Speaker 1: Good morning, peeps, and welcome to WIKA F Daily with
Speaker 1: me your girl Danielle Moody recording from the Home Bunker. Folks,
Speaker 1: you know, I'm excited to get into conversation with our
Speaker 1: friend Glenn Kirshner, who was absent last week but is
Speaker 1: back with us, to give us a rundown on all
Speaker 1: of the legal news that is happening right now. All's
Speaker 1: continuing to swirl around Donald Trump, who is yet to
Speaker 1: be indicted, yet to face any type of criminal charges,
Speaker 1: and still continues to activate his bass to his lies,
Speaker 1: activate them to violence. I've been talking about the fact
Speaker 1: that the New York Times has reported that the talk
Speaker 1: of civil war on these far right channels and Justin
Speaker 1: and I don't even want to say it's far right channels,
Speaker 1: it's Republican chatter is up three thousand percent, and Donald
Speaker 1: Trump is their conductor, right, he is the orchestra conductor
Speaker 1: of mayhem and chaos. And without taking out Donald Trump,
Speaker 1: without indicting him, without placing a fucking muzzle on that
Speaker 1: man's mouth, without throwing him in jail and everyone around
Speaker 1: him for their attempts to try and overthrow the government,
Speaker 1: we now know through the Department of Justice through yet
Speaker 1: another league that guess what, they don't have all the documents. Well,
Speaker 1: surprising no one, we all know that they don't have
Speaker 1: all the fucking documents. We all know that Donald Trumps
Speaker 1: has them stashed around in as many of his homes
Speaker 1: as he has because they come with dollar signs. You know,
Speaker 1: I can't help but think and don't I'm not saying
Speaker 1: that this is true. I'm just saying, let's think about it,
Speaker 1: Oh peck. You know the group of countries that produce,
Speaker 1: essentially in trade, the world's oil that allows our cars
Speaker 1: to run because we refuse to invest in any type
Speaker 1: of significant clean energy that is the energy of the future,
Speaker 1: because we our Earth's supply is diminishing, right, and you
Speaker 1: know we're going to war over this ship. But nonetheless,
Speaker 1: I think to myself, it's a part of OPAC. Well,
Speaker 1: it's the Saudis, Kuwait Emirates. You know, the groups that
Speaker 1: are in the Middle East. But when I hear Saudis
Speaker 1: and I hear that, you know they got a lot
Speaker 1: and they are like pretty much running things. I say
Speaker 1: to myself self, the same Saudis that gave Jared Kushner
Speaker 1: two billion dollars when he exited the Trump White House.
Speaker 1: The same saudis that the Trumps, all of them, have
Speaker 1: been in bedwidth Mohammad bin Salaam. And then they decide
Speaker 1: thirty days before midterm elections, to increase the cost of
Speaker 1: oil per barrel? Is this a coincidence? Maybe? Or maybe
Speaker 1: fucking not right? You know, folks, I'm so tired of
Speaker 1: being thought of as a fool, because that's what Republicans,
Speaker 1: That's what I feel like. This Justice Department wants to
Speaker 1: take the American people for They want to take us
Speaker 1: for a fucking ride. Because you're telling me that you
Speaker 1: have motherfuckers that are in jail right now because of
Speaker 1: their manipulation of documents that are on a lesser level
Speaker 1: than what Donald Trump has done, and they're serving time,
Speaker 1: no questions asked. But we're still trying to die eyes
Speaker 1: and cross tees for a known criminal enterprise. Really, that's
Speaker 1: what we are here doing. We know that Jared Kushner
Speaker 1: was given two billion dollars. We also know that he's
Speaker 1: no businessman. His fucking father was thrown in jail for
Speaker 1: his fraudulent shit. So we want to think that all
Speaker 1: of that is on the up and up, and that
Speaker 1: these documents have nothing to do with that, Like, are
Speaker 1: we dumb? I just like, folks, I gotta tell you,
Speaker 1: every day is yet another day that I feel fucking crazy, right,
Speaker 1: And I know that if I feel crazy, y'all feel
Speaker 1: crazy too, because the questions that I will ask glennar
Speaker 1: you know what's funny is that I'm not sure if
Speaker 1: we don't actually get to the root of the root
Speaker 1: and the core of the core of the rot that
Speaker 1: is ever present not only in the Department of Justice,
Speaker 1: but the FBI, the Secret Service, the CIA, and all
Speaker 1: of these places, that we actually bounce back because I'm
Speaker 1: at a place where I'm just like, you know, maybe
Speaker 1: Lindsay Graham and all of them are right in dieting.
