Trump’s Bogus Defenses

I don’t have to tell you how hot it is and how difficult it is to get a good night’s sleep when the temperatures are as high as they are for right now. And that’s why you really ought to think about Bolen Branch because Bolen Branch sheets have this natural unmatched softness, and they get softer with every wash. And they are perfect for every season. This summer, sleep better at night with Bolen Branch sheets. Get fifteen percent off your first order when you use promo code Bulwark at Bolen Branch dot com.

That’s Bolen Branch, b o l l a n d, branch dot com promo code Bulwark. Exclusions apply, see Bolen Branch dot com for details.

Well, this is the week that we have been waiting for for so long. The third indictment of Donald Trump, depending on how you are keeping score Donald Trump has now been charged. I want you to just mark this down. Has been now been charged with seventy eight felony counts Later today, maybe this has already happened by the time you listened to this podcast, Donald Trump will do his third Perp walk in Washington DC where he faces the conspiracy and obstruction charges from Jack Smith. I have to admit that I have spent the morning listening to podcasts and reading all sorts of, I would say, Trump world and, and anti anti trump efforts to cope with this.

And at the moment, I have to confess that I am feeling dumber, which is why I am looking forward to today’s episode of the Trump trials with our good friend from law fair. Ben Wittis. Good morning, Ben. How are you?

I am exhausted, but otherwise fine. How are you?

Well, I am also a little bit exhausted. And and a little bit frustrated by some of the commentary, some of which, seems to me to be both disingenuous and just flat out wrong. So, hopefully, we can shock it. Yeah. We can correct the record here.

So let’s just, start going through some of the, I I think, top line issues here. Number one, and I see that Adam Kinzinger, who’s gonna be on the podcast tomorrow, was disappointed that Jack Smith did not bring specific charges related to the incitement of violence. So let’s talk about that. Why not bring charges against Donald Trump for his role in inciting the violence of January six as opposed to what he actually did in the indictment, which was to say that Donald Trump exploited Donald Trump and his co conspirators. It exploited the violence.

So give me your sense of of that choice.

The answer is a Supreme Court case from the late nineteenth sixties called Brandenburg, the Ohio, and Brandenburg lays out a very rigorous standard for what constitutes incitement or what can constitute incitement constitutionally. And, basically, it says that unless a an action is of a type that is in tended to create and is of a type that would tend to create imminent lawless action. You cannot prosecute it as an incitement protected speech. And this is a very, very high bar. So what Jack Smith is trying to do here is say, alright, how do I include the speech

—

Mhmm.

—

that is make the speech and the violence that it precipitated a feature of the indictment. We’re gonna put on evidence about it. But not run across this need to prove that it meets the standard of Brandenburg. And the answer is don’t charge it as an incitement, include it as part of this larger conspiracy. And this is the way that Smith deals with all of these problems that would you might otherwise have legal issues with there are some involving, you know, other areas of law as well, like seditious conspiracy, would be hard to prove seditious conspiracy.

Maybe he could do it, but it would be hard. Mhmm. Instead, you simply describe the conspiracy that you can prove in language that is evocative of appropriately so, in my view, the fact that this was a conspiracy to prevent the sovereign exercise of the power of the United States. That is to to overthrow the constitutional order. And so he does the same thing with the incitement issue.

I actually disagree with Kinsinger. I think it’s a very clever and elegant way to handle it. It allows him to rely on laws that are much better trodden territory. They have many fewer legal issues that he’s gonna have to litigate, and it’s gonna be a stronger case as a result. So I actually, with all due respect to Adam Kinzinger, I think he’s got this one wrong.

Okay. So in in the law firm blog, you wrote, it is a powerful case of assuming the Smith can prove it in court, and it’s one of which the former president should be very afraid. But that is not the take we’re getting from folks like National Review and the Wall Street Journal editorial board and much of Trump world and actually much of anti anti trump world who are saying that, look, This still is about free speech. Yes. President Trump engaged in disinformation, but disinformation is not a crime.

