Speaker 1: Good morning, peeps, and welcome to Okay f Daily with
Speaker 1: Meet your Girl Danielle Moody, recording once again from the
Speaker 1: Brooklyn Bunker. Folks. This past weekend was a busy one.
Speaker 1: I did two hits on MSNBC, one with my co
Speaker 1: host for my weekly podcast, Democracy Ish, and then another
Speaker 1: one with my friend Katie Fang on MSNBC. And I
Speaker 1: will say this, um, The New York Times did a
Speaker 1: three part series on Tucker Carlson and Tucker Carlson's racism,
Speaker 1: and what I gotta say is, I'm not so fucking
Speaker 1: sure Tucker Carlson needed a three part series in The
Speaker 1: New York Times to tell us that he's racist. I'm
Speaker 1: sure we could have done that in a sixty second clip.
Speaker 1: I'm pretty sure that that could have been done in
Speaker 1: a fucking tweet. That giving him that much prime real estate,
Speaker 1: I think only goes to reinforce, particularly to his rabid bass,
Speaker 1: that he's doing all the right things. I sat down
Speaker 1: with Katie Fang over the weekend for a one on
Speaker 1: one interview with her because I have spoken out many
Speaker 1: times about Tucker Carlson. I believe that Tucker Carlson is
Speaker 1: a threat to national security. I believe that his show,
Speaker 1: As I said with my co host washahat Ali on
Speaker 1: Yasmin Vesugian Show on yesterday. On Sunday, I said that
Speaker 1: I believe that Tucker Carlson and Fox News like they
Speaker 1: need to come with warning labels right where you're watching
Speaker 1: their shows, and right before it comes on, it goes black,
Speaker 1: much in the same way that happens on Netflix and
Speaker 1: Hulu and what have you up in that corner while
Speaker 1: the screen is black, it says, oh, this content contains nudity, violence,
Speaker 1: explicit language, triggering abuse, blah blah blah blah blah blah.
Speaker 1: Why don't we do that? I've been saying this for years.
Speaker 1: Right when Tucker Carlson was sued many many moons ago,
Speaker 1: the judge came back and said that, well, nobody in
Speaker 1: their reasonable mind would consider Fox News News right that
Speaker 1: it is for entertainment purposes. Well, if that is so,
Speaker 1: then why doesn't right before Tucker Carlson show go on.
Speaker 1: Why isn't it black that says for entertainment right just
Speaker 1: as you go into bedback then beyond their life as
Speaker 1: seen on TV for entertainment purposes only, this show contains misogyny, homophobia, transphobia, racism,
Speaker 1: explicit language, all of these things and just list it all.
Speaker 1: What got me though, and why I think that the
Speaker 1: New York Times series was problematic is because I don't
Speaker 1: need again a three part series delving into one man's racism.
Speaker 1: What we do deserve a three part series on in
Speaker 1: the New York Times, however, is America's racism, And how
Speaker 1: Tucker Carlson could have the number one news show in
Speaker 1: the country because he is a rabid racist, and why
Speaker 1: we would love to believe that he is operating outside
Speaker 1: on the fringe somewhere. What I said very explicitly over
Speaker 1: the weekend was that this is no longer the fringe,
Speaker 1: right like what we thought was crazy four and five
Speaker 1: years ago has now been mainstreamed and mainlined into the
Speaker 1: Republican Party. We saw this with the confirmation hearings for
Speaker 1: Judge Brown Jackson. We heard them try and kind of
Speaker 1: walk her into this sad pit of pedophilia. Meanwhile, like
Speaker 1: I had said before, Daily Coast has put out a
Speaker 1: thirty plus part series on Republican abused, sexual abusers, predators
Speaker 1: and apologists. Why isn't that worthy of a three part series?
Speaker 1: In the New York Times to show how far devolved
Speaker 1: the Republican Party has become. So you give this man
Speaker 1: all of this fucking primetime real estate, right only for
Speaker 1: him to take a picture of the cover of the
Speaker 1: paper and be like, look, mom, I've made it, and
Speaker 1: then just give him more fodder. And here's the thing.