Speaker 1: Donald Trump is going to cause more violence. You think
Speaker 1: the FBI is out there trying to pick up any
Speaker 1: of those people, No, because they're probably in their own ranks.
Speaker 1: So I'm just like, folks, are we just fucked? Those
Speaker 1: are the questions that wake me up in the middle
Speaker 1: of the night. Is everything just done? And what we
Speaker 1: are participating right now is just a show for show's sake?
Speaker 1: I have no idea, but I know, for one I
Speaker 1: am exhausted. Coming up next my conversation with our good,
Speaker 1: good friend, the host of Justice Matters, Glenn Kirshner. Hey there,
Speaker 1: I want to tell you about another podcast I think
Speaker 1: you'll love. The Brown Girl's Guide to Politics, hosted by
Speaker 1: a Shanty Goehler, the president of Emerge. BGG, is the
Speaker 1: one stop shop for women of color who want to
Speaker 1: hear and talk about the world of politics. Join Ashanti
Speaker 1: this season as she talks to incredible women of color
Speaker 1: who are changing the face of politics and tackling some
Speaker 1: of the most important issues basing the United States, from
Speaker 1: reproductive justice to voting rights, to climate change and more.
Speaker 1: Tune in every Tuesday wherever you get your podcasts, folks,
Speaker 1: you know that whenever I have the opportunity to sit
Speaker 1: down weekly with our friend MSNBC legal analysts and the
Speaker 1: host of Justice Matters, Glenn Kirshner, I am always thrilled, Glenn,
Speaker 1: you have been making the rounds. I don't know when
Speaker 1: you sleep, but I really don't. Every time I turn
Speaker 1: on my TV, I'm like, there he is, so for us,
Speaker 1: we always appreciate your time on woke. F Let's start
Speaker 1: with where we find ourselves with the Oathkeeper's case as
Speaker 1: a lot of interesting tidbits have been bubbling up. One
Speaker 1: in particular that I want to unpack, which is what
Speaker 1: seems to be communication. I won't call it coordination, but
Speaker 1: communication between the Oathkeepers on the ground and Secret Service.
Speaker 1: This came out in the case in the hearing. Please
Speaker 1: tell us more about what you've been paying attention to. Yeah,
Speaker 1: I think it's really it's an interesting development. I call
Speaker 1: it eyebrow raising, but I don't think it's all that
Speaker 1: your main to the trial, quite frankly, and I think
Speaker 1: the prosecutors would be well advised not to distract the jury.
Speaker 1: I know these prosecutors. They're my old homicide folks. I
Speaker 1: tried the first murder case with one of the lead prosecutors,
Speaker 1: Kaper Cozy. She's fabulous. So here's how the testimony developed.
