Tim Parlatore - United States v. Donald J. Trump | SRS #89

hey everybody my next guest is no. stranger to the Sha Ryan Show in fact. his first appearance was earlier this. year maybe you remember the Dallas. Alexander episode when we got a ceased. assist from the Canadian government this. actually wound up having to do with free. speech and the SRS team stood up against. Canada in support of Canadian Free. Speech well this man is the guy that. made that all a huge success so it's a.

real honor to have him back on the show. in the media all we hear about are the. Trump indictments and I don't think a. lot of us actually really know what the. indictments are we just know that he's. being indicted a lot of people think. that it's unjust maybe it is maybe it. isn't I'm not the expert so we brought. on one of his former. attorneys to go through everything.

and let us know what all the indictments. mean ladies and Gentlemen please. welcome my good friend Mr Tim parlor to. the Sha Ryan Show if you get anything. out of this please like subscribe and. comment to the show if you're watching. this on YouTube if you're listening. please head over to Apple podcast head. over to. Spotify leave us a review tell us who. you'd like to see on the show tell us.

what you got out of the episode and if. we need to make any improvements leave. it in the comment all right I love you. all patreon thank you again for making. this show possible me and my team ow. you will never be able to repay you so. we just owe you a big thank you and. thank you much love to you all see you. [Music]. soon Tim. parlor welcome back to the show good to.

be back we have a lot of stuff to talk. about here so but you're here for to. talk about all the 91 indictments uh. that Trump has but you know you were on. the legal team for how long were you on. the legal team for a little bit over a. year over a year and recently within the. past few months I believe you decided to. depart yep back from the legal team and. um I'm very curious why I mean this is.

such a high-profile case and uh no. matter no matter what side of the fenter. on why did you decide to. leave so the reason I decided to leave. is. because I felt that. um I was not able to do my job the way. that I knew best how to do it because of. outside.

influences it has nothing to do with the. case and it has nothing to do with the. client um you know I very much enjoyed. um you know my personal professional. relationship with President Trump I felt. that the case was very. important um and ultimately it was. people around. him um that were interfer feing with my.

ability to defend him in the way that I. felt best uh that I could. do and it wasn't a decision I came to. lightly you know it was something that I. I thought about a lot and and ultimately. I kind of sat there and I said you know. what I want this. case but I don't need this. case and if I'm not able. to do everything that I know is in the.

best interest of the client if I'm going. to be interfered. with there are other things I could be. doing with my. time and so you know that's that's. really what led me you know to the. decision how many attorneys are on his. team so at the time that I was there um. there were you know four main attorneys. um that that we were doing the heavy.

lifting uh it was myself James trusty. John rowy and Evan corkran and we were. doing a lot of the heavy lifting there. were there were some other uh attorneys. involved uh Lindsey hallan uh was. assisting with a lot of stuff but you. know we were the main the main four um. and. then he had this other attorney uh Boris. Epstein who was in there you know. ostensibly as our supervisor h.

um and he's a guy who you know graduated. law school spent like 18 months at a. firm doing banking transaction. work left that hasn't practiced law. since became you know a political. campaign. consultant and you know he was. essentially dictating to us how we. should fight. doj even though he'd never been in Cor. room as an attorney in his life who.

appointed this guy to be the top well he. was he somehow worked his way in he was. in that position before I came in he was. the one that you know brought me into. the team and it was just kind of a you. know from the beginning he he said you. know I am the house counsel and you all. report to. me what are the other attorneys opinions. on on.

this I you know I don't want to speak. for them but um of the three that I. mentioned or of the four of us that I. mentioned only one's still there are you. serious so and you know there's. been just last week there was a article. in Rolling Stone about how the the team. in. Georgia had a shakeup and lost one of. the finest attorneys in Georgia for. exactly the same reason.

um yeah. it's it's difficult enough to fight. against doj and to defend a client with. all of these other. atmospherics but when you have somebody. interfering who you know really doesn't. know what they're doing and is focusing. on their own Twisted view of you know. what they think will help a. campaign as opposed. to what is right and what is appropriate. in the criminal justice system that's a.

situation I just can't I couldn't. continue to operate under those rules. and you. know I mean look I I've represented some. major. figures in major. cases and all of them have given me you. know the freedom to do what I need to. do I've represented candidates before. people who've had campaigns you know. what they always.

say Tim you're here to keep me out of. trouble you guys you're here to get me. reelected you guys stay out of his way. you need anything give it to. him and I don't even I can't even. blame why I don't blame president Trump. for this in this circumstance he. is um stretched so thin he's managing so. many different different things he has.

to rely upon the people around him and. unfortunately he just doesn't always. have the best people around him who are. actually looking out for what is best do. you think. that this this lead attorney is that. what you would call him Boris a lead. attorney uh let's call him the house. counsel that's what he likes to call. himself the house counsel do which is a.

weird term by the way the only people. I've ever heard called House counsel is. what they used to say to try and. disqualify attorneys off of Old Mafia. cases was he was was he appointed by. Trump he was hired by him. yes is this guy acting in his own. self-interest in my opinion he. is is there any other reasons why he. left no no that was really it I mean I.

thought it was an important case one. that I I would have very much enjoyed. trying. but if I'm going to be micromanaged and. directed to do things that you know and. directed to not do. things why would I want to try you know. the trial of the century with my hand. tied behind my back where I'm not. allowed to win have any of the repl. placs left.

too uh as of right now not that I'm. aware. of interesting. well let's get into the thick of it and. uh I'm going to have a lot more. questions on why he left as we go. through the interview but um but today I. really I just want to dig into the Trump. indictments and um figure out what's. going on there because a lot of people. are very concerned you know including.

myself that that this. is just political persecution so but um. going through them real quick Trump is. indicted within a 4 and a half month. span Trump has been charged four times. Washington DC four felony charges. Georgia 13 felony charges Florida 40 CH. felony charges New York 34 felony. charges that's.

