1 00:00:00,080 --> 00:00:03,880 Speaker 1: It is abundantly clear that the Democrats twenty twenty four 2 00:00:04,040 --> 00:00:07,240 Speaker 1: playbook is to try to bankrupt Donald Trump and to 3 00:00:07,360 --> 00:00:10,240 Speaker 1: also send him to jail. We just saw that in 4 00:00:10,280 --> 00:00:14,080 Speaker 1: the New York City fraud case, where they're forcing Donald 5 00:00:14,080 --> 00:00:16,800 Speaker 1: Trump to pay three hundred and fifty five million dollars 6 00:00:17,040 --> 00:00:20,200 Speaker 1: in punitive damage, although he will appeal it. We also 7 00:00:20,480 --> 00:00:24,400 Speaker 1: see this in the numerous indictments that Donald Trump is facing, 8 00:00:24,440 --> 00:00:28,120 Speaker 1: the numerous trials that he has on his docket over 9 00:00:28,160 --> 00:00:32,000 Speaker 1: the next few months heading into the election. So where 10 00:00:32,040 --> 00:00:35,640 Speaker 1: does all of this stand, What are the merits of 11 00:00:35,680 --> 00:00:39,360 Speaker 1: these various indictments in these various cases that Donald Trump 12 00:00:39,560 --> 00:00:43,880 Speaker 1: is facing, what's the timeline of them, and what should 13 00:00:43,920 --> 00:00:47,879 Speaker 1: you know? Also, does the revelations that Joe Biden has 14 00:00:47,920 --> 00:00:51,519 Speaker 1: mishandled classified information from the nineteen seventies does that impact 15 00:00:51,640 --> 00:00:55,840 Speaker 1: the document's case against Donald Trump? And how does Fanny 16 00:00:55,960 --> 00:00:58,800 Speaker 1: Willis's behavior impact the Fulton case. 17 00:00:59,200 --> 00:01:00,560 Speaker 2: All of this and. 18 00:01:00,520 --> 00:01:03,880 Speaker 1: More with Annie McCarthy, who is a former Chief Assistant 19 00:01:04,000 --> 00:01:07,160 Speaker 1: US Attorney, contributing editor at National Review as well as 20 00:01:07,160 --> 00:01:10,119 Speaker 1: a Fox News contributor, and I believe always just does 21 00:01:10,400 --> 00:01:14,440 Speaker 1: a really brilliant job of objectively breaking down all this 22 00:01:14,560 --> 00:01:17,640 Speaker 1: complex information and putting it in layman's terms for the 23 00:01:17,680 --> 00:01:21,240 Speaker 1: rest of us. So stay tuned for any McCarthy. This 24 00:01:21,280 --> 00:01:23,759 Speaker 1: is a big episode. We're going to get into a lot, 25 00:01:23,840 --> 00:01:25,839 Speaker 1: a lot of detail. You're going to want to listen. 26 00:01:25,880 --> 00:01:33,480 Speaker 1: Stay tuned, Andy, I want to start with the New 27 00:01:33,560 --> 00:01:37,039 Speaker 1: York City the fraud case against Donald Trump. He's going 28 00:01:37,080 --> 00:01:39,000 Speaker 1: to have to pay three hundred and fifty five million 29 00:01:39,160 --> 00:01:43,480 Speaker 1: in damage. You've got billionaire business guys like Kevin O'Leary 30 00:01:43,600 --> 00:01:46,360 Speaker 1: saying that, look, if Trump is guilty, so is every 31 00:01:46,400 --> 00:01:49,760 Speaker 1: real estate developer in America. What do you make of 32 00:01:49,800 --> 00:01:52,960 Speaker 1: the merits of this judgment against Trump? 33 00:01:54,600 --> 00:01:58,800 Speaker 2: Well, I think it violates the old manage, Lisa, that 34 00:01:58,840 --> 00:02:02,160 Speaker 2: the you know, the punishment supposed to fit the crime, 35 00:02:02,880 --> 00:02:05,720 Speaker 2: which is what we're you know, I'm saying crime. We're 36 00:02:05,760 --> 00:02:08,520 Speaker 2: talking about a civil context. But this really was treated 37 00:02:09,600 --> 00:02:12,160 Speaker 2: in punitive terms. It was treated as if it were 38 00:02:12,160 --> 00:02:15,560 Speaker 2: a criminal case. Right. So, but that is the principle 39 00:02:15,600 --> 00:02:19,280 Speaker 2: that we're supposed to to go by. And what's offensive 40 00:02:19,320 --> 00:02:22,800 Speaker 2: about this is that the penalty is just so out 41 00:02:22,840 --> 00:02:27,080 Speaker 2: of whack with what Trump did wrong here, of which 42 00:02:27,120 --> 00:02:32,920 Speaker 2: there is no this pretty significant evidence of inflation of assets. 43 00:02:32,919 --> 00:02:34,839 Speaker 2: So Leary may be right that this is a much 44 00:02:34,880 --> 00:02:39,880 Speaker 2: more widespread practice. Certainly, Donald Trump didn't invent it, and 45 00:02:39,919 --> 00:02:44,280 Speaker 2: that goes to, you know, one of his major defenses 46 00:02:44,320 --> 00:02:50,120 Speaker 2: that you know, unfortunately doesn't play as well well. I'm 47 00:02:50,160 --> 00:02:53,480 Speaker 2: what I'm talking about is his claim that he was 48 00:02:53,520 --> 00:02:56,680 Speaker 2: selectively prosecuted. And the way I would put that is 49 00:02:56,720 --> 00:03:01,440 Speaker 2: it plays much better as an atmospheric then it does 50 00:03:01,480 --> 00:03:03,760 Speaker 2: as a legal claim in the sense that not a 51 00:03:03,800 --> 00:03:06,799 Speaker 2: lot of people get their you know, either charges or 52 00:03:06,880 --> 00:03:13,320 Speaker 2: lawsuits against them thrown out because they've been selectively prosecuted. 53 00:03:13,800 --> 00:03:18,560 Speaker 2: But here what they did in New York was they 54 00:03:18,600 --> 00:03:23,359 Speaker 2: took what I regard as a monstrous statute in this context, 55 00:03:23,919 --> 00:03:28,400 Speaker 2: this New York Law sixty three twelve, their business law, 56 00:03:28,560 --> 00:03:35,240 Speaker 2: and it's really intended for consumer fraud type situations. It's 57 00:03:35,280 --> 00:03:40,200 Speaker 2: intended for circumstances where you have somebody or some business 58 00:03:40,880 --> 00:03:49,880 Speaker 2: that persistently engages in dishonesty in advertising and the like. 59 00:03:50,560 --> 00:03:54,640 Speaker 2: And what you have are you know, hundreds thousands, even 60 00:03:54,720 --> 00:04:00,920 Speaker 2: millions of consumers, each of whom you know, deals with 61 00:04:01,000 --> 00:04:04,800 Speaker 2: the company in a very limited way so that you know, 62 00:04:05,320 --> 00:04:08,640 Speaker 2: you pay a few bucks or maybe a little more 63 00:04:08,680 --> 00:04:12,880 Speaker 2: than that for a product or what have you, but 64 00:04:13,040 --> 00:04:17,159 Speaker 2: nobody has nobody's transaction is big enough that it's worth 65 00:04:17,240 --> 00:04:22,280 Speaker 2: suing over, right, So you can kind of see why 66 00:04:22,279 --> 00:04:24,520 Speaker 2: they would want to have a law to protect people 67 00:04:24,600 --> 00:04:27,080 Speaker 2: like that. It's almost like what happens in class actions, 68 00:04:27,120 --> 00:04:29,400 Speaker 2: where you know, they let a bunch of people who 69 00:04:30,080 --> 00:04:34,320 Speaker 2: no single one of them has enough of a harm 70 00:04:34,960 --> 00:04:39,320 Speaker 2: that it's worth going through the expense and aggravation of 71 00:04:39,360 --> 00:04:42,400 Speaker 2: having to file a lawsuit, so they let them all 72 00:04:42,440 --> 00:04:46,359 Speaker 2: sort of join together. These are usually driven by law firms, 73 00:04:47,080 --> 00:04:51,440 Speaker 2: and they sue somebody who has persistently engaged in some 74 00:04:51,600 --> 00:04:55,240 Speaker 2: kind of a fraudulent practice. But in Trump's case, it 75 00:04:55,279 --> 00:05:00,520 Speaker 2: doesn't make sense to apply this because you're not dealing 76 00:05:00,640 --> 00:05:07,200 Speaker 2: with a consumer fraud situation. Instead, you're dealing with high 77 00:05:07,240 --> 00:05:13,160 Speaker 2: stakes financial transactions in which both sides are sophisticated financial 78 00:05:13,200 --> 00:05:16,640 Speaker 2: actors who do their own due diligence. So you know, 79 00:05:16,760 --> 00:05:21,159 Speaker 2: Deutsche Bank does not say, oh, Donald Trump, let sure 80 00:05:21,240 --> 00:05:23,760 Speaker 2: will lend you five hundred million dollars as long as 81 00:05:23,800 --> 00:05:26,720 Speaker 2: you say that's what your assets are worth. Right, These 82 00:05:26,760 --> 00:05:30,440 Speaker 2: businesses do their own due diligence. They're in the risk business. 83 00:05:30,760 --> 00:05:34,040 Speaker 1: Well, and banks not claiming that they're a victim, right 84 00:05:34,080 --> 00:05:37,200 Speaker 1: like they were happy with the way everything went, so 85 00:05:37,240 --> 00:05:38,720 Speaker 1: that they're not you know, they're not saying they're a 86 00:05:38,800 --> 00:05:39,599 Speaker 1: victim in any of this. 87 00:05:40,240 --> 00:05:45,040 Speaker 2: Yeah, well that's that's just the thing. There is no victim, uh, 88 00:05:45,080 --> 00:05:49,600 Speaker 2: And that is probably I think why this case bothers 89 00:05:49,640 --> 00:05:54,120 Speaker 2: people as much as it does. You know, in a 90 00:05:54,160 --> 00:05:58,360 Speaker 2: fraud case in the US Attorney's office where I worked, 91 00:05:59,000 --> 00:06:03,320 Speaker 2: we had standard words where if a fraud wasn't above 92 00:06:04,040 --> 00:06:08,440 Speaker 2: ten thousand dollars, we wouldn't do the case even if 93 00:06:08,480 --> 00:06:11,839 Speaker 2: there was a victim, because it's simply, you know, you 94 00:06:11,920 --> 00:06:14,880 Speaker 2: have sparse resources in a prosecutor's office, and for the 95 00:06:15,120 --> 00:06:17,680 Speaker 2: to get the public the bank for their buck, you 96 00:06:17,760 --> 00:06:20,440 Speaker 2: need to take cases that are more serious than that. 97 00:06:20,839 --> 00:06:23,120 Speaker 2: And if they're less serious than that, you know, you 98 00:06:23,200 --> 00:06:25,080 Speaker 2: rely on people to be able to go sue in 99 00:06:25,440 --> 00:06:28,520 Speaker 2: small claims court or maybe the state will take a case. 100 00:06:28,880 --> 00:06:31,640 Speaker 2: But we wouldn't even think about taking a fraud case 101 00:06:32,160 --> 00:06:36,800 Speaker 2: unless there either were victims or we could prove ironclad 102 00:06:37,320 --> 00:06:40,120 Speaker 2: that if people weren't victims, at least there was a 103 00:06:40,200 --> 00:06:44,240 Speaker 2: conspiracy to make them victims, Like there was a clear 104 00:06:44,279 --> 00:06:50,120 Speaker 2: intent to defraud people. And in this statute, because it's 105 00:06:50,160 --> 00:06:55,000 Speaker 2: made it's designed to make it easier for consumers in 106 00:06:55,040 --> 00:07:01,400 Speaker 2: a consumer fraud situation to get some recompense. They don't 107 00:07:01,440 --> 00:07:06,240 Speaker 2: require proof either of fraudulent intent or that there were 108 00:07:06,320 --> 00:07:11,000 Speaker 2: any victims. So you can easily see how somebody who 109 00:07:11,040 --> 00:07:14,520 Speaker 2: actually hasn't done anything. I don't want to say he 110 00:07:14,600 --> 00:07:17,960 Speaker 2: didn't do anything wrong, because even if you're dealing with 111 00:07:18,000 --> 00:07:21,560 Speaker 2: a counterparty who's a sophisticated financial actor, you're supposed to 112 00:07:21,640 --> 00:07:24,400 Speaker 2: act in good faith and you're supposed to, you know, 113 00:07:24,480 --> 00:07:28,760 Speaker 2: give as accurate an evaluation of your assets that they 114 00:07:28,800 --> 00:07:34,560 Speaker 2: are relying on in the transaction as you can. But 115 00:07:35,400 --> 00:07:40,600 Speaker 2: you know, if you don't have a victim, then ordinarily 116 00:07:41,360 --> 00:07:44,840 Speaker 2: prosecutorial discretion would say, you know, we should move on 117 00:07:44,920 --> 00:07:48,960 Speaker 2: to a case where there are victims, because you know, 118 00:07:49,120 --> 00:07:56,360 Speaker 2: we're stewards of the public fisk and if you're going 119 00:07:56,440 --> 00:08:00,520 Speaker 2: to use the public's law enforcement resources, ought to be 120 00:08:00,680 --> 00:08:04,200 Speaker 2: in cases where a harm, you know, real harm was 121 00:08:04,240 --> 00:08:06,920 Speaker 2: done and that obviously didn't happen here, you know. 122 00:08:07,040 --> 00:08:12,160 Speaker 1: And it's interesting too, because Governor Hocal is obviously concerned 123 00:08:12,160 --> 00:08:14,880 Speaker 1: about the optics of this of any you know, real 124 00:08:14,960 --> 00:08:18,520 Speaker 1: estate developers, any you know, any business owners wanted to 125 00:08:18,560 --> 00:08:20,440 Speaker 1: do business in the state and in the city of 126 00:08:20,480 --> 00:08:24,880 Speaker 1: New York. Again, she said in a radio interview that 127 00:08:24,920 --> 00:08:28,760 Speaker 1: this is just a really extraordinary unusual circumstance. Obviously, that 128 00:08:28,800 --> 00:08:31,320 Speaker 1: extraordinary unusual circumstances Trump. 