Speaker 1: There was a Trump rally in September, now this is
Speaker 1: September before the November election in Fayetteville, North Carolina. One
Speaker 1: of the witnesses who was a member of the oath
Speaker 1: Keepers temporarily. I'll talk more about that in a minute,
Speaker 1: because it's really interesting. Angle He said he overheard a
Speaker 1: phone conversation where Elmer don't call him because his name
Speaker 1: is Elmer and he hates it. Elmer. Stewart Rhodes was
Speaker 1: on the phone. He couldn't hear the other end of
Speaker 1: the conversation, but Rhodes said he was talking to a
Speaker 1: secret Service agent, and this witness, who was retired military himself,
Speaker 1: said yeah, in context what I was hearing, it sounded
Speaker 1: like he was talking with a secret Service agent about
Speaker 1: logistics for the Trump rally and what the Oathkeepers might
Speaker 1: be able to do to help provide protection and security,
Speaker 1: all of which is nonsense. That's really not what the
Speaker 1: Oathkeepers were ever about. That's a curiosity, but frankly, Danielle,
Speaker 1: it has nothing to do with the charges against the
Speaker 1: five Oathkeepers on trial for what they did on January six,
Speaker 1: So you know, maybe we'll hear more about that in
Speaker 1: the future. It's troubling, it's concerning, and hopefully DJ. I'm
Speaker 1: confident DJ has investigated it. Why they chose to drop
Speaker 1: that nugget in this trial, right, I don't know, but
Speaker 1: they had a practical reason to do it. Of that,
Speaker 1: I'm sure. So, Okay, bring us up to speed on
Speaker 1: a reminder, a refresher, if you will, on what the
Speaker 1: five oathkeepers are on trial four, we know that it's sedition,
Speaker 1: are there any other elements? And again, just out of curiosity,
Speaker 1: why is it just five? So here is that that's
Speaker 1: a great question. I actually have a great answer for
Speaker 1: a change, Dan Yell. I tried Rico cases in that
Speaker 1: very courthouse, and there is a rule that has been
Speaker 1: set by the United States Marshal Service, because those are
Speaker 1: the ones who provide courtroom security for the judge, for
Speaker 1: the jury, for the prosecutors, for the defense, for the audience.
Speaker 1: They have a hard and fast rule that you can
Speaker 1: try no more than six defendants in a courtroom at
Speaker 1: any given time. There are other oath keepers who are
Speaker 1: pending trial for the same seditious cons piracy, and they
Speaker 1: will be charged in the future, but they opted only
Speaker 1: to go against these five. I think it's for security reasons.
Speaker 1: When I tried Rico cases, we did six in one trial,
Speaker 1: six in the next trial, and because there was a
Speaker 1: thirteenth defendant, I had to do a Rico case against
Speaker 1: one defendant for three months. It really is a security thing.
Speaker 1: So I think that's what's driving the train, you know,
Speaker 1: and just staying on this for a moment, because also
Speaker 1: we saw reporting from the New York Times that is
Speaker 1: talking about the fact that the call for a civil
Speaker 1: war on these far right channels right which is how
Speaker 1: January six, how these groups organized right out in the open,
Speaker 1: is up three thousand percent. Are we to believe Glenn
Speaker 1: or just in your in your thoughts and an analysis
Speaker 1: that even though Elmer is on trial right now in
Speaker 1: the and other members of these other groups, the Proud
Speaker 1: Boys at three percenters, their folks are on trial, that
Speaker 1: they aren't that they are not still in control, like
Speaker 1: are we? It is what I'm asking I guess is
Speaker 1: that as we're trying to hold these people accountable for
Speaker 1: January six, do you believe that there is also someone
Speaker 1: who is keeping pace with how they're continuing with this coup?
Speaker 1: I hope so, I hope the FBI is now focusing
Speaker 1: on them in a way that perhaps they were not
Speaker 1: in the run up to January sixth. Maybe they were.
Speaker 1: I don't want to sell the FBI short, but given
Speaker 1: the lack of security at the capital on January six,
Speaker 1: there were some real law enforcement failures or orchestrations. If
Speaker 1: Trump deprived the capital of the law enforcement resources it needed,
Speaker 1: to meet the attack. I hope they are. But here's
Speaker 1: the good news. I actually think that groups like the
Speaker 1: Oath Keepers, the Three Percenters, the Proud Boys, have decimated
Speaker 1: by the criminal charges that have been brought against those organizations.