There are also various other defenses being floated out that perhaps he sincerely did believe that, that he won the election. And that if he did sincerely believe that he won the election, that that’s a huge blow to this case. And then, of course, there is a third defense out there that he’s simply going to blame his lawyers that he was relying on counsel. So I don’t know where you wanna start with all of this. Let’s talk about the free speech.

And this is something that we’re hearing from Trump’s lawyers that, you can’t criminally charge the president for, you know, saying things about the election that he sincerely believed that he lost.

Alright. So let’s start with the free speech one because it’s so dumb that you can dismiss it in a sentence. You know, Charlie, if I tell you I’m gonna kill you, That is speech. It is not constitutionally protected speech. Right?

Most threats are speech, and they’re all expressive. They’re not protected by the first amendment. There’s another kind of speech that isn’t protected by the first amendment, and it’s called making an agreement to commit a crime we call them conspiracies. I mean, we actually have to communicate in order to make an agreement to commit a crime. Usually, the way you do that communication is talk about it when you are making an agreement to commit a crime, if you then take an overt act in support of that agreement, That is not protected speech.

All conspiracies are speech. All conspiracies or at least some kind of otherwise protected expression. All threats are expressions. All demands, extortions are expressions. Right?

So the question isn’t, did Donald Trump speak? The question is did he engage in protected speech or did he speak in the form of committing a crime? There are ways that you can speak that constitute the commission of a crime, fraud, for example, all speech. Right? You know, I trick you into doing something.

And here, The government is alleging three distinct conspiracies, one to violate rights by not counting the votes, one to obstruct, federal proceeding, and, one to defraud the United States. It is certainly true that all of these conspiracies were done by people talking to each other. That does not make them free speech. It is also true that one of the overt acts in support of these conspiracies was the president giving of speech in which he, you know, urged the crowd to violence and that some of the other overt acts involve how he exploited the violence that that speech gave. You can’t simply say, well, I was talking.

Therefore, it can’t have been part of a conspiracy. So that defense is just dumb. And I don’t know if the president’s lawyers will not make it in court, but it it will not have legs in court at any level.

Well, there’s also this, a kind of an inherent flaw in the argument that, well, Trump may have sincerely believed that he won the election. Now, of course, the burden of proof is on Jack Smith, but, Philip Rotner has a great piece in the bulwark. He said, you know, let’s start with the fact problem of Trump proving it, trolley release, sincerely believed he won the election. How’s he gonna do that? Is he gonna testify?

Is he is he gonna take this in? I think that’s unlikely. But I think that this point that you’re making about the conspiracy and the way the conspiracy statutes are written is important. He says, think, for example, of a conspiracy to kidnap and hold a person for ransom. In furtherance of the scheme, the conspirators locate and rent a safe house, they stock up to hold a hostage, for a protracted period of time.

They buy ski masks, restraints, and a telephone voice changer, and to carefully observe the comings and goings in the target area, Not one of those acts taken in furtherance of the conspiracy is standing alone, a crime, but individually and taken together, those acts are powerful evidence of a criminal conspiracy so it is with Trump that many of the specific acts themselves are not crimes but they’re powerful evidence of the criminal conspiracy alleged in the indictment.

Exactly. And and it’s not even you can go farther than that. You can say some overt acts in a conspiracy can be otherwise constitutionally protected. So for example, if you say to me, hey, Ben, I’ve got this great money making scheme. Let’s convince a whole bunch of people to invest in, you know, bulwark coin, our new cryptocurrency, and then you and I’ll short the market.

Mhmm.

Right? And so in support of this loony idea, I go out and give a speech about bulwark coin and about how unstable conventional currencies are, and everybody should invest in Bulwark coin. It’s got a little picture of Sarah Longwell on it. You know, it’s it’s a great thing. That speech is constitutionally protected.

