Shawn Ryan Show - #89 Tim Parlatore - United States v. Donald J. Trump | Part 1

Episode Date: December 18, 2023

Tim Parlatore is a former Naval Officer and founder of Parlatore Law Group. He has represented Navy SEAL Eddie Gallagher and President Donald Trump, among other high profile cases. This episode is an inside look at the multiple cases and indictments against the former President. Part one covers the events of January 6th and supposed election interference. Parlatore was on the Trump legal team during the early searches and seizures of Mar-a-lago. Parlatore also breaks down the infamous phone call where President Trump can be heard asking to "find 11,780 votes." Shawn Ryan Show Sponsors: https://lairdsuperfood.com - USE CODE "SRS" https://babbel.com/srs https://puretalk.com/ryan https://moinkbox.com/shawn https://blackbuffalo.com - USE CODE "SRS" Tim Parlatore Links: Website - https://parlatorelawgroup.com Twitter/X - https://twitter.com/timparlatore IG - https://www.instagram.com/parlatorelawgroup Please leave us a review on Apple & Spotify Podcasts. Vigilance Elite/Shawn Ryan Links: Website | Patreon | TikTok | Instagram | Download Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

At Beth 365, we don't do ordinary. We believe that every sport should be epic. Every goal, every game, every point, every play. From the moments that are remembered forever to the ones you've already forgotten, whether it's a game winning goal in the final seconds of overtime, or a shot on goal in the first period. So whatever the sport, whatever the moment, it's never ordinary. At Beth 365, must be nice in our older Ontario on its biggest fair responsibility. If you or someone you know has concerns about gambling, visit's never ordinary. At bed 365, must be nice and older.

Ontario Olympics is very responsibility. If you're someone you know has concerns about gambling, visit connectsontario.ca. Imagine how lonely it can feel to be facing mental illness or addiction on your own. Now imagine how lonely it might feel during the holidays. That's why CAMH needs your help to light the way forward. Your year in donation can help us make sure no one is left behind

by fueling progress in mental health care and patient experience. Visit camh.ca slash donate now to double your impact with a match donation. That's camh.ca slash donate now. Hey everybody, my next guest is no stranger to the Sean Ryan show. In fact his first appearance was earlier this year. Maybe you remember the Dallas Alexander episode when we got a cease and desist from the Canadian government. It's actually wound up having to do with free speech and the SRS team stood up against Canada in support of Canadian free speech. Well, this man is the guy that made that all a huge success.

So, it's a real honor to have him back on the show. In the media, all we hear about are the Trump indictments. And I don't think a lot of us actually really know what the indictments are. We just know that he's being indicted. A lot of people think that it's unjust. Maybe it is. Maybe it is. And I'm not the expert.

So we brought on one of his former attorneys to go through everything and let us know what all the indictments mean. Ladies and gentlemen, please welcome my good friend Mr. Tim Parlatore to the Sean Ryan show. If you get anything out of this, please like, subscribe and comment to the show. If you're watching this on YouTube, if you're listening, please head over to Apple Podcasts, head over to Spotify, leave us a review, tell us who you'd like to see on the show, tell us what you got out of the episode, and if we need to make any improvements, leave it in the comment. All right, I love you all,

Patreon. Thank you again for making this show possible. Me and my team, OU, will never be able to repay you. So we just owe you a big thank you, and thank you. Much love to you all. See you soon. Tim Parlatore, welcome back to the show. Good to be back. We have a lot of stuff to talk about here. So, but you're here for to talk about all the 91 indictments that Trump has, but you

were on the legal team for how long were you on the legal team for? A little bit over a year. Over a year. And recently, within the past few months, I believe you decided to depart back from the legal team. And I'm very curious why, I mean, this is such a high profile case. And no matter what side of the venture on, why did you decide to leave? So the reason I decided to leave is because I felt that I was not able to do my job the way that I knew best how to do it because of outside immolences. It has nothing to do with the case and It has nothing to do with the case

and it has nothing to do with the client. I very much enjoyed my personal professional relationship with President Trump. I felt that the case was very important and ultimately it was people around him that were interfering with my ability to defend him in the way that I felt best that I could do. And it wasn't the decision I came to lightly. It was something that I thought about a lot.

And ultimately, I sat there and I thought about a lot and ultimately I kind of sat there and I said, you know what? I want this case, but I don't need this case. And if I'm not able to do everything that I know is in the best inches of the client, if I'm going to be interfered with, there are other things I could be doing with my time. And so, you know, that's really what led me to the decision. How many attorneys are on his team? So, at the time that I was there, there were four main attorneys that we were doing all the heavy lifting.

It was myself, James trusty, John Mraalley, and Evan Corcoran. And we were doing a lot of the heavy lifting. There were some other attorneys involved, Lindsay Alligan, who was assisting with a lot of stuff. But you know, we were the main, the main four. Um, and then he had this other attorney, uh, Boris Epstein, who was in their, you know, ostensibly as our supervisor. Um, and he's a guy who, And he's a guy who graduated law school, spent like 18 months at a firm doing banking transaction work, left that, hasn't practiced law sense, became a political campaign consultant.

And he was essentially dictating to us how we should fight DOJ, even though he'd never been in a courtroom as an attorney in his life. Who appointed this guy to be the top? Well, he was, he somehow worked his way in. He was in that position before I came in. He was the one that brought me into the team and it was just kind of a, you know, from the beginning, he said, you know, I am the House Council and you all report to me. What are the other attorneys' opinions on this? I, you know, I don't

want to speak for them, but of three that I mentioned or of the four of us that I mentioned, only one's still there. Are you serious? So, and, you know, there's been just last week, there was a article in Rolling Stone about how the the team in Georgia had a shake up and lost one of the finest attorneys in Georgia, for exactly the same reason. Yeah, it's difficult enough to fight against DOJ and to defend a client with all of these other atmospherics, but when you have somebody interfering who really doesn't know what they're doing and is focusing on their own twisted view of

what they think will help a campaign, as opposed to what is right and what is appropriate in the criminal justice system, that's a situation I just can't. I couldn't continue to operate under those rules. And, you know, I mean, look, I've represented some major figures in major cases. And all of them have given me the freedom

to do what I need to do. I've represented candidates before, people who've had campaigns. You know what they always say? Tim, you're here to keep me out of trouble. You guys, you're here to get me reelected. You guys stay out of his way. You need anything?

Give it to him. his way. You need anything? Give it to him. And I don't even, I can't even blame, well, I don't blame President Trump for this in this circumstance. He is stretched so thin. He's managing so many different things. He has to rely upon the people around him. And unfortunately, different things he has to rely upon the people around him. And unfortunately, he just doesn't always have the best people around him who are actually looking out for what is best. Do you think that this lead attorney, is that what you would call him? Boris, a lead attorney. Ah, let's call him the House Council. That's what he likes to call himself. column, Boris, a lead attorney.

