United States of Injustice

and every day. I got to tell you, since Trump left office, I have gone to these places waiting waiting for the fucking headline that says that Donald Trump and all of his criminal assists are being indicted, that they're

actually going to be criminally charged. Do you know that Donald Trump has been sued a major multiple times, investigated multiple times, he had if you remember, Trump University was shut down by Attorney general State Attorney General Letitia James here in New York, who is now running for governor. And yet every day that I wait for this breaking news,

I wait for these headlines, they never come. So last week we had an announcement from the Manhattan District Attorney's office that they were going to be in paneling a second grand jury right to investigate Trump. Now, what you will learn from my conversation with our friend Glenn Kirshner is at sivance. The prior Manhattan District attorney had him

paneled a jury for six months. We've talked about that on woke AF and I believed, or at least I hoped, during that six months that we were going to see a barrage of fucking indictments. Now, while I guess we can feel encouraged ish that there is a second grand jury that is going to be in operation because there's just so much information to go through, I just wonder, this is my real question, folks, how much information, how much evidence is required to indict a wealthy white man

in America? Because let's just be fucking honest. As we are watching these insurrectionist cases, as we are watching the Kyle Rittenhouse case, as we are seeing all of this transpire, what it proves right in this country is that black lives really do not matter at the only people BIPOC lives, Black Indigenous people of color BIPOC lives don't fucking matter.

Low income lives right do not matter that the only thing that matters in America is the one currency that none of us, right who were not born white can use, which is your whiteness. And then you add your maleness your wealth on top of that, and you're in a league all of your own. You're in a league that the system was built to protect. Right, we have to understand sometimes and really get back to the there there that these systems that we have just understood as our norms, right,

as understood as the ways to keep us safe. Like the lie that we tell ourselves about police officers right in their presence and the fact that you know the police are there to keep us safe, and that the only reason why crime goes up or crime goes down is because of police presence, which is a lie. Right we say this. There are reports and documentation to the contrary that say that more police does not equal more safety. But you see Democrats get caught up in their desire

to seem tough on crime. That's how we got the fucking crime bill that put generations of black people and brown people in prison. Right, That's where we got maximum minimum sentences from is because Democrats, after being told by the Republicans that they were soft on crime that they came out with this robust people. Hey, we're going to lock up more black and brown people than you could ever do. Right, will show you realizing that they're all

functioning on the same foundation of white supremacy. Right, So here we have a po I love evidence, I mean the evidence against Steve Bannon, Donald Trump, Mark Meadows in their own fucking words. Right, let's just look at the pandemic first, right, which, by the way, nobody is on

trial for in this country. We talked about the Brazilian president Bulcinato, right, and the fact that his Senate wants to investigate him and bring criminal charges because of the neglect that led to the hundreds of thousands of deaths

in Brazil due to COVID. But there's no one in these United States that are looking into bringing charges right of criminal negligence right against Donald Trump and the Trump administration for what he told Bob Woodward and in fact, the world after we listened to the audio transcript that he fucking knew about the coronavirus, knew how deadly it was, right, knew that it was more deadly than the flu, knew how it could be contracted and then even after expressly

saying that in his own fucking words, that motherfucker isn't on trial, right, no one has even brought it up, because I honestly believe that Democrats and Republicans want to just turn the fucking page whatever that means. You know, they want to turn the page on Trump, and oh, well, you know it's because Terry mcculliffe talked about Trump, which is why he lost in Virginia. No, Terry mcculliffe lost in Virginia because Democrats don't have any fucking policy to

stand on. Terry mcculliffe lost in Virginia because he ran a lackluster, uninspiring campaign, because he was a lackluster, uninspiring candidate. So they make up these excuses in their head, like, oh, no, we can't talk about these very important issues that have to do with the security of our democracy or the security of our people, right because that would be seen as political. Well, in my conversation with Glenn, Glenn makes a really good point, do you know what is also political?