But if you do it as part of a criminal conspiracy scheme, to defraud people of their money, the fact that the speech itself is constitutionally protected does not mean you cannot be charged with fraud. I wanna address one other thing related to the not as stupid claim that the president, the former president sincerely may have believed this. This is not a stupid point. It is an evidentiary point, and you can see that Jack Smith takes it extremely seriously in the indictment because he spends pages upon pages pointing out evidence that he is going to present that shows that Trump did not sincerely believe this. So I think this falls into the category of it may be a plausible defense under certain circumstances.

The there are some problems with it. There’s such a thing as willful blindness. But Jack Smith has anticipated this defense and means to bombard the jury with evidence that Trump knew that he was lying. And so it’s a potentially plausible defense, and it’s one that the prosecution is expecting.

Yeah. And as a slight digression, I mean, Will Saletan has has made the point that in some ways, it’s worse if Trump really did believe he won the election because then the man who’s the president of the United States was completely deluded. But to beat this horse just a little bit, going back to Phil Rotner’s piece, even a sincere deeply held belief the election had been stolen would not, for instance, give Trump license to participate in a fake elector’s scheme.

Correct.

You know, he says think of it this way. You may be absolutely convinced that a charge on your credit card is not yours, but you cannot then hack into the bank server to remove it You may know with all your hurt that your neighbor took your Rolex, but you can’t break into his house in the middle of the night to retrieve it. Just ask o j Simpson about that one. You may hold it as an article of mere religious faith that the government is tyrannical, but you cannot blow up the federal building, believing that you have a legitimate right, even if you’re right about it, which, obviously, Trump is not, does not give you license to commit crimes. And I think, again, this is this is the point that you know, the the speech can still be part of a conspiracy.

The sincere belief, which I think is somewhat far fetched, but plausible does not give you license to engage in fake electors, etcetera, all of the other things that are alleged in this in this indictment.

That’s exactly right. And In addition, it assumes a factual premise that Jack Smith says he will prove to twelve jurors beyond a reasonable doubt is untrue.

So what about the the defense that well, I was just following my lawyer’s advice, which, you know, is being floated by the way. Let me just play a little bit of, my Pence who is I don’t know what’s going on with Mike Pence. Maybe, you know, once every six months or so, he he wakes up and he realizes, Hey, I actually have a spine here. But, he’s been much more full throated, but let me just play something that, Mike Pence said yesterday about all of this. And this is a longer sound bite.

But He does talk about this this gaggle of crack pot lawyers who are surrounding the president, which is certainly part of the story and part of the indictment. Let’s play that.

Let’s be clear on this point. It wasn’t just that they asked for a pause. The president, specifically asked me on his gaggle of of crack pot lawyers asked me to literally reject votes to which would have resulted in, in the issue being turned over to the House of Representatives, and literally chaos would have been sued. So, oh, Martha, I just, people People can read the indictment. And frankly, I I I’ve said before, I I had hoped it had not come to this point.

You know, I I don’t know if the government can meet the standard, the burden of proof beyond reasonable doubt, for criminal Charlie Sykes. But the American people deserve to know that president Trump, and his advisors, didn’t just ask me to pause. They asked me to reject votes, return votes essentially to overturn the election, and to keep faith with the oath that I made to the American people and to almighty god, I rejected that out of hand, and I did my duty that day.

Okay. I wanna come back to the lawyers. What is your take on what’s going on with Mike Pence? Because that just strikes me as quite a bit more forceful than he’s been before on this.

Yeah. I mean, I suppose one could say he was waiting for the justice department put it on paper so they add a text with which to work.

Yeah.

My view of Mike Pence is that he First of all, I don’t think it was defensible for him to refuse to testify to the January sixth committee. I think his resistance to telling the story that he knows to be true is hard to understand for me. He’s clearly making calculations about his political viability. And yet I honor what he did that day and the fortitude with which he did it. And I respect him more every time he’s willing to talk about it candidly and less every time he is not willing talk about it candidly, which does seem to vary by the day.

