Speaker 1: Good morning, peeps, and welcome to WOKP Daily with Meet
Speaker 1: your Girl Daniel Moody recording from the Home Bunker, folks.
Speaker 1: Happy Monday to you all, and what a wild week
Speaker 1: last week was. So who the hell knows what this
Speaker 1: week has in store for us, But I do want
Speaker 1: to start out with the news that broke at the
Speaker 1: end of last week on Friday, as a matter of fact,
Speaker 1: after I had already posted the fuck It Friday, which
Speaker 1: is that Twitter Elon Musk has announced a new CEO
Speaker 1: and her name is Linda Yakarino. Linda Yakarino is a
Speaker 1: longtime ad sales executive top ad sales executive at NBC Universal,
Speaker 1: and she is making the transition to Twitter. D only
Speaker 1: knows why. I can only assume that the money was
Speaker 1: too hard to turn down, because why anyone, particularly a woman.
Speaker 1: You know. I don't know anything about Yakarino's background, and
Speaker 1: I'm sure we will learn more and there will be
Speaker 1: profiles and stories and we will, you know, learn more
Speaker 1: about her ideology and whether or not she's going to
Speaker 1: have actual full control over what Twitter is doing. While
Speaker 1: Elon Musk says that he's going to concentrate on new
Speaker 1: products and the engineering side of things. So you know,
Speaker 1: what I thought really interesting about this though, is that
Speaker 1: anytime there is disaster at a organization, and I've seen
Speaker 1: this in my own work, whether it's an organization or
Speaker 1: a Fortune five hundred company or what have you, anytime
Speaker 1: there is disaster, that's when they decide to bring in
Speaker 1: someone who is not a straight white man. And it
Speaker 1: is absolutely wild. I've seen this happen in from LGBTQ
Speaker 1: organizations to you know, to Fortune five hundred companies, and
Speaker 1: it's like, for whatever reason, women and black people and
Speaker 1: people of color seem to be the fucking janitors, uh
Speaker 1: for white men, and they go in, they fuck up companies,
Speaker 1: they fuck up organizations, they bring everything down to you know,
Speaker 1: down to the studs, and then these people, right, the
Speaker 1: non traditional quote unquote CEOs come in and if they
Speaker 1: don't turn things around in six months, then they are
Speaker 1: a failure. And then the board and the shareholders get
Speaker 1: to say to themselves, well, that's why we need a
Speaker 1: white man again. It's just so fucking nauseating, and I
Speaker 1: hope that this is not the cycle that we see here.
Speaker 1: And again, I don't know anything currently about Linda Yakarino.
Speaker 1: But you know, I'm certain by midweek we will have
Speaker 1: more details about her, her background, uh, and when she's
Speaker 1: going to start and what she's going to do. Is
Speaker 1: she going to continue with the tanking of the app,
Speaker 1: with having a barrage of white supremacists, anti semites, homophobes,
Speaker 1: transphobes flooded into the space, or is she going to
Speaker 1: get a hold of things so that advertisers actually want
Speaker 1: to come back because it is returned to being the
Speaker 1: world's town square. So that will you know, we will
Speaker 1: see what happens there next up, I gotta tell you,
Speaker 1: I interviewed the thatch Ramaswami be for my other podcast,
Speaker 1: The New Abnormal with The Daily Beast, and I did
Speaker 1: not like that men then and it's sure it's ell
Speaker 1: do not like any of the hot shit that he's
Speaker 1: been saying. So reportedly his interview with Don Lemon is
Speaker 1: the straw that broke the camel's back in terms of
Speaker 1: the firing for Don Lemon. That it wasn't just uh,
Speaker 1: the misogyny and you know, his treatment of staff, that
Speaker 1: it was the very heated interview, which I thought, if
Speaker 1: you want to you know, rate things I thought that
Speaker 1: Don Lemon's interview with the vech Ramaswami was the best
Speaker 1: Don Lemon interview I've ever seen, And so it's laughable
Speaker 1: that that would be the straw that broke the camel's back.
Speaker 1: But we know that CNN under Chris Lickt has become
Speaker 1: a Republican apologist, a white supremaist, you know, ideology just spreader, right,
Speaker 1: like they're that's what they're interested in. Uh, They're interested
Speaker 1: in the spreading of lies and making sure that Republicans
Speaker 1: feel comfortable on their network sharing those lies. But THEVEC
Speaker 1: recently has been making news, not for anything good, because
Speaker 1: what Republican does make news for anything good these days?
