December 27, 2024 • 31 mins
This week, Danielle is looking back at some of her favorite conversations from the last few years of Woke AF Daily. To close out the week, Danielle looks back to a discussion with Jen Taub about how outrageous it is that Donald Trump was even allowed to run for president again in the first place.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:11):
Good morning, peeps, and welcome to wok F Daily with
Meet your Girl Daniel Moody. Pre recording from the Home
Bunker during our holiday rest week. Folks, as we wind
down the last seven years of bringing you WOKF, I've
wanted to give you some of our best of Revisit
(00:35):
these conversations that I think are really important for us
to hold on to as we trudge our way into
this brand new world. Donald Trump in a couple of
weeks is going to be sworn in as a forty
seventh president of these United States, and he was most
likely will be the last democratically elected president of these
(00:56):
United States. And so I thought it was important to
go back to a conversation that I had with our
friend gentalb about Donald Trump running for office in the
first place as a twice impeached former president with multiple indictments,
and recognizing that we have long since left precedented times.
(01:21):
This is not normal. And I think that it's so important,
folks to remind ourselves of that, because they want to
make the abnormal seem normal. They want to make it
seem okay that a white supremac apologist, a man that's
multiple has multiple indictments, a man that said, can you
(01:43):
do me a favor though, A man that's been accused
of sexual harassment and adjudicated for rape, a man that
has called Mexicans rapists and murderers, that said that black
people come from shithole countries. A man that has ripped
families away from each other and pledges to do mass
deportations in his second term. None of this is normal,
(02:06):
and we should never normalize it. We should never allow
ourselves to just say, well, you know, it is what
it is. We have to remember our power in these moments.
We have to remember our light in these episodes of darkness,
and we have to remember to remember who we are.
(02:27):
So in this conversation with Gentobb that we revisit, we
talk about all the ways that this isn't the America
that we want to be living in, and so what
do we do. Take a listen, folks, I am always
so happy when one of my friends, fellow nerd Avenger,
(02:49):
just fellow colleague in the space, who loses their mind.
Regular bathists try to keep direct with the news cycle.
Gentib joins Okay daily. You know her. She's a law
professor and the author of Big Dirty money and other
people's houses. And she is the host of Booked Up
with Gen Tobb, Jen.
Speaker 2 (03:13):
Danielle.
Speaker 1 (03:14):
Where to begin in all honesty in the legal landscape
or minefield that is America these days? But because I
don't have my medication present, let's not talk about the
Supreme Court, shall we? Let's just talk about the Donald Trump.
(03:36):
But so here's what we know. Judge Aileen Cannon, who
should have recused herself but didn't and is still overseeing
Jack Smith's documents case against Donald Trump. Folks. I know
that there are so many cases, so it's hard to
keep track, but let us start with the document's case
(03:57):
has set a court date for May twenty fourth, I
believe twenty twenty four. Uh so five twenty four, twenty four,
ha ha on us, Jen, what do you make of
Aileen Cannon's moves thus far? Uh? In this in this
(04:17):
case and whether or not we will we'll see pushback
from the Department of Justice by way of Jack Smith
because he said he was ready to go in December.
We knew that that was unlikely. But but where what
are you thinking so far about her moves and then
the timing of this trial?
Speaker 2 (04:38):
Well, in my past life, Danielle, Like I don't know,
pre COVID, pre Trump, and even maybe up until a
few weeks ago, I tend to be a glass half
full person. Now I'm a the glass has been smashed
into pieces against the wall and I'm just drinking coffee
(04:59):
straight from straight became the staff, you know, kind of person.
So but that being set, I am trying to find
the silver lining in the storm cloud that Eileen Cannon
has created for the future of democracy. Because May twenty four,
there's only one good two good things about that date.
(05:22):
One that's literally the last I think, like the last day,
like when grades are due spring semester for my classes,
so like I will be done teaching. So if that's
going to take over all of my time, I'm ready.
That's but you know, that's the one good thing, hardly
enough to recommend the date.
Speaker 1 (05:42):
But the other good.
Speaker 2 (05:43):
Thing is it is so far out there as a
preliminary date that I'm hoping that Jack Smith is ready
to go on the insurrection case on the January sixth case,
that we expect to be charged any day now, and
that a judge in DC sees it as perfect timing.
(06:04):
There's no In other words, The reason why, as you know,
that the Justice Department pushed out the date to December
from the judge's original summer date, which wasn't going to happen,
was because there's some complications around how to share top
secret type documents that will not be the case in
the January sixth indictment, you know. And I think the
(06:27):
Justice Department has brought hundreds of cases involving the rioters
and has already the benefit of, as you know, the
special Committee investigating the attack on the Capitol. They have
done incredible amounts of work even before this Special Council
got involved. I think they're ready to go one day
(06:50):
in DT. So my hope is they ask for a
November date October even for that case. The yeah and
the only, the only true other than the selfish motive,
the only true good thing about May twenty fourth is
it gives the opportunity a wide open field to bring
the most important case against this guy, which is trying
(07:13):
to stage a coup to stay in office and the
you know, ongoing lie that that is associated with all that,
all the time between the November election when he lost,
through the attack on the Capitol and his role all
of that is feeding into his campaign and the undermining
of what little we have left of our democratic institution.
(07:36):
So that's the bright note. Now, if there I am
hoping he asks for October or November or December date.
If Jack Smith doesn't, you know, I give up. I
really do. I don't know what to tell you.
Speaker 1 (07:50):
So, I mean, we have a couple of things that
are brewing right and I think one of them is
the fact that on Donald Trump's broke ass Twitter that
I refer to, I guess he truth's on there. I
don't really know what one does on that apparatus, but
(08:11):
on that application.
Speaker 2 (08:12):
But.
Speaker 1 (08:14):
You know, he sent out a real ominous and threatening
video the other day which was basically saying, if you
come for us, will come for you. We're not afraid.
