 Welcome to American Issues Take One. I'm Tim Apachele, your host. Today's title is, Trump says three presidents took docs too. Trump's, what about it is, distracts his crime. When the story broke about the FBI going to Mar-a-Lago and retrieving boxes of documents, I think people are generally shocked that this took place with the former president of the United States. I don't think it's been done before. So immediately there was a lot of media attention on this issue. And if I recall, Trump and Trump's team the response to this raid, and it wasn't a raid by the way, it was a judge authorized search warrant. Raids are the wrong word to use in this situation. But I remember the first response was, those boxes were packed by GSA and shipped to Mar-a-Lago. Go talk to them about what's in those boxes. And when that didn't pan out, Trump immediately pointed the finger at Obama. In a classic, what about is, I'm saying, well, President Obama took thousands of documents. That little ploy was blunted when the National Archives within hours said, no, President Obama used a legal format procedure to obtain his documents for his library. So when that didn't work, then the FBI now were being blamed by Donald Trump saying that they were now depositing all sorts of documents in those boxes. And it's the FBI that's creating this whole mess. Well, that didn't pan out either. Then he cried that I declassified those documents. I simply declassified them. And all I had to do is think about them being declassified and they are declassified. And so that's not a what about ism. That's about how about that ism, how about that? I just think of something that is declassified. Then last but not least, being more desperate because this thing is rolling along in the courts. President Trump now points a finger at President Bush Sr. that he took thousands of documents and stashed them in a bowling alley. Then Clinton took documents. Then Bush Jr. took documents. Well, the National Archives has come to the forefront of those accusations, those what about isms and said, no, the all followed procedure. So as of Sunday at his rally in Arizona, Donald Trump goes back to his playbook and starts blaming once again, the FBI for putting classified documents in all those mini boxes at Mar-a-Lago. Which brings us to the story of, where are we now with Donald Trump and his what about isms? I'd like to introduce my guests. Today we have a special guest, Chuck Crumpton to the show. Welcome Chuck. We have my co-host and special guest, Jay Fidel. And we have our special contributor, Cynthia Lee Sinclair. Good morning, everyone. Good morning. Good morning, Tim. Good morning, Chuck. We're all special today, I guess, huh? I like that introduction. You know, it just gets better every week. So yes, you are all very special in my heart too. Chuck, after all the statements that Donald Trump has not broken any laws, that he, you know, has right to all these documents, and he does this in open airways, he broadcasts his legal defense basically on political rallies, is that serving him well, legally? Well, first, good question. First, putting it in context, it really doesn't matter what he thinks or what the media thinks, or even what people who read or hear the media think. Hey, it's really up to Merrick Garland and the DOJ and how they see the evidence. They're clearly building a case. And one of the things that's very different about the Mar-a-Lago documents case from any that we've seen previously is that the DOJ has been moving very quickly, decisively and without deference to the Trump favoring judge at the district court level in Florida. And they've been so far pretty successful, pretty effective. So that's where the real strategic legal battle is gonna be fought. And the one that will probably become the most influential in the course of preparations for the 2024 elections, not for these new terms. You know, DOJ recently wrote to the Supreme Court because Donald Trump has petitioned the Supreme Court for assistance. And it seems to be the primary argument that DOJ is presenting is he doesn't own the documents. They're not his documents. And that seems to be the basis of their arguments moving forward. What do you think about that? Well, legally, that argument essentially is without established legal defense or exception. I mean, there's no question about it. As former acting solicitor general, Neil Cotton, yeah, I'll put it last week. If it were anybody other than Trump, it would have been indicted long ago. But there are clearly a lot of impacts of the indictment and you've got an attorney general and the Department of Justice who are moving slowly but carefully, but apparently inexorably and commentators have indicated recently, there's pretty much no place they can go with the arguments that they're making now other than an indictment. Okay, thank you. Cause on that point, I'd like to direct that to Jay. Jay, is former president Trump trying to get indicted? Was there any benefit politically for him to do that? Certainly not legally, but politically. Now, I hate to refer to my teenage years in Queens and so I won't. Although I lived in the three subway stops away from where Trump grew up and I couldn't talk about the culture of teenagers