Speaker 1: I do not believe in ignoring these people, because they're
Speaker 1: not going to go away, right, Like you can ignore COVID,
Speaker 1: but at the end of the day, you may and
Speaker 1: fact catch it or it's going to continue spreading because
Speaker 1: it's a fucking virus and it needs you to be
Speaker 1: paying attention to it. Well, I can say the same
Speaker 1: thing about white supremacy. It is a fucking cancer and
Speaker 1: a virus on our society. You want to talk about
Speaker 1: a pandemic, right, it is the pandemic of white nationalism
Speaker 1: that nobody's been paying attention to. Even though ten years
Speaker 1: ago a report came out to tell us about the
Speaker 1: place that we would be in right now if we
Speaker 1: were to decide that we weren't going to be paying attention. Right, Remember,
Speaker 1: the FBI put this out and then all of a sudden, no,
Speaker 1: there are no resources into that. Instead we're going to
Speaker 1: direct our attention and our resources to black extremist groups. Well,
Speaker 1: you tell me the last time you heard about a
Speaker 1: black extremist group raiding the Capitol building, killing a police
Speaker 1: officer and you know, injuring many hundreds in the process.
Speaker 1: You tell me the last time that you remember a
Speaker 1: black extremist group walking into a church and killing a
Speaker 1: group of praying parishioners. You tell me the last time
Speaker 1: you heard of a black extremist group being directed by
Speaker 1: the President of the United States to stand back and
Speaker 1: stand by. So while white people love to project out
Speaker 1: on to the rest of society that it is the
Speaker 1: black and brown quote unquote menaces, because that's what was
Speaker 1: said in the New York Times article as well, that
Speaker 1: they've made conscious decisions about what they are going to showcase,
Speaker 1: and it doesn't matter if it is factual or not.
Speaker 1: It matters if it's going to sell to the rapid
Speaker 1: red bass. And they know Tucker Carlson knows exactly what
Speaker 1: sells right. It is hate and division. And what pissed
Speaker 1: me off most about the article is that they want
Speaker 1: to be like, oh, he's been like wood or seduced
Speaker 1: by white nativism and white nationalism. I'm like, you know,
Speaker 1: is it about ratings or is it really who he is?
Speaker 1: It's who this motherfucker is. Why are we stay trying
Speaker 1: to make excuses for these people as if to conjure
Speaker 1: up a way to say to ourselves, No, they can't
Speaker 1: possibly be this racist, No, they can't possibly be this misogynistic. No,
Speaker 1: they can't possibly believe that trans children deserve bullets on
Speaker 1: their backs, right, deserve targets on their backs, and deserve
Speaker 1: a life that is let in a closet or face
Speaker 1: being riddled with violence? Like, why can't we believe who
Speaker 1: these people are when they show us time and time again.
Speaker 1: I just don't get it. I'm like, here's the thing.
Speaker 1: Tucker Carlson is not pretending to be a good person.
Speaker 1: Tucker Carlson is not pretending to be neutral. He lives
Speaker 1: in an alternate universe. And the most interesting thing about
Speaker 1: that article was the fact that he has created a
Speaker 1: fucking bubble for himself, right, a feedback loop bubble. And
Speaker 1: this is what I always fear with myself because I
Speaker 1: have tons of friends and colleagues and folks that are
Speaker 1: in the sphere, and I'm like, I'm not trying to
Speaker 1: preach to them. I'm not trying to convince them. And
Speaker 1: so what do other people think? Right? But Tucker Carlson
Speaker 1: can't take what it is that other people think, which
Speaker 1: is why he has created this like a this vacuum
Speaker 1: around him. But much in the same way that Donald
Speaker 1: Trump couldn't take any criticism. Right, these big strong men,
Speaker 1: But the moment that you say some hot shit about
Speaker 1: them that is fucking true, or put their own words
Speaker 1: in front of them allah a Marjorie Taylor Green on
Speaker 1: the stand, then they want to cry fout. Oh the
Speaker 1: media is run by liberals. Well, I don't know about you,
Speaker 1: but there have been a number a fucking advertisers that
Speaker 1: pulled from Tucker Carlson's show. But it's still not only
Speaker 1: the number one show, but it is the highest grossing
Speaker 1: for Fox News. So you tell me, is he the aggrieved? Right?
Speaker 1: Is he the person that needs to be coddled and
Speaker 1: handled in the way that he professes? Oh? My god.
