The Laws and the Orders

Hey, hey, hey, hey, hey, hey, hey, hey, hey, hey.

This is it.

Welcome.

Grab your favorite morning beverage and join us for Morning

Canolies with Jim Santel.

You don't know me, but I'm your brother.

Sampling the news desserts of the week.

Here is your host, Jim Santel.

Good morning.

This is Jim Santel.

And yes, indeed, I am your host this morning as I am every Saturday morning here

in the broadcast stations of a civic media.

I am delighted to have you with me again this morning on our broadcast.

It is Saturday, February 17th, 2024.

What a week it has been in the areas of law and government and the aspiration

for justice in America.

Those are the topics that we always address here on our Saturday morning broadcast.

This week, no exception to that plan to that syllabus as always reviewing

those most significant stories.

And there are many of them from just the past several days, even from yesterday

afternoon, we're going to talk about all of those during the course of the next

two hours, delighted to have you with me here.

I am in the studios of WAUK here in downtown Waka Shaw with my wonderful

producer, Johnny.

And together, we're going to be talking with you about these and other issues related

to our lives and livelihoods in Wisconsin in the United States of America.

And yes, also how those things affect our place in the world.

What is that syllabus and what is that all about?

We're going to be chatting as always about three principal questions.

What happened?

What do we know?

What are the facts of particular cases?

Why are those things important and relevant?

We're talking a lot this morning about the issue of relevance when it comes

to one of those significant events from justice past week.

Why are they material?

Why are they significant?

And what should we do if anything about those kinds of things?

What are the appropriate actions of people who are concerned and focused

upon their futures and the futures of the communities in which we live?

All those things animating are very animated syllabus this morning,

our agenda for discussion.

And I suspect you know, well, the topics are going to be addressing

because they are at the top of the headlines, newspapers, media outlets throughout

this past week.

We're going to begin by talking about finally the establishment of what

appears to be a certain trial date for one of the several criminal trials

right now pending in the courts of America.

This one having to do with a hush money case pending in a trial court in

Manhattan.

When I chat with you about the decision by a judge, his name is one

merchant to set that case for trial.

It's a criminal case involving Donald Trump coming up, coming up in

just about a month or so from now.

And then after that, when a chat about a somewhat related matter because

all these things are associated by virtue of calendars.

We're going to talk about something else that happened in New York just

yesterday.

And that is the entry of a major civil judgment, not a criminal matter,

a civil judgment against Donald Trump.

And again, you have seen this as well.

You know what the story is about this particular matter, a huge monetary

judgment.

And I'm going to offer even more than that a significant restriction on the

capacity of Donald Trump to operate as a as a businessman in New York.

The impacts of that one ask and hopefully answer the questions.

Why is that meaningful and why even in a civil setting can

potentially be as significant different, but significant as a criminal

judgment entered in one of these other pending cases.

Then we're going to spend some time also talking about other matters

out there, including, including going to the South for a while.

This hearing that was conducted over the period of the past couple of days

involving the Georgia Rico prosecution.

This again, identifying Donald Trump and 18 other defendants in that case

for their involvement in the insurrection, the attempt to interfere with

the 2020 election as it related to votes and the counting of electoral

votes coming out of the state of Georgia, a major two day hearing and

evidentiary hearing and again, offering some perspectives on the issue of

relevance, the issue of relevance.

Why it is we're doing that under what circumstances this is in court and

what the certain disposition of that case should be.

Some predictions coming out of it in the wake of the incredible testimony

of a district attorney now appearing on the stand to justify her personal

life, if you will, in connection with the prosecution of Donald Trump.

We're going to chat a lot about that and pull that apart inside Georgia law,

get an understanding of why it is that that case is there in the first place.

And second and second talking about some of the analytics behind what the

judge can and should do beyond that.

We're going to come back to Wisconsin and talk about some major events

just this past week or so involving something we've talked about before.

That is the pending case in front of the Wisconsin Supreme Court having to

do with maps in the state of Wisconsin, virtually every state in the union,

still addressing in ways big and small issues related to the in the wake of

the 2020 census and line drawing.

That includes right here in the state of Wisconsin.

How it is that the assembly and the Senate districts in our state will be

divided up how the maps will be drawn significant events legislative legislative

this past week and perhaps perhaps some action by our governor in the coming

days with respect to that.

That could have a dramatic impact not only upon the pending litigation,

the civil litigation still pending in front of our Wisconsin Supreme Court

had in the wake of the decision by that court in December of last year,

finding that our present maps are unconstitutional contrary to the terms and

conditions of our own state constitution will talk about the consequences of

some legislative action and perhaps make some recommendations about what should

happen here in the interests of justice in the interest of ensuring that

everyone in the state of Wisconsin has a franchise to exercise in the coming

months and the coming years.

We'll chat about all of that and more right here on our Saturday morning

broadcast a lot, a lot of things to talk about a lot on our agenda and

welcoming you once again to our Saturday morning broadcast as also.

And so let us begin.

Let us jump right into that first story that again is at the top of the news

stories across our nation.

We know from just yesterday that a New York judge, a civil New York judge in a

civil courtroom returned to the court and issued a major judgment really a

crushing defeat for Donald Trump in the civil fraud case, finding that the

former president is indeed liable for conspiring conspiring to manipulate his

net worth and ordering him to pay a penalty that on its surface is about

$355 million plus interest and that plus interest piece is all important and

off lot of calculations today that indicate that when you add interest and

other matters on to this erathmetically, this judgment will probably exceed

$450 million against the former president that coming out of a decision by

judge Arthur and Gora and just yesterday, capping off what can only be

described as a chaotic years long case brought by the attorney general of the

state of New York, her name of course is Latisha James and focusing on the

wealth and specifically the valuation of properties undertaken by Donald

Trump, his true sons and the Trump corporation for many, many years.

No jury here, no jury.

It is simply the judge who is entertaining argument as a predicate to all of

this.

We recall well that judge and grant had previously found based upon the

presentation of written evidence to him that there was no doubt that there

was fraud fraud by the Trump corporation and by the individuals responsible

for its administration, he found as a matter of law and fact under this

summary judgment process of many months ago that indeed Donald Trump had

engaged in fraud and for that reason, the recent trial concluded again a

number of weeks ago was premised only upon the issue of damages.

How much money?

How much money would it take to restore to the people of New York?

The amounts that were doing going to them based upon the misrepresentations

of the lies, the accounting, not just errors, but manipulation done by

the Trump organization.

What is the amount of money that will will basically respond to that nature

of the fraud?

The judge yesterday delivering this sweeping array of punishments.

We're going to talk about all of those and it does indeed and does indeed

threaten the former president's business empire in ways big and small.

And we will see in the course of the next three months and yours how

significant that is, but of course all of this happens in the midst of not

only the presidential campaign in which Donald Trump is presumably not

only the leading candidate for the Republican nomination, but a viable

candidate to return to the White House in November among other things.

In addition to this in position of what is going to turn out to be about

$450 million judgment in this civil fraud case.

The judge judge and Goran said this.

He said that because of the facts because of the presentations made to

him by the attorney general largely largely uncontested.

Yes, there was testimony, not a lot of pushback substance to push back

upon which the judge could rely in understanding and incorporating the defense

position into his order.

The judge basically said that in addition to this whopping $450 million

judgment, again, predicated on a $355 million base.

He also barred Donald Trump for three years, three years from serving

in any top role at any New York company.

That is significant.

That is huge.

He also also imposed a two year ban on the former president's sons

and ordered them to pay each one of them to pay more than $400 million each.

