Here is your host, Jim Santel.
Good morning, this is Jim Santel. And this is morning, Ken Oles. It is our weekly review,
our analysis, our examination, our talking with you about these major stories in our
lives statewide, nationally. And sometimes throughout the world, every single Saturday
morning here on the broadcast stations of civic media talking about those areas of government,
law and the aspiration for justice in America and worldwide that animate our lives. Thank
you so much for being with me this morning for this hour. And hopefully the second hour
to on our Saturday morning broadcast is Saturday, March 16th, 2024. This is our 89th broadcast
on the civic media stations statewide. And in other places throughout our country as well,
we'll be talking about that at the end of the second hour. We've got a very special
programming note coming up about the future of this broadcast. We're not going away. We're
going to be re-styling and re-crafting somewhat to ensure that our goals that is in the areas
of government law and aspiration of justice are further met and further advanced as a result
of our discussions here every Saturday morning. As always, we are encouraging this morning,
your questions, your inquiries about the subject matters on our syllabus for this day. That
number is always is 844-967-2789. Once again, that's 844-967-2789. My excellent producer,
Johnny and I are here in the studios of WAUK and Waukesha to take those calls, those inquiries
of yours. And to get you on the air, talking with me about those significant things in our
lives has always this morning we have an ambitious, very ambitious, but nonetheless achievable agenda.
I'm going to talk with you in just a moment or so about what that syllabus is all about. We
ask three simple questions, what happened, why are those things relevant, and what options do we
have in response to them? What is on our agenda for this morning? Lots of things happening in the
areas of government and rule of law and justice just in the past 24 hours, 48 hours certainly
throughout this past week. It has been a big news week when it comes to these important issues
of government operation and law in America. I'm going to be doing some geography going right down
the East Coast in this our first hour and probably a bit into our second hour as well. When it
talks about cases in New York, then also in Georgia and then also in Florida and you know what those
are, you know about the status of the state case, the so-called hush money case pending right now
in a Manhattan criminal courtroom. I'm going to talk about what happened just yesterday and why
it's going to certainly prompt a change in the scheduling of the trial in that matter. I'm going
to go south into Georgia, two major events on Thursday and Friday of just this past week.
One of them involving some of the dismissal of charges in that omnibus rico indictment against
Donald Trump and others and then almost as significant the decision by the judge there not to
disqualify the prosecutor, but to require that her deputy, the fellow who is principally in charge
are prosecuting the case that he no longer be a part of that. We're going to talk about what the judge
said. We're going to do some microscopic justice once again, going deep into the specifics of what
the judge in that case said and did the reasons for his decision and in all three of these areas,
including the myrological case, we'll be doing some analysis about where these cases come from,
what the decisions mean and what we can anticipate for the future again in New York and in Georgia
and in Florida, all those cases, three of the four major criminal cases pending against the former
president, a present candidate for the presidency. His name, of course, is Donald Trump and then and
then into our second hour, we're going to go back to as we often do the Supreme Court,
Supreme Court, which issued to all the related decisions yesterday in the area of social media. We
have talked about this a lot in the past that one of the major focuses of our United States Supreme
Court in this 2023, 2024 term has been on social media and the interaction between it and you
and government, two major cases, basically the same opinion, opinion authored by Amy Coney Barrett,
released just yesterday, having to do with this connection between government officials and the
media, social media in particular, things that are out there posted on social media. We'll talk
about that. And then, as I said, at the end of the second hour, a major, a major significant
programming note about what you're going to be hearing going forward on our 90th broadcast,
beginning next Saturday. We'll tell you more about that at the end of our second hour this morning
on our broadcast. Thank you once again for joining Johnny and me for our discussion and let us
launch right into that ambitious agenda this morning by beginning beginning in Manhattan.
Big news coming out just yesterday, March 15th, a New York judge, his name is Juan Merchant,
who is presiding over the so-called catch and kill or hush money case. This is the case involving
criminal charges against Donald Trump alleging that right before the 2016 election, he basically
violated New York law and failing to properly account for describe transactions, financial transactions
operated through his fixer, Michael Cohen, by which he paid off a porn star named Stormy Daniels
and caught that case, killed it through the national inquirafel named David Pecker and prevented
us at least for that time from hearing all about that. The allegation is less about the salacious
nature of that relationship, but rather rather a violation of New York state law. And as we said
last week, when we talked a lot about the categories of things that Alvin Bragg, who is the district
attorney there, he's the prosecutor in that case, the things he's going to be presenting,
yes, he's going to talk about that financial transaction, but he's also going to talk about the
setting in which it happens and describe these other things. It also happened with a second woman
also being paid off, a dormant being paid off, the access Hollywood tape, all those kinds of things
that were happening at the same time, telling this overall story, what I have described as Donald
Trump's origin story when it comes to attempts to undermine to affect the election in America,
he is going to describe the fact that this case, like the others, most of the others is at least
at least at a minimum, also about election interference. Why? Because the allegations go to
that fundamental theme that Alvin Bragg is going to be presenting to the course of the trial,
that Donald Trump by doing this, by paying people off, by violating thereby New York law,
he effectively prevented us from understanding fully what, who he is, what he is as a candidate,
and therefore attempted to interfere with the election, the campaign at that time,
what happened? What happened just yesterday? Well, in order to understand what happened yesterday
in the context of that prosecution, we need to go back and understand that the judge won
merchant, who is the trial judge who's proceeding, presiding over this proceeding in his courtroom,
has scheduled this case to go ahead, jury selection beginning on March 25th. That's right.
That's nine days from today, the end of this month, Judge Mershon had indicated that he is going
to begin jury selection on that day, a date that's been on his calendar for a long time,
and now with all of the other trials, as we've talked about previously, all of them highly unlikely
going to be going ahead at any time in the near future, doubtful. They will even see the light of day
in this calendar year. Juan Mershon said, let's go ahead and try this case. And indeed, Alvin Bragg
said, yes, ready to go. And the plan was to do just that until, until maybe not full stop,
but a considerable stop happened just yesterday. Again, we need to go back to understand how it is,
that this happened during the course of any criminal case, including, including in the state
of New York, in this Manhattan courtroom, there is a statutory illegal, a constitutional obligation
for prosecutors to present to the defense, all of the information that has been gathered during
the course of the investigation to ensure that the defendant has a full and complete opportunity
to review all the things the government is going to be presenting during the course of the trial.
That includes witness statements, that includes reports of interviews, that includes forensics
evidence, photographs, other things that might be used during the course of the prosecution,
even things that may not see the light of day. All of that is required in the federal system.
We've got statutory authority for that. There are cases called, called Janks and Brady that also
impose upon federal prosecutors, the obligation, they'll write full, the constitutional obligation
to produce information, to produce that information so that a defendant, in this case, Donald Trump,
can properly defend himself against the charges brought against him. That is a fundamental concept.
It is what animates our system. It's what I lived by and embraced for 30 years of my practice,
doing criminal work in the federal district court, in the eastern district of Wisconsin. It makes
sense and it is a part of our fundamental system of the rule of law and so what happens here.
As a result of the prosecution, the announcement of the charges, which I just described involving
this hush money case brought by the district attorney, the district attorney promptly turns over
all the information that he and his staff investigators have gathered about this particular charge
supporting and also, also arguably, um, exculpating the defendant for conduct in which he is
allegedly involved. That's a part of the process. And as a part of that in June of last year,
Alvin Bragg reached out where to the US attorney's office in the southern district of New York
reached down Manhattan, if you will, and reached into a federal room, the room of the US attorney
there and said, I know that in the past 2008, you investigated, you investigated a case involving
the same set of facts. And during the course of that, not only did you prosecute and ultimately
convict, this fell in a Michael Cohen, but you also did other things that pursued these allegations
that there was a federal violation based upon the same fundamental facts. And Alvin Bragg
probably said, I want those materials. I want you to give those to me so that I can produce those
to the defendant in my state case. That's proper to do. And that's what he did. And the US attorney's
office back in the summer of last year, produced some heavy emphasis on some of those documents.
