 Now, welcome back to Think Tech. I'm Jay Fidel. This is American Issues Take One, and Georgia is on our minds. So, we're going to talk today about what is happening there, and this indictment is a historic moment with Chuck Crumpton, Vicky Caetano, Manfred Henningson. We're going to talk about what it all means, how it all affects the landscape around Trump. Let's go to you first, Chuck. Was it too ambitious to have this huge big series of indictments really in Georgia? Is Fannie Willis, has she bitten off more than she can chew? And she has made a lot of challenges for herself. Has it looked, from the point of view of the size and scope of the indictment, as compared to the size and scope of the other two federal indictments? It's a great question, but you look at a couple of things, and prosecutors like all attorneys need to put strategy first. She is very comfortable, very familiar with doing multi-party RICO cases. That's her turf. She's good at it. Other Georgia prosecutors have seen that. They've commented on it. So, she's comfortable there, whether Trump and all of his people are going to be in concert or in harmony or in their testimony remains to be seen. So, she's chosen kind of the game plan that she's comfortable with. Let's see if he can knock her off of that. Plus, RICO is different in Georgia than it is in some other states. It's an area where she's experienced and comfortable. See what she does with them. What about removal? Is it possible that this criminal proceeding could be removed to the federal court? That would not be a good thing for a funny. Well, to do that, Trump and the others have to convince the federal court that they were acting in the performance of their official duties as federal officers. The likelihood of that, that's already been ruled on in some of the other cases. The likelihood of that is not great, but the tactic as a stalling mechanism could be one that they could use just to delay things. File to remove it like Manos has already done. If he loses the removal, then he can either have others file, drag it out that way, or appeal that denial of removal. I was strong. She had a good background and experience in these matters, especially in RICO, and apparently she has the political support she needs, although there have been attacks on her by the Republicans over the past few months. We haven't necessarily seen that in the press, but they've been making it as hard as they could try to get her off the case and so forth. What is Trump's big defense in this? I suppose one related question is, what are those, what is it, 18 people who have also been indicted, or maybe the total is 18? What are they going to do? Could they flip? This has the possibility of really turning into the worst of all the cases interrupted. Well, one of the things you look at is, if any of those 18 say things in their trial testimony that reflect adversely on Trump, they were doing what he wanted. They were doing what he expected of them. They were doing what he told them. That's to her benefit against him. So there's not much of an upside for them in getting in there together. If they orchestrate their testimony, you lose credibility entirely. If you do that, that's pretty obvious. So again, kind of see what happens. See what the Georgia judge does. What about the judge? Scott McAfee, what do you know about him? What do you think, where does he stand on all this? Don't have any information about him. But if you look at the choice that Fannie Willis has made, she's got a governor who's backing up that there was no election fraud. And so on the key point of this case, did these people get together and engage in a concerted effort to attempt to change the electoral results in Georgia? She's got backup where she needs it already. One really provocative thing you've said, which I take, is that if they coordinate their testimony, they will not only lose credibility, but worse, it will be a, what do you want to call it, a conspiracy of lies on the stand. If the jury and the public find that they're coordinating their testimony as a further conspiracy, they're stunk. The best, you know, the best each of them can do for himself or herself is to point the finger at Trump. So this is going to be a really interesting trial. And Vicki, to you, this trial is going to be televised. And that's different from all the federal courts in the country. And that's different from a lot of states too. They're going to see the swim in the trunk. They're going to see the sweat on the brow. They're going to, they're going to see the emotional impact of the testimony, the judge, you know, all the lawyers, they're going to see it. How will this affect Trump's future? So, you know, Jay, this is very interesting. You have the court of law and you have the court of public opinion. And my concern in the court of public opinion is someone like Donald Trump, who's, I think, a master at manipulation and creating a narrative that benefits him, as he's already done, that this is all set up by the Democrats because they're so afraid of me. And he is still the front runner, still the front runner by a large margin for the Republican nomination, in spite of everything. So I think he's very cleverly manipulating his base to see that this is all strategically connected by the Democrats to attack him, that they need to come and rescue him. So I do have serious concerns in knowing this is going to be televised now. The complexity of the 41, I believe, charges brought up against him in Georgia while I believe that the breadth and the depth of what they have presented is very well articulated and connected. How many Americans, the general public, people who just work and hardly have time to even read the paper or look online for any updates, how many of them really understand this? This is my concern, you know, and will feel instead that the government is not for the people, but is attacking someone that they feel represents them. That is really my big concern. It's so complicated. I'm not sure the average person will understand it. It depends on the murdering, doesn't it? It depends on Fadi and her associates. Let me throw a thought at you and see what you think. You know, most people after high school in this country, they get their news, they