Having a stack of fucking evidence in front of you that you refuse to actually look at, that you refuse to do your part in upholding the law right and really securing faith in our criminal justice system knowing that it is an unjust system by going after people regardless of what the fallout would be, because you see, what Glenn Will tell us is that there is really no difference right now between how this current Department of Justice is acting right or their inaction, and then the actions

that were taken in the Bar Department of Justice. You see, they were both being political. Barr was playing the wolf and the clean up guy for Donald Trump's criminality and using the Department of Justice as an extension of the Trump campaign of the Trump administration. Well, Merrick Garland's refusal to act right now given all of the shit in front of him because of whatever we want to call it, prosecutor prosecutorial timidity, or just playing bullshit and fear is

also political. Being inactive in the pursuit of justice because you're worried about what other people, what the other party is going to say about you, doesn't make you any less political than a Bill Barr, who used the full power of the same agency in order to protect a mob fucking boss that was elected president of the United States.

So my feeling here is that once again we see over and over and over and over and over again that so long as you're white, so long as you are male and wealthy and powerful and connected, you're safe. You're good. Right, Because let me tell you how little evidence would have been needed to throw a black Stephen Bannon in jail. Let me tell you how little evidence Republicans would have needed if Obama right had done a

quarter of the things that Donald Trump had done. Like, let us all take the mind trip right back to the end of Bill Clinton's presidency, where he was impeached for a blowjob. Right, that blowjob didn't in danger the American people, It didn't kill four hundred thousand people, It didn't put us in precarious situations. It didn't endear our long sworn enemies. Right, it didn't do anything except make us think like, oh, well, I guess the President of

the United States really is a human being and is fallible. Right, That's what it made me think. Because you had a political party at one time that always wanted to claim the fucking moral high ground. But they can't do that anymore because of who they associate themselves with. But because Democrats don't provide any messaging to the contrary, they're still able to pretend to perform morality. But here's the thing.

We know that Donald Trump is a criminal, But what I recognize is that the only time that we ever in this country throw the book at somebody, want to stomp them into the ground and want to put them under the jail, is if they are black and brown and poor, then we're going to do everything in our power. Right. Then we can kick indoors, we can pull you out, right, we can parade you in front of the press, right, we can throw red meat, we can make all of

the headlines, but we never do that. You know, one of the insurrectionists, and I can't even be troubled to remember the woman's name at the time, but she had posted on social media that after the insurrection, she's like, I'm not going to jail. None of us are going to jail, right, because she knew that her whiteness, right and apparently her white woman's tears, We're going to protect her because why should she ever think otherwise. Now she

is in fact going to jail, right. But the way that we are handling this insurrection with kid gloves, the way that we are and everybody wants to say, oh, well, we just want to get things right. But it's so funny to me how it's we can move with the speed of light to lock black and brown people up, because that's where this country believes that black and brown people belong. Right. But we got to be super duper sure.

We gotta dot our eyes and cross all of our teas, and underline our words and use highlighters and make absolutely sure that we would never unjustly send a white woman, a white person to prison, even though they tell us via social media, they tell us via their own conversations with reporters on podcasts just how fucking criminal they are. But oh, we don't know what's in their heart. We

need more evidence. If the past year hasn't shown you how unjust our criminal justice system is, how unbalanced it is, how it is fixed and rigged. You want to talk about a system that is rigged, It's not elections, No, it's our criminal justice system. Right. There are stories left and right about innocent black people being in jail, not being able to afford a lawyer. The Caliph Browder story of being in Rikers for three years, beaten, abused, right

for thought that he stole a backpack. There was no fucking evidence, but he sat in Rikers for three years. We have all the evidence in the world against Steve Bannon, Mark Meadows, Donald Trump, Don McGann, all of them, Loui de Joy, but we're waiting for what some fucking magic unicorn. What I want people to see if nothing else, is that the reason why folks march, the reason why they protest, the reason why they get to a place in a state where they just want to burn shit down literally