One of them, one of them Eric Trump, you know, Eric Trump, he's the

company's basically the de facto chief executive and that ruling that

ruling just yesterday really does throw into doubt whether any member of the

family can run the business in the near term.

We're going to talk more about what's happening in the past and in the

immediate future here in addition, in addition to all of this.

Of course, the judge had things to say about the predicates, the bases,

the factual bases for his findings and he said this.

He said, they're complete lack of contrition by there.

He means the Trump players, the Trump family members are complete

lack of tradition, contrition and remorse borders on the pathological.

That's judge and go on releasing his opinion just yesterday about all of

this now undeniably.

Donald Trump is going to appeal this.

His lawyers have already indicated they will do just that.

He's got the capacity to do it.

That is a part of the due process, even in a civil case.

He's got to do that and secure a bond within about a 30 days or so.

The ruling probably will not render him bankrupt at least not immediately.

But most of his wealth is in real estate as we know.

And for that reason, the issues about where all this money comes from,

loom large.

The appeals court will probably also have before a petition by Donald Trump

to hold all these restrictions on him and his sons when it comes to

running the company as the appeals court reviews this in the future.

In a news conference from his home in Mar-a-Lago, just last night,

Donald Trump attacked the attorney general, the Tisha James,

attacked the judge judge and go around calling them both corrupt.

More about all of this, the significance of this civil judgment.

What it means to practical implications of it.

What happens next and other aspects of this.

As we continue our all-important discussion here on our Saturday morning broadcast.

We are continuing this morning our exposition, our discussion,

our review, our analysis of several breaking stories coming out of the courts

of America just this past week, initially on our Saturday morning broadcast.

We're talking about this major multi-billion dollar judgment

entered against Donald Trump by a judge Arthur Ngeron in the Manhattan trial court

just yesterday.

We're going to chat about many other things related to courts in America.

Delighted to have you once again with me this morning.

As we come to you live from the studios of WAUK here on the broadcast service network

of civic media, delighted to have you with me as we talk through this significant issue

why it's important and what's going to happen next and also take up many other issues

this morning coming out of other courts in many ways in many ways related by virtual timing

and calendaring to what's happening in New York just this past week right before the break.

We talked about the fundamental features of this, the headlines identifying once again

will probably end up being a 450 million dollar judgment against Donald Trump once all

of the arithmetic, all of the interest and all of the related penalties are assessed here.

Beyond that, beyond that, beyond just the monetary imposition, the significant portion of the

judge's order also has to do with what's going to happen with a Trump organization going

forward.

Talked already this morning about the imposition of restrictions on future supervision

for a number of years by Donald Trump and his sons, but there is even a more significant

portion of this that might do a lot to have an impact upon the future of the corporation.

Lawyers for Donald Trump throughout this litigation have railed against the presence

and the work of what's called a monitor, a person who has appointed many, many months ago

basically to monitor and to oversee and administer the operations of the Trump organization

while all this is pending.

My name is Barbara Jones.

We've talked about her in the past and the Trump lawyers have said that her work has

cost the business about $2.5 million and significantly, significantly, those Trump lawyers

are upset in addition to the amount of the monetary judgment because judge and Goran yesterday

extended her oversight of this privately held company for a longer period of time.

The judge basically said that she will continue to monitor all things related to the operations

of the company and that that appointment that Barbara Jones has will continue.

That also a significant portion of all of this, this monitoring piece, a very significant

consequential part of the judgment entered yesterday by Judge and Goran.

The financial penalty itself reflects the lost profits as the Attorney General indicated

during the course of the presentation in this case.

About half of the $355 million, about $168 million of that representing interest that

Donald Trump saved and their remaining sum out of that total representing his profit

on the recent sale of two properties.

Money that the judge said the government, the state of New York now can claw back, basically

take back from Donald Trump and the corporate entities that he owns.

I mentioned already that the judge had previously found that all of this, all of this

comes in the wake of fraud and it is annual financial statements.

Those of Donald Trump had not only defrauded lenders, but also accomplished this violation

of basic law in the state of New York.

The judge is ruling as you read through it as you digest it ratified almost all of the

accusations that have been brought forth by the Attorney General many, many months and

even years ago, she filed this civil action claiming that Donald Trump had failed to properly

evaluate and value various real estate openings that he is in fact has.

And in the wake of all of this, Latisha James said this.

She said this long running fraud was intentional.

She called it egregious.

She called it illegal.

And she said that there cannot be different rules for different people in this country.

Former presidents are no exception.

The reason why that is significant of course is because it echoes much of what we're hearing

from other judges, including the judge who's right now presiding over the federal district

case.

Her, her name obviously, Tanya Chuck, and we've talked a lot about her in the past saying

the presidents are not kings.

Here we've got and a prosecutor is saying presidents are no exception to the rule of law.

Also subject to all of the standards, the conditions, the terms of being incorporated

and operating as a business person in in the state of New York has indicated the judge

not only imposing the fine, imposing the restrictions on future behavior, but also granting

Barbara Jones the continuing authority and even enhancing, enhancing in some ways this

amount of leadership that he has established previously compliance, ensuring that the

corporation is compliant with all of the touchstones, the rules, the regulations of the state

of New York, when it comes to financial reporting, but also other things down the road.

Nothing could quite hurt as much of course as a financial penalty in the end.

If it's upheld on appeal, it could require that the question of liquidity is many people

event and if I did some cash and some stocks and some bonds that Donald Trump has plainly

built in his post presidential life could be significantly compromised.

We've got a significant hundreds of million dollars punishment here.

You recall as well that the court, another court in New York, another civil court in New

York and the defamation case brought by E. Jean Carroll also brought forth and has established

a judgment in the amount of 83.3 million dollars in favor of E. Jean Carroll.

It follows that follows an earlier five million dollar judgment also based upon a defamation

claim by that same plaintiff.

The symbolism, the symbolism of all of these monetary judgments cannot be overlooked.

It is undeniable that this is the latest in a series of civil cases, civil cases in

which the Trump organizations have been shown to be fraudulent.

We know we know from the past that in addition to this particular finding about the core work

of the Trump organization, we know as well that in mid-January, not too long ago, again,

in a New York court not identifying, not identifying Donald Trump or his sons as defendants,

but identifying the Trump organization as a criminal defendant in the wake of that criminal

case.

In New York, the corporation was, in fact, at that point, find $1.6 million, basically

in connection with about 17 different felonies, including some tax fraud matters, falsifying

business records, all of this, all of this coming, coming in the midst of an awful lot of

focus on the Trump entities that criminal case not too long ago now joins this civil case

as yet another indication of the nature, the way in which the Trump organizations have been

operating for years, going back not too far, you recall well, that the attorney general,

the office of the attorney general there in New York, was also responsible for shutting

down the Trump foundation, again, finding that it really wasn't operating as a foundation

under the rules and the regulations of the state of New York.

That also a civil case stopping, stopping the fraudulent and activity of the Trump foundation.

We know as well about other enterprises, for example, the Trump University, similarly,

a fraudulent entity, supposedly academic and educational nature, likewise shut down by

the government in the wake of establishing, factually, that those organizations, the operations

are fraudulent in nature.

We're going to talk more about this and talk again about the connection that this case

has to the other cases that are also pending in other courts in America, when we come

back talking about those and the implications that this has not only today, but down the

road, stay with us for that discussion.

With you this morning, all about this major, major civil judgment entered against Donald

Trump, his two sons, not only imposing a huge, huge monetary penalty upon him, we'll talk

about how that gets paid if it all, and also imposing upon the Trump players, members

of the Trump family, restrictions on the capacity to engage in supervision not only of their

own corporation, but any other companies in New York for periods of years.