Came back and said, here's what we've got. And Alvin Bragg repeatedly, um, in that connection,
did turn over the documents that were produced to him by the US attorney's office had done that
previously did it again now. And then in January of this year, the defense on behalf of Donald
Trump filed its own submitted its own served its own subpoena upon the US attorney's office for
the same kinds of things, presumably now we don't know exactly what those requests and what the
subpoena looked like. But when we come back when to talk more about what happened in the wake of
the defense subpoena of the US attorney's office and how that affected the scheduling of the trial.
Right after, right after this break, discussion following about the status of that criminal case in Manhattan.
We are back talking this morning in these first segments of our
first hour on our Saturday morning broadcast all about the status of this case. It was scheduled to
trial a week from Monday in a Manhattan criminal courtroom, a state criminal courtroom and the
decision by the judge necessitated by events to postpone that proceeding. Let's talk more about
what prompted that decision by Juan Mershon, the judge who's presiding over that case right before
the break telling you about the process by which a defendant is constitutionally statutorily
entitled to get documents as a part of the prosecution and the defense of the case. Again,
a defendant not acquired required under the law to produce anything to defend himself or herself
itself under a constitution presumed innocent until proven guilty, not obliged to do anything.
But yes, indeed, the prosecution that only has the burden of proving the case beyond a reasonable
doubt to a jury unanimously, but also to produce materials information so that the defendant has
a complete sense of what is going on in the case, what he or she or it is going to hear during the
course of the trial. And again, Alvin Bragg did that in connection with his own investigative
materials, made a request to the US Attorney's Office, also there in Madison in Manhattan rather,
in Manhattan and asked them for all the materials that they had in connection with their own
discrete investigation back in 2008 of the same events. And that corpus of material also relevant
because of course inside that federal investigation was a lot of information about an individual,
named Michael Cohen, who was ultimately convicted for that and other things in the federal court.
And he of course is a major witness in this state case now on the state docket of Judge
Juan Mershon. And so the information relevant and Alvin Bragg gets the initial
tranche materials, turns those over to the defendant. And again, in January of just this year,
the defense files and submits to the US Attorney's Office, what could arguably call they follow up?
And maybe even somewhat duplicative requests, we haven't seen the specific language of their subpoena.
But they asked for the same set of materials and lo and behold, the US Attorney's Office in Manhattan
comes forward and produces about a hundred thousand dollars, a hundred thousand pages of records.
And that coming out of course in the last couple of weeks or so, more materials apparently coming
down the road, a hundred thousand documents, presumably not previously seen by Alvin Bragg,
not previously produced through this system, which I previously described right now.
And as a result of that, as a result of that, appropriately, the defendant says, wait a minute,
we're ready to go to trial in nine days. I'm just getting now a hundred thousand documents
that I've not previously seen. How can I prepare my defense? And in this particular case,
when a defendant comes forward and says, I do not have sufficient time given the timing of the
clock and the movement forward on this trial, Donald Trump's lawyers are right. Donald's
Trump's lawyers are right to say we need more time to look at all of this information. Now,
as a practical matter, do we have, do we live in a time when all of these materials are produced
in bankers boxes? The old way when I first started as a prosecutor producer, the answer is no.
It's all done electronically. And yes, indeed, there are systems in place for ensuring that
defendants and prosecutors and other people involved in the case on both sides can do word searches,
can do analysis of documents. It is no longer the case that as a lawyer, as a prosecutor,
defense attorney, I need to sit down and go through each one of those bankers boxes in great detail
and identify every single document, read every single document. But you don't want to find out
what is there. And so again, electronics will help me a whole lot in doing that word searches,
those kinds of things. But there may be some documents. And indeed, Alvin Bragg has confirmed that
among those 100,000 documents, there is a subset that is fairly, fairly relevant to this focusing
again upon Michael Cohen. And certainly if you're the, if you're defense attorneys in these cases,
responding to what the prosecution has provided to you, you want to read those documents yourself.
And don't want to rely upon an electronic system just to tell you what they say. It is important
as a part of your defense. And so what happens in this particular case? These materials coming in,
73,000 pages of records initially, 31,000 additional documents also dropped as a result of this.
Some subset of those apparently highly relevant to this case. As a result of this Donald Trump's
lawyers say judge, we can't go ahead in nine days, 10 days from now. We've got to review all these
materials as a part of our defensive preparation to ensure that there is in fact a defense to be made.
If there are some things in this material, this tranche material that we need to take a look at,
we need to prepare for that. And indeed, they're right about that. And what the,
what happens, of course, is they file then a motion for an extension, a delay in the trial.
They're seeking 90 days, three months, which again, depending upon what those 100,000 documents say,
may or may not be unreasonable. Alan Braggus come back and said, well, not of all of them are
relevant. How about 30 days, 30 days is what he's proposing. And oh, by the way, the Trump attorneys
are also saying judge, you need to dismiss this case. Why? Because of these pretrial antics,
as they describe them, of the government, the failure of between the US Attorney's office and the
Alan Bragg DA's office to produce these documents. All of that renders it impossible for us to defend
against this case. Also claiming that for that reason, the case should be dismissed outright,
outright dismissal, which could be one of the remedies on Judge Mershans agenda,
although highly, highly likely. What has he done? Well, he has said that I'm going to delay the
case right now for 30 days through 30 days beyond March 25th. And so we know it's not starting
on March 25th. What we do know, however, that on that morning, on Monday morning, March 25th,
he's going to call everybody in. And he is going to say to them, what is going on here? I had
this scheduled. We're all ready to go. And now we're getting additional documents this late in the
process. This case has been charged for a year. And Discovery should have been undertaken and
pursued and exchanged long before now. What is going on here? He has asked them to provide a detailed
timeline of the events leading up to this recent disclosure. Tell us what happened exactly during
the course of this process. And he has also said that he will set a new trial that if necessary
after the hearing, he said he wants his detailed timeline and also sought the correspondence with
federal prosecutors who recently turned over these records, including letters and subpoenas,
and emails and notes and messages. He's trying to get to the bottom of what happened to
derail this trial. He is not happy plainly. And I suspect we're going to be hearing about this
from the judge on March 25th. Alvin Bragg has got to be upset about this as well because his
federal counterparts, again, federal prosecutors, not state prosecutors now disclosing weeks, days
before the trial, all this information. We don't know if Alvin Bragg had it before presumably not
or he would have disclosed it. But that is the circumstance that brings us to this situation where
the trial long anticipated, though one trial that might have gone ahead this calendar year,
now suspended again, and likely going to be suspended for at least at least 30 days if not
longer. Again, my own assessment is that 90 days may not be an inappropriate amount of time.
Given what has happened here, 100,000 documents, as I said before, probably not all of them relevant,
but relevant to defense. You bet it is. Why? Because a lot of that has to do with Michael Cohen,
who is Michael Cohen? He is going to testify predominantly during the course of this trial
about the very transactions that allegedly resulted in this violation of New York law.
For that reason, all of this, all of this relevant, as we now look to March 25th and down the road
for the rescheduling of this trial pending in the Manhattan Court, when we come back, when it goes
south, we're going to go south to Georgia, spend a lot of time talking about other developments
of justice past week in the parallel, but different criminal investigation going on there.