91 felony charges in four and a half. months. um so I want to dive into these things. but uh first I have a I have just a. couple of questions from patreon sure uh. so patreon that's my subscription. Network that is uh that is what enables. you and I to both be sitting here uh. they're are top top supporters and this. one is from. Charlotte what is him's best guest of.

what legal fees Trump has been build for. in the last. year so you know the legal fees have. pretty much all been covered through uh. political action committee um you know. the the pack save America and so a lot. of those fees are public um because they. do have to do public. filings the fees in this case have. been massive and you know part of that. is because of you know the complexity of.

it but part of it also is because uh. quite frankly you have these attorneys. that are you know Billing at over $1,000. do an hour and they think that there's. millions of dollars behind it uh and you. know if you look at those things you'll. see that my even though I was on the. case for over a year my portion of it is. relatively small um but like I've seen. some of the attorneys on there that over. the course of a year build $5,000 or $5. million and my.

experience that particular attorney. didn't provide any value ad. whatsoever so you know what's the total. fees I mean it's it's got to be $20. million oh wow you know plus at this. point uh is that normal for how much. something like this would. cost it's a bit excessive uh but at the. same time one thing you have to remember. is when you have a case that is you many. ways all consuming you have to set aside.

a lot of your other work um you know. think about this Georgia case they just. recently said that uh the trial of that. going to be somewhere between 4 to 8. months long so as a lawyer you have to. sit there and say okay know it's. certainly hourly right but at the same. time I'm going to have to set aside you. know not taking any new work not work on. my business at all spend you know 4 to. eight months living in a. hotel.

somewhere uh and those things can get. expensive yeah will that um Georgia case. cost you know over a million dollars per. defendant I think it. will um but yeah right now when we're. talking about you know these pack fees. going you know into the tens of millions. of. dollars. um personally I think some of the. lawyers there got greedy at the trough. and. now they're all of a sudden you know as.

things are coming down with the. indictments and it's going to get more. time. intensive how much money is there left. yeah you know you said that this may be. a little excessive what what do you. think a normal let's say spent 20. million with your estimation what would. a. normal human being with what did we say. 9 91 counts felony charges four. different districts. States whatever you want to call it um.

what would that run well it really it. really depends on the individual case um. and you know legal fees are one of those. things where they're limited only by. your. imagination okay if you want to have the. biggest fanciest defense you know the. the the multi-million dollar defense. where you have a team of lawyers and. paralal at the table you have a shadow. jury you have jury Consultants you have.

all of these other you know things and. laser light shows you you can do it um. I've never done that I've never found it. to be valuable I think a lot of that is. more uh make work and it's it's efforts. by the attorneys to try and just suck. more you know money out of cases you. know I took over a case once where the. prior attorney was um hiring psycho. dramatists to try to have the defendant.

act things out whereas I looked at it. and said I have a better idea why don't. you just sit with the guy and ask him. hey tell me what. happened. so those things you know if I looked at. these cases myself and I said okay my. method of trying these cases um then my. billing rate is a little bit lower. because I don't maintain a big fancy. office um but all four of these cases. yeah I could put together a good solid.

defense on all these for probably. five 5 million. yeah now but even there it's kind of a. question of you know does it cut off the. motion to dismiss face do you have to go. to a trial if you do go to trial how. long is the trial going to be how many. lawyers do you want in the. trial you. it's it really can be limited by your.

imagination but at the same time you I. would advise everybody facing that kind. of situation to have a real hard talk. with your lawyer. about are all of these expenses really. appropriate and you know one of the. problems that a lot of clients face is. that the lawyer is trying to get all. these fees out of you at a time when. you're facing. jail and so they'll you know they'll hit. you on this stuff oh you got to you know. mortgage your house you got to do all. this stuff because you don't want to end.

up in jail saying man I wish I had hired. that psycho. dramatist you know yeah that's a great. Point that's a great point and it's a. it's something it's something that I. don't like about a lot of people in my. profession where they do um you know. give a lot of us a bad name through that. yeah but at the same time these things. can get expensive yeah I mean in the DC. case they're talking about millions of. pages of documents millions of yeah how.

do you go through millions of pages of. documents you got to hire a team to do. it yeah I can't do that myself I I can't. sit there and do it myself I mean. certainly things are getting better now. where they have you know certain AI. Solutions but you know do you really. want to trust chat GPT to go through. everything and figure out what your you. know where all the potential defenses. are or are you going to want to have a. human usually a junior lawyer a team of.

Junior lawyers going through this to. pull out the things that are relevant. yeah yeah you. know there's another question from Mr. Burns describe the most likely scenarios. you foresee for Trump to be convicted or. otherwise that would eliminate him from. appearing on the 2024 presidential. ballot.

the question gets interesting with that. last little caveat at the end about. eliminating him from the. ballot uh because ultimately none of. these cases. are disqualifying that they would force. his. removal and all of these cases in order. for it to you know get to a conviction. that could know while not statutorily. remove him putting him into a position. where it's very difficult for him to do. anything they have to get the trials.

done before the election and that's why. you see a lot of these prosecutors. really pushing the timing of trying to. get these trials done quickly. whereas if there was not an election. involved cases of this magnitude. ordinarily take over two years to get to. a. trial so the idea that you know I mean. in Georgia they're talking about doing. the first trial with two of the. codefendants next month. which is crazy to actually take a case.

to trial within you know a couple of. months of the initial arraignment that's. unheard. of. but they need to you know if if this is. as the Trump team keeps saying election. interference then they need to have the. cases brought before the. election especially in Georgia if they. can tie him up in a courtroom and make. him sit in a courtroom for 4 to8 months. every every single day during the.

general election he's not out debating. he's not out. campaigning so I think that. that's the most likely scenario really. comes down to a matter of. timing of are any of these. cases uh or multiple of these cases. actually going to get tried before the. election did you know that one in five. Americans have learned learn a new. language on their bucket list it's true.

if that's you check it off your bucket. list this year because with Babble you. can start speaking a new language. foreign language in about 3 weeks why. Babble because it works instead of. paying hundreds of dollars for a private. tutor or fooling yourself with language. apps that are a little more than games. babbles quick 10-minute lessons are. designed by over 150 language experts to. help you start speaking a new language.

just like I said in as little as 3 weeks. here's a special limited time deal for. our listeners to get you started right. now get 55% off your Babel subscription. but only for our listeners at babel.com. SRS with over 10 million subscriptions. sold Babble is real language learning. for real conversations get 55% off Babel. / SRS that's spelled b.

ael.com. SRS rules and restrictions apply visit. babel.com for terms and. details are you traveling this holiday. season well Pure Talk has you covered. because they've just added international. roaming in over 30 countries that's. right whether you're making calls from. the Vatican or on a beach in the Bahamas. you're covered from the steps of. Buckingham Palace or your Villa in.

Santorini you can dial away and here's. the best part there's no rate increase. Pure Talk still saves the average family. almost ,000 a year with plans starting. just at $20 a month and they put you on. America's Most Dependable 5G Network so. the coverage is second to none stop. dragging your feet switch to Pure Talk a. veteran-owned Wireless company with. Simply the Best Us customer service team. now with with international roaming in. over 30 countries go to Pur talk.com ran.

to make the switch and you'll save an. additional 50% off your first month. that's Pur talk.com ran to start savings. on wireless. now interesting um you know there's one. more question here from Brody would it. be. possible especially if he is found not. guilty for Trump to sue for malicious. prosecution since they keep actively.

searching for something to charge him. with that sounds actually like a. question the client would have asked me. too. um it is possible um you it's suing for. malicious prosecution is not something. that you frequently do uh and there's a. lot of you know hurdles to it um. prosecutorial immunity is one of the big. ones that's why you know when you see. people that are wrongfully convicted uh.

that have their convictions. overturned all those lawsuits are. against the police departments not the. prosecutors because the prosecutors get. immunity okay and so you know whenever. the Manhattan District Attorney's Office. screws up a case the mypd is the one. that has to pay for it okay. so but in a case where you are found not. guilty um a determination would need to.

