Transcript
hey everybody my next guest is no stranger to the Sha Ryan Show in fact
his first appearance was earlier this year maybe you remember the Dallas Alexander episode when we got a ceased
assist from the Canadian government this actually wound up having to do with free
speech and the SRS team stood up against Canada in support of Canadian Free
Speech well this man is the guy that made that all a huge success so it’s a
real honor to have him back on the show in the media all we hear about are the
Trump indictments and I don’t think a lot of us actually really know what the indictments are we just know that he’s
being indicted a lot of people think that it’s unjust maybe it is maybe it isn’t I’m not the expert so we brought
on one of his former attorneys to go through everything
and let us know what all the indictments mean ladies and Gentlemen please
welcome my good friend Mr Tim parlor to the Sha Ryan Show if you get anything
out of this please like subscribe and comment to the show if you’re watching
this on YouTube if you’re listening please head over to Apple podcast head
over to Spotify leave us a review tell us who you’d like to see on the show tell us
what you got out of the episode and if we need to make any improvements leave it in the comment all right I love you
all patreon thank you again for making this show possible me and my team ow
you will never be able to repay you so we just owe you a big thank you and
thank you much love to you all see you
[Music] soon Tim parlor welcome back to the show good to
be back we have a lot of stuff to talk about here so but you’re here for to
talk about all the 91 indictments uh that Trump has but you know you were on
the legal team for how long were you on the legal team for a little bit over a year over a year and recently within the
past few months I believe you decided to depart yep back from the legal team and
um I’m very curious why I mean this is such a high-profile case and uh no
matter no matter what side of the fenter on why did you decide to
Why did you leave the legal team?
leave so the reason I decided to leave is
because I felt that um I was not able to do my job the way
that I knew best how to do it because of outside influences it has nothing to do with the
case and it has nothing to do with the client um you know I very much enjoyed
um you know my personal professional relationship with President Trump I felt
that the case was very important um and ultimately it was
people around him um that were interfer feing with my
ability to defend him in the way that I felt best uh that I could
do and it wasn’t a decision I came to lightly you know it was something that I
I thought about a lot and and ultimately I kind of sat there and I said you know
what I want this case but I don’t need this
case and if I’m not able to do everything that I know is in the
best interest of the client if I’m going to be interfered with there are other things I could be
doing with my time and so you know that’s that’s
really what led me you know to the decision how many attorneys are on his
team so at the time that I was there um there were you know four main attorneys
um that that we were doing the heavy lifting uh it was myself James trusty
John rowy and Evan corkran and we were doing a lot of the heavy lifting there were there were some other uh attorneys
involved uh Lindsey hallan uh was assisting with a lot of stuff but you
know we were the main the main four um and then he had this other attorney uh Boris
Epstein who was in there you know ostensibly as our supervisor h
um and he’s a guy who you know graduated law school spent like 18 months at a
firm doing banking transaction work left that hasn’t practiced law
since became you know a political campaign consultant and you know he was
essentially dictating to us how we should fight doj even though he’d never been in Cor
room as an attorney in his life who appointed this guy to be the top well he
was he somehow worked his way in he was in that position before I came in he was
the one that you know brought me into the team and it was just kind of a you
know from the beginning he he said you know I am the house counsel and you all
report to me what are the other attorneys opinions
on on this I you know I don’t want to speak for them but um of the three that I
mentioned or of the four of us that I mentioned only one’s still there are you
serious so and you know there’s been just last week there was a article
in Rolling Stone about how the the team in Georgia had a shakeup and lost one of
the finest attorneys in Georgia for exactly the same reason
um yeah it’s it’s difficult enough to fight
against doj and to defend a client with all of these other atmospherics but when you have somebody
interfering who you know really doesn’t know what they’re doing and is focusing
on their own Twisted view of you know what they think will help a campaign as opposed
to what is right and what is appropriate in the criminal justice system that’s a
situation I just can’t I couldn’t continue to operate under those rules
and you know I mean look I I’ve represented some
major figures in major cases and all of them have given me you
know the freedom to do what I need to do I’ve represented candidates before
people who’ve had campaigns you know what they always say Tim you’re here to keep me out of
trouble you guys you’re here to get me reelected you guys stay out of his way
you need anything give it to him and I don’t even I can’t even
blame why I don’t blame president Trump for this in this circumstance he
is um stretched so thin he’s managing so many different different things he has
to rely upon the people around him and unfortunately he just doesn’t always
have the best people around him who are actually looking out for what is best do
you think that this this lead attorney is that
what you would call him Boris a lead attorney uh let’s call him the house
counsel that’s what he likes to call himself the house counsel do which is a weird term by the way the only people
I’ve ever heard called House counsel is what they used to say to try and
disqualify attorneys off of Old Mafia cases was he was was he appointed by
Trump he was hired by him yes is this guy acting in his own
self-interest in my opinion he is is there any other reasons why he
left no no that was really it I mean I
thought it was an important case one that I I would have very much enjoyed
trying but if I’m going to be micromanaged and directed to do things that you know and
directed to not do things why would I want to try you know
the trial of the century with my hand tied behind my back where I’m not allowed to win have any of the repl
placs left too uh as of right now not that I’m
aware of interesting
well let’s get into the thick of it and uh I’m going to have a lot more questions on why he left as we go
through the interview but um but today I really I just want to dig into the Trump
indictments and um figure out what’s going on there because a lot of people
are very concerned you know including myself that that this
is just political persecution so but um
going through them real quick Trump is indicted within a 4 and a half month span Trump has been charged four times
Washington DC four felony charges Georgia 13 felony charges Florida 40 CH
felony charges New York 34 felony charges that’s 91 felony charges in four and a half
months um so I want to dive into these things
but uh first I have a I have just a couple of questions from patreon sure uh
Patreon questions
so patreon that’s my subscription Network that is uh that is what enables
you and I to both be sitting here uh they’re are top top supporters and this one is from
Charlotte what is him’s best guest of what legal fees Trump has been build for
in the last year so you know the legal fees have
pretty much all been covered through uh political action committee um you know the the pack save America and so a lot
of those fees are public um because they do have to do public filings the fees in this case have
been massive and you know part of that is because of you know the complexity of
it but part of it also is because uh quite frankly you have these attorneys that are you know Billing at over $1,000
do an hour and they think that there’s millions of dollars behind it uh and you
know if you look at those things you’ll see that my even though I was on the case for over a year my portion of it is
relatively small um but like I’ve seen some of the attorneys on there that over the course of a year build $5,000 or $5
million and my experience that particular attorney
didn’t provide any value ad whatsoever so you know what’s the total