Let's call him the House Council. That's what he likes to call himself. The House Council, Deeth, which is a weird term. By the way, the only people I've ever heard called House Council is what they used to say to try and disqualify attorneys off of old mafia cases. Was he was was he appointed by Trump? He was hired by him. Yes. Is this guy acting in his own self interest? In my opinion, he is. Is there any other reasons why he left? No, no, that was really it. I mean, I thought it was an important case. One that I would have very much enjoyed trying. But if I'm going to be micromanaged and directed to things that

and directed to not do things, why would I want to try the trial of the century with my hand tied behind my back where I'm not allowed to win. If any of the replacements left too, as of right now, not that I'm aware of, interesting. Well, let's get into the thick of it and I'm going to have a lot more questions on why he left as we go through the interview. But today, I really, I just want to dig into the Trump indictments and figure out what's going on there because a lot of people are are very concerned, including myself, that this is just political persecution. So, but going through them real quick, Trump has indicted within a four and a half months man,

Trump has been charged four times, Washington DC, four felony charges, Georgia 13 felony charges, Florida 40 felony charges, New York 34 felony charges. That's 91 felony charges in four and a half months. So I want to dive into these things. But first I have just a couple of questions from Patreon. So Patreon, that's my subscription network. That is what enables you and I to both be sitting here. There are top supporters.

And this one is from Charlotte. What is Tim's best guest of what legal fees Trump has been built for in the last year? best guest of what legal fees Trump has been billed for in the last year. So, you know, the legal fees have pretty much all been covered through a political action committee. You know, the PACs, save America. And so a lot of those fees are public

because they do have to do public filings. The fees in this case have been massive. And part of that is because of the complexity of it, but part of it also is because, quite frankly, you have these attorneys that are building it over $1,000 an hour, and they think that there's millions of dollars behind it. And if you look at those things, you'll see that even though I was on the case for over

a year, my portion of it is relatively small. But I've seen some of the attorneys on there that over the course of a year built $5,000, or $5 million. And my experience, that particular attorney didn't provide any value at whatsoever. So, you know, what's the total fees? I mean, it's got to be $20 million. Oh, wow. Yeah, plus at this point, is that normal

for how much something like this would cost? Mm, it's a bit excessive, but at the same time, one thing you have to remember is, when you have a case that is in many ways all-consuming, you have to set aside a lot of your other work. Think about this Georgia case. They just recently said that the trial of that's going to be somewhere between four to eight months long.

So as a lawyer, you have to sit there and say, okay, yeah, this is certainly hourly rate, but at the same time, I'm gonna have to set aside, not taking any new work, not work on my business at all, spend four to eight months living in a hotel somewhere. And those things can get expensive. Yeah, will that Georgia case cost, you know, over a million dollars per defendant? I think it will. But yeah, right now when we're

talking about, you know, these pack fees going, you know, into the tens of millions of dollars. Personally, I think some of the lawyers there got greedy at the trough, and now they're all of a sudden, you know, as things are coming down with the indictments and it's going to get more time intensive. How much money is there left? Yeah. You know, you said that this may be a little excessive.

What do you think a normal, let's say it spent 20 million with your estimation, what would a normal human being with, what did we say, 90, 91 counts, felony charges, four different districts, states, whatever you wanna call it? What would that run? Well, it really depends on the individual case.

And legal fees are one of those things where they're limited only by your imagination. If you want to have the biggest fanciest defense, the multi-million dollar defense where you have a team of lawyers and paralegals at the table, you have, the the multi-million dollar defense where you have a team of lawyers and paralegals at the table, you have a shadow jury, you have jury consultants, you have all of these other, you know, things and laser light shows, you know, you can do it. I've never done that. I've never found it to be viable. I think a lot of that is more make work and It's it's efforts by the attorneys to try and just suck more, you know money out of cases

I'm gonna I took over a case once where the prior attorney was hiring psychodromatists to try to have the Defended act things out where whereas I looked at and said, I have a better idea. Why don't you just sit with the guy and ask him, hey, tell me what happened. So those things, you know, if I looked at these cases myself and I said, okay,

my method of trying these cases, then my billing rate is a little bit lower because I don't maintain a big fancy office. But all four of these cases, I could put together a good solid defense on all these for probably five. Five million. Yeah. Now, but even there, it's kind of a question of, you know, But even there, it's kind of a question of, you know, does it cut off the motion to dismiss face? Do you have to go to a trial? If you do go to trial, how long is the trial going to be? How many lawyers do you want in the trial?

Yeah, it's, it really can be limited by your imagination, but at the same time, yeah, I would advise everybody facing that kind of situation to have a real hard talk with your lawyer about, or all of these expenses really appropriate. And, you know, one of the problems that a lot of clients face is that the lawyer is trying to get all these fees out of you at a time when you're facing jail. And so they'll, you know, they'll hit you on this stuff. Oh, you gotta, you know, mortgage your house, you gotta do all this stuff because you don't want to end up in jail saying, man, I wish I had hired that psychodromatist.

You know, yeah, that's a great point. It's a great point. And it's a, it's something, it's something that I don't like about a lot of people in my profession where they do give a lot of us a bad name through that. But at the same time, these things can get expensive. In the DC case, they're talking about millions of pages of documents. Millions of...

Yeah. How do you go through millions of pages of documents. You got a higher team to do it. I can't do that myself. I can't sit there and do it myself. I mean, certainly things are getting better now where they have certain AI solutions, but do you really want to trust chat GPT to go through everything and figure out where all the potential defenses are, or are you going to want to have a human, usually a junior lawyer, a team of junior lawyers going through this to pull out the things that are relevant.

There's another question from Mr. Burns. Des describe the most likely scenarios you foresee for Trump to be convicted or otherwise that would eliminate him from appearing on the 2024 presidential ballot. Did you know that one in five Americans have learned a new language on their bucket list? It's true. If that's you, check it off your bucket list this year, because with Babel, you can start speaking a new language, foreign language in about three weeks. Why Babel?

Because it works. Instead of paying hundreds of dollars for a private tutor or fooling yourself with language apps that are a little more than games, Babel's quick, 10 minute lessons are designed by over 150 language experts to help you start speaking a new language, just like I said in as little as three weeks. Here's a special limited time deal for our listeners. To get you started right now, get 55% off your Babble subscription, but only for our listeners at Babble.com slash SRS.

With over 10 million subscriptions sold, Babble is real language learning for real conversations. Get 55% off Babble.com slash SRS. That's spelled B-A-B-B-E-L dot com slash SRS. Rules and restrictions apply visit babble.com for terms and details. Are you traveling this holiday season? Well, pure talk has you covered because they've just added international roaming

in over 30 countries. That's right, whether you're making calls from the Vatican or on a beach in the Bahamas you're covered, from the steps of Buckingham Palace or your villa and Santorini you can dial away. And here's the best part, there's no rate increase. Pure Talk still saves the average family almost $1,000 a year with plans starting just at $20 a month. And they put you on America's most dependable 5G network so the coverage is second to none.