You know which, Jen, I'm no lawyer. That's why I
have you on the show. But he seems to be
(08:39):
doing the same exact things that he did prior to
January sixth. With the rollout of these indictments, you know,
he sends up a flare, all of mainstream media jumps
on the Trump train right, giving him once again all
just the free press that he he uses that attention to.
(09:02):
Then send out threats to Jack Smith and to others,
and then sends out this video basically another digital stand
back and stand by. So tell me how these kinds
of things can be used in a court of law
(09:26):
that he's doing.
Speaker 2 (09:28):
I think once there is an indictment, assuming there is one,
and there's a judge assigned, that judge can issue in
theory a kind of gag order related to specifically making
threats to the prosecutor specifically related to other kind of
(09:54):
I would say incitement activity. And the question is, you know,
will the judge, Will the judge do that?
Speaker 1 (10:00):
Uh?
Speaker 2 (10:01):
You know, the the he's gotten away with so much
and a judge has to be careful in what they
do because if they're not going to actually enforce in order,
then it becomes a victory for him. You know, what
does that look like in other words, of a judge
makes an order and then do some sort of contempt
(10:22):
citation against them, is you know, is he going to
actually bring him into court? You know, we saw similar
activity during the Carol two trial. It was Carol two
because it was brought second even though charged, you know,
she filed the the defamation and sexual assault case. This
was the second case, even though it went first and
(10:43):
there were things that you know, the Donald Trump was
doing on Twitter, and the judge I was in the courtroom,
you know, said to his lawyers, you got to talk
to your client, and sometimes he took down what he
was saying off Twitter. But then when he continued that
behavior after he lost the case, now that's become part
of the next case. I mean, Carol want it's been
(11:04):
added to that case against him. Now this is all
about a civil case. Right, You're more concerned about him
stand back, stand by kind of language actually creating violence.
I remain a little bit less concerned because when he
was indicted his first federal indictment as opposed to the
(11:26):
Manhattan DA indictment, the first federal grand jury indictment, we
didn't see that much support for him around the courthouse
in Florida. Now I realized this is probably this is
different because these are the same people, right, this is
all about But however, there are a lot of people
who were charged and either serve time or are going
(11:49):
to serve time, who feel abandoned by Donald Trump, in
other words, he so they may not come and also
they may themselves not want to get arrested again. So
we've got to think about that. So I don't know
if you're if you're worried.
Speaker 1 (12:04):
You know, the thing is, I wasn't stating that as
a way to say that I'm worried that his words
will incite the same type of violence as January sixth.
It was really about whether or not the prosecution can
show a pattern of behavior and did yeah, a pattern
(12:25):
of behavior and basic intent with his continued language. Now
you could have yeah, because my thought was if Donald Trump,
let's say, had been a normal human being and you're
caught doing something and then you decide I'm going to
(12:45):
back away from that said behavior so that my attorneys
can say that this was an isolated event, caught up
in passion, whatever bullshit kind of you know, defense is
going to be created. You could say that that was
an isolated of it. But over the last few years
since January sixth, we've watched Donald Trump continue to use
(13:08):
social media as a way to either virtually assault people, right,
make them a target in an attack, the same way
that he did with the voting staff in uh in Georgia. Right.
(13:31):
And so my question really is like, how is the process,
how do you feel, how can the prosecution use Donald
Trump's continued behavior or there for their case.
Speaker 2 (13:44):
Yes, so it's more of a legal analysis that you're
asking me for. So yeah, So two ways. One if
they if the prosecution wants to bring in evidence like
as a pattern of behavior this is how he tries
to obstruct and try to stir up violence. In terms
of admitting evidence that his lawyers are obviously going to
want to exclude that kind of evidence, and they want
(14:06):
to narrow what a jury can hear, right, And so
the tension in our rules of federal rules of evidence is,
first of all, only things that are considered relevant can
be admitted. This would obviously, you know, I think it's
relevant to his intent and so on. So but the
next thing is and of course the other side, his
defense will say it's not. But even if a judge
(14:27):
thinks it's relevant, the judge then has to decide whether
something is two what's called too prejudicial to be probative.
It's this concept of you know, for example, when a
defendant is trial for a particular let's say, you know,
breaking into a grocery store to steal formula for their
(14:49):
kid or something. God forbid, we prosecute for that, you know,
whether they had been caught doing, you know, shoplifting something
else at a different time. You know, if a jury
gets to hear the other shoplifting, it's going to make
them think, oh, this is a bad person. I'm going
to convict them. And so the defense is going to
want to say, you know, that's not really relevant. What
they were shoplifting before was you know, I don't know Amazon,
(15:13):
you know, gift cards or whatever, and that just has
nothing to do with this. However, you know, the idea
would be, well, if the way that this person did
this was similar, then we can look for a pattern
of behavior. But the idea is it's relevant because it
shows this person has the intent to take things that
aren't theirs. But a lot of judges would exclude that earlier,
that earlier evidence because they would say, you know, that's
(15:36):
going to make a jury try him for being a
bad person, and we don't do that in America. You're
supposed to be tried for your your actual offenses. So
it's going to really be up to what a jury,
what the judge is, and how the judge rules. So
that's going to be an evidentiary battle. The second way, though,
I think is interesting, is if his tweeting or his
(15:57):
it's not even tweeting xing, or his his what that
we call him now is true thing whatever, if his
public statements are directed toward this particular case, and it
could be seen as trying to influence witnesses or tamper
with them, or somehow create threats against physical or other
(16:19):
threats against jurors or the court. That could be its
own kind of separate case, you know. And I don't
know if you saw this, but the other day I
saw like it was it Mike Huckabee. Did you see
this thing going around on threads like he put up?