Speaker 1: But he made making news because this fool wants to
Speaker 1: raise the voting age to twenty five. Right, because, as
Speaker 1: we know, the Republican Party is at odds with Generation
Speaker 1: Z because Generation Z is inheriting all of their parents
Speaker 1: and grandparents bullshit, their grandparents and their parents negligence as
Speaker 1: it has come to reform on issues like policing, like
Speaker 1: the environment, like gun control, which they have grown up
Speaker 1: with being on the front lines up and so when
Speaker 1: you see the pushback in states like Tennessee where they
Speaker 1: try to expel three members of the Tennessee Legislature, and
Speaker 1: that showed a just burst of protests that finally had
Speaker 1: those members reinstated and voted back in. Then you saw
Speaker 1: another Swatha protests that happened in Ohio, again led by
Speaker 1: Generation Z. And you're seeing this, You're seeing school walkouts,
Speaker 1: You're in Florida, You're seeing a lot of energy, and
Speaker 1: unfortunately all of it is not being covered by mainstream
Speaker 1: media because you know, why show people fighting back against
Speaker 1: this fascist, authoritarian, white nationalist takeover of this country. Nonetheless,
Speaker 1: you know the VEC is not alone in his thinking.
Speaker 1: There are other GOP officials that are trying to upend
Speaker 1: voting on college campuses because God forbid you make it
Speaker 1: easy to vote. God forbid young people be able to
Speaker 1: use their student ID. Now you can use your student ID,
Speaker 1: by the way, to buy an AR fifteen in these places.
Speaker 1: But they don't want you to be able to use
Speaker 1: your student ID to be able to vote. So that
Speaker 1: just tells you where their priorities are. So the idea
Speaker 1: that you would come out of your mouth, and this
Speaker 1: man is only I believe you know, he's not that old,
Speaker 1: he's none in his twenties, he's definitely of probably on
Speaker 1: the older side of the millennials. But to come out
Speaker 1: and say that you need we should raise the voting
Speaker 1: age from eighteen, which I believe that we should be
Speaker 1: lowering the voting age because it is those sixteen year
Speaker 1: old and I think that we should lower it to sixteen.
Speaker 1: I think that if you're able to get a permit
Speaker 1: and drive a car right and work right, because they're
Speaker 1: trying to roll back trial labor laws so that you
Speaker 1: used to have to be sixteen to get a work permit,
Speaker 1: So if you can work and drive a car, then
Speaker 1: you should also be able to fucking vote, right. But
Speaker 1: they don't want high schoolers having the ability to vote
Speaker 1: because they would be a lot more liberal minded. And
Speaker 1: now you would actually be beholden to people, young people
Speaker 1: whose lives you're putting at risk every single day by
Speaker 1: sending them to school and school shootings happening all the
Speaker 1: time and you choosing to do nothing about it. Right,
Speaker 1: you would have you look at them as your constituents
Speaker 1: and actually answer their questions about why you're not doing
Speaker 1: anything to prevent climate change, and why why you're not
Speaker 1: looking into renewables, and why you're not talking the talk
Speaker 1: and walking the walk. Right. So the idea that the
Speaker 1: VAC as well as other GOP members would love to
Speaker 1: raise the voting age and then make a contingent upon
Speaker 1: military service isn't what a democracy looks like and is
Speaker 1: absolute bullshit. How about you create policies that entice and
Speaker 1: engage the Generation Z and Gen Alpha that is going
Speaker 1: to be coming behind them, instead of eliminating their voice
Speaker 1: and their vote, maybe think about what is actually best
Speaker 1: for the country and isn't just what's best for you
Speaker 1: and your donors just an idea, and then you know, finally,
Speaker 1: before we head into our interview with our friend Gen Tobb,
Speaker 1: who is the expert on all things white collar crime,
Speaker 1: E Gene Carroll was once again in the Trump town
Speaker 1: hall that has gotten all the worst coverage. Right, I
Speaker 1: don't care people say, you know, bad press is good press.