And we are back talking this morning all about the status of cases involving
current presidential candidate, Donald Trump, former president of the United States of America,
and in our first segments, talking about what happened in Manhattan just this past week,
as a result of the late disclosure, the late disclosure of a tranche of documents, 100,000 documents,
coming out of the U.S. Attorney's Office in the Southern District of New York,
that's the district that previously, under the prior administration, had invested
into the same facts scenario. It is now the subject of a state prosecution pending there in the
Manhattan District Court in front of Judge Juan Mershon. And the takeaway from this is a lot
of explaining to do. The district attorney himself, obviously, concerned about this, had said
in an abundance of caution appropriate to have some delay accomplished to ensure the defense has
an opportunity to review these materials. The defense, of course, saying no, we need 90 days,
not just 30 days, and indeed because of the misbehavior, the misconduct as they allege it,
by the prosecution, the failure to produce these documents in more timely fashion,
because of that the interrogation should be dismissed. Now, unlike you that Juan Mershon is going to
do that in March 25th, but he is going to ask some piercing questions about exactly what happened,
and indeed he should, there is some responsibility here on the side of the DA for getting this material
there's a huge amount of responsibility here. And beyond that, there is some explaining that needs
to be done coming out of my own former agency, the US Department of Justice. Why are these materials
being produced now for the first time when we've known about the dependency of the prosecution for
well over a year? What happened? And inside the Department of Justice, Merrick Garland, Merrick Garland
also has some explaining to do when it, as does the US attorney there, for why the delay happened,
why is it that just upon a subpoena from the defense, which they can do? Why now are these materials
being produced for the first time? It is a cause of great concern, not only for the scheduling of the
trial, which again is going to be pushed back, arguably, arguably months. And as I've said before,
every time, every time a trial is delayed, other things can happen. And so today,
where there is no certainty about exactly when this trial is going to be conducted,
when jury selection will begin, all kinds of things can happen between the time of a prosecution
initiation and the course of discovery, even the setting of a trial date, witnesses change,
positions changed, counsel changes, all kinds of things, facts and circumstances can develop and
be disclosed that will prompt a further delay. We don't know what's happening in the future,
but this is an example of the kinds of things that can, in fact, do happen, do happen, not without
explanation, which is what judge Mershana is going to ask, but they happen and they result in delays
in the prosecution and the defense of cases like this. We will plainly be very attentive
here on all the broadcast stations of civic media to this trial and others, not happening,
not happening nine days from now. Let's go south. Let's go south and let's look to Georgia. We also know
there this omnibus, this huge sweeping Rico case, 41 counts, 19 co-defendants initially,
huge sweeping indictment, returned by an indicting grand jury there again a long time ago.
Now, like in New York, in the course of pretrial motions, what is that all about? It means that
following, following the return of the indictment, two major things happen. One is the defense has
an opportunity to file motions with the judge. As does the prosecution, for asked for various things
in connection with the anticipated trial, motions to suppress, motions to keep evidence out,
motions to bring evidence in, all sorts of things related to the validity of the indictment
itself, the charges, all sorts of things related to witnesses and forensics evidence. So all kinds
of things can happen. All of that written out for the judge, often oral argument in front of judges,
in this pretrial period to narrow and sift, and ensure that when the trial begins,
it is focused upon things that are relevant and material. That's what the process is all about
in every single one of these cases, including, including the Manhattan case, and certainly
including the omnibus Georgia case, brought by Fannie Willis, who again is the Fulton County
District Attorney, returned by a grand jury, an investigative grand jury, and then in
dieting grand jury, this sweeping recode charge against Donald Trump and many others.
And so what has happened recently? Well, we're going to talk at great length this morning,
a microscopic justice analysis of what the judge did with respect to this continuing and pending
until just yesterday challenged to Fannie Willis's continued role as the prosecutor. Look at that
in just a moment or so, even before, even before Scott McAfee, who is the judge in that case,
he is the state court judge, who is presiding over that criminal case in Fulton County,
even before that the day before the judge clashes six charges in that omnibus indictment,
surprising that he did this, but perhaps understandable as you look once again at the decision,
the written decision that he issued, issues this decision to dismiss, Scott McAfee does
six of the 41 counts against the 19 code offence, four of them already have pled guilty,
as we have talked before, since this grand jury indictment was returned in August.
The charge, the fundamental recode charge remains, that's the racketeering charge,
brought against all the defendants, and the judge is very clear in his order that those charge
based upon overt acts in furtherance of this recode criminal engagement. The indictment says,
and the defendants engaged in, in furtherance of this racketeering conspiracy, the recode,
recode allegations, and the overt acts described in the indictment, all of those remain. None of that
affected by his decision on Thursday to dismiss six other counts. The judge, Scott McAfee,
explicit in stating that his order does not apply to those acts, nor does it relate to the
squalification issue, which we're going to get to do the nine page ruling that judge McAfee
does issue in the middle of this week, whoever takes aim at charges, asserting this that Donald
Trump and other defendants solicited public officials to break the law by violating their oaths
of office. That's what's said fourth in the indictment. That's the theory upon which these particular
counts proceeded. For example, one of those counts against Donald Trump said that he unlawfully
solicited, requested, and important, the Georgia Secretary of State, you know his name well,
it's Brad Raffensberger, to violate his oath of office by desertifying the election. That's what one
of those counts said. And the judge comes back and says as to that count and others, which will
describe in particularity in just a minute, he says these six counts contain all the essential
elements of the crime, but fail to allege in sufficient detail regarding the nature of their
commission. The kinds of things that defendants is entitled to know about again as a part of our
process. Do process. You're entitled to discovery. The information the government has can present
against you during the course of the trial. And you're also entitled to know with detail,
the specific allegations against you in the indictment. The judge, Judge McAfee writes this,
he said they, these counts, do not give the defendants enough information to prepare their
defenses intelligently as the defendants could have violated the constitution and thus the statute
in dozens, if not hundreds of distinct ways. That's the judge writing in his nine page opinion
of just this past week. One of those six charges once again count 28 related to Trump's telephone
call. You recognize that already from the description that I read from the indictment.
Raffinsburgers called by then still president Trump on January 2nd,
pressuring the secretary state to find enough votes to overturn the presidential election results
in that state. Another charge count 38 also now dismissed from this indictment relates to
letter that Trump sent to Raffinsburg in September of 2021 asking him to decertify the Georgia
presidential election results or seek similar legal remedies and announce the true winner.
That's the basis of count 38. Other counts quashed by the judge also related to these attempts
to pressure public officials. Three counts. Those are number two and six and 23 in the indictment.
Alleged that some of these defendants broke the law when they urged Georgia lawmakers to appoint
pro-Trump electors after Joe Biden, our current president, actually won the state. Count five,
concerned to call the Trump made today following David Ralston, R-A-L-S-T-O-N, who was then the
speaker of the Georgia House of Representatives. During that conversation, according to the allegations
in the indictment, this count now dismissed. Trump pressed Mr. Ralston to call a special
legislative session to appoint new electors. Again, all a part of this theory, this theory that
it's based upon that the defendants soliciting public officials to violate their oath, the judge
saying, yeah, you've got the count described and you've got the elements. They're not giving
specific sufficient detailed information upon which the defendant can rely in defending against
the case as we go to trial. And so he dismisses those six counts. Now, as I said before,
does it accomplish a huge blow? Well, the answer is probably not, probably not, but it certainly
does take away some of the force of this omnibus 41 count indictment. And that leads to the remedies
that may be out there. Funny Willis has three choices. Funny Willis has three choices here. She can
do nothing. She can simply let that stand and not appeal this at all. And go to trial without those
six counts. Arguably, she's going to tell the same kind of story as those counts described in
sort of the speaking indictment, the speaking charges already in those six counts no longer a part
of the prosecution against Donald Trump and the others. She can do nothing and simply go ahead
with the case. It is as it has been reduced by Scott McAfee or or she can appeal. She can pursue
this to an appellate court and say, you know what? The judge was wrong. And in fact, the counts do in
fact provide enough information for the defendant to know what it is that he and the others are
charged with and seek to overturn Scott McAfee's opinion or or third and probably the most likely.
She can go back to the grand jury. She can go back to the grand jury and say, well,
it appears that the judge did not like the language of the indictment as it was turned by the
grand jury. We're going to re-stile these counts. We're going to add that detail that was not in
the first indictment. We're going to ask the grand jury to re-indite on these cases called a super
seating indictment, a follow-up indictment that corrects the problems that the district court judge,
the trial judge identified in his order. That's also a remedy that she has out there probably
one of those that she is considering at the top of her list right now. At some point soon,
she will need to identify which one of those three remedies she is going to pursue.