be made because malicious prosecution is. a much higher standard than just simply. being acquitted being acquitted means. that they failed to prove their case. Beyond A Reasonable. Doubt and so even if a jury thinks it's. more likely than not that you committed. the. crime if they have any reasonable doubt. as to it they have to vote for an. acquittal so it's. not it's not a statement of Innocence.

necessarily uh it is a statement you're. not guilty and so when you then go to. evaluate it for malicious prosecution. you have to say can I meet that higher. standard and I think some of these you. can some of these you can I think that. uh potentially you as we're going to. discuss a little bit later the election. related cases. particularly uh I think that there is a. possibility of doing something there and. especially if it. um if it does have an impact on the.

election cuz you're essentially. disrupting his job application. mhh makes. sense well we got a lot to cover Tim. those are those were uh those were the. top patreon questions that we had I have. a ton of questions sure uh we're going. to start with the January 6 in. Insurrection case. but before that before we really get.

into the weeds everybody always gets a. gift on this show you know that so I. know I know you're a coffee. guy all right there you go nice so you. know we just had this conversation. outside but you know I'm very into. mental health yes and part of mental. health is keeping your brain sharp so. that is layered superfoods coffee in. performance mushrooms and the coffee.

actually has uh functional mushroom. benefits in it and so there's two. different kinds of coffee in there they. have functional mushroom benefits then. there's performance mushrooms and then. there's a creamer I know you're a black. coffee guy but uh the creamer actually. has uh benefits of functional mushrooms. and adaptogens as well so well thank you. very much you're welcome definitely look. forward to uh Brewing those let me know. how you like it we'll do but um so. diving in here I have a question on my.

own uh one of my personal questions is. you know. the actually let me backtrack I think. it's important anytime you mention Trump. today people automatically assume that. you are a it's an endorsement or a. supporter and and the same goes with the. other direction anytime you mention. Biden right people automatically assume. you know if if you're mentioning him in. any type of good light that you're a.

Biden supporter and and it it's getting. to the point in this country where you. can't you can't criticize or praise any. any political candidate without people. taking that is a endorsement correct and. so what I wanted to ask you is you know. you were on the Trump legal team for. quite a while are you. a is this is this is this you showing.

everybody that you are a a trump. supporter or is this just you doing your. job that's a really good question and. one that nobody's asked me publicly. before um the answer to the question is. I'm a. lawyer my loyalty is to the. Constitution and every representation. that I undertake is with a laser focus. on the facts the evidence and the law. law the politics are something that you.

know needs to be considered uh in. certain cases in figuring out the best. method. but a lawyer has an ethical. responsibility to represent their client. to the best of their abilities within. the ethical. rules and if a lawyer allows their. personal political beliefs to dictate. that. representation then they are a failure. as a. lawyer if if a client has a legitimate. case whether you agree with that client.

you know in their personal life or. political life or not then you should. fight that. case I am not a campaign. guy I had had no dealings you know I. tried to stay away from the Trump. campaign uh I represented him because I. believed in his case I believe that the. it's an important case it involves you.

know issues of monumental importance to. this country issues that will create. significant precedent that not only. affect Donald Trump himself but it will. also affect future presidents down the. line and that's why I found this case to. be important not because you know I you. know voted for him or voted against him. or anything else and quite. frankly if I were to be public about who. I'm voting for I think that that would.

be you know something detrimental to my. ability to represent clients you know I. I have built over the course of my. career a several clients that happen to. be on the right side of the political. aisle do I also represent people on the. left. absolutely you know if if Bob Menendez. or Hunter Biden called me tomorrow and. said hey. you know would you be interested in. coming into my case I would say yeah.

let's sit down and have a. chat you know. I I don't like talking about my personal. political beliefs uh for that reason uh. I will tell you. this I don't fit into my personal. thoughts don't fit into the Orthodoxy of. either political. party you know I I I agree with certain. things on one side I agree with certain. things on the other side but primarily.

I'm focused on the facts the evidence. and the. law well I really appreciate that thank. you I think that's important and and um. you know. I I wish we lived in a time where you. could. have political discussions without. people automatically. assuming who you're supporting or stand. behind or going to vote for you know and. and it's you it it it in my experience.

you cannot have any discussions about. politics no constructive criticisms no. praise no nothing right without people. um prematurely labeling uh your your. your beliefs right and uh and U so thank. you for sharing that I think I think. that's important to kick off the. interview with the fact that you are a. neutral party in this and and that um. you're just trying to do right by the by.

the Constitution and get to the facts. and so I have some questions um but I. think it would be more suited uh for the. end of the interview one is about the. jury juries and um and and another is is. this just after we dive in to all of. these different indictments and in the. different. locations is this just political. prosecution because you know I am. extremely.

concerned if it is political prosecution. because this set a president sense of. tone and and if it. is this is going to be the way from here. on out and uh and. that that's that's very scary you know. for everyone because it won't just be. one party uh eventually it will be all. of them correct you know and um so. anyway. let's start with Washington.

DC the January 6 Insurrection case um. the house select committee on January 6. attack voted in December 2022 to refer. Trump to the justice department for. persecution August 1st 2023 the grand. jury approved an indictment against. Trump indicting him with an. extraordinary conspiracy that threatened. to disenfranchise millions of. Americas uh the charges that I have are.

two felony counts of obstructing an. official proceeding one felony account. of conspiracy to defraud the United. States one felony account of conspiracy. against. rights where do we start. here well. um it's an interesting case because and. I I think that it is. unfortunately. one that's difficult to look at this.

passionately um but um and a lot of it. is because of the involvement of the. politicians um you and your. timeline um your timeline was accurate. but you mentioned about the January 6. committee you know doing the referral to. me that's an irrelevant fact the justice. department was already doing this. totally separate and aart from what the. select committee was doing the select.

committee's um report to my mind had. several. um major flaws to it and you know I. dealt with those. investigators um I should say. investigators with air quotes because uh. they did not conduct the real. investigation anything that didn't fit. with what they had you know. predetermined to be the. solution they didn't want to hear I had.

witnesses that they didn't want to talk. to I had documents that they didn't want. to. see I had you know a situation where one. of my clients U former guest of yours. Bernie. Carrick we had gotten president Trump. who I didn't represent at the time to. agree to a full privilege waiver as long. as Bernie carrick's testimony could be. public the committee refused. they specifically chose we don't want.

the testimony to be public and we rather. not have the privileged information we. rather keep it secret and. limited so that committee to me was kind. of a sham and most congressional. committees honestly on both sides of the. aisle they are I mean Congressional. hearings I remember one former. Congressman once told me. the purpose of a congressional hearing. is.

fundraising it's about getting video. clips that you can use for fundraising. so that piece of it I kind of set to the. side the investigation in Chief and I. dealt with them you know a. lot the entire theory of the case comes. down. to did he. knowingly push false claims of election. fraud to try to overturn you know the.