Now, what is going to happen next?

We'll be talked a little bit about this monetary penalty and this so-called bond.

Donald Trump has 30 days to come up with the money.

That is the amount of the judgment or to secure a bond, and that is the case whether or

not he appeals, he will certainly appeal.

A company providing a bond will essentially assure the state of New York, leticia James,

the attorney general's office, that Trump has some money to pay the judgments, and that

bond would, in effect, prevent the collection of this amount while the appeal is being

heard.

Or you post the bond.

Now, the significant challenge here, of course, is that Donald Trump has to find a company.

This is willing to write the bond as he faces not only this particular judgment, but also

many other legal problems mentioned already.

Again, this morning, this $83.3 million judgment in that E. Jean Carroll case, that following

the $5 million judgment and a much-related proceeding there also in New York, a bonding

company would probably also charge a premium and could also require that Donald Trump

pledge cash and other liquid assets as collateral.

So he's got some significant financial decisions and requests and petitions to make right now

to financial organizations.

It is being reported wildly that this is something of a test of the extent to which Donald

Trump is, in fact, the multi-millionaire, maybe even billionaire, that he claims to be.

There's no doubt that Donald Trump, in the course of his statement, certainly the defamation

case, other matters, has established he's got cash.

But the judge's ruling, judge Arthur and Goran yesterday, puts at all of that somewhat

at risk and between the defamation cases and this $450 million judgment that he will

probably be required to pay now.

It's entirely possible this could put some strains upon Donald Trump's financial civil

status.

Doesn't mean he will run out of money necessarily, can sell one of his properties and those

kinds of things, unlikely to go bankrupt, something he has done before, but it is undeniably

at this level, $450 million, more than that, of course, when you add on the $83 million,

the $5 million, the monetary amount is not, is not an insignificant aspect of the impact

on Donald Trump and his organization generally.

Again, the continuing monetary, the monetary work of the monitor, this is going to be a

significant matter for Donald Trump as well.

Now, how did the, how did the judge calculate this penalty?

Well, again, we had a trial, we had experts coming in, presented by the Tisha James office,

people talking about the valuations of these properties, explaining why it is that there

are certain monies not paid undervalued properties, those kinds of things.

And along the way, the evidence showed that Donald Trump and his company basically ignored

appraisals, manipulated numbers to inflate the values of properties along the way.

Those included things like golf clubs, office buildings, and some of those were to pretty

absurd highs.

And all of this is relevant because judge and Goran reflects on this and confirms this

during the course of his order of just history.

He describes one of the most blatant exaggerations was the listed size of Donald Trump's apartment

in the Trump tower there on Fifth Avenue.

For years, apparently the former president had valued it somewhere around 30,000 square

feet value and was actually about 11,000 or so.

In his ruling then, judge and Goran blasts Mr. Trump and the other defendants, he says

that mistating the apartment size was the only error to which they would admit goes on

to say that he was not looking to judge morality, only to find facts and apply the law.

And finally, said the court intends to protect the integrity of the financial marketplace.

Thus the public as a whole, he added that Donald Trump's refusal to admit error left

him with no choice, but to conclude that Donald Trump would continue to commit fraud unless

he was stopped again, shades, reflections of what we have seen in at least one other case

that is the E. Jean Carroll defamation matter.

When the question before the jury there, the huge amount of punitive damages inside that

83.3 million dollar judgment, all of that based upon an assessment by that jury, not only

of the present value, the present economic status of Donald Trump, but what would do enough

to punish him?

What is the amount of money that would stop him from doing this in the future?

And that's why that judgment, the 83.3 million dollars is as high as it is, compensatory

damages for E. Jean Carroll also packaged into that.

For all of this, all of this focused on how do you stop someone from doing the kinds

of fraud in which he's engaging, the defamation being an aspect of his misconduct, his misbehavior

out there?

We know again that all of these are civil cases.

There are civil cases with the exception, as I mentioned previously, of this criminal

matter also in New York criminal court involving not an individual, but the corporation itself.

It was in that case as well, but the CFO, his name is Ellen Weisselberg.

He had also not only testified, but also found guilty, basically entered into a plea agreement

and a finding of guilt imposed upon him.

His exposure there again, five months in prison, also now presumably cooperating somewhat

with the government as all of these cases go forward.

Now, what again is the immediate impact of all this we talked already about the financial

impact, the operational impact.

It's plain that the impact of this will remain to be seen in the days and weeks just ahead,

but it is significant.

Even in the civil arena, there's something of this size happens along the way, along the

way, Donald Trump's sons, Eric and Donald Jr. also brought into this interesting that

during the course of the trial last month, again, on the damages amount, a judge and Gora

had made a comment in connection with the presentation by the attorney general that suggested

he might spare the Trump sons from any exposure.

He said, along with what evidence do you have, I just haven't seen it that they, meaning

Eric and Donald Jr. knew that there was fraud.

That's the question posed by the trial judge presiding over the trial judge and Gora.

Apparently, at some point in the last few weeks, judge and Gora and apparently saw that

evidence because on Friday, he found that the sons, too, had violated the same laws that

their father had engaged in and a conspiracy to overvalue their assets, generally, wrote

in his ruling that there was now sufficient evidence that the judge's words that Donald

Trump Jr. and Eric Trump had intentionally falsified business records, noting that Eric

Trump provided the company's former controller with knowingly false and inflated valuations

for one property.

Again, each of those sons now on the hook for about $4 million.

As punishing as all of this is, it's printed just the preview to what is yet to come.

And we're going to talk more about that now in connection, not only with this particular

case, but also also other matters coming up.

And so let's begin to move in that direction as well.

All of that, that civil case has civil judgment entered just yesterday in New York

trial courtroom in a civil proceeding.

We know earlier in the week, one of the biggest stories breaking until just recent days was

that in another courtroom, this one also in New York, but this a criminal courtroom,

a court presided over by a judge named Juan Merchant, who has for many, many months

again been entertaining has been administering the criminal case brought by the district

attorney in Manhattan.

His name is Alvin Bragg.

This is the hush money case.

And just this past week, Judge Merchant said that the jury selection in that case is going

to start on March 25th, that's right, later next month, and said that he's going to turn

aside, he's going to rebuke any request for a further delay by Donald Trump in that

state criminal case, now apparently going ahead and rejecting, rejecting if you will,

you request the petitions, the arguments by Donald Trump's lawyers, that going ahead

in March, March 25th, for what will certainly be a week's long trial there would interfere

with the White House campaign, the campaign by Donald Trump to resume his position as the

president of the United States of America.

The reason why this is so significant is, of course, not only the timing of this right

in the middle of the coming campaign, March again is going to be a big month as

well, all of the following months in this campaign, but it's also the first of the four

criminal prosecutions to proceed to trial against Donald Trump and others as we've talked

about them before significantly, and leaving this trial date intact, actually, Judge Merchant

had had said it previously, but was waiting to see what's going to happen with other cases,

particularly this case involving the insurrection being brought by the grand jury and prosecuted

by Jack Smith in Washington, DC, that's the Tanya Chutkin case, that's the trial that she

is presiding over, that case, as you know, from our previous discussions, basically suspended

Judge Chutkin took her March 4th trial date off her own calendar, why? Because an issue

raised by Donald Trump having to do with the exposure that he has under a theory, a frivolous,

a non-substant theory called executive immunity, presidential immunity is still being resolved

by the courts, and right now, right now, the courts have not yet decided what will happen

with that in that particular case, again, much related, much related to the New York case,

the reason why Judge Merchant put this case back on his trial calendar, kept it on his

trial calendar, did not erase it, was he said, in hindsight, frankly, I'm glad that I took

that position, which is again, keeping that March 25th date in place, he said, because

here we are, and the DC case, that is the case involving insurrection, the four count

indictment against Donald Trump being prosecuted by Jack Smith in front of Tanya Chutkin, he said,

the DC case did not go forward, he said, he decided to stick with the trial date, the

March 25th date, the hush money case, after speaking last week with the judge in that

Washington case, again, her name is Tanya Chutkin, Tanya Chutkin herself, somewhat frustrated

by the fact that she had to take her trial off her calendar long scheduled for early March,

while the appeals court, and now the United States Supreme Court, maybe, maybe going

to review the appeals court decision, what is the status of that matter pending in Washington,

DC?