fees I mean it’s it’s got to be $20 million oh wow you know plus at this point uh is that normal for how much
something like this would cost it’s a bit excessive uh but at the
same time one thing you have to remember is when you have a case that is you many
ways all consuming you have to set aside a lot of your other work um you know
think about this Georgia case they just recently said that uh the trial of that going to be somewhere between 4 to 8
months long so as a lawyer you have to sit there and say okay know it’s
certainly hourly right but at the same time I’m going to have to set aside you know not taking any new work not work on
my business at all spend you know 4 to eight months living in a
hotel somewhere uh and those things can get expensive yeah will that um Georgia case
cost you know over a million dollars per defendant I think it
will um but yeah right now when we’re talking about you know these pack fees
going you know into the tens of millions of dollars
um personally I think some of the lawyers there got greedy at the trough and
now they’re all of a sudden you know as things are coming down with the indictments and it’s going to get more
time intensive how much money is there left yeah you know you said that this may be
a little excessive what what do you think a normal let’s say spent 20 million with your estimation what would
a normal human being with what did we say 9 91 counts felony charges four
different districts States whatever you want to call it um
what would that run well it really it really depends on the individual case um
and you know legal fees are one of those things where they’re limited only by your
imagination okay if you want to have the biggest fanciest defense you know the
the the multi-million dollar defense where you have a team of lawyers and
paralal at the table you have a shadow jury you have jury Consultants you have all of these other you know things and
laser light shows you you can do it um I’ve never done that I’ve never found it
to be valuable I think a lot of that is more uh make work and it’s it’s efforts
by the attorneys to try and just suck more you know money out of cases you
know I took over a case once where the prior attorney was um hiring psycho
dramatists to try to have the defendant act things out whereas I looked at it
and said I have a better idea why don’t you just sit with the guy and ask him hey tell me what
happened so those things you know if I looked at
these cases myself and I said okay my method of trying these cases um then my
billing rate is a little bit lower because I don’t maintain a big fancy office um but all four of these cases
yeah I could put together a good solid defense on all these for probably
five 5 million yeah now but even there it’s kind of a
question of you know does it cut off the motion to dismiss face do you have to go
to a trial if you do go to trial how long is the trial going to be how many lawyers do you want in the
trial you it’s it really can be limited by your
imagination but at the same time you I would advise everybody facing that kind of situation to have a real hard talk
with your lawyer about are all of these expenses really
appropriate and you know one of the problems that a lot of clients face is that the lawyer is trying to get all
these fees out of you at a time when you’re facing jail and so they’ll you know they’ll hit
you on this stuff oh you got to you know mortgage your house you got to do all this stuff because you don’t want to end
up in jail saying man I wish I had hired that psycho dramatist you know yeah that’s a great
Point that’s a great point and it’s a it’s something it’s something that I don’t like about a lot of people in my
profession where they do um you know give a lot of us a bad name through that
yeah but at the same time these things can get expensive yeah I mean in the DC case they’re talking about millions of
pages of documents millions of yeah how do you go through millions of pages of
documents you got to hire a team to do it yeah I can’t do that myself I I can’t
sit there and do it myself I mean certainly things are getting better now where they have you know certain AI
Solutions but you know do you really want to trust chat GPT to go through everything and figure out what your you
know where all the potential defenses are or are you going to want to have a human usually a junior lawyer a team of
Junior lawyers going through this to pull out the things that are relevant yeah yeah you
know there’s another question from Mr Burns describe the most likely scenarios
you foresee for Trump to be convicted or otherwise that would eliminate him from
appearing on the 2024 presidential
ballot the question gets interesting with that
last little caveat at the end about eliminating him from the ballot uh because ultimately none of
these cases are disqualifying that they would force
his removal and all of these cases in order for it to you know get to a conviction
that could know while not statutorily remove him putting him into a position
where it’s very difficult for him to do anything they have to get the trials done before the election and that’s why
you see a lot of these prosecutors really pushing the timing of trying to get these trials done quickly
whereas if there was not an election involved cases of this magnitude
ordinarily take over two years to get to a trial so the idea that you know I mean
in Georgia they’re talking about doing the first trial with two of the codefendants next month
which is crazy to actually take a case to trial within you know a couple of months of the initial arraignment that’s
unheard of but they need to you know if if this is
as the Trump team keeps saying election interference then they need to have the cases brought before the
election especially in Georgia if they can tie him up in a courtroom and make him sit in a courtroom for 4 to8 months
every every single day during the general election he’s not out debating
he’s not out campaigning so I think that that’s the most likely scenario really
comes down to a matter of timing of are any of these
cases uh or multiple of these cases actually going to get tried before the
election did you know that one in five Americans have learned learn a new language on their bucket list it’s true
if that’s you check it off your bucket list this year because with Babble you can start speaking a new language
foreign language in about 3 weeks why Babble because it works instead of
paying hundreds of dollars for a private tutor or fooling yourself with language apps that are a little more than games
babbles quick 10-minute lessons are designed by over 150 language experts to
help you start speaking a new language just like I said in as little as 3 weeks
here’s a special limited time deal for our listeners to get you started right now get 55% off your Babel subscription
but only for our listeners at babel.com SRS with over 10 million subscriptions
sold Babble is real language learning for real conversations get 55% off Babel
/ SRS that’s spelled b ael.com
SRS rules and restrictions apply visit babel.com for terms and
details are you traveling this holiday season well Pure Talk has you covered because they’ve just added international
roaming in over 30 countries that’s right whether you’re making calls from the Vatican or on a beach in the Bahamas
you’re covered from the steps of Buckingham Palace or your Villa in Santorini you can dial away and here’s
the best part there’s no rate increase Pure Talk still saves the average family almost ,000 a year with plans starting
just at $20 a month and they put you on America’s Most Dependable 5G Network so
the coverage is second to none stop dragging your feet switch to Pure Talk a veteran-owned Wireless company with
Simply the Best Us customer service team now with with international roaming in over 30 countries go to Pur talk.com ran
to make the switch and you’ll save an additional 50% off your first month that’s Pur talk.com ran to start savings
on wireless
now interesting um you know there’s one more question here from Brody would it
be possible especially if he is found not guilty for Trump to sue for malicious
prosecution since they keep actively searching for something to charge him
with that sounds actually like a question the client would have asked me too
um it is possible um you it’s suing for malicious prosecution is not something
that you frequently do uh and there’s a lot of you know hurdles to it um
prosecutorial immunity is one of the big ones that’s why you know when you see people that are wrongfully convicted uh
