Speaker 1: Good morning, peep Sen. Welcome to woka F Daily with
Speaker 1: Meet your Girl Danielle Moody, recording from the home Bunker. Folks,
Speaker 1: as we make the trek to the end of the year,
Speaker 1: I am doing wrap up shows with some of woka
Speaker 1: f's greatest guest and contributors that have been with us
Speaker 1: all year long. And today we talk with our good
Speaker 1: good friend Glenn Kirshner to go through all of the
Speaker 1: legal news that we've been hit with, and I ask
Speaker 1: him the question, what is your prediction for twenty twenty three?
Speaker 1: Are we going to see Donald Trump? Indidd Is it
Speaker 1: going to be Fannie Willis in Georgia. Is it going
Speaker 1: to be Jack Smith, the new special counsel for the
Speaker 1: Department of Justice. Is it going to be Alvin Bragg
Speaker 1: in New York? What is going to happen? Because over
Speaker 1: the course folks, of the year, I mean, the wildest
Speaker 1: shit from Marlago being raided because Donald Trump stole documents
Speaker 1: and then he goes on his second rate you know,
Speaker 1: two bit truth social to say, oh yeah, I took
Speaker 1: the documents, which is pretty much Jack Nicholson and a
Speaker 1: few good men saying I ordered the cold read and
Speaker 1: yet no one is hauling this man to prison. We
Speaker 1: know that Donald Trump said to Brad Rathensberger in Georgia,
Speaker 1: find me eleven seven hundred and some odd votes right
Speaker 1: waiting on that indictment. We know that the Trump organization
Speaker 1: is completely corrupt. Why because at the end of this
Speaker 1: year they faced seventeen charges and were found guilty on
Speaker 1: all seventeen charges. So what does twenty twenty three look
Speaker 1: like for Donald Trump and company? For the thirty four
Speaker 1: Republicans that text Mark Meadows and said we're calling for
Speaker 1: martial law, except they don't know how to fucking spell it.
Speaker 1: Somebody has got to go down, and it cannot just
Speaker 1: be the foot soldiers of the insurrection. January will mark
Speaker 1: two years since there was an attempt to overthrow our
Speaker 1: government and the only people that are seeing any type
Speaker 1: of prison time are those that broke into the building.
Speaker 1: What about those that directed them there in the first place?
Speaker 1: So coming up next my wrap up legal conversation with
Speaker 1: our friend host of Justice Matters MSNBC contributor Glenn Kirshner. Folks,
Speaker 1: twenty twenty two has been a year, and it has
Speaker 1: been a year in crime, and there is no one
Speaker 1: better to give us our year end review in all
Speaker 1: of the legal crime news that we have covered. Then
Speaker 1: our friend the host of Justice Matters MSNBC contributor, Glenn Kirshner. Glenn,
Speaker 1: We've spent so much time together, and I got to
Speaker 1: tell you that on my twenty twenty two bingo card
Speaker 1: there was a lot of things that I did not
Speaker 1: see coming. So I want to start with literally all
Speaker 1: of the crimes, all of the cases that have come
Speaker 1: up that involve Trump and the Trump family. Let's start
Speaker 1: with Alan Weisselberg, right, the COO of the Trump organization.
Speaker 1: I want to say at some beginning part of twenty
Speaker 1: twenty two is picked up, is indicted for fraud. Talk
Speaker 1: to us about why this kind of maybe was the
Speaker 1: beginning of the unraveling of the Trump organization. Yeah, it matters,
Speaker 1: And there are two sides of the Weisselberg and the
Speaker 1: Trump organization coin that we can talk about. I will say,
Speaker 1: it seems like we packed the decade's worth of crime
Speaker 1: into just one year when it comes to Trump and company.
