- Welcome back America, David Schoen. 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, prosecutor can indict, or the grand jury can indict, but if you pick the grand jury, you gotta 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 jurors 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. You know, we heard two or three 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 three 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 foreperson 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 Loeffler, 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 that 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. 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 gonna 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 gonna 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 gonna 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 a complete abuse of our system and it's very dangerous for the future, but I think the ultimate point 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 three 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 three 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 and 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 one 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 one. Number two, 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. That's the bottom line. David Shone, I want to thank you, my man. You're the best. Appreciate it. - Thank you so much. Brilliant.
Transcribed automatically. Expect errors in names and numbers.
AI Day Analysis
Machine-generated analysis of the 2023-09-15 posts below. Not written by their author.
Legal Anxiety Submerged Beneath Grandiose Myth-Building Erupts in Evening Rage Over Gag Order
A mostly quiet day of link-sharing and campaign promotion ended with the day's only original outburst — a heated response to Special Counsel Jack Smith's request for a gag order. The morning featured a well-timed post seizing on the UAW strike to attack Biden's electric vehicle policies, and a midnight "REMEMBER THE MAN" video that leaned into self-mythologizing. Most of the day's 19 posts were bare URL shares likely posted by staff, padding the feed with favorable polls and legal-defense commentary. The mood was confident on the surface, but the volume of legal-persecution articles shared early in the evening betrayed an underlying preoccupation with mounting courtroom pressure.