Search Posts

Welcome back, America. In addition to denying President Trump attorney-client privilege in one case and executive privilege in the other case and his communications with his vice president, you see anything else weird going on here, Jim Trusty? Yeah. I mean, look, I think there's a real parallel between two investigations that speak volumes about this attorney general and his integrity. The IRS whistleblowers on the Hunter Biden case said that they went to the assistant U.S. attorney ready to do a search warrant to find documents belonging to Hunter Biden. It could be a real treasure trove, of course. The AUSA didn't just say, "No, we're not doing the search warrant." She picked up the phone and called Hunter's lawyers and said, "The IRS is trying to search location X." Okay? In my book, that's basically obstruction of justice. The parallel on the Mar-a-Lago case is that you have the high-level DOJ official, according to a statement submitted as an officer to the court to a federal judge, told Stanley Woodward, a defense attorney representing Walt Nada, that it would be a shame, essentially, if he endangered his pending judgeship by not flipping Nada against President Trump. Again, it's extortion. And so the people that we are entrusting in our criminal justice system to fairly and partially and transparently pursue justice are actually obstructionists, because they're so hell-bent on going after one target against President Trump. And I hope your viewers recognize there's a lot of details, a lot of legal and factual arguments. I hope and try to be an evidence-driven guy, but there's evidence from both of those cases that suggest this Department of Justice, if those accusations are right, has no compunction about breaking the rules, about destroying the rule of law because of their political interest in being the ones that got President Trump. Do we know where that extortion case is now, what the judge has found? I mean, it would seem to me it's relevant to the judge in Florida that the judge in D.C. come to a conclusion. Yeah, that's a good point. I mean, look, you had a presiding judge in D.C. that had a case that suddenly became indicted in Florida, and I'm not saying that it was bad for the president, that the case moved to Florida, but there's a lot of shenanigans in terms of grand jury usage. You know, you don't do a grand jury investigation for a year only to move it to another district unless there's more to the story. I'm concerned that some of those abusive behaviors we talked about played out in front of the grand jury in D.C., and so what Florida got was a much sanitized version of what was presented over the course of a year in D.C. So again, I'm not on the case. There'll be litigation, I assume, that relates to these issues of how the grand jury was used or abused, but it's certainly, again, new territory when DOJ shifts an investigation at the last minute to an entirely different venue. And they would start an investigation in a grand jury in one place and move it to another, which violates the rules of the Department of Justice. But there's a lot of reasons you can do that if you're really a sleazy prosecutor, including you feel you can get a better grand jury from your perspective in Washington, D.C. than in Florida. You're making a point, I'm reading between the lines here, that a lot of stuff took place in that grand jury in Washington, D.C., that the grand jury and the judge in Florida can't possibly know about. You talked about sanitizing that process. I assume some of that, I'm guessing, has to do with attorney-client privilege information and so forth. The reason I'm saying that is past people I have talked to that have faced this man, Smith, say that's exactly what he does. He pierces attorney-client privilege by hook or by crook, gets it in front of the grand jury. It's used in front of the grand jury. And now in this case, he's moved it to another grand jury. And so the grand jury in Florida and the judge in Florida don't know anything about it unless Trump's lawyers are good enough to raise it with them. Is that your point? Yeah, I think that's right. Again, I think there's a lot to be looked into. Of course, the grand jury proceedings in general are one-sided, right? The old saying about the grand jury on the Ida Ham sandwich if a prosecutor asked them to. We understand that. We're not pretending that the grand jury should be like a full-blown trial. It's not. But when judges make historic decisions based on ex parte submissions, in other words, one-sided submissions that defense attorneys don't get to even challenge, to make history. And then, by the way, to avoid all appeals by rushing the witnesses in the grand jury right after they get the friendly ruling, I mean, all of that smells rotten to me. And I think it's the type of stuff that will hopefully be brought to the attention of Judge Cannon or Judge Chutkin, depending on what the specific issue is in Florida or in D.C. And as you started out, the idea that this is being done to a former president who's running for president again, the stretching of laws, the application of laws that have nothing to do, in many cases, with what's taking place, a general warrant rather than a very clean, laser-focused warrant, sending SWAT teams in, where his Biden son, his lawyers get a heads up from the government and so forth. This damn thing is so completely out of control. Jim, trust you, I want to thank you very, very much. God bless you, my friend. All right. Thanks, Mark. Good talking to you. We'll be right back.

Transcribed automatically. Expect errors in names and numbers.