will of the people and install himself. wrongfully as president for a second. term that's their Theory and you know. they have a few different alternative. methods of charging it where they're. really to my mind they went through the. law books to try and find you know we. have this conduct that we don't like. let's go through the law boooks to try. and find some statute that we can. criminalize it in and so I think that in. large respects they're kind of trying to.

jam the square peg into the round hole. on. that but from a more basic perspective. my biggest problem with the entire. January 6 case is it's all a matter of. how you evaluate his actions based on. the role that you assume that he's. taking because as a first term. president he is wearing two.

hats he has the Hat of being you know. the candidate who wants to win the. election but he's also wearing the Hat. of. commander-in-chief who has a mandate. under the Constitution to ensure that. the laws of the United States are. Faithfully. executed. so pull back from a second from all the. rhetoric. change the names change the. personalities change the.

circumstances you have a second term. president not a. candidate who has received credible. reports of possible. fraud which could have affected the. outcome of the. election that possible fraud needs to be. further investigated to conclusively. prove or disprove. it what do you want the.

commander-in-chief to. do under that. circumstance I want them to do what's. right I want them to uphold the law you. want them to call the Attorney General. you want them to call the FBI director. you want to tell him to tell them hey. we've received these credible reports I. would like you to send that FBI agents. and research them figure it. out prove it conclusively one way or or. the other prove or. disprove call up the governors say hey I.

received reports of fraud in your state. can you have your state investigators go. and look into. this that is what we would want a second. term president who is. not running for re-election to do and. notice am I hypothetical I didn't even. say which way the election would have. tipped we would want them to do that no. matter what. but when you add in the additional fact.

it's it's a first-term. president who is running for reelection. and the allegations of fraud go in the. direction where if there is fraud proven. then he personally. benefits when you add those additional. facts it's impossible to really look at. it dis passionately anymore and. so in this. circumstance if president Trump has. brought credible information about fraud.

which changed the outcome of the. election do we expect him to sit there. and. say. well you know Joe Biden won so I'm not. going to ask anybody to look into these. things and that is the part that people. are you know to my mind the. investigators not really looking at it. through that lens they're looking at it. through the lens of he's a candidate who.

lost who wants to overturn the. result and the difference between those. you know the line is very thin and very. gray between those two. roles and additionally it all comes back. to did he. believe these. reports where did the reports come from. so the reports came from a lot of. different sources sources uh and this is. Again part of what hasn't been fully.

explored at the time they were receiving. a lot of reports from people on the. ground in the various States who said I. saw this I saw them unloading boxes of. of ballots I saw them you know doing. this I saw people running the same. ballot through the machines multiple. times you know whatever it is they were. getting all of these complaints from. around the country and some of them.

weren't actually even complaints of. observing frauds so much as complaints. of observing. irregularities they are refusing to let. The. Observers watch the ballot counting that. was a big. one why are you refusing to let The. Observers watch the ballot. Counting. we do they normally no normally that is.

that is a part of our system that and. it's it's written into laws of the. various states of how the ballots get. counted what observers are allowed to go. usually you have the opportunity for. Republican and Democrat Observer to both. be there the Republicans observers went. and they were not allowed to. observe and that you know removal of the. Observer. is something that on one hand is very.

easy to prove you have plenty of. eyewitnesses you have surveillance video. on the other. hand is very difficult to prove that it. means. anything because once you've removed the. witness what happened in the. room I have no idea you know did they. double count maybe who knows did they do. everything appropriately and they just. didn't like people watching them maybe. who knows. the removal of observers is not. something that in and of.

itself proves. fraud but it's. something that gives an indicator that. this should be looked into more is there. any law that states that you have to. allow The Observers in yeah and why is. not why is that law not being. upheld consequen time that was the issue. at the time is that you know this was. this was not proper the way that you. kept the uh The Observers out they went.

to judges they got you. injunctions but you're talking about a. very short period of time that by the. time you go through the legal. process the counting is done. M and then what's the. remedy do a recount well what if there. what if they've done something to the. ballots who knows it it becomes very. difficult. so they received all these reports of.

various irregularities throughout the. country and look I didn't personally. observe any of these things so I can't. speak to the veracity of of any of these. but I will tell you that one of my. clients you know Bernie Carrick was one. of the chief investigators working with. Rudy. Giuliani they received a lot of these. complaints some of them they were able. to Discount right off the bat and say. that's not something worth our time. that's not something that's credible. this person is a c set it to the side.

focus on the ones that they could. actually do something. with and. ultimately when he you know testified or. when he was interviewed by the January 6. committee when he was interviewed by. Jack Smith team his story was consistent. which is as a former criminal. investigator. we found evidence of fraud that rises to.

the level of probable. CA not proof Beyond A Reasonable Doubt. probable cause to believe that fraud had. been. committed which requires further. investigation to conclusively prove or. disprove they didn't have the resources. to do that they had neither the time the. money the manow The subpoena power to do. it you know who does. the. FBI and that is really where this thing.

comes down to is that he received these. reports from the Giuliani team and. others the. president he then goes over to Bill bar. and. others and. says I want you to send investigators. out to look at. this and again I wasn't in in the room. but the the way that it was explained to. me Bill bar essentially.

responds there's nothing there there's. no. fraud this is you know this is not worth. my time I'm not going to devote. resources to doing this. investigation a lot of the frustration. that built up by the morning of January. 6th I think. was more fueled by the lack of an.

investigation and the. appearance that some of these people. were just saying it's better to you know. close our eyes and move forward instead. of. actually verifying these things. mhm yeah if we could go back in time I. would love to grab Bill bar by the arm. say dude if you think the Giuliani is. full of full of.

it tell that to the president say hey I. think Rudy Giuliani is full of crap. here's what I'm going to do I'm going to. send out a team of FBI agents we're. going to go investigate all that stuff. that he did and I'm going to bring you. back a report showing you that he's full. of. crap if he had done that I think that. would have changed a lot of the. trajectory of things not blaming him not. saying he's personally responsible for. January 6. but the the belief that no investigation.

was going to be done I think is. what fostered the. desperation um and you know the. continued you know so-called pressure. campaign to do an. investigation you one of the things that. I'm always amazed at by these. allegations is and this is both in the. DC and the Georgia case. is he put on an immense pressure.

campaign to conduct an. investigation well guess what asking the. FBI or the Georgia Bureau of. Investigations to conduct an. investigation is very dangerous because. you have no control over it if I ask the. police or the FBI I want you to. investigate. this my hands are off of it and I am in. a position of sitting back and waiting. and the FBI is going to go out they're. going to investigate they're going to.

interview people they're going to look. at evidence and there's a chance they. come back and they say Tim this thing. that you said we found evidence of it. but there's also a big chance that they. come back and they say hey this thing. that you said we found an innocent. explanation there's no there. there he never asked in any of these. things. I want you to investigate with this. conclusion.