in Queens. I'll talk about lawyers here in Honolulu and I can think of one, I won't name him, but his tactics were always the same. Whatever you said in court, whatever you said in your pleadings, whatever claim or defense you made, he would change the subject. He would never answer you straight on, never. When I say never, I mean never. And it worked for him because everybody got distracted. It was the art, not of the deal, but the art of the distraction. This whole thing about Marilago is a distraction. Every argument he makes, every ridiculous statement, his maneuvers with Eileen Cannon, his outrageous statements to the press, it's all a distraction. And if he's looking for some motivation there, I think the motivation, he's just running the clock because he believes that somehow we will have an inflection point that works in his favor on election day, which is not too far away at less than a month, in three weeks, actually, from now. And if he can get there, and I think he can get there, then somehow that will work through his benefit. And if the houses of Congress, control of the houses of Congress change, then he's got to run the clock till January, which I think he can probably do the way this is going. Remember the justice who was gonna hear this rule on this Takamemi motion of his for assistance, is Clarence Thomas, remember him? He's my very favorite. He's not gonna do the United States any good. So, you know, that's one element to this. And the other element is, the two of you have mentioned it, and that is that Merrick Garland is moving with some level of dispatch. Inextrable was the word last year's. I'm not sure inexorable is the dispatch. But let me say that there are two schools of thought on Merrick Garland. One is, I would call evidence-based. It took him almost two years to get to where he is now. And that has not been dispatched. And I don't have any level, any significant level of confidence that he is actually going to get to an indictment. And I'm willing to do pizza on that, you guys. No more pizza. No more pizza. No more pizza. I don't think he's gonna get there. He's gonna flimflam around, he's intimidated. I don't know, he's got this thing about due diligence. And remember that there are people in the Department of Justice and the FBI that Trump appointed, they're still there, which is the subject of the show we're gonna do tomorrow. So I'm not clear that the Department of Justice can get its act together and get its hands around an indictment right now. I don't know why not. I'm telling you that if Chuck or I or you guys were handling this for the Department of Justice, Trump would have been indicted a year ago at least. But somehow with all the resources theoretically available to the Attorney General of the United States, under a friendly president now, Biden, he hasn't got there yet. So that's a factor that plays. So Jay, what I'm saying is just trying to run the clock on Merrick Garland. Well, Jay, you're willing to bet a pizza. I'm already in the hole with my pizza bets to you. What are you gonna say here on Think Tech Hawaii when that indictment, not if, but when that indictment comes through, what will your words be? Let's go down for a pizza. And pay off that bet, Jim. Okay, good answer. Hey, Cynthia, Jay has accurately described the many Trump, what about isms, what about Obama, what about Clinton, what about Bush, the what about isms to a distraction? The question to you is, is Donald Trump itching for an indictment? Does he wanna be indicted? If not, why is he doing what he's doing to thumb his nose at the DOJ? And if he does wanna be indicted, is there a political strategy behind that? Okay, I don't believe he wants to be indicted because I'm not 100% positive, but I believe that a criminal investigation or criminal case takes precedent over a civil case. So that would then just pull all the teeth out of this civil case, that this crazy, and I mean, crazy. I've done a little bit of a research on Christina Bob, the one that was handling some of this stuff. Did you know that she was actually in the room at the Willard Hotel on January 6th, and she was operating as a go-between for Rudy Giuliani between officials in Arizona, and she's been carrying Trump's water for a long time. She was on the OAN network first, and then, well, first she did a lot of other stuff, but then she was on the OAN network, and just constantly talked about the stolen election, stopped the steal, the big lie. That was her big thing, which is what brought her over to Trump's team to begin with. So this is one of the things that I think is important. Now, we're talking about all this, what aboutism stuff, right? Whether Trump told her to say it beforehand or she came up with it on her own, but the very day of the raid, or excuse me, the search, she says, I don't believe that there was any classified material in there, though I'm sure the FBI will say that there is. And she said that in an interview, just two days after the search. So this has been like part of their nonstop what they're trying to push. So at the rally this weekend, and you know Trump, boy, that's one thing we can count on it for, and that is to tip his hand. He can't seem to keep his mouth shut about important things