Speaker 1: Good morning, peeps, and welcome to wika FP Daily with
Speaker 1: Meet your Girl Danielle Moody reporting from the Brooklyn Bunker, Folks.
Speaker 1: In my conversation today with our friend MSNBC legal analyst
Speaker 1: and host of Justice Matters Glenn Kirshner, we dive into
Speaker 1: the walls that are closing in on Donald Trump. At
Speaker 1: least I say that I would like for these walls
Speaker 1: to be closing in on Donald Trump. And Glenn is
Speaker 1: going to walk us through upcoming on the show, basically
Speaker 1: what unfolded at the end of last week with the
Speaker 1: Georgia grand Jury. So here's where we are. Donald Trump
Speaker 1: has so many fucking cases against him right now. But
Speaker 1: the issue that we are having, and the issue that
Speaker 1: has always been with the Trumps, is that while they
Speaker 1: are sued numerous amounts of times, they were never really
Speaker 1: convicted of anything. And that's the problem. And this is
Speaker 1: how when he was, you know, the King of New
Speaker 1: York in the eighties and the early nineties, why Donald
Speaker 1: Trump had the name teflon Don because nothing ever stuck.
Speaker 1: He was like the fucking mobster that you always tried
Speaker 1: to pin the murders on, but you would turn up
Speaker 1: with nobody. And that's the thing is that Donald Trump
Speaker 1: I believe that he entered into the presidency with the
Speaker 1: belief that he knew that he was hundreds of millions
Speaker 1: of dollars in debt, that he could use the presidency
Speaker 1: as a way to hustle, right as the grifter that
Speaker 1: he is, which he did a monument's clause what, and
Speaker 1: that he also could use it as cover for all
Speaker 1: of the cases and the trials and the things that
Speaker 1: people had said. I mean, remember, folks, like just go
Speaker 1: back in your mind. Donald Trump has over twenty women
Speaker 1: that have accused him of sexual assault and or harassment. Right,
Speaker 1: Donald Trump has a numerous amounts of photos with Jeffrey
Speaker 1: Epstein and Jesse Elaine. Right, Maxwell, you know who this
Speaker 1: man is. You know that the Trump Foundation and University
Speaker 1: was shut down by Attorney General Letitia James, new York
Speaker 1: Attorney General, right because of fraud. And so the investigation
Speaker 1: that continues in New York is on fraud. Now moving
Speaker 1: down the line in the Trump shell businesses to Trump
Speaker 1: organization as a whole. But that case is a civil case,
Speaker 1: and Glen will walk us through obviously, the difference between
Speaker 1: civil charges that could possibly be brought and again they
Speaker 1: have yet to happen. But what was said out of
Speaker 1: the AG's office is that there is mount team right quotes,
Speaker 1: air quotes, mounting evidence that there was fraud that has
Speaker 1: happened and was the norm for the Trump organization. In
Speaker 1: a civil case though there's no jail time. But the
Speaker 1: recent movements down in Georgia by Georgia A. G. Willis
Speaker 1: is different because we're actually talking about criminal charges. And
Speaker 1: the reason why she has now asked for there to
Speaker 1: be a special grand jury called in is because Georgia
Speaker 1: law does not allow for regular grand juries to be
Speaker 1: able to authorize subpoenas with any force. And what do
Speaker 1: we know about Trump and company. They don't give a
Speaker 1: fuck about subpoenas, right, They don't care about congressional subpoenas.
Speaker 1: And unless it's coming down from the Department of Justice,
Speaker 1: which Glen will tell us about, then there really are
Speaker 1: no teeth to these subpoenas and so they can just
Speaker 1: shrug and say, oh, I didn't see it, maybe it
Speaker 1: went to spam. Right. The interesting thing though about the
Speaker 1: Georgia case is that Trump is caught on audio again.
Speaker 1: Can you find me eleven thousand seven hundred and eighty
Speaker 1: six votes. I mean, you do not have to be
Speaker 1: a rocket scientist to be able to infer what the
Speaker 1: intent was there, right, Like, Oh, I wonder what he
Speaker 1: meant by that, Just like I wonder what Donald Trump
Speaker 1: meant on January in January before the January sixth insurrection
Speaker 1: when he said that January sixth was going to be wild.
Speaker 1: I wonder what he meant by that when he was
Speaker 1: sitting around for a hundred and eighty seven minutes while
Speaker 1: police officers were brutalized, right while after six people end
Speaker 1: up dead, and does nothing right? Does nothing? We know
Speaker 1: that his spawn, Ivanka Trump was asked right because apparently
Speaker 1: the one six Committee, the one six Commission in the
Speaker 1: House is still in the vein of like playing nice
Speaker 1: and asking right for information as opposed to recognizing again
Speaker 1: who these people are and treating them like the criminals
Speaker 1: we know them to be. So Ivanka Trump is going
Speaker 1: to do what she's been taught her whole life. Sidestep
Speaker 1: the law. Play just really close to the margins and
Speaker 1: if you go over, well, you're a Trump and it'll
Speaker 1: be covered up. Anyway, When I say that the walls
Speaker 1: are closing in I hope to God that they are.