He clearly is cooperating with this investigation, including turning over those contemporaneous notes. Which again raised a lot of eyebrows that he obviously knew something was going on and therefore took these contemporaneous notes, which apparently he has shared with, the special counsel on the grand jury. He’s going to be a major witness at this trial, won’t he?

He will. Yes. One thing that he may be calculating is that it is good to be forced.

Yeah.

And he can say I shielded the president’s confidences to the best of my abilities. I didn’t share anything with Congress. And I successfully asserted executive privilege in dealing with the partisan January sixth committee. And when federal prosecutors came, I asserted the speech and debate privileges. I limited what they could talk about, but when ordered ultimately by court to cooperate.

I, of course, did my duty as a citizen. And, you know, I it’s not the path I would chosen, but, I can see the argument for that though I personally find it very frustrating.

Are you currently enjoying the show on the Stitcher app? Then you need to know Stitcher is going away on August twenty ninth. Yep. Going away. As in Kaput, gone dead.

Rest in peace Stitcher, and thanks fifteen years of service to the podcast community. So switch to another podcast app and follow this show there. Apple, Spotify, or wherever you listen.

Introducing Rich Valdez, America at night. Secret Podcast. Welcome to the conversation familiar. A perfect blend of news and entertainment, interviews and insights. It’s really just an expose on how messed up things are.

America’s nighttime town hall whenever you want. It’s a huge problem that deserves a lot more attention. Rich Valdez, America at night. Follow Secret Podcast, wherever you listen.

Okay. So let’s go back to the whole, gaggle of crack pot lawyers, which is his shot. In some ways, that’s also a possible defense, right, for Donald Trump. It’s like, listen. I I was just listening to these guys, and my lawyers were telling me why.

And, you know, it turns out his lawyers were co conspirators with people like Rudy Giuliani and Sydney Powell and, various other wing nuts. But is that a plausible defense? That I was simply relying upon advice of counsel.

So I think it’s his best defense, particularly in combination with, I sincerely believed stuff. Right? So I sincerely believed stuff partly because I was advised by counsel that we could challenge this, that there was lots of fraud, you know, the former mayor of New York, America’s mayor was saying all this stuff. And and I believed him, and he was my lawyer. And, you know, John Eastman is a great famous law professor.

I think that’s his best argument. Here’s why I don’t think it will work. First of all, you know, he had a lot of other lawyers too. And when you’re actively disregarding the advice of counsel, because you prefer the advice of other counsel, because the crackpot Council is saying what you wanna hear, you’re not really following the advice of lawyers. You’re looking out over the crowd and you’re picking your friends.

Right? That’s a tricky thing, especially because the better lawyers that he had were all making the other arguments. Secondly, the justice department was advising him of the reality. Right? And so it’s not just his personal lawyers or the White House Council.

It’s also the institution that he runs, the government is telling him this is nonsense. And then there’s the third problem, which is that he knows that one of these crack pot lawyers is crazy. You could send me Powell. He is told by the other lawyer, Eastman that he’s basically just winging it and he’s aware that Eastman knows that this argument would not prevail. And third, that he gives away, and I think one of the most stunning revelations of the indictment that he says to pence, you’re too honest.

That is an acknowledgement that he knows. At some level, he knows what the actual law is. And so I do think this is his best defense. It’s the one I think in court they will they’re gonna throw a lot of spaghetti at the wall, and you’re gonna see a lot of, you know, pardon me bullshit motions. But when they actually have to defend the case in front of a jury.

The attack on the evidence is going to be, hey, you know, it’s chaotic situation. Some of his lawyers were telling him this, some of them were telling them this, and he, it can’t be a crime to follow lawyer a’s advice instead of lawyer b’s advice. I think that’s gonna be the defense that they use in court. I don’t believe that at the end of the day, you’re gonna convince a DC jury of that.

