The devil's advocates radio show is broadcast under a time brokerage agreement between devil
radio and civic media ink.
Some portions of this program may be pre-recorded.
Warning!
You're about to listen to the greatest radio show ever, and due to contractual obligations
and to shield our airwaves and corporate licensees from any semblance of liability, responsibility
and gullibility, we must tell you the views represented on this show are not necessarily
those of this station or its management.
This radio show contains differing points of view on current political topics, and due
to the nature of its contents, it should be heard by everyone.
Thank you for listening.
Now live from the civic media studios in Madison, Wisconsin, where the political party is just
beginning, welcome to the devil's advocates radio show.
Friends proving it's never personal, only politics.
Now here's your host, Dom and Crute.
Welcome to the devil's advocates radio show, I am your host, Dom and Xavier Crute is
out until tomorrow, he promises to be back in the studios with his unique perspective
on things, look forward to Crute coming back.
In the meantime, our pal James Santel, he's the former US Attorney and host of his own
show here on the civic media network.
Jim, thanks for joining us, man, always a pleasure.
Dom, delighted to be with you once again, when Crute is away, we've got more time to
talk between ourselves.
Right?
Right.
I say it all the time, man, it's hard to get a word in this one.
Jim, you had a sense of text out to me the other day, a news week article, specifically,
Supreme Court's silence, quote-unquote, is good for Donald Trump.
Now this is what the, I have absolute immunity to, you know, get SEAL Team 6 to murder everybody.
I don't like defense, certainly that's going to be rejected.
I can't imagine a world in which it would not, but he still gets the benefit of the
late.
Does he not, Jim?
He does.
And so you've got it just right.
The notion that even the Supreme Court, even this Supreme Court would say that a president
is immune from prosecution for the things that he or one day she does in a criminal nature,
that is so dangerous and so scary as to be completely untenable.
So we know the result of this.
The question, as you've just indicated, is when does this come out?
Donald Trump in the wake of the DC Court of Appeals finding against him, a week ago Monday,
filed this petition for review by the Supreme Court.
So we're coming up now, down on about 10 days, coming up almost on two weeks as the Supreme
Court has added.
Now they did solicit from Jack Smith, the response to whether or not they should take this case
at all.
Interestingly, Jack Smith did not wait the five days he had, filed it 48 hours later, saying,
you know, Supreme Court, let's move on.
And again, it is sitting there right now, hopefully, hopefully, sometime very soon, we'll
get some word from the Supreme Court.
But to your good point, the longer they take, whether they decide now not to take the
case at all, probably they will decide to take it maybe on an expedited basis, even
worse, on a non-expedited basis, every day that they wait in determining whether even
to hear the case is a date that delays that fundamental criminal prosecution pending in
the D.C. about the insurrection, about election interference.
This is what Mike, if he were here to say, is most important case pending.
And I think you and I would both agree every day that this waits, unaddressed by the Supreme
Court, is a day that postpones it.
Why is that important?
Because if tiny a chat can, cannot find the time, and we're talking weeks, maybe a couple
months in her docket to put this back on the calendar.
Remember, this schedule will begin in a couple weeks, it's no longer on the calendar.
We can't find that time in the next several months, it's entirely possible now, this could
be tried after the election.
Now, that's maybe less likely than more, but every day that we wait on a decision by
the Supreme Court, again, to decide whether or not to take the case is a date in which
justice is delayed.
We've talked before you and I about this notion that there are those folks out there, there's
apparently significant numbers pulling, telling us that if Donald Trump is convicted of
a crime, which is what this case is all about, that that would change their vote.
And so again, that's the reason, that's the political side of things.
I'm the legal justice side of things.
This case needs to move ahead.
Supreme Court needs to tell us promptly what they're doing with this.
As you said before, you and I, they need to simply say, you know what, the Court of Appeals
got it right, the lower court got it right.
Nothing to see here, nothing to look at.
Go ahead, Tanya, schedule this on for the trial and do that expeditiously.
And in that regard, Jim, the appeals for the lower court ruling on that, anything there
that would cause you any concern whatsoever, I mean, they took their time as well to what
I think lay down a very airtight case for, you know, the US Supreme Court not to take
it up.
Was there anything there that gave you pause for concern?
Nothing whatsoever.
We've got to actually, both Tanya Chutkins, very compelling about 56 page order, we've
got a similarly large decision by the appeals court, all of it to the same end.
We're sort of running out of ways in which to say presidents aren't kings and the Republic
is going to stand.