Speaker 1: It really isn't. It really is not. And the way
Speaker 1: that Anderson Cooper found himself the following day after the
Speaker 1: CNN town hall direct to camera exclaiming and admonishing, not
Speaker 1: even exclaiming, admonishing the audience for daring to have pushback
Speaker 1: and be really disappointed and want to boycott CNN moving
Speaker 1: forward because of their decision to have Donald Trump on,
Speaker 1: not do any real time fact checking, not pushback at all,
Speaker 1: and just essentially give him a platform for ninety minutes
Speaker 1: to air out his conspiracy theories, his hatred, and his
Speaker 1: lie And then Anderson Cooper has the audacity to tell
Speaker 1: us that, like, whether or not we want to see
Speaker 1: Donald Trump, donald Trump exists, so we should put it
Speaker 1: couch him in a situation where you know there is
Speaker 1: pushback and blah blah, and I'm like, so, basically, don lemon,
Speaker 1: basically excuse me. That was a slip. Basically, Anderson Cooper,
Speaker 1: if the CNN town hall was such a success, you
Speaker 1: wouldn't have had to use your opening monologue the following
Speaker 1: day to give your own mini town hall to brate
Speaker 1: the audience for choosing not to provide your network with
Speaker 1: the ratings that it wanted. Now, the ratings came in
Speaker 1: well above Fox and MSNBC in that time slot, but
Speaker 1: it wasn't at all as high as they were hoping,
Speaker 1: and it wasn't at all matching numbers back in twenty sixteen,
Speaker 1: when Donald Trump actually had some play and people didn't
Speaker 1: really know who he was as a politician, right, so
Speaker 1: they were tuning in And now I think that most
Speaker 1: people tuned in to that CNN town Hall one to
Speaker 1: see what he was going to say about being found
Speaker 1: libel the day before for sexual abuse and defamation, on
Speaker 1: which he just continued to defame Egene Carol. And Egene
Speaker 1: Carroll has kind of said potentially that she may be
Speaker 1: looking to sue him for a fourth time because he
Speaker 1: continues to defame her and CNN gave him a platform
Speaker 1: to do it, and all the lawyers would have to
Speaker 1: show is that clip end of the audience laughing and
Speaker 1: up again, CNN providing no pushback, no nothing. So I
Speaker 1: think that if Egene Carroll actually does decide, and God
Speaker 1: bless her, if she does decide to sue Donald Trump again,
Speaker 1: she needs to throw CNN in that lawsuit as well,
Speaker 1: because what they did was indefensible. I don't give a
Speaker 1: fuck what Anderson Cooper says, because anyone who isn't getting
Speaker 1: a check from CNN has said the same exact thing.
Speaker 1: All right, friends, coming up next, my interview and conversation
Speaker 1: with our friend Jennifer Tobb. Folks, you know that I'm
Speaker 1: always excited when I get to bring my friend Jennifer Tobb, author,
Speaker 1: law professor, author of the book Big Dirty Money and
Speaker 1: Other People's Houses, and hosts of the Politicon podcast, booked
Speaker 1: up with Jen Tobb onto OKF Daily. It is always
Speaker 1: a treat, and it is particularly a treat because Jen,
Speaker 1: I actually want to start with good news, like for once,
Speaker 1: I want to start with good news, and the good
Speaker 1: news being that Egene Carol, a friend of yours, a
Speaker 1: woman that I continue to applaud for her bravery, her persistence,
Speaker 1: her courage, her case was finally decided. She finally got
Speaker 1: her day in court, and frankly, as the representative for
Speaker 1: twenty six other women, twenty five other women that would
Speaker 1: have accused Donald Trump of either sexual harassment or sexual assault,
Speaker 1: found in this civil case that Donald Trump was libel
Speaker 1: for sexual abuse, for defamation, and other charges. So first,
Speaker 1: before we dig into what that all means, I want
Speaker 1: to get your initial reaction.
Speaker 2: You know, I, given that were several several days after
Speaker 2: the verdict, my reaction keeps right. So immediately I was
Speaker 2: stunned that it came back so fast that they were
Speaker 2: able to come up with the damages amount when they
Speaker 2: hadn't been instructed on one, and even though I was
Speaker 2: exceedingly happy for Egene, all of a sudden I just
Speaker 2: felt so much grief and anxiety because I think I'd
Speaker 2: been holding all of that in even when I was
Speaker 2: at the trial, and just that she had to live
Speaker 2: through all of it. Like I was in my fighting mode,
Speaker 2: you know, I was in my like okay, just do
Speaker 2: do do And then I just felt so sad and
Speaker 2: so anxious. But then I woke up the you know,
Speaker 2: the next day, and was just so thrilled, but at
Speaker 2: the same time, at the same time, I already understood
Speaker 2: even an hour after the verdict, that the Trump town
Speaker 2: hall would be coming up the following day and that
Speaker 2: he was going to trash her in public again. And
Speaker 2: in fact, I said I was right for the Washington Monthly,
Speaker 2: and my editor there sometimes just interviews me instead of
Speaker 2: having me write something because I'm busy, and he interviewed
Speaker 2: me after the verdicts, and I in fact did say that,
Speaker 2: I said, you know, I'm quite worried about it. And
Speaker 2: yet some people's response is like, okay, And by the way,
Speaker 2: now that we're past the town hall, we know that
Speaker 2: he not only redefamed her, said the same Lise before that,
Speaker 2: he claiming he wasn't there and said bad things about her.