Speaker 1: So you know, the Weisselberg and Trump org prosecution was
Speaker 1: interesting for what it was and what it wasn't. I mean,
Speaker 1: what it was is a prosecution that probably spells the
Speaker 1: end of the Trump organization because the organization was convicted
Speaker 1: across the board of major financial felony crimes such that
Speaker 1: no reputable lender is going to want to do business
Speaker 1: with Trump Org. I would say even the less than
Speaker 1: reputable lenders, some of the overseas banks and institutions that
Speaker 1: wanted to do business with Trump because they felt like
Speaker 1: they were buying access and influence. I even think they're
Speaker 1: going to run away from the Trump organization. The other
Speaker 1: thing that I think is good about that prosecution is
Speaker 1: it feels like it might have been something of a
Speaker 1: drive I run for Alvin Bragg, the District attorney from Manhattan,
Speaker 1: to consider charging Donald Trump. Now I'll believe it when
Speaker 1: I see it, mind you, But there's been reporting that
Speaker 1: in the wake of those convictions, Alvin Bragg has hired
Speaker 1: yet another prosecutor from the Department of Justice, and before
Speaker 1: that he worked with Tiss James going after the Trump Org.
Speaker 1: Colangelo I think is his last name, and he is
Speaker 1: now involved in criminally investigating Trump. Because they successfully moved
Speaker 1: against the Trump Org. It feels like there is an
Speaker 1: increased likelihood that Bragg may now be more comfortable going
Speaker 1: after Donald Trump personally. So that's the upside. The downside
Speaker 1: is that this old prosecutor believes Donald Trump should have
Speaker 1: been part of that prosecution that resulted in the conviction
Speaker 1: of his organization, because the prosecutor argued in closing to
Speaker 1: that jury in the Trump Board case and I quote,
Speaker 1: donald Trump personally approved financial fraud personally, Well, why wasn't
Speaker 1: he a defendant? That to me feels like a failing
Speaker 1: of Alvin Bragg. So, like I say that, that's a
Speaker 1: sort of a mixed message that comes out of that prosecution. Okay,
Speaker 1: and so then we move, Let's go down south for
Speaker 1: Fannie Willis. Now, Fannie Willis has been investigating the fake electors, right,
Speaker 1: and you know, we have seen several court cases surrounding
Speaker 1: her investigation because she's compelling like Lindsey Graham to testify
Speaker 1: before a grand jury, special grand jury that she pulled together.
Speaker 1: Tell us a bit about where you think the kind
Speaker 1: of twist and turns that that investigation has taken and
Speaker 1: where you think we could possibly end up. I mean,
Speaker 1: it is the end of the year. Again, we've seen
Speaker 1: no indictments of Donald Trump. We've seen a lot of
Speaker 1: investigations happening, hers seeming at the beginning of the year
Speaker 1: to be the most promising in term of the fake elector.
Speaker 1: So tell us how you saw that case move over
Speaker 1: the course of twenty twenty two. You know, Fannie Willis,
Speaker 1: District Attorney for Fulton County, Georgia, has been quietly sawing
Speaker 1: the justice would in front of her, and really the
Speaker 1: only time we hear anything about what's going on is
Speaker 1: when there are court pleadings, and then we can see
Speaker 1: a little bit about the battle she has been waging
Speaker 1: to get guys like Lindsey Graham before the grand jury,
Speaker 1: who was scared the death to testify about Donald Trump's
Speaker 1: election crimes and frankly, his own misconduct. Because let's never
Speaker 1: forget that a fellow Republican of Lindsay Graham's, the former
Speaker 1: Georgia's Secretary of State, Brad Raffinsburger, said, Lindsay Graham called me,
Speaker 1: and what he was saying to me I interpreted as
Speaker 1: him urging me to toss out lawfully cast ballots. That's
Speaker 1: a quote, and it's a crime under Georgia's state law. Well,
Speaker 1: guess what Fannie Willis succeeded in getting Lindsay Graham into
Speaker 1: the grand jury, succeeded in getting Rudy Giuliani into the
Speaker 1: grand jury, succeeded in getting Mike Flynn into the grand jury. Now, yeah,
Speaker 1: many of these nefarious, unpatriotic knuckleheads probably pleaded the fifth
Speaker 1: and so be it. All that means is their truthful
Speaker 1: testimony would show that they committed crimes under Georgia state law.