Only when the rule of law is enforced across the board for everybody, including somebody
having to sit in the Oval Office, the language is clear.
It's compelling.
If any of your listeners have any doubt about that, pull that up online, read portions
of it.
You have you have unanimity right now.
You've got the lower court judge, you've got those three judges in the circuit court saying,
no question here.
This is not a close question.
And based upon that, again, the Supreme Court can look at this and say, you know what?
We're simply going to put our stamp on this by saying, Donald, you already got in your
justice.
We have, there's nothing to reconcile here, nothing to resolve in terms of disputes
between the circuits, no unknown area of the law, all those kinds of things, the things
of the Supreme Court identifies as a basis to take cases, as you and I discussed before,
the only reason for them to do it right now is you've got Supreme Court judges who say,
this is a moment in history I want to be heard.
I want to be the one to write yet another opinion that says the same thing.
And for our grandchildren down the road, want to be able to have them read this in their
social studies classes, history classes, this may be a legacy piece, but it's also practically
again, again, affecting the expeditious administration of justice in America.
How long does it take to write Ditto?
James Santel, former U.S. attorney friend of ours host on the Civic Media Network.
Jim, I assume I'm feeling good these days, you know, that a Supreme Court ruling will
be imminent or at least a decision and I think they won't take the case.
Let's say they decide not to take the case still this month, right?
We got another seven days, you know, it's a leap year, Jim, we got to the 29th.
If they between now and the end of the month decide not to take the case, how does that
impact the timeline?
I know Judge Chutkin had talked about a vacation, I think she had scheduled.
If she has other cases, can she move them around?
I mean, if the Supreme Court says by March 1, no, we're not taking it, how does that affect
the timeline to your understanding?
Sure.
So let's assume I'll give them even one more day, I'll be even more gracious than you
are.
I'll give them until Friday, March 1, right?
To our issue, this decision, I'll come back on your show, if you invite me and look
and talk about that day, quite literally, when the opinion is issued, obviously it goes
back to the Court of Appeals and it's affirming or simply refusing to review the Court of
Appeals decision and play with the Court of Appeals, then instantaneously also tells
a lower court, yes, that's the law of this case.
Tanya Chutkin, if she wanted to, whether it's on March 1 or the fourth right after that,
she can then schedule this on as she likes chances are, given the fact that she has taken
this off the calendar, she could schedule very promptly, what's called a status hearing,
a pretrial conference of the parties, and it's okay, it's back, this issue is resolved.
Nobody is going to fight about this anymore.
I'm looking at my calendar, gentlemen, general ladies, bring your calendars to the courtroom
and we're going to put this on, she does have other cases, federal district judges, federal
appeals court judges, that's the federal district judges have latitude, she does have other
cases, but she could say, you know what, I am going to find, maybe some of the civil
cases that do not have the speedy trial issues that this might, I can find, perhaps, some
of the other criminal cases, I can move those around somewhat, she has got, she's the
ultimate decision maker, there's nobody to review that, and so she could put this on fairly
expeditiously, she's got to be mindful, however, all those, they'll get against out there who've
been waiting and maybe are planning to go to trial on March 20th or something, and she's
thoughtful about that as well, but she could indeed, again, at this Supreme Court acts quickly,
she could still put this on, again, the timing of this, this is not a two or three day
villain in possession case or a small false statements case, she also needs to find a large chunk
of time, I would offer, she probably needs to find about a couple of months to do this, by the
time you do jury selection, prosecution case, defense case, jury deliberation, she could divide it
up a little bit, she could suspend for, say, a week and do other matters, that's all within her
discretion too, there is a non-frivolous way in which she can get this done fairly quickly,
but again, it depends a bit on her schedule, and we are still waiting on the nine people on
Capitol Hill to tell us what it is she can and cannot do. James Santel from U.S. Attorney,
in the meantime, Jim, Alvin Bragg, he has laid it down March 25th, so whatever happens with
the Supreme Court, whatever happens with the judge at Chutkin, appears they're going to have to
work around the March 25th Alvin Bragg case. Jim, do you think that's going to go off on time,
and what's the timeline, your expectation for how long that particular trial would take?