Speaker 1: Replacement theory and the fact that these illegals and these
Speaker 1: browns are coming in to the country and they are
Speaker 1: replacing me and the hierarchy, the order of things is
Speaker 1: being thrown off. Well, Let's talk about that hierarchy. Let's
Speaker 1: talk about the ways in which white men, white Cish
Speaker 1: hetero men have created a society where only them and
Speaker 1: them alone can succeed and even when there are the
Speaker 1: black and the Browns and the women and those that
Speaker 1: intersect with multiple marginalized communities happen to rise above. Then
Speaker 1: you want to what try and call us a pedophile
Speaker 1: like you did to Judge Jackson Brown, whose record is
Speaker 1: impeccable in comparison to the Beer Guslin rapist that you
Speaker 1: all put on the fucking bench. Miss me with the
Speaker 1: bullshit right, you know, would have rather see a three
Speaker 1: part series on Mallory mcmarrow and how her authenticity, her
Speaker 1: passion needs to be replicated that we saw out on
Speaker 1: the floor of the Michigan Senate as opposed to the
Speaker 1: bullshit dance that we are seeing senators in our party take. Oh,
Speaker 1: if I hear one more time that fucking Joe Mansion
Speaker 1: is really concerned or like we need to delve into
Speaker 1: this with regard to voting rights, I'm like, Joe Mansion,
Speaker 1: shut the fuck up unless you were about to vote
Speaker 1: yes on a voting rights bill and changing of the
Speaker 1: filibuster before fucking time runs out in November. Shut the
Speaker 1: fuck up. Ain't nobody trying to hear you, pay attention
Speaker 1: to you? And frankly, if fucking Schumer were smart, he
Speaker 1: would put Joe Mansion into a fucking applause vacuum. He
Speaker 1: is such an attention whore. Take his name out of
Speaker 1: the headlines, take away the gaggle of reporters that follow
Speaker 1: him around so that he feels important, and instead, if
Speaker 1: he's going to grab a headline, let it be Joe
Speaker 1: Mansion alone. Wants to stop democracy, Right, let's tell the
Speaker 1: fucking truth. But we don't. Right, We perpetuate the same
Speaker 1: level of lies and bullshit because of ratings, right, because
Speaker 1: of clicks. This weekend, I got to tell you that
Speaker 1: between that story, listening to Marjorie Taylor Green's clips talk
Speaker 1: about how Satan has taken over the church, I'm just
Speaker 1: beside myself, folks, and it's Monday, but I am beside
Speaker 1: myself with the fuckery that we are seeing out of
Speaker 1: this country. So the question continues to be asked, our
Speaker 1: Democrats going to show up? Because Nancy Pelosi was up
Speaker 1: in Kiev in Ukraine talking about you don't back down
Speaker 1: to a bully, and I'm like, so does it not
Speaker 1: apply here in the United States? When Democrats are fucking
Speaker 1: coutelling to Republicans left and right. Does that same hot
Speaker 1: energy that you have for Putin? Does that translate? Is
Speaker 1: the question that I'm asking, because it doesn't fucking seem
Speaker 1: to I'm tired of Democrats tough talks, finger wagging, and
Speaker 1: trying to shame people that are shameless. Tucker Carlson, what
Speaker 1: he got from New York Times is a bunch of
Speaker 1: free advertising, right when instead the New York Times should
Speaker 1: be doing multiple part series on how systemic racism is
Speaker 1: the reason why we have the racial wealth gap, doing
Speaker 1: breaking pieces on how we should be fearful about the
Speaker 1: loss of our democracy and why folks need to wake
Speaker 1: the fuck up. Not you doing a fucking profile piece
Speaker 1: on Tucker Carlson, folks. Coming up next is my weekly
Speaker 1: conversation with our friend Glenn Kershner, MSNBC legal analyst and
Speaker 1: the host of Justice Matters, talking to us about what
Speaker 1: whether or not the Department of Justice is going to
Speaker 1: act like it is an agency with authority and power
Speaker 1: to do something about the criminal Twice impeached ex President
Speaker 1: and this allow his ability to run for office again
Speaker 1: in twenty twenty four. That conversation is coming up and
Speaker 1: much more. Friends, You know that I'm always so happy
Speaker 1: when our friend MSNBC legal analyst and the host of
Speaker 1: Justice Matters, Glenn Kershner, joins us to break down the
Speaker 1: latest in unlawful news. Right, we can't talk about justice, Glenn,
Speaker 1: because we're still waiting on that, but we have a
Speaker 1: bevy a bevy of unlawful stories came out this past week,
Speaker 1: so I want to start first with Marjorie Taylor Green.