Speaker 1: But what I will add is that this Department of Justice,
Speaker 1: I don't give a fuck about what press conferences Merritt
Speaker 1: Garland wants to hold. He the man has no spine,
Speaker 1: he has no teeth. Tell me why with the walking in,
Speaker 1: with the Mulla report, just sitting on your desk, right,
Speaker 1: and the ability to go after the ten ways in
Speaker 1: which he laid out that this administration obstructed justice. How
Speaker 1: there is no parallel fucking case being brought by the
Speaker 1: Department of Justice which actually can enforce subpoenas that if
Speaker 1: you don't show up right, you are thrown in jail.
Speaker 1: I mean, if you are a fan of law and order,
Speaker 1: and again that's the only place that I get my
Speaker 1: legal degree from, then you always see like sell bench
Speaker 1: warrants here and people being thrown in jail. But as
Speaker 1: we see, if you are wealthy, if you are white,
Speaker 1: if you are male and well connected, then you are
Speaker 1: in fact above the law all of the things right
Speaker 1: that the Democratic Party has been saying, and the Commission
Speaker 1: has said, and you've heard from other people, and we
Speaker 1: heard Merritt Garland a couple of weeks ago. Nobody is
Speaker 1: above the law. Well, then prove it, prove that nobody
Speaker 1: is above the law with a mountain of evidence that
Speaker 1: you have in front of you, knowing that the administration
Speaker 1: was crooked, knowing that Donald Trump is a fraud and
Speaker 1: a thief and a grifter, knowing all of those things
Speaker 1: to be true. Again, where is the case? Right? And
Speaker 1: Glenn for the first time will also say that his
Speaker 1: feelings about the Department of Justice and giving them more
Speaker 1: and more time more in or our room is starting
Speaker 1: to frustrate him. And these are colleagues and friends. So
Speaker 1: you think to yourself, if folks like us who are
Speaker 1: engaged on a day to day basis and actually have
Speaker 1: some skin in the game here because politics is our
Speaker 1: work and want to uphold democracy and do our part
Speaker 1: to do so, and we are feeling spent, We are
Speaker 1: feeling like we are over right the administration over the
Speaker 1: Department of Justice. How do you think that regular Americans
Speaker 1: are feeling? Right? You know, I asked at the end
Speaker 1: of last week on social media, and I've asked all
Speaker 1: of you here what is the grade that you would
Speaker 1: give to the Biden administration? And I include the Department
Speaker 1: of Justice in there, right, because Biden appointed Merrick Garland.
Speaker 1: I initially thought that it was as a big fu
Speaker 1: to Mitch McConnell and the Republicans, like Meerka is going
Speaker 1: to get in here somewhere, right, and we knew that
Speaker 1: the confirmation would go relatively smooth. But then now I
Speaker 1: look around and I'm just like, you could have chosen anybody,
Speaker 1: anybody with some force, with some grit, to be your
Speaker 1: age to show that you would go after the former
Speaker 1: president because we need to close every single loophole that
Speaker 1: Trump was able to worm his way through to protect
Speaker 1: our democracy. This isn't a partisan attack. This is that wow,
Speaker 1: you really essentially, I didn't know until Donald Trump's refusal
Speaker 1: to show his taxes that that wasn't part of the law.
Speaker 1: That was just a political norm that every single president
Speaker 1: all forty four before him abided by Donald Trump is
Speaker 1: just like, well, if it's not the law, and even
Speaker 1: if it is, I'm going to get my fucking you know,
Speaker 1: crackerjack box of lawyers to slow walk this so that
Speaker 1: I don't ever have to show over my papers. Well,
Speaker 1: the only people that do that are criminals. But we
Speaker 1: allowed that to slide. That was one of the first
Speaker 1: initial political norms that we allowed Donald Trump to disrupt
Speaker 1: and that was before he was president of the United States.
Speaker 1: Every other candidate for the Republican Party had shown their taxes,
Speaker 1: but Donald Trump. So again, what does that say about
Speaker 1: our ability to just continue to sweep things under the
Speaker 1: rug and then turn around and realize that we have
Speaker 1: Mount Everest in front of us, and now the Department
Speaker 1: of Justice is just like oooh, the climb team seems
Speaker 1: too steep, seems like too much work to even get
Speaker 1: to base camp. So we might as well just not bother.
Speaker 1: We'll just go after the low level folks at the bottom,
Speaker 1: and then that should satisfied the masses. Well, guess what
Speaker 1: it fucking does not. We are not satisfied by the
Speaker 1: three years over here for insurrectionists, or a couple of
Speaker 1: months over there, or just a slap on the wrist,
Speaker 1: and oh, I hope you don't do this again as
Speaker 1: they're building up their arsenals. Folks, we have nine months
Speaker 1: roughly right give or take until midterm elections. And again,
Speaker 1: if you look at what people are saying about the
Speaker 1: Biden administration, even Woke aff Nation, if we were to
Speaker 1: take the average of the grades that people are throwing
Speaker 1: out this administration would get what I offered on Woke
Speaker 1: Wednesday and on here, which is a D plus. A
Speaker 1: D plus C minus is what folks are saying. So
Speaker 1: if that is really how the American people feel, right
Speaker 1: and these are progressives folks like you and I, If
Speaker 1: they're saying D plus C minus, then what about those
Speaker 1: people who are not engaged on a day to day basis?