So this again, we're now out of the federal system, and the state system is just indicated
down, we're back in Manhattan, we've been there before, this is case pending before,
I feel I name Juan Mershon, M-E-R-C-H-A-N, he has presided over previous trials involving
the Trump Organization, so he knows them well, much to Donald Trump's dismay, he's back in front
of the judge once again, this is the so-called hush money, the catch-and-kill case,
and again, as you indicated, Alvin Bragg saying, you know what, if nobody else is going to use this
time period, let's sneak this one in, interestingly we know from Judge Mershon himself,
that he picked up the phone, and he called Tanya Chutkin and said, hey, Tanya, are you going ahead?
And she said, I've heard nothing, so he said, yeah, let's say from this March 25th date,
the expectation there from the prosecuting attorney, the DA, Alvin Bragg, again weeks of trial,
including jury selection, now looks more and more likely that will happen, and that we will
be spending much of April and May hearing about that particular case, not without its intellectual
academic aspects in terms of the way that it's charged, but we're going to get Michael Cohen back
on the stand, looking forward to that, as always, we're going to hear more about checks being
written to quiet and silence porn stars, a glad to be in America these days, aren't we all?
And with a risk of sounding a little bit superficial about all this, people say this is not
an important case, I would say it is, this is in many ways Donald Trump's origin story, right?
This happens, this happens right before the election, it is related to election interference,
because what is he doing? He's saying, be quiet, catch this story, kill it, so the American people
don't know about it, it's not only his origin story, but it also relates to election interference,
so it's not simply a porn star hush money case, it's more than that, and that's the reason
why I think it is significant, absolutely.
Well, so listening to the devil's advocates radio show, I'm dumb, that's James Santel,
he's our friend, former US attorney, he's gonna stick around, we got lots and lots to talk about,
we're concerned about the timeline, you just laid out there, if Bragg starts, you know,
Jury selection on the 25th, he said something about May,
Jim, and it seems a little longer in a couple weeks, but hold on that and come back with us,
or devil's advocates on the other side, we will be right back.
The devil's advocates, political commentary from the back of the class.
More than just having sex with the porn star, I'm with you, man, this is the origin story,
this is this goes to the beginning of the malfeasance of Donald Trump, the crime,
I mean, as it were, in his election interference, by not allowing these information to
comport, by paying off the people to keep their mouths shut, he deprived the voting public of
information that may have changed some of their minds, and I would imagine probably what,
especially coming off the heels of the Hollywood access tape, but that being said, Jim,
Alvin Bragg's scheduled to start, I believe, what May, Monday, March 25th.
So that's what to start getting a Jury selection, right?
So you mentioned, goes Monday, goes through March and April, maybe in the May.
Well, May is to be a little long, Jim, what's the timeline, realistic timeline in your opinion
on this case? Sure. Again, it probably, it certainly isn't as long as some of the other trials,
because again, the facts are a bit more discreet, right? You've got to have these communications
between Donald Trump, Michael Cohen, you've got to introduce the evidence related to communications.
We've got checks. In this case, we've seen it, we've talked about them on this broadcast,
signed by Donald, and at least one of his sons, Michael Cohen is a key witness. Thankfully,
he's not the only witness. If that were be the case, I'd be very concerned about the legitimacy
of going forward here. You've got a signature from National, the inquire, is he, would he be
called as well? And could Weisselberg, the CFO, could he be called as well? Absolutely, absolutely.
Right. Weisselberg has been a frequent visitor to the courts these days, is he not in all these
cases, right? He is the CFO. He's also suffered a felony conviction of his own. There's lots of
problems, lots of baggage there, but again, he is somebody who can describe inside the Trump
Organization, the financial piece of this, and you've got all these folks coming forward,
describing this event, and even statements, perhaps, again, Donald Trump doesn't use email,
as we know, but things that Donald Trump may have said to Michael Cohen and to other people
about the reasons for reimbursing Michael Cohen, purportedly for legal services, Michael Cohen
comes, says, no, no, no, no, no, no, that wasn't it. I was being reimbursed for the payments that
I previously made to these two. And so the transaction itself is not huge, but it does take some
time to prove it. You want to corroborate the statements by these, again, baggage filled witnesses,
if you're well, who have problems of credibility on their own. They're inside the Trump Organization,
they're the ones who know. And of course, Donald Trump has no obligation to testify, but if there
is indeed a defense case, he may, maybe he's got some other people, as he did in the recent
valuations case before Judge Engoran in New York, they bring some people forward to say,
well, wait a minute, no, there were some financial legal transactions that we're paying for,
so he can, he can make his defense, no obligation to do so under a constitution, but all that takes
time. And you can certainly imagine in recent cases, we've got a lot of back and forth. Donald
Trump does not keep his mouth shut as he should during the course of proceedings. We've got a lot
of things, a lot of sidebars, a lot of things to take care of along the way, just by virtue of the
way that his own attorneys defend him. They've got to write to do all those kinds of things.