Stop dragging your feet, switch to Pure Talk, a veteran-owned wireless company with simply the best US customer service team. Now, with international roaming in over 30 countries, go to puretalk.com-slaherion to make the switch and you'll save an additional 50% off your first month. That's puretalk.com slash Ryan to start savings on wireless now. The question gets interesting with that last little caveat at the end about eliminating him from the ballot. Because ultimately none of these cases are disqualifying that they were forces removal. And all of these cases in order for it to get to a conviction that could, you know,

while not statutorily remove them, put it them into a position where it's very difficult for them to do anything, they have to get the trials done before the election. And that's why you see a lot of these prosecutors really pushing the timing of trying to get these trials done quickly. Whereas if there was not an election involved, cases of this magnitude ordinarily take over two years to get to a trial. So the idea that, you know, I mean, in Georgia, they're talking about doing the first trial with two of the co-defendants next month,

which is crazy to actually take a case to trial within, you know, a couple of months of the initial aramment that's unheard of. But they need to, you you know if this is as the Trump team keep saying election interference Then they need to have the cases brought before the election Especially in Georgia if they can tie him up in a courtroom and make him sit in a courtroom for four to eight months every single day During the general election, he's not out debating, he's not out campaigning.

So I think that that's the most likely scenario really comes down to a matter of timing of or any of these cases, or multiple of these cases, actually gonna get tried before the election. Interesting. There's one more question here from Brody. Would it be possible, especially if he has found not guilty for Trump to sue for malicious prosecution since they keep actively searching for something to charge him with.

That sounds actually like a question the client would have asked me to. It is possible. It's suing from malicious prosecution is not something that you frequently do and there's a lot of hurdles to it. Prosecutorial immunity is one of the big ones. That's why when you see people that are wrongfully convicted, that have their convictions overturned, all those lawsuits are against the police departments, not the prosecutors, because the prosecutors get immunity. Okay. And so, you know, whenever the Manhattan District Attorney's office screws up a case, the NYPD is the one that has to pay for it. Okay. So, but in a

case where you are found not guilty, a determination would need to be made because malicious prosecution is a much higher standard than just simply being acquitted. Being acquitted means that they failed to prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt. And so even if a jury thinks it's more likely than not that you committed the crime, if they have any reasonable doubt as to it, they have to vote for an acquittal. So it's not a statement of innocence, necessarily. It is a statement you're not guilty.

And so when you then go to evaluate it for malicious prosecution, you have to say, can I meet that higher standard? And I think some of these you can. Some of these you can. I think that, uh, potentially, again, as we're going to discuss a little bit later, the election related cases, particularly, uh, I think that there is a possibility of doing something there. And especially if it, um, if it does have an impact on the election, because you're essentially disrupting his job application. I think that's why we're talking about the issue. Um, if it does have an impact on the election. Because you're essentially

disrupting his job application. Uh-huh. Makes sense. Well, we got a lot to cover Tim. Those are those were those were the top patron on questions that we had. I have a ton of questions. We're going to start with the January 6nd Insurrection case. But before that, before we really get into the

weeds, everybody always gets a gift on the show. You know that. So I know I know you're a coffee guy. So you know, we just had this conversation outside, but you know I'm very into mental health. And part of mental health is keeping your brain sharp. So that is layered super foods, coffee and performance mushrooms. And the coffee actually has functional mushroom benefits in it. And so, there's two different kinds of coffee in there.

They have functional mushroom benefits, then there's performance mushrooms, and then there's a creamer. I know you're a black coffee guy, but the creamer actually has benefits of functional mushrooms and adaptogens as well. Well, thank you very much. You're welcome. I'm very glad to have you. Look forward to brewing those.

Let me know how you like it. We'll do. But so, diving in here, I have a question on my own. One of my personal questions is, you know, the, actually, let me backtrack. I think it's important. Anytime you mention Trump today, people automatically assume that you are a, it's an endorsement or a supporter. And the same goes with the other direction. Anytime you mention Biden, people automatically assume, you know, if you're mentioning him

in any type of good light that you're a Biden supporter and and it's getting to the point in this country where you can't you can't criticize or praise any any political candidate without people taking that is a endorsement and so what I wanted to Ask you is you know you are on the Trump legal team for quite a while. Are you a, is this, is this you showing everybody that you are a Trump supporter or is this just you doing your job?

That's a really good question. And one that nobody's asked me publicly before. The answer to the question is, I'm a lawyer. My loyalty is to the Constitution and every representation that I undertake is with the laser focus on the facts, the evidence, and the law. The politics are something that needs to be considered in certain cases in figuring out the best method but a lawyer has an ethical responsibility to represent their client to the best of their abilities within the ethical rules. And if a lawyer allows their personal political beliefs to dictate that representation, then they are a failure as a lawyer.

If a client has a legitimate case, whether you agree with that client in their personal life or political life or not, then you should fight that case. I am not a campaign guy. I had had no dealings. I tried to stay away from the Trump campaign. I represented him because I believed in his case. I believe that the, you know, it's an important case. It involves, you know, issues of monumental importance to this country, issues that will create significant precedent that not only affect Donald Trump himself, but it will also affect future presidents down the line. And that's why I found this case to be important, not because, you know, I voted for him or voted against him or anything else.

And quite frankly, if I were to be public about who I'm voting for, I think that that would be something detrimental to my ability to represent clients. I have built over the course of my career a several clients that happened to be on the right side of the political aisle. Do I also represent people on the left? Absolutely. You know, if Bob Mnendez or Hunter Biden called me tomorrow and said, hey,

you know, would you be interested in coming into my case? I would say, yeah, let's sit down and have a chat. You know, would you be interested in coming into my case? I would say, yeah, let's sit down and have a chat You know, I I don't like talking about my personal political beliefs For that reason. I will tell you this I Don't fit into my personal thoughts. Don't fit into the orthodoxy of either political party You know, I I thoughts don't fit into the orthodoxy of either political party. I agree with certain things on one side. I agree with certain things on the other side.

But primarily, I'm focused on the facts, the evidence, and the law. Well, I really appreciate that. Thank you. I think that's important. I wish we lived in a time where you could have political discussions without people automatically assuming who you're supporting or stand behind or are going to vote for. In my experience, you cannot have any discussions about politics. No constructive criticisms, no praise, no nothing without people prematurely labeling

your beliefs. So thank you for sharing that. I think that's important to kick off the interview with the fact that you are a neutral party in this and that you're just trying to do right by the constitution and get to the facts. And so I have some questions that I think it will be more suited for the end of the interview.

One is about the juries and another is this just after we dive in to all of these different indictments in the different locations. Is this just political prosecution? Because I am extremely concerned if it is political prosecution, because this sets a president, it sets a tone. And if it is, this is gonna be the way from here on out. And that's very scary for everyone, because it won't just be one party.

Eventually, it will be all of them, you know, and so anyways, let's start with Washington, DC, the January 6 insurrection case. The House Select Committee on January 6 attack voted in December 2022 to refer Trump to the Justice Department for prosecution. August 1, 2023, the grand jury approved an indictment against Trump and dining him with an extraordinary conspiracy that threatened to disenfranchise millions of Americans.

The charges that I have are two felony counts of obstructing an official proceeding one felony account of conspiracy to defraud the United States one felony account of conspiracy against rights. Where do we start here? Well, it's an interesting case because and I think that it is, unfortunately, one that's

difficult to look at this passionately. But, and a lot of it is because of the involvement of the politicians. You know, in your timeline, your timeline was accurate. But you mentioned about the January 6th committee, you know, doing the referral. To me, that's an irrelevant fact. The Justice Department was already doing this totally separate and apart from what the select committee was doing. The select committee's report, to my mind, had several major flaws to it. And I dealt with those investigators.