It could have been on true social maybe it was
an interview on the news, But what I saw is
he was on air or something saying the most important
(16:41):
values are loyalty, and he was like saying it was
a very weird, like if you don't get it, like
they're all out there sending signals for people to not
not squeal, you know, not rat out the mob boss.
And the closer he gets to this prospect of being
(17:02):
convicted for something in federal court, maybe he believes jail time,
which I don't think would happen. But the closer he
gets to that, the more desperate his moves will become.
And so I think we should keep our eye on
both both avenues.
Speaker 1 (17:16):
So let's now take a little trip down south to Georgia,
right where we are waiting yet and again, folks, you
know Jen and I are having this conversation at a
time when they're when you know, we're doing our best
to read the tea leaves and shake a magic eight ball,
but we have no idea when and if these things
(17:38):
are actually coming down the pike. My assumption is yes,
it is why from Georgia because Fani Willis had sent
up a flair months ago telling us that between July
and September for law enforcement to prepare, so we know
that those things are are underway. Part of Jen I
(18:01):
guess the rumors that are circulating is that Fannie Willis
the DA in Georgia could potentially be looking at racketeering charges.
So Jen, talk to us about this, what if this big?
What if that we don't know yet? Why would this
(18:22):
be a BFD.
Speaker 2 (18:25):
Well, it would be a BFD because of what activity
you can scoop up once you decide something is racketeering
or a racketeering conspiracy. So there is a federal RICO law,
and there are than state ones. And the people think
of RICO racketeering Influenced Corrupt Organizations Act law. They think
(18:51):
of it as being something to get organized crime. But
that's not the only thing it can be used for.
And the idea with racketeering is that you uh the law,
whether it's the Georgia one or the federal one, is
designed to criminalize, to create, criminalize a pattern of racketeering activity.
(19:17):
So that's how the language works. And then you have
to say, well, what is racketeering activity and what is
a pattern? Well, racketeering activity at the federal level is
a little bit different at the state the federal level.
The reason why RICO was established is so that you
could turn into a federal crime or a pattern of
state criminal behavior, so as well as a series of
(19:39):
different federal crimes, so that we call them predicate offenses.
So all of a sudden, someone who's just committing crimes
like doing you know, black met or bribery or shaking
people down, or murder. At the state level, you know,
murdering people, you could now say, well, murder's usually a
state offense. But now if it's a pattern of racketeering activity,
(20:00):
if it's a if you have an enterprise, which is,
you know, a group of two or more people working
together to commit a series of murders, now all of
a sudden, instead of just a state crime, you could
charge that at the federal level, right or kidnapping, So
think of that. That's the federal way. Similarly, things like
wirefraud or counterfeiting or all kinds of other federal offenses.
(20:23):
If someone is a pattern of it, if you've called
you call it a pattern of racketeering activity. Now what
you've done, If you've said, okay, Danielle, if you're at
the hub of this group, if you're in charge of
you know this activity. You if you set up this
sort of racketeering enterprise and you're either making money or
benefiting from this kind of behavior, even if you were
(20:45):
not involved in all these underlying things, if you're part
of this rico enterprise, you now can be tagged with
all this other stuff. It's a way of creating a
web around a sort of amorphous activity where you cannot see.
So let's put Donald Trump at the center of this,
and let's look at the let's look at the efforts
to change the vote count in Georgia. The reason why racketeering, Now,
(21:11):
let's look at the state level. The reason why racketeering
would be helpful is if if Rico at the state,
at the Georgia level, is also criminalizing a pattern of
racketeering activity. Rico at the Georgia level has a whole
bunch of other types of crimes, state crimes, and some
of those are the you know, the activities that people
(21:32):
like Giuliani and anyone he.
Speaker 1 (21:35):
Was working with Graham, Lindsey Graham.
Speaker 2 (21:37):
Or maybe any of the electors. And so all of
a sudden, you have all these people doing all these
different activities that were all furthering the efforts of Donald
Trump to overturn the election in Georgia. And Rico helps
because you might if you cannot find a phone call
where every single person who did bad things in this
puzzle was told by Donald Trump to do it, it
doesn't really matter. Creating this Rico theory, Rico enterprise, you
(22:01):
could now create liability for him. I don't know if
that makes sense to you. That's what I'm trying to
So that's why it's sort of a big deal, and
you know it just it just as layers of liability
and just yet another crime. And it also sounds bad.
But remember he already settled Rico State Rico charges with
(22:22):
his fake university. You know, it's not like he hasn't
been tagged with RICO before. I just think people like,
they think it sounds they think it sounds scary. But
the other thing is that Fawnie Willis has had success
using the Georgia Rico statute before. Wasn't she involved in
the whole thing about teachers cheating helping students cheat on exams? Yes,
(22:42):
So again, when you have.
Speaker 1 (22:44):
An organized crime ring, it doesn't need to be a mob.
It doesn't need to be a mob association. Hollywood has
allowed us to make that connection, but that is not
the only connection that it has. And if we're looking
and we're talking about all the ways in which Donald
Trump has a legal tsunami against him, it is to
(23:04):
pull back and say, this is an organized crime ring
that has engulfed an entire political party. And there are
many mechanisms, much in the same way that you know,
organized crime members have different hands in different jars.
Speaker 2 (23:21):
And what's super interesting is when you say organized crime ring.
What becomes super interesting is how is the ring defined,
who's in it right and who's not in it right,
because that will tell us more about you know, who
flipped who didn't based on whether they're charged or not.
And you know, we've got to go back to that
to remember this special grand jury report, when that woman
(23:43):
was making the rounds, who was absolutely giddy going on television. Yeah,
so she told us, you know, there are not going
to be any plot twists. There are lots of people's names.
We're not going to be surprised to see them. You know,
I would like to see those.