Speaker 1: So she's been sawing the wood. I don't know where
Speaker 1: she is in her investigation, but it's been up and running,
Speaker 1: and it has been productive because she's been winning every
Speaker 1: flipping battle that she's fought against these people who were
Speaker 1: scared to death to go before the grand jury. So
Speaker 1: what the timetable is for possible indictments there? As you say,
Speaker 1: she is investigating the fake collectors crimes and she's investigating
Speaker 1: the very real election crimes of Donald Trump. I can
Speaker 1: only hope that we see indictments maybe in the late winter,
Speaker 1: early spring. That's nothing more than a guess heading further
Speaker 1: down south to mar Lago. So when the headlines happened
Speaker 1: and the news broke that mar Lago was swarmed by
Speaker 1: agents in order to collect these stolen documents that Donald
Speaker 1: Trump took from the White House and just you know,
Speaker 1: put haphazardly in his office at mar Lago, where we
Speaker 1: know that anyone and everyone can walk into at any
Speaker 1: time and guess what, he doesn't know a lot of
Speaker 1: the people apparently that are coming in to have dinner
Speaker 1: with him. So we see these documents. We now know
Speaker 1: that the federal government is asking for one person, a
Speaker 1: lawyer from Donald Trump's team, to say completely, we've given
Speaker 1: you all the documents. There's not one lawyer that will
Speaker 1: do that. So where do we see this moving? Because one,
Speaker 1: we don't even know if Donald Trump hasn't stashed nuclear
Speaker 1: codes documents all around his properties. Right, it's only mari
Speaker 1: Lago that was quote unquote rated. So where does this
Speaker 1: case go? Or are we just again allowing him Other
Speaker 1: people would have gone to jail. Other people have gone
Speaker 1: to jail for taking less. Where does this go? You know,
Speaker 1: I don't know where it goes, but I know where
Speaker 1: it's been, and where it's been is a sort of
Speaker 1: deeply unjust place, because, as you say, anybody who took
Speaker 1: even one classified document unlawfully would have promptly been arrested
Speaker 1: and indicted convicted and imprisoned. Donald Trump had classified documents
Speaker 1: in his desk drawers, then he posted on his third
Speaker 1: rate social media platform. I took the documents more openly
Speaker 1: and transparently than other presidents. So it's not like we
Speaker 1: prosecutors would have a hard time proving that he took
Speaker 1: the documents. So why he hasn't been charged is there's
Speaker 1: no good answer to that other than a fear and
Speaker 1: timidity at prosecuting a former president of the United States, which,
Speaker 1: make no mistake about it, takes us one step in
Speaker 1: the direction of becoming a Banana republic. Where is it heading?
Speaker 1: You know? I hope Jack Smith is what he appears
Speaker 1: to be, which is kind of a scorched earth crime fighter.
Speaker 1: And the reason I say that is because he has
Speaker 1: prosecuted he and his team when he was the head
Speaker 1: of the Public Integrity Section at the Department of Justice.
Speaker 1: Republican senators, Democrat who Democrats senators who were running for
Speaker 1: the presidency, John Edwards, Republican governors, Bob Virginia republic McDonald
Speaker 1: McDonald Virginia Republican governor, Arizona congressman who was a Republican.
Speaker 1: He's taken all he's taken a CIA officer to trial
Speaker 1: for mishandling classified documents. He goes after everybody, left, right
Speaker 1: and center, without fear or favor, and he doesn't win
Speaker 1: all the cases, which I love. Give me a prosecutor
Speaker 1: who is willing to take a difficult, politically charged case
Speaker 1: to trial at the risk of losing it. That's who
Speaker 1: I want on my team. Let's hope he gets us
Speaker 1: to the right place. And I'm resisting Danielle going to
Speaker 1: the dark place where you mentioned that. The prosecution team
Speaker 1: said Judge Ferrell Howell, who's a fabulous judge, the chief
Speaker 1: Judge of Federal District Court in Washington, DC. Judge Howell,
Speaker 1: please please make them appoint somebody to certify that all
Speaker 1: of the stolen documents have been returned. And Judge Howell
Speaker 1: did the right thing. She said, no, go do your job,
Speaker 1: because their job is to arrest the perpetrator, not to
Speaker 1: try to get the court to do some of their
Speaker 1: dirty work. And let me just take thirty seconds on us.
Speaker 1: When somebody steals stuff, whether it's a TV or a
Speaker 1: car or documents from the government, we don't issue subpoenas
Speaker 1: and say to the perpetrator, can you please give us
Speaker 1: the car back. Can you please give us the money
Speaker 1: that you robbed from the bank back? And oh, if
Speaker 1: you don't give us the money from the bank that
Speaker 1: you robbed back pursuing too the subpoena, we're going to
Speaker 1: run to the court and we're going to ask the
Speaker 1: judge to say, judge, can you appoint somebody to be
Speaker 1: the records custodian over the stolen money and certify that
Speaker 1: the bank robber gave us all the stolen money back.