129 00:08:33,280 --> 00:08:34,439 Speaker 2: You know, I guess what. 130 00:08:34,559 --> 00:08:38,680 Speaker 1: Is the left done in its efforts to get Trump? 131 00:08:38,720 --> 00:08:41,520 Speaker 1: But I mean, it seems like a lot of norms 132 00:08:41,559 --> 00:08:44,280 Speaker 1: have been destroyed. The rule of law has been destroyed. 133 00:08:45,240 --> 00:08:47,880 Speaker 1: You know, I guess what does that mean? 134 00:08:47,920 --> 00:08:53,440 Speaker 2: More broadly, Well, yeah, I think that the fundamental assumption 135 00:08:53,600 --> 00:09:01,400 Speaker 2: of Trump's biggest critics is that they can construct a 136 00:09:01,520 --> 00:09:05,439 Speaker 2: law that is as you know, the Latin phrase goes 137 00:09:05,880 --> 00:09:08,920 Speaker 2: in the law suy generous. That is that it's a 138 00:09:08,960 --> 00:09:12,040 Speaker 2: law that applies only to Trump. That these are you know, 139 00:09:12,080 --> 00:09:17,559 Speaker 2: that he's a singular threat to the country. And therefore 140 00:09:18,200 --> 00:09:20,760 Speaker 2: all of these precedents that they set and all of 141 00:09:20,800 --> 00:09:26,600 Speaker 2: these prosecutions that they've waged, don't set precedents that could 142 00:09:26,640 --> 00:09:29,920 Speaker 2: be applied against anyone else, because this is just Trump law. 143 00:09:30,000 --> 00:09:32,679 Speaker 2: This is only for him. And the fact is that 144 00:09:32,840 --> 00:09:37,079 Speaker 2: just things don't work that way, you know, I remember 145 00:09:37,320 --> 00:09:41,920 Speaker 2: when I was a prosecutor doing terrorism cases, you know 146 00:09:42,000 --> 00:09:45,640 Speaker 2: a lot of people wanted to because they wanted to 147 00:09:45,640 --> 00:09:51,000 Speaker 2: show that the courts worked against terrorism, even though it's 148 00:09:51,040 --> 00:09:54,240 Speaker 2: a different kind of an animal to deal with than 149 00:09:54,440 --> 00:09:58,440 Speaker 2: regular crime. You know, you wanted to be able to 150 00:09:58,480 --> 00:10:01,320 Speaker 2: cut corners in terms of what you needed to prove 151 00:10:01,400 --> 00:10:04,679 Speaker 2: in order to hold these guys accountable. And you wanted 152 00:10:04,720 --> 00:10:07,560 Speaker 2: to cut down their due process rights to discovery the 153 00:10:07,640 --> 00:10:12,280 Speaker 2: case because that would create all kinds of you know, 154 00:10:12,320 --> 00:10:16,240 Speaker 2: giving them our intelligence creates all kinds of other national 155 00:10:16,240 --> 00:10:20,040 Speaker 2: security threats. And you know the problem with all of 156 00:10:20,040 --> 00:10:25,079 Speaker 2: that is those precedents apply in other cases. So if you, 157 00:10:25,080 --> 00:10:27,960 Speaker 2: you know, if you would trit due process in a 158 00:10:28,080 --> 00:10:32,199 Speaker 2: terrorism case, those principles are no longer just going to 159 00:10:32,400 --> 00:10:35,600 Speaker 2: apply in terrorism. They're going to apply across the board, 160 00:10:35,640 --> 00:10:38,400 Speaker 2: because it's either just or it isn't. And the same 161 00:10:38,440 --> 00:10:42,000 Speaker 2: thing is true with respect to what they're doing with Trump. 162 00:10:42,559 --> 00:10:45,800 Speaker 2: In this case, it's okay to take a consumer fraud 163 00:10:46,320 --> 00:10:49,640 Speaker 2: statute that wasn't intended to apply to someone like Trump 164 00:10:49,679 --> 00:10:52,520 Speaker 2: and apply it to someone like Trump. And the fact is, 165 00:10:53,520 --> 00:10:56,320 Speaker 2: as far as the left is concerned, he's not a 166 00:10:56,520 --> 00:11:00,640 Speaker 2: unique threat. He may be the personal and bodiment of 167 00:11:00,679 --> 00:11:03,160 Speaker 2: everything they hate, but there's a lot of stuff they hate, 168 00:11:03,240 --> 00:11:07,840 Speaker 2: you know. They hate gun manufacturers, they hate fossil fuels, 169 00:11:07,840 --> 00:11:11,480 Speaker 2: they hate, you know, all kinds of stuff. And if 170 00:11:11,520 --> 00:11:15,319 Speaker 2: anyone thinks that they would hesitate to use against their 171 00:11:15,360 --> 00:11:19,840 Speaker 2: other political enemies the principles that they've now gotten blessed 172 00:11:19,880 --> 00:11:22,959 Speaker 2: in court by using them against Trump, I think you're 173 00:11:23,400 --> 00:11:28,000 Speaker 2: just crazy, and I think you're operating under norms that 174 00:11:28,080 --> 00:11:31,120 Speaker 2: no longer apply. You know, when I was a prosecutor 175 00:11:31,320 --> 00:11:34,880 Speaker 2: in New York, and when I was a New Yorker 176 00:11:34,960 --> 00:11:38,520 Speaker 2: growing up, the legal culture in New York was that 177 00:11:38,600 --> 00:11:42,520 Speaker 2: you would never run for office saying if you elect me, 178 00:11:42,640 --> 00:11:44,880 Speaker 2: I will use the power of the state against our 179 00:11:44,920 --> 00:11:48,880 Speaker 2: political enemies, because that would be disqualifying, you know, the 180 00:11:48,920 --> 00:11:51,680 Speaker 2: whole idea that a prosecutor would do anything other than 181 00:11:52,760 --> 00:11:57,240 Speaker 2: uphold the law in an even handed way without fear 182 00:11:57,320 --> 00:12:00,720 Speaker 2: or favor. If you departed from that line, you would 183 00:12:00,720 --> 00:12:04,000 Speaker 2: not qualify to have the job. But I think in 184 00:12:04,040 --> 00:12:09,319 Speaker 2: the last twenty years, as progressives have gotten a sort 185 00:12:09,360 --> 00:12:12,320 Speaker 2: of a power clamp on a lot of these blue cities, 186 00:12:12,840 --> 00:12:14,960 Speaker 2: the thing people, the thing people need to come to 187 00:12:15,080 --> 00:12:20,120 Speaker 2: terms with is. Progressives are not as offended as most 188 00:12:20,640 --> 00:12:24,760 Speaker 2: people are by the idea that you use the tools 189 00:12:24,800 --> 00:12:28,040 Speaker 2: and processes of the state in a punitive way. They 190 00:12:28,080 --> 00:12:30,199 Speaker 2: think that that's part of the way that you advance 191 00:12:30,280 --> 00:12:37,160 Speaker 2: the cause. So, for example, Letitia James, the state attorney 192 00:12:37,240 --> 00:12:41,400 Speaker 2: general who prosecuted Trump. She ran for office promising that 193 00:12:41,440 --> 00:12:45,800 Speaker 2: if you elect me, I will use my power against Trump. 194 00:12:45,840 --> 00:12:48,520 Speaker 2: He's going to know what my name was or what 195 00:12:48,559 --> 00:12:51,440 Speaker 2: my name is. That's what she said in her advertisements. 196 00:12:51,760 --> 00:12:54,880 Speaker 2: I think Lisa that she won by maybe thirty points, 197 00:12:54,920 --> 00:12:59,840 Speaker 2: maybe forty points. So I think people have to come 198 00:12:59,840 --> 00:13:01,880 Speaker 2: to grips with the fact that it's not just that 199 00:13:01,880 --> 00:13:04,800 Speaker 2: the legal culture has changed. The culture has changed. It 200 00:13:04,840 --> 00:13:07,200 Speaker 2: didn't used to be the case that in New York 201 00:13:07,200 --> 00:13:09,160 Speaker 2: that people would want to elect that kind of a 202 00:13:09,200 --> 00:13:13,040 Speaker 2: person to wield power. It used to be that somebody 203 00:13:13,040 --> 00:13:16,960 Speaker 2: who in a very kind of Soviet way said to you, 204 00:13:16,960 --> 00:13:18,680 Speaker 2: you know, show me the man and I'll find the 205 00:13:18,720 --> 00:13:24,240 Speaker 2: crime that was disqualifying. Now that person wins in a landslide, we've. 206 00:13:24,080 --> 00:13:26,200 Speaker 1: Got to take a quick commercial break. More with any 207 00:13:26,280 --> 00:13:32,640 Speaker 1: McCarthy on the other side, it's scary about where we've arrived. 208 00:13:32,760 --> 00:13:35,160 Speaker 1: And the irony too is they could end up bankrupting 209 00:13:35,200 --> 00:13:37,199 Speaker 1: the state and the process in the sense of I 210 00:13:37,240 --> 00:13:39,360 Speaker 1: think there's already been ten billionaires in a four year 211 00:13:39,400 --> 00:13:42,240 Speaker 1: period of time that have left New York for Florida, 212 00:13:42,320 --> 00:13:45,400 Speaker 1: and I imagine that more are going to be leaving, 213 00:13:46,000 --> 00:13:48,400 Speaker 1: you know, the state that's so reliant upon the one 214 00:13:48,440 --> 00:13:50,640 Speaker 1: percent to pay I think something like forty two percent 215 00:13:50,720 --> 00:13:52,120 Speaker 1: of the state's tax receipts. 216 00:13:52,280 --> 00:13:54,920 Speaker 2: So I used to know that. I used to know 217 00:13:55,000 --> 00:13:57,520 Speaker 2: that stat better than I do now. But I do 218 00:13:57,679 --> 00:14:01,640 Speaker 2: know that the number of people who pay the lion's 219 00:14:01,640 --> 00:14:06,920 Speaker 2: share of taxes, especially in New York City, is infinitesimally 220 00:14:07,280 --> 00:14:11,000 Speaker 2: small compared to the population. And I think one of 221 00:14:11,040 --> 00:14:14,880 Speaker 2: the fallouts of COVID was a lot of those people 222 00:14:14,880 --> 00:14:17,600 Speaker 2: who were in finance realized that they didn't need to 223 00:14:17,640 --> 00:14:21,680 Speaker 2: be in New York to do business. And that's that's 224 00:14:21,960 --> 00:14:23,240 Speaker 2: hurt the city in a big way. 225 00:14:24,560 --> 00:14:25,160 Speaker 1: Absolutely. 226 00:14:26,280 --> 00:14:26,480 Speaker 2: You know. 227 00:14:26,560 --> 00:14:30,920 Speaker 1: So Trump is also facing you know, a lot of indictments, 228 00:14:31,440 --> 00:14:34,560 Speaker 1: He's got different trials coming up. Can you kind of 229 00:14:34,600 --> 00:14:37,360 Speaker 1: take us through sort of the timing and the sequencing 230 00:14:38,120 --> 00:14:40,400 Speaker 1: of what he is facing over the next few months 231 00:14:40,440 --> 00:14:41,240 Speaker 1: and what we should be living. 232 00:14:42,440 --> 00:14:46,160 Speaker 2: Yeah, it's a moving target. So the original thing that 233 00:14:46,600 --> 00:14:51,080 Speaker 2: Jack Smith, everybody kind of who was involved in this 234 00:14:51,240 --> 00:14:55,360 Speaker 2: on the on the get Trump side, was expecting that 235 00:14:55,400 --> 00:14:58,760 Speaker 2: the federal prosecutions were going to go first, especially the 236 00:14:59,640 --> 00:15:04,960 Speaker 2: elect interference case that was brought by the Biden administration 237 00:15:05,120 --> 00:15:09,160 Speaker 2: special prosecutor or special counsel Jack Smith. That's the one 238 00:15:09,200 --> 00:15:12,520 Speaker 2: they were all banking on. And I think the reason 239 00:15:12,560 --> 00:15:16,880 Speaker 2: for that is that case is deemed to be I 240 00:15:16,920 --> 00:15:21,640 Speaker 2: think a proxy for the impeachment that they never got 241 00:15:21,680 --> 00:15:25,120 Speaker 2: done because the impeachment investigation that was done in connection 242 00:15:25,200 --> 00:15:30,720 Speaker 2: with Trump post capital riot was incompetent. So they ended 243 00:15:30,760 --> 00:15:33,760 Speaker 2: up charging him with something that certainly in a court 244 00:15:33,760 --> 00:15:36,960 Speaker 2: of law, you couldn't prove he didn't, you know, incitement 245 00:15:37,000 --> 00:15:41,960 Speaker 2: to insurrection. He didn't commit the crime of incitement. And factually, 246 00:15:42,000 --> 00:15:44,720 Speaker 2: speaking to my mind, this wasn't close to being what 247 00:15:44,760 --> 00:15:48,320 Speaker 2: an insurrection is. And I thought that there was a 248 00:15:48,440 --> 00:15:53,240 Speaker 2: valid impeachment case that you could have made against Trump, 249 00:15:53,520 --> 00:15:55,760 Speaker 2: but they never made it and they didn't investigate it. 250 00:15:55,800 --> 00:15:59,840 Speaker 2: And then they had the January sixth Committee, which kind 251 00:15:59,880 --> 00:16:04,560 Speaker 2: of did what was supposed to be the impeachment investigation 252 00:16:04,680 --> 00:16:10,320 Speaker 2: of Trump except it was so partisan and one sided, 253 00:16:11,200 --> 00:16:14,000 Speaker 2: and it was so dedicated