Now, that also underscores, again, the grand jury process and how this works. As I've often said
in this broadcast, grand juries do, in fact, review the evidence, the testimony, the documents,
all the other evidence before them to determine whether it is probable cause. And yes, it is in the
end a decision by the grand jury to issue charges. But as a practical matter, as we have also discussed,
it is the obligation of the prosecutor. In this case, Fanny Willis, when I was a prosecutor for
30 years as an assistant U.S. attorney with the impromotor of the U.S. attorney to draft what
it is the grand jury has found. It was finding during the course of their investigation and present
the draft of that to the grand jury to embrace or reject. As I said before, there have been times
in my career when a grand jury has gotten back to me and said, you know what? We do not concur,
Mr. Santel. We're not going to go ahead with these particular counts. That's their role. But it is
the role of the prosecutor. And this is the key here. In this case, Fanny Willis to come forward and
say, we've got to remedy the problem with these six counts. And so grand jury, we're not asking you
to make a different determination on probable cause. But we are going to present to you some new
language as to these six counts asking you to supersede, to find probable cause as these
offense conduct pieces are now redescribed in the corrective or superseding grand jury. She can
do that. Go back to the grand jury. That's probably what she will do, especially since,
unlike the Manhattan case that we described earlier in this broadcast, there is no trial date right
now. I know she has talked about wanting to go ahead in August. And the defense plainly has
poo pooed that notion said, no, this has got to be tried well into 2025. But she's got the opportunity
now to go back and remedy that problem. And it's highly likely again to go back to the grand jury and
do just that. But it is undeniably a reflection of the crafting, the drafting that was done on
behalf of the grand jury, the first time around in this very extensive grand jury indictment.
And now, and now Fanny Willis, if she wants to pursue this, needs to go back and correct the errors
that her office did on behalf of the grand jury and drafting that initial omnibus indictment
the first time around. We'll see what she does. And we'll see what she does when it comes to the
future prosecution of this case. We know as well, the other major story coming up just yesterday
that Fanny Willis remains on this case. And when we come back, we're going to go deep into the decision
also by Scott McAfee to keep her on that case in exchange for the principle, the lead prosecutor,
his name is Nathan Wade, to resign from that prosecution. All that happened yesterday. We're going to talk
about it next.
Yeah.
So
We are back talking now in this the final segment of our first hour getting into depth
on the other significant thing that came out of Fulton County just yesterday this decision
by again by Scott McAfee.
Yes, he's the same judge who dismissed those six counts from the indictment leaving funny
Willis with some decision making to do about what she does next with respect to those counts.
The other major thing that Scott McAfee did yesterday is release his omnibus order.
We're going to spend some time going through it a 23 page order finding finding that there
is not a basis, not a basis for funny Willis or her office to be disqualified from the future
prosecution.
This case thus enabling her to make decisions not only about those six counts, but other
things in the future prosecution, the pretrial motions still pending there, but in exchange
for that in exchange for that finding, finding that the principal prosecutor's special assistant
district attorney Nathan Wade hired by finally will us during the course of this proceeding
and with whom she had a personal romantic relationship that he needs to go and indeed
and the wake of the judges order of just yesterday, Nathan Wade, the other big news resigned
from that Trump case after after the judges ruling, finding again, no, no basis upon which
disqualify the office or finally will us, but finding an appearance of impropriety and
we're going to get to that the basis for the decision by Nathan Wade to leave and no longer
being part of this, ensuring if you will that finally will us at least for now has the
capacity to go ahead and prosecute the case, but without him.
And so what is the basis for this again, we're going to spend some time at the last minutes
of this segment and then going into our second hour, some deep dive, some microscopic
justice analysis of exactly what it is.
The judge said and what he didn't say about this all encompassing decision.
This challenge is brought by a defendant named Michael Roman, R.O.A.M.A. and he's one of
the defendants in this case.
He's joined by eight other co defendants who also joined in this motion to disqualify
the Fulton County D.A.'s office and the D.A. in particular on various grounds and specifically
alleging the D.A. and Wade traveled together on multiple occasions and had other relationships
associated as expenses during the course of their not only relationship, but also the
time that they were prosecuting this case together.
The claims presented as the judge said a possible financial conflict of interest for the
district attorney.
And in the end, in the end, as you're going to see as we go through this analysis, he finds
that there is not actually, as we have said on this broadcast and others, there actually
is not a conflict of interest presented by the defense.
The defense motion presented by Roman and the other defendants in this case, what he
does say in a second major portion of his order is that there is indeed an appearance
of impropriety that necessitated something be done here.
And I would offer the perspective on this, which is that the judge is effectively cleaning
up, cleaning up the personnel matters, the admittedly embarrassing, the admittedly probably
inappropriate and improper inside the office relationship that should never have gone
forward.
We'll talk about some of the language that he uses to describe that relationship.
What he doesn't say appropriately is that relationship inside the office as difficult
and challenging as it was and problematic as it is does not affect the prosecution outside
of the office with respect to Donald Trump doesn't deprive them of any constitutional
or statutory rights.
And for that reason, no conflict of interest, nothing to support the disqualification of
the prosecutor herself.
If indeed this principle who prosecutes on her behalf on behalf of the office, Nathan
Wade, if he is no longer a part of this, fascinating opinion which we're going to get into,
as we do just that, a lot of preliminary information set forth again by the judge in his omnibus
order, which is readable.
It is digestible and encourage you to take a look at it if you haven't done already just
that.
It describes the two and a half days of testimony.
Many of not all of you remember that well, including testimony of various individuals, including
Nathan Wade, including stunningly, the DA herself takes the stand and describes things related
to the relationship and her own conduct.
And the court, as it says, on this very second page, after having given all the parties
exactly what the judge promised a full opportunity to disclose what they wanted to disclose, a
full opportunity evidently wise to argue the case as well.
The court finds that the defendants failed, that is it offense, Mr. Roman and others failed
to meet their burden, approving that the DA acquired an actual conflict of interest.
In this case, through her personal relationship and her occurring travels with her lead prosecutor,
Nathan Wade, the financial issues there as well, all the other grounds for disqualification,
including forensic misconduct, which we'll also get to are also denied.
He said, there's simply no basis for doing any of this and then goes on to say this on
page two.
The established record now highlights, however, a significant appearance of impropriety distinguishes
that from the legal standard of actual conflict of interest, even forensic misconduct, which
he also describes troublingly later in the opinion.
He says that the significant appearance of impropriety infects the current structure of
the prosecution team, exactly when I'm describing before this internal issue, the internal structure,
the structure, the prosecution team, and appearance that must be removed to the state's selection
of one of two options, either to get rid of Mr. Wade.
He's got to go or or funnywillis and the DA's office got to be disqualified.
The defense motions, he said, are there for granted in part and then proceeds to describe
the conflict of interest law in the state of Georgia?
And in particular, he says that highest courts consistently remind us that prosecutors are
indeed held to a unique and exacting professional standard in light of their public responsibility
and their power.
Got it just right.
Prosecutors have this tremendous amount of authority and power and need to wield it on
behalf of the people they represent with integrity, with a focus on justice, the rule of law.
That's what really animates Alvin Bragg in that Manhattan case to say, you know what?
I've got a responsibility to ensure that justice is done here and yes indeed, Donald Trump
in that case is entitled to some additional time to review this document, Trunch, that's
just recent and released.
And again, the judge here has got McAfee in this unrelated, arguably related around
the edges case says reminds prosecutors of this high burden that they have when it comes
to dealing with and prosecuting cases and then goes on to say provides the framework for
his decision.
He said, the Georgia law says there are two bases upon which to disqualify.
Those are conflicts of interest and forensic, forensic, misconduct.
Those are the two generally recognized grounds for disqualification.
He cites the law and the authority for that and that gives rise to the cases that he describes
and his resolution ultimately of his situation, of this situation, establishing no disqualification
but an awful lot of criticism of the DA there in Fulton County right after the top of
the hour break when we get into that in greater detail, reciting what the judge said and
giving us some opinions, some perspectives on what's going on in Georgia right after
this break.
Welcome.
Grab your favorite morning beverage and join us for morning canolies with Jim Santel.