Speaker 1: And there's a concrete example of that. Three witnesses testified yesterday.
Speaker 1: All three were former Oathkeepers. Now these were not gentlemen
Speaker 1: who attacked the capital on January sixth. They were oath
Speaker 1: Keepers in like the summer of twenty twenty and what
Speaker 1: they saw from Elmer Stewart, Rhodes and other members of
Speaker 1: the Oathkeepers so repelled and repulsed them that they quit
Speaker 1: and they started cooperating with the authorities. So they're not
Speaker 1: the cooperating witnesses who flipped. We're going to hear from
Speaker 1: them in the weeks to come in the trial. And
Speaker 1: here is why I came away from yesterday's court hearing,
Speaker 1: which was a long day, with a little bit more
Speaker 1: hope and optimism. Three witnesses testify, John Zimmerman, Abdullah Rashid,
Speaker 1: and Michael Adams. They all said similar things. You know what,
Speaker 1: I was drawn to the Oathkeepers because part of their
Speaker 1: mission was to protect others to provide security to serve
Speaker 1: people who needed help. We'll take that with a grain
Speaker 1: of salt, because there are a lot of organizations you
Speaker 1: can plug in to to serve others that don't also
Speaker 1: have nationalism and white supremacy as a part of their mission.
Speaker 1: But let's set that aside for a minute. These three men,
Speaker 1: all military veterans, said that's why I was drawn to serve,
Speaker 1: and I'm a conservative, and I like Trump and all that. Okay.
Speaker 1: Then after a month or two when they saw what
Speaker 1: was going on inside the organization and they heard Elmer's
Speaker 1: dangerous rhetoric wanting to overthrow the United States government and
Speaker 1: wanting to do things like here's a testimony from yesterday.
Speaker 1: John Zimmerman said, we were at the million Maga march
Speaker 1: in November after Trump lost the election. We were going
Speaker 1: to provide security, and the leader of the oath Keepers, Elmer,
Speaker 1: the lead defendant in this trial, said you know what
Speaker 1: we should do. There's gonna be BLM and Antifa at
Speaker 1: this million Maga march stirring up trouble. We should dress
Speaker 1: like we're really elderly and vulnerable people and carry canes
Speaker 1: and bait them into trying to attack us, and then
Speaker 1: we'll give them a good beatdown. And John Zimmerman said,
Speaker 1: I was so repulsed and angry. He was angry on
Speaker 1: the sand, and he said so and upset by that.
Speaker 1: He said, that's the opposite of why I was drawn
Speaker 1: to the Oathkeepers. I thought we were here to serve
Speaker 1: other people, not bait them into you attacking us so
Speaker 1: we could give them a good beatdown. All three of
Speaker 1: these military veterans walked away from the oathkeepers and began
Speaker 1: assisting the authorities against the oathkeepers. Danielle. That caused me
Speaker 1: to stop and think about my perceptions. I hear oathkeepers,
Speaker 1: what do I think? They're all a bunch of white
Speaker 1: supremacists who are in it for the entirely wrong reasons.
Speaker 1: Not all of them were. I'm not excusing any of it,
Speaker 1: but I came away feeling like, Okay, these former of
Speaker 1: these military veterans, they really didn't have the perspective of
Speaker 1: the Elmer Rhodes of the world, you know. So that
Speaker 1: is a little bit of reason for optimism that I
Speaker 1: didn't have before yesterday's sport. Here, Hey, I'm David Plots
Speaker 1: of Slates Political gap fest as another election season accelerates,
Speaker 1: it can be tricky to sort through all the noise
Speaker 1: and the news. Each week, on the gap Fest, John Dickerson,
Speaker 1: Emily Bathlon and I decipher the headlines, break down the races,
Speaker 1: and tell you what issues really matter. We do not
Speaker 1: always agree, We definitely do not always agree, but we
Speaker 1: always deliver thoughtful debate and we always have a good time.
