Hey, guys, ready or not, twenty twenty four is here, and we here at breaking points, are already thinking of ways we can up our game for this critical election.
We rely on our premium subs to expand coverage, upgrade the studio ad staff, give you, guys, the best independent coverage.
That is possible.
If you like what we're all about, it just means the absolute world to have your support. But enough with that, let's get to the show.
So wild day yesterday, part way through the day, they accidentally uploaded what appeared to be charges against Trump to a Georgia County website. Then they took them down and we knew the grand jury was meeting. Witnesses were rushed in, et cetera. Late last night, we finally got the charges handed down and the DA there in Fulton County, Funny Willis gave a press conference announcing some of the details.
Let's take a listen.
Today, based on information developed by that investigation, a Fulton County grand jury returned a true bill of indictment, charging nineteen individuals with violations of Georgia law arising from a criminal conspiracy to overturn the results of the twenty twenty presidential election in this state. The indictment includes forty one felony counts and his ninety seven pages long. Please remember that everyone charged in this bill of indictment is presumed innocent. Specifically,
the indictment brings felony charges against Donald John Trump. Every individual charge in the indictment is charged with one count of violating Georgia's Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act through participation in a criminal enterprise in Fulton County, Georgia and elsewhere to accomplish the illegal goal of allowing Donald J. Trump to seize the presidential term of office beginning on January twentieth, twenty one.
So let's take a look at the actual indictment. This is just the first two cover pages, so you can get a sense there, as Fannie willis indicated. Nineteen individuals charged here. Some of them will be familiar names to you, like the former president Donald Trump, like Rudy Giuliani, like Mark Meadows, like some of the individuals who were also named as co conspirators in Jack Smith's indictment, like Kenneth Cheeseborough.
Others are less well known.
There's an individual who was a stylist for R Kelly, who apparently try to intimidate these women that were accused of committing election fraud completely erroneously. But you see the list of the charges here, and just so people understand the fact that all these charges are listed doesn't mean that all of these people are charged with all of these things. All of them are charged at least with
the RICO, the racketeering charge that Fannie willis indicated. Basically, this is meant to roll up mobsters, and in Georgia they have a very expansive RICO law. According to the analysis I was reading, it's one of the most expansive in the country. Prosecutors love it, defense attorneys despise it, and they made it really broad to roll up, for example,
low level street drug dealers along with kingpins. And so the allegation here is that all of these individuals, plus thirty additional unindicted co conspirators that they say are known to the grand jury, that all of them were part of a criminal conspiracy, a criminal enterprise to overturn the rightful election results in Georgia. To go through specifically what Trump is charged with, because again he's not charged with all of the things that are listed there. He faces
thirteen different charges. Let me just take a moment to
go through them. Number one is violation of that Rego Act that I was just discussing, to solicitation, a violation of oath by public officer, conspiracy to commit impersonating a public officer, conspiracy to commit forgery in the first degree, conspiracy to commit false statements in writings, conspiracy to commit filing false documents, Conspiracy to commit forgery in the first degree, conspiracy to commit false statements in writings, filing false documents,
solicitation of violation of oath by public officer, false statements and writings, another count of solicitation, a violation of oath by public officer, and another's count of false statements and writing. So that's specific to trump their additional charges in here that some of these individuals face, like Sydney pal that have to do with that breach of computer systems that
we discussed yesterday. But ser something that you brought up yesterday, which I think is really important for people to understand. As they get a little bit of like, you know, indictment, they're like a little overwhelmed by all these different indictments part of why this one is significant is because it is state charges. That means if Trump, even if he's elected president, he can't get out of it. He can't pardon himself. The other reason is because there are limits
even if you have a friendly governor in office. In Georgia, there's an expansive time limit in terms of when they are allowed to pardon, even if they have you know a governor there who wants.
To go ahead with that.
And the other piece is, you know Jack Smith, when he was looking at some of these similar alleged crimes, he had to use statutes that haven't traditionally been used in terms of election for an election crimes. Well, states are where they traditionally prosecute election crimes, so they have statutes in the books that are really directly designed for these types of acts.
Let me hammer that home.
Another issue that Trump will run into is that there is similar process in the Rico law in Georgia that you have a minimum of five years to serve in jail if you are convicted of under the Rico statute. I also want to underscore what you said. The law was written, ironically enough, by a lot of Republicans in the nineteen eighties. Basically some tough This is a tough This is basically a lock them up law in order to make it easier for Rico Statutes to apply to
any criminal enterprise, including a gang. It doesn't even require you to all be sitting in the same room deciding to prosecute the same crime. As long as you are all working toward.