h i want you to investigate this. allegation that's the. difference and. so and and this you know crosses both. the Georgia and DC case if you. believe that there's a possibility of. Fraud and you're asking in them to. investigate. it that is not a.

crime when it comes to these. counts cuz this is all wrapped around j6. correct right the DC stuff yeah none of. these. sound to me like they. are charging him with. instigating January 6th no yeah not not. at all so and that's an important piece. is that people keep talking about you.

know the January 6 Insurrection. mhm I understand why people use that. term I don't understand why lawyers use. that. term Insurrection is a legal term that. has a definition under the United States. code you cannot sit there and as a. lawyer and say the January. Insurrection when not a single person. has been. charged with the crime of insurrection.

many people were charged with the. actions on that day but nobody's been. charged with. Insurrection so as a lawyer I throw that. term to the side you as as being an. organized effort to you to overthrow the. government um obstruction of official. proceeding yeah a lot of lot of people. did do that. absolutely trespassing you know property.

damage General Mayhem absolutely they. did all. that bad fashion sense. absolutely but that fashion S I wouldn't. walk around Congress wearing a fuzzy hat. but you know. yeah so Insurrection is to the side but. even even inciting a.

riot is not something that is been. charged. with he's been charged. with you know the obstruction of the. proceeding relating to trying to. pressure Mike Pence into not. certifying he's been charged with all. these claims of. fraud uh against the United States by. falsely claiming that there was fraud in. the. election to Mike Pence to various.

members of Congress you know with the. intent of doing this yeah as it relates. to the alternate slates of electors. things like that. but they could. not for good reason they could not. establish a connection that he had. knowingly. incited a violent protest or a riot. or an. Insurrection because there's no evidence. of. that you know he asked the people to go.

down there peacefully and patriotically. and so it's very difficult with that. video to then go in front of a jury and. say he wanted them to go down there and. commit murder in. Mayhem so that's so that piece of the. the. case is really you know excised.

out when is this going to be tried isn't. out yet yeah right now they're talking. about a trial date I think of um next. summer um so still before the election. but you again given the volume of. Discovery and everything in this. case it will only get tried on that. schedule if everybody just ignores. the standard conventions of Federal. Criminal.

procedure do you think these are going. to. stick I believe that the January 6. charges in. DC could result in a jury verdict of. conviction I believe that the charges. are likely to be overturned on. appeal but I think that his greatest. danger is a jury verdict of conviction. and again if they Rush the.

trial then he's going to have the. conviction and the appeal is not going. to get decided till a year or two. later and so um if he has a conviction. and the judge sentences him to. jail right before the election then yeah. that's going to have an. impact and. the fact that a um that an appell Court. overturns a verdict later.

on too late. yeah how much time could it be facing. with the. DC you6 one alone and because that. indictment came down after I left the. team I never sat down and actually you. know went through the sentencing. guidelines calculations on it um but it. it would not be a no jail. case uh and in particular these judges I.

think they would you know put them in. you know one of the things that I'm. Amazed by is the judges that have been. hearing all these January 6. cases they're. Witnesses you know some of the judges. have even talked about how on the. morning of January 6th I watched the. Insurrection out my window of the. courthouse. and it's true you look at the court. where the courthouse is you look out the. windows and you can see the.

capital in any other circumstance a. judge who is that. personally. involved would ordinarily be. removed and this was a great debate um. that they had several years ago about. can we actually. try. 911 related Al-Qaeda members in the. southern District of New. York because the courthouse is so close.

to the World Trade. Center. so. it's I I think that if he's tried in. DC there's a high. likelihood uh great possibility of. conviction I think that given all of the. other sentences that have been handed. down for all of the other protesters. I think that the likelihood of him. getting 10 plus.

years is. high wow you think that's high yeah it's. very likely yeah I think that the. likelihood of that being then overturned. by the appell court is high. okay and so you know some of this stuff. may get dealt with in pre-trial motions. to dismiss. which maybe they'll even allow that to. go to the appell court uh before trial. that's not something that they usually. do but sometimes it's.

appropriate with the information that. you've been presented with uh when you. were on the case yeah is he. guilty in my opinion. no and and it all comes down. to did he. believe that the claims of fraud were. false I don't think anybody has. ever heard him speak and certainly. nobody that sat with a man and spoke to.

him face to face could ever say he knows. that there was no. fraud he believes. today that there was fraud in that. election he believes today that that. election was stolen from. him and here's the. thing for purposes of this criminal case. his personal. belief is more important than whether.

there was. fraud you can spend a whole trial. proving that there was no. fraud but if he if he believed it at the. time then he's not guilty well wouldn't. the so wouldn't the First Amendment. protect. that not exactly um so first. amendment is a little bit more Nuance. than that um so the First Amendment does. give you the right.

to you know say whatever you want as. long as it's not you know as long as it. needs for the for your free speech to be. criminalized it has to have more than. just. speech so perfect example is you know. the the history behind The Stolen Valor. Act they initially passed a law saying. you know claiming to have military you. know decorations and rank and and.

history and. everything is you know falsely claiming. that as a crime that was. overturned as a violation of the First. Amendment you have First Amendment right. to. lie the way that they then brought it. back was it has to be tied to something. else so if I go and tell everybody. I was a Navy SEAL that's legal nobody's. ever going to hire me again but it's.

legal for me to lie about being an Navy. SEAL now if I. say I am a former Navy. SEAL and I can teach you how to scuba. dive and I'm going to charge you yeah I. I'm I'm a scuba instructor former Navy. SEAL that's where the crime is because. you are connecting the false statement. to some form of pecuniary gain monetary.

gain and they've even you know been. looking at this of does it get down to. the level of you know falsely claiming. that you're a seal and a bar at night so. you can convince the girl to go home. with you you is that is that uh. constituted but here again if you're. simply saying pretend for a second that. there was no fraud pretend for a second. that um that he knew that there was no. fraud if he's just saying. it there's nothing wrong with.

that but the fact that he's then. connecting it to Mike Pence you should. not certify the. election that's that extra step that. takes it outside of a First Amendment. defense did Mike Pence make the right. call that day. I don't know um I think that the the law.

was. ambiguous as to whether he had the power. to do what they were asking him to. do uh they have since you know gone to. amend the uh the Electoral College act. to. clarify that his role is purely. ceremonial and in doing so they do admit. that it was at a. minimum. vague and to back up for a second. because you know one of.

the big underlying questions here is. what was Mike Pence being asked to. do Mike Pence has said you got to. remember he's now running for president. against Trump he has said that he was. asked to basically reject these things. and declare Trump as the. president that claim is inconsistent. with all of the evidence that I saw. through my time representing him and all.

of the other people and witnesses that I. have. interviewed the information that I had. which is very consistent with every. single one of these Witnesses is that. what he was asked to do. was they were going to present him with. evidence of possible. fraud and that he was going to. say because I can't be. sure I don't want to certify the.