Speaking of lawyers and his own lawyers released the Department of Justice, Bill Barr gave a rather former attorney general gave a rather remarkable interview to, Caitlin Collins on CNN last night where he said a lot of things, including this. Let’s play this clip from Bill Barr.

He read through the indictment and his behavior in that indictment, and it’s nauseating its despicable behavior, whether it’s criminal or not, someone who engaged in that kind of bullying about a process that is fundamental to our system and to our self government shouldn’t be anywhere near the Oval Office.

Interesting. I I think he’s all out of bleach to give. He also suggested he thinks that Jack Smith has a lot more evidence that the forty five page indictment was kind of spare, and he thinks he’s got a lot more in his back pocket. What do you think?

Let me come back to that. But I wanna say about Bill Barr. This activity, I agree with everything he said. It’s nauseating, and I don’t know that it’s more nauseating than the activity in volume two of the Mueller report that Bill Barr bent over backwards to explain was just because he was upset and was, you know, to make excuses for. And so I’m perplexed by Bill Barr having suddenly discovered that Trump’s nauseating activity is nauseating and criminal.

I will just say to, Bill Barr welcomed to the fight. I’m bewildered by Bill Barr’s behavior through this whole app set of episodes. But one thing Bill Barr is by the way, is a very shrewd lawyer, and he’s correctly reading the indictment as holding back a great deal. It’s become common in this era to talk about speaking indictments. This is a speaking indictment.

In one sense, but it is not a dump everything you’ve got out there to tell a story indictment. It tells the story in a fairly spare way that suggests that, you know, there are mountains and numbers of witnesses available to support specific sentences. So, for example, there are a lot of White House officials campaign officials who are gonna be called to testify. I think it’s paragraph one fifteen where Jack Smith describes a conversation between Kevin McCarthy and Donald Trump. I don’t know how you have that in an indictment unless you’re prepared to call Kevin McCarthy unless it was on speaker phone and somebody else can testify that they were in the room when it was said.

I think if you go through the indictment with the question in your mind, what would they need to have in order to include this sentence and who would be able to testify to it. Because remember, you gotta have a witness in order to get material in the record. Right? So what kind of material do you have and who is gonna testify to it to get it into the record? If you go through the indictment with that question, you realize that we’re talking about a huge number of witnesses, a huge volume of material, And, you know, it’s gonna be a long trial with a lot that we’re gonna learn.

Let’s come back to the trial, but you’re right. There’s there’s some really provocative questions there including the role of Mark Meadows. Mark Meadows is the former chief of staff who is in the middle of everything. It’s not mentioned in this indictment. And we don’t know whether he’s cooperating.

We don’t know what he’s turned over, but that’s a question. And secondly, what about the co conspirators? Let’s talk about that for a moment. Why do you think Jack Smith has not indicted them and do you think that he will?

Well, so the easy quest is whether he will. And the answer to that is, yes. You know, co conspirator indictments are coming. Whether they come in the form of indictments or come in the form of plea agreements is a more complicated quest in. Right?

Whether he flips them.

Yeah. Exactly. So, by the way, this is exactly the opposite of the way Leon Jaworski handled the Watergate indictments. Remember in the Watergate indictments, you had the Halldeman indictment that named, you know, all the president’s men and named Nixon as an unindicted co conspirator, but didn’t indite Nixon. Right?

And they were saving Nixon until after he left office. When, of course, Ford preempted at by pardoning him. Here, you name the president only, and none of the president’s men you list them as unindicted co conspirators. It’s exactly the opposite of what Jaworsky did. I think the reason for it is that there’s a premium on getting the Trump case done.

That’s a great one.