Speaker 1: What do you think they think about this administration? So
Speaker 1: how does that look as we head into midterm elections
Speaker 1: when Democrats literally have nothing to run on. I mean,
Speaker 1: you listen to you listened last week to you know,
Speaker 1: Principal Deputy White House Press Secretary Karine Jean Pierre. You
Speaker 1: listen to her offer what she believes are some of
Speaker 1: the high points of the administration. And I said to her,
Speaker 1: but the American public, their memories are real short. So
Speaker 1: if you're talking about a COVID relief package that you
Speaker 1: were able to push through in January twenty twenty one,
Speaker 1: you think anybody is remembering that come November of twenty
Speaker 1: twenty two, Probably not, because America is always looking at
Speaker 1: what have you done for me lately? And we know
Speaker 1: that the game is always stacked against the party of
Speaker 1: the sitting president. So they're not doing themselves any favors
Speaker 1: right now, and this is the problem that we are facing.
Speaker 1: And so coming up next, Glenn will walk us through
Speaker 1: the difference in these two major cases that are coming
Speaker 1: down and what the timeline he believes that we are
Speaker 1: going to be working with over the course of the
Speaker 1: next several months, God forbid the next couple of years,
Speaker 1: which I believe that we actually do not have. We
Speaker 1: are running out of time because as soon as Republicans
Speaker 1: sweep in the midterm elections, all of this commission work,
Speaker 1: all of this digging is going to grind to a halt,
Speaker 1: and we are going to see frivolous hearing after frivolous
Speaker 1: hearing at seven pm Eastern every single day to make
Speaker 1: Joe Biden and the Biden administration look as crooked as
Speaker 1: the Trump organization actually is. So folks, that conversation is
Speaker 1: coming up next. Folks. You know that I am always
Speaker 1: so grateful when we have our friend MSNBC legal analyst
Speaker 1: and the host of Justice Matters, Glenn Kirshner, join us
Speaker 1: to talk our way through the mess that is going
Speaker 1: on in Trump's world. The other day, Hailey Jackson put
Speaker 1: up a slide that had to be in such small
Speaker 1: font on MSNBC of all of the infractions because there
Speaker 1: are so many, tell us what's happening in Georgia, because
Speaker 1: you offered reading of the tea leaves last week to
Speaker 1: tell us what was what was going to be coming up.
Speaker 1: Now we have an order for a special grand jury.
Speaker 1: What does that mean? Daniellis is a mess and we're
Speaker 1: all in this mess together, you know, Georgia. I think
Speaker 1: it's a good news story, only one of a few
Speaker 1: good news stories in the last week or two. But so,
Speaker 1: Fulton County District Attorney Fannie Willis has been investigating this
Speaker 1: case for some time. Presumably she's been investigating it with
Speaker 1: a regular grand jury in Georgia. The quirk about Georgia
Speaker 1: grand jury practices the regular grand jury doesn't have the
Speaker 1: subpoena power, so apparently, and I see parallels between how
Speaker 1: the House Select Committee has been conducting its investigation and
Speaker 1: what we're now learning in Georgia, and I'll talk about
Speaker 1: those in a minute. But she has applied to the
Speaker 1: Chief Judge of the Fulton County Superior Court asking that
Speaker 1: a special grand jury being paneled so she can issue
Speaker 1: enforceable subpoenas. Why because not everybody has been cooperating voluntarily
Speaker 1: with her investigation. Doesn't that sound a lot like what's
Speaker 1: going on in Washington? The House Select Committee has interviewed,
Speaker 1: has taken testimony from, and received evidence from more than
Speaker 1: four hundred witnesses. Those are the people who are voluntarily cooperating.
Speaker 1: Then there are a handful of people who won't. Those
Speaker 1: are the members of the cover up Caucus, right. That's
Speaker 1: Jim Jordan, oct Perry and Mark Meadows and Steve Bannon,
Speaker 1: and hopefully we'll talk about Ivanka in a few minutes
Speaker 1: and whether she's going to want to join the cover
Speaker 1: up Caucus. So, just as lots of people have been
Speaker 1: cooperating with the House Select Committee investigation, but some have not,
Speaker 1: I think Fannie Willis is experiencing the same thing in Georgia,
Speaker 1: which is why she finally said, now I need a
Speaker 1: special grand jury so I can start banging out people
Speaker 1: with subpoenas and forcing them to testify. So it's a
Speaker 1: good step forward, and I am hoping that Fannie Willis
Speaker 1: is closer to an indictment than she is being on
Speaker 1: the front end of her investigation because we all heard
Speaker 1: the criminal phone call that Donald Trump made. Just give
Speaker 1: me one more vote them I need to win and
Speaker 1: corruptly declare me the winner of the Georgia state election.
Speaker 1: So the Georgia story is a good news story and
Speaker 1: a good development this week. So let's you know, because thankful,
Speaker 1: thanks to you, the listeners of woke f have their
Speaker 1: uh you know, minors in law right in Trump law,
Speaker 1: in Trump indictments. What is the difference? Like, what what
Speaker 1: is it that we are looking for and hearing the
Speaker 1: rumblings about with Tish James ag in New York where
Speaker 1: I am, and what it is that a G. Willis
Speaker 1: is looking for? So you just brought up the fact
Speaker 1: that we're going back to the give me another vote, right,
Speaker 1: which sounds a lot like Zelensky do me a favor though,
Speaker 1: which sounds a lot like how Trump has operated for
Speaker 1: his entire life. So what are these two parallel tracks
Speaker 1: that are being run? And I and I will would
Speaker 1: be remiss if I did not recognize that it is
Speaker 1: black women that are leading the charge in these two
Speaker 1: different states to get justice right for Georgia and for
Speaker 1: New York in the ways in which Donald Trump and
Speaker 1: his criminal enterprises have been able to maneuver around these places.