is because of this. Because as a person of color, you feel like you were screaming into a fucking void every single day, waiting for a white person to pay attention, waiting for somebody to be like, oh you know what racism does exist? Do you know what it is? Actually in every part of every system, every agency, every aspect

of your every day. It is so fucking exhausting to do this, to have these conversations all the goddamn time, and people like on Twitter, they will still say, oh, well that's not the case, that's not true, And I'm like, fuck you, go follow somebody else, go spread your bullshit

somewhere else, because I'm not buying it. Because we can all see those of us with real, like thought, real brains in our heads that haven't had a lobotomy by this cultish white supremacist party know exactly what is happening here or what is not happening. And it's infuriating because if you are not mad, right, if your blood does not boil right now, then you are not paying attention.

But I know that you guys are the wokes of the woke, and what I ask is that you share these sentiments everywhere and anywhere, because it is going to be the power of the people that is going to get things done, if at all, because we shore as fuck cannot rely on agencies on our government to do what is necessary because they're too busy pandering, right, They're

too busy performing outrage instead of actually being outraged. Coming up next, dear friends, is my conversation with our favorite former federal prosecutor and yours, Glenn Kershner, will be up next. I am so excited because there's been some news, some actual movement, right. I don't know if it's good news.

I don't know if it's bad news. And to help us break it down all the legal news, as we do every single week, is our friend MSNBC legal analyst and contributor and host of Justice Matters, Glenn Kirshner Glenn, Okay, So we've had an election, we have a new Manhattan DA here, and my hope was that they were going to pick off, pick up where side Vance has left off. Announcement came out this week saying that the Manhattan District Attorney's off is seeking a second grand jury looking into

Donald Trump, the Trump organization. Is this a good thing or a bad thing, because, as our friend Ellie Mstall has said recently, he goes, you know, Ken Star called a called the grand jury for one thing and ended up with a dress. So how is it that we are having to call in a second grand jury here? And what does that mean? So I think the most accurate answer is we don't know, right, because there are a number of reasons to call in a second grand jury. So let me just kind of break down the grand

jury practice. Generally, in some jurisdictions, jurisdictions, grand juries only sit for about four to six weeks, and I think that's the ordinary practice in New York. So we all sat up and took note when sie Vance requested a special grand jury to sit for six months. What that tells me is he wanted consistency with the same grand jurs over a six month period so he could present the Trump organization case to them, the Weisselburg case to them,

perhaps the Donald Trump case to them. Well, we got two out of the three, right, We got the organization indicted, we got Weisselberg indicted. And now there are a couple of things going on. One, that six month grand jury is coming to the end of its term. The logical thing to do, if you were engaged in the exact same investigation with the same scope and the same targets, would be to request and extension of that same grand jury. That's not what they're doing. They're requesting a separate new

grand jury. Now they could be doing that for a couple of reasons. It could simply be procedural. The six month grand jury, let me tell you, it's an imposition. When we bring citizens in to spend six months of their lives sitting as grand juris. It may be that they're they're worn out, and they now need to impanel

a new batch of grand jurors. The other possibility is that sometimes when you investigate in a grand jury, you end up presenting them a lot of information that ultimately you're not going to use to ask them to vote out indictments, and you don't want to taint the indictment, so you impanel a second grand jury. You only present to them the information you want them to have available to vote on indictments. That way, you can't be accused of sort of poisoning the well when that ultimate indictment

is returned. Let me maybe a parallel in trial practice. All the time, we have people blurt stuff out that's inadmissible in front of the jury. What does the judge do? Ladies and gentlemen, I'm instructing you to strike that from your mind. It may play no role in your deliberations. It was inadmissible information, and we assume the jurors follow

the judge's instructions. Well, there really is no comparable protection in the grand jury when a whole bunch of information and evidence comes out that we as prosecutors ultimately don't want the grand jury to consider when they're voting out indictments. So it could be procedural, it could be substitutive, it could be a combination of the two. We don't know what we don't know, so we're just trying to read

t leaves at this point. So let me ask you some rudimentary questions, right for those of us who are not lawyers but like to play them on TV. So let me ask you this. When you have when Civans had this first grand jury that was sitting for six months, are we starting from scratch with the second grand jury?