Speaker 2: He also enlisted the crowd to mock and laugh at her,
Speaker 2: and it just made me feel so sick. And you know,
Speaker 2: there are some folks who look at that and say, okay,
Speaker 2: well then she can bring another case. And that was
Speaker 2: my whole reaction to the Washington Monthly is when does
Speaker 2: this end? N does this end? We know that she
Speaker 2: has that other case to move forward, but the only
Speaker 2: thing that I guess my other reaction is, you know,
Speaker 2: I'm half human, half lawyer, which is funny because my
Speaker 2: zodiac sign is Sagittarius. I guess that makes sense. But
Speaker 2: I'm half human, half lawyer. So I'm toggling between sort
Speaker 2: of my human reactions. And then my brain starts acting
Speaker 2: and saying, oh, well, he's gonna have to post a bond,
Speaker 2: and you know, so like and then there's a lot
Speaker 2: there's a lot of legal doctrines that get involved. So like,
Speaker 2: half of me again is thrilled for her and just
Speaker 2: grieving the process and so sickened that CNN gave him
Speaker 2: a platform for his defamation and his lies and his
Speaker 2: repeating insurrectionist language and everything it all gets tied together, right,
Speaker 2: and then this other part of me is pure strategy,
Speaker 2: thinking legal strategy and also thinking political strategy about what
Speaker 2: we need to do next. That was a long winded answer.
Speaker 1: No, it's I mean, there's a lot going on, and
Speaker 1: I think that it's important to give breath and depth
Speaker 1: to her case and this issue. And you know, I
Speaker 1: will say that for me when the verdicate, I was
Speaker 1: holding my breath right like as many people were, because
Speaker 1: you know, ultimately in these types of cases, it really
Speaker 1: doesn't amount to he said, she said, and frankly, Donald
Speaker 1: Trump said way too fucking much. That convinced the jury that, yeah,
Speaker 1: this is a pattern of behavior. This is who this
Speaker 1: man is in his you know deposition. For millions of years,
Speaker 1: stars have been able to do this. Well, do you
Speaker 1: see yourself as a star? Yes, I do, right, And
Speaker 1: just you know, there was a time following the Access
Speaker 1: Hollywood tapes where there was a distance that was created
Speaker 1: and said, you know, this was locker room talk, this
Speaker 1: is not real behavior. Over the course since twenty sixteen ten,
Speaker 1: now that Donald Trump has evolved and has been like,
Speaker 1: oh no, this isn't locker room talk. Is this is
Speaker 1: allowed this is who I am. He has doubled and
Speaker 1: tripled down on this, and you saw that in the deposition,
Speaker 1: and obviously the jury of his peers also saw that.
Speaker 1: And you know, I have to say that if you
Speaker 1: feel wrongly accused, I would think that one would show
Speaker 1: up in court, take the stand and be heard from directly,
Speaker 1: and not be golfing on a course in Scotland, right,
Speaker 1: that you would be there and say I am being defamed.
Speaker 1: I my name is being dragged through the mud. But
Speaker 1: Donald Trump didn't bother to do that. I wanted to
Speaker 1: get your thoughts too on Tacopino, the lawyer for Donald Trump,
Speaker 1: and the way that he went after Egene Carroll, and
Speaker 1: then what she said most recently in the interview on
Speaker 1: Morning Joe, where she said very graciously that this guy
Speaker 1: is likable, right, that he you know, he has charisma,
Speaker 1: he has all of these things, but that she looked
Speaker 1: at him dead in his eye and said, you know,
Speaker 1: he did it. So what do you make of the
Speaker 1: way that he tried to defame her again on the stand,
Speaker 1: and then her response to kind of his demeanor after
Speaker 1: the verdict.
Speaker 2: Yeah, and I'm gonna answer that. But since you mentioned
Speaker 2: his lawyer, Joe Tacapina. Because I watched the CNN town hall,
Speaker 2: I can tell you that, and maybe you heard this reporting.