Speaker 1: That's not the way law enforcement works. That's why this
Speaker 1: is not the way Donald Trump should be treated. We
Speaker 1: should do search warrants, we should arrest the perpetrator, and
Speaker 1: then the way we get the rest of the documents
Speaker 1: is we do supplemental search warrants as we investigate and
Speaker 1: learn more about where Donald Trump is hiding this stuff.
Speaker 1: But they're not doing it that way. And I hope
Speaker 1: Jack Smith changes course and fights crime the way it's
Speaker 1: supposed to be fought, not this Pollyanna ass grabbing game
Speaker 1: that they're playing with Donald Trump on his playing field.
Speaker 1: Please please give it back. That's not the way law
Speaker 1: enforcement works. That's the part that's got me so hacked off.
Speaker 1: As a former career prosecutor, you know, when we look
Speaker 1: at all of this, and I just I love the
Speaker 1: example that you provided of the car. Please give it back.
Speaker 1: Oh you stole this, Oh please return it. Right. We
Speaker 1: would not treat any other criminal right this way. It
Speaker 1: seems so easy, Glenn, to pick up people on the
Speaker 1: street to throw the book at them for a series
Speaker 1: of things. And we know, we know all of the
Speaker 1: things that Donald Trump has done. Why because exactly what
Speaker 1: you said, he says it out loud, He says the
Speaker 1: quiet parts out loud, and puts it on his third
Speaker 1: rate social media platform. Let's head back up on the
Speaker 1: car analogy. Yes, because you know, when somebody steals a car,
Speaker 1: it doesn't have national security implications, and yet we use
Speaker 1: search warrants to get the damn car back. Donald Trump
Speaker 1: stole our nation's secrets. He also stole information about the
Speaker 1: nuclear programs of foreign countries, but we're not using the
Speaker 1: law enforcement tools at our disposal to get them back.
Speaker 1: I mean, it reminds me of the Bob Dylan line.
Speaker 1: You know, steal a little and they throw you in jail.
Speaker 1: Steal a lot and they make you king. Mmm. God.
Speaker 1: Heading back up to DC. You know, next year is
Speaker 1: going to be the two year anniversary of the insurrection, Glenn.
Speaker 1: Two years have passed since our capital was invaded by
Speaker 1: a group of thugs chanting, hang Mike Pence, looking for
Speaker 1: Nancy Pelosi, I mean, defecating in the halls of democracy.
Speaker 1: And what we have seen over the course of two
Speaker 1: years is, you know, eight hundred or so arrests of
Speaker 1: the low level foot soldiers that entered the building. Still
Speaker 1: no arrests of the architects of the people that stood
Speaker 1: on the dais at the quote unquote stopped the steel rally,
Speaker 1: pointed to the Capitol building and said go take your
Speaker 1: country back. Members of Congress wore bulletproofves that day. Now
Speaker 1: we find out thirty four Republicans we're texting Mark Meadows,
Speaker 1: the former chief of staff to Donald Trump, thirty four.
Speaker 1: Over twenty four hundred text messages have now been released,
Speaker 1: many of them calling for martial law that they don't
Speaker 1: know how to spell. Tell me, Glenn, how the hell
Speaker 1: are those thirty four members of Congress still have jobs?
Speaker 1: How have they not been picked up by the Department
Speaker 1: of Justice? What is going on? In your opinion? As
Speaker 1: we have covered this as we have discussed it for
Speaker 1: a year. A couple of things are going on. One.