Speaker 1: Marjorie Taylor Green, We've watched her in Georgia lie on
Speaker 1: the stand when asked about her connection to the insurrection,
Speaker 1: her calling for violence the day of the insurrection at
Speaker 1: the Stop to Steel rally. We've seen now the trove
Speaker 1: of text messages over two thousand that CNN was able
Speaker 1: to get from the Mark Meadows Treasonous Treasure trove, where
Speaker 1: she's talking about martial law. But then goes on Fox
Speaker 1: News and says, I don't know what everybody's talking about.
Speaker 1: I never said anything. I never called for a violence, Glenn.
Speaker 1: Do they think that we're stupid or do they think
Speaker 1: that if they act stupid. Then then this will all
Speaker 1: blow over. You know. My assumption is that because they
Speaker 1: have seen zero accountability, visit any of the political criminals
Speaker 1: that you know, we've seen committing crime with our own
Speaker 1: Because there's no accountability, why would they bother telling the
Speaker 1: truth about anything, particularly anything that could incriminate them or
Speaker 1: make them look bad. So even though she there are
Speaker 1: texts where Marjorie Taylor Green says, look, I'm talking to
Speaker 1: members about martial law, tell Trump he needs to consider it,
Speaker 1: and an under oath in front of a judge. I
Speaker 1: don't remember, I don't ever remember talking about that. Well,
Speaker 1: first of all, I don't remember. Is not a perjury
Speaker 1: proof answer, especially on something so consequential as a member
Speaker 1: of Congress saying tell the President of the United States
Speaker 1: that members of Congress think he should impose martial law.
Speaker 1: It's absurd to have her say I don't remember and
Speaker 1: think she can get away with it. But if there's
Speaker 1: no accountability, Danielle, she can get away with it, and
Speaker 1: that's why she does it. Let's let's I want to
Speaker 1: provide uh the woke af audience with the severity of
Speaker 1: martial law. Right, what can you recall a time in
Speaker 1: modern times where martial law. We're a president of these
Speaker 1: United States has instituted martial law, which which and again
Speaker 1: just describe for us what that what that would look like.
Speaker 1: I mean, it's essentially the president, um, you know, seizing
Speaker 1: military control and being able to deny anyone and every
Speaker 1: one of the rights that we all typically think we enjoy. Um,
Speaker 1: it hasn't been done in modern history. And um, you know,
Speaker 1: for for members of Congress to be urging a president
Speaker 1: to do it, m is kind of the flip side
Speaker 1: of the coin of what we heard from some of
Speaker 1: the McCarthy tapes where he and Liz Cheney are casually
Speaker 1: talking about, well, remember how we were talking about the
Speaker 1: twenty fifth Amendment, how we should consider removing Donald Trump
Speaker 1: from office for unfitness. Oh yeah, Liz, I remember we
Speaker 1: were talking about that, and you know what, I think
Speaker 1: maybe he should just resign the presidency. And McCarthy is
Speaker 1: saying that he's going to recommend that Donald Trump resigned
Speaker 1: the presidency. This is flips the flip side of the
Speaker 1: same coin. You got some members of Congress saying keep
Speaker 1: the criminal president in office and have him declare martial
Speaker 1: law to basically kill our democracy. You've got other members
Speaker 1: of Congress saying he's unfit to serve under the twenty
Speaker 1: fifth Amendment, he needs to resign, and then to cap
Speaker 1: it all off, This is actually my favorite part of
Speaker 1: the McCarthy tapes. McCarthy said, I'm gonna go in and
Speaker 1: tell him to resign, but I just don't want him
Speaker 1: to bring up the Pence pardon thing. Boy, that was
Speaker 1: a really important revelation because McCarthy didn't just pull that
Speaker 1: out of the air. It tells me that if McCarthy
Speaker 1: is so concerned that Trump is again going to bring
Speaker 1: up the Pence pardon thing, that tells me that Donald
Speaker 1: Trump knows he committed crime, knows that if he resigns,
Speaker 1: he's going to have to be pardoned by incoming president
Speaker 1: Mike Pence. And McCarthy doesn't want to have to deal
Speaker 1: with the Pence pardoned thing again. For Christ's sake, excuse
Speaker 1: my language, how can we not have McCarthy testify about
Speaker 1: those things, because not we all know Donald Trump's a criminal, right,
Speaker 1: But that's evidence potentially of the corrupt intent that people
Speaker 1: keep whining about. It so hard to prove, which it's not.