Because of the electoral calendar, because once you go past a certain date. It really does start to look difficult from an electoral calendar point of view. And so getting it done relatively quickly is important. You have lots of time on Jeffrey Clark and John Eastman and Rudy Giuliani. The second reason is If you are a defense lawyer for Jeffrey Clark, you are having a conversation with him yesterday or today that says there is a bone crushing draft indictment related to you you need to have a serious conversation with your soul about whether you wanna be on the receiving end of that indictment or whether you wanna go in and cooperate.

And six defense teams are having those conversations right now with those six co defendants And I don’t know how many of them are going to decide to go in and cooperate, but I’d be actually surprised if the answer were none If the answer is none, there will be a subsequent indictment that, you know, names them all or maybe separate indictments that name them all.

Well, there’s another card out there as well. The Jack Smith flashed last week with the superseding indictment with in Mar a Lago, basically signaling, hey, you know, once I’ve come down with indictments, does not mean that I am done. Does not mean that I cannot add charges or add new information. I think we learned something about the way he goes about doing his business. Didn’t weigh that that this may not be the final word.

And not just involving the co conspirators, but involving Trump himself.

That’s right. I mean, I I do think in this case, there is a speed argument that may, with respect to Trump, militate against adding additional charges. So if you’re Jack Smith and you really wanna bring this case to trial before the election, Keeping things simple is important.

This seems to be the big question now. Is will he be able to bring this to trial before the election? When will there be a trial? How long will it last? You me you mentioned before this is gonna be a long trial.

I think people need to understand that we’re not talking about a few days. How long does the trial of the US versus Donald j Trump go? Presuming that it it goes sometime next year.

I don’t know the answer to that question, but the and it’s certainly weeks. And it may be longer than that. So remember, you have is it seven states six states that are specifically listed as they’re gonna tell a story about what happened in these states. That means you have to call witnesses from each of those states. There is a huge amount of material about what happened in Georgia.

Every single sentence in this requires somebody to testify to speak to. And then you have the Mike Pence, right? There’s, like, five different threads of narrative here. Each of them is gonna require many witnesses to flesh out. This is a complex criminal matter that the government is going to be extremely careful to do right.

And if you, again, comb through this indictment with the question of whom would you need to testify about it? It’s a lot of witnesses.

This could be weeks. This could be weeks or months. Months. So this is only one of the cases against the Donald Trump. I’ve said this before, but I keep getting truck by the fact that, you know, being a criminal defendant is very time consuming, isn’t it?

The calendar becomes very complicated for someone who is running for president at the same time that they are a criminal defendant. The judges have so far not shown much enthusiasm about saying, yeah, you’re too busy to show up answer these felony charges. Not even Eileen Cannon would postpone, the the Mar a Lago document case past the election. So What does Donald Trump’s twenty twenty four look like right now?

So I’ve been trying to map this out in my head. Right. Right now, we have a criminal trial scheduled for March in New York, and another one scheduled for May in Florida. Now let’s assume both of those are movable. The New York trial is not the biggest most complicated litigation in the world, but it’s gonna be time consuming.

You know, the Mar a lago case is not as complicated as this, but will take a lot of time as well. I’m skeptical that the Mar a Lago case will actually go to trial when it’s scheduled. Again, the classified material there is that’s an added complexity. Here, you have It’s a mega complicated case. There’s no classified information.

It’s not obvious to me what would create major delays in this case. So I think, you know, if judge Chuckkin wants to bring it to trial in a timely way, I don’t see why she can’t do it. But once you’re in court presenting this case, it is weeks and weeks of litigation. And then, of course, there’s Bonnie Willis in Georgia. That case hasn’t happened yet.

But I think you could have as many as four trials. In two thousand twenty four. Some of them In

the midst of a presidential campaign.

Right. And these are cases that unlike civil litigation, actually require that the defendant be in the room.

Okay. So he has to show up.

He has to show up.

Really? See, you could have a six week trial. In Washington, DC, where Donald Trump’s presence is required?

Ask yourself this if you were a federal judge. Would you let a criminal defendant in your court absent himself from his own criminal trial. Criminal defendants have to show up for their trials. And remember, you cannot give speeches. Right?