to the proposition of being 254 00:16:14,080 --> 00:16:18,800 Speaker 2: kind of a political ad rather than an actual set 255 00:16:18,840 --> 00:16:21,320 Speaker 2: of hearings where you try to get at the truth 256 00:16:21,560 --> 00:16:27,360 Speaker 2: that it really didn't have bipartisan credibility. But they've always wanted, 257 00:16:28,000 --> 00:16:31,960 Speaker 2: you know, a knockout blow against Trump over the Capitol 258 00:16:32,040 --> 00:16:34,800 Speaker 2: riot and what led up to it, which is what 259 00:16:35,000 --> 00:16:39,920 Speaker 2: Jack Smith and his election interference prosecution in Washington is 260 00:16:40,480 --> 00:16:43,880 Speaker 2: the problem with that. There's many problems with that case, 261 00:16:43,880 --> 00:16:46,160 Speaker 2: But what to say with the timeline, which is what 262 00:16:46,200 --> 00:16:49,200 Speaker 2: you asked me about what he was trying to do, 263 00:16:50,560 --> 00:16:53,640 Speaker 2: which would be a major due process violation if it 264 00:16:53,720 --> 00:16:55,960 Speaker 2: was done to anyone else. But this, again, this is 265 00:16:56,000 --> 00:16:58,560 Speaker 2: like Trump justice, so they figured they could get away 266 00:16:58,560 --> 00:17:03,200 Speaker 2: with it. Is he first indicted Trump for the Mara 267 00:17:03,280 --> 00:17:08,600 Speaker 2: Lago documents and got Trump locked into a trial with 268 00:17:08,720 --> 00:17:11,960 Speaker 2: a date of May twentieth. Now, a lot of us, 269 00:17:12,920 --> 00:17:19,320 Speaker 2: myself included, who've actually prosecuted classified information cases, thought that 270 00:17:19,320 --> 00:17:23,280 Speaker 2: that was an utterly unrealistic trial date because classified information 271 00:17:23,359 --> 00:17:26,199 Speaker 2: cases are very hard to get to trial, even if 272 00:17:26,240 --> 00:17:31,520 Speaker 2: you're trying hard. But Smith's idea was to get him 273 00:17:31,920 --> 00:17:36,240 Speaker 2: locked into that May twentieth trial, and then after he indicted. 274 00:17:36,400 --> 00:17:41,480 Speaker 2: After he indicted that, then he indicted the election interference 275 00:17:41,560 --> 00:17:46,359 Speaker 2: case and talked Judge Tanya Chuckkin, who's an Obama appointee 276 00:17:46,359 --> 00:17:49,560 Speaker 2: who's presiding over that case in Washington. He talked her 277 00:17:49,600 --> 00:17:53,760 Speaker 2: into a March fourth trial date. So what people need 278 00:17:53,800 --> 00:17:57,240 Speaker 2: to understand about what Smith was trying to accomplish there 279 00:17:57,760 --> 00:18:01,040 Speaker 2: is that, unlike these civil cases that we've watched, where 280 00:18:01,080 --> 00:18:04,040 Speaker 2: Trump had the option to show up or not and 281 00:18:04,080 --> 00:18:06,120 Speaker 2: he could pretty much come and go as he pleased, 282 00:18:06,480 --> 00:18:08,640 Speaker 2: in a criminal case, the defendant has to be there 283 00:18:08,720 --> 00:18:12,560 Speaker 2: for every moment of the trial. And these cases that 284 00:18:12,640 --> 00:18:15,320 Speaker 2: Smith is talking about, Lisa, are two to three month 285 00:18:16,119 --> 00:18:21,520 Speaker 2: estimate trials. So his idea was to have the Republican 286 00:18:22,080 --> 00:18:27,919 Speaker 2: candidate for the presidency basically tethered to courtrooms from early 287 00:18:28,040 --> 00:18:33,119 Speaker 2: March into August during the campaign, and then assuming that 288 00:18:33,200 --> 00:18:35,840 Speaker 2: he got him convicted in the first case, by the 289 00:18:35,880 --> 00:18:38,359 Speaker 2: time August came around, it would be time for sentencing 290 00:18:38,760 --> 00:18:42,200 Speaker 2: in that case, you know, after the second trial had 291 00:18:42,240 --> 00:18:45,320 Speaker 2: taken place. So their idea was to basically keep him 292 00:18:45,359 --> 00:18:48,800 Speaker 2: in court for you know, four to six months and 293 00:18:48,840 --> 00:18:52,080 Speaker 2: then get him sentenced and if he gets convicted on 294 00:18:52,760 --> 00:18:57,520 Speaker 2: in the Washington case, the sentence would clearly be I 295 00:18:57,520 --> 00:18:59,840 Speaker 2: don't know if the judge would actually put him in prison, 296 00:19:00,560 --> 00:19:05,480 Speaker 2: but those what he's charged them there with calls for 297 00:19:06,119 --> 00:19:09,440 Speaker 2: prison time. So that was the way they set the table. 298 00:19:10,200 --> 00:19:16,000 Speaker 2: And the problem that Smith immediately ran into is the 299 00:19:16,080 --> 00:19:20,200 Speaker 2: May twentieth day for the classified documents was completely unrealistic. 300 00:19:20,280 --> 00:19:23,159 Speaker 2: That case I don't think has a chance of going 301 00:19:23,200 --> 00:19:27,720 Speaker 2: prior to the election. If you want, we can get 302 00:19:27,760 --> 00:19:30,040 Speaker 2: into why it's so hard to get one of those 303 00:19:30,080 --> 00:19:34,080 Speaker 2: cases to trial. But more to the point the Washington case, 304 00:19:35,200 --> 00:19:40,600 Speaker 2: Trump ended up raising immunity in these pre trial motions. 305 00:19:40,640 --> 00:19:42,760 Speaker 2: I don't know whether they really thought that they were 306 00:19:42,800 --> 00:19:46,600 Speaker 2: going to win on immunity. But the reason that immunity 307 00:19:46,680 --> 00:19:52,000 Speaker 2: is so important to a defendant in Trump's position is 308 00:19:52,119 --> 00:19:55,360 Speaker 2: it's one of the few issues in federal criminal law 309 00:19:55,400 --> 00:20:00,439 Speaker 2: that you're allowed to appeal pre trial. Most things to 310 00:20:00,480 --> 00:20:03,679 Speaker 2: come up in a federal criminal case you have to 311 00:20:03,720 --> 00:20:06,840 Speaker 2: get you have to take the trial judge's rulings, and 312 00:20:06,880 --> 00:20:09,640 Speaker 2: then the case gets tried, and if the guy gets convicted, 313 00:20:09,680 --> 00:20:12,800 Speaker 2: he gets sentenced, and then the whole case goes up 314 00:20:12,840 --> 00:20:14,840 Speaker 2: to the Court of Appeals. You don't get to appeal 315 00:20:15,000 --> 00:20:18,000 Speaker 2: stuff prior to trial, but there are some issues like 316 00:20:18,080 --> 00:20:22,240 Speaker 2: double jeopardy and immunity where the offense is deemed to 317 00:20:22,240 --> 00:20:26,119 Speaker 2: be having the trial in the first place, and those 318 00:20:26,119 --> 00:20:29,080 Speaker 2: things you're allowed to appeal pre trial. So this was 319 00:20:29,119 --> 00:20:34,280 Speaker 2: important to Trump because Trump's goal here is delay. He 320 00:20:34,320 --> 00:20:39,160 Speaker 2: wants to push, especially the federal prosecutions against him, beyond 321 00:20:39,200 --> 00:20:43,360 Speaker 2: election day because if he wins the election, then his 322 00:20:43,440 --> 00:20:45,959 Speaker 2: nominee will be running the Justice Department and they can 323 00:20:46,000 --> 00:20:48,840 Speaker 2: simply dismiss they can fire Smith and dismiss the cases 324 00:20:48,840 --> 00:20:51,000 Speaker 2: against him. He doesn't even you know, all this stuff 325 00:20:51,040 --> 00:20:54,320 Speaker 2: about will Trump pardon himself In theory, he wouldn't even 326 00:20:54,359 --> 00:20:57,240 Speaker 2: have to pardon himself because they'd be running the Justice Department. 327 00:20:57,480 --> 00:21:00,680 Speaker 2: But he could pardon himself if the court gave the 328 00:21:01,119 --> 00:21:04,080 Speaker 2: Trump Justice Department a hard time about dismissing these cases. 329 00:21:04,400 --> 00:21:07,240 Speaker 2: But in any event, that was his you know, that's 330 00:21:07,280 --> 00:21:13,000 Speaker 2: what his objective is. So the immunity case, the immunity 331 00:21:13,040 --> 00:21:18,399 Speaker 2: claim has been has pushed the March fourth trial date 332 00:21:19,000 --> 00:21:22,840 Speaker 2: off the calendar because first the case went to the 333 00:21:22,840 --> 00:21:25,680 Speaker 2: Court of Appeals to d C Circuit and even though 334 00:21:25,680 --> 00:21:29,280 Speaker 2: Trump lost there. He's now appealed to the Supreme Court. 335 00:21:29,680 --> 00:21:32,919 Speaker 2: And the rule of the road in federal criminal prosecution 336 00:21:33,560 --> 00:21:36,439 Speaker 2: is you're always in one court at a time. So 337 00:21:36,520 --> 00:21:39,639 Speaker 2: if the case is on appeal, Judge Chuckkin doesn't have 338 00:21:39,680 --> 00:21:43,119 Speaker 2: any jurisdiction to do anything in the district court, so 339 00:21:43,200 --> 00:21:44,200 Speaker 2: that case is frozen. 340 00:21:44,240 --> 00:21:44,359 Speaker 1: Now. 341 00:21:44,359 --> 00:21:48,760 Speaker 2: They're not even making motions or doing discovery or doing anything, 342 00:21:48,880 --> 00:21:53,680 Speaker 2: which has has Smith frustrated because even though this is 343 00:21:53,720 --> 00:21:58,520 Speaker 2: against Justice Department policy, he's being driven by the political calendar. 344 00:21:58,640 --> 00:22:02,760 Speaker 2: He wants to get this case tried prior to election day, 345 00:22:03,200 --> 00:22:07,720 Speaker 2: which is what the plan always was. So now because 346 00:22:07,800 --> 00:22:10,960 Speaker 2: the Feds have not been able to hold their calendar 347 00:22:11,520 --> 00:22:14,320 Speaker 2: and have the trials in you know, starting in the 348 00:22:14,359 --> 00:22:16,439 Speaker 2: spring that they thought they were going to have, you know, 349 00:22:16,520 --> 00:22:21,800 Speaker 2: March fourth, and then May twentieth, since that opened up 350 00:22:21,800 --> 00:22:25,160 Speaker 2: the calendar from March, we go back to the Alvin 351 00:22:25,240 --> 00:22:31,640 Speaker 2: Bragg prosecution against Trump for the hush money deal. He Bragg, 352 00:22:32,280 --> 00:22:34,880 Speaker 2: who is the prosecutor who won't prosecute in New York. 353 00:22:34,920 --> 00:22:38,280 Speaker 2: He's like the poster trial for progressive prosecutors. If you're 354 00:22:38,280 --> 00:22:40,720 Speaker 2: a hardened criminal in New York, you have a very 355 00:22:40,760 --> 00:22:43,720 Speaker 2: good chance of either not being prosecuted at all or 356 00:22:43,760 --> 00:22:48,560 Speaker 2: having your felonies pleaded down to misdemeanors. But if you're Trump, 357 00:22:48,960 --> 00:22:54,960 Speaker 2: they take what should be at most one misdemeanor business 358 00:22:55,040 --> 00:22:58,760 Speaker 2: records misstatement in fraction, and he turns it into thirty 359 00:22:58,800 --> 00:23:01,520 Speaker 2: four felonies for which Trump could go to jail for 360 00:23:01,840 --> 00:23:05,719 Speaker 2: over a century in theory. But when he was the 361 00:23:05,760 --> 00:23:10,040 Speaker 2: first prosecutor to bring an indictment against Trump, that was 362 00:23:10,320 --> 00:23:13,160 Speaker 2: in the spring, I believe of last year. And at 363 00:23:13,200 --> 00:23:17,760 Speaker 2: that point the judge won March on, who's a Democrat, 364 00:23:19,000 --> 00:23:23,800 Speaker 2: set the trial for March twenty fifth of twenty twenty four, 365 00:23:24,480 --> 00:23:27,080 Speaker 2: and it didn't look like that case was actually going 366 00:23:27,160 --> 00:23:31,119 Speaker 2: to go because Bragg said that he would defer to 367 00:23:31,160 --> 00:23:34,040 Speaker 2: the Feds, and he was hoping, as all the Democrats 368 00:23:34,040 --> 00:23:35,840 Speaker 2: were hoping, that Jack Smith was going to get his 369 00:23:35,920 --> 00:23:40,040 Speaker 2: case to trial in Washington on March fourth. Since that's 370 00:23:40,080 --> 00:23:43,240 Speaker 2: now not going to happen, it looks like the Bragg 371 00:23:43,320 --> 00:23:47,000 Speaker 2: cases back on the docket and it will go first 372 00:23:47,080 --> 00:23:48,240 Speaker 2: on March twenty fifth. 