Speaker 2: Caitlin Collins asked Donald Trump, well, then why didn't you
Speaker 2: come testify kind of like what you're saying, Danielle, And
Speaker 2: he said, oh, well, his lawyers came to him and said, sir,
Speaker 2: you know whenever he does a sir, you know this
Speaker 2: is a lotical but right, so sir, you shouldn't go
Speaker 2: because it's just a made up story. No, okay, So
Speaker 2: what does Joe you know, Joe, So what does that
Speaker 2: mean about being a lawyer like Joe Tacapina, Is he
Speaker 2: should he go out in public and say I never
Speaker 2: told my client that. Ethically, he you can't. If a
Speaker 2: client lies in public about you, you're not obligated to
Speaker 2: correct it, and in fact, it would hurt the client
Speaker 2: if you did. If a client's going to lie, you
Speaker 2: have to resign. So that's I think the reason why
Speaker 2: Trump actually didn't testify, even though you know, he was
Speaker 2: claiming why I can't, and and then the judge kept extending, extending.
Speaker 2: I think he didn't testify because Joe said to him,
Speaker 2: and he said this I will quit if he does,
Speaker 2: because he will not. You're not if you know the
Speaker 2: truth of what your client did, you know the real story,
Speaker 2: and you think that they're going to lie on the stand,
Speaker 2: you can't. You can't represent someone in that instance. And
Speaker 2: maybe he just didn't want him so that, but that's
Speaker 2: what I think went on there in terms of the
Speaker 2: lawyer in his demeanor. You know, doesn't matter whether you're
Speaker 2: likable or not. You know, he behaved like a thug.
Speaker 2: You have a courtroom. And this is why I will
Speaker 2: not take on a rape defense. Let I mean, let
Speaker 2: me just be really clear. I take being a lawyer
Speaker 2: really seriously, and if if you are going to defend
Speaker 2: a client, you have to defend them aggressively within the
Speaker 2: bounds of what the law allows. And this is a
Speaker 2: guy who has chosen to represent some of the most
Speaker 2: awful people in the world, like he represented that guy
Speaker 2: who killed Natalie hallwell, right, he represented some of the
Speaker 2: worst people in the world. And I do think some
Speaker 2: of the worst people or people who've done some of
Speaker 2: the worst things need a defense though, right, So I'm
Speaker 2: torn a little bit right about not the way he
Speaker 2: treated Egene, but about the fact that It's great that
Speaker 2: we can all say he did a really good job
Speaker 2: for his client, because that means Donald Trump got a
Speaker 2: fair trial. And he threw everything at Egene, and it
Speaker 2: was you know, he got sanctioned by the judge quite
Speaker 2: a bit because at least when I was in the courtroom,
Speaker 2: what he was doing was often you go back to
Speaker 2: the same thing over and over again to try to
Speaker 2: be repetitive. In part, you can be attached to bore
Speaker 2: the jury, but it can be like insidious. Why you
Speaker 2: suggesting there's something more? Why you keep asking her this question?
Speaker 2: And the judge shut that, shut that stuff down. You
Speaker 2: know what he did, I mean it made me sick,
Speaker 2: like what he was doing on god Cross. But what
Speaker 2: he said the other morning when I saw what you're
Speaker 2: talking about the other day with Egene, I'm trying to
Speaker 2: remember it, like he went around to shake everyone's hand
Speaker 2: after the case, and when he when he reached out
Speaker 2: his hand to eg she didn't she didn't shake it.
Speaker 2: She looked at him at first and said, Joe, he
Speaker 2: did it, and you know it, and you know it yep, yep,
Speaker 2: I mean, and that he didn't. Of course, he said,
Speaker 2: what is he gonna do? He can't say that he
Speaker 2: you know, and I don't know if Donald Trump actually
Speaker 2: told him he did it or not. Remember Joe joined
Speaker 2: like Joe joined the case. Joe joined the case after
Speaker 2: what's her name, Alita Haba screwed up at that deposition
Speaker 2: or didn't prep him for the deposition or what have you.
Speaker 1: I mean, the reality is is that, like, yeah, we
Speaker 1: all know Donald Trump did it right, Yeah, And and Takapino,
Speaker 1: you know, he's not an idiot. I may not like him, right,
Speaker 1: and and what he represents and what he does and
Speaker 1: how he does it, but like he's not dumb. I
Speaker 1: don't think that he's sitting around thinking to himself. Oh no,
Speaker 1: Donald Trump's a really good guy. You work for him.