I should say investigators with air quotes because they did not conduct a real investigation. Anything that didn't fit with what they had predetermined to be the solution, they didn't want to hear. I had witnessed that they didn't want to talk to. I had documents that they didn't want to see. I had a situation where one of my clients, former guest of yours, Bernie Kerrick, we had gotten President Trump,

who I didn't represent at the time, to agree to a full privilege waiver, as long as Bernie Kerrick's testimony could be public. The committee refused. They specifically chose, we don't want the testimony to be public, and we rather not have the privileged information.

We rather keep it secret and limited. So that committee to me was kind of a sham. And most congressional committees, honestly, on both sides of the aisle, they are. I mean, congressional hearings, I remember one former congressman once told me, the purpose of a congressional hearing is fundraising. It's about getting video clips that you can use for fundraising. So that piece of it, I kind of set to the side. The investigation in chief, and I dealt with them, you know, a lot. The entire theory of the case comes down to, did he knowingly push false claims of election

fraud to try to overturn, you know, the will of the people and install himself wrongfully as president for a second term. That's her theory. And they have a few different alternative methods of charging it where they're really, to my mind, they went through the law books to try and find, we have this conduct that we don't like. Let's go through the law books to try and find some statute that we can criminalize it in. And so I think that in large respects, they're kind of trying to jam the square peg into the round hole on that. But from a more basic perspective, my biggest problem with the entire January 6 case is it's all a matter of how you evaluate his actions based on the role that you assume that he's taking.

Because as a first term president, he is wearing two hats. He has the hat of being He is wearing two hats. He has the hat of being, you know, the candidate who wants to win the election, but he's also wearing the hat of commander-in-chief, who has a mandate under the Constitution to ensure that the laws of the United States are faithfully executed. So pull back for a second from all the rhetoric. Change the names, change the personalities, change the circumstances. You have a second term president, not a candidate, who has received credible reports of possible fraud, which could have affected the outcome of the election. That possible fraud needs to be further investigated

to conclusively prove or disprove it. What do you want the Commander-in-Chief to do? Monday, that circumstance. I want him to do what's right. I want him to uphold law. You want him to call the attorney general. You want him to call the FBI director. You want him to tell them, hey, we've received these credible reports.

I would like you to send that FBI agents and research them, figure it out. Prove it conclusively, one way or the other. Prove or disprove. Call up the governors, say, hey, I receive reports of fraud in your state. Can you have your state investigators go and look into this. That is what we would want, a second term president who is not running for re-election to do. And notice in my hypothetical, I didn't even say which way the election would have tipped. We would want them to do that no matter what. But when you add in the additional fact, it's the first term president, who is running for reelection and the allegations of fraud go in the direction where if there is fraud proven,

then he personally benefits. When you add those additional facts, it's impossible to really look at it dispassionately anymore. And so, in this circumstance, if President Trump is brought credible information about fraud, which changed the outcome of the election, do we expect him to sit there and say, well, Joe Biden won, so I'm not going to ask anybody to look into these things. That is the part that people are, to my mind, the investigators are not really looking at it through that lens.

They're looking at it through the lens of he's a candidate who lost, who wants to overturn the result. And the difference between those, you know, the line is very thin and very gray between those two roles. And additionally, it all comes back to did he believe these reports. Where did the reports come from? So the reports came from a lot of different sources. And this is, again, part of what hasn't been fully explored. At the time, they were receiving a lot of reports from people on the ground in the various states who said, I saw this. I saw them unloading boxes of ballots. I saw them doing this. I saw people running the same ballots through the machines multiple times, whatever it is. They were getting all of these complaints from around the country.

And some of them weren't actually even complaints of observing fraud, so much as complaints of observing irregularities. They are refusing to let the observers watch the ballot counting. That was a big one. Why are you refusing to let the observers watch the ballot counting? Do they normally? No, normally that is a part of our system that, and it's written into laws of the various states of how the ballots get counted.

What observers are allowed to go, usually you have the opportunity for Republican and Democrat observer to both be there. The Republicans observers went and they were not allowed to observe. And that removal of the observers is something that on one hand is very easy to prove. You have plenty of eyewitnesses. You have surveillance video. On the other hand, it's very difficult to prove that it means anything. Because once you've removed the witness, what happened in the room?

I have no idea. Did they double count? Maybe, who knows? Did they do everything appropriately and they just didn't like people watching them? Maybe. Who knows? Did they do everything appropriately? And they just didn't like people watching Maybe who knows? The removal of observers is not something the in and of itself proves fraud But it's something That gives an indicator that this should be looked into more. Is there any law that

This should be looked into more. Is there any law that states that you have to allow the observers in? Yeah. And why is that law not being upheld? And that was the consequence of that. That was the issue at the time, is that this was not proper. The way that you kept the observers out, they went to judges, they got injunctions, but you're talking about a very short period of time, but by the time you go through the legal process, the counting is done. And then what's the remedy? Do

recount? Well, what if they've done something to the bounce? Who knows? It becomes very difficult. So they received all these reports of various irregularities throughout the country. And look, I didn't personally observe any of these things, so I can't speak to the veracity of any of these. But I will tell you that one of my clients, Bernie Carrick, of any of these. But I will tell you that one of my clients, Bernie Carrick, was one of the chief investigators working with Rudy Giuliani. They received a lot of these complaints. Some of them, they were able to discount right off the bat and say that's not something worth our time. That's not something that's credible. This person has a cook. set it to the side. Focus on the ones that they could actually do something with. And ultimately, when he's, you know, testified, or when he was interviewed by the January 6th Committee, when he was interviewed by Jack Smith's name, his story was consistent, which is,

as a former criminal investigator, we found evidence of fraud that rises to the level of probable cause. Not proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Probable cause to believe that fraud had been committed, which requires further investigation to conclusively prove or disprove. They didn't have the resources to do that. They had neither the time, the money, the manpower, the subpoena power to do it. You know who does? The FBI.

And that is really where this thing comes down to is that he received these reports from the Giuliani team and others, the president. He then goes over to Bill Barr and others and says, I want you to send investigators out to look at this. And again, I wasn't in the room, but the way that it was explained to me, Bill Barr essentially responds, there's nothing there. There's no fraud. This is, you know, this is not worth my time. I'm not going to devote resources to doing this investigation. Here's the fact that I am sure just about every one of you listening right now is going to find absolutely disgusting. According to reports, 60% of pork sourced here in the United States comes from one company, and that one company

just happens to be owned by China. And guess what, there's more. That one company happens to inject its hogs with Racto-Ponine, a chemical that is banned in 160 countries to include China, yet guess what? You find it in the meat section of just about every single grocery store here in the US. That's right. So I thought you just might be interested in an alternative. Let me tell you about Moink. Moink delivers grass-fed and grass-finished beef and lamb pastured pork, chicken, and sustainable wild caught Alaskan salmon straight to your door. Here's the deal. I've tried the pork,

the beef, the fish, and the poultry from Moink, and it's fresh and it's clean. Not like this junk that you get at the grocery store from these massive meat suppliers. You see, I like to know where my meat comes from. This I'm sure all of you do too. Keep American forming going by signing up at mwinkbox.com slash shon right now in listeners of this show get free ground beef for a year.