that have their convictions overturned all those lawsuits are
against the police departments not the prosecutors because the prosecutors get
immunity okay and so you know whenever the Manhattan District Attorney’s Office
screws up a case the mypd is the one that has to pay for it okay
so but in a case where you are found not guilty um a determination would need to
be made because malicious prosecution is a much higher standard than just simply being acquitted being acquitted means
that they failed to prove their case Beyond A Reasonable Doubt and so even if a jury thinks it’s
more likely than not that you committed the crime if they have any reasonable doubt
as to it they have to vote for an acquittal so it’s not it’s not a statement of Innocence
necessarily uh it is a statement you’re not guilty and so when you then go to evaluate it for malicious prosecution
you have to say can I meet that higher standard and I think some of these you can some of these you can I think that
uh potentially you as we’re going to discuss a little bit later the election related cases
particularly uh I think that there is a possibility of doing something there and especially if it
um if it does have an impact on the election cuz you’re essentially
disrupting his job application mhh makes
sense well we got a lot to cover Tim those are those were uh those were the
top patreon questions that we had I have a ton of questions sure uh we’re going
to start with the January 6 in Insurrection case
but before that before we really get into the weeds everybody always gets a gift on this show you know that so I
know I know you’re a coffee guy all right there you go nice so you
know we just had this conversation outside but you know I’m very into mental health yes and part of mental
health is keeping your brain sharp so that is layered superfoods coffee in
performance mushrooms and the coffee actually has uh functional mushroom
benefits in it and so there’s two different kinds of coffee in there they have functional mushroom benefits then
there’s performance mushrooms and then there’s a creamer I know you’re a black coffee guy but uh the creamer actually
has uh benefits of functional mushrooms and adaptogens as well so well thank you
very much you’re welcome definitely look forward to uh Brewing those let me know how you like it we’ll do but um so
diving in here I have a question on my own uh one of my personal questions is
you know the actually let me backtrack I think
it’s important anytime you mention Trump today people automatically assume that
you are a it’s an endorsement or a supporter and and the same goes with the
other direction anytime you mention Biden right people automatically assume
you know if if you’re mentioning him in any type of good light that you’re a Biden supporter and and it it’s getting
to the point in this country where you can’t you can’t criticize or praise any
any political candidate without people taking that is a endorsement correct and
Are you a Trump supporter?
so what I wanted to ask you is you know you were on the Trump legal team for
quite a while are you a is this is this is this you showing
everybody that you are a a trump supporter or is this just you doing your
job that’s a really good question and one that nobody’s asked me publicly
before um the answer to the question is I’m a lawyer my loyalty is to the
Constitution and every representation that I undertake is with a laser focus
on the facts the evidence and the law law the politics are something that you
know needs to be considered uh in certain cases in figuring out the best
method but a lawyer has an ethical responsibility to represent their client
to the best of their abilities within the ethical rules and if a lawyer allows their
personal political beliefs to dictate that representation then they are a failure
as a lawyer if if a client has a legitimate case whether you agree with that client
you know in their personal life or political life or not then you should
fight that case I am not a campaign
guy I had had no dealings you know I tried to stay away from the Trump
campaign uh I represented him because I believed in his case I believe that the
it’s an important case it involves you know issues of monumental importance to
this country issues that will create significant precedent that not only affect Donald Trump himself but it will
also affect future presidents down the line and that’s why I found this case to
be important not because you know I you know voted for him or voted against him or anything else and quite
frankly if I were to be public about who I’m voting for I think that that would
be you know something detrimental to my ability to represent clients you know I
I have built over the course of my career a several clients that happen to
be on the right side of the political aisle do I also represent people on the
left absolutely you know if if Bob Menendez or Hunter Biden called me tomorrow and
said hey you know would you be interested in coming into my case I would say yeah let’s sit down and have a
chat you know I I don’t like talking about my personal
political beliefs uh for that reason uh I will tell you
this I don’t fit into my personal thoughts don’t fit into the Orthodoxy of
either political party you know I I I agree with certain
things on one side I agree with certain things on the other side but primarily
I’m focused on the facts the evidence and the law well I really appreciate that thank
you I think that’s important and and um you know I I wish we lived in a time where you
could have political discussions without people automatically
assuming who you’re supporting or stand behind or going to vote for you know and
and it’s you it it it in my experience you cannot have any discussions about
politics no constructive criticisms no praise no nothing right without people
um prematurely labeling uh your your your beliefs right and uh and U so thank
you for sharing that I think I think that’s important to kick off the interview with the fact that you are a
neutral party in this and and that um you’re just trying to do right by the by
the Constitution and get to the facts and so I have some questions um but I
think it would be more suited uh for the end of the interview one is about the jury juries and um and and another is is
this just after we dive in to all of these different indictments and in the
different locations is this just political prosecution because you know I am
extremely concerned if it is political prosecution because this set a president sense of
tone and and if it is this is going to be the way from here
on out and uh and that that’s that’s very scary you know
for everyone because it won’t just be one party uh eventually it will be all
of them correct you know and um so anyway let’s start with Washington
Jan 6 Case
DC the January 6 Insurrection case um the house select committee on January 6
attack voted in December 2022 to refer Trump to the justice department for
persecution August 1st 2023 the grand jury approved an indictment against
Trump indicting him with an extraordinary conspiracy that threatened
to disenfranchise millions of Americas uh the charges that I have are
two felony counts of obstructing an official proceeding one felony account
of conspiracy to defraud the United States one felony account of conspiracy
against rights where do we start here well
um it’s an interesting case because and I I think that it is
unfortunately one that’s difficult to look at this
passionately um but um and a lot of it is because of the involvement of the
politicians um you and your timeline um your timeline was accurate
but you mentioned about the January 6 committee you know doing the referral to
me that’s an irrelevant fact the justice department was already doing this
totally separate and aart from what the select committee was doing the select
committee’s um report to my mind had several
um major flaws to it and you know I dealt with those
investigators um I should say investigators with air quotes because uh
they did not conduct the real investigation anything that didn’t fit with what they had you know
predetermined to be the solution they didn’t want to hear I had witnesses that they didn’t want to talk
to I had documents that they didn’t want to see I had you know a situation where one
of my clients U former guest of yours Bernie Carrick we had gotten president Trump
who I didn’t represent at the time to agree to a full privilege waiver as long
as Bernie carrick’s testimony could be public the committee refused
they specifically chose we don’t want the testimony to be public and we rather not have the privileged information we