Speaker 1: You know exactly who the fuck he is, right, and
Speaker 1: exactly how he handles people, and just you know, just recently,
Speaker 1: you have Elisa Fara Griffin comes out and repeats the
Speaker 1: fact that during his administration, she experienced sexual harassment and
Speaker 1: watched Donald Trump, president of the United States, sexually harassed
Speaker 1: other women, not to the extent, she says, of what happened,
Speaker 1: not an assault, to the extent of what happened with
Speaker 1: Egene Caravell what she said was, you know, indefensible and
Speaker 1: brought that so you know that this is a pattern
Speaker 1: of you know, of behavior. His home mode is dominating everybody, everybody,
Speaker 1: and the way you dominate women is in a particularly
Speaker 1: sexualized way. That's the most insulting way to dominate women.
Speaker 1: And he dominates men and he insults and so there's
Speaker 1: no reason of course he's you know, of course.
Speaker 2: He's a rapist. I mean we know that, or a
Speaker 2: sexual abuser.
Speaker 1: He's a predator. I'm so, you know, I want to
Speaker 1: switch gears to talk about the other case that we
Speaker 1: now have in front of us, George Santos, the untalented
Speaker 1: mister Ripley. Jen is holding up all of these papers
Speaker 1: with the list of the thirteen felony charges that the
Speaker 1: Department of Justice has brought against George Santos. So, Jen,
Speaker 1: this is your bread and butter. This is the white
Speaker 1: collar grip. So tell us about thirteen felony charges against
Speaker 1: the untalented mister Ripley.
Speaker 2: George Santos, Yeah, my bread and butter. You know, people
Speaker 2: do say when they hear about white collar crime, they
Speaker 2: think of me. You know, it's interesting, it's interesting work
Speaker 2: because it's sort of more complicated. I like the complex,
Speaker 2: you know, the complex talented or untalented grift of the
Speaker 2: elite is my specialty. So even though there are thirteen counts,
Speaker 2: there are not that many statutes involved. Right, So the
Speaker 2: laws that he broke in this case, you know, it
Speaker 2: involved you know, fraud, like a federal fraud we called
Speaker 2: wire fraud because he used the phone or the internet.
Speaker 2: It's also the other charge is in those wire fraud.
Speaker 2: By the way, there's several different counts of that. One
Speaker 2: was this political campaign contribution fraud where he was he
Speaker 2: had someone he was working with who I think flipped
Speaker 2: like an individual one type person who he was working
Speaker 2: with someone and he said, hey, I've set up this
Speaker 2: five oh one C four, which is the reference to
Speaker 2: the tax code, which is what you the structure you
Speaker 2: need to use for like these political for packs for example,
Speaker 2: And he claimed that he'd registered this corporation and he
Speaker 2: was using it to get a donor to the campaign.
Speaker 2: I'm sorry, I should say, let's be carefully. He was
Speaker 2: soliciting contributions to what he claimed was a super pack.
Speaker 2: And thanks to Citizens United, this isn't so simple anymore.
Speaker 2: See under the law today, Still there are outright limits
Speaker 2: and I think it's like twenty seven hundred dollars. I
Speaker 2: might have them. I'm out wrong. How much you could
Speaker 2: actually give to a candidate or a campaign during an
Speaker 2: election cycle, whatever the number is, it's like under three
Speaker 2: thousand dollars, so it's limited. However, there's a giant loophole
Speaker 2: you can drive a truck through, and that is these
Speaker 2: creating these these so called super packs, which is a
Speaker 2: political action committee dedicated to just one candidate. And those
Speaker 2: political action committees cannot only receive unlimited funds, but an
Speaker 2: individ but a donor can give unlimited amounts of money
Speaker 2: to a political action committee. So it really does. And
Speaker 2: the key thing though is that political action committee can't
Speaker 2: coordinate with the candidate. It's supposed to be like separing
Speaker 2: it apart. And the thinking because of Citizens United. And
Speaker 2: a subsequent case was if you and Danielle could spend
Speaker 2: unlimited money putting up independent ads saying I love George Santos,
Speaker 2: vote for him. There's no reason why you and I
Speaker 2: couldn't get together with all of our friends and set
Speaker 2: up a corporation. We shouldn't be deprived of joining our
Speaker 2: money together and independently say we love George Santos. But
Speaker 2: the independent thing is key. The other key thing is
Speaker 2: that it's actually this pack is has to be separate.