373 00:23:49,200 --> 00:23:52,639 Speaker 1: And how long does a case like that take, you know, 374 00:23:52,760 --> 00:23:55,520 Speaker 1: like how long from start to finish to something like that? 375 00:23:55,560 --> 00:23:56,240 Speaker 1: Normally take. 376 00:23:56,680 --> 00:24:00,919 Speaker 2: Yeah, so that's a great question. I you know, I'm 377 00:24:01,520 --> 00:24:04,720 Speaker 2: in my career as a prosecutor. I actually prosecuted the 378 00:24:04,760 --> 00:24:08,200 Speaker 2: longest federal criminal trial in American history. I was one 379 00:24:08,200 --> 00:24:13,080 Speaker 2: of five prosecutors on the team, the junior member, which 380 00:24:13,160 --> 00:24:17,280 Speaker 2: was a seventeen month trial, and I also had a 381 00:24:17,359 --> 00:24:20,399 Speaker 2: nine month trial while I was a prosecutor, and I 382 00:24:21,040 --> 00:24:24,720 Speaker 2: over time, I basically developed a theory that if the 383 00:24:24,760 --> 00:24:26,880 Speaker 2: prosecutor tells you that the case is going to take 384 00:24:26,920 --> 00:24:30,440 Speaker 2: something longer than four to six weeks, that's a kind 385 00:24:30,440 --> 00:24:32,359 Speaker 2: of a shorthand way of telling you they don't have 386 00:24:32,400 --> 00:24:34,480 Speaker 2: any idea how the hell long it's going to take. 387 00:24:36,280 --> 00:24:38,879 Speaker 2: Because you can't predict a trial. A lot of stuff 388 00:24:38,880 --> 00:24:43,080 Speaker 2: happens at trial that you just can't predict ahead of time, 389 00:24:43,600 --> 00:24:46,800 Speaker 2: and if it gets beyond a sort of a finite horizon, 390 00:24:46,840 --> 00:24:49,560 Speaker 2: it becomes very hard to gauge how long these cases 391 00:24:49,600 --> 00:24:53,119 Speaker 2: are going to take. The hush money case is a 392 00:24:53,160 --> 00:24:58,400 Speaker 2: pretty finite affair, and they're predicting that that would take 393 00:24:58,840 --> 00:25:02,600 Speaker 2: like two to four weeks. You have to give a 394 00:25:02,640 --> 00:25:05,240 Speaker 2: little bit of rhythm and the timing when you're dealing 395 00:25:05,280 --> 00:25:07,480 Speaker 2: with Trump, because it's going to be very you know, 396 00:25:07,520 --> 00:25:09,399 Speaker 2: they may take a week just to pick a jury, 397 00:25:10,280 --> 00:25:12,040 Speaker 2: and there's a lot of work that has to go 398 00:25:12,160 --> 00:25:15,720 Speaker 2: into trying to you know, get a jury that satisfies 399 00:25:15,760 --> 00:25:19,639 Speaker 2: both sides that it's that it's fair and impartial, or 400 00:25:19,920 --> 00:25:22,520 Speaker 2: you know, satisfies them as much as they're going to guess. 401 00:25:22,800 --> 00:25:25,040 Speaker 1: I guess what I'm trying to figure out is what's 402 00:25:25,160 --> 00:25:32,280 Speaker 1: the probability that he could be convicted on some of 403 00:25:32,320 --> 00:25:34,200 Speaker 1: these indictments before election day? 404 00:25:34,680 --> 00:25:37,359 Speaker 2: Okay, So I think there's now a high probability that 405 00:25:37,400 --> 00:25:41,399 Speaker 2: he will be convicted in Manhattan, and I can I 406 00:25:41,400 --> 00:25:45,480 Speaker 2: can go through why I believe that's the case. I'm 407 00:25:45,520 --> 00:25:48,280 Speaker 2: not sure that will hurt him politically that much. Of course, 408 00:25:48,320 --> 00:25:51,000 Speaker 2: if he got a jail sentence, that would that would matter. 409 00:25:51,960 --> 00:25:56,000 Speaker 2: But I think politically the Democrats should not want to 410 00:25:56,040 --> 00:25:59,240 Speaker 2: start with the hush money case because it's an objectively 411 00:25:59,359 --> 00:26:05,040 Speaker 2: ridiculous case and New York has already demonstrated, between you know, 412 00:26:05,119 --> 00:26:09,119 Speaker 2: the e Gene Carroll civil cases and now this this 413 00:26:09,200 --> 00:26:12,360 Speaker 2: civil fraud case, I think the public pretty much figures 414 00:26:12,359 --> 00:26:14,960 Speaker 2: that New York is rigged against Trump. So I think 415 00:26:16,040 --> 00:26:18,000 Speaker 2: this case is almost It's easy for me to say 416 00:26:18,040 --> 00:26:21,679 Speaker 2: because you know, I'm not I'm not. I don't have 417 00:26:21,720 --> 00:26:24,720 Speaker 2: any prison exposure. But I think the New York case 418 00:26:24,760 --> 00:26:27,879 Speaker 2: is almost like a no lose proposition for Trump in 419 00:26:27,920 --> 00:26:31,000 Speaker 2: the sense that if he beats the case, he's got 420 00:26:31,000 --> 00:26:33,600 Speaker 2: a very strong argument that this whole law fair thing 421 00:26:34,200 --> 00:26:35,960 Speaker 2: is a is a part is in witch hunt, which 422 00:26:36,000 --> 00:26:38,600 Speaker 2: is what he said all along, and if he loses 423 00:26:38,640 --> 00:26:40,680 Speaker 2: the case, it's good people A lot of people are 424 00:26:40,680 --> 00:26:42,640 Speaker 2: just going to dismiss it as you know, Oh, there 425 00:26:42,680 --> 00:26:46,720 Speaker 2: goes New York again, because the case is objectively ridiculous. 426 00:26:47,320 --> 00:26:51,399 Speaker 2: The case where he really has the biggest risk I 427 00:26:51,440 --> 00:26:54,719 Speaker 2: think of a conviction pre trial, and this depends on 428 00:26:54,880 --> 00:26:58,040 Speaker 2: again whether they can get it to trial is Smith's 429 00:26:58,160 --> 00:27:02,760 Speaker 2: Washington case. And the the thing that I didn't add 430 00:27:01,920 --> 00:27:05,720 Speaker 2: that is the wild card in terms of whether that 431 00:27:05,840 --> 00:27:09,200 Speaker 2: case can go to trial or not is even though 432 00:27:09,240 --> 00:27:12,919 Speaker 2: I think Trump is going to lose on immunity before 433 00:27:12,960 --> 00:27:16,920 Speaker 2: the Supreme Court, immunity has kind of already served its 434 00:27:16,920 --> 00:27:20,360 Speaker 2: purpose for Trump because he's gotten all this delay out 435 00:27:20,400 --> 00:27:22,639 Speaker 2: of the appeal of it. And what happened in the 436 00:27:22,680 --> 00:27:28,480 Speaker 2: interim Lisa is the Supreme Court announced a few weeks 437 00:27:28,520 --> 00:27:32,919 Speaker 2: ago that they would hear the challenge of a number 438 00:27:32,960 --> 00:27:37,200 Speaker 2: of the January sixth defendants, not Trump, to the Justice 439 00:27:37,200 --> 00:27:42,959 Speaker 2: Department's very controversial use against them of an obstruction statute 440 00:27:43,280 --> 00:27:48,199 Speaker 2: that's really intended for obstruction in business fraud cases like 441 00:27:48,280 --> 00:27:51,600 Speaker 2: things like shredding documents and the like, and the Justice 442 00:27:51,600 --> 00:27:55,840 Speaker 2: Department has used it against the Capital rioters. And what 443 00:27:55,880 --> 00:27:59,320 Speaker 2: they're arguing is this is not the use that Congress 444 00:27:59,320 --> 00:28:05,479 Speaker 2: intended for this statute. The reason it's so important is 445 00:28:06,560 --> 00:28:11,000 Speaker 2: the Washington indictment brought by Smith against Trump has four counts. 446 00:28:11,240 --> 00:28:14,000 Speaker 2: The two most important counts of the case and the 447 00:28:14,040 --> 00:28:16,760 Speaker 2: two that would have the heaviest sentence if he were 448 00:28:16,800 --> 00:28:22,200 Speaker 2: to get convicted, are obstruction counts brought under this same statute, 449 00:28:22,800 --> 00:28:26,879 Speaker 2: which means, as a practical matter, I don't think Judge 450 00:28:26,960 --> 00:28:32,760 Speaker 2: Chuckkin can start the trial of Trump in Washington until 451 00:28:32,800 --> 00:28:38,040 Speaker 2: the Supreme Court rules on the obstruction case or the 452 00:28:38,080 --> 00:28:42,160 Speaker 2: obstruction statute in connection with the January sixth defendants. They're 453 00:28:42,200 --> 00:28:44,360 Speaker 2: not going to rule, they're not going to hear argument 454 00:28:44,400 --> 00:28:49,560 Speaker 2: in that case until I think April, maybe around April 455 00:28:49,600 --> 00:28:52,280 Speaker 2: fifteenth or April sixteenth, So we're not going to get 456 00:28:52,320 --> 00:28:54,760 Speaker 2: a decision in that case until the end of June 457 00:28:54,960 --> 00:28:58,920 Speaker 2: more than likely, and depending on how that case goes, 458 00:29:00,120 --> 00:29:04,120 Speaker 2: it could be possible that the court upholds the use 459 00:29:04,360 --> 00:29:07,360 Speaker 2: of the statute the way the Justice Department's been doing it, 460 00:29:07,840 --> 00:29:10,400 Speaker 2: or it could be that Smith has to do major 461 00:29:11,160 --> 00:29:14,120 Speaker 2: surgery on his case, in which case he'll have to 462 00:29:14,160 --> 00:29:17,200 Speaker 2: supersede the indictment. You know. Dependent Trump of course hopes 463 00:29:17,240 --> 00:29:22,640 Speaker 2: that it's such a momentous decision in favor of people 464 00:29:22,640 --> 00:29:26,840 Speaker 2: who are challenging the statute that it will dismantle Smith's 465 00:29:26,880 --> 00:29:28,760 Speaker 2: case and he won't be able to bring it. But 466 00:29:28,800 --> 00:29:30,720 Speaker 2: we'll have to see what the Supreme Court does. The 467 00:29:30,760 --> 00:29:35,800 Speaker 2: only thing I would say in anticipation of it is 468 00:29:36,120 --> 00:29:40,040 Speaker 2: I believe the use of this obstruction statute against Trump 469 00:29:40,520 --> 00:29:44,560 Speaker 2: is much more problematic for the prosecutor than the use 470 00:29:44,600 --> 00:29:48,160 Speaker 2: of it against the Capital rioters, because what the obstruction 471 00:29:48,320 --> 00:29:51,400 Speaker 2: case comes down to is what does the statute mean 472 00:29:51,480 --> 00:29:56,520 Speaker 2: by corrupt obstruction. What the statute says is it's anybody 473 00:29:57,200 --> 00:30:03,320 Speaker 2: who obstructs a proceeding, including a congres rational proceeding, by 474 00:30:03,440 --> 00:30:08,680 Speaker 2: corrupt activity. And corrupt is a very vague word. It's 475 00:30:08,680 --> 00:30:11,080 Speaker 2: a very ambiguous word because there's a lot of stuff 476 00:30:11,080 --> 00:30:14,000 Speaker 2: that we do that's corrupt that's actually not illegal, right, 477 00:30:14,400 --> 00:30:15,960 Speaker 2: And there's a lot of stuff that you do that's 478 00:30:15,960 --> 00:30:18,560 Speaker 2: corrupt that is illegal. So it seems to me that 479 00:30:19,040 --> 00:30:22,160 Speaker 2: with that statute, it makes a lot more sense to 480 00:30:22,240 --> 00:30:25,400 Speaker 2: apply it to somebody who, say, takes a flagpole and 481 00:30:25,480 --> 00:30:30,160 Speaker 2: hits a police officer during the Capitol riot than it 482 00:30:30,240 --> 00:30:34,720 Speaker 2: is to apply it to Trump, who is not charged 483 00:30:34,760 --> 00:30:38,240 Speaker 2: in a violent crime. And the obstruction theory that Smith 484 00:30:38,280 --> 00:30:43,240 Speaker 2: has is that Trump relied on a kakamami legal theory 485 00:30:43,880 --> 00:30:49,040 Speaker 2: that he knew that Trump supposedly knew was invalid, that 486 00:30:50,480 --> 00:30:55,320 Speaker 2: the vice president had the authority to discount state certified 487 00:30:55,320 --> 00:30:58,960 Speaker 2: electoral votes. I think Trump's going to have a very 488 00:30:59,000 --> 00:31:01,160 Speaker 2: strong argument that that it's not what Congress had in 489 00:31:01,240 --> 00:31:05,840 Speaker 2: mind when they enacted that obstruction statute. But I dilate 490 00:31:05,920 --> 00:31:09,760 Speaker 2: on this because it's probably the most important thing in 491 00:31:09,840 --> 00:31:12,600 Speaker 2: response to the question you asked me, which is if 492 00:31:12,640 --> 00:31:16,000 Speaker 2: Trump does Trump run a risk of a very serious 493 00:31:17,520 --> 00:31:21,280 Speaker 2: criminal conviction prior to election day? And the only way 494 00:31:21,280 --> 00:31:24,680 Speaker 2: I can answer that is if the Supreme Court leaves 495 00:31:24,720 --> 00:31:30,720 Speaker 2: Smith's case intact and the case can get tried starting 496 00:31:30,800 --> 00:31:36,000 Speaker 2: in say July, then I think Trump runs a very 497 00:31:36,080 --> 00:31:37,960 Speaker 2: high risk of being convicted. 498 00:31:38,000 --> 00:31:40,920 Speaker 1: Quick break more on all these indictments stay with us. 499 00:31:43,720 --> 00:31:45,800 Speaker 1: You know, you mentioned the sort of stretching of the 500 00:31:45,840 --> 00:31:48,280 Speaker 1: obstruction for the January six ers. I mean, there seems 501 00:31:48,280 --> 00:31:49,600 Speaker 1: to be a lot of that when you look at 502 00:31:49,640 --> 00:31:51,680 Speaker 1: you know, brags sort of turning a misdemeanor into a 503 00:31:51,680 --> 00:31:55,320 Speaker 1: felony that's already passed the Statute of Limitations or you know, 504 00:31:55,440 --> 00:31:58,840 Speaker 1: Fulton County, en Rico, or you know, I mean, there 505 00:31:58,880 --> 00:32:01,840 Speaker 1: just seems to be a lot of stretching of the 506 00:32:01,920 --> 00:32:04,440 Speaker 1: law and maneuvering of the law, and you know, and 507 00:32:05,960 --> 00:32:09,440 Speaker 1: you know, just taking a lot of what's the right word, 508 00:32:10,760 --> 00:32:14,400 Speaker 1: taking a lot of blanking on the right word. But well, 509 00:32:14,440 --> 00:32:19,200 Speaker 1: they're taking liberty exactly, denial to deny ones, liberty, to 510 00:32:19,240 --> 00:32:20,040 Speaker 1: deny liberty. 