Speaker 1: But McCarthy apparently has relevant evidence to that too. Get
Speaker 1: him under oath. I don't care if it's before the
Speaker 1: J six Committee or preferably in a federal grand jury
Speaker 1: investigating Donald Trump's crimes, and let's document this and let's
Speaker 1: move forward to protect our dang democracy. I mean, Glenn,
Speaker 1: the Pence pardon thing. So you would have to be
Speaker 1: devising some type of criminal operation for you to then
Speaker 1: think about all the ways that you can skirt justice, right,
Speaker 1: So you would be thinking to yourself, Okay, if I
Speaker 1: do a B is going to happen, So I need
Speaker 1: to cover my ass. This is what is driving me
Speaker 1: crazy because Donald Trump wanted to say, no, no, no,
Speaker 1: I honestly believed I lost, that the election was stolen. Well,
Speaker 1: if you honestly believed that the election was stole, why
Speaker 1: would you be speaking with your inner circle about potential pardon.
Speaker 1: Where would where would that fear, where would that anxiety?
Speaker 1: Where would that calculation come from? Yeah? Wouldn't you think
Speaker 1: McCarthy would have said, Uh, I don't want to go
Speaker 1: talk to Trump about resigning because I know he's gonna
Speaker 1: say I didn't do anything wrong, I didn't commit crimes. No,
Speaker 1: that's not what McCarthy said. McCarthy said, I want to
Speaker 1: go tell him to resign for everything he did, but
Speaker 1: I don't want to hear him talking about the Pence
Speaker 1: Parden thing, which goes right to your point. And that's
Speaker 1: why we need McCarthy's testimony. And I hope Congress, you know,
Speaker 1: finally pulls that tool out of its toolbox and says, oh,
Speaker 1: you want to disobey our subpoena, we got a little
Speaker 1: something for you. We're going to compel your testimony. You
Speaker 1: know why they won't do that, Danielle, Why they would
Speaker 1: rather continue to let the contemptuous witnesses win the subpoena
Speaker 1: battle rather than using a lawful power that Congress has
Speaker 1: to compel testimony. I will never ever understand that, because
Speaker 1: if they keep tying that one hand behind their back
Speaker 1: and we lose our democracy, how are they going to
Speaker 1: feel about the fact that they did not deploy their
Speaker 1: lawful constitutional power of inherent contempt. It's like, you know, Glenn,
Speaker 1: the mountain of evidence against this corrupt Republican Party because
Speaker 1: it isn't just Donald Trump. Because now I'm not just
Speaker 1: looking to take Donald Trump down. These tapes right show
Speaker 1: criminal to me, right now I'm saying it a layperson
Speaker 1: criminal intent when you are looking at the calculations on
Speaker 1: how you can skirt accountability for your criminal behavior. I mean,
Speaker 1: what else, Glenn, is the Department of Justice waiting for?
Speaker 1: And I don't even want you to answer that yet,
Speaker 1: because here's the question that I have. Last weekend, I
Speaker 1: was on MSNBC and the question was asked by Amon
Speaker 1: Mohadeen about media integrity, journalistic integrity, the fact that the
Speaker 1: McCarthy tapes, Right, we're somehow, we're somehow right. The New
Speaker 1: York Times reporters get ahold of this, but they're like,
Speaker 1: we're writing a book, so we're gonna hold this the
Speaker 1: same way that Bob Woodward held the fact that Donald
Speaker 1: Trump knew in twenty nineteen how dangerous the coronavirus was,
Speaker 1: knew that it was airborne, knew that it was deadly,
Speaker 1: but he held that information to sell a book. Right,
Speaker 1: What I mean, are these people liable for anything? And
Speaker 1: then the question that I have like that, And then
Speaker 1: number two, Joyce Vance was on the show and she
Speaker 1: was talking about the fact that whoever recorded Kevin McCarthy
Speaker 1: should be questioned, right, that it isn't just it isn't.