The same end.
Even if you did not actually, like specifically talk to each other, you could still be prosecuted under the Rico Statutes. The law as written and as yet to have faced constitutional challenges, had numerous convictions under it, including under the current grand jury. This is a real tough one for Trump. You got a minimum five year sentence. If convicted, you cannot be You cannot be pardoned by a governor. It
actually goes to a board of pardons. As you were saying, there's a They basically wrote it into the law to make it as difficult as possible if convicted by a jury in the state to get out of it. And then also the minimum the minimum prison sentence, and then the fact that there is no novel interpretation of law here.
I actually think the Jacksmith and Diatan is far weaker than this one, because this Georgia indictment is specifically they are the ones who administer their elections in our federalist system. So there are multiple different things here where the federal government doesn't have. The federal government does not have the same novel interpretation. Trump doesn't have actually the same federal protections that he's going to pursue if he does get convicted in the DC Court, that he can bring to
the Supreme Court. Whenever it comes to free speech. This is a much different and frankly, a stronger case. We also have the Atlanta Journal constitutions is to put some of this in plain English one of the things that they write, and this is just to make it easier for people to understand the phone call specifically that Trump made to Georgia officials Brad Rafensberger and Governor Brian Kemp.
Then you have the alternate GOP.
Electors who cast Electoral College votes for Trump December fourteenth, twenty twenty, while the official Democratic electors were casting their votes for Biden. The false testimony given to State House and Senate committees which led to the threats and the harassment of Fulton County poll workers, Ruby Freeman and her daughter Sey Moss, the copying of sensitive Georgia elections data in Coffee County, two hundred miles southef of Atlanta, the day after.
The January sixth, twenty twenty one attack on the Capitol.
So you put those all together and they constitute the actual acts, not just the counts that are listed there against Trump, part of the rico enterprise that they are bringing against him. I will say, just on a political level, because of course, and we have to step back and be like, this is political. It was an extremely odd situation yesterday, Crystal. Whenever this docket got pot with the charges got posted to the Fulton County website, then remove
from the website they claimed it was fake. Not everything that they posted didn't end up being charge. We were trying to figure that out this morning. Very odd considering the fact that the grand jury had not even yet voted. Also, there's a lot being made of and I can't help Alia, I mean, it does look ridiculous. Whenever you were reading said indictment's at nine to nine page indictment, which both
of us were going through extensively this morning. They will list things like Trump tweeted turn on oaan Georgia hearing. This was an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy. To be clear, he's not being criminally charged, but the way that they lay out the case, it's like tweeting to tune into a hearing about what would happened or whatever in Georgia is what they're signing. If you are consuming Fox News or any of the other thing, you are going to be hearing quite a bit about that.
So look, on a political level, it's a real issue for not only Trump, but I mean, we didn't even note this Rudy Giuliani.
Now he's facing two charges. Mark Meadows.
Ironically, Jenna Ellis, who is one of those campaign lawyers, she's actually currently backing DeSantis, which makes it even more helecical. For yeah, she's currently a DeSantis person. So this lady who basically turned on Trump to back DeSantis for the nominations now being charged by the state of Georgia and as being yeah, charge by the state of Georgia.
We're trying to overturn the election on Trump's behalf.
She was the woman who was standing right next to Rudy Giuliani at that infamous press conference but then you have numerous others, as you said, people alleged to have intimidated some of these election workers. I mean, this is going to be, I think, a very difficult case for Trump. And really, I mean Trump probably has the best chance of surviving this because if he does get elected president, then there's a whole other jurisprudence and all that stuff
that kicks in. If you were Rudy or Jennalists or any of these normal other folks like you are looking at actual prison time here, considering the charges, considering how we the burden that you have to reach to be convicted under Rico and Georgia is just not that high. And you know, specifically whenever you were talking about entering false statements for the records like the elector scheme that you know, once again, on a federal level, it takes
a novel interpretation. On a state level, it really doesn't in order to prosecute that charge.
The computer charges too, which again Trump isn't doesn't have those charges, but people like Sidney Poll and others do.
Those are pretty cut and drive too.
You can't get you straight up like you've got access to these.
Voting systems exactly that.
By the way, if Democrats had did that, oh my god, they would be going wild over on Fox News about election fraud. I want to read off so to underscore what you were saying, Cyber. Yeah, if you go through this indictment, which I confess I got probably about halfway through this morning when I woke up, it's chapter and verse of this email was sent, this phone call was made, this meeting occurred, this person said that Trump tweeted X.