That's one year of the best ground beef you'll ever taste but for a limited time. that's spelled M-O-I-N-K-Box.com slash Sean, that's moinkbox.com slash Sean. A lot of the frustration that built up by the morning of January 6th, I think was more fueled by the lack of an investigation. And the appearance that some of these people were just saying, it's better to close our eyes and move forward instead of actually verifying these things. Yeah, if we could go back in time, I would love to grab Bill Barr by the arm and say, dude, if you think the Giuliani is full of it, tell that to the president. Say, hey, I think Rida Giuliani is full of crap. Here's what I'm going to do.

I'm going to send out a team of FBI agents. We're going to go investigate all that stuff that he did, and I'm going to bring you back a report showing you these full of crap. If he had done that, I think that would have changed a lot of the trajectory of things. Yeah, not blaming him. Not saying he's personally responsible for January 6th, but the belief that no investigation was going to be done, I think is what fostered the desperation

and the continued so-called pressure campaign to do an investigation. And one of the things that I'm always amazed at by these allegations is, and this is both in the DCN, the Georgia case, is he put on an immense pressure campaign to conduct an investigation. Guess what? Asking the FBI or the Georgia Bureau of Investigations to conduct an investigation is very dangerous because you have no control over it.

If I ask the police or the FBI, I want you to investigate this. My hands are off of it and I am in a position of sitting back and waiting and the FBI is going to go out there, they're going to investigate, they're going to interview people, they're going to look at evidence and there's a chance they come back and they say, Tim, this thing that you said, we found evidence of it. But there's also a big chance that they come back and they say, Hey, this thing that you said, we found it in a sent explanation. There's no there there. He never asked in any of these things, I want you to investigate with this conclusion. I want you to investigate this allegation. That's the difference. And so, and this crosses both the Georgia and DC case.

If you believe that there's a possibility of fraud and you're asking them to investigate it, that is not a crime. When it comes to these counts, because this is all wrapped around J6, correct? Right. The DC stuff. Yeah. None of these sound to me like they're charging him with instigating JR6. No, yeah, not not at all. So and that's an important piece is the people keep talking about, you know, the January 6th insurrection. Mm-hmm. I understand why people use that term. I don't understand why lawyers use that term.

Insurrection is a legal term that has a definition under the United States code. You cannot sit there as a lawyer and say the January 6th insurrection, not a single person has been charged with the crime of insurrection. Many people were charged with the actions on that day, but nobody's been charged with insurrection. So as a lawyer, I throw that term to the side as being an organized effort to overthrow the government. The obstruction of official proceeding, yeah, a lot of people did do that.

Absolutely. Trespassing, you know, property damage, general mayhem. Absolutely. They did all that. Bad fashion sense. Absolutely. But that fashion a fact. I wouldn't walk around Congress wearing a fuzzy hat, but, you know, so insurrection is to the side, but even, even inciting a riot is not something that he's been charged with. He's been charged with the obstruction of the proceeding relating to trying to pressure Mike Pence into not certifying. He's been charged with all these claims of fraud against the United States by falsely claiming that there was fraud in the election to Mike Pence, to various members of Congress, with the intent of doing this, as it relates to

the alternate Slate of Electors, things like that. But they could not, They could not, for good reason, they could not establish a connection that he had knowingly incited a violent protest or a riot or an insurrection. Because there's no evidence of that. He asked the people to go down there peacefully and patriotically, and so it's very difficult with that video To then go in front of a jury and say he wanted them to go down there and commit murder and maim So that's so that piece of the the case is really, you know really excised out. What is this going to be tried, isn't it?

Yeah, right now they're talking about a trial date, I think, of next summer. It's just still before the election, but yeah, again, given the volume of discovery and everything in this case, it will only get tried on that schedule. If everybody just ignores the standard conventions of federal criminal procedure. I believe that the January 6 charges in DC could result in a jury verdict of conviction. I believe that the charges are likely to be overturned on appeal. But I think that his greatest danger is a jury verdict of conviction. And again, if they rush the trial, then he's going to have the conviction and the appeal is not going to get decided till a year or two later. And so, if he has a conviction and the judge sentences him to jail

right before the election, then yeah, that's gonna have an impact. And the fact that a, that an appellate court overturns a verdict later on, too late. Yeah. How much time could it be facing with the DC? You know, six, one along. And because that indictment came down after I left the team, I never sat down and actually, you know, went through the sentencing guidelines, calculations on it. But it would not be a no jail case. And in particular, these judges,

I think they would put them in. You know, one of the things that I'm amazed by is the judges that have been hearing all these January 6 cases. They're witnesses. You know, some of the judges have even talked about how on the morning of January 6th, I watched the insurrection out my window of the courthouse. That's true. You look at the court where the courthouse is. You look at the windows and you can see the capital. In any other circumstance, a judge who is that personally involved, would ordinarily be removed. And this was a great debate that they had several

years ago about, can we actually try 9-11 related alkydda members in the Southern District of New York because the courthouse is so close to the World Trade Center. So it's I think that if he's tried in DC, there's a high likelihood, great possibility of conviction. I think that given all of the other sentences that have been handed down for all of the other protesters, I think that the likelihood of him getting 10 plus years is high. Wow, you think that's high? Yeah, it's very likely.

Yeah, I think that the likelihood of that being then overturned by the Appellacort is high. Okay. And so, you know, some of this stuff may get dealt with in pretrial motions to dismiss, which maybe they'll even allow that to go to the appellate court before trial. That's not something that they usually do, but sometimes it's appropriate. With the information that you've been presented with when you all comes down to, did he believe that the claims of fraud were false?

I don't think anybody that's ever heard him speak and certainly nobody that's sat with a man and spoken to him face to face could ever say he knows that there was no fraud. He believes today that there was fraud in that election. He believes today that that election was stolen from him. And here's the thing. For purposes of this criminal case, his personal belief is more important than whether there was fraud. He could spend a whole trial proving that there was no fraud. But if he believed that at the time, then he's not guilty.

Well, wouldn't the, so wouldn't the First Amendment protect that? Not exactly. So, first amendment, it's a little bit more nuanced than that. So, the First Amendment does give you the right to, you know, say whatever you want as long as it's not, you know, as long as it needs for your free speech to be criminalized, it has to have more than just speech. So, perfect example is, you know, the history behind the Stolen Valorant. They initially passed a law saying, you know, claiming to have military decorations and rank and history and everything is, you know, falsely claiming that as a crime. That was overturned as a violation of the First Amendment. You have First Amendment right to lie.

The way that they then brought it back was it has to be tied to something else. So if I go and tell everybody, I was a Navy SEAL. That's legal. Nobody's ever gonna hire me again. But it's legal for me to lie about being a Navy SEAL. Now, if I say, I am a former Navy SEAL and I can teach you how to scuba dive. And I'm going to charge you. Yeah, but I'm a scuba instructor, former Navy SEAL. That's where the crime is because you are connecting the false statement to some form of pecuniary

game, monetary game. And they've even, you know, been looking at this, does it get down to the level of, you know, falsely claiming the uracil on a bar at night so you can convince the girl to go home with you? Is that is is that, uh, constant? But here again, if you're simply saying, pretend for a second that there was no fraud, pretend for a second that, um, that he knew that there was no fraud. If he's just saying it, there's nothing wrong with that.