like that. And we know we've seen that over all these years. And so Saturday's rally was no different when he very specifically said what it was that the FBI was going to plant. And he said, you know, so of course, when the FBI says that there were specific documents on how to build a nuclear bomb cheaply, then you know, I'm sure they put it there. Now, this is the first time we've heard anything about any talk of there being that specific document. So it's funny when he tries to name specific documents that they might plant. Well, how does he know what they might plant? So that's where he totally betrays his own self when he does that, because he shares stuff. Well, I know that is usable in a court of law, I suspect his words and statements can be presented as part of the attempt to indict. Thank you, Cynthia. I appreciate that. I'm glad you brought that up because once again, Donald Trump's mouth exceeds the legal opinions from his attorneys and who could represent them? Well, why would they represent them? Because one, they doesn't take their advice and two, he doesn't pay his bills. Going back to you, Chuck, I've asked this question before. I know I have, but it's worth asking again. And that is, what happens to the DOJ's credibility the rule of law, if they don't indict? And what reaction takes place with Trump's followers and the public in general, if they do indict? It's a really good question because- It's a hard question. It is. And if you're sitting on the other side of it, on the DOJ, Merrick Garland side of it, the key to the question is how? What's the indictment? How do they present it? And what do they back it up with? Now, one of the things that the DOJ has done that is not characteristic of most prosecutions in the Mar-a-Lago case is very quickly after Trump raised his lies and distractions about Mar-a-Lago, they moved the court to unseal substantial portions of the list and inventory of documents found to show the extent of classified, highly classified high security documents that were included. Since then, additional information has come out. They've had that great photo of the documents spread out on the rug. They've had big reports of documents with Trump's sharpie markings on them with his apparent handwriting in Disha. So, on the one hand, there doesn't seem to be any question in anybody's mind, despite the distractions of the lies, that he unauthorizedly took highly classified documents illegally and put them in Mar-a-Lago. So the question's gonna be, as it would be with a January 6th indictment, what's the indictment for and what's the evidentiary backup for that that's presented together with it? And I think one of the things that you're starting to see in the DOJ is they're combining those two things, their position and the backup for it. And they're publicizing those things. Yeah, to get ahead of it. Yeah, they are publicizing it. Jay, I know your concern for our democracy is peaked, as I think all of ours is as well. We're concerned about the rule of law and the continuation of our democratic government system. To you, the same question. What happens if the DOJ fails to indict President Trump? What sort of damage to the rule of law and the credibility of justice? Does Donald Trump, does he exceed the law and he is above the law? I think he's got a schematic in his mind on all of these choices and possibilities. And to answer your last question, I'm not sure it means that much to one way or the other because somebody here, Chuck, has said that it depends on whether the DOJ is able to get an indictment. But I'm thinking of Rachel Maddow's new ultra podcast. This episode number two is called The Brooklyn Boys. And it's the story of a group of people in Brooklyn who were led by a fellow named, I forget his name, and he was part of Father Kaufflin's national group. Well, before you got to the Brooklyn Boys, there was a trial, an indictment and a trial by the DOJ, somewhere in middle America, of a group and its members called something like the Christian Coalition or Christian Leadership, something along, they gotta listen to it, you'll see. And they caught a lot of people with guns and plans and conspiracies, with a conspiracy that was dedicated to killing a number of Congress people and taking over the government. It was taking over the government. It was a coup by force. And they had evidence of that. And they indicted these guys in this trial somewhere in the Midwest, I forget where. And the Father Kaufflin and his friends who were behind this group were outside in the street with people protesting the trial. They were in the courtroom. Every time a statement was made that undermined the DOJ, everybody would applaud. They filled the press with commentary about how these guys were really innocent. They were patriots. This was their way of expressing patriotism. And it was all a crock, it was all a complete distraction. And after a while, you understand why Rachel Maddow is researching these events back in the around 1940 or so. And I think we have to take that into account here because if Trump, you know, you asked before, does Trump wanna be indicted? I don't think it matters. If he gets indicted, that crowd is gonna be on the street. The media will be filled with his