Good morning and welcome back to this our second hour here on this Saturday morning,
March 16, 2024, delighted to have you with me and with my wonderful producer Johnny here
on the broadcast stations of civic media as always, taking your phone calls at 844-967-2789.
Going to get to some of those phone calls later in this our second hour of our morning broadcast
is always reviewing, surveying, analyzing, summarizing those major events and stories in the
areas of government and law and the aspiration for justice in America.
We spent most of our first hour talking about what's going on in Manhattan, the certainty
that the so-called hush money case there is not going to be going to trial as we anticipated
in about nine days from now that is significant change based upon the late production of evidence
and of discovery in that matter. Lots of explaining to do before the judge coming up on the 25th of
March. We went now to Georgia where again in that case also some significant developments that
affect the future of that prosecution as well. We talked a great length about the dismissal by
Judge Scott McAfee of six of the charges, six of the solicitation charges, if you will,
based upon his determination that they were not specifically particularized to let the defendant
know what it is that he, they were charged with. Finding Bulless has some options to pursue on that.
And now talking about this major decision that dropped just yesterday in which Scott McAfee again
in a related but different set of facts and circumstances find that indeed the defense motion
to disqualify her based upon this personal relationship, financial transactions between her
and her principal prosecutor in this case, his name is Nathan Wade, that that does not provide
a sufficient basis in which to disqualify her and therefore denies the defense motion.
But says that one of two things have to happen either, either if she is not disqualified,
he has got to go or or she needs to leave the case as presumably the Fulton County DA's office
generally would. She plainly chooses yesterday afternoon to stay on the case, keep her office there
and Nathan Wade resigns the special ADA that she hired with whom she had a personal relationship.
Again, the focus of this order finding as a matter of law, in fact, no conflict of interest specifically
to warrant disqualification, but an awful lot to suggest that what was going on inside the office,
this personal relationship, which again did not have an impact upon the prosecution nonetheless,
give us people a pause and prompts people to think about the quality, the integrity of the prosecution
itself. And so judge McAfee in his 23 page order describes all of that,
setting forth the standards, the facts and circumstances, a lot of information about what happened
in the course of the two and a half day hearing, the evidentiary hearing, and finds in the end,
in the end, that a special assistant DA's oath of office, he's talking about Nathan Wade here,
in combination with supervision, theoretically, and this is important, theoretically provided by a
neutral and detached district attorney, somebody who can supervise him with whom he does not have
a relationship should generally be sufficient to dispel the appearance of improper incentive.
Okay, nor would a romantic relationship, he says, between prosecutors standing alone,
typically implicate disqualification, assuming neither prosecutor had the ability to pay the other
as long as the relationship persisted. But in combination, he says, which is what we've got here,
alleged by the defendants, there's a prima facia case, a case that on its face may indicate
there's something to look at here. It raises issues about financial enrichment and improper motivations,
which inevitably and unsurprisingly invites emotions such as this. So he says, you know what,
I'm going to find that there's no disqualification basis, but an awful lot of fire here,
producing smoke also, and prompting me to look more deeply into all of this, describes in great detail,
some of the testimony about the relationship between the DA and RAID,
traveling together on fornications that resulted in some of the documented expenses were part of this
very, very extensive testimonial evidentiary hearing. He said such a reimbursement practice where
the money is exchanged between the two of them, maybe unusual, and the lack of any documentary
corroboration, understandably concerning, yet the testimony with stood direct contradiction,
he says, it was corroborated by other evidence, and was not so incredible as to be inherently unbelievable.
However, he says, as the DA herself acknowledged, no ledger exists, and other than a best
estimate, there is no way to be certain that expenses were split completely evenly. Again,
he's focusing upon at the invitation of the defense to look more closely at the nature of this
relationship inside the office, not in the courtroom, not in the public domain, having to do with
finances and the relationship. In the end, he says this, the court finds, based largely on the
district attorney's testimony, that the evidence demonstrated that the financial gain flowing from
her relationship with Wade was not a motivating factor on the part of the district attorney
to indict and prosecute the case. That's key. That's fundamental, right? The relationship exists,
but it wasn't a motivating factor, while a general motive, he goes on to say, for more income,
can never be disregarded entirely. The financial issue means something, that's what he's saying.
The district attorney was not financially destitute throughout this in time or in any great need,
as she testified that her salary exceeds $200,000 per year without any indication of excessive
expenses or debts. In other words, she wasn't doing this for the money. No indication that the evidence
shows that is at all. Similarly, the court finds that the defendants have failed to demonstrate
that the DA's conduct has impacted, and this is key also, has impacted or influenced the case
to the defendant's detriment. In other words, this is going on. It's not good. It should have been
taken care of, shouldn't have happened, but no detriment, no impact upon the defendants themselves.
Nothing happened to do with the actual prosecution of this case. While prejudice is not a required
element for disqualification, he says it is relevant to consideration of due process, and the
defendants requested remedy of complete dismissal. And he opens up that door then. What's going to
happen here? Is this an appropriate basis upon which to dismiss the case entirely? He goes on to say
defendants argue the financial arrangement created incentive to prolong the case, but in fact,
there is no indication. No indication on this record, he says that the DA is interested in delaying
anything. Indeed, he says the record is quite to the contrary before the relationship came to light.
The state requested that the trial begin less than six months after the indictment. Again,
nothing to suggest that her official conduct was problematic or that she was motivated in some
way that had an impact upon prejudice, the defendant in some way, this relationship, the financial
going is back and forth. Those things did not have an impact upon the prosecution itself. And so
the judge finds without sufficient evidence, the DA acquired a personal stake in the prosecution
or that her financial arrangements had any impact on the case. The defendant's claims of an
actual conflict must be denied and he gets it right. As we often said, there is no indication
of an actual conflict of interest here, but he goes on to say this and this opens up the second
portion, which is very critical of Fahni Willis and what she has done here. The finding is by no
means an indication of the court condones as he describes this much in the media in the past 24
hours, describes it as a tremendous lapse in judgment or the unprofessional manner of the
district attorney's testimony during the evidentiary hearing. He's sitting right there looking at her
and he concludes that her testimony, the nature of it, the manner of her description, the manner
of her testimony, her demeanor on the stand was unprofessional as a prosecutor held these much
higher standards. Rather, it is this court's opinion that Georgia law does not permit the finding
of an actual conflict for simply making bad choices. Indeed, that's what the law is in Georgia
and other places. Even if those bad choices are repeated, he says, and so trial courts do did
combine itself to relevant issues and a applicable law properly brought before it. He says there are
other forms that may also discuss this and address it, the General Assembly, the Ethics Commission,
the State Bar of Georgia, the Fulton County Board of Commissioners, the voters of Fulton County,
all sorts of other remedies out there than they may. He actually invites sort of their review of
what's going on here doesn't necessitate her being removed because there's no actual conflict of
interest, but says that that doesn't end the inquiry. And this is where it gets very critical
of her. And this is the reason why it's been a bad week for Fony Willis. It says that the
appellate courts have endorsed the application of an appearance of impropriety standard to state
prosecutors even without any explicit finding of an actual conflict. The appearance of impropriety
is generally considered conduct or status, he says, that would lead a reasonable person to think
that the actor is behaving or will be inclined to behave inappropriately or wrongfully. The appearance
standard the judge goes on to say recognizes that even when no actual conflict exists, a perceived
conflict in the reasonable eyes of the public. And that's what Judge McAfee is focusing on now.
How does the public look at all of this? A conflict, a perceived conflict in the reasonable
eyes of the public threatens confidence in the legal system itself. That confidence is what the
Judge McAfee is concerned about. When this danger goes uncorrected, it undermines the legitimacy
and moral force of our already weakest branch of government. Yes, that's identified as the
judiciary. Question in these days, whether the judiciary is the weakest branch, but nonetheless,
that is often the mantra of the description given the judiciary in our nation. One final observation
he said can be gleaned from the appellate review of these standards. The remedy can vary.
The remedy can vary any identifies that early on because he wants to open up the door to alternatives
that he has short of dismissal, short of throwing Fony Willis in the DA's office off the case.