It really goes through, step by step by step. Now, those individual pieces are not all charges, but they're all what they considered to be or Whatannie Willis and the grand jury agreed were acts in furtherance of the conspiracy. So this is all sort of like context laying out the scheme. And this is part of why prosecutors love RICO because they can look not just at these individual criminal acts as one offs. They can really paint a whole portrait of all these people that allegedly contributed to
the scheme. And that's what you get if you go through the indictment. I just want, in the interest of you know, you guys having complete information, I want to read off the list of names of all the people nineteen people who were charged here, so you can get a sense of the breadth of this indictment. Of course, you've got Trump Rudy Giuliani, John Eastman, who is the
lawyer who's also implicated in Jack Smith's indictment. Mark Meadow's former White House Chief of staff Kenneth Cheesebrow, also part of that Jack Smith indictment. Jeffrey Clark, former ex assistant Attorney General. Another one who was in the Jack Smith indictment, Jenna Ellis asager was just mentioning Ray Smith. Third or I don't even know who apparently is also a lawyer, Bob Cheeley. Another lawyer I don't know, Michael Roman, a GOP strategist, David Schaeffer.
You've got some local Georgia officials here.
He was the Georgia GOP party chair, Sean Still, a state senator, Stephen Cliff guard Lee who was a pastor in Illinois, Harrison Floyd Black voices for Trump leader Trevian Cutty, the publicist. That's the one I alluded to before as like connections to r Kelly and also to Yay who was trying to intimidate and coerce these election workers. Sidney Pale, Kathy Latham, she's the one who was the former Coffee County GOP chair that's where that alleged breach of computer
systems occurred. Scott Hall, who's a bail bondsman. And Misty Hampton another former Coffee County this one elections supervisor who we discussed yesterday who appears to have been the individual, based on some recordings that they have from Coffee County who invited some of the Trump folks in in order to allegedly illegally breach these computer systems. So in addition to that, there are thirty more people who they describe
as unindicted co conspirators. So, you know, it really is to me there are a couple of things that jump out soccer. First of all, you know, I don't give the Trump team a lot of credit for like competence and organization, but there was clearly a very widespread, organized effort in order to achieve this, an attempt to you know, institute the fake electors and pressure campaign happening at every level, not just the Brad Roethlisberger call that we're all familiar with.
That's number one.
Number two, I gotta say the part that is almost most calling to me is the way they treated those two election workers, the mother and daughter. And this was really Rudy Giuliani specifically, but all of Trump was apparently obsessed with this as well. There's this clip of them floating around. They're election workers. Election workers are like out there. Don't have time, do they have volunteered, They don't get paid. This is like a public service. I really appreciate the
work these people do. They were there late at night counting and one of them smother and daughter hands a mint to the other one. Well Republican got video of this and alleged rue Giuliani leading the way that they were sharing us b's back and forth and said they looked like drug dealers, passing vials of cocaine or crack or something like heroin, I don't know, back and forth
and this just total and complete lie. And then this character, this r Kelly Ye publicist character, apparently tricked one of them to meeting up with him and then tried to coerce them into confessing to crimes they didn't. It's just complete insanity, and these women's lives have been destroyed because of the scrutiny that they've gotten and the threats that
have come at them. So the ordinary people that got caught up in this and the way that their lives were impact, which was almost the most galling part of it for me.
And don't forget that Rudy ended up in terms of having to apologize or to admit that in the story he's.
Being sued for defamation, and he admitted that he lied about this and that it was not true. Now he still claims his only defense is like, oh, you weren't actually harmed by it, Okay, okay, right.
But the actual allegation because I still see the crap I said this yesterday.
I mean I see this stuff literally going everywhere. Even today.
You can go and search on Twitter like Fulton County videos, and they're still focusing on these people claiming that it is some sort of widespread fraud.
I have to come back to this.
It's like you lost every single suit in court, every audit, not a single thing ever turned up anything. It's like, when are you ever going to give up on this idea? But the truth is is that it's all fake. And you know they'll point to insinuations, which I admit, you know they do sound crazy, like, what was the pipes burst and they have to stop counting in the middle of the night, even if you go back and you want to roll the tape.
I even said at that time, I was like, what the hell is going on in here?
I agree, I think it's crazy, but that doesn't mean that it means it doesn't mean that they've been able to prove any sort of widespread fraud as a result of that.