Speaker 1: So subscribe to Slate's Political Gapfest, new episodes every Thursday.
Speaker 1: How long, Glenn, and you know again a guest, amit?
Speaker 1: How long before we get to the end of this
Speaker 1: oath Keeper trial? At least part one of the trial
Speaker 1: and this saga? And that's one and then two? Do
Speaker 1: you think that a guilty verdict, you know which who
Speaker 1: knows that a guilty verdict resonates in any type of way,
Speaker 1: sends reverberations through maga world? Or is it just more
Speaker 1: fuel for the fire? Look at the government coming against
Speaker 1: us and we have to rise up even more? You know?
Speaker 1: I think the Trump base loses people slowly over time,
Speaker 1: at least those people who are either capable of critical
Speaker 1: thinking or willing to assess facts and think critically. And
Speaker 1: not everybody is right, but I don't think that. I
Speaker 1: don't think Trump attracts anybody else to his base. So
Speaker 1: to answer your question, I think sudicious conspiracy convictions which
Speaker 1: we can't predict. But I'm telling you this has been
Speaker 1: we just finished week two. It is a very strong
Speaker 1: case on the evidence because they have videotapes and audio
Speaker 1: recordings and you know, signal chats and admissions by these people,
Speaker 1: and it's a very strong case. I think it helps.
Speaker 1: I think it helps, maybe only around the margins, but
Speaker 1: it helps. And to answer your first question, the parties
Speaker 1: predicted it would be a four to six week trial.
Speaker 1: I can tell you we always overpredict how long a
Speaker 1: trial is going to take, so it could be more
Speaker 1: like three weeks, maybe four weeks. It started last week
Speaker 1: with jury selection, this week with testimony, will continue the
Speaker 1: testimony next week. Okay. Switching gears to another announcement that
Speaker 1: was made lo and Behold. The Department of Justice now
Speaker 1: believes that they don't have all of the files that
Speaker 1: Donald Trump stole from the White House and took to
Speaker 1: his home in Marilago or what we had been saying,
Speaker 1: what I had been saying, potentially stash them around all
Speaker 1: of his other properties god knows where in this country
Speaker 1: and beyond this once again get another revelation where if
Speaker 1: it were you, Glen, if it were me, we'd be
Speaker 1: in jail, we would have been picked up already, we
Speaker 1: would be indicted, we'd be under strict investigation. So what
Speaker 1: does this new news provide to you? Because I can
Speaker 1: tell you that the people that listen to my show
Speaker 1: are like, so what else? What else does the Department
Speaker 1: of Justice need at this point, Like it's getting to
Speaker 1: the point of ridiculousness that they are, in my humble opinion,
Speaker 1: are embarrassing themselves. So, first of all, Donald Trump, as
Speaker 1: you said, it's been reported, still has documents he stole
Speaker 1: from the government. I'm shocked, said absolutely nobody. Right, of
Speaker 1: course he still has documents, probably that he squirreled away
Speaker 1: in Bedminster, in Trump Tower, at his other properties. Of
Speaker 1: course he does. Now, first of all, technically, the FBI
Speaker 1: needs to have enough evidence of probable cause before they
Speaker 1: can get a warrant for those other properties. So just
Speaker 1: because we know it in our gut, and just because
Speaker 1: there may be some bits and pieces of evidence and
Speaker 1: information suggesting he still has more documents doesn't necessarily meet
Speaker 1: the legal threshold of probable cause that would allow the
Speaker 1: FBI to get more search warrants. So I don't want
Speaker 1: to say they're being negligent. But here's the thing, Danielle,
Speaker 1: as you said, stop negotiating with the documents terrorists, because
Speaker 1: that's what Donald Trump is. When somebody commits of senses
Speaker 1: by stealing classified information, national defense information, information about the
Speaker 1: nuclear weapons capabilities of foreign countries, and they illegally conceal
Speaker 1: those documents, stop negotiating with them, arrest them, indict them,
Speaker 1: try them. And you know what that would have the
Speaker 1: fringe benefit, daniel of having this judge, a lean cannon,
Speaker 1: unbelievable horseshit melt away. It would melt away. It would
Speaker 1: take a back seat to the criminal prosecution of Donald
Speaker 1: Trump in the federal court in Washington, d C. For
Speaker 1: God's sakes, Stop negotiating with the documents terrorists. It just
Speaker 1: I mean, Glenn, you couldn't have said it better. It
Speaker 1: is outrageous. At this point, we know that there are
Speaker 1: people that are serving time in federal prison for less.