Because you have all of this information, all of this investigation that has happened over this time with this group of what twelve people I'm assuming right, and the jurors usually have about twenty three, okay people, and they and they twelve of them have to vote in favor of an indictment. Okay, So we have these twenty three people

that now have this six month wealth of knowledge. What happens with that versus this new batch of twenty three, you know, randomly selected people that are now going to sit like this is the I'm interested in understanding the continuity of how one puts together a case of this

scope with this many people. Great question, Danielle. That's one of the reasons federal grand juries sit for about eighteen months at a time, maybe a couple of days a week, and then we can extend that grand jury until our investigation is complete and we can ask for final indictments to be returned. But in the state system, when you've got grand juries for you know, six weeks in a climate, it's always a new batch of people coming in. How

do we achieve continuity? Here's how. Let's assume that this six month grand jury is just worn out and they need to impanel a new group of people. What prosecutors will do is they will take the transcripts from the prior grand jury that's at for six months and heard maybe two hundred witnesses. They will present them to the second grand jury, often in summarized fashion, or they won't

present them at all. Maybe a hundred of those witnesses really didn't add much of substance to the indictment mix, so there's no need to represent that information. So there are ways to represent information, even in summarized form, to the incoming grand jury, to bring them up to speed quickly, so you don't have to end up starting over from scraps. Oh okay, okay, So this makes more sense to me and is more clarifying. Now talk to us just for

folks again, because I find this all very interesting. You know, many of us have gone through what it would be like to be on a regular jury. Right, we go in for every duty, you're selected, you're not selected. In part of the Washington Post um coverage of this of this m second grand jury coming on, they're telling us that these folks will be coming in three days a week, um over the next you know, several several weeks. What

is it? What are some of the differences that we understand between what many of us have been called into to under you know, a regular I'll just call it a regular jury selection versus a grand jury of this scope. And are these people because they're not being sequestered right like there, it's not like the movie Runaway Jury, which is one of my favorites. It's not like you're being sequestered away from family and friends for months. You're going home and you're kind of going into this part time

job three days a week. So how does that play out for the for these people? So? Um, yeah, we have much more control over trial juries because the judge instructs them that, you know, listen, under the penalties of contempt, you are required to follow the court's instructions like you may not discuss this case while it is ongoing. Until it's concluded. You can't discuss it with anybody, not your friends,

not your family. Why because if you go home and you exchange ideas and information about the evidence, you're going to bring their ideas and their perspectives into the case. And that's improper because they're not sitting there listening to the evidence. So we try to replicate that in the grand jury because remember, the grand jury is an arm of the court, it's not the arm of the prosecutor.

So when grand jurors are in processed after the court you know, brings them in for grand jury service, they do get all of the standard instructions, many that are that are the same as the instructions we give to

trial jury. So you know, they understand that they are not to speak about the investigation outside the four walls of the grand jury room because it's a secret proceeding by law for lots of good reasons, but it is a little bit less controlled, so we often have to rely on the you know, the good sense and the ethics of the grand jurors. I will tell you, after thirty years of going in and out of grand jury rooms. My take is that grand jurors take their responsibilities very seriously.