All of that takes time. As I add this up, I could very easily see it going some time into May,
maybe not long into May, but eight weeks or so with, again, after jury instruction, entirely
possible. And then you've got to add on jury deliberation as well. You could get a jury that like
the Eugene Carroll matter, comes back in a matter of hours and says, not a lot to look at here,
find you basically $83 million, or you could have jurors who would be very conscientious also.
We want to go through everything and that will take some time as well. So this is not a
several day trial. I don't think it's just a several week trial somewhere between several
and many weeks, again, even in the Manhattan trial court there. Interesting. Okay.
So you mentioned the Angoran, the fraud case. The judge in his ruling made some comments about
Michael Cohen telling the truth. Does that reinforcement of a witness who has his own baggage,
who plug guilt to be forward, or personally, whatever the case may be? Does that help in these other
cases? I mean, well, do those kind of things roll over into this state Manhattan case?
Right. The answer listeners may not be pleased to hear this is for the most part, no, that finding
by another judge, especially in a civil case unrelated, mostly not completely to this case,
you can't introduce Judge Angoran's decision to bolster the credibility of a witness in this
other matter. So the as much as the inclination, mine yours, everyone is to say, well, wait a minute,
there's already been an initial determination. This guy is fairly credible. The answer is an
pure evidentiary matter. It's actually hearsay, if you think about another judge making those
findings. And so that doesn't come in, but there are things that they're going to want to address.
Michael Cohen has written books. He's appeared in a lot of talk shows and plainly had report
Congress as well and has suffered these criminal convictions. And so one of the things you need to
do is to stand up in front of the jury. This is Alvin Bragg and say, you know what? You don't have
to like Michael Cohen. You might even dislike him affirmatively. You might think that this is a man
who has got a lot of baggage and you're right to think that. But think about what he is saying. And
then look at all the corroborating information. Look at the transactions, look at the documents.
They all make sense. Michael Cohen provides this cement, but you got to kind of distance yourself
at the same time. You don't want the jury to think that my case depends entirely upon your
embracing this fellow. You've got to have an arms-length relationship with him. But also,
and that's exactly, as you just said, what Judge Engorin said, I don't have to like him. But his
statements in the valuations case are credible. Why? Because he is telling the truth. And he was
right there and he had a front row seat in the room to use the Hamilton reference. He knows what he's
talking about. Those are the kinds of things that you can describe to a jury in closing argument
to get the jury to say, I believe him, even though I do not want to bring him on for dinner tonight,
I'm going to do something to my family. Or date my daughter.
Regarding the Elvin-Breg case, any chance that the recipient of these money, Stephanie Clifford,
Stormy Daniels, as she's known by, and the other lady I forget her name, the Playboy Bunny,
any chance that they come up and testify until their story?
Sure, absolutely. And I have not looked at the docket. I should do that in time for our next
to discussion here, but almost certainly as a good prosecutor, you have to produce witness lists
in advance of trial. But pretrial conferences, I'm quite certain that Elvin-Breg has listed them
and probably has subpoenas out for them to appear by virtue of, again, that piece of it.
Decision will be made, again, as they put this all together. If their testimony is needed,
if it's critical, it may well be if it does, again, offer some further cement to this overall
story, their recipients of this money, again, as you said, the David Pecker portion. All of these
people are in savory, and that's the problem. And at some point, you also think about the strategy,
you are presenting to the jury. The jury will begin to look around and say, gee, the A-Breg,
is there anybody, is there anybody who's a banker, a broadcaster, a teacher, a nurse, a doctor,
whose credibility is this entire case based upon one person who's less credible than the next?
So you want to measure that at some point and say, do we really need their testimony?
I suspect he probably, he certainly will think about it as the case goes on. He's got other witnesses
including Michael Cohen if he's compelling. Maybe a don't in the end, but that's going to be a
judgment call that you make even during the course of the trial itself. But I'm sure they're on a
witness list right now. Wow. James Intel, I'm going to make a judgment call. You want to stick
around for another segment? I would be delighted to talk about it. And you were a former US attorney,
right? You've talked to witnesses under oath, right? And you're in here? Okay, I want to get your
sense on this guy who apparently gave some false testimony regarding the hunter Joe Biden thing.
Folks, we have the devil's advocates. A lot more to get into.