Speaker 1 (23:57):
Lastly, Jen, just to think about all the ways in
which for a normal person the walls would be closing
in and this would just amount to, you know, guilty
verdict after guilty verdict. But we know that in the
America that we live in, where rich, white, cis hetero men,
very rarely are held to account, let alone those that
(24:18):
were former presidents of the United States. I want to
turn your attention to Michigan for a moment and the
sixteen sixteen Republican of fake electors who were caught up
in that scheme, who were charged with felonies for their
(24:38):
quote for their role in the alleged false elector's scheme.
How does that? How does what is happening in Michigan
tie in to what is happening in Georgia and as
a larger part of this overall twenty twenty scheme by
Trump and company.
Speaker 2 (25:00):
Yeah, I mean it tells me. I mean, first of all,
I'm so proud of the women from my home state.
You know, you know, we don't come to play. I
mean I recognize, I recognize those women as people that
some people I grew up with him that I admire.
And what it tells me is a couple of things.
(25:21):
In Michigan, the Attorney General, Dana Nessel took this case
back after she had referred it over to Merrick Garland.
So remember Merrick Garland, you know, as in my view,
was not in a big hurry to do justice when
it came to anything Donald Trump was involved in. And
(25:42):
only when he announced his plan to run for office
does he appoint Jack Smith. And only I think shortly
after maybe they found those documents at Biden's house? Did that?
Do you even do that? Like he should have a
pointed some long time ago, and he also should have
done something about the flake collectors in Michigan and the
other states. And so I admired Dana Nessel for saying,
(26:03):
you know what, I don't have to wait forever. I'm
going to bring this case. And she, you know, she
brought this case against these against these these people. It
was sixteen of them, and the kinds of charges she
used were ordinary state charges. I love this one. One
crime called uttering and publishing. When I worked in the
(26:23):
courthouses when I was a teenager and I had some
summer jobs, they're uttering publishing was something you charge people
with if they wrote a bad check. It's kind of
any kind of sort of false written statement. Others were
charged with, you know, other charges included for each of
them election law forgery, and these are these are serious,
(26:43):
serious felonies. These are you know, when they're at this level,
when it's not just passing a bad check, when it's
actually trying to falsify the electoral slate and and and
you know, give an opportunity for overturning a lawful election.
We're talking about fourteen years for each of these offenses.
There's like one, two, three, four, or five, like six
(27:05):
different felonies here in several counts each to My hope
is that other states, not just Georgia and Michigan where
this was going on, the prosecutors decide that they're not
going to wait around for the federal government. Jacksonith's obviously
very busy at this point and whatever else he's not
(27:26):
working on, I wouldn't leave it to Merrick Garland, and
hopefully they step up.
Speaker 1 (27:31):
I mean, but isn't that just a fucking travesty that, like,
you know, in Merrick Garland's attempt to not play politics,
to restore integrity into an institution, That's exactly what he's
been doing. That's exactly what he's done. And what we
know to be true is that if Donald Trump had
not announced his run for reelection, then Merrick Garland would
(27:54):
have done absolutely nothing.
Speaker 2 (27:58):
You know, if it weren't for I think the big
in addition to that, one hundred percent agree, I think
the biggest game changer was the testimony.
Speaker 1 (28:05):
Of Cassidy Hutchinsons.
Speaker 2 (28:07):
And yet again, you know, look, there's you know, people,
people who are closest to the activity, who don't have
fancy titles, always know what's going on in this world.
But here she is, this young woman and not only
did they not take her seriously, they tried to destroy her,
you know, afterward. And you know, my question for you is,
(28:28):
why did she go Why did her lawyers when they
decided to seek her own counsel, why did they feel
safe going to the commission, and why did they not
go to the Justice Department first? And there's a reason. Yeah,
because I you know, and I don't know. I I
have a lot, you know, I'm very disappointed. I you know,
(28:48):
as you know, I believe a special counsel should have
been appointed right away at the outset. But we're where
we are. But if there had been a special counsel
appointed the minute Marek Garland was sworn in in March
of twenty twenty one, we may have actually had some
trials by now. This is ridiculous.
Speaker 1 (29:07):
That's not what they's not that's not what they wanted,
and that's not what he wanted.
Speaker 2 (29:13):
But we're really it's a terrible situation for the country
to be in. You know, I'm not someone who's who's
happy that Donald Trump is going to most likely be
the candidate for the Republican Party, because they all know
the only way that he can win is if there's
a third party candidate. I mean, that's how Bill Clinton won.
(29:33):
Ross Perot was there. It's very hard, even under normal circumstances,
for anyone to either party to win the presidential election
the way the electoral College is set up, in the
way our country has always been divided. And now we're
in a real danger of Donald Trump being re elected.
And you know, I blame that on the Justice Department
(29:55):
because and I'm not saying it because this is not
a partisan issue. I'm saying someone who tried to overthrow
the election should not be running again. And and that
is if you don't if you don't understand that, then
you really don't know what you're doing in your job.
And I don't understand how that was in his priority
day one.
Speaker 1 (30:14):
Honestly, that is a that is a question that I
don't think we'll ever have an answer to, my friend,
but we will have to leave it here today. Genob,
thank you so much for making the time to join
wo KF read some tea leaves with me here because
Lord only knows what's coming. But I'm sure it's not good.
(30:36):
But but I'm sure we'll have you back to unpack
it all when it does come to fruish.
Speaker 2 (30:42):
Well, I'm glad that you say that, because it's nothing good.
It's going to happen in this space, if something even small,
even the essence of something good, I guess yeah, then
I can you know, have a little a little rejoicing.
Speaker 1 (30:56):
Yeah, yeah, Oh we'll see. That is it for me today,
Dear friends on Woke af AS always, power to the
people and to all the people. Power, get woke and
stay woke as fuck.
