Jack Smith teases new NIGHTMARE news for Donald Trump & allies

you're looking at the legal breakdown, so Glenn, we have some really amazing

news

from Jack Smith. Here, the federal grand jury in DC that indicted Trump last week will now reconvene, so what does that mean? It means that we are going to have a I suspect that I remember that in the first indictment issued by the grand jury for Donald Trump's attempt to overturn the results of the 2020 election, the first DC indictment there were six uncharged co-conspirators, what can we deduce from that? I suspect I will soon remember a new accusation. um Jack Smith is now on record saying that they committed crimes with Donald Trump, they are co-conspirators in Trump's efforts to steal the 2020 election, there is no way for Jack Smith to put that information in a public document, a criminal indictment and then I rejected it. to indict those six criminals, so I suspect that he may still be presenting evidence to the grand jury regarding those six co-conspirators, but I have a feeling that very soon we will see the second indictment, not necessarily what we call a superseding indictment, but a second separate accusation.

Of those six co-conspirators and Brian could include many others, remember that there were 48 people who were indicted and convicted, pleaded guilty or went to trial and were found guilty behind the Watergate scandal and that was a fairly modest criminal scandal in comparison. . to what Donald Trump orchestrated in his efforts to steal an election from the American people, so if we had 48 defendants in Watergate, goodness, we could have a hundred and forty-eight defendants in this case, but Glenn couldn't. That would have the unintended consequence of slowing down closing the entire case against Trump since each new defendant leaves more room for delays, great question, which is why I said this will be a second separate indictment, not a superseding indictment if Jack Smith starts present substitute charges and that is a term of art in the law. it would mean that every indictment would include Donald Trump but it would add charges and add defendants and you are absolutely right if that is the route taken by Jack Smith then every time there was a new indictment handed down by the grand jury that included charges against Donald Trump it would delay increasingly the date of the trial.

That's not what I expect to see. I hope to see additional indictments, but without Donald Trump being charged in those new indictments, so that in one indictment all four count. I suspect that the charge that Jack Smith has already had the grand jury return against Donald Trump will not be affected by additional indictments later and that case, although those four counts will be on their way to go to trial and I suspect that Tanya Chuckin will make it a quick trial, so just to be clear now, if we see indictments, a new indictment for these anonymous co-conspirators, this would be a completely separate case, I mean, it would be obviously related to the ongoing case that Trump is facing right now. , but it would act as a completely separate case and Donald Trump will go to trial as the only criminal defendant sitting at the Council table and all the other defendants charged in subsequent separate indictments will go to trial together and what do you think? any new charges for a new indictment could be based, so I have a feeling that we will see at least these six currently unindicted accomplices charged with basically the same charges that Jack Smith brought against Donald Trump because he made it clear in that indictment that these six co-conspirators committed the crimes that Donald Trump was charged with because they were all part of the same conspiracy, so we're going to look at those charges, but I suspect we're going to look at the other thing.

We could start to see some charges of Donald Trump's financial crimes as part of his you know, his pack, his fundraising efforts that he told his donors go for one purpose and end up with a completely different purpose, you know, The open question is really interesting. The question is whether we see Donald Trump added to those financial crimes indictments, for example, in a later case in which Jack Smith is not interested in going to trial anytime soon because he wants to keep pristine the four-count indictment that he already has. has been turned against Trump so that one can stay on the fast track to trial now, is there any chance that we could see a charge against Donald Trump or any new co-conspirator for inciting an insurrection and also beyond that, like what would be the The downside of bringing a charge like that, which may be more difficult to prove than the charges that are already on the table, is an important question because if we remember what Donald Trump said at his pre-insurrection rally in the ellipse of January 6th and what Rudy Giuliani said and what Don Jr said and what Brooks said, they all used dramatically inflammatory language trying to provoke everyone into a frenzy by lying to them about their votes being stolen and their votes being manipulated. their elections and then in various ways that they said: you know what you have to go to the Capitol and fight like hell or you won't have a country anymore or Rudy Giuliani said let's have trial by combat, or Beau Brook said something about You know it is necessary to shed blood.

I'm taking liberties I don't remember exactly the inflammatory language you used here the question is if there is a charge of inciting an Insurrection supporter which is actually where there would be a robot bust argument that some of that could be protected by the First Amend the beauty (I use the term loosely), the beauty of no charges being brought for inciting the Insurrection that day is that Jack Smith has so far taken away from Donald Trump and anyone else who could have been charged with inciting the Insurrection Insurrection, has taken away the argument that the charges have anything to do with what is arguably protective First Amendment speech;

It really was a conservative call, at least on the legal front, a conservative call by Jack Smith and I would go so far as to say it was a really smart call because you can't Donald Trump should not defend that he is being prosecuted for his speech that might enjoy First Amendment protection, it may not be a legal defense, but clearly that doesn't stop him from making that argument in the court of public opinion. That's the exact argument that he and his

allies

have made throughout the conservative media ecosystem, that this is all an attack on Donald Trump's First Amendment rights, and I think Jack Smith knew well in advance that that would be the defense. of Trump. here, and that's why he put it on page two of a 45-page indictment that says that Trump can not only say whatever he wants about this, but he can also lie about the election results and everything that. that's protected speech this um this accusation is not about this accusation is about conspiring to deprive Americans of their right to cast their votes uh conspiring to you know create this whole scheme to defraud uh to defraud uh you know a free election and fair to go ahead and block the certification of the election results, so I think, I think you know, to your point, Jack Smith knew very clearly that that was going to be Trump's move here and he kind of pulled the rug out from under him. the feet.