get their education, if you will. From television, they sit and watch television. I mean, let's admit it. They're all out there watching everything they can watch. And a lot of it is movies and, you know, not really news. But this, they'll be drawn to. This is like the McCarthy hearings. This is like the Rotorgate. This is going to be magnetic for the American public, and they are used to and likely to watch it on TV. So does the fact that they are going to get their information possibly for the first time, you know, about the details and the complexity of what Trump is doing in this conspiracy, they're going to get it from TV. They're going to be be able to watch it as a reality show. Does that change the calculus? You know, that's a very good point. And TV is a big draw. And I'm hoping that people who watch that will get a better understanding of what this man is really all about. But like I said, I do hope that people will understand it enough rather than check out and just feel that it's an attack on him. I hope that the real truth comes through and that people have the understanding to see what a terrible person Donald Trump is, you know, put aside his politics and ideology of whether you agree with him or not. He is just a bad person through and through. And it's sad that so many people still don't see that. This isn't the only show in town. And while, you know, the press keeps telling us that the calendar is sprinkled with trials and hearings and what have you in the three other cases. And PS, it is entirely possible. There'll be more cases, more state cases. Who knows? You know, the state prosecutors and state attorneys general are working on that in various states, especially, you know, around the fake of electors. Does that affect the calculus? Then while they're watching Georgia, while they're hearing all the details in the Georgia case, they're also hearing, you know, the other cases because it's going to be on their televisions, maybe not in a courtroom drama, but it'll be on their televisions. The news will cover it, the newspapers will cover it. They'll be really going forward for the next, what, here, they're going to be surrounded with information about what Trump did. And I don't know how, if they're connected at all to the world, they're going to see that it's a combination effect. How do these other cases and all these things on the calendar, do you think affect the loyalty of his base? You know, I think the fact that there have been so many cases to an extent, I'm not sure that really helps because that strengthens what he's trying to communicate, which is that, you know, it's a strategic plan to undermine me and my candidacy to be your next president. Though, when you look at the one New York, the hush money to the porn star, right, that case there, look at the one in Florida about the documents. I'm just not sure that there's so many things in so many areas that for a lot of people, they will understand the legal aspect of it. And to an extent, I would rather that they have focused on what DC and Georgia is doing, because I think those are really key critical cases to look so much as a persecution. But I'd be very interested to hear what professor says, because I think he has a good pulse on human psychology and how people think as they're watching this all unfold. Like I said, there's a court of law and there's a court of public opinion. Well, let's go to one other point before we go to Manfred, and that is this. This is happening in Georgia, and it's a jury trial, and there's going to be a jury here of Georgians. And Georgia is a very diverse state, a large black population. The likelihood is that jury, it's going to be hard to select, I think, at least for Trump, that jury is likely to be diverse and black. How does that affect the calculus? And not in terms of public opinion necessarily, but also more to the point, in terms of the likelihood of conviction. The whole process is to bring about a fair outcome. Regardless of the color of your skin, you believe that people are objective. Having said that, it's still a court of people who are human beings. But I think if the outcome is not favorable to him, I'm sure Trump will find a way to create that narrative again, that it was already set up to find him guilty. My concern is, will it even come to that, given the complexity, the timeline? Will it even come to a trial in a reasonable amount of time? Yeah. And we've discussed this many times on the show. He has a whole kit bag full of tricks, including the possibility of distraction with other things that we stopped focusing and they stopped focusing. Anyway, Manfred, to you now, we have these four cases rolling out the facts in four separate courts, and a number of jurisdictions, and a number of judges. It's all quite separated. Trump's argument has been that this is actually a democratic conspiracy, that the Democrats have gotten together to victimize him, and it's a kind of solidated witch hunt by all the people who are never Trumpers in the country, and the Democrats, indeed. It seems to me that now, when you have it going on in four places and these other actions regarding the fake electors and who knows what else around the country, it's harder to make that argument. It's harder to make the argument that there's a conspiracy out there and it's all controlled by Joe Biden when it's coming from so many different places. And I wonder how you feel whether the needle is changing direction on whether people believe that, and thus whether Trump, even if he gets the nomination, could ever win. Well, look, first you have to remember Trump reflects the insanity, the political insanity of a large section of the American electorate. First, secondly, I mean, whatever Vicki said, and I hope she doesn't call me constantly professor, I'm retired. So please use my first name instead of my retired title. I agree with some of her concerns, but there is one thing I think that strikes me, even though I have lived here for over 50 years, I'm still puzzled by the intricacies of the American, the complications of the American legal system, the state level and the federal level. One image that again and again strikes me is that we have here a mafia boss on trial. Trump, I mean, more and more looks like a guy