511 00:32:20,240 --> 00:32:23,440 Speaker 2: Well, I'll say if I could say one thing about 512 00:32:23,480 --> 00:32:27,480 Speaker 2: that though, which is the elephant in the room, so 513 00:32:27,600 --> 00:32:30,640 Speaker 2: to speak. You know, it's been against the law of 514 00:32:30,640 --> 00:32:34,880 Speaker 2: the United States since eighteen seventy to commit insurrection, and 515 00:32:35,120 --> 00:32:38,920 Speaker 2: one hundred one thousand, two hundred and sixty people I 516 00:32:38,960 --> 00:32:42,000 Speaker 2: believe have been prosecuted so far by the Justice Department 517 00:32:42,440 --> 00:32:46,200 Speaker 2: in connection with the quote unquote insurrection of January sixth. 518 00:32:46,560 --> 00:32:49,880 Speaker 2: Not a single person, not just Trump, not a single 519 00:32:49,960 --> 00:32:54,800 Speaker 2: person has been charged with insurrection. And you wouldn't have 520 00:32:54,960 --> 00:33:01,320 Speaker 2: to have extravagant theories about obstruction and civil rights and 521 00:33:01,520 --> 00:33:07,000 Speaker 2: fraud and rico and turning you know, a business records 522 00:33:07,680 --> 00:33:10,360 Speaker 2: faux pas into thirty four felonies. You wouldn't have to 523 00:33:10,360 --> 00:33:12,760 Speaker 2: do any of that stuff if they had just a 524 00:33:12,880 --> 00:33:18,760 Speaker 2: nice clean of insurrection case. Insurrections a federal criminal statute 525 00:33:19,120 --> 00:33:22,240 Speaker 2: section I think twenty three eighty three of the Criminal Code. 526 00:33:22,920 --> 00:33:25,320 Speaker 2: It's been on the books, as I said, for like 527 00:33:25,360 --> 00:33:28,840 Speaker 2: a century and a half. If they had an insurrection case, 528 00:33:29,360 --> 00:33:32,320 Speaker 2: all of these problems go away. You just charge a 529 00:33:32,400 --> 00:33:35,520 Speaker 2: guy with insurrection, prove it beyond a reasonable dabt a trial. 530 00:33:35,880 --> 00:33:38,280 Speaker 2: Why do you figure the Justice Department's never done. 531 00:33:38,160 --> 00:33:40,680 Speaker 1: That because it ain't it. 532 00:33:41,520 --> 00:33:43,600 Speaker 2: They don't have it. You know, if they had it, 533 00:33:43,640 --> 00:33:46,400 Speaker 2: this would be the easy you know, the shortest distance 534 00:33:46,440 --> 00:33:49,320 Speaker 2: between two points is still a straight line, you know, 535 00:33:49,520 --> 00:33:52,120 Speaker 2: insurrections the straight line here. If they had the case, 536 00:33:52,560 --> 00:33:54,920 Speaker 2: then all of this goes away, and none of us 537 00:33:54,960 --> 00:33:57,560 Speaker 2: would be defending Trump on insurrection if they if he 538 00:33:57,600 --> 00:34:00,520 Speaker 2: had actually done an insurrection. If they had been an 539 00:34:00,560 --> 00:34:04,479 Speaker 2: insurrection and he commanded it in some way that they 540 00:34:04,480 --> 00:34:07,880 Speaker 2: could prove by evidence, I'd offer to come out of 541 00:34:07,920 --> 00:34:12,000 Speaker 2: retirement to prosecute the case myself. But they don't have 542 00:34:12,080 --> 00:34:14,759 Speaker 2: the case. That's the problem they've always had, well. 543 00:34:14,680 --> 00:34:16,800 Speaker 1: You know, and this just frustrates me so much because 544 00:34:17,000 --> 00:34:19,920 Speaker 1: I hate things that are unfair and an unequal application 545 00:34:20,000 --> 00:34:21,759 Speaker 1: of things. You know, I'm all for, Like, you know, 546 00:34:21,800 --> 00:34:24,239 Speaker 1: I felt that way about Parah, Like, Okay, fine, I 547 00:34:24,239 --> 00:34:27,680 Speaker 1: don't want people doing business with foreign countries and not 548 00:34:28,000 --> 00:34:29,960 Speaker 1: you know, being open and transparent about it here in 549 00:34:29,960 --> 00:34:32,239 Speaker 1: the United States. But like, if you're not going to 550 00:34:32,320 --> 00:34:34,920 Speaker 1: go after everyone, then you know, go fly a kite. Right. 551 00:34:34,960 --> 00:34:38,160 Speaker 1: But with all this Trump stuff, it's only it always 552 00:34:38,239 --> 00:34:41,640 Speaker 1: goes in one direction, you know. I wanted to ask you, 553 00:34:42,920 --> 00:34:46,520 Speaker 1: does in the in the documents case for Trump, does 554 00:34:46,520 --> 00:34:50,840 Speaker 1: the fact that the special counsel and Biden's own Department 555 00:34:50,880 --> 00:34:55,399 Speaker 1: of Justice found that he's willfully mishandled classified documents since 556 00:34:55,440 --> 00:34:59,000 Speaker 1: the nineteen seventies, By the way, when you're a senator, 557 00:34:59,040 --> 00:35:02,000 Speaker 1: which takes a real effort to do that, to try 558 00:35:02,000 --> 00:35:04,160 Speaker 1: to take documents out of the skiff which I imagine 559 00:35:04,239 --> 00:35:06,360 Speaker 1: is what ultimately happened, or when he was vice president, 560 00:35:06,400 --> 00:35:09,759 Speaker 1: when he didn't even have the classification authority that Trump 561 00:35:09,840 --> 00:35:14,399 Speaker 1: did as president, does that impact that case at all? 562 00:35:14,480 --> 00:35:16,920 Speaker 1: Does it take the teeth out of the case, the 563 00:35:17,000 --> 00:35:20,319 Speaker 1: fact that you know, seems like everybody's doing it, but 564 00:35:20,400 --> 00:35:23,520 Speaker 1: only one man is being persecuted for it. 565 00:35:24,480 --> 00:35:26,880 Speaker 2: Well, I do think that, you know, one of the 566 00:35:26,880 --> 00:35:28,799 Speaker 2: things that Trump is going to raise, and this goes 567 00:35:28,840 --> 00:35:30,640 Speaker 2: to an issue that we started to talk about at 568 00:35:30,680 --> 00:35:34,279 Speaker 2: the beginning, which is a selective prosecution claim. And I 569 00:35:34,320 --> 00:35:39,000 Speaker 2: think he's got a very good selective prosecution claim because 570 00:35:39,760 --> 00:35:44,080 Speaker 2: the case in ma A Lago is mishandling of classified 571 00:35:44,120 --> 00:35:49,759 Speaker 2: information coupled with obstruction. And I think actually the Justice 572 00:35:49,800 --> 00:35:53,240 Speaker 2: Department and Smith were foolish on this score. They shouldn't 573 00:35:53,239 --> 00:35:58,600 Speaker 2: have been, you know, they indicted like three dozen classified 574 00:35:58,600 --> 00:36:01,640 Speaker 2: information counts. They should have they should have tried this 575 00:36:01,719 --> 00:36:04,640 Speaker 2: case as as straight obstruction, charged it and tried it 576 00:36:05,120 --> 00:36:08,400 Speaker 2: as a straight obstruction grand jury obstruction case, and Smith 577 00:36:08,480 --> 00:36:10,200 Speaker 2: might have had a chance to get that case to 578 00:36:10,280 --> 00:36:13,279 Speaker 2: trial rather than what's now happened to him, which is 579 00:36:13,320 --> 00:36:17,280 Speaker 2: these all hung up on these admissibility issues in connection 580 00:36:17,320 --> 00:36:21,600 Speaker 2: with classified information. But the reason I think he's got 581 00:36:21,600 --> 00:36:25,400 Speaker 2: a good that Trump has a good selective prosecution claim 582 00:36:26,080 --> 00:36:32,719 Speaker 2: is Biden clearly engaged in wilful mishandling of classified information, 583 00:36:34,200 --> 00:36:38,600 Speaker 2: and he's being treated very differently from Trump. Hillary Clinton, 584 00:36:38,640 --> 00:36:43,720 Speaker 2: I think, also engaged in wilful mishandling of classified information, 585 00:36:43,880 --> 00:36:46,719 Speaker 2: among other things they could have charged her with, and 586 00:36:46,800 --> 00:36:49,439 Speaker 2: she got a complete pass from what's essentially the same 587 00:36:49,600 --> 00:36:52,839 Speaker 2: Justice department. I mean, you know, the Obama Biden administration. 588 00:36:52,960 --> 00:36:56,279 Speaker 2: The Biden administration is just a continuation, particularly at the 589 00:36:56,400 --> 00:37:00,759 Speaker 2: Justice Department level of the Obama Biden administration. So you 590 00:37:00,840 --> 00:37:05,120 Speaker 2: have this one Justice department straddling over two administrations that 591 00:37:05,200 --> 00:37:09,080 Speaker 2: had these three cases. They gave Hillary a pass on 592 00:37:09,160 --> 00:37:13,799 Speaker 2: both classified documents and obstruction because a number of the 593 00:37:13,840 --> 00:37:17,080 Speaker 2: things that they bleach, bidded and destroyed was after they 594 00:37:17,120 --> 00:37:21,239 Speaker 2: got a congressional subpoena, and no one ever prosecuted for 595 00:37:21,520 --> 00:37:23,080 Speaker 2: them for that. I think if you go back over 596 00:37:23,160 --> 00:37:28,640 Speaker 2: what Comy famously said in his press conference, he almost 597 00:37:28,680 --> 00:37:32,560 Speaker 2: exclusively spoke about classified information and never even mentioned the 598 00:37:32,600 --> 00:37:37,080 Speaker 2: obstruction part of it. And there were other things they 599 00:37:37,080 --> 00:37:39,680 Speaker 2: could have brought against Hillary too, but they didn't. So 600 00:37:40,560 --> 00:37:45,520 Speaker 2: you have Trump has classified information and obstruction. They're charging him, 601 00:37:45,600 --> 00:37:47,520 Speaker 2: and they didn't just charge him. I mean, it's like 602 00:37:47,600 --> 00:37:50,120 Speaker 2: a forty count indictment that he could go to jail for. 603 00:37:50,600 --> 00:37:53,719 Speaker 2: You know, I guess three hundred years, four hundred years. 604 00:37:53,719 --> 00:37:56,359 Speaker 2: I lost count going through it. And then they give 605 00:37:56,360 --> 00:37:59,760 Speaker 2: Biden a complete pass, and they gave Hillary a complete pass. 606 00:38:00,160 --> 00:38:03,240 Speaker 2: And the thing with Biden, Lisa, which I'm really glad 607 00:38:03,520 --> 00:38:07,880 Speaker 2: you brought up, is, you know, if you find a 608 00:38:07,920 --> 00:38:12,160 Speaker 2: couple of things about HER's report, and he's going to 609 00:38:12,200 --> 00:38:15,760 Speaker 2: testify apparently I think on March twelfth, if I remember. 610 00:38:15,800 --> 00:38:19,640 Speaker 2: But you know, first of all, if her found that 611 00:38:19,719 --> 00:38:23,440 Speaker 2: he acted wilfully, which I think you know when you 612 00:38:23,480 --> 00:38:27,080 Speaker 2: read the report, the evidence doesn't admit of any other 613 00:38:27,200 --> 00:38:30,200 Speaker 2: sensible conclusion. As you pointed out, it's not easy as 614 00:38:30,200 --> 00:38:32,960 Speaker 2: a senator to get stuff out of a skiff that 615 00:38:33,000 --> 00:38:35,480 Speaker 2: you're not supposed to be as a senator, you're not 616 00:38:35,520 --> 00:38:41,040 Speaker 2: allowed to take the stuff, right. So the thing is 617 00:38:40,680 --> 00:38:47,840 Speaker 2: the statute that all this is brought under the espionajack, 618 00:38:47,960 --> 00:38:51,759 Speaker 2: even though it doesn't necessarily have to involve espionage. The 619 00:38:51,800 --> 00:38:56,600 Speaker 2: prongs of the espionajack don't require wilfulness. There's one of 620 00:38:56,600 --> 00:39:00,440 Speaker 2: them that only all you need is gross negligence. So 621 00:39:00,600 --> 00:39:04,960 Speaker 2: if you found wilfulness is the highest criminal intent UH 622 00:39:05,000 --> 00:39:09,960 Speaker 2: in the law, it requires it. It like almost defies 623 00:39:10,000 --> 00:39:14,480 Speaker 2: the old adage that ignorance of the law is no excuse. 624 00:39:14,680 --> 00:39:18,040 Speaker 2: I mean, you have to know what. What wilfulness means 625 00:39:18,520 --> 00:39:21,520 Speaker 2: is that you act with knowledge that what you're doing 626 00:39:22,160 --> 00:39:24,880 Speaker 2: is wrong, and you do it with a bad purpose. 