Pick around James Santel. Come on around for another segment. Thank you Jim. We'll be right back.
Charged, never convicted. The devil's advocates.
I can't thank you for listening to the devil's advocates. The video shows super happy that James
a Santel former US attorney friend of ours host on the big media network. He's sticking around for
one more segment to him. I always appreciate it. You know, if Donald Trump did a little less
crime, I mean, we wouldn't have all this time to hang out. So I'm thankful for that.
What would we talk about? Well, we find something we know we talk about, but it wouldn't be this
and we wouldn't have 17 things on our agenda every time we get together, right?
Well, I appreciate your patience with me. All right. So we got through a couple of these cases.
Um, but the I want to touch on the ingor on judgment for just a moment. My understanding from
some of the reporting I saw overnight, Trump's team was trying to what delay for 30 days, you know,
payment because they didn't like the way that the the AG wrote her document. Jim what and the judge
ultimately said, no, so is this just more, you know, delay attempts by team Trump? It is. It is.
And again, you pull it all the stops and plainly he's paying or maybe not paying for his lawyers
to do all of these kinds of things. This is what you do. Emotions for reconsideration for rehearing.
He does have this time period interestingly in response to this. Latisha James who brought this case
to the civil case has said, not only do I object to any extension of that time period, but oh,
by the way, I may be going after some of his real estate. She talked about how I I look right across
the street there and fully square and I see some of his property. I think she we can and she does
have what are called supplemental proceedings. You can see some properties here to do that. Now the
other thing that he can do and the reason why abuse is very interesting is he can also file a bond
basically can go to a bonding company, a bank and say, listen, I'm now on the hook for upwards
of $45 million and counting. Can you basically secure that amount? You've got to place a place
some collateral post some collateral to support that and I'm wondering if he's having difficulty
doing that and that's what also prompts this interest in postponing his deadline date. He'd plainly
has told the world before that he's got somewhere around $400 million in cash, certainly between
all these things. That kind of depletes all of that. If he pays all of that out, he's also got
Eugene Carroll out there with something closing and on $90 million. He's got a lot of death out
there but these are also somewhat reflections not only to delay things but also an indication that
they may be squeezing him a bit and that the delays are meant because he may be having some problem
again going down this other road which is to secure the bond, finding somebody who will support that
and permitting him to get on with with his life. We don't know and we maybe shouldn't know that
part of his attorney client or relationship there but it's certainly you've got a attorney general
here who is not having any of it and again Judge and Goran plainly saying nope that's what you've
got to do. Jim I'm sorry to interrupt but we also have a monitor right there's an monitor assigned
to watch over the the Trump organization and essentially anything he does wouldn't the monitor
have to approve I believe it was anything over $5 million I mean so this is going to be transparent
at least to those that are that have the right to know to see what's going on I mean the government
will know what Donald Trump does to raise this money yes absolutely and so this has also been
authoring the side of the Trump families Donald Trump family he is he to use the word you know
despising this procedure but they've never liked the fact that this monitor is in place judge and
Goran in his recent order not only firmed what she has done already but reuptor and said you're
going to continue to do this he has plenty of suspended the capacity of Donald Trump and the
sons from operating in this area for at least several years during that time maybe beyond she is
going to be monitoring all of this so absolutely if there are any sales and property if there are
any monetary transactions that are happening she is going to see them and of course the idea behind
a monitor is you can report to the judge and and indicate hey we've got some movement here some
of it may not be all of it may be completely legal he is liquidating properties to pay off a judgment
that's entirely appropriate but if there's anything else that's beyond the pale she would also
come forward and say listen this is my responsibility and I'm identifying this as being a problem again
Donald Trump has very very much just like this and it's one of those features of this order that
they're certainly going to be appealing that this is need for continuing oversight by someone who's
quite literally looking over their shoulder day after day after day and saying nope not that transaction
this one and approving or not approving the things that they're doing so she has the actual right to
approve a certain dollar amount they had she they need her approval to facilitate in some of these
cases right basically no absolutely probably here understanding that this particular transaction
would be legitimate she may well say sure if you want to do this she's not responsible for the
overall livelihood of the company she is responsible for ensuring that it's being operated in a
way that's consistent with the law she's not there to ensure that's exactly well it's privately held
but that the people out there are are going to see a Trump corporation it's vibrant and alive
that's not her interest she's interested in making sure the law is complied with