Well, just this past week, Jack Smith filed his memorandum, discouraging the Supreme

Court from taking that case, telling the court that they should permit the DC circuit's

opinion to remain in place, that DC circuit opinion, finding that there's no presidential

immunity, that Tanya Chutkin was right, and permitting her to go ahead with all deliberate

speed, I suspect, to try that case.

That's a position taken by Jack Smith just this past week.

Even so, it is still pending before the United States Supreme Court.

We will see what the Supreme Court does on that case.

But again, in the connection with the theme of 2024 timing and the interrelationship between

all of these things, it was the pendency and the lack of a resolution, the lack of a resolution

in the federal court, of that immunity defense, the argument raised by Donald Trump and

his lawyers, the failure of the courts to resolve that more promptly, that not only prompted

Tanya Chutkin to take that trial off her trial calendar, awaiting that decision, but also

now, just early this past week, Tanya Chutkin and Juan Merchant talk, and Juan Merchant decides

in the wake of that conversation that he is going to keep.

He is going to retain this March 25th deadline on his calendar, again, his trial in his

courtroom, a state criminal prosecution involving hush money, significant because it will be

the first of the several criminal trials proceeding to trial again, weeks and weeks, presumably

including, including jury selection.

In that case, as we know as well, Donald Trump charged with 34 different felonies, and

the accused him again of trying to cover up the sex scandal that involved at least a couple

of women, strummy Daniels and Karen McDougal, according to all the allegations in those charges,

those 34 felonies, related to the 2016 presidential election right before that, the allegation

is that a felony, Michael Cohen, who interestingly also appeared in the fraud case involving Arthur

Engoran presiding over that case that we just now talked about all these players, much

related from one case to the next, Michael Cohen, a principal figure also now in this forthcoming

trial in New York. How is that? Because he was one of the principal intermediaries at the time,

he was the so-called lawyer and fixer for Donald Trump. The allegation is that through Michael

Cohen, Donald Trump paid strummy Daniels and Karen McDougal, $130,000, $150,000,

and a so-called catch-and-kill scheme that we will talk about more right after this coming break.

And we are back talking this morning about all things court-related, including that only

the significant judgment entered by a state court, a New York state judge named Arthur Engoran,

finding that Donald Trump, again, previously, finding that he was responsible for a great deal

of valuation fraud. And now imposing upon him this whopping $450 million judgment,

that's what it's going to turn out to be in the end when all the interest is added up.

And the impacts of that upon all of the other, not only the Trump entities,

but all the other trials as well, chatting in our last moments of this the first hour about

the interconnected relationship between that case and, yes, indeed, the hush money prosecution,

now apparently going to trial. Likely going to trial in front of Judge Juan Merchant, again,

in another New York courtroom. This is a criminal case. It's a state case, Alvin Bragg,

the DA there having charged Donald Trump with 34 felony counts of falsifying business records

in connection with his attempt to undermine information, to stop information going into the

public domain. Sometimes called a catch and kill process, paying off these two women to keep

them quiet about affairs that they had with him, he had with them. And the allegation is that by virtue

of what Michael Cohen did in paying monies to them, monies gotten from Donald Trump, Michael Cohen,

he will testify was the intermediary to make this happen. By virtue of all of that, all of that,

Donald Trump paid about $420,000, represented that that $420,000 amount was actually legal expenses

that Michael Cohen had had for legal work, Michael Cohen had done when in fact they were

reimbursements and they were not legal expenses. And that's what Michael Cohen has testified to,

not only in courts, but also before Congress and certainly to investigators looking at all of this,

that case going to trial now on March 25th, the first of the criminal cases. So that's so

significant. The first of the criminal cases going ahead of all of these cases, it is not without

some interest academically. And in terms of law, because under New York law, the way that Alvin Bragg

has charged this case is that yes, the 34 felony counts alleging falsifying business documents,

premised upon New York law, but they're also premised upon violations of other laws. And he's

got to identify what those specific underlying or predicate statutory violations are. And he can

invoke tax law, he can invoke securities law, he can invoke other things, he can invoke

federal elections laws as a predicate for his prosecution of these 34 felony counts. That,

of course, is going to be a matter of argument before Judge Merchant. He has already entertained

some of that and certainly they're going to come back during the course of the trial. But it is not

without its interesting academic piece because it's not the straightforward prosecution some of

these other cases are on the other hand. Many people have commented and I will do the same

that the facts of this case are not nearly as elaborate as they are as alleged. And for example,

the federal insurrection, the election interference case being prosecuted by Jack Smith,

and certainly not as elaborate as the sweeping indictment brought by grand jury in Fulton County.

We're going to talk about that in our second hour this morning at great length and pull apart

the evidentiary hearing in that case. Nonetheless, nonetheless, this is the reason why this particular

case is so significant. That is the hush money case. Is this isn't many ways the origin story,

right? This is how Donald Trump in many ways came to be because it is the first one not only

charge, but also this is the one right before the 2016 election. One has to wonder, one has to

wonder allowed if indeed this information had come forth before the election. Would it have had an

impact hard to know reasonable people can differ on that and make different speculative judgments about

whether the impact would have been significant. But in many ways, in many ways, it is the one when we

first identified these activities as going to the core of our electoral process trying to deceive

the American population, the people who vote or don't vote in our elections about what he had

done in the past. That's why this case goes beyond just the 34 felony counts whether he is

is convicted of of those or not. It identifies this activity at the start at the start of the

of Donald Trump's certainly not the start of his campaign, but the start of his time

happening shortly after that in elective office as the president of the United States of America.

The other cases plainly related and unrelated, they all partake of what fraud attempts to undermine

the laws of America, attempts to deceive and to misrepresent and that's what ties them all together.

And so we've got again in the wake of all of this the first time a fairly certain trial date

before Judge Juan Merchant coming up at about a month from now. All of that very significant in

understanding all of the cases pending. We know as well by virtue of taking some inventory here this

morning, the Mar-a-Lago cases we talked last broadcast continues to move a pace even where

in Florida, Jack Smith, very frustrated with the presiding judge, Eileen Cannon, for her decisions

to permit the production, the release of the witness identification and other information,

Jack Smith challenging that in the courtroom there and potentially seeking from the 11th Circuit

Court of Appeals, a ruling overturning Eileen Cannon's decision on that particular issue could

also one day prompt him to say enough is enough and could prompt him to seek her recusal,

her removal from that case, if indeed, if indeed the kinds of things that she has done in that case

continue to move in the direction that they have. When we review all of this in our second hour,

we're going to focus a lot upon the funny Willis case in particular and that is the prosecution

in Georgia, this multi-count indictment under Rico Rico in the state of Georgia. As always on

our Saturday morning broadcast, we are delighted to have callers. We invite your calls in at 844-967-2789.

That continues throughout our broadcast into the second hour and we do have a caller online this

morning and we're going to take that call and I suspect we're going to mark and take your call

and then perhaps even answer in the start of the second hour, but let's entertain Mark's comment

or question right now Mark, glad to have you with me. Yeah, well thanks so much for taking my call.