Yeah, let me continue with that, it's a great point and I would say it's comical, but there's actually nothing funny about what's going on, but it's almost comical that Donald Trump and his defense attorneys are out there, you know, throwing their defense of the public square. Lawyers are all over the Sunday

news

shows saying that Donald Trump is being prosecuted for speech protected by the First Amendment. It's almost as if the defense attorneys were presenting arguments against the indictment they expected to see, but not the indictment that Jack Smith had the grand jury return correctly. and the other thing I just wrote in an article for MSNBC about this that hasn't been published yet.

What's really unfortunate is that Donald Trump's defense attorneys, his spokespersons, are making these absurd arguments about speech protected by the First Amendment and they're misleading the public. You know you have the feeling of what Donald Trump did before the 2020 election, that he knew he would lose, what did he say, did he say, oh, it's going to be a rigged election, that's the only way he could lose and now ? Donald Trump and his lawyers are spewing so much disinformation propaganda and lies into the Public Square saying things like oh you know what, I can't get a free trial in DC, the juries hate me, so if they convict me it's because it will be a rigged trial.

Well, we've heard that before, haven't we? And here we go again Donald Trump and his lawyers saying this nonsense. I will say Brian, it's really disturbing, I think, for those of us who practice law in the criminal justice arena. prosecutors and defense to see defense attorneys on the public airwaves and making misleading statements about what is really happening parroting or imitating misinformation the client's propaganda and outright lies I hope Judge Tanya Tuckkin at some point upholds the feet of the defense attorney. to the fire and says listen, you're going to take those dirty tricks you've been telling in the Public Square, put them back in your bag of tricks and don't bring them out again, yeah, look, no, I'm not saying that.

Donald Trump's lawyers are bad, but I will say that when you have a reputation for never paying people who work for you, you are left with a person of a certain quality, so we'll leave it at that, Glenn, which has yet to be . litigated in pretrial motions and when do you suppose we'll see a trial date announced for this case for the election theft case? Yes, I could almost promise you that we are going to have a trial date announced on August 28th. The reason I can promise that is because when I attended the arraignment hearing for Donald Trump, the magistrates, the magistrate judge presiding over that hearing, was not Judge Chuck, but a magistrate judge.

He said Judge Chuckin asked me to lead. Let the prosecution and defense attorneys file a motion with a proposed trial date and then, when they meet at the next status hearing in this case, which is set for August 28, Judge Chuckin will set a date for trial, so I'm pretty sure Judge Chuckin will do it. I will be setting a trial date of August 28 with respect to what needs to be litigated, pretty much everything right, all the pretrial motions that the defense can file attacking, for example, the theory of liability. You know they will make all kinds of claims to a large extent. frivolous claims from us baseless claims claims without any legal support that you know the grand jury process was abused and the charges as returned have some legal weakness, they will argue executive privilege, they will argue anything they can think of, partly just trying to bog down the process, but again with Judge Chutkin presiding, she is a brave and independent judge, smart and brave, she has shown that in 10 years on the federal bench she will get through all of this like you know what, through a goose and will adhere to a judgment. date she sets, but don't be surprised if we see a lot of motions filed by Trump's legal team, some of them may have some merit and require some serious litigation to resolve, many of them won't go well, and ultimately, Glenn, given the fact that there's only one defendant in this case and we don't have to deal with the problems of declassifying classified documents and all that, so you think there's a world in which this trial could take place in early 2024, instead of know something closer to summer or fall of 2024.

I believe the case will be tried and resolved sometime in early to perhaps mid-2024. There is absolutely no reason why the defense team can't prepare for a trial which will be set six months in advance, say in February of 2024. A trial like this will probably take three or four weeks to reach its conclusion and reach a verdict, so I would hope that we will have this case resolved perhaps in March, perhaps in April 2024, which will at least be well before the November 2024 presidential election, so as we have discussed above, in the event that Donald Trump is the Republican nominee for our president, voters will know if they are voting for a convicted felon or by a completely exonerated defendant who, according to the jury, knows what he has done.

There's nothing wrong, we've cleared him of all charges, what's the likelihood of that being the outcome? Yes, a pretty surprising development that will be for the Law and Order party, but do you know what else you can expect? With that. said for anyone watching if you want to stay up to date on this, especially as we see this case continue to move forward in court, be sure to subscribe, the links are here on the screen. I'm Brian Teller Cohen and I'm Glenn Kirschner you're watching the foreign legal collapse