James Santel former US attorney friend of ours all right before we move on to the secret
documents hoarding case in Florida I just want to circle back briefly to the cases that we know so
we we have a we have a civil case you know what 300 some broke interest on their 400 some million
dollars and go around his ruled attack on the the Eugene Carroll we're talking another 80s
summer talking over a half a billion dollars and I saw Forbes or Fortune somebody said you know
Donald Trump's got a net worth of like 2.6 you know less than three billion dollars I mean that's
that's a big chunk for anybody as a percentage regardless of what it is that's a big a big percentage
of your money or your assets that you're going to have to come up with but I'm going to be
briefly touched on the timing thing we talked about the the Alvin Bragg March 25th is when that
starts and let's say okay let's go it goes through March last week of March all vapor all in
most of May so that leaves open perhaps like June 3rd Monday June 3rd could could based on that
and assuming we get something back from the US Supreme Court regarding Trump's frivolous assertion
that he has absolute immunity to murder people that that comes down between now and then could
Chuck can potentially schedule something for June and if so here's the other part of course the
RNC and the great state of Wisconsin and Milwaukee July 15th through the 18th presumably if Chuck
and got going in June that case would not be done by the time the RNC comes to Milwaukee absolutely
that's one of the very plausible scenarios in all this and again if I'm quite certain that judge
Moshan and judge Chuck and will still talk and assuming that the Supreme Court tells us what they're
doing in the community sometime while the hush money case is going she is not going to schedule
something that where Donald Trump also has to be there by the way an important point unlike
civil cases where he can come and go criminal cases you need to be present in the courtroom and
that's what he is complaining about bitterly but she could well schedule something to begin in mid
June goes into July when again here in Milwaukee in the state of Wisconsin we've got the
Republican sphere how fascinating that would be that he is obliged to be in a courtroom in the
district of Columbia during the day and then flies into Mitchell International Airport late afternoon
early evening and presumably maybe on his private jet and and makes his way downtown to the
Pfizer forum and appears there to give his what his acceptance speech for the nomination that is
not an and a crazy scenario that could happen here and again all of that we're depending upon
what happens traditionally highly likely as to the inventory that you're taking those two of the
ones that are really on the top of the list it's fairly clear that the so-called documents case
that's the Eileen cannon matter in Florida that's not going to bump up this in any any time soon
and then of course you've got the Georgia case this omnibus case or the Rico prosecution
unlikely again that that's going to intrude much if at all before the election so these are the
two that could happen before November comes around and the timing of this anticipate too that if
the scenario that you've just laid out does happen there'll be motions filed in front of judge
Shuttkin probably attempts to do interlocatory appeals to the court of appeals to say wait a minute
I'm a candidate for the presidency I need to be out there campaigning and these federal judges
and state judges Judge Mishan I require me to be in court and again the judges up to now including
both of them has said I will give you some latitude but you are a defendant in my courtroom I'm
going to treat you as you I would anybody else the speculation then this is what he would do in
addition getting on flights flying back and forth between Milwaukee and and DC or even Milwaukee in
New York if that should go on that one is it he'll be holding little campaign rallies outside
the federal courthouse right in the district Columbia they're on Pennsylvania Avenue or outside
in Manhattan you're doing campaigning in breaks during the course of the trial we use the word
unprecedented way too much but again it applies here we haven't seen this before and again Donald
Trump is not at all above doing that moving outside and doing that campaigning they're on site
James Santel for me was attorney regarding the Georgia case we saw you know
Bonnie Willis on the witness then I mean you know this is how things have turned but she I thought
number one I to go after a woman a black woman like this you know they're not going after
anybody else they're going after her I mean it's so I I want to note that I thought she did a great
job defending herself and and laying out this the scenario but what what what what about the timing
of the judge coming back to decide whether or not you know DA Willis can continue the
rico case what's your thought on the timeline there right this is Scott McAfee is the the state
court judge once again as we keep all these judges under our understanding and and he again
entertains this today evidentiary hearing this may be not quite as frivolous as the immunity issue
but I put it pretty much in the same category of nothing to see there under Georgia law a little
bit of civics here as we always do down in order to just qualify someone you've got to have one
of two things in Georgia law I got to have some forensic interference that is I'm I'm I'm I'm
mocking up documents I'm interfering with witnesses I I'm doing something to mock up the evidence
that is not here or you can have a conflict of interest and this is one that we've talked about
before identify for me the conflict of interest and I know they're alleging all these things related