I mean this all kind of relates. I mean the Donald Trump is approved as committed fraud. I mean

he's been adjudicated to have committed fraud to be actually lying and the violence that is

called upon because people, supporters are out there and they're picking on poor Donald Trump

and it's kind of interesting that we heard yesterday and it's kind of a preview that Andrew

had says, well the reason we did this is because we were afraid of Donald Trump what Donald Trump

might do if we try to if we thwart Donald Trump's wishes and this all links together in this just

I see the spider web of interconnecting things you know history.

We'd want FM. Broadcasting to Southeast Wisconsin at 540 AM. This is the Shah W-A-U-K

point one FM. Broadcasting to Southeast Wisconsin at 540 AM. Welcome.

Grab your favorite morning beverage and join us for morning canolies with Jim Santel.

You don't know me, but I'm your brother.

Sampling the news desserts of the week. Here is your host Jim Santel.

This is Jim Santel and yes I'm your host for this our second hour of our discussion this morning

of law and government and the aspiration for justice in America. Thank you for once again joining

me for this all important discussion or exposition of these major issues these major events of

justice past several days as always as always on a Saturday morning broadcast inviting your

contributions your perspectives, especially your questions and your inquiries about everything

from procedure to law to facts. We'll try to address those and that number of course to call in

to the broadcast stations here of civic media at 844-967-2789 one more time that's 844-967-2789

always always delighted to take your questions your comments right over the break we were talking

with Mark who is on the line still with me talking about the interrelationship of all of these things

one of the themes of this morning's discussion the fraud the fraud that permeates many of if not all

of these cases civil and criminal both and mark you are making that point right before the

break you're at the top of the hour why don't you go ahead and tell me more about your

perspective we're a question or comment about what we see recently in connection with the Trump

enterprises and the Trump behaviors yeah the behavior just extends just extends to foreign policy

now and national security policy in terms of the border because Trump says he doesn't want to see

it happen and so it's not happening as far as he'd go into Ukraine as far as you know fixing

our border policy that it's amazing that a man that has been adjudicated to be a liar

generates such fear among some of those in the political class that they're willing to just

couch out to this man who has no official power anymore but his his power his unofficial power is

just it's kind of scary because that he just could guess his marching orders and people are willing

to to die for Donald Trump I mean that they're the guy who just was fun to be you know

rusted by the FBI for for lying before the FBI and lying before Congress in terms for Hunter Biden

I mean that gets drawn to this web as well because that he these people are inspired by a man who

has been unknown fraudster for decades I mean that this guy we knew he was a kind of a

charlatan from from years ago but you know that he was a rest elected president and but now the

power he has is frankly rather rather terrifying if you you know if you dig down and look at it

what he could do his he I don't know I'm getting a little you know flabbergasted legitimately so

right flabbergasted as we all are by this and again we use the word unprecedented a lot these days

Mark but it really does apply we've never had a situation like this where a former president has

been involved in this much litigation post presidency even of course of his presidency itself

not only in terms of criminal cases but civil cases an unprecedented

comment not only upon who he is how he operates but the other aspect of this that I think is implicit

Mark in your comments this morning wisely articulated and much appreciated here is is just this

that Donald Trump as he did in the wake of the judge and and Goran judgment yesterday

identified the judges being corrupt the attorney general I also corrupt all of the processes

in all of these cases are according to Donald Trump accomplished by virtue of a deprivation of his

due process rights the judges are acting badly the witnesses are not properly presenting the facts

the prosecutors certainly at the top of the list people who are out to get him our anti Trump

he often says and you know if it may well be that if one of these cases was the only one we're

talking about we might indeed look at that we'd probably dismiss that too after some examination

of it but now we have all of these and at some point this notion that everyone out there in all

of our judicial proceedings in all of our courtrooms state courtrooms federal courtrooms judges across

the board of of derivations on all sides of the aisle if you will all of them all of them according

to Donald Trump involved in this massive conspiracy if you will to go after him when in fact he has

done nothing white is a difficult position to maintain it is quite literally as you're indicating

Mark incredible to maintain that there is nothing here even if even if along the way you identify

particular aspects of some of these cases which may or may not be proven all of them together

do in fact establish this practice of fraud some of its civil in nature as we have seen and likely

likely going to be proven in court some of this criminal in nature as well we hastened add as we

always do on this broadcast at any criminal defendant any criminal defendant like Donald Trump in

the wake of grand jury indictments both in the state system in the federal system presumed innocent

and it is only only only after a jury or in some cases a judge if a jury is waived only after

that jury makes a determination beyond a reasonable doubt that's the standard in criminal cases only

if a jury makes that determination beyond a reasonable doubt does so unanimously that that presumption

of innocence goes away and that happens the moment a judgment of conviction a judgment of guilt is

returned by a verdict from a jury and of course appellate rights also follow that as Donald Trump

affirms all the time in these civil cases when he indicates as he has the right to do

is going to appeal these cases to the next highest court all of this mark to your good point about

the threat the thread that we see not only presently but in the past presumably in the future as we

talk about all of these cases you mentioned as well mark this interesting case involving an x x

FBI informant and indeed it also is a part of a larger pattern about lying and misrepresenting

the story there of course is that a special counsel is investigating Hunter Biden who's the son

of the president as you well know the very same special counsel investigating Hunter Biden also

pursuing prosecutions on gun cases and on tax charges has now charged this former FBI

informant with fabricating claims the FBI informant making up claims that president Biden and Hunter

at each thought about five million dollars in bribes from a Ukrainian company and that's the

statement made by this this informant to the FBI proven to be completely wrong this long time FBI

informant is named as Alexander Smirnoff SMIRNOV is accused of falsely telling the FBI that Hunter

Biden again the son of the president paid a board member of this energy giant name of Urizma

you've heard a lot about them in the in the news and also demanded money to protect that company

to protect that company from an investigation by the country's prosecutor general in Ukraine at

that particular time the story this story again advanced by this Alexander Smirnoff

seemed to back up some completely unsubstantiated claims in the Congress advanced by the Republicans

in the Congress of a Biden Biden crime family and that is the basis upon which some of the

movements forward in committee to try to impeach the president president based upon this notion

of criminality things he has done wrong with his son and perhaps others as well well it turns out now

that based upon this latest disclosure and the indictment the indictment of this Alexander

Smirnoff that those statements by him about the criminal criminality of Hunter Biden with his father

it turned out to be completely unsubstantiated completely false there simply lies and the 37 page

indictment which again I commend your reading of it was an unsealed late Thursday in a California

court again brought by the special counsel's name is David Weiss he's the same special counsel

who's prosecuting Hunter Biden now is charging this FBI informant for lying to the FBI perpetuating

this notion that the president president his name of course Joe Biden and his son was somehow

involved in criminal activity it appears as well from the indictment that the motivation for

Smirnoff doing this for lying to prosecutors for advancing this complete lie seems to have been

political in nature during the 2020 campaign Smirnoff apparently sent to the FBI a series of

messages expressing bias that according to the indictment here against Joseph Biden including

some texts and they were of course replete with some typos and misspellings as they often are

but boasting along the way that he had the information that could put it could put put Joseph

Joe Biden but also his son Hunter Biden in jail and in the wake of that initial information

Republicans in Congress attempting to get more information about this along the way Chuck

Grassley from Iowa released a copy of an FBI record that included this false allegation

without naming Smirnoff at the time and again without indicating that the FBI already was suspect

about whether that any of this information was true and accurate at the time Chuck Grassley