But the fact that he's then connecting it to Mike Pence, you should not certify the election. That's that extra step that takes it outside of a first amendment defense. Did Mike Pence make the right call that day? I don't know. I think that the law was ambiguous as to whether he had the power to do what they were asking him to do.

They have since gone to amend the Electrical College Act to clarify that his role is purely ceremonial. And in doing so, they do admit that it was at a minimum vague and to back up for a second, because you know, one of the big underlying questions here is, what was Mike Pence being asked to do? Mike Pence has said, and you've got to remember he's now running for president against Trump, he has said that he was asked to basically reject these things and declare Trump as the president. That claim is inconsistent with all the evidence that I saw through my time representing him and all the other people and witnesses that I have interviewed. The information that I had, which is very consistent with every single one of these witnesses is that what he was asked to do was

they were going to present him with evidence of possible fraud and that he was going to say, because I can't be sure, I don't want to certify the election today. I'm going to adjourn these proceedings for 10 days and I would ask that these particular states go back and investigate these particular claims of fraud and come back to me before the next hearing in 10 days to let me know whether these slates are still accurate. If in fact that is what he was being asked to do, then I think for him to have said yes, certainly the way that the law was written at the time, he wouldn't have been wrong to do that.

At the same time Was he wrong for what he did do? No In my personal opinion, I think he could have gone either way. I think that the way that the law was written, it gave him discretion. So he made the decision that he felt he should have. Now, I personally can't, I don't take a position on whether he was right I say this he wasn't wrong. I'm not gonna say he was right, but he wasn't wrong Gotcha

This is a little unrelated, but I'm curious to know I mean We get into the section where who could pardon him? How could he get out of this? All federal crime, they were all, they were all federal crime. So if Trump is re-elected, he could pardon himself. Why do you think he didn't pardon himself before he left office? Was that a mistake on his part? Self-parton is a... Doesn't look great. Well, and it's also something that's never been done. And so it's never been done. It's of questionable legality. I mean, certainly, you know, when you read the Constitution, it appears that there's not that restriction on it.

But at the same time, nobody has ever done it. Well, here's the other piece of the pardon. This is actually important. And if you don't mind, I'm going to go on a slight tangent here, but another case. A pardon is not a declaration of innocence. A pardon is a declaration of forgiveness. And so the act of accepting a pardon is in and of itself considered to be an admission that you've done something wrong.

And that's why pardon applications. You usually are required to say, yes, I made a mistake. And I am asking for forgiveness. Please restore me to the full rights of an American citizen without a conviction, because I have, you know, for whatever reason, you want to argue. And so the story that I want to tell you here is another, another one of my clients, Eddie Gallagher, when we were pretrial in his case. And the newspapers were all talking about

how President Trump was considering pardoning Eddie. Eddie actually asked me, he said, Tim, if he does issue a pardon, am I required to accept it? Because I don't want to pardon before my trial. I want to go in the court and I want to face my accusers and I want to be exonerated. At the same time, I don't want to go to jail for the rest of my life. I want to go home to my family.

But do I have to accept it? Or can I wait until after the trial? And so it was something that I actually had to research at the time for Eddie. And luckily for him, President Trump did not all from a pardon pre-trial and so he did get the opportunity to go in and exonerate himself. But courts have found in certain cases,

in very unique circumstances, where it was brought to the courts attention, that you cannot claim that you were innocent if you accept that pardon. I want to tell you about this business venture I've been on for about the past seven, eight months, and it's finally come to fruition. I've been hellbent on finding the cleanest functional mushroom supplement on the planet, and that all kind of stemmed from the psychedelic treatment I did.

Came out of it, got a ton of benefits, haven't had a drop of alcohol in almost two years. I'm more in the moment with my family and that led me down researching the benefits of just everyday functional mushrooms. And I started taking some supplements, I found some coffee replacements, I even rep to brand. And you know, it got to the point where I just wanted the finest ingredients available no matter where they come from. And it got to this point where I was just going to start my own brand. And so we started going to trade shows and looking for the finest ingredients and doing that I ran into this guy, maybe you've heard of him, his name's Laird Hamilton and his wifeby Reese, and they have an entire line of supplements

with all the finest ingredients and we got to talk and turns out they have the perfect functional mushroom supplement. It's actually called performance mushrooms and It's actually called performance mushrooms. And this has everything. It's USDA organic, it's got chaga, cordriceps, lion's mane, mea toki. This stuff is amazing for energy balance, for cognition.

Just being honest, see a lot of people taking care of their bodies. I do not see a lot of people taking care of their brain. This is the product guys. And so we got to talking and our values seemed very aligned. We're both into the functional mushrooms. And after a lot of back and forth, I am now a shareholder in the company. I have a small amount of ownership and I'm just, look, I'm just really proud to be repping and be a part of the company that's making the

best functional mushroom supplement on the planet. You can get this stuff at layeredsuperfoods.com. You can use the promo code SRS that'll get you 20% off these performance mushrooms or anything in the store. They got a ton of good stuff. Once again that's layeredsuperfoods.com. Use the promo code SRS that get you 20% off. You guys are going to love this stuff. I guarantee it. love this stuff, I guarantee it. I want to tell you about a product that personally resonates with me as a former long time dipper in the military and that's Black Buffalo. You see, when I was in the SEAL teams, almost

everybody in my platoon dipped tobacco, including myself, but I'm the leader of my own pack and I wanted to quit and that's what I did do. And that is why black buffalo chewing tobacco alternative really resonates with me. Black buffalo is a tobacco alternative that does not contain tobacco leaf or stem. It's everything you love about dip, nothing you don't. No compromise. It's made here in the USA with only the finest ingredients like specific varieties of edible, green leaves, food grade ingredients, and comes in classic flavors like winter green mint, straight peach, and even blood orange. Black Buffalo delivers the same experience as traditional smokeless products. The Black

Buffalo herd never compromises taste, value, or quality. Being part of the Black Buffalo herd is not about following. It's about charging ahead on a path to keep and honor the ritual. If you're a smokeless tobacco user, get Black Buffalo a try. I'm very confident I'll see you on the trail. Black Buffalo is available for sale online and in thousands of stores across the country like racetrack here in Tennessee. Head to blackbuffalo.com to buy or check the store locator to find a retailer near you. Use code SRS at blackbuffalo.com right now and save 15% off your first order.

Blackbuffalo. No compromise. Different leaf. Same ritual. Warning. This product contains nicotine. nicotine is an addictive chemical. Black buffalo products are strictly intended for use by current adult 21 plus consumers of nicotine or tobacco products. Alright Tim, we're pretty much wrapped up with the J6 Washington DC indictments.

I would like to get into the Georgia election interference case. Sure. So this case, I find very interesting after some conversations that we had offline, but status indictment, criminal investigation opened February of 2021. Summer of 2023, Willis presented her evidence to a regular grand jury which approved a 98 page indictment on August 14, 2023. 13 felony count charges. One count of violating the Racketuring Influenced

and Corrupt Organizations Act RICO, three counts of solicitation of violation of oath by a public officer, one count of conspiracy to commit impersonating a public officer, two counts of conspiracy to commit forgery in the first degree, two counts of false statements and writings, two counts of conspiracy to commit false statements and writings. One count of filing false documents, one count of conspiracy to commit filing false documents. Am I missing anything? It sounds really bad when you listen like that. It does.