The reality is, when you have an election that's taking place and how many tons of thousands of jurisdictions across the country, you're going to have some anomalist things occur that people that can then point to and be like, aha, there's the conspiracy. Really, you know, the odds of having an election where there aren't weird you know, pipe breaks in some office or whatever would be close to zero because things just happen.
And I would be open to I'm like, okay, prove it then you know what are you pointing to?
But literally all they can ever come back to.
Is like, oh, well, like this happened, and then eventually it's like the state was close. I'm like, yeah, it's been a close state. Guess what. It also happened again? It's not actually not a novel phenomenon. Two Democrats won state in the special election months later, and then.
What happened in twenty twenty two.
Look at some of that, and then people like Brian Kemp and all of them actually won re election. So clearly there is a genuine organic constituency. It's not actually a mystery. So look, I mean, you know, Trump at the funniest thing is like, with all this effort, if he had just said, yeah, go mail in your votes, he would have won Georgia and he probably would have been president anyway. But it's his own damn fault, you know,
in the beginning. And then really, you know, a lot of these people who worked on his behalf his aids, you know, and all of.
Them they don't have executive privilege.
They don't have the same constitutional protections that the President of the United States have. And a lot of these people are facing some serious jail time even if they do take a plea deal because of the minimum sentencing requirements that the judge has to buy George Law abide by should this ever come to that. So regardless, like this is going to be a serious problem I think for many of the people involved.
To give you the Trump side of things, his campaign put on a statement they said, among other things, you know, they go through chapter and verse of the Jack Smith charges and the Alvin Bragg charges. They describe Fanny Willis as a rabid partisan who was campaigning fundraising on a platform of prosecuting President Trump through these bogus indictments.
They go on to.
Say they could have brought these charges two and a half years ago, that they chose to do this for election interference reasons in the middle of President Trump's successful campaign. They go on to talk about free speech. They're taking away President Trump's First Amendment right to free speech and the right to challenge. Are rigged and stole an election that Democrats do all the time. The ones who should
be prosecuted are the ones who created the corruption. Let's also take a listen to Senator Lindsay Graham, of course, has been an ally of Trump's in all of this, defending him on Fox News.
Listake, listen.
He's spending more money on lawyer fees than he is running for office. January the sixth, I was there.
I saw it. He was impeached over it.
The American people can decide whether they want him to be president or not. This should be decided at the ballot box, not a bunch of liberal jurisdictions trying to put the man in jail. They're weaponizing the law in this country. They're trying to take Donald Trump down, and this is setting a bad president.
I think this is probably their best political argument in case that Lindsay Graham is making there. It's one that a lot of Americans agree with. They have qualms with the timing. They do feel like the prosecutions are political. The issue with this particular set of indictments is, unlike the others, the political case doesn't really matter this one. They're going to have to really make a legal case. And we're going to bring an expert in. He can tell us wrong if we're getting this, you know, if
we're off based on this. But I think he's got a pretty tough uphill climb in terms of making a legal case on these particular charges and soccer. The last thing that I will say on all of this, and then we'll bring in Bradley Moss, is one other way that this is different is these this trial is going to be on TV. Yes, So in terms of the federal trials are unlikely to be on television. We're just going to get the reports of whatever is happening in the courtroom. This one is going to be a made
for TV event. It is going to be the Trump Show. You know, we're used to presidential campaigns where you got debates and rallies and that's the focus of attention. This right here is what a lot of the campaign is going to be focused around.
And it's going to.
Be because he's a stay charges. He can't pardon himself. He's going to have to actually prove in the courtroom. And I think it's going to be pretty tough.
Yeah, and it's going well. At least we'll all get in a nice, good TV show about it. Let's go ahead to Bradley Moss. We've got him on standby. Let's get to it.
Very pleased to be joined now by Bradley Moss. He of course is a national security lawyer, has helped us out on a variety of these indictments.
Great to have you, Bradley.
Good she brod absolutely anytime.
Yeah, absolutely so.
Just give us your first reactions as you read through this indictment. Took a look at all the charges against Trump, and his eighteen co conspirators.
Here was this what you expected? What were some of your big takeaways?
Yeah, first reaction, Wow, this was everyone and anyone tied up in the Trump schemes in the later weeks of twenty twenty and going in past his departure from office, leading up into twenty s point when we were still pressuring the Georgia officials to decertify the election. Somehow this was the entire scheme of all the different lawyers he managed to co opt into pushing these various criminal acts.
He's got Sidney Powell and her squad, you know, breaking into.