Senator Grassley's described claims as very significant allegations from a trusted FBI informant

implicating then vice president Biden in a criminal bribery scheme again all of that disclosed

just this past week to be completely untrue the course of this again as always will go forward

the problems in the case again the underlying problems with the statements made by Smirnoff

are are many the FBI officials along the way plainly did not seem to think much of Smirnoff's

allegations from the start 2020 they concluded this claims did not merit any continued investigation

and actually told Trump administration officials in the Justice Department of that decision

and all this again coming out in the wake of this indictment of just this past week

by a grand jury in California the course of this again indicates not only the work of the

special counsel there but also the focus on the need to ensure that the information that's provided

of course to the FBI is accurate when it is not that can indeed form the basis for an indictment

against an individual this matter of course again the the Smirnoff himself presumed innocent

until proven guilty along the way of course Hunter Biden still facing charges as we know as we've

talked on this broadcast about gun charges and tax charges those gun charges pending in Delaware

tax charges in California his lawyers Biden's lawyers saying that the indictment of Smirnoff

is proof that he was the target of this politically motivated smirric campaign we will see as this case

proceeds through the courts but exactly the kind of thing that Mark was describing in his comments

to us of just a few moments ago when we come back we're going to spend a good deal of time talking

about this major Rico prosecution still proceeding in the court in Georgia stay with us for that

important discussion and the evidentiary ruling of our hearings of justice past week

you

you're listening to the Shaw W-A-U-K

you

these major cases involving Donald Trump in the state and yes indeed the federal courts as well

of our land talking in our first hour about this major civil judgment entered against him

in connection with evaluations charges brought by the attorney general in the state of New York

this major case the implications of that for the future of the Trump company and also the Trump

players the Trump family members themselves talking as well about the significance of the scheduling

justice past week by one merchant who is another New York judge presiding over the criminal

hush money case that also pending in Manhattan that going ahead on March 25th going to take weeks to

alleging that Donald Trump was responsible for hush payments made to women to keep them quiet

this catch and kill approach that has been the subject of a lot of reporting in the past now

apparently finally coming to trial the first of these several criminal cases actually going to

trial among those cases among those cases of course is the DC insurrection the interference with

the election case that case against suspended right now while the court of appeals and the

Supreme Court itself is determining whether to take the issue of immunity before it we'll see

what happens there the other case of course is the Mar-a-Lago case that's the other federal case

pending in florida no clear no clear statement of when that case may may go to trial but their

proposals certainly for that to happen later in this year a lot of activity going on there right

now with related to the witnesses as a concerns that Jack Smith as the chief prosecutor is the

special counsel has about the disclosure of witness statements and witness information

when witnesses these days are being threatened by people who identify them as appropriately being

witnesses in a trial and the concern about ensuring the integrity of the process and

ensuring the safety and security of those witnesses if in fact if in fact disclosures about who

they are where they live what they do are made public we know we live most regrettably most

unfortunately illegally in a time when people threaten threaten to do these kinds of things against

witnesses is a concern for prosecutors to ensure the integrity of of the cases as they go ahead

the other case we're going to spend a lot of time talking about this morning pulling apart in the

wake of a two-day evidentiary hearing is this major Rico state prosecution charging 19 individuals

including Donald Trump many others four of them have already pled guilty four of them pleading

guilty in front of the state court judge there in Fulton County Georgia the other defendants

going ahead and one of them one of them is named is Michael Roman bringing a motion to disqualify

the prosecutor from future involvement future administration oversight of the case her name of

district attorney funny willis and also another individual in her office who was her not only a

co prosecutor there but also also someone with whom she had a romantic interest we're going to

talk more about the the predicates for that and there's been a lot of time pulling apart the

relevance issues that this incredible hearing of the past couple of days has presented to me and I

suspect you and many others and addressing under Georgia law whether indeed there is any

basis whatsoever for the disqualification of funny willis disqualification of ever office generally

under the facts is presented and wondering aloud wondering along what the connection between the

various allegations and statements and representations about finances and many many other

irrelevant things has to do with the criminal prosecution of Donald Trump in that venue a

state criminal prosecution under the rico statute of Georgia what is the connection between those

representations that were hearing awful lot about in that state court and legitimacy of the criminal

prosecution and indeed in the end the fact that there is no basis whatsoever based upon the facts

presented in this today evidentiary hearing to disqualify when talk about Georgia law explain

why it is that there is no there there explain why it is the relevance issue is all important

and that none of what you've heard over the past couple of days is relevant is relevant to issues

that are properly before the court before we do that again we've got another caller on the line we

always appreciate your calls glad to have you with me this morning Adrian your comment or question

about our subjects this morning good morning now Donald Trump has begun to talk about

these court cases interfering with this campaigning now I've had the opportunity to be in court

room during jury selection when a given member of the projected jury panel would try to tell the judge

look I have to run my business where I have a very important job and I can't really be

be away from my my job for this for this period of time and the judge basically tells them well

tough lock it's it's a duty of citizenship and you have to do it right is it going to be the case

that Donald Trump is going to be able to get away with saying that he can't participate in these

jury proceedings or they they have to be postponed until after election because of his he has to be

allowed to do his campaigning instead Adrian that that is a terrific question it's about

process but also about things we've heard from the judges already and you've identified sort of

distinction here between some of things you have seen in what may go on here as well again the

importance between a civil case and a criminal case is important we have seen Donald Trump for

example come and go in the New York case he has come and gone in the E. Jean Carroll cases are

all civil cases where you can Donald Trump is represented by council doesn't have to be present

and we've seen him storm in and out of some of those proceedings and so in civil cases he is not

obliged to be there indeed he hasn't always been there Adrian your question underscores the

significant difference in a criminal case and indeed that's exactly why Donald Trump's lawyers

are so very upset with one merchant the trial judge in Manhattan who has set this case the the

hush money case for March 25th because in a criminal case in a criminal case the defendant is

obliged to be there this is a situation where the not only does the defendant have a right to be

there but the accused is present for those criminal proceedings that's what in part in many other

ways distinguishes a criminal case from a civil case the attorneys again have argued precisely

precisely Adrian what you've identified here to know effect and all the judges at least so far

who have addressed this particular issue including Tanya Chattchen early on the DC case the

interference with the election case have said I'm not going to treat you any differently than any

other defendant in front of me yes you're running for the presidency yes I appreciate you are out

there doing that but Adrian to your good point she has said and indeed one merchant has also said

in connection with this upcoming trial that Donald Trump you need to be there and it is going to

make for some very interesting times in about a month from now as Donald Trump variously is in court

and also pursuing his campaign he is obliged to be there and while those issues will continue certainly

be raised by the attorneys for Donald Trump they will continue to complain about this and maintain

that the impacts of his being president court are directly impacting his campaign for the presidency

my not just speculation my anticipation my expectation is that all these judges will say in these

criminal proceedings that is not sufficient to remove your obligation to be here for these cases

and anticipate Adrian that your good question will continue to be much on the focus and the attention

of judges as they go forward and that will one day also include of course the the Georgia case