627 00:39:25,840 --> 00:39:28,080 Speaker 2: So that's what you have to prove for wilfulness. For 628 00:39:28,160 --> 00:39:31,200 Speaker 2: gross negligence, you don't even have to prove intent. You 629 00:39:31,360 --> 00:39:34,560 Speaker 2: just have to prove that the person was careless, UH 630 00:39:34,840 --> 00:39:39,719 Speaker 2: in a in a really discreditable way with something that 631 00:39:39,760 --> 00:39:43,120 Speaker 2: the person had an obligation to safeguard. UH. The only 632 00:39:43,160 --> 00:39:46,600 Speaker 2: reason we allow does not there's not too many statutes 633 00:39:46,880 --> 00:39:49,640 Speaker 2: in the criminal law where you allow someone to be 634 00:39:49,680 --> 00:39:54,480 Speaker 2: convicted of gross negligence. But in the classified information context, 635 00:39:54,480 --> 00:39:57,200 Speaker 2: you're dealing with people who have to take an oath 636 00:39:57,239 --> 00:40:00,520 Speaker 2: that they're going to safeguard classified information and they're how 637 00:40:00,520 --> 00:40:03,279 Speaker 2: to do it. So if they don't follow that obligation, 638 00:40:03,360 --> 00:40:07,120 Speaker 2: they deserve to be prosecuted. Being saying I was careless 639 00:40:08,239 --> 00:40:11,040 Speaker 2: would be a defense to most criminal charges. It's not 640 00:40:11,120 --> 00:40:15,080 Speaker 2: a defense in classified information, it's a crime. So if 641 00:40:15,120 --> 00:40:20,640 Speaker 2: you're finding, as her did that Biden acted wilfully, you 642 00:40:20,680 --> 00:40:24,600 Speaker 2: could easily prove that he acted with gross negligence. That's 643 00:40:24,640 --> 00:40:28,719 Speaker 2: a layup. So it's very hard to say that you 644 00:40:28,760 --> 00:40:31,320 Speaker 2: shouldn't you can't bring a case like that, or you shouldn't. 645 00:40:31,640 --> 00:40:35,720 Speaker 2: And then the other thing is he justifies or rationalizes 646 00:40:35,920 --> 00:40:39,719 Speaker 2: not bringing the case because Biden is basically sinescent. He 647 00:40:39,800 --> 00:40:44,239 Speaker 2: says that he's a well meaning elderly man with a 648 00:40:44,239 --> 00:40:49,320 Speaker 2: bad memory. Well, you know, in the law, the question 649 00:40:49,520 --> 00:40:53,240 Speaker 2: isn't what is your state of mind? Now, the question 650 00:40:53,360 --> 00:40:55,400 Speaker 2: is what was your state of mind when you committed 651 00:40:55,440 --> 00:40:59,120 Speaker 2: the actions that were a crime. His current state of 652 00:40:59,160 --> 00:41:03,839 Speaker 2: mind goes to the important constitutional question of whether he's 653 00:41:03,880 --> 00:41:08,160 Speaker 2: fit to stand trial. That is, whether he's mentally competent 654 00:41:08,480 --> 00:41:14,319 Speaker 2: enough to meaningfully aid his defense and to understand the 655 00:41:14,400 --> 00:41:18,400 Speaker 2: nature of the proceedings. And I think Biden would easily 656 00:41:19,120 --> 00:41:21,719 Speaker 2: meet that standard. But you know, the idea that he's 657 00:41:21,880 --> 00:41:29,239 Speaker 2: currently in cognitive decline is not an issue. It's not 658 00:41:29,320 --> 00:41:32,800 Speaker 2: a guilt or innocence issue. You know, if he filched 659 00:41:32,800 --> 00:41:38,080 Speaker 2: a document, say in nineteen eighty five. The issue is like, 660 00:41:38,400 --> 00:41:40,720 Speaker 2: did he know what he was doing in nineteen eighty five, 661 00:41:40,840 --> 00:41:43,560 Speaker 2: not whether he knows what he's doing now. So I 662 00:41:43,719 --> 00:41:46,879 Speaker 2: found you know, I think Her is getting it from 663 00:41:46,880 --> 00:41:50,400 Speaker 2: both sides, and he probably I think he deserves it 664 00:41:51,640 --> 00:41:55,680 Speaker 2: from the right because you know, he basically pushed the 665 00:41:55,760 --> 00:41:57,680 Speaker 2: envelope as hard as you can push it to try 666 00:41:57,680 --> 00:42:02,280 Speaker 2: to rationalize not charging someone who who deserved to be charged, 667 00:42:02,400 --> 00:42:04,960 Speaker 2: or at least you can't charge a sitting president the 668 00:42:05,160 --> 00:42:07,600 Speaker 2: Justice Department guidance as you can and die a sitting president. 669 00:42:07,640 --> 00:42:12,399 Speaker 2: But he should at least have recommended an indictment. And 670 00:42:12,920 --> 00:42:17,319 Speaker 2: I have to say, I'm I find it precious that 671 00:42:17,360 --> 00:42:21,560 Speaker 2: the Democrats are upset that her put in his report 672 00:42:21,880 --> 00:42:25,720 Speaker 2: the reason why he didn't think that Biden should be charged. 673 00:42:26,160 --> 00:42:28,959 Speaker 2: They're going crazy because of how much that hurts him 674 00:42:29,000 --> 00:42:32,960 Speaker 2: politically in the campaign. But they're conveniently skipping past just 675 00:42:33,000 --> 00:42:36,200 Speaker 2: like they do with Hillary. They're conveniently skipping past that 676 00:42:36,680 --> 00:42:40,440 Speaker 2: the prosecutor decided not to prosecute him. You know, if 677 00:42:40,520 --> 00:42:42,960 Speaker 2: he recommended charges, that would have been the end of 678 00:42:43,000 --> 00:42:44,120 Speaker 2: Biden's candidacy. 679 00:42:44,400 --> 00:42:51,239 Speaker 1: Quick break stay with us if you murder someone ten 680 00:42:51,480 --> 00:42:54,239 Speaker 1: fifteen years ago when you were looseid or you know, 681 00:42:54,280 --> 00:42:56,040 Speaker 1: and then now, I mean, it wouldn't matter if you 682 00:42:56,120 --> 00:42:58,000 Speaker 1: murder someone. You murder someone, and then now all of 683 00:42:58,000 --> 00:43:00,719 Speaker 1: a sudden, you're a well meaning, elderly old man, You're 684 00:43:00,760 --> 00:43:04,200 Speaker 1: still going to be, you know, tried and convicted of 685 00:43:04,200 --> 00:43:06,719 Speaker 1: that murder. And it's like, it's just so egregious what 686 00:43:06,800 --> 00:43:09,440 Speaker 1: Joe Biden did to have when you're hear in the 687 00:43:09,480 --> 00:43:14,040 Speaker 1: Senate as a vice president to continuously and repeatedly mishandled 688 00:43:14,040 --> 00:43:17,360 Speaker 1: classified documents and then tell your ghost writer in twenty 689 00:43:17,440 --> 00:43:20,120 Speaker 1: seventeen you have done so you don't feel like turning 690 00:43:20,160 --> 00:43:23,080 Speaker 1: them over, and then to look Americans in the face 691 00:43:23,160 --> 00:43:28,800 Speaker 1: on sixty minutes and ridicule and question your opponent's ethics. 692 00:43:29,160 --> 00:43:31,279 Speaker 1: And then two, I think as a president, you have 693 00:43:31,440 --> 00:43:34,560 Speaker 1: a much better argument of you know, having the ultimate 694 00:43:34,600 --> 00:43:39,080 Speaker 1: authority unhandling classified documents, declassifying and I know there's the 695 00:43:39,239 --> 00:43:42,440 Speaker 1: question of obstruction of justice or what have you that 696 00:43:42,440 --> 00:43:45,440 Speaker 1: people are making, but there's a much clearer argument. It's 697 00:43:45,440 --> 00:43:47,960 Speaker 1: a much more gray area for I believe a president 698 00:43:48,000 --> 00:43:49,880 Speaker 1: to say, hey, you know, I had the ultimate authority 699 00:43:49,880 --> 00:43:52,120 Speaker 1: here when you didn't as vice president. You sure is 700 00:43:52,160 --> 00:43:56,160 Speaker 1: held in as vice president, yet you know Trump's the 701 00:43:56,200 --> 00:44:00,600 Speaker 1: one that is, you know, getting screwed, right. I wanted 702 00:44:00,600 --> 00:44:02,839 Speaker 1: to or feel free to react to that, But I 703 00:44:02,880 --> 00:44:06,080 Speaker 1: also wanted to get you on before we go on 704 00:44:06,280 --> 00:44:09,839 Speaker 1: Fanny Willis and her actions out of Fulton County and 705 00:44:10,000 --> 00:44:14,120 Speaker 1: Fulton County and if that jeopardizes her case against Trumper 706 00:44:14,280 --> 00:44:15,719 Speaker 1: or what bearing that has on that. 707 00:44:16,800 --> 00:44:19,160 Speaker 2: Yeah. The only other thing I'd add to what you 708 00:44:19,200 --> 00:44:25,239 Speaker 2: said about about the document's case is I've never been 709 00:44:26,640 --> 00:44:30,080 Speaker 2: overly impressed by Trump's argument that he was president so 710 00:44:30,120 --> 00:44:33,480 Speaker 2: he had declassification authority. That would be a thing if 711 00:44:33,520 --> 00:44:37,920 Speaker 2: he could prove that he actually declassified the stuff, And 712 00:44:37,960 --> 00:44:39,839 Speaker 2: it remains to be seen whether he can do that. 713 00:44:39,880 --> 00:44:41,879 Speaker 2: There's no evidence that he did. 714 00:44:42,000 --> 00:44:46,239 Speaker 1: Can he just say like a fairy godmother of just 715 00:44:46,320 --> 00:44:49,400 Speaker 1: saying I want these documents or to class I mean, 716 00:44:49,520 --> 00:44:52,319 Speaker 1: doesn't can't just a president's I mean, can't he just 717 00:44:52,440 --> 00:44:54,960 Speaker 1: basically do whatever he wants when it comes to classified 718 00:44:55,000 --> 00:44:56,840 Speaker 1: documents as president of the United States? 719 00:44:57,239 --> 00:45:00,200 Speaker 2: I don't think so. I mean, the presidential records at 720 00:45:00,239 --> 00:45:05,600 Speaker 2: which he is relying on, is it kind of a 721 00:45:05,600 --> 00:45:07,879 Speaker 2: two edge sword for him? Because one of the things 722 00:45:07,880 --> 00:45:11,560 Speaker 2: that requires is that presidential acts have to be documented, 723 00:45:12,320 --> 00:45:16,840 Speaker 2: and there's no documentary evidence that he ever declassified anything. 724 00:45:16,880 --> 00:45:19,399 Speaker 2: Declassification is actually a pretty important thing. 725 00:45:19,840 --> 00:45:22,359 Speaker 1: Who would be in charge that? Sorry, I just want 726 00:45:22,400 --> 00:45:24,359 Speaker 1: to make sure that I'm full understanding. I'm not trying 727 00:45:24,360 --> 00:45:28,080 Speaker 1: to interrupt her. So who would be in charge? 728 00:45:28,520 --> 00:45:28,799 Speaker 2: Right that? 729 00:45:29,080 --> 00:45:32,319 Speaker 1: Surely that wouldn't be a president's responsibility to say, hey, 730 00:45:32,360 --> 00:45:35,799 Speaker 1: I'm writing this down and right wouldn't that be so? 731 00:45:36,040 --> 00:45:38,560 Speaker 1: I mean, I guess it just still seems like there 732 00:45:38,680 --> 00:45:42,880 Speaker 1: is ambiguity at least would would you say there's at 733 00:45:42,920 --> 00:45:48,160 Speaker 1: least some ambiguity in this where you know? It just 734 00:45:48,239 --> 00:45:50,799 Speaker 1: I don't know even in your description of it, which 735 00:45:50,840 --> 00:45:52,359 Speaker 1: you know. I trust your judgment, which is why you're 736 00:45:52,400 --> 00:45:54,480 Speaker 1: on the show. I think you're brilliant. It just seems 737 00:45:54,520 --> 00:45:58,480 Speaker 1: like there's still some you know, gray area, still some finesse, 738 00:45:58,560 --> 00:46:01,239 Speaker 1: still some you know what I mean, Like, there's just still. 739 00:46:01,080 --> 00:46:05,400 Speaker 2: No, there's not clear there's gray area in the Presidential 740 00:46:05,440 --> 00:46:08,759 Speaker 2: Records Act. Now, on the obstruction side of it, there's 741 00:46:08,800 --> 00:46:11,640 Speaker 2: no gray area because he got a grand jury subpoena 742 00:46:11,680 --> 00:46:15,400 Speaker 2: that that didn't tell him to turn over the classified information, 743 00:46:16,200 --> 00:46:18,719 Speaker 2: because I guess they understood that he could make a 744 00:46:18,800 --> 00:46:21,800 Speaker 2: claim like that. So what the grand jury subpoena says 745 00:46:22,000 --> 00:46:27,560 Speaker 2: is turnover all documents that have physical classification markings. So 746 00:46:28,480 --> 00:46:33,000 Speaker 2: in that sense, whether he declassified or not is irrelevant. 