Could you go through and tell us what all these indictments mean? You know, the Georgia case essentially mirrors the Jack Smith DC case, but in a slightly different angle. Who is Jack Smith? Sorry, that's the special counsel, you know, Jack Smith is special counsel in the DOJ case. Okay. So it mirrors the DC case in a lot of ways, but it departs in a lot of ways too. One thing to remember here, Fannie Willis is a county prosecutor.

Okay, she's not a state attorney general, she's not a county prosecutor. Okay, she's not a state attorney general, she's not a federal prosecutor. Her fiefdom is Fulton County. That's it. Not only that, Fulton County is it encompasses the capital. There are certain portions of that county that are outside of her jurisdiction, specifically the state house.

The state government buildings, you know, where the governor is, where the secretary of state is, where the legislature is, those buildings are also outside of her jurisdiction. State buildings, because the state is superior to the county. Anything happens in there gets investigated by the state police gets prosecuted by the state attorney general at the county. So as a county prosecutor she doesn't really have any power to be investigating the things that she's prosecuting here. What she's done is she's taken the state RICO account, which is you know, racketeering influence corrupt organizations. It was originally a federal statute that a lot of states have adopted

similar statues for theirs that was designed to take down organized crime. RICO is unique because what it does is it essentially criminalizes being a member of a criminal organization. And so they have to prove what the structure means and methods of the enterprise are, enterprise being the organization. And then in doing so, they then have to show that certain pattern acts were conducted by the organization as part of that. And so it's usually traditional racketeering activity, murder, mayhem, illegal gambling, loan sharking, stuff like that. In this context of estate prosecution, this is one of those charges that allows you to say,

okay, racketeering happened in Fulton County. But in order to prove the enterprise, I can start to touch things that are outside of the county and bring them in to prove the enterprise, I can start to touch things that are outside of the county and bring them in to prove the enterprise. So if she can't charge Rico, she can't talk about things that happen in the state house, things that happen in coffee county, things that happen in Pennsylvania, things that happen anywhere outside of Foling County, which is really just, you know, the polling stations and where the actual vote count took place in Atlanta. So that's why you have this Rico count because she's trying to significantly play out of position for what her power is as a county official.

So you start with that and then she also has indicted all these different people. In doing so, one of the things that's interesting to me is, you know, obviously you can't have a rico of one person. It's got to be an organization. That's why she decided to indict as a 19 people. In doing so, in my reading of it, she is directly contradicting the DC case because some of the things that she's saying and specifically the fact that she's charged Rudy Giuliani is she is directly going against what the federal theory is because the federal theory is Trump knew that these claims of fraud were false because even though

Rudy Giuliani told it to him, he knew it was false because Bill Barr told him it wasn't true. Which is not necessarily something that's going to hold up on appeal, but Fannie Willis, instead of saying the same theory, she instead says, well, Rudy Giuliani also knew that the claims of fraud were untrue. So she's contradicting the federal theory. Interesting. What she's also done is by having this big, you know, sprawling indictment with 19 defendants and 30, you know, unindicted co-conspirators, is every single one of those people, many of which were being cooperative

and sitting down for interviews and talking with the federal team. Now they're being very openly accused of criminal activity by this county prosecutor. It's another invoking their Fifth Amendment. And so in a weird way, she is undermining the federal case by causing a lot of their witnesses to now become unavailable because they are invoking their fifth memorets. So, I mean, that's the core of what this case is. A lot of the other stuff that you get into there, all the, you know, the forgery and impersonating and official and all that stuff, that goes into this whole theory of, you know, the, what they call the fake electors or the alternate electors, which is a whole kind of separate

little piece of this thing. And not a lot of people understand. What happened at the time, not just in Georgia and a lot of these states, is that the states that were disputed, they had gone to create an alternate slate of electors. And to back up a little bit further, the way that our federal presidential elections work

with the Electoral College Act is that the voters in each state vote for who they want as president. The state then takes whoever won, so Donald Trump wins this state, then based on the population distribution of those states, each state has a certain number of electors. And so when they say that Georgia has so many electoral college votes, what that meant, you can remember all of these rules, all of these laws were passed at a time when there was no internet, there was no electricity, there were no cars.

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

election in November, having a certification in early January, and then having an inauguration late January, all those timelines are based on the idea that people are traveling by horse from the outermost states. And so the time it takes, you know, Georgia in 1800 to, you know, the late 1700s, to count all the votes, find the electors, put them on horses, send them up to DC, have the full vote, send them back, you know, do all the stuff for the inauguration. That's why these timelines are set the way that they are.

And so the way that this is kind of developed over time is that if you want to challenge the slate of electors that is submitted, which is still, it's a list of names. These are the electors from Georgia who are going to vote for Biden and the Electro-College election. If you want to challenge that result, you run the risk that a court says, yes, this result is not accurate. But there's no alternate slate. You didn't put 20 other people on horses, you know, to send them up, you know, in their place. And so that's why this whole alternate slate of electors practice has come about. It's been used by both parties. It's been used in multiple elections.

So the you have that alternate slate on standby. Okay. And if you look at the slates from 2020, I say that you look at Pennsylvania. For whatever reason, somebody in Pennsylvania was smarter than everybody everywhere else. And they actually wrote on the slate, alternate, only to be inused in the event that the primary slate is invalidated through litigation or investigation. It's worse to that effect. The Georgia slate nobody thought to write that sentence in. And so if you just take the Georgia slate of you know Trump electors, it reads like you know, President Trump

have been duly you know elected in this state, these are the people that are casting their vote. But is that a plausible fraud? To me, it's not. I mean, there are some that are saying, oh, the purpose of the alternate slate, it's a fake slate of electors because they wanted to fool Mike Pence. And there's this silly theory that Mike Pence may have looked at the two slates from Georgia and said, I don't know which one's real.

I guess I'll pick this one. That's real. I guess I'll pick this one. That's insane. Today, yeah, with the media and the internet and the proliferation of information that we have today. There's no chance in hell. The mic pencil is gonna look look at these lights, so I don't know who won. It's not plausible. Yeah, but it is. They're theory of fraud on it.

The thing is a lot of these electors, they gave interviews at the time, saying, yes, I am an alternate elector. I'm doing this in case the primary slate gets invalidated. But that's what a lot of those counts are. I'm doing this in case the primary slate gets invalidated. But that's what a lot of those counts are. I'm curious to know where this, so there was a controversial phone call that happened. And January 2nd, 2021, Trump called Georgia's Secretary of State,

Brad Reffensperger, and urged him to find 11,780 votes. The number needed to overcome Biden's victory. Now I've listened to segments of that phone call several different times online. You can find it all over. I will probably roll it right here. And they're brand new and they don't have seals. There's a whole thing with a balance, but the balance they're corrupt.

And you're going to find that they are, at which is totally illegal. It's more illegal for you than it is for them, because you know what they did, and you're not reporting it. That's a criminal offense. And you can't let that happen. That's a big risk to you and to Ryan, your lawyer.