I'm going to talk more about that coming up in our next portion here at our Saturday morning broadcast

we you

continue our discussion now this morning on our Saturday morning broadcast of this major Rico

prosecution pending in Fulton County in Georgia alleging that Donald Trump and about 18 other people

engage in various acts a wide sweeping charge set of charges there involved with attempting to

undermine to affect to influence to distort to steal the election in Georgia based upon the

legitimate votes cast by Georgia voters a very broad indictment there brought by Bonnie Willis

she is the prosecutor in the case but but return by and charge by important point to grand juries

one of them an investigative grand jury under Georgia law the second one and indicting grand jury

very important point to understand in our federal system certainly in many state systems as well

including there in Georgia that the prosecutor the prosecutors responsible for prosecuting the charges

the cases that are returned or issued by a grand jury and what is a grand jury a grand jury is a

group of people typically about twenty five twenty six people were brought together from the community

they're not prosecutors they're not necessarily lawyers who review evidence to determine whether

there's probable cause to believe that a crime has been committed and that's exactly what happened

in Georgia a number of months ago in the wake of that review by the this grand jury of the evidence

in in Georgia there the grand jury returned this very broad sweeping indictment and in the wake of

that one of the defendants his name is Michael Roman he's one of the the nineteen charge with

violations of Rico there has brought a motion he has brought a motion seeking to disqualify

disqualify the prosecutor Bonnie Willis and yes indeed one of her co-prosecutors with with whom

Bonnie Willis has also had a personal relationship his name is Nathan Wade and Roman is seeking to have

them disqualified from the prosecution of this case and so when it spends some time this morning

pulling apart the notion that that is is again it's an applicable applicable two cases if indeed

disqualification is appropriate but the notion under these facts that Bonnie Willis should be

disqualified completely unfounded completely unsupported by what we have seen at only in the

pleadings but especially in the hearings of the past couple of days you know what this is all about

the allegation is that Bonnie Willis has brought onto the staff this fellow named Nathan Wade and

depending upon what the evidence is or does not show the nature of the relationship when it started

when it ended those kinds of things all the matter of all matters of the review in the evidentiary

hearing of just the past couple of days but along the way mr. Roman through his attorneys alleging

that the alleged romantic relationship between Willis and Wade the financial compensation that

Wade received as a special prosecutor and even things like the trips the travel between

with Wade and Willis while they were together romantically that those kinds of things have an impact

upon the prosecution of him and therefore that they should be disqualified indeed the entire office

should be disqualified for that personal behavior now let me say at the outset that I have never as

a a supervisor in a prosecution office including my six and a half years as us attorney I have not

been an especially big supporter of of these relationships inside offices not that people can have

personal relationships but the the relationships can indeed cause problems and indeed indeed there's

no doubt that the relationship here between Nathan Wade and finally Willis which is apparently now

over has brought attention to them personally in a way that's a diversion from the principal focus

which is the prosecution of Donald Trump and it resulted in a two day a border to border eight o'clock

to five o'clock hearing in front of Judge Scott McAfee who's presiding over the criminal prosecution

he entertained evidentiary presentations by various witnesses including including Nathan Wade

including funny Willis but whether this personal relationship qualifies as a basis a factual basis

to disqualify funny Willis in the entire office from prosecution a couple of things related to this

and that is number one fundamental notion that defendants do not have the ability do not have the

capacity do not have the right to choose their prosecutors and as I said there may be there

certainly are things related to the personal relationship here maybe in other cases as well

that need to be addressed but those are matters for internal issues inside the the attorney

the district attorney's office and they do not impact and should not impact going forward with

the prosecution let's talk about this in particular under Georgia law even if all the factual

allegations that are set forth about the travel about the payments about the nature of the relationship

all the other I would present irrelevant things that have been said during the course of these

hearings of the past couple of days let's assume all of those are true there still is no basis

for Judge McAfee to disqualify the office and funny Willis from the further prosecution

of this case the key point is that regardless of those factual circumstances the matter is

related to hiring and the timing of that the relationship all of that do not affect the

propriety of the prosecution against Roman and his co-defendants including including Donald Trump

questions for example about gifts related matters go to Willis in ways obligations to the DA's office

and in that connection they have no connection to assuring the defendant in this case Mr. Roman

presumably others as well a fair trial the allegations the things we heard about in the past

couple of days all these facts are interesting they are related plainly to personnel HR human resources

matters inside the office that need to be addressed that certainly are a diversion that have gotten

out the entire nation focused upon this issue and not the principal issues which are the prosecution

going forward of Donald Trump and the others but the fundamental presentations do not have this

connection to ensuring a defendant including Mr. Roman has a right has a they fair trial presented

to him he's got a right to that it's not related to these particular personnel issues there is

irrelevant to the trial as allegations for example in other situations that for example prosecutors

took supplies for personal use office supplies if you will let's suppose they drove some

county vehicles on personal errands even did things inside the office that relate to interactions

with their co-workers all of those are legitimate issues the legitimate issues for the prosecutors

offices internally to deal with and things that need to be addressed by virtue of the oversight

responsibilities of supervisors inside those offices but those allegations those kinds of things

personal matters relationships monetary matters that do not impact the underlying the most

important prosecution itself they do not affect the criminal prosecutions the require them to stop

or be suspended certainly not being dismissed and do not justify the removal the removal of the

prosecutors themselves let's talk about what Georgia law says and what it does not say

when it comes to prosecutorial disqualification it's actually exceptionally narrow and their

their allegations the allegations here do not fit in any of the categories in Georgia law under which

Fanny Willis could be disqualified again the focus of the claims by Mr. Roman

alleged romantic relationship between Willis and Wade some financial compensation that

Wade received as a special prosecutor in this personal travel that Willis and Wade took

together other related things along the way to generally recognize grounds for disqualification in

the state of Georgia the first is a conflict of interest which we'll talk about more and the

second is forensic misconduct what is forensic misconduct that's doing things like going out and

creating evidence that does not otherwise exist falsifying records suborning perjury those kinds

of things that would prompt you to say there was a real miscarriage of justice here would not only

have you taken off the case but probably have you disbarred maybe even prosecuted criminally

misconduct in terms of managing the evidence and doing things that are meant intentionally

to undermine the legitimacy of the prosecution no allegations here whatsoever of any forensic

misconduct whatsoever so what about a conflict of interest what about a conflict of interest

does that exist well there are such things as conflicts of interest out there a common a conflict

of interest again in Georgia law arises when the prosecutor previously had represented the

defendant for example with respect to an offense charged prosecutor might be qualified for

example if if he is a fact witness in the case against the defendant that couldn't happen right

a conflict of interest could happen when the prosecutor has a relationship to a victim

maybe even a member of the grand jury that kind of thing would be a conflict of interest conflict

interest leading to disqualification could exist when a a prosecutor is compensated by a contingency

fee that is paid only if a conviction is is is secured because that fee arrangement creates sort

of at least the appearance of a conflict of interest between the public duty to seek justice

and a private right to obtain compensation for for those services and so none of those none of

those apply in this particular case let's talk about those in particular and why it is that the

standards under Georgia law simply do not apply and that all the things that you heard during the

course of the past two days are irrelevant irrelevant to the legitimacy of the prosecution against