Every once in a while there is a breach. Information leaks out, and then we have to investigate did it come from a grand jur because that could be a prosecutable offense if a grand jury, If a grand jury leaked information, so it's a pretty serious affair, but it's far less controlled or controllable then a trial jury is. So because there's no judge in the grand jury. It's just the grand jurors, the prosecutor, the witness, and a

court reporter taking everything down. It really is our responsibility as the prosecutors to not only present the case fully and fairly and honestly to the grand jury, but and this is going to sound perhaps incongruous to use a big word, but we are also the legal advisors to

the grand jurors. So, for example, if I'm asking a grand jury to return a first degree premeditated murder indictment, I am also responsible for explaining the elements of the offense, explaining the law, explaining any self defense angle that may have arisen during the course of the grand jury presentation. I have to do that honestly, and you know, we're kind of left to the goodwill and the good ethics of the prosecutors to make sure they fulfill all of

those responsibilities. So let me let's switch gears for a moment, because you know I am one of ye of little patience. Right, Let's let me be clear that since you know, the election, I have just been waiting with bated breath, as we have for the past two almost two years that we have been talking for the parade, you know what I'm

talking about, the indictment parade. So Donald Trump has been investigated at this point, has been investigated hundreds of times right in New York alone, and nothing has ever happened. You know, he's a criminal. I know he's a criminal. We know he surrounds himself with himself with criminals. Why

why have we seen nothing yet? Why are we still in what I will refer to Glenn as the fact finding stage instead of moving this forward, and you know, subpoenas, indictments coming left and right, like is it because he's the president, is because he's a rich white man in America? Both of those things can be true at the same time. But why is this taking forever? In a day the only explaination I have is that we are suffering from the curse of prosecutorial timidity. Nobody wants to be the

first prosecutor to charge a former president criminally. I predict Danielle, everybody is going to want to be the second prosecutor to charge Donald Trump, because then they will not suffer all of the criticism and that white hot glare of you know, every camera and every journalist focusing on who the first prosecutor is, the first prosecutor's office to charge criminally a former president. Prosecutors can be overly timid. I've seen it federally, I've seen it locally. Nobody ever accused

me of that. Maybe, you know, maybe I'm a little too aggressive in the eyes of some. But my responsibility is if that I have evidence of probable cause that a crime has been committed, and I have enough evidence to identify the perpetrator, and especially if public safety is at risk, I have a duty to the people. I took a sworn oath. It's my job to hold the perpetrator accountable if I can honestly in accordance with the

evidence and protect the community in the process. America is not being protected, No, quite the opposite, Donald Trump is out there recruiting his second batch of insurrectionists. Think about this, Danielle, the message that is being sent by a Department of Justice that at this moment is falling down on the job. I still believe we're going to see federal indictments and state indictments, but the walls have kind of stopped closing in, and they need to start creeping in again toward that

parade that you talked about. But think about this. If you are tomorrow's dictator, you're an aspiring autocrat. You now have a precedent. Here's what the precedent is. Let's see.

I can try to overthrow our democracy and do it with a group of thousands and thousands of angry insurrectionists that I tell to go attack the capital, Go stop what's going on in the capitol, go overturn the elections results, and I will either succeed and then I'm the autocrat, and then I have no need for coequal branches of government. I have no need for journalisms that criticize me. I'll be taking care of all that. Or if I fail in my attempt to overthrow the government, what will I face.

Let's see, I'll get another eight months, ten months, a year, maybe more, to amass a second army of insurrectionists and do it all over again. That is the message that the Department of Justice has sent to the next aspiring dictator, and that is why we are kind of hanging by a thread as a democracy. I still think we're going to get there, but we should have gotten there six, eight,

ten months ago. You know, one of the questions that has been asked on Twitter by myself and by many other people is also why the hell isn't Steve Bannon in jail? Like Steve? We have Steve Bannon on tape in his own words talking about the convening the war room, right that they had put together ahead of one six. We have Steve Bannon in his own words, right. We know that folks were telling insurrectionists, we'll give you a blanket.