Speaker 1: I believe the OJ is trying to build the perfect beast,
Speaker 1: the perfect prosecution. There is no such thing. But there
Speaker 1: is this culture of timidity at DOJ to bring difficult, challenging,
Speaker 1: politically charged, unconventional cases, particularly against politicians, and especially against wealthy, influential, connected,
Speaker 1: white mail politicians, and there's no excuse for that. I
Speaker 1: railed against it in my decades inside the Department of
Speaker 1: Justice when I fought to bring unconventional cases, even cases
Speaker 1: I knew I might lose, and I lost plenty of
Speaker 1: cases in my thirty years, but it was the right
Speaker 1: thing to do to try to hold people accountable. I
Speaker 1: always tried to teach the prosecutors I supervised it's more
Speaker 1: important to try cases than to win cases, because you're
Speaker 1: giving victims a shot at justice and you're protecting the
Speaker 1: community in the process. So I think it is part
Speaker 1: of the culture of the Department of Justice. They don't
Speaker 1: do difficult, unconventional, unprecedented cases particularly well, and they certainly
Speaker 1: don't do them in a timely manner. I hope that
Speaker 1: is what accounts for most of the delay. I hope
Speaker 1: it's not corruption. You know, I did a video I
Speaker 1: think it was yesterday where I was so fed up
Speaker 1: with how the Department of Justice has treated Mark Meadows
Speaker 1: that I said, I think we need to take on
Speaker 1: two questions. One, when the Department of Justice tells us
Speaker 1: no one is above the law, can we credit that? Two?
Speaker 1: Excuse me, when the Department of Justice tells us they
Speaker 1: will follow the law and follow the facts wherever they lead.
Speaker 1: I need an answer to this question. And I was
Speaker 1: a prosecutor for thirty years, but I need an answer
Speaker 1: to this question. What are the American people to do
Speaker 1: when the facts show beyond all doubt that somebody committed
Speaker 1: a crime, and when the law, as applied to those facts,
Speaker 1: demand ends in indictment, but nobody has been criminally charged.
Speaker 1: What are the American people to do? There's no good
Speaker 1: answer to that question. There are some bad answers that
Speaker 1: I don't even want to spit out into the public
Speaker 1: square because they're dangerous and upsetting, and I hope we
Speaker 1: don't get there. But when you look at a Mark
Speaker 1: Meadows as an example of somebody being above the law,
Speaker 1: you have not only the thirty four treasonist text, messages
Speaker 1: coming to Mark Meadows, right, he was like clearing house
Speaker 1: Central for treason, his texts coming to Mark Meadows from
Speaker 1: thirty four Republican members of Congress trying to unlawfully overturn
Speaker 1: the results of a presidential election. Sorry, and no accountability
Speaker 1: for that. One year ago, almost to the day, you
Speaker 1: had a criminal referral by the Department of Justice of
Speaker 1: Mark Meadows to be executed for contempt of Congress, a
Speaker 1: crime he absolutely committed, there's no question about that, just
Speaker 1: as Steve Bannon and Peter Navarro committed. Those two were
Speaker 1: referred for prosecution and were indicted. Bannon's been convicted. Mark
Speaker 1: Meadows was never even charged. That was a year ago.
Speaker 1: Now we have just yesterday there was reporting out of
Speaker 1: North Carolina that the North Carolina State Bureau of Investigation
Speaker 1: has finished its investigation of Mark Meadows for voter fraud.
Speaker 1: Remember where he lied about living in a trailer and
Speaker 1: Scaly Mount that's right, and he didn't live there, and
Speaker 1: that's voter fraud. And he not only used that address
Speaker 1: as his home of residents to vote, but also to
Speaker 1: run for Congress. That's election fraud at large. Right, So
Speaker 1: let's see if he's prosecuted. Now it's in the hands
Speaker 1: of Attorney General for North Carolina, Josh Time. Let's hope
Speaker 1: he's prosecuted for those crimes. But as of right now,
Speaker 1: Mark Meadows has been above the law, and nobody has
Speaker 1: followed the facts and followed the law to their logical conclusion,
Speaker 1: which is an indictment of Mark Meadows. I hope that changes, Danielle,
Speaker 1: because if it doesn't, I want to know what the
Speaker 1: American people are to do. I just don't get it,
Speaker 1: you know. I guess that's that's really the issue is
Speaker 1: that I don't understand how it is that we've gotten
Speaker 1: to this place where you can literally rattle off all
Speaker 1: of the things that Mark Meadows has done, all of
Speaker 1: the things that Donald Trump has done, and nothing, nothing
Speaker 1: has happened. So staying in DC, let's go to the
Speaker 1: case of the oath Keepers, where something where justice actually
Speaker 1: finally was served and see, like Glenn, are we going
Speaker 1: to use this as the trampoline, this conviction on seditious
Speaker 1: conspiracy as the way to get us to the architects
Speaker 1: that got those people to the Capitol Building in the
Speaker 1: first place. Does that charge turn as Stewart Rhodes, you know,
Speaker 1: into a parrot that will talk, let's hope. So because
Speaker 1: you know, make no mistake about it, it was historic
Speaker 1: that the prosecutors from the US Attorney's Office, from the
Speaker 1: District of Columbia. I sat in that trial for seven weeks.