Speaker 1: We know that lock and you know airtight cases. I
Speaker 1: don't understand how we continue to say that no one
Speaker 1: is above the law that the Department of Justice doesn't
Speaker 1: play politics, And yet we hear reports that no indictments
Speaker 1: will come out until after the midterm elections. How is
Speaker 1: that not playing politics? We are being told that, oh,
Speaker 1: we have to take fine care because this is a
Speaker 1: former twice in peach president of the United States. We
Speaker 1: can't just throw around indictments. The Department of Justice has
Speaker 1: to cross all its teas and eyes, does it? Because
Speaker 1: Glenn as a black woman in these United States? I
Speaker 1: gotta tell you it doesn't take much but to walk
Speaker 1: outside of my home or actually be in my own home,
Speaker 1: right to be shot, killed, presumed guilty for whatever reason.
Speaker 1: So how is it that the of Justice you think
Speaker 1: can justify, can justify this slow walking that they are
Speaker 1: doing with somebody Glenn, who, as you say, is in
Speaker 1: fact a domestic terrorist that continues to stir and coax
Speaker 1: fires across this country. Yeah, if Donald Trump were a
Speaker 1: person of color or a Muslim, how quickly would he
Speaker 1: have been arrested. I can't justify DJ's slow walking. I
Speaker 1: can explain it by the legitimate concern that if you're
Speaker 1: going to charge a former president of the United States,
Speaker 1: you want to do it right. You want to do it, well,
Speaker 1: you want to do it after you have exhaustively investigated
Speaker 1: the evidence against him, because there's little room for failure. Now,
Speaker 1: no case is a perfect case. And I always taught
Speaker 1: my prosecutors when I was supervising them at the DCUs
Speaker 1: Attorney's office, it is far more important to try cases
Speaker 1: than to win cases, because that is doing the right
Speaker 1: thing by the victims of crime, by the community that
Speaker 1: you are obliged to protect. Once you have probable cause,
Speaker 1: you have enough evidence to charge, you must charge unless
Speaker 1: there is some countervailing reason in the evidence not to.
Speaker 1: DJ is trying to build the perfect case, build the
Speaker 1: perfect beast against Donald Trump. There is no such thing
Speaker 1: as a perfect case. And in the introm they're allowing
Speaker 1: the criminal to do more damage to our democracy. They're
Speaker 1: in my opinion, they're striking the wrong balance. But I
Speaker 1: think that is why it's taking so darn long, you know,
Speaker 1: And just on this point, what if anything is going
Speaker 1: to happen with Judge alien Cannon. You know, she has
Speaker 1: made it now her mission to show the country and
Speaker 1: the world that she is nothing more than a puppeteer,
Speaker 1: that she is doing exactly what she was put in
Speaker 1: position to do, and it is unethical, It's unconscionable. So
Speaker 1: what if anything, what if any recourse is there, even Glenn,
Speaker 1: to deal with a person like her? The recourse is
Speaker 1: anybody who wants to can go to US Courts dot gov.