Speaker 1: It's this chain of just I don't know what we
Speaker 1: call it, right, these people that have this information, it
Speaker 1: is critical to the American people to have it, It
Speaker 1: is critical for the Department of Justice to have it,
Speaker 1: but they hold it. Is there any liability anywhere, so,
Speaker 1: you know, civil liability versus criminal liability. You know, the reporters,
Speaker 1: unfortunately will have a good I shouldn't say unfortunately, They
Speaker 1: will have a good bit of protection under the First
Speaker 1: Amendment about you know, what they reveal, when they reveal it,
Speaker 1: how they reveal it, And so I don't know that
Speaker 1: there would be liability for them sitting on things that
Speaker 1: you would think, you know, their own patriotic instincts would
Speaker 1: would kind of compel them to release to the public
Speaker 1: to help save lives. But I don't think they're required to,
Speaker 1: you know, so that it's different for government officials who
Speaker 1: are sitting on information, like the people who recorded the
Speaker 1: phone calls, for example, they might have some sort of exposure.
Speaker 1: But here is the way to make a dent in
Speaker 1: that there's a law on the books federally accessory after
Speaker 1: the fact. Whoever knows that somebody's committed a crime against
Speaker 1: the United States. In other words, a federal crime if
Speaker 1: that person does anything to assist the offender in avoiding
Speaker 1: apprehension or punish or charges criminal trial, they've committed the
Speaker 1: crime of accessory after the fact. So any politician who
Speaker 1: buries crimes that they know Donald Trump committed, they are
Speaker 1: assisting him in avoiding punishment for his crimes. They're also
Speaker 1: violating their oath of office. But that's not necessarily a
Speaker 1: criminal charge. And Danielle, all it takes is for the
Speaker 1: Department of Justice to bring one damn accessory after the
Speaker 1: fact charge against the Jim Jordan or a Scott Berry
Speaker 1: or a Kevin McCarthy or any of these other anys
Speaker 1: who have covered up Donald Trump's crimes. And then that's
Speaker 1: going to have the effect of one causing a whole
Speaker 1: bunch of people to start to spit stuff out because
Speaker 1: they don't want to be charged as accessories after the fact,
Speaker 1: And it's going to deter future criminal conduct by people
Speaker 1: who are thinking about burying the crimes of politicians. This
Speaker 1: is not rocket science, it's not even advanced criminal law.
Speaker 1: It's it's just it's common sense. It's good basic law
Speaker 1: enforcement and good basic prosecutorial practice. And I can't, for
Speaker 1: the life of me understand why none of it is
Speaker 1: being done. I mean, like I you know, I don't
Speaker 1: know because at this at this point, let me tell
Speaker 1: you something, my mind goes to the fact that not
Speaker 1: bringing these indictments is now showing your complicit right Like
Speaker 1: to me, at some point I have to ask about
Speaker 1: the Department of Justice's integrity and whether or not they
Speaker 1: are complicit in these crimes, because why else would you
Speaker 1: not be bringing these charges. Danielle. Think about this. If
Speaker 1: a local sheriff knew that his brother had committed crimes,
Speaker 1: and the local sheriff was like, I'm not the rest
Speaker 1: of my brother. I'm not bringing charges against my brother.
Speaker 1: That would be a criminal cover up. It would be
Speaker 1: obstructing justice. It would be a dereliction of duty. Now
Speaker 1: let's change the scenario a little bit. Let's assume a
Speaker 1: former high DOJ official join Donald Trump's conspiracy to overturn
Speaker 1: the election authored letters to the battleground states falsely claiming
Speaker 1: the Department of Justice has evidence of election fraud and
Speaker 1: we want you to appoint alternate electors. Drafts those letters,
Speaker 1: doesn't send them, Others talk him out of sending those letters,
Speaker 1: and then when questioned about it, that high government official
Speaker 1: with the Department of Justice invokes his Fifth Amendment right
Speaker 1: against self incrimination. In other words, if I hasified about
Speaker 1: what I did and what the President did, I would
Speaker 1: incriminate myself. And the Department of Justice has not charged
Speaker 1: that person, and there's no indication they're even on their
Speaker 1: way to charging that person. How far is that from
Speaker 1: the first hypothetical where a sheriff refuses to charge his brother.