Good morning, peeps, and welcome to wok F Daily with
Meet your Girl Daniel Moody. Pre recording from the Home
Bunker during our holiday rest week. Folks, as we wind
down the last seven years of bringing you WOKF, I've
wanted to give you some of our best of Revisit
(00:35):
these conversations that I think are really important for us
to hold on to as we trudge our way into
this brand new world. Donald Trump in a couple of
weeks is going to be sworn in as a forty
seventh president of these United States, and he was most
likely will be the last democratically elected president of these
(00:56):
United States. And so I thought it was important to
go back to a conversation that I had with our
friend gentalb about Donald Trump running for office in the
first place as a twice impeached former president with multiple indictments,
and recognizing that we have long since left precedented times.
(01:21):
This is not normal. And I think that it's so important,
folks to remind ourselves of that, because they want to
make the abnormal seem normal. They want to make it
seem okay that a white supremac apologist, a man that's
multiple has multiple indictments, a man that said, can you
(01:43):
do me a favor though, A man that's been accused
of sexual harassment and adjudicated for rape, a man that
has called Mexicans rapists and murderers, that said that black
people come from shithole countries. A man that has ripped
families away from each other and pledges to do mass
deportations in his second term. None of this is normal,
(02:06):
and we should never normalize it. We should never allow
ourselves to just say, well, you know, it is what
it is. We have to remember our power in these moments.
We have to remember our light in these episodes of darkness,
and we have to remember to remember who we are.
(02:27):
So in this conversation with Gentobb that we revisit, we
talk about all the ways that this isn't the America
that we want to be living in, and so what
do we do. Take a listen, folks, I am always
so happy when one of my friends, fellow nerd Avenger,
(02:49):
just fellow colleague in the space, who loses their mind.
Regular bathists try to keep direct with the news cycle.
Gentib joins Okay daily. You know her. She's a law
professor and the author of Big Dirty money and other
people's houses. And she is the host of Booked Up
with Gen Tobb, Jen.
Speaker 2 (03:13):
Danielle.
Speaker 1 (03:14):
Where to begin in all honesty in the legal landscape
or minefield that is America these days? But because I
don't have my medication present, let's not talk about the
Supreme Court, shall we? Let's just talk about the Donald Trump.
(03:36):
But so here's what we know. Judge Aileen Cannon, who
should have recused herself but didn't and is still overseeing
Jack Smith's documents case against Donald Trump. Folks. I know
that there are so many cases, so it's hard to
keep track, but let us start with the document's case
(03:57):
has set a court date for May twenty fourth, I
believe twenty twenty four. Uh so five twenty four, twenty four,
ha ha on us, Jen, what do you make of
Aileen Cannon's moves thus far? Uh? In this in this
(04:17):
case and whether or not we will we'll see pushback
from the Department of Justice by way of Jack Smith
because he said he was ready to go in December.
We knew that that was unlikely. But but where what
are you thinking so far about her moves and then
the timing of this trial?
Speaker 2 (04:38):
Well, in my past life, Danielle, Like I don't know,
pre COVID, pre Trump, and even maybe up until a
few weeks ago, I tend to be a glass half
full person. Now I'm a the glass has been smashed
into pieces against the wall and I'm just drinking coffee
(04:59):
straight from straight became the staff, you know, kind of person.
So but that being set, I am trying to find
the silver lining in the storm cloud that Eileen Cannon
has created for the future of democracy. Because May twenty four,
there's only one good two good things about that date.
(05:22):
One that's literally the last I think, like the last day,
like when grades are due spring semester for my classes,
so like I will be done teaching. So if that's
going to take over all of my time, I'm ready.
That's but you know, that's the one good thing, hardly
enough to recommend the date.
Speaker 1 (05:42):
But the other good.
Speaker 2 (05:43):
Thing is it is so far out there as a
preliminary date that I'm hoping that Jack Smith is ready
to go on the insurrection case on the January sixth case,
that we expect to be charged any day now, and
that a judge in DC sees it as perfect timing.
(06:04):
There's no In other words, The reason why, as you know,
that the Justice Department pushed out the date to December
from the judge's original summer date, which wasn't going to happen,
was because there's some complications around how to share top
secret type documents that will not be the case in
the January sixth indictment, you know. And I think the
(06:27):
Justice Department has brought hundreds of cases involving the rioters
and has already the benefit of, as you know, the
special Committee investigating the attack on the Capitol. They have
done incredible amounts of work even before this Special Council
got involved. I think they're ready to go one day
(06:50):
in DT. So my hope is they ask for a
November date October even for that case. The yeah and
the only, the only true other than the selfish motive,
the only true good thing about May twenty fourth is
it gives the opportunity a wide open field to bring
the most important case against this guy, which is trying
(07:13):
to stage a coup to stay in office and the
you know, ongoing lie that that is associated with all that,
all the time between the November election when he lost,
through the attack on the Capitol and his role all
of that is feeding into his campaign and the undermining
of what little we have left of our democratic institution.
(07:36):
So that's the bright note. Now, if there I am
hoping he asks for October or November or December date.
If Jack Smith doesn't, you know, I give up. I
really do. I don't know what to tell you.
Speaker 1 (07:50):
So, I mean, we have a couple of things that
are brewing right and I think one of them is
the fact that on Donald Trump's broke ass Twitter that
I refer to, I guess he truth's on there. I
don't really know what one does on that apparatus, but
(08:11):
on that application.
Speaker 2 (08:12):
But.
Speaker 1 (08:14):
You know, he sent out a real ominous and threatening
video the other day which was basically saying, if you
come for us, will come for you. We're not afraid.
You know which, Jen, I'm no lawyer. That's why I
have you on the show. But he seems to be
(08:39):
doing the same exact things that he did prior to
January sixth. With the rollout of these indictments, you know,
he sends up a flare, all of mainstream media jumps
on the Trump train right, giving him once again all
just the free press that he he uses that attention to.
(09:02):
Then send out threats to Jack Smith and to others,
and then sends out this video basically another digital stand
back and stand by. So tell me how these kinds
of things can be used in a court of law
(09:26):
that he's doing.