Speaker 1: There is a very short, intuitive, easy to fill out
Speaker 1: judicial complaint for him. Anybody can fill one out and
Speaker 1: submit it. And I have reason to believe, and I
Speaker 1: have heard lots have been submitted already, to try to
Speaker 1: urge a judicial oversight committee to open an investigation into
Speaker 1: why Aileen Canon has been ruling in that are not
Speaker 1: supported by the law. And you know that, frankly seem
Speaker 1: entirely unsupportable given the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals unanimous
Speaker 1: brutal SmackDown of a lean Cannon's ruling in favor of
Speaker 1: TRUMPA and two of those three judges on the Eleventh
Speaker 1: Circuit Court of Appeals were Trump appointees, telling Judge Cannon,
Speaker 1: you had no business exercising jurisdiction here and doing what
Speaker 1: you did, it was an abusive discretion. They have at
Speaker 1: least slow walked toward that conclusion, given the stage of
Speaker 1: the appellate litigation, that to me does more than just
Speaker 1: raise an eyebrow. It suggests there may be a reason
Speaker 1: that she is ruling for reasons other than the facts
Speaker 1: and the law, and we need to investigate what those
Speaker 1: reasons might be. And then finally, for you, Glenn, we've
Speaker 1: only named but two cases there are. We have Tish
Speaker 1: James New York, agh is going after the civil side
Speaker 1: of what she calls basically a fraudulent criminal enterprise, the
Speaker 1: Trump organization. And we are still watching what Fanie Willis
Speaker 1: is doing in Fulton County in Georgia. We're coming up
Speaker 1: with just a handful of weeks until mid term elections,
Speaker 1: and we're still, as it pertains to Fanie Willis's case,
Speaker 1: investigating the last election. Where what are you hearing and
Speaker 1: seeing with regard to what kind of insight you can
Speaker 1: give us to how those two cases are going. So
Speaker 1: Tish James case is the laydown winner. You know, I
Speaker 1: has I hasten to add there's no such thing as
Speaker 1: a short thing. But given what Tish James has put
Speaker 1: together in that mega indictment, and Donald Trump invoked his
Speaker 1: Fifth Amendment right against self incrimination to all of those questions,
Speaker 1: he loses, and he loses big. That is a case
Speaker 1: that almost cannot be lost by Tish James's team. But
Speaker 1: all that does, it doesn't put anybody in prison. It
Speaker 1: basically takes it so they can't be businesspeople in New
Speaker 1: York anymore, and they're gonna end up having to pay
Speaker 1: about a quarter of a billion dollars for the fraud
Speaker 1: that they've been engaged in. That's great, and let's hope
Speaker 1: that that adds fuel to the Manhattan District Attorney's Office
Speaker 1: investigation of Donald Trump for the crimes that he committed
Speaker 1: together with Alan Weisselberg, who pleaded guilty to them, together
Speaker 1: with the Trump organization who's going on trial for them.
Speaker 1: Let's hope that that moves forward. Fannie Willis, I think
Speaker 1: is kicking on all cylinders. I just think it's that's
Speaker 1: a big case. It's taking a long time. I would
Speaker 1: level some of the same criticisms that when you have
Speaker 1: the part of the crime caught on tape, find me
Speaker 1: eleven votes and corruptly declare me the winner. What I
Speaker 1: just said, Danielle constitutes the crime of soliciting election fraud
Speaker 1: under the Georgia state laws. How about we get off
Speaker 1: the dime. So I hope that one is coming to
Speaker 1: fruition soon. The Department of Justice documents case, the insurrection case,
Speaker 1: other charges. I don't know. What I have absolutely no
Speaker 1: sense of right now is where there's the first indictment drop.
Speaker 1: But what I am confident of is one it will drop,
Speaker 1: and two then everybody's going to want to be the
Speaker 1: second prosecutor to charge Donald Trump. Nobody is enthusiastic about
Speaker 1: being the first. You know what, Before I let you go,
Speaker 1: I do have one more question, and it is about
Speaker 1: the Supreme Court another judge that I believe needs to
Speaker 1: be investigated, which is Clarence Thomas. The January sixth Committee
Speaker 1: sat down with Jinny Thomas. Yeah, the wife of Clarence Thomas,
Speaker 1: who still believes the election was stolen, says that, oh,
Speaker 1: this has nothing to do with my husband, because apparently
Speaker 1: Republicans and as well as her, think that we are stupid.