There’s no cameras in these court rooms, which is why, you know, you have these incredible lines to get in.

You don’t think that this will will be televised. A lot of lot of chatter about that. I think it’s highly unlikely.

Not highly unlikely will not happen. Okay. Federal rules do not allow cameras in trial courts.

Should they for this case?

No. Okay. It’s too much capacity for witness intimidation, for intimidation of judges and court officers, There’s a good argument for it in some state proceedings, and I I think it’s a great thing in federal appeals, but trial courts particularly in a situation like this, could you imagine being a witness who maybe was a low level White House staffer or who, you know, somebody who worked at Mar a Lago and took the courageous step of complying with federal law enforcement order. And all of a sudden, you’re gonna spend hours and hours and hours on television so that everybody can threaten you. I think trial court coverage is best left to the written record.

We haven’t talked about the judge yet. It’s very, very interesting in terms of I was I was telling somebody yesterday that, in many ways, this is Donald Trump’s worst nightmare in the sense that he’s got a very, very highly respected Judge, she was, confirmed ninety five to nothing. But it is a black woman immigrant from Jamaica, who has a strong track record of calling bullshit on Donald Trump’s legal arguments and has been a tough sentence or even though she is a former public defender nominated by, Barack Obama. She’s been handing out some stiff sentences in the January six cases. And we certainly know how Donald Trump tries to weaponize attacks against prosecutors who are African American or Jamaican American.

So, I mean, this is gonna be this is going to be lit. But so just talk to me about the judge and her reputation and the way you think that she’s gonna handle this case.

I think she’s a a very interesting draw and a a very interesting sort of reflection of the difference between the DC bench and the South Florida bench. Tanya Chutkin was a public defender for many years in the district on the local side, And in that sense, I think, has a, you know, a sensibility that any criminal defendant would like in a judge. She is a no nonsense judge. However, she, and has, as you say, been one of the tougher sentences in January sixth cases, unlike Aileen Cannon, she has, as all the judges, the district judges in Washington do, a lot of experience with the January six cases. Because they’ve all had, you know, a lot of them.

And so that actually matters for a variety of reasons. The most important in my opinion is just the psychological sense of having, you know, having sentenced a bunch of people for doing what he asked them to do. She is now facing him. And I think that is a really, powerful psychological thing that would act on any judge in this district. She was responsible for a famous case during the Trump administration.

It was involved a detainee on a ship the case was dovey Mattis, and she took absolutely forever to rule on it in a fashion that I thought was you know, inappropriate and a lot of other people did as well. So that gives me a little bit of concern about how she will move the case along since, you know, speed is at a bit of a premium here. But, basically, I think this is a this is a draw that Trump will be very unhappy about. Though she does have a public defender background, and, you know, is certainly not unsolicited of defendants rights and that the government will be pleased about because of her sentencing record in in January sixth cases.

She also though was the judge who, really opened the door for the January sixth committee to get a, trove of evidence. She wrote that famous decision with the line. The president is not the king. And, basically, and and you are not the president. Correct.

In many ways, we wouldn’t be talking about this today if it was not for the January sixth committee, and the January sixth committee might not have been as successful as it was, had it not and for her ruling. So she is certainly no stranger to the issues surrounding this.

That’s exactly right. And, again, that’s part of this larger picture of this bench in DC having a great deal of intimacy with the issues around January sixth in general. And, she is certainly part of that cadre of judges and also one of the judges who, you know, has not. There are judges on that court. I’m thinking of of judge Carl Nichols and Trevor McFadden in particular who have issued some rulings that have caused some consternation among in the justice department, and some of them have required appeals to the DC Circuit.

She is not one of those judges at all. She has, been solidly within the mainstream of the DC district bench, which, you know, unlike the South Florida bench is an extremely high quality group of judges.