That's a big risk. But they are shredding ballots, in my opinion, based on what I've heard. And they are removing machinery, and they're moving it as fast as they can, both of which are criminal fines, and you can't let it happen, and you are letting it happen. You know what I mean? I'm notifying you that you're letting it happen so look all i want to do is this i just want to find

eleven thousand seven hundred and eighty votes which is one more than we have because we want the state and flipping the state is a great testament to our country because you know and this this this is just a it's a testament that they can admit to a mistake or whatever you want to call it if it was a mistake i don't know a lot of people

think it wasn't a mistake it was much more uh... criminal than that but it's a big problem in george and it's it's not a problem that's going away i mean you know it's not a problem that's going away i mean he did it what what is that fall under what these is that fall under one of the charges it does um...

it does fall into the charges because he's essentially trying to uh... their theories he's trying to corruptly influence a state official to violate his oath. Did he? I don't believe so. Here's the thing. You can't, if you just cut out that one sentence of the tape, yes, that's the impression that you're left with. But you can't just listen to excerpts from the call. You have to listen to the entirety of the call. Because he says multiple times on that call, we won by a lot. We won by over votes. He's stating, possibly incorrectly, but he's truly held belief that he had won the state of Georgia by over 100,000 votes.

Can I interject? Sure. Why would he believe that if he had not seen any of the numbers yet? He believed it because that's the numbers that were given to him by the investigative team. Okay. But they was looking into these claims of fraud. And again, that's something that you may notice that I have not yet, nor will I offer

my opinion as to whether there was actually fraud in that election or not. I don't have an opinion as to whether there was or was not. Because I would want to actually see the investigation to know one way or the other. You haven't seen the investigation. I've seen the preliminary investigation, but I never saw a follow-up investigation by law enforcement to conclusively prove or disprove that probable cause. Okay. So, because it wasn't done.

So I wasn't a done. Herein lies the big question. When Trump asked Barr to do the investigation, why wasn't it done? In this call that you're asking me about, he's begging the Georgia state officials, have your law enforcement officers go out and do an investigation. And they said, no. The part that you're talking about about find this many votes in itself is damning. In context of the entire conversation, if he believed he had won by over a hundred thousand votes. The way that I look at that, the way that I would argue with Tuduri and the way that President

Trump has stated it, that is a statement of scope not result. If I tell you, there's over a hundred thousand fake votes out there. And I need you to investigate this was a January second. I need you to investigate this year four days. You're gonna sit there and say four days to find a hundred thousand votes. You're gonna be crazy. You don't have to find out if that's it. Find 11th. Once you find this much that's the delta between the two candidates, then for the purposes of this inquiry as to what slate should be certified for the election, you can stop. As soon as you find the Delta between the

candidates, the Secretary of State can stop and pass it on to the Attorney General of the State of Georgia to continue the investigation, find potentially, you know, in his mind, all 100,000 of them, and then figure out who to arrest and put in jail for it. The Secretary of State, their role in investigating election fraud is purely to find out what is the right slate to be put up on January 6th? Not, yeah, Secretary of State is not in charge of putting people in jail. So you don't need to find all under 1000.

Okay. Just find 11,000. And so when you listen to the tape in the full context and you think of it that way that this is a statement of scope, not result, given the shortened period of time and the very specific limited role that the Secretary of State has. It makes more sense. Could it have been more artfully stated or, you know, explicitly stated? Is it how I would have explained it? No. It probably could have been clear on that.

But to just cherry pick the one sentence and say he's directing him to go find these votes, you know, that's at least to a misleading result. But even there, go find the votes. It's opposed to just say that there are the votes. Go find evidence of 11,000 false votes. And if you can find evidence of 11,000 false votes, again, you're sending some of you to do an investigation. It's danger. Maybe they come back the way you expect, maybe they don't.

Let's talk about Fannie Willis. Sure. So if I remember correctly, we had a conversation a couple of weeks ago, maybe a month ago in DC, about Fanny Willis. And I believe you told me that she brand her campaign on enditing Trump. Correct. Knowing that this was outside of her jurisdiction, or jurisdiction. So, for some of the guys has no legal mind at all, how is this even happening if she doesn't have jurisdiction?

If the RICO were correct, she would have that limited piece of jurisdiction. But how this is happening, and you just hit the NL red on the head, to separate out the federal from the state indictments. One of the big problems with state indictments and why in my opinion, they were more dangerous to begin with is because state prosecutors are really county officials unless you talk about a state attorney general, they're county officials, they're elected county officials. And so if you have an elected county district attorney in a county that is a deep red or deep blue, either way, they get their job and they keep their job by winning the primary election. They don't have to worry about the general election because they're largely going to be unopposed.

Fannie Willis was not become district attorney and playing to the base. She said, if you elect me, I will indict Donald Trump. And in the primary race, that played very well. She won the primary in the general election, which is essentially unopposed. So she never had to really face, essentially unopposed. So she never had to really face, you know, tough Republican opposition on this. And in single party jurisdictions, again, red or blue, he creates a substantial risk of political interference and politically driven prosecutions because ultimately you sit there and think, well, the district attorney and the sheriff, you know, they should be able to run for reelection based on, have I made your city safer? And that's true of a general election, but in the context of a primary election where it's all run by the party,

there it has a much higher risk of abuse of where they are going to pursue the partisan goals. Well, Tisha James, the state attorney general of New York, did the exact same thing. She ran on a platform of, I'm going to get Donald Trump and sure enough she has brought all these civil suits against Trump and the Trump organization. When you have people that are asking give me a law enforcement position so that I can take out my political rival. That's dangerous. That's very dangerous. I think that's a major concern to a lot of people.

Next, on the Sean Ryan show. White collar prime is a term that was invented by former prosecutors that would allow them to make money being criminal defense attorneys without somehow feeling dirty. This is political prosecution that we're saying. I don't like to be the guy saying, oh, it's a political witch hunt. Here's the thing.

When they go in and they try to demand a ludicrously speedy trial for the purpose of getting it done before the election. You feed that narrative. I heard that one of the debaters said it was an inside job was, is an inside job on the part of Donald Trump and his henchman in the Congress of the United States. The judges that have been hearing all these January 6 cases, their witnesses. Some of the judges have even talked about how on the morning of January 6th,

I watched the insurrection out my window of the courthouse. Money in politics causes abuse. Politics in law enforcement causes abuse. Money in politics in law enforcement is a disaster. That's where you have people like Fanny Willis, Tisha James, fundraising, asking for money on the idea that if you elect me, I will get Donald Trump. I am going to use your taxpayer dollars to take out our political rival. Everything is politically charged in this country at this point. You're either a broke Trumpump. Orienti-Trump. Former Navy SEAL Mike Ritland keeps it real on the Mike Drop podcast.

Ladies and gentlemen, welcome to the stage Rudy Reyes. The ethics of the martial art is why I joined the Marine Corps. I never thought I was going to join the military because I'd been around so much gun violence and I wanted to be the antithesis of that. I love fighting hand-to-hand, it's fair. You don't have to kill your opponent. You can beat them with ability and skill. Bike drop, raw, unfiltered, intellectually sound, wherever you listen. filtered, intellectually sound, wherever you listen.