election. today I'm going to adjourn these. proceedings for 10. days and I would ask that these. particular. States go. back and investigate these particular. claims of. Fraud and come back to me before the. next Hearing in 10 days days to let me. know whether these slates are still.

accurate if in fact that is what he was. being asked to. do then I think for him to have said yes. certainly the way that the law was. written at the time he wouldn't have. been. wrong to do. that at the same time was he wrong for. what he did. do. no in in my personal opinion I think he.

could have gone either way I think that. the way that the law was written it gave. him. discretion so he made the decision that. he felt he should. have you know I I personally can't I. don't take a position on on whether he. was. right I say this he wasn't wrong I'm not.

going to say he was right but he wasn't. wrong. gotcha this is a. little unrelated but I'm I'm curious to. know I. mean we get into the section where who. could pardon him how could he get out of. this all federal crime they were. all they were all federal crimes so if. Trump is reelected he could pardon. himself why do you think he didn't. pardon himself before he left.

office was that a mistake on his part. self. paron is a. um doesn't look great well and it's also. it's something that's never been. done and so it's it's never been done. it's of question. legality I mean certainly you know when. you read the Constitution it.

appears that there's not that. restriction on. it um but at the same time nobody's ever. done. it well here's the other piece of a. pardon this is actually important uh and. I'm if you don't mind I'm going to go on. a slight tangent here about another. case a pardon is not a declaration of. Innocence a pardon is a a declaration of. forgiveness and so the act of accepting.

a pardon is in and of itself considered. to be an admission that you've done. something. wrong and that's why pardon applications. you usually are required to say yes I. made a mistake and I'm asking for. forgiveness please restore me to the. full rights of an American citizen. without a. conviction because I have you know for. whatever reason you want to.

argue and so the story that I want to. tell you here is um another another one. of my clients Eddie. Gallagher when uh we were pre-trial in. his case and the newspapers were all. talk about how president Trump was. considering pardoning. Eddie Eddie actually asked me. he said Tim if he does issue a pardon am. I required to accept.

it because I don't want a pardon before. my. trial I want to go in the court and I. want to face my accusers and I want to. be. exonerated at the same time I don't want. to go to jail for the rest of my life I. want to go home to my. family but do I have to accept C it or. can I wait until after the. trial and so it was something that I.

actually had to research at the time for. Eddie and you know luckily for him. president Trump did not offer him a. pardon uh pre-trial and so he did get. the opportunity to go in and exonerate. himself but um courts have found in. certain cases in very unique. circumstances where it was brought to. the Court's attention that you cannot. claim you were innocent if you accepted. a. pardon here's a fact that I am sure just.

about every one of you listening right. now is going to find absolutely. disgusting according to reports 60% of. pork sourced here in the United States. comes from one company and that one. company just happens to be owned by. China and guess what there's more that. one company. happens to inject its Hogs with ratto. panine a chemical that is banned.

in 160 countries to include China yet. guess what you find it in the meat. section of just about every single. grocery store here in the. US that's right so I thought you just. might be interested in an alternative. let me tell you about moink moink. delivers grassfed and grass finished. beef and lamb pastured pork chicken and.

sustainable wild caught Alaskan salmon. straight to your door here's the deal. I've tried the pork the beef the fish. and the poultry from moink and it's. fresh and it's clean not like this junk. that you get at the grocery store from. these massive. meat suppliers you see I like to know. where my meat comes from is I'm sure all.

of you do too keep American farming. going by signing up at moox dcom Shan. right now in listeners of this show get. free ground beef for a year that's one. year of the best ground beef you'll ever. taste but for a limited time that's. spelled m o i n k box.com Shan that's. moink box.com. Shan I want to tell you about this.

business venture I've been on for about. the past 78 months and it's finally come. to. fruition I've been hellbent on finding. the cleanest functional mushroom. supplement on the planet that all kind. of stemmed from the Psychedelic. treatment I did came out of it got a ton. of benefits haven't had a drop of. alcohol in almost 2 years I'm more in. the moment with my family and that led. me down researching the benefits of just.

everyday functional mushrooms and I. started taking some supplements I found. some coffee Replacements I even wrapped. a brand and you know it got to the point. where I just wanted the finest. ingredients available no matter where. they come from and it it it got to this. point where I was just going to start my. own brand and so we started going to. trade shows and and looking for the. finest ingredients and in doing that I. ran into this guy maybe you've heard of.

him his name's lared Hamilton and his. wife Gabby Reese and they have an entire. line of supplements with all the finest. ingredients and we got to talking turns. out they have the perfect functional. mushroom supplement it's actually called. performance mushrooms. and this has everything it's USDA. organic it's got chaga craps Lion's man.

Miaki this stuff is amazing for energy. balance for cognition look just being. honest see a lot of people taking care. of their bodies I do not see a lot of. people taking care of their. brain this is the product guys and so we. got to talking. and our value seemed very long. we're both into the functional. mushrooms and after a lot of back and.

forth I am now a shareholder in the. company I have a small amount of. ownership and I'm just look I'm just. really proud to be. repping and be a part of the company. that's making the best functional. mushroom supplement on the planet you. can get this stuff at layed. superfoods.com you can use the promo. code SRS that'll get you 20% off these. performance mushrooms or anything in the.

store they got a ton of good stuff once. again that's layed superfoods.com use. the promo code SRS that get you 20% off. you guys are going to love this stuff I. guarantee. it all right Tim we're pretty much. wrapped up with the j6. Washington DC indictments I would like. to get into the Georgia election.

interference case sure so this case I. find very interesting after some uh. conversations that we had offline but um. status indictment criminal investigation. opened February of 2021 summer of 2023. Willis presented her evidence to a. regular grand jury which approved a 98. page indictment on August 14th. 2023.

13 uh felony count charges one count of. violating the racketeering influenced. and corrupt organizations act Reco three. counts of solicitation of violation of. Oath by a public officer one count of. conspiracy to commit impersonating a. public officer two counts of conspiracy. to commit forgery in the first degree. two two counts of false statements and. writings two counts of conspiracy to. commit false statements and writings one.

count of filing false documents one. count of conspiracy to commit filing. false. documents am I missing anything sounds. really bad when you list something like. that it does uh could you go through and. and tell us what all these. indictments. mean you know the Georgia case. essentially mirrors the jacksmith uh DC. case but in in a slightly different.

angle who is Jack Smith uh sorry that's. the um the special counsel um you know. Jack Smith is special couns in the doj. case Okay so it it mirrors the DC case. in a lot of ways but it departs in a lot. of ways. too one thing to remember here Fanny. Willis is a County. prosecutor okay she's not a state. attorney general she's not a federal.

prosecutor her. fom is Fulton County that's. it not only that Fulton County is it. encompasses the. capital there are certain portions of. that County that are outside of her. jurisdiction specifically the State. House the state government buildings you. you know where the governor is where the. secretary of state is where the. legislator legislature is those. buildings are also outside of her.