Speaker 1: They feel an awful lot alike. And as I said
Speaker 1: on air yesterday, I said, that feels like cronyism at
Speaker 1: best and corruption at worst. Now, maybe we're about to
Speaker 1: see a big old indictment drop. So I'm not accusing
Speaker 1: DOJ of corruption. I'm posing the question because I think
Speaker 1: it's a fair question and one that screams out for
Speaker 1: an answer. Are we already living inside of a Banana
Speaker 1: republic like this? If you know, I've always said, you
Speaker 1: don't become a Banana republic by prosecuting political criminals. You
Speaker 1: become a Banana republic by not prosecuting political criminals or
Speaker 1: criminal politicians. So we're halfway there, We're maybe three quarters
Speaker 1: of the way there. We're not all the way there yet,
Speaker 1: but in the absence of criminal indictments of Donald Trump
Speaker 1: and all of his co conspirators, we are absolutely a
Speaker 1: banana republican. We're a banana republic where the future dictator
Speaker 1: or autocrat will have even more nuclear weapons than Vladimir
Speaker 1: Putin has. How does that make us feel? Jesus Christ,
Speaker 1: it's too early for me to drink, but my god.
Speaker 1: Let's transition to New York, where Alvin Bragg, Manhattan District Attorney,
Speaker 1: has decided to do a whole lot of nothing. This
Speaker 1: comes after, just to remind you everybody, his predecessor, side Vance,
Speaker 1: had called a special grand jury to sit for a
Speaker 1: longer period of time because guess what, the evidence was
Speaker 1: so overwhelming that they needed more than the six weeks
Speaker 1: to be able to sit and go through the evidence
Speaker 1: at hand. Alvin Bragg gets elected and then poof, the
Speaker 1: case goes nowhere. Two of the major prosecutors quit in protest.
Speaker 1: He doesn't release their letters of resignation because he says, oh,
Speaker 1: there's some evidence in there and we couldn't possibly release it,
Speaker 1: or the evidence is that somehow once again corruption Because
Speaker 1: I don't know how you come into a new job
Speaker 1: with a desk full of evidence, a special grand jury,
Speaker 1: and then out of nowhere, decide we're not going to prosecute.
Speaker 1: We're gonna this kind of fizzle out on its own.
Speaker 1: Tell me that this doesn't smell like something's not right either. Yeah,
Speaker 1: and then if we add the new Daily Beast reporting,
Speaker 1: this is going to give us all whiplash. You're ready
Speaker 1: for this because let me let me round out the
Speaker 1: picture with not only did the prosecutors resign, but Mark
Speaker 1: Pomerant's the lead prosecutor and by all accounts, just an
Speaker 1: expert mob prosecutor, white collar criminal defense attorney, seventy year
Speaker 1: old gentleman who basically was doing this for free because
Speaker 1: he felt so strongly about bringing Trump to justice. In
Speaker 1: his letter, which Alvin Bragg wouldn't release, he said, Sivance
Speaker 1: told us to indict Trump because there was enough evidence,
Speaker 1: do it as quickly as is responsible, and there is
Speaker 1: enough evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt Donald Trump's
Speaker 1: guilt of multiple felony offenses. That's what Mark Pomerand said.