Speaker 1: That was a long trial to cover, but frankly it
Speaker 1: was a pleasure because it was my friends and former
Speaker 1: colleagues who were prosecuting the case. And they convicted the
Speaker 1: oath Keepers of attempting to violently overthrow the government or
Speaker 1: attempting to violently stop the execution of the laws of
Speaker 1: the United States. That's a big deal. Now that the
Speaker 1: Oathkeepers are convicted of a seditious conspiracy, and there's a
Speaker 1: second Oathkeeper's trial that's up and running in district court
Speaker 1: right now in DC, and then the Proud Boys trial
Speaker 1: is about to kick off also for seditious conspiracy. So
Speaker 1: where did these convictions lead us? They absolute lutely lead
Speaker 1: us into the Willard War Room, because it's the Proud
Speaker 1: Boys and the Oathkeepers who were plugged in pretty directly
Speaker 1: to guys like Roger Stone, Mike Flynn's Alex Jones. So
Speaker 1: I do think these convictions will be building blocks that
Speaker 1: will take us closer to the hierarchy, the command structure
Speaker 1: of the insurrection, the people in the Willard war Room.
Speaker 1: And we know Mark Meadows was plugged into the Willard
Speaker 1: war Room, and we've heard reporting that Donald Trump was
Speaker 1: calling over to the Willard War Room. So yes, these
Speaker 1: are important building blocks. Hopefully we don't have to wait
Speaker 1: another year or two or three to actually see some
Speaker 1: concrete results by way of charges of the command structure
Speaker 1: of the insurrection. I don't think we will. But you
Speaker 1: know what, I've been fooled so many times. I've got
Speaker 1: hero fatigue, I've got justice fatigue. I thought Bob Muller
Speaker 1: would do it, but bar Billbard didn't let him, and
Speaker 1: the Office of Legal Council memo saying you can't indict
Speaker 1: a sitting criminal president didn't let him, which that memo
Speaker 1: takes us one giant step in the direction of a
Speaker 1: Banana republic. That a president can commit all the crimes
Speaker 1: he wants with impunity while in office. That's that's insanity,
Speaker 1: that's Banana Republic stuff, right. So I've been fooled before.
Speaker 1: I thought Merrick Arland was going to come in and
Speaker 1: go Gangbusters, even though he was a very quiet, circumspect, thoughtful,
Speaker 1: judicial kind of guy, and I think he proved to
Speaker 1: be way too much judge and not enough prosecutor. Now
Speaker 1: Jack Smith seems to be enough prosecutor. One of my
Speaker 1: I've had people that worked with me and for me
Speaker 1: at the DCUs Attorney's Office go over and work for
Speaker 1: Jack Smith directly when he was head of public infegory,
Speaker 1: public coruption at the Department of Justice. They say, this
Speaker 1: guy really does prosecute without fear or favor. He goes
Speaker 1: after everybody would lose or draw left, right or center.
Speaker 1: I like that, but now we need to see some
Speaker 1: damn concrete results. So Glenn, let's let's look into the
Speaker 1: crystal ball. What do you think is coming down in
Speaker 1: twenty twenty three? And I mean, we've been doing this
Speaker 1: for two years, waiting on these indictments, waiting on the
Speaker 1: hammer to drop, waiting on the breaking news ticker that
Speaker 1: says Donald Trump, Mark Meadows. Everybody's being indicted on conspiracy
Speaker 1: to overthrow the government, on stealing you know, secrets from
Speaker 1: the government, on any goddamn thing. What do you predict
Speaker 1: for twenty twenty three? Well, you know, if twenty twenty
Speaker 1: two fooled me, I thought it was going to be
Speaker 1: the year of accountability. All I can do now is
Speaker 1: roll that over to twenty twenty three and hope that
Speaker 1: will be the year of accountability, because you know, what
Speaker 1: the hell would be so bad about equal justice for all?