jurisdiction state. buildings because the state is superior. to the. county anything happens in there gets. investigated by the state police gets. prosecuted by the state attorney general. not the. county so as a County prosecutor she. doesn't really have any power to be. investigating the things that she's. Prosecuting here what she's done is.

she's taken the state Rico count uh. which is you know racketeering. influenced corrupt organizations it was. originally a federal statute that a lot. of states have adopted uh similar. statutes for theirs that was designed to. take down organized. crime. Rico is unique because what it does is. it it essentially criminalizes being a. member of a criminal. organization and so they have to prove.

you know what the structure means and. methods of the Enterprise are Enterprise. being the. organization and then in doing so they. then have to show that certain pattern. Acts were conducted by the. organization uh as part of that and so. it's usually traditional racketeering. activity you know Carter Mayhem you know. illegal gambling lone sharking stuff. like. that in this context of a state.

prosecution this is one of those charges. that allows you to say okay racketeering. happened in Folton. County but in order to prove the. Enterprise I can start to touch things. that are. outside of the county and bring them in. to prove the Enterprise. so if she can't charge. Rico she can't talk about things that.

happen in the State House things that. happened in Coffee County things that. happened in. Pennsylvania things that happen anywhere. outside of fton County which is really. just you know the polling stations and. where the actual vote count took place. in. Atlanta so. that's why you have this Rico count. because she's trying to significantly. play out of.

position for what her power is as a. county. official so you start with that and then. she also has indicted all these. different. people in doing so one of the things. that's interesting to me is you know. obviously you can't have a RICO of one. one person it's got to be an. organization that's why she decided to. indict was it 19. people in doing.

so in my reading of it she is directly. contradicting the DC. case because some of the things that. she's saying and specifically the fact. that she's charged Rudy. Giuliani is she is directly going. against what the federal theory is. because the federal theory is Trump knew. that these claims of fraud were false. because even though Rudy juliani told it.

to him he knew it was false because Bill. bar told him it wasn't. true which is not necessarily something. that's going to hold up on appeal but. Fanny. Willis instead of saying the same Theory. she instead says well Rudy Giuliani also. knew that the claims of fraud were. untrue. so she's. contradicting the federal. Theory.

interesting what she's also done is by. having this big you know sprawling. indictment with 19 defendants and 30 you. know unindicted. co-conspirators is every single one of. those. people many of which. were being cooperative and sitting down. for interviews and talking with the. federal. team now they're being you know very. openly accused of criminal activity by.

this you know County. prosecutor and so now they're invoking. their fifth. amendments and so in a weird way she is. undermining the federal. case by causing a lot of their witnesses. to now become. unavailable because they are invoking. their fifth. rights so I me that's that's the core of.

of what this case is a lot of the other. stuff that you get into there all the. you know the forgery and impersonating. and official all that stuff that goes. into this whole theory of um you know. the what they call the fake electors or. the alternate. electors um which is a whole kind of. separate little piece of this. thing um and not a lot of people. understand what happened at the time not.

just in Georgia in a lot of these states. is that the states that were. disputed they had gone you know to. create an alternate slate of. electors um and to back up a little bit. further the way that our federal. presidential elections work with the. Electoral College Act is that. the voters in each state you know vote. for who they want as. president the state then takes whoever W.

so you know if Donald Trump wins this. state then based on the. population distribution of those States. each state has a certain number of. electors and so you know when they say. that you know Georgia has so many. Electoral College. votes what that. meant you got to remember all of these. rules all these laws were passed at a. time when there was no internet there. was no electricity there were no.

cars what it means is they count it up. in Georgia and they say okay you. know Thomas Jefferson won. Georgia I don't know if he won Georgia. or not but just by way of example and so. if they have whatever you know 20. Electoral College votes they find 20. people that are the electors they put. them on horses and send them up to. DC and this the whole timeline between.

having an election in November having a. certification in early January and then. having a inauguration late January all. those timelines are based on the idea. that people are traveling by horse from. the outermost. States and so the time it takes. you know Georgia in. 1800 to or you know the late 1700s to.

count all the votes find the electors. put them on horses send them up to DC. have the full. vote send them back you know do all the. stuff for the inauguration that's that's. why these timelines are set the way that. they. are and so the way that this is kind of. developed over time is that if you want. to challenge the Slate of electors that. is. submitted which is still it's a list of. names of these are the the.

electors from Georgia who are going to. vote for Biden in the Electoral College. election if you want to challenge that. result you run the risk that a court. says. yes this result is not. accurate but there's no alternate slate. you didn't put 20 other people on horses. you know to send them up you know in. their place and so that's why this whole.

alternate slate of electors practice has. come about it's been used by both. parties it's been used in multiple. elections so that you have that. alternate slate on standby oh okay and. if you look at the slates from. 2020 I I say that the you look at. Pennsylvania for whatever reason. somebody in Pennsylvania was smarter. than everybody everywhere else and they.

actually wrote on the Slate. alternate only to beused in the event. that the primary slate is invalidated. through litigation or investigation it. wordss to that. effect the Georgia slate nobody thought. to write the that sentence. in and so if you just take the Georgia. slate of you know Trump. electors it reads like you know.

president Trump having been duy you know. elected in this state these are the. people that are casting their. vote but is that a plausible fraud to me. it's not I mean there are some that are. saying oh the purpose of the alternate. slate it's a fake slate of electors. because they wanted to fool Mike. Pence and there's this this silly theory. that Mike Pence may have looked at the.

two slates from Georgia and said I don't. know which one's real I guess I'll pick. this. one that's. insane today y with the. media and the internet and the. proliferation of information that we. have today. there's no chance in hell that Mike. Pence is going to look at these slates. and say I don't know who. won it's not.

plausible yeah but it is their theory of. fraud on. it the thing is a lot of these electors. they gave interviews at the time saying. yes I am an alternate elector I'm doing. this in case the primary slate get. invalidated but that that's what a lot. of those counts. are I'm curious to know where this so. there was a controversial phone call. that happened yeah in January 2nd 2021.