Speaker 1: What's the difference between what is happening in New York
Speaker 1: what is happening in Georgia? And do you think Donald
Speaker 1: Trump right now is getting more and more nervous He
Speaker 1: should be because the investigative circle is tightening around him.
Speaker 1: That is indisputable. That's a matter of fact, I would contend.
Speaker 1: So to your question, what's going on in New York.
Speaker 1: Tis James Attorney General's Office is a civil investigation into
Speaker 1: potential fraud by the Trump organization, including by Donald Trump, Ivanka,
Speaker 1: Eric and Don Junior. And we somewhat deliciously saw in
Speaker 1: a court filing, which was appropriate because the Trumps are
Speaker 1: fighting in court the subpoenas that they've been served with
Speaker 1: to testify in that fraud investigation civil investor stigation. So
Speaker 1: nobody will ever go to jail in connection with Tiss
Speaker 1: James investigation. That's civil fraud. She could sue, she could
Speaker 1: recover damages on behalf of the state of New York,
Speaker 1: and she could shut down the Trump organization, but that's civil,
Speaker 1: not criminal. So she disclosed in that litigation that well,
Speaker 1: when Eric Trump fought the subpoena that she served on him,
Speaker 1: lost that fight and was forced to sit for a deposition.
Speaker 1: He invoked this Fifth Amendment right against self incrimination more
Speaker 1: than five hundred times. Now, let's set aside the yeah,
Speaker 1: more than five hundred times, that's in the court filing.
Speaker 1: Let's set aside the comedic value of Donald Trump saying, now,
Speaker 1: apparently this applies to his son. Only mobsters plead the Fifth.
Speaker 1: The really important thing for us to remember is when
Speaker 1: you invoke the Fifth you have an absolute constitutional right
Speaker 1: under the Fifth Amendment against self incrimination. And I will
Speaker 1: fight for your right to do that, regard hardless of
Speaker 1: how cruddy you are. But when you do it in
Speaker 1: a criminal case, it can't be held against you. In
Speaker 1: a civil case it can. So when and if this
Speaker 1: case goes to trial, when I predict when, not If
Speaker 1: Tish James drops a big old civil suit on Donald
Speaker 1: Trump and his organization, they will be able to take
Speaker 1: those five hundred invocations of the Fifth Amendment by Eric,
Speaker 1: and they will be able to present it to the
Speaker 1: civil grand jury. And the civil law is such that
Speaker 1: the judge will instruct the civil jury. You can take
Speaker 1: Eric's invocation of his fifth amend privilege against self incrimination
Speaker 1: into account in the evidence. You can draw adverse inferences
Speaker 1: against him based on it, and you can use it
Speaker 1: as a basis as part of your verdict and your
Speaker 1: judgment against Eric and perhaps by extension, the Trump organization,
Speaker 1: depending on how the case is handled. So that is
Speaker 1: what Tish James is doing ugly consequential, but it's civil
Speaker 1: not criminal. What Fannie Willis is doing is even more
Speaker 1: consequential because it's criminal and people could go to prison.
Speaker 1: So let's talk for a moment, because what Tish James
Speaker 1: is doing sounds a lot like how we were able
Speaker 1: to shut down Trump University, right and Trump Foundation. This
Speaker 1: is a similar situation in which they were able to
Speaker 1: uncover the fact that the Trump Foundation and the university
Speaker 1: were basically swindling people, right, Like, they were basically swindling
Speaker 1: folks using the university and the foundation as some type
Speaker 1: of front right to be able to funnel in money.
Speaker 1: So that was shut down. Was there a fine associated
Speaker 1: with that, like did they have to pay back the
Speaker 1: people who they swindled out of their money or was
Speaker 1: it the big aha with Trump? You know, was just
Speaker 1: shutting it down. So I asked that because I'm like
Speaker 1: with if it's the same road that we're walking down
Speaker 1: in New York with the Trump organization is the biggest
Speaker 1: issue just being shut down, but they can pop up
Speaker 1: with another name in another place, or are they going
Speaker 1: to have to owe back back fees, back taxes, back
Speaker 1: whatever financial gains that they had, they'll have to give
Speaker 1: it back. So I don't know the answer with respect
Speaker 1: of the Trump University case, how that ended up and
Speaker 1: what happened beyond Trump University being shut down put out
Speaker 1: a business, And I don't want to guess. What I
Speaker 1: will say is ordinarily in those kind of civil suits,
Speaker 1: it's all about the damages. So you have to pay
Speaker 1: back to the victims whatever fraudulent money you took from them.
Speaker 1: You may have to pay fines and penalties, There may
Speaker 1: be back taxes, there may be court costs, There may
Speaker 1: be any number of financial implications as a result of
Speaker 1: those kind of kind of cases. So yes, I assume
Speaker 1: that will be part and parcel of whatever civil suit
Speaker 1: Tiss James ends upbringing. But remember she hasn't filed the
Speaker 1: civil suit yet against the Trump organization. She's investigating it.