And indeed he just does just that he says unlike an actual conflict, the finding of an
appearance of impropriety does not automatically demand disqualification nor would the finding of
an appearance of impropriety in the part of the DA herself in contrast to an actual conflict
necessary result in the disqualification of the entire office. And so he announces as he gets
into this this issue of appearance of impropriety that this matter serious problematic and yes,
a huge problem, the HR problem, this personal problem inside the office, which he takes note of
and condemns and criticizes and expresses his own form of judicial disappointment about nonetheless
doesn't require complete disqualification. In the end, he says with these principles in mind,
the court finds that the record made of the evidentiary hearing established the DA's prosecution
is encumbered, encumbered by an appearance of impropriety. That is not good news for Fony Willis.
Plainly she does not agree with that nor did she feel that was the conclusion based upon her
testimony. When we come back when I tell you more, more about what the judge had to say about her
testimony, finding it unprofessional and specifically what she needs to do to clean this up or
somebody needs to do to clean up the internal matter that he is now identified in this order.
Oh you, telling me the things you're going to do for me, you know, I'm blind and I don't.
This major decision coming out of the trial court in Fulton County authored by the judge,
his name is Scott McAfee. Going through that in some microscopic detail, microscopic justice
this morning, understanding what he said and what he did not say that resulted in this decision
by Nathan Wade, the special assistant district attorney, the lead prosecutor in that case yesterday
afternoon to resign no longer a part of the case. One of the alternatives given by the judge,
too fine, he will us either she's got to go, the DA's office has got to go generally or he has
got to go and he chooses to leave as a result of this order. The court going through in great detail,
this decision defined that there is no conflict of interest. That's right. There isn't, we knew that
from the start. That was very, very clear, but finding nonetheless that under Georgia law, the
appearance of impropriety can compromise the course of justice and can affect the public's perception.
And as a result of that, determining as he did that the record at the evidentiary hearing that
the DA's prosecution, all that she has done, including her own testimony, is encumbered by exactly
that and appearance of impropriety. And that's what animates him to do exactly what he did.
Very important language. And again, he is delving into the HR problems, the personnel issues,
which should have been taken care of a long time ago, and effectively cleaning this up, if you will,
from the bench, matters that should have been taken care of inside the DA's office, which are
problematic undeniably as we have always said. He says this appearance is not created by mere status
alone, but comes because of specific conduct and impacts more than a mere nebulous public interest
because it concerns a public prosecutor. That is this notion once again. Doing this work on behalf
of the people, the people have a right to have confidence in what's going on. And if that is
compromised in some way, the judge, the prosecutor, everybody involved has an interest in ensuring
that the public has confidence in that process. And here is some of the most important language
that I identified when I read this order because of my own involvement in supervising situations
inside offices where there are romantic relationships or ties between prosecutors. One of the most
fundamental things, it can happen, and it does in fact take place all the time inside of offices,
including prosecution offices. But one of the fundamental HR principles is that if, indeed,
one of those people in the relationship is a supervisor. He or she plainly cannot supervise,
that is review the conduct review, the professional behavior, the accomplishments of the very person
with whom they have a romantic relationship. That applies, of course, not just in prosecution offices,
that applies across the board in private and public offices. If you are a supervisor, you should not
be supervising someone with whom you have a relationship, a partnership in your personal life. And so
the judge basically says, just that, he says, even if the romantic relationship began after
Wade's initial contract in November 2021. And again, an awful lot of information in this order
spends a lot of time talking about the timing of when this relationship began,
determines in the end that nobody can be quite clear about when it is. The testimonial evidence
is not clear on when it began. Basically says in the end, it's not really relevant. I don't carry
so much about when this started. What he does say is the district attorney chose to continue
supervising and paying Wade while maintaining such a relationship. That is a personnel criticism.
That's a personnel condemnation of his about how she is handling her own office. She further allowed
the regular and loose exchange of money between them without any exact or verifiable measure of
reconciliation. Again, the kind of thing that an HR director or maybe another supervisor in the
office would address, this lack of confirmed financial split creates the possibility and appearance
of the district attorney benefit benefited albeit non materially from a contract whose award
lays solely within her purview and policing. And then goes on to say this, most importantly,
where the case allowed to proceed unchanged, the concerns raised by the defendants would persist.
As the DA herself testified a relationship with Wade has only cemented after these motions
and is stronger than ever. And then goes on to describe Wade. He says, Wade's patently unpersuasive
explanation for the interaccurate interrogatories has the discussion about the discovery the answers
he provided earlier. He submitted his pending divorce matter indicates a willingness on his part
to wrongfully conceal his relationship with the DA as the case moves forward. The judge says
reasonable members of the public could easily be left to wonder whether financial exchanges
have continued resulting in some from a benefit to the DA or even when the relationship romantic
relationship has resumed put differently. An outsider could reasonably think that the DA is not
exercising her independent professional judgment, totally free of compromising influences as long
as Wade remains in the case. This unnecessary perception will persist. That's the language. That's
the language right there that prompts Nathan Wade yesterday to resign. And indeed he does exactly
that. The court goes on to say it doesn't place a lot of credence in testimony. Remember this
testimony, this fellow named Terence Bradley comments generally about how the evidentiary
presentation by the defense by the prosecution was not clear. But in the end, he says it has an
odor of mendacity, mendacity, untruthfulness. People may have been lying during the course of
this proceeding. The court is not under an obligation. The judge says to address every single
instance of potential dishonesty, but but reasonable questions about the DA and her hand selected
assistant DA testifying truthfully about the timing of the relationship for their underpin the
finding of an appearance of impropriety and the need to make proportional efforts to cure it.
He's referencing once again the fact that he's got alternatives here doesn't need to throw
everything out. He's got a proportional efforts to cure it. And indeed does just that. He also
addresses forensic misconduct, identifies along the way a speech that Fahney Willis gave in January
14th of 2024. He said in these public and televised comments to district attorney,
complain that a Fulton County commissioner and so many others questioned her decision and describes
there the danger of public comment by a prosecuting attorney by including a reference. He says to
others on the heels of this motion, the DA left open the question for the public consider
and the court finds after considering all of that the speech that did include defendant Roman and
his counsel within its ambit, whether intentional or not was also improper. At best it can divine
under the sole direction of the authority in the state of Georgia that the court cannot find
the speech across the line to the point where the defendants have been denied the opportunity for
a fundamentally fair trial or that requires the disqualification of the day. In other words,
I find this problematic. I don't like what the DA has said publicly in the context of her official
capacity, but it doesn't cross the line doesn't deprive the defendants, including Roman,
including Donald Trump of his right to a fair trial. But it was legally improper. That's the judge
coming to that conclusion. That public comment, he says, creates dangerous waters the DA to wait
further into and then gives this this admonition. He said, the time may well have arrived for an
order preventing the state from mentioning the case in any public forum to prevent
prejudicial pretrial publicity, but that is not the motion before the court. I'm not doing that
today. That could come down the road. Again, proposing perhaps a gag order on the state. If that
continues, he's not doing that today. In the end, he says, whether this case ends in convictions,
acquittals, or something in between, the result should be one that instills confidence in the process.
A reasonable observer, he says, unburdened by partisan blinders should believe that the law was
impartially applied that those accused of crimes had a fair opportunity to present their defenses
and that any verdict was based on our criminal offense systems best efforts at ascertaining the truth.
The evidence of appearance of impropriety remains and must be handled even as this matter goes
forward. All of that from the pen of Judge Scott McAfee issued just yesterday changing once again
someone. We are back talking this morning about these cases. These trials brought against Donald
Trump, a present candidate for the presidency of the United States of America and talking in great
detail. Some microscopic justice this morning. We're reviewing analyzing this major decision by
Scott McAfee, the judge in the Georgia case, finding no reason to disqualify, no actual conflict
of interest, warranting the removal of Fannie Willis or office, but finding that the appearance of
impropriety is sufficient to prompt something to happen here. And that is, as we saw yesterday,
the decision by Nathan Way, this principal lead prosecutor to resign in the interest of justice and
the interest of rule of law and follow up, follow up on all of the things that the judge said in his
order. A significant ruling, again, doesn't impact as does the decision earlier in the week by him
to dismiss some charges, doesn't impact the content, the substance of the prosecution, but certainly
certainly affects what is a significant issue in and of its own right, which is the status,
the integrity of the prosecutor herself in this case. And Fannie Willis not only needs to address
now these dismissal, dismiss charges that are out there, but also, also needs now to address and
find a way forward to ensure that the professionalism that the judge has identified is missing from this
case, at least in this aspect of it, needs to be restored. And that is the task in front of her,
that is the task in front generally of her office, as this case goes forward. Take some inventory.
