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