Speaker 1: That's why she's issued Penis to Eric that one is
Speaker 1: behind us now, to Trump, to Ivanka, to Don Junior.
Speaker 1: And that signals to me that she's at the very
Speaker 1: end of her civil investigation, because you don't go at
Speaker 1: the targets until the very end, when you have all
Speaker 1: of the other evidence you can confront them with when
Speaker 1: they are compelled to sit for a deposition. And it
Speaker 1: is at that point she'll probably drop a big old
Speaker 1: fraud lawsuit on Trump and his organization. What is the
Speaker 1: likelihood that the fraud right would turn into the fraud
Speaker 1: in New York could possibly turn into also a criminal investigation,
Speaker 1: like isn't fraud and committing it like an actual crime? Yes?
Speaker 1: So let's and let's remember the Manhattan District Attorney who
Speaker 1: was Sivance and it's now Alvin Bragg who has taken over,
Speaker 1: and I suspect he's going to do even better work
Speaker 1: than Sivance. I was not all that impressed with Sivance's tenure,
Speaker 1: given some of what we learned about how he dealt
Speaker 1: with Trump and the organization. But there already is a
Speaker 1: criminal prosecution going hunt of the Trump organization. Alan Weislberg,
Speaker 1: the chief financial officer, and I suspect there are more
Speaker 1: indictments to drop in that case. And remember there is
Speaker 1: a piece of the investigation involving the civil fraud that
Speaker 1: is partnered up with the Manhattan DA's criminal probe, which
Speaker 1: is a blessing and a curse. It's good because you know,
Speaker 1: two organizations are better than one when you're attacking large
Speaker 1: institutional organizational crime and fraud. But it does give Trump
Speaker 1: a little bit of a challenge to make against the
Speaker 1: civil subpoenas, saying, wait a minute, this is just a
Speaker 1: ruse to try to get me under oath and then
Speaker 1: use it against me in the criminal prosecution. Because the
Speaker 1: AG's office is even working with the Manhattan DA's office
Speaker 1: in that way. That's a that's an allegation that will
Speaker 1: ultimately be rejected. And I predict these subpoenas will be
Speaker 1: enforced and Don and Don Junior, Ivanka and Trump will
Speaker 1: have to sit for these depositions. What I also predict
Speaker 1: is they will all invoke the fifth and him at
Speaker 1: right against self incrimination, just like Eric did. This is
Speaker 1: just wild to me. So going back to Georgia, now
Speaker 1: m willis asked for a special grand jury. What is
Speaker 1: the timeline of the ask the approval, then we go
Speaker 1: through the process I'm assuming of putting together a grand jury,
Speaker 1: So just quickly walk us through that, and then we'll
Speaker 1: transition to the one six commission. But I you know,
Speaker 1: it's always grand jury, special grand jury. What are these people? Well?
Speaker 1: Who are these people? How do we go about them?
Speaker 1: And how long that processes? Is it six weeks up
Speaker 1: they're sitting? Is it twelve? And remember we had a
Speaker 1: special grand jury impaneled in New York the district at
Speaker 1: twenty two, But that was because the grand juries in
Speaker 1: New York only sit for about four weeks and they
Speaker 1: needed consistency, so they asked for a six month long
Speaker 1: special grand jury. That was more about timing than it
Speaker 1: was about the authority that that grand jury has to
Speaker 1: issue subpoenas or cott issue subpoenis so down in Georgia,
Speaker 1: I don't pretend to know the ins and outs of
Speaker 1: Georgia grand jury procedure, because all fifty states have their
Speaker 1: own procedures when it comes to grand juries. I could
Speaker 1: tell you generally how it happens. If you apply to
Speaker 1: the chief judge to impanel a special grand jury, the
Speaker 1: chief Judge will act on that very quickly. I mean
Speaker 1: it literally could be within a day or a week,
Speaker 1: because there's no legal debate or litigation that has to
Speaker 1: go on. It is a one sided request, what we
Speaker 1: would call an ex parte request by the prosecutor saying
Speaker 1: I need this, and here's why witnesses are not voluntarily cooperating,
Speaker 1: and I need to compel their testimony with grand jury subpoenis.
Speaker 1: So I predict the judgual act and very likely grant
Speaker 1: the request to impanel this grand jury. Then they will
Speaker 1: send out jury notices. That's a process that can take
Speaker 1: a few weeks before they can get Now, they probably
Speaker 1: have standing grand jury notices that have already been sent
Speaker 1: out for other cases, for trials, or for other grand
Speaker 1: jury matters, So all of this can be done pretty quickly.
Speaker 1: I would say within thirty days or maybe less, you'll
Speaker 1: have that grand jury sitting taking testimony. Then the question
Speaker 1: becomes how long does the grand jury investigation take? That
Speaker 1: depends on how many witnesses have refused to voluntarily take
Speaker 1: part in Fannie Willis's investigation. If it's only I mean,
Speaker 1: think about let's go back to the parallel, the one
Speaker 1: sixth committee. I know we're going there in a minute,
Speaker 1: four hundred witnesses have cooperated, half a dozen have thumbed
Speaker 1: their noses at congressional subpoenas, the Meadows, the Jordan's, the Perrys.
