Post from Truth Social

Welcome back America. We're here with one of the finest litigators I know, Jim Trusty who used to work at the Department of Justice, also a former federal prosecutor. He's with the IFA law firm, a law partner there, and was a former lawyer for Donald Trump. Jim Trusty, you see what's taken place in Washington, DC. I've read this complaint now and there's nothing in here at all. 18 US Code 2383 about rebellion or insurrection. I thought that's what this was all about. 18 US Code section 2384 seditious conspiracy. I heard former federal prosecutors saying they have them dead to rights on that. Instead what I read is an assault on the First Amendment, an assault on attorneys providing advice who are indicted for giving me advice the government doesn't agree with. I see this really as a political statement dressed up as a legal statement here. Do you agree? And if so, how does somebody get away with this? Yeah, well, we get away from it. We get away with this because of the fact you've got an attorney general who's completely politicized the DOJ and they're carrying water for the Biden administration in a very destructive way. I mean, you've touched on it perfectly, Mark. The problem is this is creative prosecution. You know, that's the last thing you want. What you want in a situation where the stakes are this high when you're literally affecting elections and when you're literally going after a former president, what you'd want from a Department of Justice is scrupulous transparency, where they are literally willing to have anybody look over their shoulder that asks, including special masters or judges, where they are forthcoming with discovery, where they basically don't do anything that's obviously creative because the creativity shows that this is just ends justify the means. This is just a group that has decided even if we don't have the evidence that we were hoping for, we're going to come up with something. We've got the target. Now we're going to come up with the charges. And so I think if you look at these indictments, you know, it is a very bad precedent for what is considered fair game in a high-profile public integrity type prosecution. If you're a lawyer advising candidates, now you are exposed to possible indictment if after the fact a prosecutor looks back on this, could be any US attorney at this point now, any they look back and they say you know what you lied. You know what the advice that you gave to your candidate was intended to obstruct the the peaceful movement from one senator to another, one administration to another. I mean this document literally destroys the ability to get straight legal advice, it destroys the ability for a candidate to know what's in, what's out, what the rules of the game are, who's going to decide them and so forth and so on. Isn't that for Congress to decide other than a grand jury? Yeah I mean Mark, look there's a commonality between the two federal indictments, between Mar-a-Lago and now this can is you know Klein conspiracy as they call it under under the statute 18 USC 371. The commonality in these indictments is that DOJ has blown open important privileges that are held by presidents and others and so in the Mar-a-Lago case, attorney-client privilege which is almost absolutely inviolable was blown open by a friendly judge to allow for an indictment to have all these highlight moments of what Evan Corcoran said or what the exchange was between Evan Corcoran and the president about complying with the subpoena. The common thing we see in this more recent indictment is there's no such thing as executive privilege. The highlights in this indictment tend to be conversations between the vice president and the president which used to be sacrosanct. So what you're coming up with is a model for candidates or for presidents or for vice presidents where they have to know that hey all this stuff that's supposed to be behind closed doors so we can run this country is fair game for ambitious creative prosecutors and so we can't have these conversations. I mean we want to encourage frankness and disagreement between these high-level people that are running our country and these two indictments stand for the proposition that we'll criminalize it if there's a disagreement and that is the worst precedent imaginable in a case that demands transparency. It's very important what you're saying here. Attorney-client privilege was denied Donald Trump in the documents case. It was litigated in secret. We still haven't read the order that the judge issued. I assume the judge in Florida is going to have an opportunity to figure this stuff out. An emotion will likely be fired I hope by the Trump lawyers challenging all this. It's very difficult to see how you've due process when the information that you've discussed with your lawyer becomes the basic information used by the government against you. I can't think of another system like this. The crime fraud exception as we talked about it's a very very high bar so just so the public understands it's not that what if I do this what if I do this what if I do this that's fair game. The issue is when you try to get your lawyer look Frank my lawyer Frank you need to destroy those documents I insist that you destroy those documents that's the crime fraud exception not asking what happens if I destroy the documents any client is free to ask their their lawyer that sort of thing we don't know anything about this do we Jim? Yeah well I might know a little bit but look I mean there's the reality which yeah and there's things obviously I can't talk about but what I would just say is this the crime fraud exception is designed to be what you're talking about where there is cause and effect even if you even if the attorney is an unwitting in other words they're not purposefully breaking the law you have to show to a court considering that crime fraud exception that the advice was given and that the client then said oh well therefore I will now be able to break the law so it would be like hey Frank can I destroy all these documents they're looking for and Frank says yeah that would make it go away and then he destroys the documents right that would be a situation where you know you would at least have the possibility of blowing open the attorney-client relationship for that purpose I can just tell you there was nothing like that here and the bottom line is the indictment has all of these nuggets of conversations that happen every day of the week when you talk about white-collar investigations where an executive turns to his lawyer and says hey can we fight this subpoena can we do we have to turn stuff over what would happen if I do this what would happen if I do that we as a society as a criminal justice system want to encourage those types of interchanges and right now because of the desire to get one man and one man only the Department of Justice has created new law new precedent new damage to the institution of the presidency because of their pursuit of one man we'll be right back

Transcribed automatically. Expect errors in names and numbers.