Pardon Mark Meadows being one of those people. Again, these people out loud in their own words, Glenn like, how much more evidence is required to put wealthy white men criminals in jail. I'm just like, it's to me it is mannening. But again, I am looking at this from the outside of the system, not being an attorney. So tell me, I mean, am I being crazy like feeling you know that I'm trying to move the machine faster

than it should go? Or if this were anybody else, if this were you and me, would we be in jail right now? Yeah, we would be. And the same holds true for how the insurrection cases are being handled. If the insurrectionists were people of color, boy, it would be a whole different ball game. Steve Bannon, We're now on day fifteen of the Bannon indictment watch. He was

referred for prosecution fifteen days ago. And you and I have talked about you know, there is a historical precedent, right when in nineteen eighty three, a Reagan era EPA official named Rita Lavelle was found in contempt of Congress and referred for prosecution at nine days later, nine days later, she was indicted by the US Attorney's Office in DC. That's a benchmark. That's a precedent of a factual, actual precedent,

not a legal precedent. There's no reason Steve Bannon is not already a defendant in court other than the curse of the kind of prosecutorial timidity that I talked about. But Here's here's what the consequences of that one are. We talked about the consequences of not acting against Donald Trump. Representative Thompson just announced that he has signed and they're in the process of issuing twenty more subpoenas well. How

are those twenty recipients of those subpoenas going to respond? Well, look, Steve Bannon hasn't been held accountable, So I like my chances. What has happened over the last couple of weeks. Mark Meadows is backed up. He's now not really cooperating. He's giving the House Select Committee a hard time over his subpoena. Why because the Department of Justice is failing to promote

the rule of law as something people need to care about. Right, So, and what the Department of Justice is also accomplishing by failing to timely indict Steve Bannon is there undercutting Congress's authority in every conceivable way. How this branch of government, the executive branch, which is where the Department of Justice resides, feels completely comfortable letting Congress down when Congress is trying to investigate the most serious attack on our democracy in

our nation's history. That blows my mind, it blows. And I know Adam Schiff keeps talking and coming a little bit farther. He was on with Don Lemon night before last saying, looks like he wasn't definitive. Looks like the Department of Justice is going to move out on prosecuting Bannon. Well, how about we see him put in cuffs, how about we see him processed, how about we see him presented in court and have to enter a plate. Come on,

let's get the Justice show on the road. For God's sakes, I mean, don't we have the law on our side? Like I know that Republicans they operate outside of the law and don't care. And frankly they can because what we are seeing is that no one holds them accountable, so they can continue doing that. Democrats, on the other hand, clutch the law right as if it's magically always going

to be on our side. And so my sense here though, is literally, we have these people in their own words, we have them on audio, we have their transcripts, like we don't have to assume intent they said what it was. So, in your mind, is there any real legal reason other than political retribution? Why this Department of Justice isn't moving

with haste. The only thing I can come up with, apart from the timidity of prosecutors, which is a real thing, is that Merrick Garland's Department of Justice doesn't want to be perceived as political. The problem is when you fail to bring charges that are supported by the facts and the law, you are being political, right, making a decision based on the facts and the law, You're making it

on something else. And that's something else is political right, And I have been saying recently, if they continue to fail to enforce the rule of law against Trump and his criminal associates, then frankly, they're no better than Bill Barr and Donald Trump because they used the Department of Justice for political reasons overtly, you know, they punished Donald Trump's perceived enemies by weaponizing the Department of Justice, and

they rewarded Donald Trump's criminal associates like you know, Bannon and Flynn and Roger Stone and the rest of these knuckleheads. It's a nice word for them. So Bill Barr and Donald Trump politicize the Department of Justice in the worst way. If Marrick Arland's Department of Justice continues to fail to charge people, even though the facts and the law support

criminal charges, they will be making political decisions. And that is just as dangerous and damaging to our democracy because all that's doing is you're giving it all over to Donald Trump and company to do it a second time. In the second time, Danielle, the coup will not fail. I mean, that is what I know to be true. I mean, we're watching it, you know, I keep saying it. Bill Maher, I don't agree with him on a whole host of things, but when he referred to this as

a slow moving coup, right, that's what it is. We may have swept the people away from the steps of the Capitol Building, but they're still They're still in action, right, They're still planning and moving. And this administration, this Department of Justice, is not moving with the sense of urgency like our democracy is at stake. And I'm I'm and I know that I'm no longer crazy because folks like you and other brilliant legal minds are saying the same thing.