747 00:46:33,560 --> 00:46:39,000 Speaker 2: And similarly, with respect to the classified information counts, they're 748 00:46:39,000 --> 00:46:44,640 Speaker 2: not actually classified information counts. That the Espionage Act doesn't 749 00:46:44,680 --> 00:46:49,240 Speaker 2: describe classified information. It says national defense information, So whether 750 00:46:49,320 --> 00:46:52,520 Speaker 2: it's classified and has been declassified as kind of beside 751 00:46:52,520 --> 00:46:56,200 Speaker 2: the point if the document is national defense information. So 752 00:46:56,760 --> 00:47:00,200 Speaker 2: they have comebacks on that. But what I was, what 753 00:47:00,280 --> 00:47:04,279 Speaker 2: I was trying to pivot to, was to say, the 754 00:47:05,080 --> 00:47:09,160 Speaker 2: barometer that her used, or the metric that her used 755 00:47:09,880 --> 00:47:15,040 Speaker 2: not to prosecute Biden under circumstances where Trump is being 756 00:47:15,120 --> 00:47:21,720 Speaker 2: prosecuted was cooperation. And that was preposterous because in our system, 757 00:47:22,480 --> 00:47:25,920 Speaker 2: people are expected to cooperate with investigators if you get 758 00:47:26,040 --> 00:47:28,840 Speaker 2: you know, if you get a subpoena, you're supposed to 759 00:47:28,920 --> 00:47:34,160 Speaker 2: produce the documents, and if you cooperate with the investigators, 760 00:47:34,200 --> 00:47:36,440 Speaker 2: that's an important thing to bring to the court's attention 761 00:47:36,480 --> 00:47:39,040 Speaker 2: at sentencing. But it has nothing to do with guilt 762 00:47:39,120 --> 00:47:42,839 Speaker 2: or innocence. So in this system, if you don't cooperate 763 00:47:42,880 --> 00:47:46,480 Speaker 2: with the investigation, you can be charged with obstruction. But 764 00:47:46,600 --> 00:47:51,040 Speaker 2: the fact that Biden, what her says, is Biden cooperated 765 00:47:51,080 --> 00:47:55,320 Speaker 2: and Trump didn't, that's a good reason to charge Trump 766 00:47:55,560 --> 00:47:59,120 Speaker 2: with obstruction. It's not a good reason to not charge 767 00:47:59,160 --> 00:48:04,399 Speaker 2: Biden with classified information counts. You know, the fact that 768 00:48:04,560 --> 00:48:07,200 Speaker 2: as you you talked about a murder before. If I 769 00:48:07,360 --> 00:48:10,600 Speaker 2: murder someone, but then I'm cooperative with the you know, 770 00:48:10,640 --> 00:48:13,040 Speaker 2: with the police, I waive my riots, I confess, I 771 00:48:13,120 --> 00:48:14,920 Speaker 2: do all the things they asked me to. They're not 772 00:48:14,960 --> 00:48:17,200 Speaker 2: going to say, well, you know, you were so cooperative, 773 00:48:17,239 --> 00:48:19,120 Speaker 2: we're not going to charge it with murder. They're still 774 00:48:19,120 --> 00:48:20,320 Speaker 2: going to charge me with murder. 775 00:48:20,400 --> 00:48:24,200 Speaker 1: But do we believe that Joe Biden was cooperative in 776 00:48:24,239 --> 00:48:28,239 Speaker 1: the sense of he's had these documents since the nineteen seventies, 777 00:48:28,320 --> 00:48:30,839 Speaker 1: He's had them since he was vice president. He told 778 00:48:30,880 --> 00:48:33,480 Speaker 1: his ghost writer he knew he had them, he didn't 779 00:48:33,480 --> 00:48:36,759 Speaker 1: want to turn them over. They ended up in multiple locations. So, 780 00:48:36,800 --> 00:48:39,960 Speaker 1: I mean, do we really believe like, if that was 781 00:48:40,080 --> 00:48:42,000 Speaker 1: Trump in this situation, would he be you know what 782 00:48:42,040 --> 00:48:44,319 Speaker 1: I mean? I just I don't know. I don't believe 783 00:48:44,400 --> 00:48:46,080 Speaker 1: that he was cooperative. 784 00:48:46,440 --> 00:48:50,000 Speaker 2: It doesn't he's not. He's not coalites for me, Well, 785 00:48:50,040 --> 00:48:54,120 Speaker 2: he's not cooperative in the cosmic sense. But in the 786 00:48:54,520 --> 00:48:58,640 Speaker 2: law enforcement sense, what you what you gauge cooperation on 787 00:48:59,200 --> 00:49:02,840 Speaker 2: is how did the guy I act after the police 788 00:49:03,360 --> 00:49:07,440 Speaker 2: you know, were onto him and after you know, he 789 00:49:07,560 --> 00:49:10,439 Speaker 2: was confronted with what he had done. So you're right, 790 00:49:10,480 --> 00:49:14,360 Speaker 2: I mean, there's decades of bad behavior, and the nature 791 00:49:14,360 --> 00:49:17,879 Speaker 2: of this is that he was uncooperative. But when you're 792 00:49:17,920 --> 00:49:21,600 Speaker 2: talking about cooperation in a law enforcement sense and whether 793 00:49:21,680 --> 00:49:26,520 Speaker 2: a court would give somebody credit for cooperating at sentencing, 794 00:49:27,400 --> 00:49:30,040 Speaker 2: what that deems with is the small window of time 795 00:49:30,080 --> 00:49:33,759 Speaker 2: between the time the police and the prosecutors confront the 796 00:49:33,760 --> 00:49:37,280 Speaker 2: person with his wrongdoing and then how does he act. 797 00:49:37,520 --> 00:49:41,120 Speaker 2: So what her is saying is when Biden, when this 798 00:49:41,239 --> 00:49:47,239 Speaker 2: problem erupted, of it being publicly known or at least 799 00:49:47,280 --> 00:49:51,480 Speaker 2: known to the Justice Department that Biden had hoarded classified information, 800 00:49:52,040 --> 00:49:56,120 Speaker 2: at that point, he cooperated with the investigators and allowed 801 00:49:56,120 --> 00:49:58,400 Speaker 2: the FBI, without having to get a search warrant or 802 00:49:58,440 --> 00:50:02,720 Speaker 2: anything else, to search his residence and so forth. Whereas 803 00:50:02,800 --> 00:50:05,640 Speaker 2: Trump fought the government for eighteen months and even when 804 00:50:05,680 --> 00:50:09,480 Speaker 2: he got a subpoena. You know, he defied the subpoena, 805 00:50:09,600 --> 00:50:12,200 Speaker 2: So that's what they mean by that. I'm not disagreeing 806 00:50:12,239 --> 00:50:13,880 Speaker 2: with you about the content. I think that, you know, 807 00:50:13,920 --> 00:50:15,239 Speaker 2: the conduct goes back for it. 808 00:50:15,320 --> 00:50:16,960 Speaker 1: I think I've just I think I've just ated a 809 00:50:17,000 --> 00:50:20,759 Speaker 1: point where I don't trust them, and I don't trust that, 810 00:50:21,120 --> 00:50:22,680 Speaker 1: you know what I mean, Like they seem to have 811 00:50:22,719 --> 00:50:26,080 Speaker 1: given Biden more heads up than they did with I 812 00:50:26,200 --> 00:50:27,680 Speaker 1: just I don't know. I guess at this point, my 813 00:50:27,800 --> 00:50:31,759 Speaker 1: viewpoint of the government is so badly damaged, and my 814 00:50:32,120 --> 00:50:35,880 Speaker 1: distrust in Biden is so high that I just believe 815 00:50:35,920 --> 00:50:38,400 Speaker 1: at this point that like the rule of law doesn't 816 00:50:38,400 --> 00:50:42,839 Speaker 1: exist anymore, that we are an inherently corrupt nation. Uh, 817 00:50:42,960 --> 00:50:46,680 Speaker 1: and this administration is one of the most corrupt administrations 818 00:50:46,719 --> 00:50:48,640 Speaker 1: we've ever had. So I guess, I just I don't 819 00:50:48,680 --> 00:50:51,719 Speaker 1: believe anything that they tell us. And then even look 820 00:50:51,760 --> 00:50:53,719 Speaker 1: at hers report, who's supposed to be a good guy, 821 00:50:54,640 --> 00:50:58,000 Speaker 1: and you give Biden this ridiculous out that you know, 822 00:50:58,080 --> 00:51:03,799 Speaker 1: anyone with any sort of reasonable perspective, any level of objectivity, 823 00:51:03,840 --> 00:51:05,200 Speaker 1: you could say that's crazy. 824 00:51:06,080 --> 00:51:08,600 Speaker 2: Yeah, well, I don't you know, if they hadn't done 825 00:51:08,960 --> 00:51:13,839 Speaker 2: you know, they Act. They obviously went you know, they 826 00:51:13,880 --> 00:51:16,600 Speaker 2: went crazy on the Trump case, and if they had 827 00:51:16,600 --> 00:51:18,920 Speaker 2: given Trump a pass, I don't think anybody would have 828 00:51:18,960 --> 00:51:22,040 Speaker 2: a lot of heartburn about you know, Biden getting a pass, 829 00:51:22,239 --> 00:51:26,200 Speaker 2: especially since nobody really expected him to be prosecuted anyhow. 830 00:51:26,600 --> 00:51:29,440 Speaker 2: But I do think to your point that if you're 831 00:51:29,480 --> 00:51:32,400 Speaker 2: going to play this two tiers of justice game and 832 00:51:32,440 --> 00:51:36,960 Speaker 2: they're unabashed about it now, they're completely unapologetic, as we 833 00:51:37,000 --> 00:51:40,040 Speaker 2: said before, you know, in New York, they're running for 834 00:51:40,160 --> 00:51:43,160 Speaker 2: office saying, you know, elect me, and I'm going to 835 00:51:43,200 --> 00:51:50,120 Speaker 2: get this guy. So I think the credibility of the 836 00:51:50,320 --> 00:51:55,520 Speaker 2: justice system depends on people's belief that they're going to 837 00:51:55,560 --> 00:51:59,840 Speaker 2: treat everybody the same, that we actually do have equal 838 00:52:00,000 --> 00:52:03,800 Speaker 2: detection of law, and we all know that, like you know, historically, 839 00:52:03,840 --> 00:52:06,520 Speaker 2: people who have connections do better than people who don't 840 00:52:06,520 --> 00:52:09,359 Speaker 2: have connections. But we've never had a situation where it's 841 00:52:09,400 --> 00:52:12,440 Speaker 2: as stark as it is today that if you have 842 00:52:12,520 --> 00:52:15,160 Speaker 2: a D after your name, you get one quality of justice, 843 00:52:15,200 --> 00:52:18,560 Speaker 2: and if you're Trump or a conservative Republican, you get 844 00:52:18,560 --> 00:52:20,680 Speaker 2: a very different You wouldn't even call it a quality 845 00:52:20,760 --> 00:52:25,960 Speaker 2: of justice, it's you basically get persecuted at least when 846 00:52:26,239 --> 00:52:30,839 Speaker 2: you have the Obama Biden Harris Justice Department, which we've 847 00:52:30,840 --> 00:52:34,080 Speaker 2: had for you know, twelve of the last sixteen years, 848 00:52:35,640 --> 00:52:35,799 Speaker 2: you know. 849 00:52:36,120 --> 00:52:39,279 Speaker 1: And last question, and I appreciate you taking so much times. 850 00:52:39,360 --> 00:52:42,000 Speaker 1: It's hard to really go through this stuff quickly, you know, 851 00:52:42,040 --> 00:52:44,440 Speaker 1: because there's so much to it and there's so much complexity, 852 00:52:44,480 --> 00:52:46,840 Speaker 1: and I just I learned so much every time I 853 00:52:46,880 --> 00:52:48,920 Speaker 1: have you on. So I really appreciate you taking so 854 00:52:49,000 --> 00:52:51,480 Speaker 1: much time with us. The last thing I wanted to 855 00:52:51,520 --> 00:52:55,840 Speaker 1: ask before we go, So, I think politically the case 856 00:52:55,880 --> 00:52:58,880 Speaker 1: out of Fulton County has been badly damaged by Fanny 857 00:52:58,920 --> 00:53:05,200 Speaker 1: Willis and her actions, But legally has it been damaged 858 00:53:05,600 --> 00:53:06,879 Speaker 1: by her actions? 859 00:53:07,280 --> 00:53:09,920 Speaker 2: Yeah? The thing that bonds me most about this, Lisa 860 00:53:10,160 --> 00:53:14,600 Speaker 2: is I think the problem with the Fulton County case 861 00:53:15,080 --> 00:53:19,719 Speaker 2: is the case. You know. I think that Fanny Willis's 862 00:53:19,800 --> 00:53:26,160 Speaker 2: actions are an add on that should make people who 863 00:53:26,239 --> 00:53:29,360 Speaker 2: were suspicious of this whole thing more confident in their suspicions. 864 00:53:29,400 --> 00:53:32,680 Speaker 2: That is that like, either you know, she's acting very 865 00:53:32,680 --> 00:53:38,120 Speaker 2: politically or she's incompetent. But the problem with the Fulton 866 00:53:38,160 --> 00:53:41,640 Speaker 2: County case is the case. The problem with the Fulton 867 00:53:41,640 --> 00:53:45,239 Speaker 2: County case is she's indicted nineteen people as if they 868 00:53:45,239 --> 00:53:49,840 Speaker 2: were an organization, whereas the fact of the matter is 869 00:53:49,880 --> 00:53:52,359 Speaker 2: the nineteen people she's indicted the only thing they've ever 870 00:53:52,440 --> 00:53:55,439 Speaker 2: done together is get indicted. You know, I think most 871 00:53:55,480 --> 00:53:57,719 Speaker 2: of the people didn't even know a good way to 872 00:53:57,719 --> 00:54:00,960 Speaker 2: say it, of the existence of of what some of 873 00:54:00,960 --> 00:54:03,759 Speaker 2: the others were doing. And the biggest problem she has, 874 00:54:03,800 --> 00:54:06,080 Speaker 2: and this goes to a very basic thing in the 875 00:54:06,120 --> 00:54:10,720 Speaker 2: criminal law that it frustrates me that people don't seem 876 00:54:10,760 --> 00:54:14,240 Speaker 2: to grasp when I think if this was a Democrat 877 00:54:14,239 --> 00:54:15,840 Speaker 2: who was in the hot seat, it would be the 878 00:54:15,880 --> 00:54:20,120 Speaker 2: first thing on everyone's mind, and that is to have 879 00:54:20,239 --> 00:54:23,719 Speaker 2: a conspiracy. In the criminal law, you have to A 880 00:54:23,800 --> 00:54:27,680 Speaker 2: conspiracy is an agreement by two or more people to 881 00:54:27,880 --> 00:54:33,000 Speaker 2: violate a law right. And the reason I make that 882 00:54:33,120 --> 00:54:37,400 Speaker 2: basic point is trying to overturn the result of an 883 00:54:37,440 --> 00:54:42,680 Speaker 2: election is not a crime. There's a process for trying 884 00:54:42,719 --> 00:54:47,400 Speaker 2: to overturn the result of an election in all fifty states. 