rather keep it secret and limited so that committee to me was kind
of a sham and most congressional committees honestly on both sides of the
aisle they are I mean Congressional hearings I remember one former
Congressman once told me the purpose of a congressional hearing is fundraising it’s about getting video
clips that you can use for fundraising so that piece of it I kind of set to the
side the investigation in Chief and I dealt with them you know a
lot the entire theory of the case comes down
to did he knowingly push false claims of election
fraud to try to overturn you know the will of the people and install himself
wrongfully as president for a second term that’s their Theory and you know
they have a few different alternative methods of charging it where they’re really to my mind they went through the
law books to try and find you know we have this conduct that we don’t like
let’s go through the law boooks to try and find some statute that we can criminalize it in and so I think that in
large respects they’re kind of trying to jam the square peg into the round hole
on that but from a more basic perspective
my biggest problem with the entire January 6 case is it’s all a matter of
how you evaluate his actions based on the role that you assume that he’s
taking because as a first term
president he is wearing two hats he has the Hat of being you know
the candidate who wants to win the election but he’s also wearing the Hat
of commander-in-chief who has a mandate under the Constitution to ensure that
the laws of the United States are Faithfully executed
so pull back from a second from all the rhetoric
change the names change the personalities change the
circumstances you have a second term president not a candidate who has received credible
reports of possible fraud which could have affected the
outcome of the election that possible fraud needs to be
further investigated to conclusively prove or disprove
it what do you want the commander-in-chief to do under that
circumstance I want them to do what’s right I want them to uphold the law you want them to call the Attorney General
you want them to call the FBI director you want to tell him to tell them hey we’ve received these credible reports I
would like you to send that FBI agents and research them figure it
out prove it conclusively one way or or the other prove or
disprove call up the governors say hey I received reports of fraud in your state
can you have your state investigators go and look into
this that is what we would want a second term president who is
not running for re-election to do and notice am I hypothetical I didn’t even
say which way the election would have tipped we would want them to do that no
matter what but when you add in the additional fact it’s it’s a first-term
president who is running for reelection and the allegations of fraud go in the
direction where if there is fraud proven then he personally
benefits when you add those additional facts it’s impossible to really look at
it dis passionately anymore and so in this
circumstance if president Trump has brought credible information about fraud which changed the outcome of the
election do we expect him to sit there and
say well you know Joe Biden won so I’m not
going to ask anybody to look into these things and that is the part that people
are you know to my mind the investigators not really looking at it
through that lens they’re looking at it through the lens of he’s a candidate who
lost who wants to overturn the result and the difference between those
you know the line is very thin and very gray between those two
roles and additionally it all comes back to did he believe these
reports where did the reports come from so the reports came from a lot of different sources sources uh and this is
Again part of what hasn’t been fully explored at the time they were receiving
Reports of Ballot tampering
a lot of reports from people on the ground in the various States who said I
saw this I saw them unloading boxes of
of ballots I saw them you know doing this I saw people running the same
ballot through the machines multiple times you know whatever it is they were getting all of these complaints from
around the country and some of them weren’t actually even complaints of
observing frauds so much as complaints of observing irregularities they are refusing to let
The Observers watch the ballot counting that was a big
one why are you refusing to let The Observers watch the ballot
Counting we do they normally no normally that is
that is a part of our system that and it’s it’s written into laws of the various states of how the ballots get
counted what observers are allowed to go usually you have the opportunity for Republican and Democrat Observer to both
be there the Republicans observers went and they were not allowed to
observe and that you know removal of the Observer
is something that on one hand is very easy to prove you have plenty of eyewitnesses you have surveillance video
on the other hand is very difficult to prove that it means
anything because once you’ve removed the witness what happened in the room I have no idea you know did they
double count maybe who knows did they do everything appropriately and they just didn’t like people watching them maybe
who knows the removal of observers is not something that in and of
itself proves fraud but it’s something that gives an indicator that
this should be looked into more is there any law that states that you have to
allow The Observers in yeah and why is not why is that law not being
upheld consequen time that was the issue at the time is that you know this was
this was not proper the way that you kept the uh The Observers out they went to judges they got you
injunctions but you’re talking about a very short period of time that by the time you go through the legal
process the counting is done M and then what’s the
remedy do a recount well what if there what if they’ve done something to the
ballots who knows it it becomes very difficult
so they received all these reports of various irregularities throughout the country and look I didn’t personally
observe any of these things so I can’t speak to the veracity of of any of these but I will tell you that one of my
clients you know Bernie Carrick was one of the chief investigators working with
Rudy Giuliani they received a lot of these complaints some of them they were able
to Discount right off the bat and say that’s not something worth our time that’s not something that’s credible
this person is a c set it to the side focus on the ones that they could
actually do something with and
ultimately when he you know testified or when he was interviewed by the January 6
committee when he was interviewed by Jack Smith team his story was consistent
which is as a former criminal investigator we found evidence of fraud that rises to
the level of probable CA not proof Beyond A Reasonable Doubt
probable cause to believe that fraud had been committed which requires further
investigation to conclusively prove or disprove they didn’t have the resources to do that they had neither the time the
money the manow The subpoena power to do it you know who does
the FBI and that is really where this thing
comes down to is that he received these reports from the Giuliani team and
others the president he then goes over to Bill bar
and others and says I want you to send investigators
out to look at this and again I wasn’t in in the room
but the the way that it was explained to me Bill bar essentially
responds there’s nothing there there’s no fraud this is you know this is not worth
my time I’m not going to devote resources to doing this
investigation a lot of the frustration that built up by the morning of January
6th I think was more fueled by the lack of an
investigation and the appearance that some of these people
were just saying it’s better to you know close our eyes and move forward instead
of actually verifying these things mhm yeah if we could go back in time I
would love to grab Bill bar by the arm say dude if you think the Giuliani is
full of full of it tell that to the president say hey I
think Rudy Giuliani is full of crap here’s what I’m going to do I’m going to send out a team of FBI agents we’re
going to go investigate all that stuff that he did and I’m going to bring you back a report showing you that he’s full of
crap if he had done that I think that would have changed a lot of the
trajectory of things not blaming him not saying he’s personally responsible for
January 6 but the the belief that no investigation
was going to be done I think is what fostered the