base. They'll be in the courtroom, which has to be open. And they'll be yelling and screaming for him in the courtroom. And they'll be making some kind of distraction kind of defense and they'll appeal it. And there are 50 things at least you can think of that Trump would use to demolish that indictment and that trial. By the way, the guys in the trial in the Midwest were acquitted down to the last man. And the Department of Justice was humiliated for years. I believe that Trump thinks he can do the same thing. And that's why Rachel Maddow is covering it. Good point. Yeah, I'm gonna have to check those out. Cynthia, Donald Trump implied, I don't know if he implied it. I think it was almost an explicit statement that should an indictment come his way that they'll be, he implied there's gonna be violence. Like, nothing we've ever seen before, you know, those kinds of statements. Do you agree with Jay that if there's an indictment handed down that Donald Trump will stir up his MAGA GOP base and even the GOP generally, not just his MAGA followers but the entire GOP? Does he try to do that? And if so, how does he do it? Well, at this point, and the last part of your question is just how I was gonna answer the whole first part too. He doesn't need to do it himself anymore. He's got millions, lots of them in the media, in the legal profession, in the FBI. And like Jay pointed out what we're gonna talk about tomorrow, lots of people that are still put there in the positions, he put them there before he left office. Then we've just got sitting senators that are saying it. We've got sitting, you know, representatives that are talking like this, saying this stuff that if he's indicted, there's gonna be war. What was that Lindsey Graham said there's going to be violence in the street? So we've got, he doesn't need to do it himself. It's already in place. Then he's got all the proud boys. Well, isn't he kind of doing that now at rallies in Arizona and across the country before the midterm elections? Isn't he already stoking those fires in advance? Yeah, that's what he's doing right now. But he's doing it, not necessarily his minions. Well, but his minions are also, they're all doing it together. So after he's indicted, if he has to get a gag order or something, it won't matter because he's got all his minions out there. And those minions are already doing it, and he is too. But so it's not just on him, what will he do? Even if he stops, he's still got everybody else. And I have a question, can't the judge seal the courtroom? Isn't that possible? Isn't there lots of high profile cases where the judge says, all right, that's it. We're not taking anybody. Because of things like having a bunch of Trump supporters show up and chant and cause trouble and react when somebody says something like, oh, you're lying or yeah, that's right, or whatever, right? Thank you. Thank you, Cynthia, very much. Chuck, let me take a left turn here. I'm gonna take a little left-hand lane change here. If Musk gets his Twitter accounts and he buys the company and he immediately allows Donald Trump to initiate a new account, to what degree does Donald Trump use his new Twitter account to foil and blunt attempts to indict him? It's a good question. It's got multiple parts. First, understanding Musk and looking at him in context. This is a guy who just within recent days approached Putin and offered to try and broker a deal that would get Putin everything he wants. Correct. In Ukraine. So this is not a guy who is politically neutral. Is he violating potentially the Logan Act? He's probably violating quite a few laws. And so there may be some question as to whether investigation of Musk or what he does once he takes over Twitter. Twitter still, it's a company, it's got a board. He may not be able to exercise unilateral control of Twitter's policy. We don't know what's gonna happen with that. But if Trump is placed on the loose in charge of a social media platform with that level of public readership, he has no self-restraint. But we know that on January 6th, when he was finally convinced after hours of destruction and mayhem to borrow a word from all state at the Capitol, he was finally convinced by some of his closest advisors to tell people to go home. The very next sentence said, we love you. There is no question that these are his people. That there is no question that he wanted to be there. He wanted to be part of it. Right. Additionally, psychologically, he needs to be publicly part of that violent disassembly of American democratic institutions and protection of the public's right to choose who govern and the processes that manage that. That's what we're looking at. Okay, we've run out of time, but Jay, you wanna tackle the same question. What does Trump do if he gets access to his Twitter account and how does he leverage that, that new bully pulpit to blunting and to be indicted? Or does he even work? Well, one of the scariest things that's come out in the past week is that Elon Musk says he wants to complete the deal. Yeah. Okay, and if you recall a month or two ago before he backed out of the deal, he said that if he succeeded in the deal, he was going to put Trump back on Twitter. What he said in English, no uncertain terms. So