Our constitution is in jeopardy, Our democracy is in jeopardy. Um. Finally, Glenn, you were able to to hear was it a case? Was it an insurrection? It's inside the courtroom listening to Trump's lawyers like in real time. Tell us about that before you go. Yeah, So yesterday I was in my

old stomping ground. I went to the Federal court in Washington, DC and got to see my old adversary and friend, Judge Tanya chut who is the federal judge presiding over the case where Trump brought a suit to try to stop the House Select Committee from getting tons of incriminating information about what he was doing on January sixth and his responsibility for the insurrection. So I used to try murder cases against now Judge Chutkin decades ago, and we

still have a great relationship, professional relationship. And so I watched her just completely eviscerate Donald Trump's lawyer, a guy named Justin Clark. I mean, you know who is going to represent Donald Trump when he chronically fails to pay

his lawyers, Well, you're gonna get Justin Clark. And so it was really a legal bloodbath because every argument Trump's lawyer tried to make, saying that the National Archives shouldn't give over all this damaging information about my client to the House Select Committee, Judge Chutkin just kind of chopped it down like like firewood. It was. It was really

fun to watch. Now. She was entirely professional, but um, you know when they would make claims like well, judge, judge chuckin, you have to look at every single one of the thousands of documents and assess whether it should be turned over or not. She said, okay, one, do you have any legal authority? Is there a single case that stands for that proposition? The lawyer said, okay. So, other than slowing the process to a snail's pace her term,

what would it accomplish Nothing? It was so clear, Danielle, this is another bogus lawsuit filed by a nefarious litigant, Donald Trump, to simply try to run out the clock. And here is the biggest question, and I think the courts will have to answer, well, the courts can continue to allow themselves to be weaponized by letting Donald Trump run out the clock for weeks and months and years, or will the courts have learned their lesson from how they've been played by Donald Trump over and over and

over again over the last four and five years. Because Donald Trump doesn't bring meritorious lawsuits, he brings bogus lawsuits because he knows he can then use them to run out the clock. Now, Judge Chukin would have none of it. I mean, she said this hearing at light speed, and she said, oh, you're gonna have my ruling expeditiously because I know the first batch of information goes from the National Archives to the House Select Committee on November twelveth,

So stand by. And then here's the big ticket question is if she rules. When she rules, Donald Trump, you lose and the House Select Committee gets all this damaging information from the National Archives. The question is will the courts stay In other words, while they say, well, we're ruling in favor of the National Archives and in the House Select Committee, but we're not going to say they

have to give over the documents. We're going to let Donald Trump file endless appeals before we finally require the documents to be hand over. Gosh. I hope the courts have learned its lesson. They refuse to stay production of the documents. The documents go over, they can go over with what's called a protective order, which I'm happy to explain. The documents go over, the House Committee gets them and begins to work with them, and Donald Trump can keep

appealing the judge's decision. That's fine. But you know what, Donald Trump doesn't have a legal leg to stand on, because the whole question is do these documents enjoy executive privilege? The answer is yeah, they very well might. Who gets to make the decision about whether to waive executive privilege or invoke executive privilege under the law? President Biden, the current president, he said, I will not invoke executive privilege.

It's in the public interest for these documents to go over so we can get to the bottom of January sixth. Donald Trump doesn't have a legal leg to stand on. The only question is will the courts allow him to weaponize the delay? I mean that is that's the question. That's the question that I think that we're all going to be waiting on the next weeks and months, hopefully not years, to figure out where where these cases will go. Glenn Kirschner, as always, I mean, you keep us on

our toes. This legal system is keeping us on our toes, and I hope that in the weeks to come, we have actual good news to share with folks on Will Gaypp about indictments and talking about that. The good news has got to come eventually, right as always Glenn, we appreciate you. Thank you so much. Thank you Daniel, as always, Power to the people and to all the people. Power, get woke and stay woke as fuck.