desperation um and you know the continued you know so-called pressure
campaign to do an investigation you one of the things that I’m always amazed at by these
allegations is and this is both in the DC and the Georgia case
is he put on an immense pressure campaign to conduct an
investigation well guess what asking the FBI or the Georgia Bureau of
Investigations to conduct an investigation is very dangerous because you have no control over it if I ask the
police or the FBI I want you to investigate this my hands are off of it and I am in
a position of sitting back and waiting and the FBI is going to go out they’re going to investigate they’re going to
interview people they’re going to look at evidence and there’s a chance they come back and they say Tim this thing that you said we found evidence of it
but there’s also a big chance that they come back and they say hey this thing that you said we found an innocent
explanation there’s no there
there he never asked in any of these things
I want you to investigate with this conclusion
h i want you to investigate this allegation that’s the
difference and so and and this you know crosses both
the Georgia and DC case if you believe that there’s a possibility of
Fraud and you’re asking in them to investigate it that is not a
crime when it comes to these counts cuz this is all wrapped around j6
correct right the DC stuff yeah none of these sound to me like they
are charging him with instigating January 6th no yeah not not
at all so and that’s an important piece is that people keep talking about you know the January 6 Insurrection
mhm I understand why people use that term I don’t understand why lawyers use
that term Insurrection is a legal term that
has a definition under the United States code you cannot sit there and as a
lawyer and say the January Insurrection when not a single person has been
charged with the crime of insurrection many people were charged with the actions on that day but nobody’s been
charged with Insurrection so as a lawyer I throw that
term to the side you as as being an organized effort to you to overthrow the
government um obstruction of official proceeding yeah a lot of lot of people did do that
absolutely trespassing you know property damage General Mayhem absolutely they
did all that bad fashion sense
absolutely but that fashion S I wouldn’t
walk around Congress wearing a fuzzy hat but you know
yeah so Insurrection is to the side but
even even inciting a riot is not something that is been
charged with he’s been charged with you know the obstruction of the
proceeding relating to trying to pressure Mike Pence into not
certifying he’s been charged with all these claims of fraud uh against the United States by
falsely claiming that there was fraud in the election to Mike Pence to various
members of Congress you know with the intent of doing this yeah as it relates to the alternate slates of electors
things like that but they could
not for good reason they could not establish a connection that he had
knowingly incited a violent protest or a riot
or an Insurrection because there’s no evidence of
that you know he asked the people to go down there peacefully and patriotically
and so it’s very difficult with that video to then go in front of a jury and
say he wanted them to go down there and commit murder in
Mayhem so that’s so that piece of the the case is really you know excised
out when is this going to be tried isn’t out yet yeah right now they’re talking
about a trial date I think of um next summer um so still before the election
but you again given the volume of Discovery and everything in this
case it will only get tried on that schedule if everybody just ignores
the standard conventions of Federal Criminal
Do you think any indictments will stick?
procedure do you think these are going to stick I believe that the January 6
charges in DC could result in a jury verdict of
conviction I believe that the charges are likely to be overturned on
appeal but I think that his greatest danger is a jury verdict of conviction
and again if they Rush the trial then he’s going to have the
conviction and the appeal is not going to get decided till a year or two
later and so um if he has a conviction
and the judge sentences him to jail right before the election then yeah
that’s going to have an impact and the fact that a um that an appell Court
overturns a verdict later on too late
yeah how much time could it be facing with the
DC you6 one alone and because that indictment came down after I left the
team I never sat down and actually you know went through the sentencing guidelines calculations on it um but it
it would not be a no jail case uh and in particular these judges I
think they would you know put them in you know one of the things that I’m
Amazed by is the judges that have been hearing all these January 6
cases they’re Witnesses you know some of the judges have even talked about how on the
morning of January 6th I watched the Insurrection out my window of the
courthouse and it’s true you look at the court where the courthouse is you look out the windows and you can see the
capital in any other circumstance a judge who is that personally
involved would ordinarily be removed and this was a great debate um
that they had several years ago about can we actually try
911 related Al-Qaeda members in the southern District of New
York because the courthouse is so close to the World Trade
Center so it’s I I think that if he’s tried in
DC there’s a high likelihood uh great possibility of
conviction I think that given all of the other sentences that have been handed down for all of the other protesters
I think that the likelihood of him getting 10 plus
years is high wow you think that’s high yeah it’s
very likely yeah I think that the likelihood of that being then overturned by the appell court is high
okay and so you know some of this stuff may get dealt with in pre-trial motions
to dismiss which maybe they’ll even allow that to go to the appell court uh before trial
that’s not something that they usually do but sometimes it’s appropriate with the information that
you’ve been presented with uh when you were on the case yeah is he
guilty in my opinion no and and it all comes down
to did he believe that the claims of fraud were
false I don’t think anybody has ever heard him speak and certainly
nobody that sat with a man and spoke to him face to face could ever say he knows
that there was no fraud he believes today that there was fraud in that
election he believes today that that election was stolen from
him and here’s the thing for purposes of this criminal case
his personal belief is more important than whether
there was fraud you can spend a whole trial proving that there was no fraud but if he if he believed it at the
time then he’s not guilty well wouldn’t the so wouldn’t the First Amendment
protect that not exactly um so first
amendment is a little bit more Nuance than that um so the First Amendment does
give you the right to you know say whatever you want as
long as it’s not you know as long as it needs for the for your free speech to be
criminalized it has to have more than just speech so perfect example is you know
the the history behind The Stolen Valor Act they initially passed a law saying
you know claiming to have military you know decorations and rank and and
history and everything is you know falsely claiming that as a crime that was
overturned as a violation of the First Amendment you have First Amendment right to
lie the way that they then brought it back was it has to be tied to something
else so if I go and tell everybody I was a Navy SEAL that’s legal nobody’s
ever going to hire me again but it’s legal for me to lie about being an Navy SEAL now if I
say I am a former Navy SEAL and I can teach you how to scuba
dive and I’m going to charge you yeah I I’m I’m a scuba instructor former Navy
SEAL that’s where the crime is because you are connecting the false statement
to some form of pecuniary gain monetary
gain and they’ve even you know been looking at this of does it get down to
the level of you know falsely claiming that you’re a seal and a bar at night so you can convince the girl to go home with you you is that is that uh
constituted but here again if you’re simply saying pretend for a second that
there was no fraud pretend for a second that um that he knew that there was no fraud if he’s just saying
it there’s nothing wrong with that but the fact that he’s then
connecting it to Mike Pence you should not certify the
election that’s that extra step that takes it outside of a First Amendment
Did Mike Pence make the right decision?