to financial goings-on and and her former now romantic boyfriend there who's also inside the
office none of that none of that sets up a conflict of interest in her capacity to prosecute the
separate criminal case against Donald Trump and so I will predict here once again I will take you
and Nate and even Mike out to dinner on this the judge will come back apply Georgia law and find
that there's no there there she is not disqualified and so this falls once again the category of
look what we did however Donald Trump as you and I have discussed in the past for those two days
at least he was winning right look what he did in this situation an unfounded basis upon which to
attack that prosecution we're not talking about Donald Trump we're talking about the DA and what
an incredible thing he accomplished because I'm not happy about this he's got the district attorney
on the stand defending herself but there was one of the local media and national media referred to
her as the defendant in this proceeding no no no she is not the defendant and yet that's the look
of this and Donald Trump accomplished that he won those two days I would like to think the judge
McAfee was smiling knowingly throughout most of that hearing and saying okay I'm doing this
to preserve the record and giving you every opportunity Donald to tell to ever do process no
appeal issue here and hopefully we'll very soon very soon not the expediency we need with the
other matters here but issue in order saying under Georgia law nothing here no conflict no
forensic mispropriety here no reason to disqualify here now let's move on with discovery motion practice
let's get back to the trial here and that should also be the subject of an awful lot of coverage
by the national media saying that this was fun this was interesting this was salacious but it has
nothing to do with a personal interest inside the office maybe a matter is for HR and other people
but not a matter that goes to legitimacy of the prosecution there's no conflict of interest here
I think judge a McAfee will find just that James Santel last 60 seconds for you my friend and thank
you so much for your generosity of your time today FBI has arrested Alexander Smyrnaf again
again he was providing information false information regarding the Biden's
Jim asked you before you you brought people witnesses and in cases do you believe
that the Republicans didn't know what they had I know this is some speculation but what's your
thought there man right you know you can get documents from the FBI as some of those in Congress
did it this is again talk about origin stories this is the origin story for the impeachment of Joe Biden
I hesitate to give me to say those words right but that's why this is significant you can get
this some discovery from them the FBI comes out clearly and says okay just because we've got
information about this fellow just because we've got a document where he now lied to us
doesn't mean that that's a credible basis to go forward either in like most of the Congress
or in a civil or criminal court and again a grand jury looks at all this and says
probable cause of this fellow lied we're inditing him under federal law he's in and out of prison
as late as this morning as you just indicated and that's again an important message for Congress
to know about 20 seconds to him any potential liability for the Republicans who brought forth
this evidence well of the Congress you're immune from the things that you say in that body they
say things outside that's a little less clear but an interesting question to raise
inside inside the Congress itself James Santel former Attorney Friend of ours thank you
jump appreciated as always always a pleasure to be with you down folks we'll be right back
warning listening to the devil's advocates may expose you to opposing views
and thanks for listening to the devil's evidence radio so our last segment of the day if you
got something to say hit us up on the lines at eight four or nine six seven two seven eight nine
eight we'll slightly screen your call I want to thank our friend James Santel former U.S. Attorney
Hosts of Morning Canoli believe on Saturdays 9 to 11 check them on the civic media that U.S. website
find out all you need to know Jim a very smart very gracious very kind man always appreciate it
when Jim comes around I gotta tell I love having smart friends you know it's like it's like having
friends that are good cooks you always eat well you know what I mean when I'm talking to smart
people always learn something think about it so thank you for for joining me and allowing me to
share with you some of the knowledge of the friends that we have and we certainly appreciate it
eight four four nine six seven two seven eight nine real quick breaking news love this I'm kind of
a nerd in this way a Washington Post is reported intuitive machines makes first U.S moon landing
in 51 years what the spacecraft dub Odysseus is on the lunar surface and is communicating with the
ground it is unclear however what condition the lander is in or what position it is in although
the broadcaster said it was a successful landing Tim Crane intuitive machines cheap technology
officer said we can confirm without a doubt our equipment is on the surface of the moon and we are
transmitting so congratulations well you can have the equipment on the moon but if it doesn't
translate it could be in a big pile of rubble but thankfully apparently it's on so how you know
how I said that we go what 50 years without going to the moon I mean yeah I think there's some money
there somewhere right do we get tang and velcro from moon stuff anyway love to hear that as a
science fiction nerd I think we need to be doing more of this kind of stuff brings people together you
know once again eight four four nine six seven two seven eight nine to the conversation to the