Speaker 1: So if there is a parallel between how few witnesses
Speaker 1: in Georgia have told Fannie Willis, take a flying leap,
Speaker 1: I'm not coming in, then they can actually move through
Speaker 1: that pretty quickly. Okay, if I'm Donald Trump, If you're
Speaker 1: Donald Trump right now, right, this announcement comes out midweek
Speaker 1: on top of tissue James saying, there's a lot of
Speaker 1: evidence we're going to move into Ivanka Trump now being asked,
Speaker 1: not subpoenaed by the one six Commission, but asked to
Speaker 1: come in for questioning. How nervous am I? On a
Speaker 1: scale of one to ten if I'm Trump, Trump's lawyers
Speaker 1: and circle, if you're paying attention to what's going on,
Speaker 1: you're getting more nervous by the day. This investigative circle
Speaker 1: is tightening. You know now what Ivanka will end up
Speaker 1: doing in response to this request for voluntary cooperation. I
Speaker 1: suspect she'll decline and then she'll be subpoenaed. The important
Speaker 1: thing for people to remember is there's no daddy daughter
Speaker 1: legal privilege. Right, sure, there's an executive privilege, doctor patient privilege,
Speaker 1: attorney client privilege, priest parishioner privilege, there's a spousal privilege.
Speaker 1: There's no daddy daughter privilege. So she can be compelled
Speaker 1: to testify. The question becomes, what will she do when
Speaker 1: push comes to shove. She undoubtedly has information relevant to
Speaker 1: the one six Committees investigation. I suspect, I strongly suspect
Speaker 1: she has information that is incriminating of her father. Why
Speaker 1: because we know she was part of the inner circle
Speaker 1: during the capital attack. There are reports that she was
Speaker 1: in the room talking with him, listening to what he
Speaker 1: had to say. When we investigate crime and we need
Speaker 1: to prove criminal offenses, there are two things that we
Speaker 1: have to prove. A criminal act and corrupt intent. Criminal
Speaker 1: intent guilty, men's ray a state of mind. Now, ordinarily
Speaker 1: that's not hard to do. Why because we infer intent
Speaker 1: from conduct. Donald Trump's conduct is criminal, we can infer
Speaker 1: his intent was criminal. Give me three hours in front
Speaker 1: of a grand a trial jury in DC, and I'm
Speaker 1: pretty darn sure I could convince them of Donald Trump's crimes.
Speaker 1: Hopefully we get there someday so, but what Ivanka can
Speaker 1: provide is she can say I was in the room
Speaker 1: while Daddy was watching TV watching officers be assaulted property
Speaker 1: and his angry mob hunting for elected officials, and I said, Dad,
Speaker 1: you've got to put a stop to this, and he said,
Speaker 1: A B NC, A B and C is going to
Speaker 1: be direct evidence of his intent, probably his criminal intent,
Speaker 1: because we know he didn't call off the attack for
Speaker 1: more than three hours after Mark Meadows said not. Mark
Speaker 1: Kevin McCarthy said, I told him about it at the
Speaker 1: very beginning, so he knew even if he wasn't watching
Speaker 1: it on TV, which he was. So Ivanka has a
Speaker 1: question to ask herself, Danielle, and I assume you and
Speaker 1: I know what the answer will be. But the question
Speaker 1: is do I want to be a patriot? Do I
Speaker 1: want to provide relevant, accurate, truthful information to the House
Speaker 1: Select Committee about what my father did on January sixth?
Speaker 1: Or do I want to cover up his crimes? Do
Speaker 1: I want to refuse to provide this information? Do I
Speaker 1: want to become yet another member of the cover up
Speaker 1: club together with Mark Meadows, Jim Jordan, Scott Perry, and
Speaker 1: Steve Bannon. It's a small club. It's not a terribly
Speaker 1: elite club. But you know, we have a term for
Speaker 1: what these people have decided to do, which is hide
Speaker 1: in criminating information about the conduct of another. It's called
Speaker 1: a cover up. Have these people learned nothing of the
Speaker 1: lessons of Watergate. If the crime don't get you, the
Speaker 1: cover up will. And I want the Department of Justice
Speaker 1: to go after Trump and his criminal associates for their
Speaker 1: crimes against democracy. But I also want them to go
Speaker 1: after everybody who covered up those crimes. You know, It's
Speaker 1: so funny because I want to believe that people you know,
Speaker 1: ultimately will do the right thing. I want to believe
Speaker 1: that ultimately justice will prevail, because if I don't, you know,
Speaker 1: then I don't know what I'm doing for a living.
Speaker 1: But at the same time, I'm thinking to myself as
Speaker 1: you're saying this, I'm like, well, patriotism doesn't provide diffidends, right,
Speaker 1: it doesn't. It doesn't work, It doesn't give you a
Speaker 1: return on investment. And these people are led by money,
Speaker 1: they're led by greed, right, And so I think. And
Speaker 1: the funny thing, and this is I just am cracking
Speaker 1: up in my head, is that didn't Junior have to
Speaker 1: call Mark Meadows in order to get in touch with
Speaker 1: his father. And now we all know that Ivanka was
Speaker 1: in the room. Why wouldn't you have just been able
Speaker 1: to call your sister and say, put dad on I
Speaker 1: just this family is so bizarre to me. Was your brother?