defense did Mike Pence make the right call that day I don’t know um I think that the the law
was ambiguous as to whether he had the power to do what they were asking him to
do uh they have since you know gone to amend the uh the Electoral College act
to clarify that his role is purely ceremonial and in doing so they do admit
that it was at a minimum vague and to back up for a second
because you know one of the big underlying questions here is
what was Mike Pence being asked to do Mike Pence has said you got to
remember he’s now running for president against Trump he has said that he was
asked to basically reject these things and declare Trump as the
president that claim is inconsistent with all of the evidence that I saw
through my time representing him and all of the other people and witnesses that I have
interviewed the information that I had which is very consistent with every
single one of these Witnesses is that what he was asked to do
was they were going to present him with evidence of possible
fraud and that he was going to say because I can’t be
sure I don’t want to certify the election today I’m going to adjourn these
proceedings for 10 days and I would ask that these particular
States go back and investigate these particular
claims of Fraud and come back to me before the next Hearing in 10 days days to let me
know whether these slates are still
accurate if in fact that is what he was being asked to do then I think for him to have said yes
certainly the way that the law was written at the time he wouldn’t have been
wrong to do that at the same time was he wrong for
what he did do no in in my personal opinion I think he
could have gone either way I think that the way that the law was written it gave him
discretion so he made the decision that he felt he should
have you know I I personally can’t I don’t take a position on on whether he
was right I say this he wasn’t wrong I’m not
going to say he was right but he wasn’t wrong gotcha this is a
little unrelated but I’m I’m curious to know I mean we get into the section where who
could pardon him how could he get out of this all federal crime they were all they were all federal crimes so if
Trump is reelected he could pardon himself why do you think he didn’t pardon himself before he left
office was that a mistake on his part self
paron is a
um doesn’t look great well and it’s also it’s something that’s never been
done and so it’s it’s never been done it’s of question
legality I mean certainly you know when you read the Constitution it appears that there’s not that
restriction on it um but at the same time nobody’s ever done
it well here’s the other piece of a pardon this is actually important uh and
I’m if you don’t mind I’m going to go on a slight tangent here about another case a pardon is not a declaration of
Innocence a pardon is a a declaration of
forgiveness and so the act of accepting a pardon is in and of itself considered
to be an admission that you’ve done something wrong and that’s why pardon applications
you usually are required to say yes I made a mistake and I’m asking for forgiveness please restore me to the
full rights of an American citizen without a conviction because I have you know for
whatever reason you want to argue and so the story that I want to
tell you here is um another another one of my clients Eddie
Gallagher when uh we were pre-trial in his case and the newspapers were all
talk about how president Trump was considering pardoning Eddie Eddie actually asked me
he said Tim if he does issue a pardon am I required to accept
it because I don’t want a pardon before my
trial I want to go in the court and I want to face my accusers and I want to
be exonerated at the same time I don’t want to go to jail for the rest of my life I
want to go home to my family but do I have to accept C it or
can I wait until after the trial and so it was something that I actually had to research at the time for
Eddie and you know luckily for him president Trump did not offer him a
pardon uh pre-trial and so he did get the opportunity to go in and exonerate himself but um courts have found in
certain cases in very unique circumstances where it was brought to the Court’s attention that you cannot
claim you were innocent if you accepted a pardon here’s a fact that I am sure just
about every one of you listening right now is going to find absolutely
disgusting according to reports 60% of pork sourced here in the United States
comes from one company and that one company just happens to be owned by
China and guess what there’s more that one company
happens to inject its Hogs with ratto panine a chemical that is banned
in 160 countries to include China yet guess what you find it in the meat
section of just about every single grocery store here in the
US that’s right so I thought you just might be interested in an alternative
let me tell you about moink moink delivers grassfed and grass finished beef and lamb pastured pork chicken and
sustainable wild caught Alaskan salmon straight to your door here’s the deal
I’ve tried the pork the beef the fish and the poultry from moink and it’s
fresh and it’s clean not like this junk that you get at the grocery store from
these massive meat suppliers you see I like to know
where my meat comes from is I’m sure all of you do too keep American farming
going by signing up at moox dcom Shan right now in listeners of this show get
free ground beef for a year that’s one year of the best ground beef you’ll ever
taste but for a limited time that’s spelled m o i n k box.com Shan that’s
moink box.com Shan I want to tell you about this
business venture I’ve been on for about the past 78 months and it’s finally come to
fruition I’ve been hellbent on finding the cleanest functional mushroom
supplement on the planet that all kind of stemmed from the Psychedelic treatment I did came out of it got a ton
of benefits haven’t had a drop of alcohol in almost 2 years I’m more in the moment with my family and that led
me down researching the benefits of just everyday functional mushrooms and I started taking some supplements I found
some coffee Replacements I even wrapped a brand and you know it got to the point
where I just wanted the finest ingredients available no matter where
they come from and it it it got to this point where I was just going to start my
own brand and so we started going to trade shows and and looking for the
finest ingredients and in doing that I ran into this guy maybe you’ve heard of him his name’s lared Hamilton and his
wife Gabby Reese and they have an entire line of supplements with all the finest
ingredients and we got to talking turns out they have the perfect functional
mushroom supplement it’s actually called performance mushrooms
and this has everything it’s USDA organic it’s got chaga craps Lion’s man
Miaki this stuff is amazing for energy balance for cognition look just being
honest see a lot of people taking care of their bodies I do not see a lot of people taking care of their
brain this is the product guys and so we got to talking
and our value seemed very long we’re both into the functional
mushrooms and after a lot of back and forth I am now a shareholder in the
company I have a small amount of ownership and I’m just look I’m just really proud to be
repping and be a part of the company that’s making the best functional mushroom supplement on the planet you
can get this stuff at layed superfoods.com you can use the promo
code SRS that’ll get you 20% off these performance mushrooms or anything in the
store they got a ton of good stuff once again that’s layed superfoods.com use the promo code SRS that get you 20% off
you guys are going to love this stuff I guarantee
it all right Tim we’re pretty much wrapped up with the j6
Washington DC indictments I would like to get into the Georgia election
Georgia Election interference case
interference case sure so this case I find very interesting after some uh
conversations that we had offline but um status indictment criminal investigation
opened February of 2021 summer of 2023 Willis presented her evidence to a
regular grand jury which approved a 98 page indictment on August 14th
2023 13 uh felony count charges one count of
violating the racketeering influenced and corrupt organizations act Reco three
counts of solicitation of violation of Oath by a public officer one count of conspiracy to commit impersonating a
public officer two counts of conspiracy to commit forgery in the first degree
two two counts of false statements and writings two counts of conspiracy to commit false statements and writings one
count of filing false documents one count of conspiracy to commit filing
false documents am I missing anything sounds really bad when you list something like
that it does uh could you go through and and tell us what all these
indictments mean you know the Georgia case
essentially mirrors the jacksmith uh DC case but in in a slightly different
angle who is Jack Smith uh sorry that’s the um the special counsel um you know
Jack Smith is special couns in the doj case Okay so it it mirrors the DC case
