David's shown
a lot of, in my view, very unethical conduct going down there in the Georgia case.
First of all, the indictment.
In Georgia, you can indict, the prosecutor can indict, or the grand jury can indict. But if you pick the grand jury, you got to follow certain rules. So they published the indictment against Donald Trump and 18 other co-defendants in the morning
before the grand jury even shows up.
Then the grand jury works into the night
and they indict
these 19 defendants
on exactly what was in the official court clerk's
computer
that morning.
So the question is to me whether that grand jury actually met as a grand jury or this was really a prosecutor using the grand jury's dressing. And since they don't have secrecy rules there, it would be very easy for any defense counsel to question some
of these grand juries as to what took place, to address what took place right out of the box, no?
I think there ought to be a full investigation of what happened. We heard 2 or 3 different excuses on how on earth the indictment
appeared and was publicly
posted on the docket
before the grand jury concluded their deliberations. I've never heard of that in my life. There has to be an investigation. Otherwise, the grand jury process is meaningless. It's a constitutional process, so I don't think it should be meaningless.
No, it's outrageous. There's so many issues that have to be raised there. And what did we also learn? This report was released and they recommended indicting 3 United States senators. Yeah, well they finally released the rest of the report. Now, remember, this report is from this investigative grand jury, an unusual phenomenon that they have in Georgia.
This is the grand jury in which the 4 person afterwards, you know,
reported how unprofessional, frankly, her conduct and the others were during the course of it. It was a circus. But in any event, the report
that was released on Friday actually
recommended indicting a number of other people who were indicted, and those include Senator Lindsey Graham,
Senator Perdue, Senator Lafler, Boris Epstein, and others. And so a decision was made, perhaps on a political level, not to indict them, but it's outrageous. I think it speaks volumes about exactly what the agenda was. The agenda was, if someone comes in and associated with the Republican party or Donald Trump, indict them. It doesn't matter what the evidence was necessarily.
To suggest that Lindsey Graham, for example, committed some criminal act in Georgia strikes me as outrageous. But the other United States senators too, this was a way to use, again, the ultimate weaponization of the criminal justice process for partisan political purposes.
Isn't the issue here,
David, shown that
if you're going to criminalize politics,
then you are going to be indicting senators and congressmen
and governors and state legislators and anybody else you can get your hand on
if you're the prosecutor of the opposite party.
Because now, if you're lobbying, if you're speaking, if you're
claiming there's false elections, if you want a separate sect of electors
sent just so you can preserve your rights when it comes to the Electoral College, which we've done throughout American history. If you're going to turn all the politics, the rough and tumble,
into a crime
that an elected Democrat DA
in a city that is heavily Democrat
can use the criminal justice system, then you're going to be indicting 20 people, maybe all the Republicans
who vote. Maybe they're part of RICO too. You never know. This is a real scam, isn't it? Yeah. And it's in a complete abuse of our system and it's very dangerous for the future. But I think the ultimate point that that supports
your thesis, and you've made this point as effectively as anybody, is the current move around several states, not coincidentally which states,
use the 14th to try to use section 3 of the 14th amendment to bar President Trump from the ballot. That's the ultimate use of
state by state, partisan by partisan, abuse of our electoral system and what the court in Reynolds versus Sims says, the essence of democratic
society.
Well, it's pretty funny at a base level. Section 3 of the 14th amendment, the 14th amendment was ratified in 1868.
The congresses after the civil war didn't even believe in states rights after that point.
They still, the North still had military presence, the army in states, unless those states capitulated
to the North.
And the idea that they would have said, you know what, boys, we want to allow every single state the power to keep anyone off the ballot if, according to that, 1 person in the state or that state legislature says they committed acts of insurrection or sedition, they would never have handed power like that to the states. That's number 1. Number 2, we know what they meant by insurrection and sedition.
They meant anyone who helped the Confederacy,
period.
That part of the 14th Amendment died when the last Confederate
died.