Speaker 1: Would you take us? Wouldn't? I wouldn't either. You're right,
Speaker 1: I'd ignore um. You know. So the question that I
Speaker 1: have about the one six commission and and and not
Speaker 1: subpoenaing Ivanka? Why are we still in this period? Glenn?
Speaker 1: Do you think where the commission is still playing? Uh,
Speaker 1: mister and missus nice guy like we how the half
Speaker 1: a dozen people or the dozen plus people that have
Speaker 1: refused their niceties right, are the ones that are integral
Speaker 1: to this commission being successful in its investigation and uncovering
Speaker 1: for the public. You know who knew what when? About
Speaker 1: the attempt to overthrow the government? So why aren't we
Speaker 1: subpoenaing of Anka Trump? And wasting time? I guess is
Speaker 1: what I'm saying. I feel like time is being wasted
Speaker 1: when these people keep showing us who they are, it
Speaker 1: is being wasted. And here's my assumption, we don't know
Speaker 1: why they're going this route. But usually when there are
Speaker 1: coequal branches of government embroiled in disputes, if that dispute
Speaker 1: is ever going to move into the courts to be litigated,
Speaker 1: there is something called accommodation, and accommodation is actually one
Speaker 1: of the factors that the courts will look at before
Speaker 1: they decide a potentially political question on the merits. The
Speaker 1: courts will ask in litigation, you know, where one coequal
Speaker 1: branch of government is trying to get something or trying
Speaker 1: not to provide something to the other, and the courts
Speaker 1: will first say, did you try the ac amodation process,
Speaker 1: because if you didn't, then maybe you didn't make a
Speaker 1: good faith effort to get this short of upping the
Speaker 1: legal ante. And so it's literally a factor in any
Speaker 1: number of legal tests when potentially political questions move into court.
Speaker 1: So it's kind of in the legislature's blood. It's part
Speaker 1: of the na of Congress to try accommodation first. Now,
Speaker 1: when the house is on fire, you don't, you know,
Speaker 1: test the temperature of the water on your risk before
Speaker 1: you try to put the dang fire out. So I'm
Speaker 1: with you, righty, we're burning democracy daylight, let's go. But
Speaker 1: I don't think, and especially the Dems, I don't think
Speaker 1: they have it in them to go hard, to go fast,
Speaker 1: and to depart from processes like accommodation. First. So, and
Speaker 1: here's the other thing. When you talk about congressional subpoenas,
Speaker 1: can we do a minute on how all subpoenas are
Speaker 1: not created equal? Because this is becoming more important by
Speaker 1: the day as we continue to see doj do nothing
Speaker 1: at least overtly that that would make it seem they're
Speaker 1: criminally investigating the command structure of the insurrection in the
Speaker 1: grand jury, which is where they need to be. All
Speaker 1: subpoenas are not created equal. So we have congressional subpoenas,
Speaker 1: which we have all seen can be disregarded and defied
Speaker 1: and locked and derided. Did you see Jenna Ellis's tweet?
Speaker 1: I had to double check her timeline to make sure
Speaker 1: it was really her. She said, yeah, the committee's just
Speaker 1: angry because they can't date me. I'm not making that up.
Speaker 1: Check her timeline. She's mocking and deriding congressional subpoenas. And
Speaker 1: you know what congressional subpoenas are toothless? Why because Congress
Speaker 1: has extracted its own teeth by refusing to use its
Speaker 1: inherent power of contempt to compel obedience to subpoenas. They
Speaker 1: could do it, they choose not to go back to
Speaker 1: the timidity of congress. Right, so congressional subpoenas are largely toothless.
Speaker 1: Let's talk about Tish James subpoenas in New York, right,
Speaker 1: those are subpoenas in civil investigations. They're not toothless, but
Speaker 1: they give rise to lengthy legal battles. They will never
Speaker 1: be enforced in it, they will rarely be enforced in
Speaker 1: a timely manner. And with the Trumps, you know they're
Speaker 1: gonna file nefarious lawsuit after us try to run out
Speaker 1: the clocks. So those are not the most efficient subpoenas.
Speaker 1: Let's move down to Georgia, because grand juries in Georgia
Speaker 1: don't even get the issue subpoenas unless you ask the
Speaker 1: chief judge, may I please impaddle a special grand jury
Speaker 1: so I can start using subpoenas. You have to ask
Speaker 1: permission of the judge for that, So that has been
Speaker 1: a long time coming. But you know what, the mother
Speaker 1: of all subpoenas is the federal grand jury subpoena. Because
Speaker 1: you can't you can mock and deride, but let you defy,
Speaker 1: because if you defy, I've issued more federal grand jury
Speaker 1: subpoenas that I could ever remember in my life time.
Speaker 1: And if you defy it, you know what happens. We
Speaker 1: immediately get a bench warrant from the judge to enforce
Speaker 1: the subpoena of the US Marshals are at your house
Speaker 1: six am. The next day. You're placed in cuffs and
Speaker 1: you're brought before the grand jury. You're brought before the
Speaker 1: judge first and then the grand jury. And guess what.