Speaker 2 (09:28):
I think once there is an indictment, assuming there is one,
and there's a judge assigned, that judge can issue in
theory a kind of gag order related to specifically making
threats to the prosecutor specifically related to other kind of
(09:54):
I would say incitement activity. And the question is, you know,
will the judge, Will the judge do that?
Speaker 1 (10:00):
Uh?
Speaker 2 (10:01):
You know, the the he's gotten away with so much
and a judge has to be careful in what they
do because if they're not going to actually enforce in order,
then it becomes a victory for him. You know, what
does that look like in other words, of a judge
makes an order and then do some sort of contempt
(10:22):
citation against them, is you know, is he going to
actually bring him into court? You know, we saw similar
activity during the Carol two trial. It was Carol two
because it was brought second even though charged, you know,
she filed the the defamation and sexual assault case. This
was the second case, even though it went first and
(10:43):
there were things that you know, the Donald Trump was
doing on Twitter, and the judge I was in the courtroom,
you know, said to his lawyers, you got to talk
to your client, and sometimes he took down what he
was saying off Twitter. But then when he continued that
behavior after he lost the case, now that's become part
of the next case. I mean, Carol want it's been
(11:04):
added to that case against him. Now this is all
about a civil case. Right, You're more concerned about him
stand back, stand by kind of language actually creating violence.
I remain a little bit less concerned because when he
was indicted his first federal indictment as opposed to the
(11:26):
Manhattan DA indictment, the first federal grand jury indictment, we
didn't see that much support for him around the courthouse
in Florida. Now I realized this is probably this is
different because these are the same people, right, this is
all about But however, there are a lot of people
who were charged and either serve time or are going
(11:49):
to serve time, who feel abandoned by Donald Trump, in
other words, he so they may not come and also
they may themselves not want to get arrested again. So
we've got to think about that. So I don't know
if you're if you're worried.
Speaker 1 (12:04):
You know, the thing is, I wasn't stating that as
a way to say that I'm worried that his words
will incite the same type of violence as January sixth.
It was really about whether or not the prosecution can
show a pattern of behavior and did yeah, a pattern
(12:25):
of behavior and basic intent with his continued language. Now
you could have yeah, because my thought was if Donald Trump,
let's say, had been a normal human being and you're
caught doing something and then you decide I'm going to
(12:45):
back away from that said behavior so that my attorneys
can say that this was an isolated event, caught up
in passion, whatever bullshit kind of you know, defense is
going to be created. You could say that that was
an isolated of it. But over the last few years
since January sixth, we've watched Donald Trump continue to use
(13:08):
social media as a way to either virtually assault people, right,
make them a target in an attack, the same way
that he did with the voting staff in uh in Georgia. Right.
(13:31):
And so my question really is like, how is the process,
how do you feel, how can the prosecution use Donald
Trump's continued behavior or there for their case.
Speaker 2 (13:44):
Yes, so it's more of a legal analysis that you're
asking me for. So yeah, So two ways. One if
they if the prosecution wants to bring in evidence like
as a pattern of behavior this is how he tries
to obstruct and try to stir up violence. In terms
of admitting evidence that his lawyers are obviously going to
want to exclude that kind of evidence, and they want
(14:06):
to narrow what a jury can hear, right, And so
the tension in our rules of federal rules of evidence is,
first of all, only things that are considered relevant can
be admitted. This would obviously, you know, I think it's
relevant to his intent and so on. So but the
next thing is and of course the other side, his
defense will say it's not. But even if a judge
(14:27):
thinks it's relevant, the judge then has to decide whether
something is two what's called too prejudicial to be probative.
It's this concept of you know, for example, when a
defendant is trial for a particular let's say, you know,
breaking into a grocery store to steal formula for their
(14:49):
kid or something. God forbid, we prosecute for that, you know,
whether they had been caught doing, you know, shoplifting something
else at a different time. You know, if a jury
gets to hear the other shoplifting, it's going to make
them think, oh, this is a bad person. I'm going
to convict them. And so the defense is going to
want to say, you know, that's not really relevant. What
they were shoplifting before was you know, I don't know Amazon,
(15:13):
you know, gift cards or whatever, and that just has
nothing to do with this. However, you know, the idea
would be, well, if the way that this person did
this was similar, then we can look for a pattern
of behavior. But the idea is it's relevant because it
shows this person has the intent to take things that
aren't theirs. But a lot of judges would exclude that earlier,
that earlier evidence because they would say, you know, that's
(15:36):
going to make a jury try him for being a
bad person, and we don't do that in America. You're
supposed to be tried for your your actual offenses. So
it's going to really be up to what a jury,
what the judge is, and how the judge rules. So
that's going to be an evidentiary battle. The second way, though,
I think is interesting, is if his tweeting or his
(15:57):
it's not even tweeting xing, or his his what that
we call him now is true thing whatever, if his
public statements are directed toward this particular case, and it
could be seen as trying to influence witnesses or tamper
with them, or somehow create threats against physical or other
(16:19):
threats against jurors or the court. That could be its
own kind of separate case, you know. And I don't
know if you saw this, but the other day I
saw like it was it Mike Huckabee. Did you see
this thing going around on threads like he put up?
It could have been on true social maybe it was
an interview on the news, But what I saw is
he was on air or something saying the most important
(16:41):
values are loyalty, and he was like saying it was
a very weird, like if you don't get it, like
they're all out there sending signals for people to not
not squeal, you know, not rat out the mob boss.
And the closer he gets to this prospect of being
(17:02):
convicted for something in federal court, maybe he believes jail time,
which I don't think would happen. But the closer he
gets to that, the more desperate his moves will become.
And so I think we should keep our eye on
both both avenues.