The Coffee County, you know, state's election systems and taking ballot He's got Rudy Giuliani going before the state legislators and talking to the Georgia state officials, pushing these what he knew to be false claims about dead bodies pen people voting, and all these missing ballots and the Ruby Freeman nonsense that Rudy Giuliani is facing a several separate defamation and lawsuit over.
He got Johnny's Been, he got Jeffrey Clark.
They're all tied up in this, and it's put in the context of Rico because it was one overarching criminal conspiracy. There were different people playing different roles, but under Rico, they were all pushing towards one court, one core common goal, which was to overturn the election, to reverse the results what the American people, in their decision and their logic, chose to do, which was to elect Joe Biden. And
Donald Trump could not accept that. He was willing to look for anyone willing to push any garbage he could to prevent that from happening. And now he and all of them are going to be co defendants at least for the moment in this proceeding.
So, Brad, I want to ask you something that we got into a little bit last time, which is if we want to we've gone and described the charges. Now you've done a good job here, What possible avenues of defense does Trump have here?
Because this seems difficult.
Last time we talked about free speech, but that's whenever it's a federal context.
This is actual state election law.
So reading the indictment, what avenues defense does Trump himself and even some of his alleged co conspirators. What do they have against the charges that have been levied against them?
Some of the defenses will be similar to what we're going to see Donald Trump bring at the federal level. One of them is obviously going to be that free speech angle we've talked about. He'll have both, you know, a First Amendment right out of the US Constitution. He will have his free speech rights under the Georgia State Constitution.
And there is the course, the intent element, whether or not the DA Vannie Willis is able to prove the various individuals intent that they knew these statements were false, that Rudy Giuliani and Jenna Allis knew their factual allegations that they were presenting to the state legislator, that they we're preventing as are presenting to the Secretary of State were in fact false.
That's going to be a factual burden she'll have to meet.
But if you readro the indictment, and we've seen some of this from the January sixth committee, we've seen some of this do Jack Smith's speaking indictment. We have extensive documents the documentation already showing how much these individuals knew these facts were false. They went hunting for anyone who would tell them. Sure, you can make it but the facts they knew were not accurate.
They knew they didn't have verification.
We have Rudy Giuliani saying we have lots of theories, no evidence. We have John Eastman an emails saying the complaint that Donald Trump spot to sign with these allegations. Those allegations are false, and Donald Trump's been told they are false. They put it down in writing, so we know that they can meet that intent element. But that's going to be an element of their defense. They're going to try to poke holes in it. What I'm looking for who starts making plea deals. We know some of
these people are on the peripheral side of it. You know, think of Jenna Alis as the least exposure. For example, Johnny ss Ben Jeff Clark had far more exposure on the federal side. Look for them to start making plea deals to try to get this off the table and to cooperate to bring down the bigger fish, which is Rudy Giuliani, Sidney Powell, and Donald Trump.
Got it.
So I have a bunch of potentially stupid questions, But let me We've got you socially. Let me just ask you, so, first of all, on the free speech part. Even when it comes to Trump's call with Brad Raffensberger, can't they argue, you know, this is just this is political speech, this is free speech, and this is one of the pieces that you know, that's a component of this indictment.
And the indictment goes through chapter and verse of you.
Know, Trump's tweets, which certainly seem like they would be political speech, and emails that were sent, and phone calls that were made, and think comments that were made of press conferences, et cetera.
So where's the line between these are.
You know, things that the president is allowed to say and things that are actually part of a criminal conspiracy.
Yes, so it's not a dumb question. It's a very good question.
It's certainly going to be raised in pre trial motions, both in Georgia and in the federal case. The distinction, according to the Supreme Court in recent years, is that free speech only goes so far until you are seeking or commanding someone to themselves engaged in a criminal act.
That's what's being outlined here. For example, with the January second call that he was trying to get Raffisberger to do something Raffensberger could not do, and that Trump was relying on information he knew to be false in order to get Raffensberger to do it. Raffenisberger didn't have the authority to decertify the election. He didn't have the authority to throw out those votes or to just declare Trump the winner. Same thing goes with his conversations with Jeff Clark.
He just wanted Jeff Clark to send this letter to the Georgia officials saying the Just Department has concluded there were irregularities, so go call a special session. They knew they had just been told by the other White House lawyers and by the DJ lawyers. None of that's true. We found no such thing, but they were going to try to ask the Georgia officials to do it.
Anyways. That's where the distinction comes.
You can use free speech to do a lot of things in this country, but you can't use it as a means to further a criminal conspiracy or to seek other criminal acts to.