885 00:54:49,040 --> 00:54:52,880 Speaker 2: Now you can in the course of let's say you 886 00:54:52,920 --> 00:54:55,800 Speaker 2: had nineteen people who agreed to try to overturn the election. 887 00:54:56,200 --> 00:54:58,680 Speaker 2: You don't have a conspiracy because that's not a crime. 888 00:54:59,400 --> 00:55:02,080 Speaker 2: You can't have in the criminal law. You can't have 889 00:55:02,120 --> 00:55:05,600 Speaker 2: an agreement to do something that's legal be charged as 890 00:55:05,600 --> 00:55:09,400 Speaker 2: a conspiracy. That's not to say that if you have 891 00:55:09,560 --> 00:55:13,440 Speaker 2: nineteen people who agree on a legal objective, that everything 892 00:55:13,480 --> 00:55:16,279 Speaker 2: they do in trying to accomplish it is legal. So 893 00:55:16,440 --> 00:55:20,080 Speaker 2: like if they went into you know, into if they 894 00:55:20,120 --> 00:55:26,200 Speaker 2: had unauthorized access into the voting database, as like one 895 00:55:26,280 --> 00:55:29,400 Speaker 2: scheme charges, that would be a crime, but that wouldn't 896 00:55:29,440 --> 00:55:32,480 Speaker 2: turn it into you know, that wouldn't turn a conspiracy 897 00:55:32,520 --> 00:55:35,439 Speaker 2: to overturn the result of the election into a crime. 898 00:55:35,480 --> 00:55:39,520 Speaker 2: It's just not one. So I think Fanny Willis may 899 00:55:39,560 --> 00:55:43,520 Speaker 2: be competent enough to understand this, and therefore she tried 900 00:55:43,560 --> 00:55:47,000 Speaker 2: to paper it over with rico. But you know, having 901 00:55:47,040 --> 00:55:51,640 Speaker 2: tried a lot of federal rico cases, you know, more 902 00:55:51,680 --> 00:55:57,759 Speaker 2: decades ago than I care to admit, she doesn't have 903 00:55:57,800 --> 00:56:04,000 Speaker 2: a rico because a rico a racketeering organization is something like, 904 00:56:04,080 --> 00:56:07,879 Speaker 2: for example, the Gambino family of the mafia, right where 905 00:56:07,920 --> 00:56:12,960 Speaker 2: everybody understands that they're associated with a particular organization and 906 00:56:13,040 --> 00:56:18,319 Speaker 2: the activities that they commit are in addition to enriching themselves, 907 00:56:20,800 --> 00:56:26,239 Speaker 2: they are conducted for the purpose of sustaining the existence 908 00:56:26,280 --> 00:56:30,960 Speaker 2: of the organization so that it continues to garner wealth 909 00:56:31,000 --> 00:56:34,160 Speaker 2: and power. Now, compare that to what we have here, 910 00:56:34,560 --> 00:56:39,080 Speaker 2: which is nineteen people, many of whom don't even know 911 00:56:39,200 --> 00:56:43,279 Speaker 2: each other or know of each other, and they don't 912 00:56:43,320 --> 00:56:46,520 Speaker 2: think of themselves as an organization. They don't think. They 913 00:56:46,520 --> 00:56:49,840 Speaker 2: didn't say, gee, let me join the enterprise of trying 914 00:56:49,880 --> 00:56:53,120 Speaker 2: to get the election overturned. And even if there was 915 00:56:53,200 --> 00:56:58,560 Speaker 2: such a thing, which is unrealistic, that endeavor was going 916 00:56:58,600 --> 00:57:03,120 Speaker 2: to end on jen January twentieth of twenty twenty one, 917 00:57:03,280 --> 00:57:05,719 Speaker 2: one way or the other. Either Trump was either they 918 00:57:05,719 --> 00:57:08,440 Speaker 2: were going to achieve the objective of getting the election 919 00:57:08,560 --> 00:57:13,200 Speaker 2: overturned or they weren't. But the organization was not one 920 00:57:13,239 --> 00:57:16,640 Speaker 2: that they were trying to sustain in time and space 921 00:57:16,720 --> 00:57:20,680 Speaker 2: so that it could gain more wealth and power. It 922 00:57:20,720 --> 00:57:24,760 Speaker 2: was going to disintegrate. So she doesn't have a conspiracy 923 00:57:25,160 --> 00:57:28,400 Speaker 2: and she doesn't have a recomb and as a result, 924 00:57:28,680 --> 00:57:32,480 Speaker 2: I've always thought this case was ridiculous. Now we find 925 00:57:32,960 --> 00:57:36,640 Speaker 2: that she's engaged in all kinds of what seemed to 926 00:57:36,720 --> 00:57:42,720 Speaker 2: be corrupt activities. The salacious stuff is one thing, and 927 00:57:42,760 --> 00:57:46,840 Speaker 2: it's what you know Obviously it gets Unfortunately, it's gotten 928 00:57:46,840 --> 00:57:51,800 Speaker 2: more attention than the infirmities of the cases gotten. But 929 00:57:52,000 --> 00:57:57,280 Speaker 2: I think in terms of her exposure, the thing that's 930 00:57:57,320 --> 00:58:03,200 Speaker 2: important is did she we misrepresent to the county that 931 00:58:03,800 --> 00:58:08,200 Speaker 2: she needed these funds to address a COVID backlog and 932 00:58:08,240 --> 00:58:11,160 Speaker 2: then she diverted some of the funds that she was given. 933 00:58:11,200 --> 00:58:13,920 Speaker 2: This is extra funding she was given to hire this 934 00:58:14,040 --> 00:58:19,000 Speaker 2: Wade guy who doesn't have any experience doing racketeering cases, 935 00:58:19,040 --> 00:58:21,720 Speaker 2: so that they clearly didn't need him for that purpose, 936 00:58:22,280 --> 00:58:25,240 Speaker 2: and she paid him more lavishly. He made even more 937 00:58:25,240 --> 00:58:28,080 Speaker 2: money than she makes as the boss of the office, 938 00:58:28,800 --> 00:58:32,640 Speaker 2: and so she diverted the funds for the COVID backlog 939 00:58:32,760 --> 00:58:36,640 Speaker 2: to pay him, and then she derived benefit from it 940 00:58:36,680 --> 00:58:39,760 Speaker 2: because they go off on these lavish vacations and in 941 00:58:39,800 --> 00:58:45,080 Speaker 2: the meantime it looks like they've lied potentially on sworn documents. 942 00:58:45,440 --> 00:58:49,240 Speaker 2: So they have ethical problems and they have potential fraud problems. 943 00:58:49,480 --> 00:58:51,880 Speaker 2: The reason I lay out the fraud in that way 944 00:58:52,440 --> 00:58:56,200 Speaker 2: is there's a federal statute that makes it a crime 945 00:58:57,000 --> 00:59:01,720 Speaker 2: if you are a state agency that gets government funding, 946 00:59:01,760 --> 00:59:06,160 Speaker 2: which the Fulton County District Attorney's Office does, to commit fraud, 947 00:59:06,560 --> 00:59:11,440 Speaker 2: you know, for example, to divert funding for your own purposes. 948 00:59:11,920 --> 00:59:14,760 Speaker 2: And you know, this is a delicious little detail to 949 00:59:15,120 --> 00:59:21,480 Speaker 2: probably end with, but fraud in federal law is a 950 00:59:21,560 --> 00:59:24,520 Speaker 2: racketeering predicate. So I don't know if she's got a 951 00:59:24,600 --> 00:59:27,800 Speaker 2: RICO case in Fulton County, but someone may end up 952 00:59:27,800 --> 00:59:31,840 Speaker 2: having a reco case against her, although a competent prosecutor 953 00:59:32,280 --> 00:59:35,000 Speaker 2: wouldn't charge it as a RICO because you don't try 954 00:59:35,040 --> 00:59:40,520 Speaker 2: to turn something into you know, an elaborate circus when 955 00:59:40,840 --> 00:59:44,200 Speaker 2: you have a statute like fraud that's perfectly serviceable to 956 00:59:44,360 --> 00:59:47,520 Speaker 2: the purpose. And what I've always said about Fanny Willis's 957 00:59:47,600 --> 00:59:52,560 Speaker 2: case is not that no wrongdoing necessarily took place, but 958 00:59:52,680 --> 00:59:56,360 Speaker 2: it should have been charges like eight different small crimes. 959 00:59:57,040 --> 00:59:59,880 Speaker 2: And you're seeing that from the fact that four p 960 01:00:00,000 --> 01:00:03,040 Speaker 2: people have pled guilty and not a single one of 961 01:00:03,080 --> 01:00:05,920 Speaker 2: them pled guilty to rico. Not a single one of 962 01:00:05,960 --> 01:00:09,000 Speaker 2: them is looking at a day in jail. So all 963 01:00:09,040 --> 01:00:14,800 Speaker 2: this was was basically she did the case that was 964 01:00:15,360 --> 01:00:19,600 Speaker 2: the dream case of the January sixth Committee. She got 965 01:00:19,600 --> 01:00:23,400 Speaker 2: a big splash for, you know, saying rico and connection 966 01:00:23,520 --> 01:00:25,800 Speaker 2: with Trump, because that makes him sound like a mafia 967 01:00:25,840 --> 01:00:28,760 Speaker 2: don But when push comes to show she doesn't have 968 01:00:28,800 --> 01:00:31,840 Speaker 2: a RICO and when she pled people out, they didn't 969 01:00:31,880 --> 01:00:35,440 Speaker 2: plead to RICO, and a normal competent prosecutor in a 970 01:00:35,520 --> 01:00:39,240 Speaker 2: racketeering case, the first cooperators who come in the door, 971 01:00:40,320 --> 01:00:42,440 Speaker 2: what you do is you make them plead guilty to 972 01:00:42,480 --> 01:00:45,280 Speaker 2: the RICO charge. You know, they get into court and 973 01:00:45,920 --> 01:00:47,480 Speaker 2: the judge says to them, what did you do to 974 01:00:47,520 --> 01:00:50,800 Speaker 2: make you guilty? And you say, I was involved in 975 01:00:50,840 --> 01:00:54,360 Speaker 2: a racketeering conspiracy. Here's what I did, Here's what President 976 01:00:54,360 --> 01:00:57,000 Speaker 2: Trump did, Here's what all these other people did. And 977 01:00:57,040 --> 01:01:00,040 Speaker 2: then if you get that, the reason prosecutors want that 978 01:01:00,560 --> 01:01:04,760 Speaker 2: is it convinces the public that you actually have a case, 979 01:01:05,400 --> 01:01:11,120 Speaker 2: and it makes your guilty pleading cooperators much more credible 980 01:01:11,160 --> 01:01:13,520 Speaker 2: in front of the jury than they'd are thewise be. 981 01:01:14,240 --> 01:01:17,520 Speaker 2: So if you actually have a RICO case, you make 982 01:01:17,560 --> 01:01:20,360 Speaker 2: those people plead guilty to rico. She made them plead 983 01:01:20,360 --> 01:01:23,480 Speaker 2: guilty to nonsense. And they're not even you know, for 984 01:01:23,520 --> 01:01:27,600 Speaker 2: a case where they said in the press release after 985 01:01:27,600 --> 01:01:31,080 Speaker 2: they announced it that our democracy was hanging by a thread. 986 01:01:31,120 --> 01:01:33,720 Speaker 2: We almost lost our country. We got four of the 987 01:01:33,760 --> 01:01:35,840 Speaker 2: main people have pled guilty and they're not doing a 988 01:01:35,920 --> 01:01:38,000 Speaker 2: day in jail. Some insurrection. 989 01:01:38,760 --> 01:01:41,800 Speaker 1: Yeah, it's like the threat to democracy. People sure love 990 01:01:41,960 --> 01:01:47,240 Speaker 1: destroying it. Eddie McCarthy, I really appreciate your time. You 991 01:01:47,280 --> 01:01:49,760 Speaker 1: do such a great job breaking this all down and 992 01:01:50,160 --> 01:01:54,200 Speaker 1: just speaking from experience, and you really break it down 993 01:01:54,400 --> 01:01:57,240 Speaker 1: in such in such a meaningful way. So I just 994 01:01:57,240 --> 01:01:59,800 Speaker 1: really appreciate you taking the time to join the show 995 01:02:00,120 --> 01:02:01,680 Speaker 1: to do that for my audience and me. 996 01:02:02,320 --> 01:02:04,240 Speaker 2: Thanks so much, Lisa, It's been a pleasure that. 997 01:02:04,320 --> 01:02:07,280 Speaker 1: Was Andy McCarthy. Appreciate him taking so much time to 998 01:02:07,320 --> 01:02:10,000 Speaker 1: break down all those complicated issues. I appreciate you at 999 01:02:10,000 --> 01:02:12,640 Speaker 1: home for listening every Monday and Thursday, but you can 1000 01:02:12,680 --> 01:02:14,680 Speaker 1: listen throughout the week. What do I think John Cassi 1001 01:02:14,720 --> 01:02:17,280 Speaker 1: and my producer for putting the show together. Until next time.