Speaker 1 (17:16):
So let's now take a little trip down south to Georgia,
right where we are waiting yet and again, folks, you
know Jen and I are having this conversation at a
time when they're when you know, we're doing our best
to read the tea leaves and shake a magic eight ball,
but we have no idea when and if these things
(17:38):
are actually coming down the pike. My assumption is yes,
it is why from Georgia because Fani Willis had sent
up a flair months ago telling us that between July
and September for law enforcement to prepare, so we know
that those things are are underway. Part of Jen I
(18:01):
guess the rumors that are circulating is that Fannie Willis
the DA in Georgia could potentially be looking at racketeering charges.
So Jen, talk to us about this, what if this big?
What if that we don't know yet? Why would this
(18:22):
be a BFD.
Speaker 2 (18:25):
Well, it would be a BFD because of what activity
you can scoop up once you decide something is racketeering
or a racketeering conspiracy. So there is a federal RICO law,
and there are than state ones. And the people think
of RICO racketeering Influenced Corrupt Organizations Act law. They think
(18:51):
of it as being something to get organized crime. But
that's not the only thing it can be used for.
And the idea with racketeering is that you uh the law,
whether it's the Georgia one or the federal one, is
designed to criminalize, to create, criminalize a pattern of racketeering activity.
(19:17):
So that's how the language works. And then you have
to say, well, what is racketeering activity and what is
a pattern? Well, racketeering activity at the federal level is
a little bit different at the state the federal level.
The reason why RICO was established is so that you
could turn into a federal crime or a pattern of
state criminal behavior, so as well as a series of
(19:39):
different federal crimes, so that we call them predicate offenses.
So all of a sudden, someone who's just committing crimes
like doing you know, black met or bribery or shaking
people down, or murder. At the state level, you know,
murdering people, you could now say, well, murder's usually a
state offense. But now if it's a pattern of racketeering activity,
(20:00):
if it's a if you have an enterprise, which is,
you know, a group of two or more people working
together to commit a series of murders, now all of
a sudden, instead of just a state crime, you could
charge that at the federal level, right or kidnapping, So
think of that. That's the federal way. Similarly, things like
wirefraud or counterfeiting or all kinds of other federal offenses.
(20:23):
If someone is a pattern of it, if you've called
you call it a pattern of racketeering activity. Now what
you've done, If you've said, okay, Danielle, if you're at
the hub of this group, if you're in charge of
you know this activity. You if you set up this
sort of racketeering enterprise and you're either making money or
benefiting from this kind of behavior, even if you were
(20:45):
not involved in all these underlying things, if you're part
of this rico enterprise, you now can be tagged with
all this other stuff. It's a way of creating a
web around a sort of amorphous activity where you cannot see.
So let's put Donald Trump at the center of this,
and let's look at the let's look at the efforts
to change the vote count in Georgia. The reason why racketeering, Now,
(21:11):
let's look at the state level. The reason why racketeering
would be helpful is if if Rico at the state,
at the Georgia level, is also criminalizing a pattern of
racketeering activity. Rico at the Georgia level has a whole
bunch of other types of crimes, state crimes, and some
of those are the you know, the activities that people
(21:32):
like Giuliani and anyone he.
Speaker 1 (21:35):
Was working with Graham, Lindsey Graham.
Speaker 2 (21:37):
Or maybe any of the electors. And so all of
a sudden, you have all these people doing all these
different activities that were all furthering the efforts of Donald
Trump to overturn the election in Georgia. And Rico helps
because you might if you cannot find a phone call
where every single person who did bad things in this
puzzle was told by Donald Trump to do it, it
doesn't really matter. Creating this Rico theory, Rico enterprise, you
(22:01):
could now create liability for him. I don't know if
that makes sense to you. That's what I'm trying to
So that's why it's sort of a big deal, and
you know it just it just as layers of liability
and just yet another crime. And it also sounds bad.
But remember he already settled Rico State Rico charges with
(22:22):
his fake university. You know, it's not like he hasn't
been tagged with RICO before. I just think people like,
they think it sounds they think it sounds scary. But
the other thing is that Fawnie Willis has had success
using the Georgia Rico statute before. Wasn't she involved in
the whole thing about teachers cheating helping students cheat on exams? Yes,
(22:42):
So again, when you have.
Speaker 1 (22:44):
An organized crime ring, it doesn't need to be a mob.
It doesn't need to be a mob association. Hollywood has
allowed us to make that connection, but that is not
the only connection that it has. And if we're looking
and we're talking about all the ways in which Donald
Trump has a legal tsunami against him, it is to
(23:04):
pull back and say, this is an organized crime ring
that has engulfed an entire political party. And there are
many mechanisms, much in the same way that you know,
organized crime members have different hands in different jars.
Speaker 2 (23:21):
And what's super interesting is when you say organized crime ring.
What becomes super interesting is how is the ring defined,
who's in it right and who's not in it right,
because that will tell us more about you know, who
flipped who didn't based on whether they're charged or not.
And you know, we've got to go back to that
to remember this special grand jury report, when that woman
(23:43):
was making the rounds, who was absolutely giddy going on television. Yeah,
so she told us, you know, there are not going
to be any plot twists. There are lots of people's names.
We're not going to be surprised to see them. You know,
I would like to see those.
Speaker 1 (23:57):
Lastly, Jen, just to think about all the ways in
which for a normal person the walls would be closing
in and this would just amount to, you know, guilty
verdict after guilty verdict. But we know that in the
America that we live in, where rich, white, cis hetero men,
very rarely are held to account, let alone those that
(24:18):
were former presidents of the United States. I want to
turn your attention to Michigan for a moment and the
sixteen sixteen Republican of fake electors who were caught up
in that scheme, who were charged with felonies for their
(24:38):
quote for their role in the alleged false elector's scheme.
How does that? How does what is happening in Michigan
tie in to what is happening in Georgia and as
a larger part of this overall twenty twenty scheme by
Trump and company.