Speaker 1: And then Alvin Bragg came in and instantly killed the
Speaker 1: case for reasons we don't yet no, but I have
Speaker 1: a suggestion on that front in a minute. But then
Speaker 1: the new Daily Beast reporting this is what will give
Speaker 1: you whiplash. There was a deposition taken of Donald Trump
Speaker 1: in twenty twenty one in connection with a suit that
Speaker 1: was brought for his security staff roughing up some protesters
Speaker 1: outside of Trump Tower in twenty fifteen, and it was
Speaker 1: just revealed that what Donald Trump said under oath in
Speaker 1: that deposition in twenty twenty one is that I and
Speaker 1: I alone was responsible am responsible for the compensation to
Speaker 1: Matthew Collamari, my chief operating officer. Now Matthew Collamari is
Speaker 1: alleged to have basically been involved in the same criminal scheme,
Speaker 1: getting lavish apartments and cars and not paying any New
Speaker 1: York City tax or New York State tax or federal
Speaker 1: tax on any of it. Those are the precise crime, Danielle,
Speaker 1: that Alan Weisselberg and the Trump organization are indicted for,
Speaker 1: and they're pending trial still in the fall. And the
Speaker 1: complaint and the concern is, oh, my goodness, we can't
Speaker 1: prove Donald Trump was involved in any of this. Well,
Speaker 1: actually we can with his own sworn testimony in a deposition,
Speaker 1: and the Daily Beast article says, and this is going
Speaker 1: to be of great benefit to the New York District
Speaker 1: Attorney's Grand jury investigation looking into Donald Trump's crimes. But
Speaker 1: Alvin Bragg just killed that investigation. So this is like
Speaker 1: the kind of searing injustice that is going to leave
Speaker 1: a mark. You know, there's no two ways. So here's
Speaker 1: what has to happen. In my instimation, New York Governor
Speaker 1: Hopel either has to reassign the case to somebody who
Speaker 1: will prosecute it, whatever her lawful authority is to do that.
Speaker 1: If she can sign it to Tish James's office, let's
Speaker 1: do that. Or she needs to remove Alvin Bragg from
Speaker 1: office and replace what she has the authority to do.
Speaker 1: There are some you know, procedural basis she has the
Speaker 1: touch to do it and put somebody there who will
Speaker 1: actually give this prosecution of Donald Trump a fair shake.
Speaker 1: Or the voters of New York need to vote her
Speaker 1: out and vote in a governor who will because the
Speaker 1: governors who are running for office in New York, both
Speaker 1: Republican and Democrat, have pledged. Now, campaign pledges are not
Speaker 1: worth the paper they're written on, but they have pledged
Speaker 1: they will get rid of Alvin Bragg and put somebody
Speaker 1: in who will give the Trump So let's do those things.
Speaker 1: And also let's have some investigative journalists dig into Alvin
Speaker 1: Bragg and see he filled his campaign offers. Because I'm
Speaker 1: not accusing him, but we need asking the question. We
Speaker 1: need to know, just asking the question, not accusing anyone,
Speaker 1: but I just find it very curious. And I say
Speaker 1: every time that something like this happens, the only thing
Speaker 1: folks need to do is follow the money. Follow the money,
Speaker 1: because it will lead us to the answers that folks
Speaker 1: are starting to ask. Last question for you, Glenn, is
Speaker 1: there any indication out of the Governor's office right now
Speaker 1: that there is any interest, any hinting at making any
Speaker 1: of the moves that you just laid out for us.
Speaker 1: The only and I hesitate to say, it's reporting. I
Speaker 1: have a recollection that Governor Hokel was quoted as saying
Speaker 1: she's not enamored of removing Bragg from office, which is
Speaker 1: only one of the remedies she has. And I haven't
Speaker 1: heard anything about the possibility of reassigning the Trump investigation
Speaker 1: out of the DA's office. So but that's pretty much
Speaker 1: all I've I've heard on that. Oh we're gonna, we're
Speaker 1: gonna digg into this one. We're gonna, we're gonna keep
Speaker 1: our eyes on this one because everybody's up for reelection
Speaker 1: and it's it's it's pastime. It is pastime. And I
Speaker 1: want to know why teflon Don thirty years, forty years
Speaker 1: of criminality in New York and ain't nothing touch him.
Speaker 1: Even my own mother said, I just don't get it. Danielle,
Speaker 1: explain it to me. What am I missing? Oh, you're
Speaker 1: not missing anything. Everyone is corrupt, is what I believe.
Speaker 1: Glenn As always, thank you so much for spending time
Speaker 1: with us today on Woke f and pretty much adding
Speaker 1: multiple gray hairs to my head. I think that's the
Speaker 1: one that's the one concern I don't have. It's the
Speaker 1: one I appreciate you. Thank you, Danie. I'll see you
Speaker 1: next week. That is it for me today, Your folks
Speaker 1: on Woke a f As always, power to the people
Speaker 1: and to all the people. Power, get woke and stay
Speaker 1: woke as fuck.