in a lot of ways but it departs in a lot of ways too one thing to remember here Fanny
Willis is a County prosecutor okay she’s not a state
attorney general she’s not a federal prosecutor her fom is Fulton County that’s
it not only that Fulton County is it encompasses the capital there are certain portions of
that County that are outside of her jurisdiction specifically the State
House the state government buildings you you know where the governor is where the
secretary of state is where the legislator legislature is those buildings are also outside of her
jurisdiction state buildings because the state is superior to the
county anything happens in there gets investigated by the state police gets prosecuted by the state attorney general
not the county so as a County prosecutor she
doesn’t really have any power to be investigating the things that she’s Prosecuting here what she’s done is
she’s taken the state Rico count uh which is you know racketeering influenced corrupt organizations it was
originally a federal statute that a lot of states have adopted uh similar statutes for theirs that was designed to
take down organized crime Rico is unique because what it does is
it it essentially criminalizes being a member of a criminal organization and so they have to prove
you know what the structure means and methods of the Enterprise are Enterprise
being the organization and then in doing so they then have to show that certain pattern
Acts were conducted by the organization uh as part of that and so
it’s usually traditional racketeering activity you know Carter Mayhem you know
illegal gambling lone sharking stuff like that in this context of a state
prosecution this is one of those charges that allows you to say okay racketeering
happened in Folton County but in order to prove the Enterprise I can start to touch things
that are outside of the county and bring them in
to prove the Enterprise so if she can’t charge
Rico she can’t talk about things that happen in the State House things that
happened in Coffee County things that happened in
Pennsylvania things that happen anywhere outside of fton County which is really
just you know the polling stations and where the actual vote count took place
in Atlanta so that’s why you have this Rico count
because she’s trying to significantly play out of position for what her power is as a
county official so you start with that and then
she also has indicted all these different people in doing so one of the things
that’s interesting to me is you know obviously you can’t have a RICO of one one person it’s got to be an
organization that’s why she decided to indict was it 19 people in doing
so in my reading of it she is directly contradicting the DC
case because some of the things that she’s saying and specifically the fact that she’s charged Rudy
Giuliani is she is directly going against what the federal theory is
because the federal theory is Trump knew that these claims of fraud were false
because even though Rudy juliani told it to him he knew it was false because Bill
bar told him it wasn’t true which is not necessarily something that’s going to hold up on appeal but
Fanny Willis instead of saying the same Theory she instead says well Rudy Giuliani also
knew that the claims of fraud were untrue so she’s
contradicting the federal Theory interesting what she’s also done is by
having this big you know sprawling indictment with 19 defendants and 30 you
know unindicted co-conspirators is every single one of those
people many of which were being cooperative and sitting down
for interviews and talking with the federal team now they’re being you know very
openly accused of criminal activity by this you know County
prosecutor and so now they’re invoking their fifth amendments and so in a weird way she is
undermining the federal case by causing a lot of their witnesses
to now become unavailable because they are invoking their fifth
rights so I me that’s that’s the core of of what this case is a lot of the other
stuff that you get into there all the you know the forgery and impersonating and official all that stuff that goes
into this whole theory of um you know the what they call the fake electors or
the alternate electors um which is a whole kind of separate little piece of this
thing um and not a lot of people understand what happened at the time not
just in Georgia in a lot of these states is that the states that were
disputed they had gone you know to create an alternate slate of
electors um and to back up a little bit further the way that our federal
presidential elections work with the Electoral College Act is that
the voters in each state you know vote for who they want as president the state then takes whoever W
so you know if Donald Trump wins this state then based on the
population distribution of those States each state has a certain number of
electors and so you know when they say that you know Georgia has so many Electoral College
votes what that meant you got to remember all of these rules all these laws were passed at a
time when there was no internet there was no electricity there were no cars what it means is they count it up
in Georgia and they say okay you know Thomas Jefferson won
Georgia I don’t know if he won Georgia or not but just by way of example and so
if they have whatever you know 20 Electoral College votes they find 20
people that are the electors they put them on horses and send them up to
DC and this the whole timeline between having an election in November having a
certification in early January and then having a inauguration late January all
those timelines are based on the idea that people are traveling by horse from
the outermost States and so the time it takes
you know Georgia in 1800 to or you know the late 1700s to
count all the votes find the electors put them on horses send them up to DC
have the full vote send them back you know do all the stuff for the inauguration that’s that’s
why these timelines are set the way that they are and so the way that this is kind of
developed over time is that if you want to challenge the Slate of electors that
is submitted which is still it’s a list of names of these are the the
electors from Georgia who are going to vote for Biden in the Electoral College
election if you want to challenge that result you run the risk that a court
says yes this result is not
accurate but there’s no alternate slate you didn’t put 20 other people on horses
you know to send them up you know in their place and so that’s why this whole alternate slate of electors practice has
come about it’s been used by both parties it’s been used in multiple
elections so that you have that alternate slate on standby oh okay and
if you look at the slates from 2020 I I say that the you look at
Pennsylvania for whatever reason somebody in Pennsylvania was smarter than everybody everywhere else and they
actually wrote on the Slate alternate only to beused in the event
that the primary slate is invalidated through litigation or investigation it wordss to that
effect the Georgia slate nobody thought to write the that sentence
in and so if you just take the Georgia slate of you know Trump
electors it reads like you know president Trump having been duy you know
elected in this state these are the people that are casting their
vote but is that a plausible fraud to me it’s not I mean there are some that are
saying oh the purpose of the alternate slate it’s a fake slate of electors because they wanted to fool Mike
Pence and there’s this this silly theory that Mike Pence may have looked at the
two slates from Georgia and said I don’t know which one’s real I guess I’ll pick
this one that’s
insane today y with the media and the internet and the
proliferation of information that we have today there’s no chance in hell that Mike
Pence is going to look at these slates and say I don’t know who won it’s not
plausible yeah but it is their theory of fraud on it the thing is a lot of these electors
they gave interviews at the time saying yes I am an alternate elector I’m doing
this in case the primary slate get invalidated but that that’s what a lot
Trump controversial phone call
of those counts are I’m curious to know where this so
there was a controversial phone call that happened yeah in January 2nd 2021
Trump called Georgia’s Secretary of State Brad raffensberger and urged him to find
11,780 votes the number needed to overcome Biden’s Victory now I’ve
listened to segments of that phone call several different times on on online mhm
you can find it all over we’ll probably roll it right here and they’re brand new and they don’t have seals and there’s a
whole thing with the ballots but the ballots are corrupt and you’re going to find that they are which is totally
illegal it’s it’s it’s more illegal for you than it is for them because you know what they did and you’re not reporting
it that’s a you know that’s a criminal that’s a criminal offense and and you know you can’t let that happen that’s
that’s a big risk to you and to Ryan your lawyer that’s a big risk but they