Speaker 1: What would be so bad about that as a goal
Speaker 1: for our nation? I don't get it, you know, Joe Biden.
Speaker 1: I wish I had his words in front of me
Speaker 1: at his inauguration when he said, you know, the cry
Speaker 1: for justice some you know, four hundred years in the making,
Speaker 1: the promise of equal justice for all will be deferred
Speaker 1: no longer. How about that, right? Because if there is
Speaker 1: no equal justice, there's just no justice. And we have
Speaker 1: been suffering from an absence of justice. And you know, again,
Speaker 1: I'll keep looking into my obviously defective crystal ball. I
Speaker 1: need to, I need to bring it in for a
Speaker 1: tune up. But it seems to me that the documents
Speaker 1: crimes are so readily provable, so easily proved in court.
Speaker 1: When Donald's Trump posts in writing, I took these documents
Speaker 1: openly and transparently, and we got him out of his
Speaker 1: damned desk drawers at Marlago. That's what I would call
Speaker 1: an open and shut case. And these are crimes that
Speaker 1: have pretty significant national security implications. These are crimes that
Speaker 1: need to be brought now, right now. So I'm hoping
Speaker 1: that's the first indictment to drop by Jack Smith and
Speaker 1: his team. And then you know, he continues to do
Speaker 1: the fake electors and he goes after members of Congress.
Speaker 1: Here's a little bit of silver lining behind the big
Speaker 1: dark cloud, Danielle. The thirty four members of Congress who
Speaker 1: or and there are reportedly more who were part and
Speaker 1: parcel of the insurrection. They're going to be sworn in
Speaker 1: in January. Here's a problem. The Fourteenth Amendment, Section three
Speaker 1: says insurrectionists are disqualified from serving period. Open and shut,
Speaker 1: not equivocal. They are disquality. Now, the disqualification can be
Speaker 1: removed by a two thirds vote in Congress, but they're disqualified.
Speaker 1: I predict my own worst enemy. I predict you're going
Speaker 1: to have other members of Congress object to their being
Speaker 1: sworn in because the Constitution says they are disqualified. How
Speaker 1: that battle plays out, I'm not quite sure, but the
Speaker 1: Republicans love them. Some strict construction of the Constitution We're
Speaker 1: going to use the fourteenth flipping Amendment to say, Okay,
Speaker 1: then you're disqualified. Let's see where that goes in January. Oh, Glenn,
Speaker 1: you know, it has been a hell of a year.
Speaker 1: The crimes have been audacious, they have been vulgar, They
Speaker 1: have just been in our faces. And you know, as
Speaker 1: we make the march into twenty twenty three, I can't
Speaker 1: help but think that the Department of Justice is claim
Speaker 1: that nobody is above the law is nothing more of
Speaker 1: a bumper sticker. And still we see indictments reigned down
Speaker 1: because I cannot think that Stuart Rhodes and the gang
Speaker 1: and the Proud Boys are the only ones that are
Speaker 1: going to face justice. But those that sent them there,
Speaker 1: that riled them up, that told them to stand back
Speaker 1: and stand by, that pointed to the Capitol Building and
Speaker 1: told them to overtake it and to take their country back,
Speaker 1: are the ones that get to go on, run for president,
Speaker 1: run for Congress, and get off Scott free. So I
Speaker 1: am you know, you know me, I am ye of
Speaker 1: Little Hope. But I can't I can't imagine that we
Speaker 1: go another year that at the end of twenty twenty
Speaker 1: three you say, well, Let's roll that over to twenty
Speaker 1: twenty four. Let's roll it over to twenty twenty I
Speaker 1: can't so you know from your lips to God's ears
Speaker 1: that twenty twenty three is the actual year of justice. Glenn,
Speaker 1: thank you so much for taking all the time all
Speaker 1: year to move us through some of the most incredible
Speaker 1: legal drama that I don't even think that Dick Wolfe
Speaker 1: from Lord Horder could have created himself. So we appreciate you.
Speaker 1: Let's celebrate next year. Let's celebrate the justice that has come. Absolutely,
Speaker 1: that is it for me today. Dear friends on Woke
Speaker 1: f As always, power to the people and to all
Speaker 1: the people. Power, get woke and stay woke as fuck.