I think it's probable that Musk is going to do the deal. And I think it's therefore probable that he's gonna get Trump, gonna allow Trump to come back on. You can say board of directors, Chuck, but I'm not sure the board of directors has much to say against a guy like Trump. And Musk, the owner of all the stock, who can reorganize the board of directors. I shouldn't say all the stock, but enough of the stock to be able to reorganize the board of directors on a fine Tuesday afternoon. So, okay, I think we have to start with the assumption that Trump will get back on. And the answer to your question then is how can he parlay that? Oh, hey, we've been watching him parlay that for years. We've been watching him parlay that even without Twitter. If he has Twitter back, oh my God, OMG. He's gonna have this huge platform, this bully pulpit that is multiples of what he has now. In fact, multiples of what he has ever had. It's going to be a tremendous problem for the country, for truth, for the democratic republicans. It's gonna be a flaming disaster and he knows how to do it. I can't predict exactly how, but if we sat in a room for a while and just looked at his track record, he just do the same playbook again, but on steroids. Easy. Mueller investigation comes to mind, easy. By the way, there's one point you raised. I want to talk about it. That is, so he makes these statements, Cynthia talks about it. He makes these statements at these rallies and all that. And they're not true. They're high in the sky, wishful thinking or lies. Well, usually lies. And that's an admission of some sort. Well, it's not under oaths, remember. The commentators keep reminding us it's not under oaths. It's only useful, don't you agree, Chuck, as a cross examination point? At your rally in Kansas, didn't you say this? Okay, and then ask him. But if you relied only on this statement, wild unhinged statements that he makes that these rallies, I'm not sure, without the power of cross examination, I'm really not sure if that's not under oaths. They not go that far. It may not be enough. And if I am very conservative, Merrick Garland, I'm probably gonna be looking for something better. Good point, great point, Jay. Thank you. We're gonna wrap this up. So Cynthia, your last thoughts about the topic. Okay, I don't think it's just Trump we have to worry about if Elon Musk gets a hold of Twitter because all of the people that were commenting on Trump's posts, all the proud boys and all the stuff that they did on Twitter and Facebook to organize the January 6th, they're all coming back too, right? So I know we often focus on Trump and like in my last statement too, I wanna make sure that we remember we're at risk to way more than just that. So I'm gonna tell you, I'm gonna be in my quotes, right? It's not an exact quote, but it is an excerpt from the most recent Heather Cox Richardson thing that Chuck sent around. That was really a good one too. I thank you for doing that. But I pretty much try to read her as much as I can, right, because she's recommended her to everyone. She gives a really good, easy to understand straight to the heart of things, non-partisan look at what's going on. So she writes, the cons of GOP control. Biden can spell out the chaos that awaits if Republicans win even one House of Congress or take key jobs responsible for running our elections. A GOP House can shut down the government, thereby suspending aid, for example, to Ukraine or funding for infrastructure or drug cost plans, force a default on the debt impeach Biden as they have threatened to do or cabinet officials and inevitably engage in mind numbing hyperbolic investigations. This is something we all need to remember. We are at great risk to weigh more than just Trump the individual. We are at risk to Trump the, well, I don't even know what to call it. The mega GOP, I think that's the word I'm trying to use. But I'm going by what I've seen over the years and how terrified I am if they do get back in power. And I am not the only one worried. And when we've got people like Dr. Richardson coming out and telling us stuff like this, it's time to sit down and listen. Thank you, Cynthia. Chuck, your brief wrap up. I think we've covered pretty much everything today. Wanted to thank you, Cynthia, Jay, for great perspectives and insights. Live forward to more of those next time and turn it back to you. Okay, thank you very much, Chuck. Jay, you get the last word. Only to say that every day goes by and we try to connect these dots and it actually gets scarier for the democracy and for our human rights, civil rights and political rights. And I'm very worried that this is going to come to a huge and very unpleasant conclusion on election day and on January one. Alrighty. I'd like to thank our guests, Chuck Crumpton, co-host Jay Fidel and contributor Cynthia Lisa and Claire for joining us on American Issues Take One. I'm Tim Mapachello, your host. Join us next week. And until then, Aloha. Thank you so much for watching Think Tech Hawaii. If you like what we do, please like us and click the subscribe button on YouTube and the follow button on Vimeo. You can also follow us on Facebook, Instagram, Twitter and LinkedIn and donate to us at thinktechhawaii.com. Mahalo.