Okay. So we are in the first week of August. All indications are that Fannie Will Saletan in Georgia is going to be coming down with charges within the next couple of weeks. What happens next? First of all, do you agree with that?

And then secondly, do you think that she will move head with that case, or will she let Jack Smith go first considering that there’s an overlap in some of the the issues that they’re gonna raise?

Yeah. So first of all, one of the things that this indictment does is it vindicates Fony Willis’s investigation on a series of factual points. So if you read this investigation, Georgia is overrepresented relative to other states. And that’s because Trump was very deeply engaged with Georgia, even beyond the call with Brad Raffensberger. And so the criticism that you’ve heard of Fannie Willis over the last two years has been why is she injecting herself into this?

This is sort of a local secute her on the make. And the answer is when you look at what the justice department has to say about it, she’s interested in it because there are some serious crimes that took place in in in the place that she represents and that she’s responsible for law enforcement in. And so I I think a lot of people do owe Fanny Willis a bit of an apology. And I also think that when she brings her indictment, which is going to be, of course, solely focused on Georgia. People are gonna be surprised at its breadth and the range of activity beyond what’s in the federal indictment that it it covers.

How are we gonna organize for trials I don’t know. I have the sense in my own view that this indictment of Jack Smiths should be the one that moves first and fastest. But that reflects both my own DC centrism and also my sense that January sixth is the most important issue of accountability for Trump. And so you know, this is the case that represents the entire nation on the most important issue. And so If I had the four judges in the room and, you know, was responsible for working with them to create a schedule, I would start with you know, assuming we can get all the motions done and, you know, it’s just a question of scheduling.

Does anybody mind if Tanya Chuckin goes first? But that’s not really how this decision will be made.

There will be no meeting like that.

You know, I do think the judges are gonna have to consult.

Oh, do they? Okay.

But I think Smith is gonna have to decide what he asks for from each of the judges. And then each judge is gonna have decide, you know, the defense is gonna try to throw gum in the works in all four cases at the same time. And then, you know, the judges are gonna have to figure out how to coordinate stuff. I was thinking about this. What was the last high profile case?

This is saying this is gonna get me in trouble, but, who was the last high profile defendant to have simultaneous charges in four different jurisdictions at the same time like this. And the only person I can think of is John Allen Muhammad, the DC sniper who had

—

Okay.

—

Maryland, Virginia, Alabama, I think there were DC Charlie Sykes. And, you know, coordinating that case was a nightmare. Eventually, they let Virginia go first because Virginia had the death penalty and had a faster docket. But it was an a fight between prosecutors in different counties, between different states. The justice department had equities in it.

Because it was an interstate matter. And so I don’t mean to compare Trump to the DC sniper, but I do think you have to reach two cases that weird before you get analogies that, at least I do. If somebody else can think of a different one, that involves four different jurisdictions.

So when anybody says that this is unprecedented, we can always cite this case. Once again, Donald Trump finds himself in very rarified air, I guess. But, Ben Wittis is the editor in chief of Lawfair, senior fellow in governance studies at the brookings institution, and our partner On our weekly, every Thursday, we have the episode of the Trump trials, Ben. What a week We’ll have to see whether we have anything to talk about next week.

Yeah. I have a feeling we’re going to, but either way, Charlie Sykes we will do this all over again.

We we will, and thank you all for listening today. I am Charlie Sykes. Thank you for listening to the Bulwark podcast. We will be back tomorrow. These took my look.

The Bullbrook podcast is produced by Katie Cooper, and engineered and edited by Jason Brown.

Make a little sports analysis, pop culture, and great interviews. And you’ve got the rich Eisenhower Show pod ass.

The jets are bracing themselves into doing hard knocks this year.

Bracing themselves. Look, coaches wanna control the controllables. They don’t want to have a camera crew in the building. You know, I know that they wanna lie low. This is what happens when you go and swing for the fences and get out of Rogers.

Are you kidding me?

The rich Eisenhower Secret Podcast. Wherever you listen.