaker 1: for a president to go on a crime spree the
Speaker 1: last week or week before he or she leaves office
Speaker 1: and there would be no accountability. They didn't even address that,
Speaker 1: and to me, that's one of the strongest arguments as
Speaker 1: to why having this trial is constitutional. It is appropriate.
Speaker 1: And following the opening, the Senate did vote going forward
Speaker 1: in favor of this being constitutional, with I think six
Speaker 1: Republicans joining in with all the Democrats. And I also
Speaker 1: find that surprising because I'm like, why would Republicans who
Speaker 1: love power cast a vote that would limit their power?
Speaker 1: But then again, they have never been a party to
Speaker 1: live by precedent. They have never been a party to
Speaker 1: be consistent. We know this with the Amy Cody Barrett
Speaker 1: hearing versus the refusal to have a hearing from Mary Garland.
Speaker 1: But I just thought the presentation by Trump's attorneys was abysmal.
Speaker 1: It was not helpful. There are some arguments that could
Speaker 1: have been made that would have been favorable to Donald
Speaker 1: Trump that would be reasonable. I'm not saying that they
Speaker 1: would be persuasive, but there were reasonable arguments to make.
Speaker 1: For example, is it fair that someone should be held
Speaker 1: responsible for the actions of someone else? Right? A reasonable argument.
Speaker 1: They didn't really even make those kinds of arguments. Yes,
Speaker 1: they talked about First Amendment, but they didn't drive home
Speaker 1: this idea, the danger of holding someone responsible for the
Speaker 1: conduct of someone else. So I just couldn't even quite
Speaker 1: understand what was happening as I listened to the two attorneys.
Speaker 1: It didn't make any sense to me. I mean, at
Speaker 1: one point I tweeted and I said, literally, someone tell
Speaker 1: me what is happening? Because I didn't go to law school, right,
Speaker 1: and so I always ask for clarification what I don't
Speaker 1: understand shit, And everyone was just like, I'm watching it too,
Speaker 1: and I don't know. I have no idea what we're
Speaker 1: looking at, and I don't know what I'm looking at.
Speaker 1: You know, what was striking to me is Claire McCaskill
Speaker 1: on MSNBC. She said something that has stood out to
Speaker 1: me this week, which was that in any other situation,
Speaker 1: law firms, the top law firms in the country, would
Speaker 1: be clamoring to represent the president of the United States,
Speaker 1: because representing the president of the United States is essentially
Speaker 1: a career making moment, like presenting before the Supreme Court, right,
Speaker 1: like it is a career making moment. So what does
Speaker 1: it say that what we know to this point Donald
Speaker 1: Trump has gone through seven different defense teams and now essentially, yes,
Speaker 1: I guess Trump University produced Trump Law School, because that's
Speaker 1: where these folks have come from. Because it looked like
Speaker 1: it didn't even look like a Barnum and Bailey circus.
Speaker 1: It looked like a circus put on by like a
Speaker 1: toddler in dogs like I don't even you know, it
Speaker 1: just didn't It didn't make any sense. And when I watched,
Speaker 1: I wanted to get your reaction to Senator Cassidy, right,
Speaker 1: the only surprise out of the band of forty four
Speaker 1: Republicans who decided that insurrection is absolutely what they're doubling
Speaker 1: down on. They can bullshit all they want and say
Speaker 1: that Oh, it was unconstitutional. Note wasn't Mitch McConnell holding
Speaker 1: up Merritt Garland's seat for three hundred and sixty three
Speaker 1: days that was unconstitutional? This no, especially the fact that
Speaker 1: Mitch McConnell had the option to bring this trial when
Speaker 1: Donald Trump was still in office, which is when he
Speaker 1: was impeached in the House, but chose not to. Right.
Speaker 1: So it's like, oh, it's too late to impeach him,
Speaker 1: and now it was too early to impeach him, right.
Speaker 1: And we know that Mitch McConnell is very kayle of
Speaker 1: holding a hearing and ramming through whatever it is issue
Speaker 1: it is that he wants and exhibit as is the
Speaker 1: Amy Coney Barrett hearing. So the idea that there wasn't
Speaker 1: enough time it couldn't have been done because I believe
Speaker 1: the vote in the House to impeach Donald Trump was
Speaker 1: January thirteenth, so he had what seven more days until
Speaker 1: the end of his term in transition. So we know,
Speaker 1: as we know from the Amy Coney Barrett that if
Speaker 1: Mitch McConnell really wanted to have that trial, he could
Speaker 1: have done it because we saw how quickly and how
Speaker 1: swift the Amy Coney Barrett hearings were done so the art,
Speaker 1: so whatever argument it is that he had to delay
Speaker 1: the trial isn't credible. And again, like I said earlier,
Speaker 1: bad faith, right, the idea, the idea that you would
Speaker 1: delay a trial. And then when it comes time to
Speaker 1: vote as to the idea that you would delay a
Speaker 1: trial such that by the time it happens, Trump is
Speaker 1: no longer in office. And then a vote comes up
Speaker 1: as to whether it is constitutional to go through with
Speaker 1: the trial because he's no longer in office, and you
Speaker 1: vote no when you are the reason as to why
Speaker 1: the trial is happening when he's no longer in office. Again,
Speaker 1: bad faith, bad faith, not someone with integrity, not someone
Speaker 1: with character, and not someone who can be trusted when
Speaker 1: they give their word. And I hope Democrats learn from this.
Speaker 1: I don't know how many times they have to see
Speaker 1: Mitch McConnell and Republicans do this and still try to
Speaker 1: deal with them in anticipation that maybe one day this
Speaker 1: will be the thing to get them to act with
Speaker 1: good faith. Based on the willingness of forty four Republican
Speaker 1: senators to stand with their dear leader instead of the law,
Speaker 1: it looks like Donald Trump will be acquitted a second time,
Speaker 1: but we need to have these conversations to point out
Speaker 1: the lies, hypocrisy, and treason of the Republican Party. If
Speaker 1: you know me, you know I call out the bullshit
Speaker 1: every chance I get. So to hear me and all
Speaker 1: my fabulous woke guests pop off five days a week.
Speaker 1: Subscribe at patreon dot com slash woke af five dollars
Speaker 1: a month get to you five amazing one hour shows
Speaker 1: every single week, including think Thursdays, Woke Wednesdays, and my
Speaker 1: favorite feel good Fridays. You don't want to miss any
Speaker 1: of the wokeness I'm bringing, and once your friends hear it,
Speaker 1: they won't either. So share the love until next time.
Speaker 1: Power to the people and to all the people. Power,
Speaker 1: get woke and stay woke as fuck.