are shredding ballots in my opinion based on what I’ve heard and they are
removing Machinery uh and they’re moving it as fast as they can both of which are
criminal fines and you can’t let it happen and you are letting it happen or you know I mean I’m notifying you that
you’re letting it happen so look all I want to do is this I just want to
find uh 11,780 votes which which is one more
that we have because we won the state and flipping the state is a great
Testament to our country because you know and there’s there’s there’s just it’s a testament that they can admit to
a mistake or whatever you want to call it if it was a mistake I don’t know a lot of people think it wasn’t a mistake
it was much more uh criminal than that but it’s a big problem in Georgia and
it’s it’s not a problem that’s going away I mean you know it’s not a problem that’s going away I mean he did it where
does that fall under what these is that fall under one of the charges it does um
it it does fall under the charges because he’s essentially trying to um their theor is he’s trying to corruptly
influence a state official to uh violate his oath um did he I don’t believe
so here’s the thing you can’t if if you just cut out
that one sentence of the tape yes that’s that’s the impression
that you’re left with but you can’t just listen to excerpts from the call you
have to listen to the entirety of the call cuz he says multiple times on that call we won by a lot we won by over
100,000 votes he’s stating possibly you know
incorrectly but he truly held belief that he had won the state of Georgia by over 100,000 votes can I interject sure
why would he believe that if he had not seen any of the numbers yet he believed it because that’s the
numbers that were given to him by the investigative team okay that was looking into these claims of
fraud um and and again that’s something
that you may notice that I have not yet nor will I offer my opinion as to
whether there was actually fraud in that election or not I I don’t have an opinion as to
whether there was or was not because I would want to actually see
the investigation to know one way or the other you haven’t seen the
investigation I’ve seen the preliminary investigation but I never saw a followup investigation by law enforcement to
conclusively prove or disprove that probable cause okay
so because it wasn’t nothing so why wasn’t it
done here in lies the big question when when Trump asked bar to do
the investigation why wasn’t it done in this call that you’re asking me about
he’s begging the Georgia state officials have your law Enforcement Officers go
out and do an investigation and they said
no the part that you’re talking about about find this many
votes in itself is damning in context of the entire
conversation if he believed that he had won by over 100,000 votes the way that I look at that the
way that I would argue with to a jury in the way that President Trump has stated it that is a statement of
scope not result if I tell
you there’s over 100,000 fake votes out there and I need
you to investigate this was it January 2nd mhm I need you to investigate this you have four
days you going sit there and say 4 days to find 100,000 votes you would you
crazy you don’t have to find 100,000 find
11,000 once you find this much that’s the Delta between the two
candidates then for the purposes of this inquiry as to what slate should be
certified for the election you can stop as soon as you find the Delta
between the candidates the Secretary of State can
stop and pass it on to the Attorney General of the state of Georgia to
continue the investigation find potentially you know
in his mind all 100,000 of them and then figure out who who to arrest and put in
jail for it the Secretary of State their role in
investigating election fraud is purely to find out what is the right slate to be put up
on January 6th not you secretary of state is not in charge of putting people
in jail so you don’t need to find all 100,000 okay just find 11,000 and so
when you listen to the tape in the full context and you think of it that way
that this is a statement of scope not result given the shortened Peri period
of time and the very specific limited role that the secretary of state
has it makes more sense could it have been
more artfully stated or you know explicitly stated is it how I would have
explained it no it it could have it probably could have been clearer on
that but to just cherry-pick the one sentence and say he’s directing him to
go find these votes you know that’s it leads to a misleading result but even there go find
the votes as opposed to just say that there
were the votes go find evidence of 11,000 false votes and if you can find
evidence of 11,000 false votes again you’re sending somebody to do an investigation it’s a danger maybe they
Fani Willis
come back the way you expect maybe they don’t let’s talk about Fanny Willis sure
so if I remember correctly we had a conversation couple weeks ago maybe a
month ago in DC about Fanny Willis and I believe you told me that she ran her
campaign yeah on indicting Trump correct knowing that
this was outside of her jurisdiction jur jurisdiction
do so for somebody that has no legal mind
at all how is this even happening if she doesn’t have
jurisdiction if the RICO were correct she would have that limited piece of
jurisdiction but how this is happening and you just hit the nail right on the head to separate out the federal from
the state indictments one of the big problems with State indictment and why in my opinion they were more dangerous
to begin with is because State prosecutors are really
County officials unless you’re talk about a state attorney general they’re County officials they’re elected County
officials and so if you have an elected County district attorney in a county
that is a you know deep red or or deep blue either way
they get their job and they keep their job by winning the primary
election they don’t have to worry about the general election because they’re largely going to be on opposed Fanny
Willis was not the district attorney at the
time she was you know outside and saying I would like to become district attorney
and playing to the base she said if you elect me I will indict Donald
Trump and in the primary race that played very well she won the Primary in
the general election she’s essentially unopposed so she never had to really
face you know tough Republican opposition on this and single party
jurisdictions again red or blue it creates a substantial RIS
R of political interference and politically driven prosecutions because
ultimately you sit there and think well the district attorney and the sheriff
you know they should be able to run for reelection based on have I made your city
safer and that’s true of a general election but in the context of a primary
election where it’s all run by the party there it’s it has a much higher risk of
abuse of where they are going to pursue the partisan goals Laticia James the State Attorney
General of New York did the exact same thing she ran on a platform of I’m going
to get Donald Trump and sure enough she has brought all these civil uh suits against Trump
and the Trump organization when you have people that are asking give me a long law
enforcement position so that I can take out my political
rival that’s dangerous mhm that’s very dangerous I think that’s
a major concern to a lot of people next on the Shawn Ryan Show white collar crime is a term that
was invented by former prosecutors that would allow them to make money being criminal defense attorneys without
somehow feeling dirty warn is this political prosecution that we’re saying
I don’t like to be the guy saying oh it’s a it’s a political Witch Hunt but here’s the
thing when they go in and they try to demand a ludicrously speedy trial for
the purpose of getting it done before the election you feed that narrative I heard
that that one of the um Debaters said it was an inside job was is an inside job
on the part of Donald Trump and his henchmen in the Congress of the United
States the judges that have been hearing all these January 6 cases they’re
Witnesses you know some of the judges have even talked about how on the morning of January 6th I watched the
Insurrection out my window of the [Music]
courthouse money in politics causes abuse politics in law enforcement
causes abuse money in politics and law enforcement is a disaster that’s where
you have people like Fanny Willis Laticia James
fundraising asking for money on the idea that if you elect me I will get Donald
Trump I am going to use your taxpayer dollars to take out our political
rival everything is politically charged in this country at this point you’re
either a prot trump or
[Music] anti-trump hey everybody I’m Shawn Ryan
click here to subscribe to the Sha Ryan Show YouTube channel for the hottest and most compelling interviews that you will
not see anywhere else I’ve also made a playlist of all the previous SRS
episodes so they’re easy to find you can find that right
here