Speaker 2 (25:00):
Yeah, I mean it tells me. I mean, first of all,
I'm so proud of the women from my home state.
You know, you know, we don't come to play. I
mean I recognize, I recognize those women as people that
some people I grew up with him that I admire.
And what it tells me is a couple of things.
(25:21):
In Michigan, the Attorney General, Dana Nessel took this case
back after she had referred it over to Merrick Garland.
So remember Merrick Garland, you know, as in my view,
was not in a big hurry to do justice when
it came to anything Donald Trump was involved in. And
(25:42):
only when he announced his plan to run for office
does he appoint Jack Smith. And only I think shortly
after maybe they found those documents at Biden's house? Did that?
Do you even do that? Like he should have a
pointed some long time ago, and he also should have
done something about the flake collectors in Michigan and the
other states. And so I admired Dana Nessel for saying,
(26:03):
you know what, I don't have to wait forever. I'm
going to bring this case. And she, you know, she
brought this case against these against these these people. It
was sixteen of them, and the kinds of charges she
used were ordinary state charges. I love this one. One
crime called uttering and publishing. When I worked in the
(26:23):
courthouses when I was a teenager and I had some
summer jobs, they're uttering publishing was something you charge people
with if they wrote a bad check. It's kind of
any kind of sort of false written statement. Others were
charged with, you know, other charges included for each of
them election law forgery, and these are these are serious,
(26:43):
serious felonies. These are you know, when they're at this level,
when it's not just passing a bad check, when it's
actually trying to falsify the electoral slate and and and
you know, give an opportunity for overturning a lawful election.
We're talking about fourteen years for each of these offenses.
There's like one, two, three, four, or five, like six
(27:05):
different felonies here in several counts each to My hope
is that other states, not just Georgia and Michigan where
this was going on, the prosecutors decide that they're not
going to wait around for the federal government. Jacksonith's obviously
very busy at this point and whatever else he's not
(27:26):
working on, I wouldn't leave it to Merrick Garland, and
hopefully they step up.
Speaker 1 (27:31):
I mean, but isn't that just a fucking travesty that, like,
you know, in Merrick Garland's attempt to not play politics,
to restore integrity into an institution, That's exactly what he's
been doing. That's exactly what he's done. And what we
know to be true is that if Donald Trump had
not announced his run for reelection, then Merrick Garland would
(27:54):
have done absolutely nothing.
Speaker 2 (27:58):
You know, if it weren't for I think the big
in addition to that, one hundred percent agree, I think
the biggest game changer was the testimony.
Speaker 1 (28:05):
Of Cassidy Hutchinsons.
Speaker 2 (28:07):
And yet again, you know, look, there's you know, people,
people who are closest to the activity, who don't have
fancy titles, always know what's going on in this world.
But here she is, this young woman and not only
did they not take her seriously, they tried to destroy her,
you know, afterward. And you know, my question for you is,
(28:28):
why did she go Why did her lawyers when they
decided to seek her own counsel, why did they feel
safe going to the commission, and why did they not
go to the Justice Department first? And there's a reason. Yeah,
because I you know, and I don't know. I I
have a lot, you know, I'm very disappointed. I you know,
(28:48):
as you know, I believe a special counsel should have
been appointed right away at the outset. But we're where
we are. But if there had been a special counsel
appointed the minute Marek Garland was sworn in in March
of twenty twenty one, we may have actually had some
trials by now. This is ridiculous.
Speaker 1 (29:07):
That's not what they's not that's not what they wanted,
and that's not what he wanted.
Speaker 2 (29:13):
But we're really it's a terrible situation for the country
to be in. You know, I'm not someone who's who's
happy that Donald Trump is going to most likely be
the candidate for the Republican Party, because they all know
the only way that he can win is if there's
a third party candidate. I mean, that's how Bill Clinton won.
(29:33):
Ross Perot was there. It's very hard, even under normal circumstances,
for anyone to either party to win the presidential election
the way the electoral College is set up, in the
way our country has always been divided. And now we're
in a real danger of Donald Trump being re elected.
And you know, I blame that on the Justice Department
(29:55):
because and I'm not saying it because this is not
a partisan issue. I'm saying someone who tried to overthrow
the election should not be running again. And and that
is if you don't if you don't understand that, then
you really don't know what you're doing in your job.
And I don't understand how that was in his priority
day one.
Speaker 1 (30:14):
Honestly, that is a that is a question that I
don't think we'll ever have an answer to, my friend,
but we will have to leave it here today. Genob,
thank you so much for making the time to join
wo KF read some tea leaves with me here because
Lord only knows what's coming. But I'm sure it's not good.
(30:36):
But but I'm sure we'll have you back to unpack
it all when it does come to fruish.
Speaker 2 (30:42):
Well, I'm glad that you say that, because it's nothing good.
It's going to happen in this space, if something even small,
even the essence of something good, I guess yeah, then
I can you know, have a little a little rejoicing.
Speaker 1 (30:56):
Yeah, yeah, Oh we'll see. That is it for me today,
Dear friends on Woke af AS always, power to the
people and to all the people. Power, get woke and
stay woke as fuck.
Host
Danielle Moodie
Popular Podcasts
On Purpose with Jay Shetty
I’m Jay Shetty host of On Purpose the worlds #1 Mental Health podcast and I’m so grateful you found us. I started this podcast 5 years ago to invite you into conversations and workshops that are designed to help make you happier, healthier and more healed. I believe that when you (yes you) feel seen, heard and understood you’re able to deal with relationship struggles, work challenges and life’s ups and downs with more ease and grace. I interview experts, celebrities, thought leaders and athletes so that we can grow our mindset, build better habits and uncover a side of them we’ve never seen before. New episodes every Monday and Friday. Your support means the world to me and I don’t take it for granted — click the follow button and leave a review to help us spread the love with On Purpose. I can’t wait for you to listen to your first or 500th episode!
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com