Speaker 2: It has to be registered properly. Okay, this pat so
Speaker 2: that you have this other guy who was soliciting campaign
Speaker 2: funds for George Santos, and George Santos was having that
Speaker 2: money put into a corporation. But the corporation wasn't a
Speaker 2: five to one c four that corporation. He was Santos
Speaker 2: was somehow like a main owner of that corporation and
Speaker 2: not so. Not only was it a campaign finance violation
Speaker 2: because this guy gave above the limit because it was
Speaker 2: essentially just giving money to Santos, but the other, the
Speaker 2: other port to the campaign, the other problem is he
Speaker 2: was giving money, so it was fraud because the guy
Speaker 2: who was giving all this money, you know, Santos, was
Speaker 2: using it to pay his bills, to buy fancy clothes,
Speaker 2: you know, to support the lifestyle to which this grifter
Speaker 2: has become a customed. So that's that's part of it.
Speaker 2: So yeah, I love this part. Use the funds to
Speaker 2: make personal purchases, including of designer clothing. I really need
Speaker 2: to see the designer clothing, because I don't really think
Speaker 2: he's dressing just so I'm.
Speaker 1: Just so odd. Somebody else said that too, and I
Speaker 1: was just like, what, I'm like, this five layered shirt
Speaker 1: look that he does and give me yep.
Speaker 2: Rick you know what those are for his designer drag.
Speaker 1: Yeah, right, maybe that's maybe that's where maybe one hundred percent.
Speaker 2: I'm gonna bring it to the clothing always, Okay. Anyway,
Speaker 2: in cash to pay off some of his debts and
Speaker 2: to transfer money to people he knew. So that's one
Speaker 2: of the schemes. Okay. One of the other schemes was
Speaker 2: an unemployment fraud scheme, So this is a kind we're
Speaker 2: still in the wire fraud part. Yeah. And by the way,
Speaker 2: the political contribution campaign scheme was several counts, you know,
Speaker 2: because there's several bad things he did there or acts
Speaker 2: of the offense. Another thing was his his unemployment insurance
Speaker 2: fraud schemes. So during COVID, there was like special legislation
Speaker 2: to provide additional funding for out of work Americans during
Speaker 2: the pandemic, and so he applied for that, but he
Speaker 2: was actually fully employed at the time, and so he
Speaker 2: you know, grifted in that way. The other thing he
Speaker 2: did was a kind of money laundering type violation involving
Speaker 2: moving some of the this money around, like money that
Speaker 2: you get from illicit from the purposes illicit activities like
Speaker 2: the wirefraud we were just talking about, So moving that
Speaker 2: money around the campaign So suppose the campaign money or
Speaker 2: moving any money around, maybe even the unemployment funds that
Speaker 2: gets into money laundering stuff. Okay. Then there's also the
Speaker 2: other part was this thing called false statements. And this
Speaker 2: is you know, members of Congress have to file an
Speaker 2: annual financial report disclosure statement, and he did that in
Speaker 2: twenty twenty and in twenty twenty two. I think I'm
Speaker 2: not sure. Oh sorry, you did that in twenty yeah,
Speaker 2: in twenty twenty. I'm trying to see, which does that
Speaker 2: make sense? Was he did he get into office. He
Speaker 2: only got into office.
Speaker 1: In twenty two, twenty twenty two.
Speaker 2: So I'm wondering why. Maybe it's because he ran for office.
Speaker 2: I was going to say, like, see, was he Yeah,
Speaker 2: he did run before. But anyway, he made these false statements, right,
Speaker 2: candidates had to, and so there were false statements about
Speaker 2: his salary. He left some things out, he didn't accurate
Speaker 2: portray some of this, and so so that's what that's
Speaker 2: what's going on. I mean convicted.
Speaker 1: Yeah, sorry, no, tell me I can because that was
Speaker 1: going to be my question. And then I wanted to say, yeah,
Speaker 1: I mean convicted. What does this look like?
Speaker 2: Well, you know the way they added it up in
Speaker 2: the press release, the d o J said if convicted,
Speaker 2: he faces a maximum penalty of twenty years in prison
Speaker 2: for the top counts. I'm not I mean, that's true,
Speaker 2: but it could be for each of the some of
Speaker 2: those top counts because but that's on paper, right, that's
Speaker 2: not the same right lines, by the way, so that's
Speaker 2: not but I mean just the fact and by the way,
Speaker 2: twenty each. So this could add up to, you know,
Speaker 2: hundreds of years, but it would never be that. I
Speaker 2: would never give that but right, but I are five years, right,
Speaker 2: is what I'm thinking.