Is there a trial date in this? No, there isn't. Is there a trial date right now in the New York
case we discussed earlier in this broadcast? The answer is no. Is there a trial in the Mar-a-Lago case?
A trial date set in the Mar-a-Lago case? Similarly, we're going to chat about that in just a few moments.
No, is there a trial date set in this principal election interference case pending in the federal
district court in the district of Columbia? The answer there is no as well. Why? Because there,
the Supreme Court again addressed this issue of immunity and legitimacy of some of the charges
against Donald Trump right now on this morning, Saturday, March 16th, with respect to all of these
four criminal cases, the state cases, the criminal cases, no trial dates, no trial dates,
increasingly likely, not certain that any one of them will be tried before the election in November.
And that is a matter, of course, for attention, not only by voters, but also concern by anyone who's
concerned about the movement forward of cases like this, the criminal justice system generally,
and as as Judge Scott McAfee said, the integrity of the system, the perception of the court system
by the public, all important in America. As always, we appreciate your phone calls, your comments,
your questions, at eight, four, four, nine, six, seven, two, seven, eight, nine,
a lot covered already this morning, looking forward to more of that in the remaining time of this
broadcast, delighted to have some colors calling in with their comments or questions. Let's begin
with David. David and Mekwan appreciate you're being part of our program this morning.
Thank you, James, for taking my call this morning. I'm not sure. Are you familiar with the
gentleman named Victor Davis handsome by chance? I don't know that I am. Tell me about him.
Okay. All right. Well, he's with the Hoover Institute, and he is a, he's a conservative,
but an intellectual conservative. And he actually is discussing the same thing that you did this
morning, actually, on acts. And he talks about it, and he just said he goes, he headlines on acts,
he goes, no law left in America from Willis to her. So he kind of lays out the case, basically saying
that what would it take for her to get a process, you know, get a prosecutor just qualified,
because she lied under oath. You have three, you have three, not just two witnesses,
contradictors, sworn testimony, have 30 or 40 more telephone things, belly her testimony
of her whereabouts have say emails in addition to the current text of an associate contradicting almost
everything she said. In other words, McAfee notified the. Yeah, McAfee. Sorry. No,
notified the evidence before him and removed the less culpable of the two guilty parties,
given all these ill legalities originated with Willis herself. Is there still,
against perjury and fraud, or does ideology and race now determine guilt or innocence in America?
You know, like that, right? And David, appreciate very much the comment. Obviously, this is,
this is what we do in America, right? We talk about the merits of cases. I would commend to you
and all the listeners, including Victor David Hansen as he plainly has done a review of the courts
wrestling with this. And that's why we have judges who are human beings, right? All of us,
if we were judges, may have different perspectives, may approach this differently. And this judge says,
you know what, I'm highly troubled by what I see. I'm troubled by the evidence that is presented
before me. And although he says in the end, I can't make his or tails about all this conflicting
evidence. He does not find perjury. He doesn't find that that people overtly lied. He said,
it's got this air of indacity, something about it doesn't sound just right. But in the end,
he says, all of this leads me to believe that there is no reason to get rid of the prosecutor,
but, but you've got this major, major problem. And again, I think that your comment and that of
Victor David Hansen reflects the notion that we should all be looking at this opinion.
We don't necessarily have to agree with it, but we have a system where we have judges and we
call upon them to make not just judgment calls, but apply the facts to the law and come to the very
best judgment that they possibly can. That's what Judge McAfee did here. Appreciate very much
the comment, David, and the observation. First Amendment America, we all talk about these things as
we do on this radio broadcast. And I thank you very much for your view on that as well, David.
Mark is also calling in this morning. Mark, your comment or question about all the things we're
talking about this morning. Yeah, it's tough to nail down just one particular thing on the case
in New York, where the evidence was not forthcoming when it should have been forthcoming.
A suspicious part of me and my old monitors are bringing wonder if somebody in the Trump
context sphere that said, well, hold on to this stuff. We'll use this as a tool to, you know,
delay, delay, delay again. And in the case done in, you know, Fulton County, where yes, it was a
bad decision there. I don't know whether she lied or not or her represent her knowledge of
the chain of events, you know, in the relationship, you know, what, how many times the phone calls were
pinged because if you're, you might be within a mile of somebody not being in contact with, your
phones are still in the same place, you know, they're within a mile of each other. And that's no
clear indication of me that they're actually in contact with each other on the phone at that
particular time. But the point is, is that Michael Roman and his fellow co-defendants in this
case, committed a nationwide conspiracy to provide me and my fellow citizens of our electoral rights
guaranteed under the 14th Amendment in Section 2. And furthest as I've stated before, this is
all part of a vast conspiracy to overturn the last election. And you just can't get away from that.
And Josh Calls should actually pick up, pick up the case, the exact case that Fannie Rollace
with documentation, she's developed out in Georgia and pick it up here in the state of Wisconsin
because as we heard Andrew hit, say, he claimed on 60 minutes, well, I felt threatened and all this.
But now tape definitions come out. I don't know if it's videotape or audio tape,
but I'm at that meeting after the signed the fake electros documents back in December of 2020
that they're high five and cheering and applauding each other for their conspiracy against the people
of the state of Wisconsin. And Mark Watson, lots of things to unpack there. As you are doing,
let me just pick one of those and say that, yes, indeed, some people describe the entire Fannie
Willis matter as a side show. He doesn't just that, right? It does go as the judge said to the
integrity of the process there. It is a pretrial motion, which again, defends have a right to
bring forward. But to your very good point, which I agree with entirely, it doesn't change the
landscape of this case. And the principal allegations in that rico indictment, that sweeping
indictment are much as it is in the federal case, the interference case as well. And attempt
Mark, as you just said, to not only undermine our election, to steal the votes, to affect the
results of the 2020 election. And to do it in a way, this in violation of Georgia law and in
New York law and arguably federal law as well, when that case goes to trial, that's the big picture
issue, right? And one of the concerns about the present status of all these cases is that we
may not get resolution on any of them, including these interference cases until after this election,
not a lot of people in America looking for some ultimate decision by a jury of peers determining
beyond what a grand jury has already determined that there is indeed evidence to support a finding
beyond a reasonable doubt of a conviction or not, or not increasingly less likely that any of
these cases will go to trial before we all go into the voting booths in August and November,
and go ahead and attempt to resolve all of this in the electoral process as well.
We've got other callers calling in, appreciate that very much as well.
Kristen from Waukeshaw. Kristen, thanks for being with me this morning. How are you today?
We've got Kristen on the line. Yes, Ms. Kristen there. Is she okay? Well, Kristen, I think
is on the line. Yes, Kristen. Okay. Okay, I can hear you now. Great. Thank you so much. Good morning,
Jim. Good morning, Kristen. I just take it over the strange misogyny of this case. I mean,
essentially you've got two people, one of whom is the supervisor having a relationship.
To me, that's the issue. That is a lot of different things where she could be not
supervising her work correctly because she's in love with them. I get it. But for them to break
this down as a monetary thing is what killed me. She is an independent woman making a great salary
and an important job, and they think she's in this for the money. Right. And they're scrutinizing,
you know, did he buy you flowers once? Did he ever buy you lunch? I mean, it's just so stupid.
That's the part that really gets me. Right. You know, I agree that the appearance of
impropriety is the issue. They should have, you know, put this relationship on the back burner
until this case was over. You know, I get it. They fell in love. They couldn't help themselves,
whatever. But it's the making it about money that just killed me. And she did not need his money.