Trump called Georgia's Secretary of. State Brad raffensberger and urged him. to find. 11,780 votes the number needed to. overcome Biden's Victory now I've. listened to segments of that phone call. several different times on on online mhm. you can find it all over we'll probably. roll it right here and they're brand new. and they don't have seals and there's a. whole thing with the ballots but the. ballots are corrupt and you're going to.

find that they are which is totally. illegal it's it's it's more illegal for. you than it is for them because you know. what they did and you're not reporting. it that's a you know that's a criminal. that's a criminal offense and and you. know you can't let that happen that's. that's a big risk to you and to Ryan. your lawyer that's a big risk but they. are shredding ballots in my opinion. based on what I've heard and they are. removing. Machinery uh and they're moving it as.

fast as they can both of which are. criminal fines and you can't let it. happen and you are letting it happen or. you know I mean I'm notifying you that. you're letting it happen so look all I. want to do is this I just want to. find uh. 11,780 votes which which is one more. that we have because we won the state. and flipping the state is a great. Testament to our country because you.

know and there's there's there's just. it's a testament that they can admit to. a mistake or whatever you want to call. it if it was a mistake I don't know a. lot of people think it wasn't a mistake. it was much more uh criminal than that. but it's a big problem in Georgia and. it's it's not a problem that's going. away I mean you know it's not a problem. that's going away I mean he did it where. does that fall under what these is that. fall under one of the charges it does um.

it it does fall under the charges. because he's essentially trying to um. their theor is he's trying to corruptly. influence a state official to uh violate. his oath um did he I don't believe. so here's the. thing you can't if if you just cut out. that one sentence of the. tape yes that's that's the impression. that you're left with but you can't just.

listen to excerpts from the call you. have to listen to the entirety of the. call cuz he says multiple times on that. call we won by a lot we won by over. 100,000. votes he's stating possibly you know. incorrectly but he truly held belief. that he had won the state of Georgia by. over 100,000 votes can I interject sure. why would he believe that if he had not.

seen any of the numbers. yet he believed it because that's the. numbers that were given to him by the. investigative team okay that was looking. into these claims of. fraud. um and and again that's something. that you may notice that I have not yet. nor will I offer my opinion as to. whether there was actually fraud in that. election or. not I I don't have an opinion as to.

whether there was or was. not because I would want to actually see. the investigation to know one way or the. other you haven't seen the. investigation I've seen the preliminary. investigation but I never saw a followup. investigation by law enforcement to. conclusively prove or disprove that. probable cause okay. so because it wasn't. nothing so why wasn't it.

done here in lies the big. question when when Trump asked bar to do. the investigation why wasn't it done in. this call that you're asking me about. he's begging the Georgia state officials. have your law Enforcement Officers go. out and do an. investigation and they said. no the part that you're talking about.

about find this many. votes in. itself is. damning in context of the entire. conversation if he believed that he had. won by over 100,000. votes the way that I look at that the. way that I would argue with to a jury in. the way that President Trump has stated. it that is a statement of. scope not.

result if I tell. you there's over. 100,000 fake votes out there and I need. you to investigate this was it January. 2nd mhm I need you to investigate this. you have four. days you going sit there and say 4 days. to find 100,000 votes you would you. crazy you don't have to find. 100,000 find.

11,000 once you find this much that's. the Delta between the two. candidates then for the purposes of this. inquiry as to what slate should be. certified for the election you can. stop as soon as you find the Delta. between the candidates. the Secretary of State can. stop and pass it on to the Attorney. General of the state of Georgia to.

continue the. investigation find potentially you know. in his mind all 100,000 of them and then. figure out who who to arrest and put in. jail for. it the Secretary of State their role in. investigating election fraud is purely. to find. out what is the right slate to be put up. on January 6th not you secretary of.

state is not in charge of putting people. in. jail so you don't need to find all. 100,000 okay just find 11,000 and so. when you listen to the tape in the full. context and you think of it that way. that this is a statement of scope not. result given the shortened Peri period. of time and the very specific limited. role that the secretary of state. has it makes more.

sense could it have been. more artfully stated or you know. explicitly stated is it how I would have. explained it. no it it could have it probably could. have been clearer on. that. but to just cherry-pick the one sentence. and say he's directing him to. go find these. votes you know that's it leads to a. misleading result but even there go find.

the. votes as opposed to just say that there. were the votes go find evidence of. 11,000 false votes and if you can find. evidence of 11,000 false votes again. you're sending somebody to do an. investigation it's a danger maybe they. come back the way you expect maybe they. don't let's talk about Fanny Willis sure. so if I remember correctly we had a.

conversation couple weeks ago maybe a. month ago in DC about Fanny Willis and I. believe you told me that she ran her. campaign yeah. on indicting Trump correct knowing that. this was outside of her jurisdiction jur. jurisdiction. do. so for somebody that has no legal mind.

at all how is this even happening if she. doesn't have. jurisdiction if the RICO were correct. she would have that limited piece of. jurisdiction but how this is happening. and you just hit the nail right on the. head to separate out the federal from. the state indictments one of the big. problems with State indictment and why. in my opinion they were more dangerous. to begin with is. because State prosecutors are really.

County officials unless you're talk. about a state attorney general they're. County officials they're elected County. officials and so if you have an elected. County district attorney in a county. that is a you know deep red or or deep. blue either way. they get their job and they keep their. job by winning the primary. election they don't have to worry about.

the general election because they're. largely going to be on. opposed Fanny. Willis was not the district attorney at. the. time she was you know outside and saying. I would like to become district attorney. and playing to the base she said if you. elect me I will indict Donald. Trump and in the primary race that. played very well she won the Primary in.

the general election she's essentially. unopposed so she never had to really. face you know tough Republican. opposition on. this and single party. jurisdictions again red or. blue it creates a substantial RIS. R of political interference and. politically driven prosecutions because. ultimately you sit there and think well.

the district attorney and the sheriff. you know they should be able to run for. reelection based on have I made your. city. safer and that's true of a general. election but in the context of a primary. election where it's all run by the. party. there it's it has a much higher risk of. abuse of where they are going to pursue. the partisan. goals Laticia James the State Attorney.

General of New York did the exact same. thing she ran on a platform of I'm going. to get Donald. Trump and sure enough she has brought. all these civil uh suits against Trump. and the Trump. organization when you have people that. are asking give me a long law. enforcement position so that I can take. out my political. rival that's dangerous.

mhm that's very dangerous I think that's. a major concern to a lot of people next. on the Shawn Ryan. Show white collar crime is a term that. was invented by former prosecutors that. would allow them to make money being. criminal defense attorneys without. somehow feeling dirty warn is this. political prosecution that we're saying. I don't like to be the guy saying oh. it's a it's a political Witch Hunt but. here's the. thing when they go in and they try to.

demand a ludicrously speedy trial for. the purpose of getting it done before. the. election you feed that narrative I heard. that that one of the um Debaters said it. was an inside job was is an inside job. on the part of Donald Trump and his. henchmen in the Congress of the United. States the judges that have been hearing. all these January 6 cases they're.

Witnesses you know some of the judges. have even talked about how on the. morning of January 6th I watched the. Insurrection out my window of the. [Music]. courthouse money in. politics causes. abuse politics in law enforcement. causes abuse money in politics and law. enforcement is a disaster that's where. you have people like Fanny Willis.

Laticia. James. fundraising asking for money on the idea. that if you elect me I will get Donald. Trump I am going to use your taxpayer. dollars to take out our political. rival everything is politically charged. in this country at this point you're. either a prot trump or.

[Music]. anti-trump hey everybody I'm Shawn Ryan. click here to subscribe to the Sha Ryan. Show YouTube channel for the hottest and. most compelling interviews that you will. not see anywhere else I've also made a. playlist of all the previous SRS. episodes so they're easy to find you can. find that right. here.