Donald Trump there is no per se rule of disqualification based upon marital status in Georgia

the Georgia Supreme Court has even explained that even married couples and opposing sides of litigation

do not suffer from a conflict of interest the opportunity if you will for a conflict of interest

some some potential impropriety between spouses and opposing sides of litigation are greater than

those on the same side of the case working toward the same outcome and that's what you have here

you've got two people on the same side of the case not a conflict there but a similarity a symmetry

if if you will of interest there is in the a no plausible argument that non married attorneys

were together prosecuting a case admittedly in a romantic relationship was served together in

this role creates a conflict of interest for the defendant robbing that defendant in some way of

the right to a fair trial simply isn't there the same applies to this issue about financial

compensation that Wade may have received as a special prosecutor likewise those kinds of things

they simply do not provide support for a finding by the judge of any problem here the financial

compensation paid to Wade is frankly consistent with some well established practices in Georgia

does not give rise to a conflict of interest warranting a prosecutor prosecutorial disqualification

and again publicly available documents and part of them presented during the course of this

this evidentiary hearing are indicating that Wade's compensation was not contingent not contingent

of course on the outcome of the prosecution against Roman or anybody else again that is a system

that it plainly is would be contrary to fundamental justice movement that somehow the the prosecutor

benefits financially if indeed there's a prosecution that is successful in all of the years that I

was a federal prosecutor state prosecutors as well you get paid by the state and your salary comes to

you whether you are successful or not it is not contingent not at all contingent upon the result

whether guilty or or not guilty in the criminal prosecution itself again the evidence presented

about the Wade prosecution simply not relevant not related to the legitimacy of the underlying

prosecution concerns about whether or not somehow the issues here have been muddied in such a way

that America now thinks that these are indeed relevant issues in a related point related point

it's also significant that Roman's motion to qualify also complains that Wade has never tried

a felony rico case that's a part of his motion as well and there again as I said before

defendants do not have the right the the prerogative to choose their prosecutors you can make decisions

about employment that are good bad someplace in between again those are personnel matters inside

the DA's office they may be issues for resolution by supervisors and others but they don't have that

connection that relevant connection between what was going on inside the office and the legitimacy

of the prosecution outside of the office what is missing here of all of these cases all these instances

including including this personal travel issue which we heard a lot about is how in fact that has a

substantive impact somehow denigrates the prosecution of Donald Trump and the others including

Mr. Roman in this case going forward in Georgia when we come back I'm going to make a prediction

about what judge McAfee does here in connection under under Georgia law in connection with the

Roman petitions and we'll talk about that and more right after this brief break

you

the shot w-a-u-k

the

car

continue our analysis or discussion this morning of the evidentiary hearing that America was tuned

into for the past couple of days, including the testimony of Fanny Willis and her co-prosicular

Nathan Wade with whom she admitted she had a personal relationship and asking the question,

if not answering this morning, of how this is relevant, how this is relevant to any prosecution

of Donald Trump, which does proceed. And most specifically under what rubric under what

structure does any of this information about the financial relationship between them, the personal

relationship between them, the compensation of Mr. Wade, all of that. What is the relationship

between that and a reason to disqualify the prosecutor in the prosecution itself? The answer

is that there is none under Georgia law. There is nothing about the forensics of this. There's

no conflict of interest. There are no two interests that are conflicting here. Instead, there

is simply allegations and perhaps even proof of personal relationships inside the office. Those

do not affect the legitimacy of the prosecution going forward. And those of us listening and watching,

including you, to the evidentiary presentations of this past couple of days, had to be scratching

our heads collectively saying, what is going on here? If the judge is in fact simply attempting to

make a full record for Donald Trump and for Mr. Roman himself, giving them the full opportunity,

as he said once to present your case, that is one thing. If in the other hand, the notion is

somehow there is a legitimate, there's a there there. There's something real here. This is a

legitimate argument to make. The answer is no. This is nearly frivolous in terms of its

presentation and anticipate, anticipate that Judge McAfee will soon, hopefully very soon,

issue an order finding that none of the evidentiary presentations, while interesting, maybe

salacious, maybe appropriate for coffee, table conversation about what's going on inside the office,

do not in fact constitute a conflict of interest for Fannie Willis or office that in any ways,

to any way, deprives either Mr. Roman, Mr. Trump or any of the other defendants of a right to a

jury trial, right to a prosecution that is free from interference from anything that is inappropriate

or wrong. That's simply not here. And so under Georgia law, as we have described it, all these things

may clear that while this process perhaps had to be conducted as a part of the pretrial proceedings,

it has been, as many people have said, a side show, a collateral issue, a footnote to what should be

the focus, which is the substance of the prosecution, as it goes forward, we hasten to add once again,

Donald Trump, including Mr. Roman, other people in this case, but have not yet pled guilty,

the presumption of innocent stays with them as it will, as it will, as all of this goes forward.

Anticipate, anticipate that Judge Scott McAfee, hopefully, will make short shrift of this,

issue an order, perhaps an oral ruling, maybe a substantive written ruling about all of this,

but should become to a conclusion fairly, fairly soon, all of this, of course, a diversion,

and also taking time away from the actual work of prosecuting and defending,

eight, and defending this case, pending right now in the Georgia court.

Find this morning some commentary about Wisconsin's self coming right back home.

We know from our previous discussions way back in December, December 22nd, our Supreme Court

overturned the current maps that are existing for our recent elections here in the state of Wisconsin,

for the Assembly and the Senate, and ordered the parties to propose new ones. The vote on that

decision was four to three, and in the wake of that, the court hired some academic consultants

to analyze those proposals for new maps. It directed the parties on both sides to file memorandums

of law, and all that has been going on. Lots of briefs and responsive briefs. All that has come

to conclusion, along the way, the consultants found that the plans offered by some Republican lawmakers

and by a conservative policy group constituted partisan gerrymandering and should not be considered

the four remaining proposals. Greenlit by the consultants were submitted by the plaintiffs,

by the office of the governor, by Tony Evers, by some democratic senators, and also by some

mathematicians and data scientists. We've got lots of maps out there, and the

Wisconsin Supreme Court, again, has taken all of this, if you will, under advisement,

based upon its commitment, as it said before, that if the legislature and if the governor cannot

come to an agreement on their own as they should under the normal process, then the Wisconsin Supreme

Court will take this on, and based upon all the submissions, including the maps, including the

statements by the lawyers, when all of that happens, they will then issue their opinion. Well,

something significant happened this past week, as you have heard in the news, as you know,

right here on the newscast of civic media, and that is that just this past week, the legislature

led by the Republicans past, indeed, adopted the voting maps that were drawn by the office of the

governor, Tony Evers. And Tony Evers has said, of course, that he would sign that redistricting plan.

It was passed unchanged. And earlier on, there was a bit of a skirmish about whether or not the

plan and earlier submission did, in fact, constitute the governor's plan, the governor's maps,

or if it wasn't, in fact, accomplish some changes in that. We, it's very clear now that just this

past week that the legislature passed the governor's maps themselves. And so the question now is,

will the governor now sign this? While this is pending also before the Wisconsin Supreme Court,

plainly, plainly, the governor is indicated that he intends to sign it. We'll see if he does that,

anticipating that he does. It is also significant to note that even under the new maps that maps that

he may have presented, that the Republicans will still retain some majorities in both chambers,

though the party's advantages would likely be similar than the absolute authority it now sort of

commands, particularly in the Senate. And so the net impact of this, even with the governor's plan,

may not be to shift power and responsibility inside the Senate and the assembly. But,

nonetheless, make the maps more fair in Wisconsin, the governor should sign that map. And I know that

there is some concern among some members of the legislature, particularly in the Democratic side,

about the possibility of getting an even better map from the Wisconsin Supreme Court. And I will

say simply this that in all the civil litigation, which this is fundamental notion that if you can

settle a case, bring it to resolution, which this would presumably for the next 70 years or so,

always better to try to resolve a case outside of court, even though if everybody gives up

something, the Republicans and the Democrats give up something that they would otherwise have,

probably a good result. If everybody walks away with a settlement with which they're somewhat a

bit unhappy common phrase, common adage out there in the civil litigation. And so we would anticipate

the governor would bring this to a conclusion, the Supreme Court then not having to decide this

issue. And America, America looked to Wisconsin and say there's a situation where the legislature and

the governor did their jobs, fair maps in place for the remaining, at least for the remaining seven

years of our time. Next week, as in every week, we continue to focus on these issues of courts in

America, American justice, government, and the aspiration for justice in Wisconsin in our nation.

Come back again next week for that important question.