She did not need it for the money. Right. And the judge specifically finds just sad. He says,
you know, this is her salary. It's $200,000 per year. This relationship did not have, it was not a
motivating factor in any way. This is on page eight of the opinion. Makes it very clear. It says
general motive for it can never be disregarded. But that's not here. And there's no showing, no
demonstration that this conduct in any way in any way was motivated by financial interests.
And I think you're right, Christian. That's exactly what the focus of this has been all along from
the start as we have discussed before. This notion that somehow there's this financial connection leads
to a conflict of interest has always not just been attenuated, but almost not existing. So my
perspective is just as yours that the basic force of the of the motion, the arguments being made
by Roman's attorney and others just didn't have a there there, right. And the judge basically says
that and then goes on as you and I have just spoken. And as we reported this morning to find that
while all this does not result in disqualification, these other issues, it shouldn't have happened.
But it is a personnel matter. It is internal, as I've said, and the supervision, the supervision
issue is a concern as you've also underscored. And so, Christian, thank you very much for your
comment this morning, always, always insightful as we think and go forward then with yet another case,
another case we were in New York in Georgia and most recently here. And now we're going to Florida.
We're going to go further south and not too much further south into Florida and talk about the
Mar-a-Lago documents case. Yes, indeed. That's still pending. And as I said before in the inventory,
no clear trial date on that matter either Donald Trump among several defendants there, not only for
improperly illegally taking acquiring, keeping documents in the course of his departure from
the presidency, keeping those in Mar-a-Lago, arguably New Jersey as well. And the Supreme Court,
there, of course, not, not weighing in on that case, weighing in on the other case involving
election interference in District Columbia. What is going on there is, of course, like the other
cases, is pretrial motions. And there again, Judge Eileen Cannon, they're entertaining various
pretrial motions from Donald Trump. The focus of those, again, is premised upon allegations at
number one, the special counsel with no authority to do what he's doing that the attorney general's
petition position, rather, in support of his appointment was invalid that Donald Trump himself
is immune from prosecution. The same issue that is before the Supreme Court right now. And also,
these are personal records and therefore the statute doesn't apply to him. Indeed, just on Thursday
of this week, another major decision coming out of Eileen Cannon, shutting down one of Donald Trump's
efforts to derail that documents case. We're seeing this case rejecting one of those principal
motions to have the case dismissed. And this is the first time she's denied a legal attack on the
indictment. And when we come back when to talk more about exactly what that's all about and more,
stay with us.
We are back talking about yet another case, another case, this tomorrow, logo case, this is the
documents case pending in the district court in Florida. Eileen Cannon, Eileen Cannon,
just this week, shutting down one of Donald Trump's pre-trial motions, attacking that case,
asking me to be dismissed the classified documents and presidential documents case. She basically
says no two page order, rebuffing arguments by Donald Trump and his lawyers. The central statute
in the indictment, so called the espionage act, was impermissibly vague and should be struck down
entirely, struck down there for the entire indictment needs to go away. She dismisses that,
follows does that following a nearly day long hearing in Fort Pierce, Florida, where she entertain
arguments about all of this. The government of course says that the former president, in this case,
violated the law 32 times by removing these large numbers of highly sensitive documents
from the White House after he left office. In her order, Judge Cannon acknowledges that
Trump's lawyers have raised various arguments, warranting serious consideration, but adds that
there are concerns about the espionage act were better made in connection with jury instruction
briefing, dismissing that notion right now, arguably opening up the door down the road for
this to be returned to her attention down the road along the way, along the way, dismissing
basically this notion that somehow Donald Trump had a personal right to these documents,
these were his personal documents as opposed to what we know they actually are, which are documents
owned by who, by the people of the United States of America, by our government. That's what the
espionage act and the other cases indicate in this particular prosecution. Other matters related to
selective prosecution, this immunity issue and authority issue, all those other things,
still pending in front of her, presumably for a future disposition, future argument in front
of Judge Eileen Cannon, but this past week, saying as to Donald Trump's claim that the espionage act
is invalid and that the counts under that act should be, therefore, dismiss the case should go away,
rejecting that notion and handing him the first time that she's denied a legal attack on the
indictment in that case. One of the matters going back to Washington DC, I want to mention here,
we're going to shed a whole lot more next broadcast about the Supreme Court notable that yesterday
afternoon, late yesterday afternoon, the Supreme Court and one of these major cases in the social media
area that we've talked about in great length. The case called, a Ratcliffe, O'Connor Ratcliffe versus
Garnier issuing a major decision on rules for blocking citizens from officials accounts. Amy Coney
Barrett writing for the court said two things are required before officials may be sued by people they
have blocked on their personal accounts if those are pending on a personal platform. The officials
must have been empowered to speak for the government on the issues they addressed on their sites
and they must have used that authority in the post in question. A major case, we're going to spend
some time next time chatting all about that and describing in greater detail what Justice
Coney Barrett has said. The case again is not only O'Connor Ratcliffe versus Garnier but also Lin
Key versus Fried, a part of some larger cases that are pending in this area of social media generally
that we have talked about before. The court of course did not apply this new standard to the cases
before it, but instead sent them back to Michigan and California for the courts to apply this new
standard in determining whether or not the people who are complaining about the officials who blocked
them on personal accounts, those complaints based upon the first amendment saying that gee if the
the official has this personal account providing information, providing official government
authority, statements, other information in the public domain and I'm blocked from that. That
is a violation of the first amendment. The court not dispositively ruling on those decisions but
saying here's the here's the standard by which you need to address those lower court and determining
whether or not the actors that is a government actor is here in not only setting up their personal
accounts, doing what they do on those personal accounts, posting things about their own involvement
and the matters that are in the scope of government domain whether that's state action, state action,
sufficient sufficient to make the first amendment claims legitimate. So those cases again coming out
yesterday an awful lot more coming out down the road including including other matters having to
do with social media, the interaction between states and social media providers and indeed the
executive branch in an attempt to influence and have an impact upon what is appearing on those
social media platforms. In our final minutes today, want to talk about a major a major program
you note and that is that next week as we always are we're going to be coming to you again through the
broadcast stations of civic media but our broadcast is going to sound and appear to you a little
bit different. First of all, we're changing the name. The name of our broadcast beginning next
Saturday, 24th is going to be Amicus, a law review with Jim Santel. Amicus, a law review I'm going
to tell you more about the name of our new program but also reaffirm that in fundamental ways the
content, the substance of our program is not going to change as always going to focus upon what
some of the major exposition of the stories in law and government delivery of justice.
We'll explain the reasons why these things have happened. We're going to go into those things in
detail as we did today. We're going to examine the practical trappings as we as always done specific
aspects of government action and we're going to provide some instruction maybe for some
perspectives on the intersection of the law with civic responsibility and engagement in the community.
As always, we're going to do things like undiscovered justice, things that are not in the main public
broadcast areas. The mainstream media may have overlooked some of this. We're going to talk about
rule of law snapshots, brief issues that are in the news in the area of justice for you to know
about. We're going to talk about microscopic justice as a kinds of things we did today in understanding
in depth, the things that are important to our understanding of the law. We're also going to
talk about some call law review case notes. A little bit more of my opinions on some of the things
that are going on, the issues that we describe. Again, we're going to re-styling our broadcast a bit
under the name Amicus, a law review. I'm going to be here. It's still going to be 9 to 11,
two hours every Saturday morning, always going to encourage your phone calls at 844-967-2789.
The music is going to be a bit bit different. The intro is going to be a bit different. So when
you tune in, next Saturday at nine o'clock and 10 o'clock, anticipate that that will happen. But
I'm still going to be here. My wonderful producer, Johnny is still going to be here as well as we
pursue with you, pursue with you. All of these issues related to civics, civic responsibility,
law government and the delivery of justice, the delivery of rule of law in these United States
America. Come back and join us for Amicus, a law review with Jim Santel next week beginning here
on the broadcast stations of civic media. Thank you for being with me today and have a good week,
everybody.