Speaker 1: You have a privilege you want to raise to try
Speaker 1: to avoid testifying. Whether it's a bogus privilege or a
Speaker 1: viable privilege. You know what we do, Danielle. We immediately
Speaker 1: walk into the Chief Judge's courtroom. The chief Judge has
Speaker 1: supervisory authority over the grand jury proceedings, and we litigate
Speaker 1: the issue instantly in real time, and the judge issues
Speaker 1: are ruling promptly, like I mean, within a couple of days,
Speaker 1: and orders the witness to go appear before the grand
Speaker 1: jury if he or she has no viable privilege to
Speaker 1: prevent their testimony. This is how the insurrection Ronald Trump's
Speaker 1: conspiracy to end our democracy should be investigated. Apparently it's
Speaker 1: not being investigated that way by the Department of Justice.
Speaker 1: They're going after the foot soldiers of the insurrection. They
Speaker 1: brought seditious conspiracy charges, so we know they're in the
Speaker 1: grand jury investigating and indicting these matters, but we haven't
Speaker 1: seen any evidence that they're in the grand jury aggressively
Speaker 1: going after the command structure of the insurrection. And if
Speaker 1: they don't take down the command structure of the insurrection,
Speaker 1: these idiots are going to be recruiting their second batcheld
Speaker 1: the soldiers seven d eight hundred people, no attack the capital.
Speaker 1: They can get eight hundred or eight in their place.
Speaker 1: That's why we should be in the dang grand jury,
Speaker 1: federal grand jury where they can't play all these subpoena games. Yeah,
Speaker 1: I mean, I just feel like Glenn, we continue to
Speaker 1: have this sit and wait, sit and wait, sit and wait.
Speaker 1: We get these headlines that come out like this past
Speaker 1: week with Georgia, with New York, but it is a
Speaker 1: sit and wait game. And you know, Frankly again just
Speaker 1: saying midterm elections nine months away, right, and Frankly, you know,
Speaker 1: the Biden administration doesn't have a lot to run on,
Speaker 1: It doesn't have a lot to give Democrats to go
Speaker 1: out there and say this is what we're doing. We
Speaker 1: hear the American people, no one is above the law.
Speaker 1: Justice will prevail. We're going to hold democracy, you know,
Speaker 1: with everything we got. That's not what we're hearing. It's
Speaker 1: not what we're seeing. M Glenn. Lastly, what what are
Speaker 1: you what are you paying attention to as we come
Speaker 1: to the end of this month going into February. What
Speaker 1: are some things that we need to have our eyes on.
Speaker 1: So I look every minute of every day for some
Speaker 1: outward manifestation that the Department of Justice is actively and
Speaker 1: aggressively criminally investigating the leadership of the insurrection, the command
Speaker 1: structure of the insurrection, and I will continue to look
Speaker 1: for that. The other thing, I'm anxiously awaiting public hearings
Speaker 1: by the House Select Committee because I have a feeling
Speaker 1: they have blockbuster evidence. We now know that the Supreme
Speaker 1: Court told Donald Trump shut up and sit down, because
Speaker 1: you do not have executive privilege to assert to prevent
Speaker 1: what we all know is deeply damaging information from going
Speaker 1: from the National Archives to the House Select Committee. That's
Speaker 1: important both legally in that case and atmospherically. For them
Speaker 1: to have largely shut down the executive privilege non sense.
Speaker 1: So I have a feeling those four hundred witnesses who
Speaker 1: have appeared think about it. It really is only a
Speaker 1: handful of witnesses who have refused to comply, and those
Speaker 1: are the ones who are either intensely loyal to a
Speaker 1: fallen criminal president, and or they have their own criminal culpability,
Speaker 1: like Mark Meadows and Jim Jordan and Scott Perry. Of
Speaker 1: course they're not interested in cooperating because if they did
Speaker 1: walk into the House Select Committee, they'd have to say,
Speaker 1: I'm going to go the way of Eric Trump. I
Speaker 1: invoked my Fifth Amendment right against self incrimination. Give Roger
Speaker 1: Stone credit. He committed all kinds of crimes. He kind
Speaker 1: of walked into the grand jury and did what the
Speaker 1: law allows him to do. I plead the fifth, the Fifth.
Speaker 1: That's what these other knuckleheads should do. But they're even
Speaker 1: afraid to do that. So the Scott Perry's and the
Speaker 1: Jim Jordan's running a red run around, yammering all kinds
Speaker 1: of nonsense. Right, But there have been hundreds of witnesses
Speaker 1: who said I'm not going that way. I'm going to
Speaker 1: tell the How Select Committee everything I know and what
Speaker 1: those four hundred witnesses know I'm sure is quite damning,
Speaker 1: and all of that is being it's being sort of
Speaker 1: coalesced down to what will be most important for us
Speaker 1: to see in public hearing. So I'm getting my popcorn
Speaker 1: and I'm going to be ready to go. I'm going
Speaker 1: to be ready in the tweets with you to watch
Speaker 1: that live and then come back on here and discuss
Speaker 1: and unpack. Glenn Kirshner, as always, thank you so much
Speaker 1: for making the time to walk us through Trump's legal web,
Speaker 1: legal web of lies that we're all trapped inside of,
Speaker 1: and hopefully we're going to see the you know it
Speaker 1: coming down one string at a time. We appreciate you
Speaker 1: as always. Power to the people and to all the people. Power,
Speaker 1: get woke and stay woke as fuck.