Speaker 1: What do you make of what she shared? And what again,
Speaker 1: any recourse that we have for judges with lifetime appointments
Speaker 1: to never be held accountable, Because I got to tell you,
Speaker 1: there's a reason why we have on the books you
Speaker 1: can't testify against your spouse and these things. It's spousal communication.
Speaker 1: I guess that still holds even when your wife is
Speaker 1: working to overthrow democracy. Yeah, and you can't sit in
Speaker 1: a case as a judge in which your wife has
Speaker 1: an interest or is involved. Right, but Clarence Thomas did that. Yeah,
Speaker 1: Jenny Thomas lot right. She testified falseley the election was stolen.
Speaker 1: She's married to a judge. Sixty five judges, including Trump appointees,
Speaker 1: said there's no evidence that the election was fraudulent. So
Speaker 1: Jenny Thomas knows better than those sixty five judges, including
Speaker 1: Trump appointees. It is such a transparent lie, and I
Speaker 1: predict she will not be held accountable for it because
Speaker 1: what would have to happen next is the Department of
Speaker 1: Justice would have to take her transcript from her appearance
Speaker 1: before the January sixth committee and begin investigating it for
Speaker 1: potential false statements and violation of eighteen United States Code
Speaker 1: one thousand and one. Even if you're not under oath,
Speaker 1: if you make false statements to a congressional committee, it's
Speaker 1: just like perjury. It's the same thing. It's called a
Speaker 1: false statement, and I'm sure they could find any number
Speaker 1: of lies. I mean, remember, this is a woman the
Speaker 1: only reason she has that access to the Chief of
Speaker 1: Staff to the President of the United States is because
Speaker 1: she's married to Clarence Thomas, and she texted him that
Speaker 1: one reason you must work to overturn the elections results,
Speaker 1: mister Chief of Staff, Mark Meadows, is because right now
Speaker 1: there are ballot fraudsters on barge's outside of Gitmo awaiting
Speaker 1: their military tribunal for sedition. Therefore, you must overturn the
Speaker 1: elections results. I wish I could have been the attorney
Speaker 1: examining Jinny Thomas about that factual assertion that she made
Speaker 1: in support of her requests that the results be overturned.
Speaker 1: It is such unbelievable horseshit, It just is. Will she
Speaker 1: be held accountable? Will Clarence Thomas be investigated for his
Speaker 1: conflicts of interest? Will anything change with respect to life
Speaker 1: tenure or any sort of ethical rules being adopted to
Speaker 1: govern what is a runaway, relying, illegitimate Supreme Court. I
Speaker 1: don't know. I hope so, but I don't know. I
Speaker 1: tell you, you know, if you don't get to the
Speaker 1: root of the root and the core of the core,
Speaker 1: I don't know how you clean out the rot. That's
Speaker 1: all I have to say. I really don't. And you know,
Speaker 1: barring the dropping of the indictments that you say, you
Speaker 1: know you believe are coming, but we don't know when,
Speaker 1: and we don't know who. I'm telling you, I'm at
Speaker 1: this point I don't know if it will be enough,
Speaker 1: because that's how rotten to the core our agencies have become,
Speaker 1: and these rules that we have in place that only
Speaker 1: half of the country is following. So I honestly I
Speaker 1: don't know. As always, Glenn Kirshner, I appreciate your time,
Speaker 1: your analysis, and your passion. Thank you so much for
Speaker 1: making the time for us. I'm okay if we always
Speaker 1: appreciate you. I'll see you next week, Danielle. That is
Speaker 1: it for me today. Dear friends on Woke f as always,
Speaker 1: Power to the people and to all the people. Power,
Speaker 1: get woke and stay woke as fuck.