point we had with Jim right at the end as Aaron Blake notes another GOP Biden informant in quotes
another indictment in link to Russia you know and I hate to even bring it up because we know
that for all Russia Russia Russia we hear from from to ball Russia Russia Russia well yeah you know
what if you weren't I don't know engaging with Russia maybe it wouldn't be a Russia Russia Russia
Russia thing a little bit on this as Aaron Blake writes in one way it's shocking that a key person
the GOP's efforts to dig up dirt on the Biden's has been indicted and tells prosecutors he has
extensive ties to Russia intelligence in another way it's all together familiar and again breaking
news on this front he was arrested he was released he was re-arrested again the special prosecutor
didn't think it was wise for him to be out and about he's been re-arrested and again this is the same
prosecutor who's prosecuting Hunter Biden so you know whatever that's worth but my concern is not
not the fact that people will say something for money we know that's a fact not the fact that people
would lie for for ideological reasons we know that's always there it's it's a fact that Republicans
would I search know this they knew this I don't believe then I'm not fans of of Jim Jordan or
Comer they know who Comer was until this this session till this House session but I don't
believe they're dumb men I don't believe that I don't believe they're unintelligible I mean I
think they know exactly what they're doing and that's my question if you know that a quote-unquote
witness is feeding you bunk and you run with it and you jump on it and you present it out
their aspect for months and months and months you know aren't you part of the conspiracy then
and if it's true that this information was provided and fed through Russian sources
directly into the veins of the mega and they're putting this out there it's fact and it comes
to find come to find out that no hunter wasn't in Ukraine no there wasn't a five million dollar
no no no no well should there be some sort of consequence beyond shaming beyond you know an
electoral consequence I mean if you're literally you're you're taking the resources of this country
in a in a in a political effort to undermine the executive branch based on lies fed to you
perhaps knowingly from our Russian adversaries after years of conversations and fighting about
whether or not Russia tried to interfere they did 2016 election and that's a bipartisan
Senate it happened folks I know you don't like to hear it I'm gonna tell you again
Russia did attempt to interfere in our elections Russia does they are an adversary this is what
they do and they seemingly have more and more willing lackeys in the Republican mega and I don't
understand this I remember growing up in the 80s man Ronald Reagan and he freed the hostages oh he
was my hero well of course I when I got older I found out that he was you know dealing behind the
scenes and delayed that for political purposes and of course he did the whole I ran kind of
thing that he created arms for hostages and forget about the drug trade but anyway anyway there was
a time there was a time when Republicans were very very very against you know the Soviet and the
Communist now it's one thing for you know Donald Trump to sit there saying oh you know you're a
Bernie Sanders communist and you're a socialist and you're a Marxist and you'll be the the use these
terms interchangeably like I use Republican and makeup and fascists I don't want to be too rough
almost interchangeably you can all say the same thing but there was a time the Republican Party
would be a gas at least to my perception it's all like this anyway let me get back briefly to
the Aaron Blake here this isn't even the first time we've learned that a person has been
indicted after the GOP cited his claims nor is it the first time a person has been linked to
Russian intelligence after the GOP leaned on their version of events the cast of characters with
Republicans have sought to substantiate President Biden's purport of corruption over the years has come
to include a half a dozen convicted and accused criminals as well as multiple people in the U.S.
government has linked to Russia corruption and subverting American democracy ah it's almost
like there's a gang out there trying to do this the most recent example Alexander Smyrnoff whom the
government said last week had invented the claim the Biden and his son hunter took five million
dollars and bribes that allegation was promoted far and wide by the Republicans many of whom treated
it as fact the government then said this week that Smyrnoff has extensive foreign ties including
most trouble troubling Lee and by his own account contact with foreign intelligence services
including Russian intelligence agencies and has had such context recently days before the
indictment was unsealed House GOP impeachment leader James Colmer called loft who's loft gal loft
the government said had skipped bail if there's indictment or alleged arms and foreign lobbying
transaction apparently this guy had a lot of information on the Biden's loft was called a very
credible witness on Biden family corruption by Colmer not to be outdone Wisconsin's own senator
Rob Johnson said shortly before the unsealing that loft had a wealth of information on the
Biden's foreign often left to hardly the only ones to a face criminal charges or penalties
or whose credibility could otherwise be called into question there's a lot of that victor
Shokin right I mean we could go on and on and on we've talked about it you know the drill who
listen to the double advocates and you should every single day we bring you the greatest
radio show ever thank you for hanging out with us crudys back tomorrow it's probably
we ear the grievances stick around busted pencils up next on the civic media network