Be done for you.
One of the things I'm really hearing from you is that they have to prove, basically beyond reasonable doubt that he knew that these things were false when he was doing them, and not just Trump, but almost all of the co conspirators. Given you know, we've gone through some of the evidence you laid out here about some of the things that we're in writing, is do you think that that is going to be enough?
Like?
Will they have to be able to prove what counter case can Trump make to that? No, I didn't believe that, or like that was alleged to me. But that, like trying to prove somebody's state of mind, seems like a very difficult task and able to be undermined by reasonable doubts. So, like, to what burden do they have to rise to in order to prove it?
Sure?
So, proving intent is always a difficult thing prosecutors have to deal with every day because by and large, you never truly know what's in someone's mind.
But let's be clear, you.
Can't use delusion as a defense. You can't say I'm at deranged maniac. I always believe that you know the water is blue, because that's what you know Elex Jones put in it or someone you have to have some basis for it, and they can provide to a journy. The jury can infer based off various circumstantial evidence from witnesses, from documentation, from emails, from texts, from any number of witness testimony, what the person's actual state of mind was.
And that's going to be.
Very critical when it comes to Trump and Rudy and Sidney Powell and people like that.
What they were told.
Donald Trump was told by everybody and their mother there was no fraud. Everyone from the government told him it didn't happen. Everyone from his campaign told him it didn't happen. So in private, lawyers told him it didn't happen. So he just kept seeking out someone who would say, I can make an argument. They didn't have proof, but they could, you know, throw out some crazy argument. Sidney Powell's lunatic affidavids, which got her sanctioned by the way for using that garbage.
Those were what he was relying on. That's not going to be enough.
Okay, okay, brat, How will this trial actually work?
This again falls in the category of, you know, potentially stupid questions. Are they all part of the same trial? Do they share a legal defense? Like, how do all of these nineteen indicted individuals, how do they relate and link up as this process moves forward?
Sure?
So?
Right now, because this was brought under the Georgia State rico. They're all in one big case. There's going to be one massive defense table with all the each defendant.
And their lawyers, and there's going to be the government on the other side.
It's going to be like you think of when they went after mob bosses and they're all there underlings. When you see a gain trial, which Funni Wils has done several of those, as well as when they went after state educators in Georgia who were inflating scores and they about eleven of them got indicted and convicted for that, it.
Would be one big trial.
Now individuals, individual defendants might try to sever themselves. I would certainly look for that to be something. You'll also have to wonder at what point, like I said before, when would people start making clee deals.
When are some of the people on the.
Periphery who don't have endless resources and you know roups who are willing to keep sending them money to fight the man, When are they going to cut deals because they can't afford the lawyers. And so that's going to be what kind of shrinks down the pool. But in the end, I wouldn't be surprised we get the trial, it's Donald Trump and maybe seven or eight other people with him at that defense table facing this prosecution.
Wow.
Sure.
The other thing I'm trying to, you know, quick become a RICO expert here, as I'm sure many other commentators are. How walk me through how this works legally because I'm still having a little bit of trouble wrapping my head around it. So, each one of these nineteen individuals is charged under the Rico statute, and then they all have additional charges. Trump has, you know, thirteen charges total, and they have different number depending on who they were and what their involvement were.
So to prove if you just prove.
That they're part of the criminal conspiracy, they're part of you know, the criminal organization and the criminal conspiracy, but you don't prove those other specific charges. Do they still you know, are they still guilty?
Like?
How does that all work out?
Because I'm having trouble kind of wrapping my head around exactly the mechanics of this.
Yes, So RICO is based a glorified conspiracy statue. It requires that you obviously still be separately charged with at least I believe two other crimes under state law in terms of the Georgia State Rico statue. So if they were to be found not guilty on the underlying offenses,
then their Georgia Rico charge would also fail. But the reason to use Rico is when you have these different components of a larger criminals can scheme all the larger criminal scheme all going towards one common goal, and you can bring it all into one giant case. That's why it was originally created in the seventies and eighties, to go after the mob, to bring down the families, bring down the top bosses.
It's been used.
Against gang members, it's been used against any number of what it can be considered criminal enterprises.
And that's why it's going to be used here.
And that's the biggest problem for Donald Trump is he's caught up with all the people he co.
Opted to engage in this behavior and he's.
Stuck with them.
Well, we always appreciate your analysis, Brad, I always bring it. So we appreciate you joining us this morning, and it's been very helpful.
Absolutely anytime.
Thanks bad I'll see you guys later.
M