Speaker 1: The idea that one Kevin McCarthy says, oh, he's innocent
Speaker 1: until proven guilty because he needs his vote, And then
Speaker 1: I say, oh, innocent until proven guilty. So Donald Trump
Speaker 1: was found liable of sexual abuse, but you're still supporting him.
Speaker 1: So even that line of bullshit doesn't match up. And
Speaker 1: you know what gets me jen about all of this
Speaker 1: is that I think that the four Fathers, you know,
Speaker 1: who are always looked at as being such geniuses in
Speaker 1: creating this idea of democracy, this democratic project, and yet
Speaker 1: you can have there is no law on the books
Speaker 1: that says if you are indicted, if you are found guilty,
Speaker 1: that you well your position.
Speaker 2: They can you know, there is a process where the
Speaker 2: House can expel a member. They can vote to do that.
Speaker 2: They don't need both chambers. It's not like in peachment.
Speaker 2: There can be a vote, and I think it's like
Speaker 2: a I think it's a super majority of those present.
Speaker 2: I think it's it might be two thirds of those present.
Speaker 2: I'd have to look the expulsion thing up. They could
Speaker 2: do that. In fact, there is a committee to investigate
Speaker 2: things other than Hunter bidens La.
Speaker 1: I mean, it was the Ethics Committee, but now it's
Speaker 1: like the Committee to weaponize government.
Speaker 2: But be a good use of that committee. I mean
Speaker 2: he has, you know, resigned from his committee shortly after
Speaker 2: he was appointed to them in January. You know, they
Speaker 2: really could have a hearing and they could expel him.
Speaker 2: I know the Democrats would vote too.
Speaker 1: Of course they would, but no Republicans would because it
Speaker 1: would because once again, you.
Speaker 2: Don't think, no, I think they might have a well,
Speaker 2: who knows, I don't want it so well, of course
Speaker 2: they will because they want every single vote they need
Speaker 2: that he.
Speaker 1: Has a five vote majority. You lose Santos, you run
Speaker 1: a special election that Democrat wins in Nassau County, and
Speaker 1: so now you have a four seat.
Speaker 2: You know what I'm saying, like, and you know how
Speaker 2: we allow there's not even one republic And I know
Speaker 2: that because one Republican could could use the wedge of
Speaker 2: trying to unseat McCarthy from his speaker seat if they
Speaker 2: didn't like what he was doing with Santos, right, I mean.
Speaker 1: People could speak out, people could speak out, but this
Speaker 1: Republican party has shown themselves to be mute on anything
Speaker 1: that has to do with you know, law order, morality,
Speaker 1: decency values.
Speaker 2: Even Duncan Hunter stepped down. He was the guy who
Speaker 2: was he was skimming campaign funds for all kinds of things,
Speaker 2: vacations for his alleged mistress to fly the bunny rabbit
Speaker 2: in its own seat on the airplane, these things. And
Speaker 2: he eventually he stayed for a while. I think after
Speaker 2: the indictment. I can't remember when he I don't know.
Speaker 2: Actually I'm not sure exactly between accusation and indictment and
Speaker 2: his resignation, but at some point he did plead guilty.
Speaker 2: But remember he never served his time because all Trump
Speaker 2: pardoned him, I mean Santos, because people Santos is probably
Speaker 2: waiting for his pardon, you know.
Speaker 1: Yeah, well we're going to ensure that in twenty twenty
Speaker 1: four he doesn't get one. Jen, thank you so much
Speaker 1: for the breakdown here, and we will have to have
Speaker 1: you back when Santos goes back to court on June thirtieth,
Speaker 1: and see where we land there, because this is I mean,
Speaker 1: everyone's going to watch this because at some point this
Speaker 1: will be a movie, a documentary or something, because it's
Speaker 1: just He.
Speaker 2: Also won an Academy Award, you know, for his several appearances,
Speaker 2: so I mean that Anna Pultzer, and he's also a
Speaker 2: batball star. He's also landed on the moon, so he's
Speaker 2: kind of incredible when you think about it. They should
Speaker 2: like lay off the charges given his accomplishments amazing and
Speaker 2: the Nobel Piece prize. Jen Tobb, thank you so much
Speaker 2: for making the time for wok F. We always appreciate you.
Speaker 2: Thank you.
Speaker 1: That is it for me today on Woke app. As always,
Speaker 1: Power to the people and to all the people. Power,
Speaker 1: get woke and stay woke as fuck MHM.