who is not simply a former president. No, he has this imagery surrounding him of being comparable to a mafia boss. And for that reason, I think the more of these trials you have, the more doubts people who still believe in him will have. There's something wrong with this guy. Why would he be on trial in four states? Why can't he behave like ordinary politicians should do? But I mean, look, I am baffled by the powerful reticence of the powerful continuity of his hold on the imagination, the political imagination of lots of Americans. You know, one thing is clear and that there's nothing so unchangeable as change. And here we have a body politic, a body electorate that is somewhat fickle and flawed. We've seen that, you spoke of it. And the question is whether they will continue their loyalty in the face of all that is happening, all these things rolling out. These facts are rolling out in different places in different ways from different witnesses. And if you keep hearing it, then you have to reconsider maybe. Do you think that the base will reconsider? And it may happen suddenly. And some people think it's happening now. Look at Georgia. I mean, Georgia is a very mixed state. It's bluish, even though it's at its core red. But I mean, when you look at the behavior of the Republican establishment in Georgia, the governor and all the other Republican officials, they are all against Trump. So you have there not only this very, very powerful black woman, Fanny Willis, but you have her being supported by the governor, who is a Republican, by all the other Republican officials that have something to say. And I think Georgia may be an indication of what can happen if these trials continue during the next year that there is a political shift. But on the other hand, you remember we have been talking about that for some time also. Let's move to Chuck. Chuck, you know, what about that? I mean, is this case possibly a seismic shift? Is it a shift in where we've been going? It certainly is a very high profile. It is going to be on everyone's mind. Maybe things will change. And maybe we'll offer this other thought. And that is if we that is the those who believe Trump is guilty, if we if we are faced with an acquittal, if he gets away with it in Georgia or a number of these other jurisdictions, is that the end of the Republic? It's a good question. And it goes back to a point that Vicki brought up really insightfully. And that is there's a huge difference between Trump, the politician and Trump, the criminal defendant. And in each of those four cases, the charges, the evidence, the rules and the processes in the forums, the legal forums, are going to be completely different. He doesn't get to manipulate the media when he's in the courtroom. He doesn't get to manipulate the media, even if the television cameras are not there. They can come to his aid after that. They can say whatever they want, whether they're Fox or whoever. But the American people are going to get to see Trump and his allies as criminal defendants who try to overturn the popular election results. Ironically, the exact same electoral count against him that he won by in 2016. And far more votes against him than in 2016. You have a very provocative question for you, Shaq. Where the Washington case does not allege sedition or insurrection as to fall squarely within section three of the 14th Amendment. This one, I think, does. And very possibly this one could be four square on disqualifying him. So where does this case fit on the possibility that he would be disqualified? It's a good question. But I don't know that it's a question that we're actually going to get addressed in a legal forum before the election in 2024. That's a question. I mean, if somebody puts it out, if you look at the procedure for invoking that, theoretically, just about any election official could remove his name from the ballot for that disqualification under section three of the 14th Amendment. Is that going to happen? Not likely. But the trials, and I think most people at this point are likely to start feeling fairly soon. Look, politicians, shut up, get out of the way. We've heard what you say. Let's get to the trials. Let's see what really happens. I want to see exactly what Vicki animated. I want to see what those other 18 people are going to say. How do they coordinate testimony? Do they all say, oh, we were all trying to support this president in his First Amendment exercise of his right to question the election results? Or do they come in and say, hey, we were doing what the president expected, wanted, and told us to do. And to be seen by a jury. If they see it as the latter, the defendants are in trouble. Has Riko's an easier burden to hit? Fannie Willis and Jack Smith have chosen the scenarios that they want to operate under that trigger certain rules and evidentiary standards that they're comfortable and familiar with. And whether Trump and his ever-changing bevy of lawyers, whom Mike Pence called crackpots, is going to do better in any of these four cases remains to be seen. Before we move on to Vicki, I want to ask you one question. We're all assuming, I think, we're all assuming that Trump will be in the courtroom. And we're assuming that in any criminal trial, he has to be. Does he? He can ask to be excused by the judge, but he would have to waive his right to be present because it's a constitutional right. And he would have to obtain the judge's approval to be absent from the proceedings all or part of it. First one, I don't see him doing. The second one, I don't see happening. The other part of that is it seems to me that he cannot defend himself in the context of the Georgia case without testifying. And if he doesn't testify, he won't be able to make any reasonable defense on his state of mind. If he does testify, he's going to get cross-examined until the cows come home, and that's going to be his moment of truth. What are your thoughts? I don't see how he cannot testify because, particularly in the Georgia case, others are going to testify against him. In the D.C. case, others are going to testify against him. Those people who are testifying unfavorably to him, many of those were his people. They're Republicans. They are administration members in many cases. He's going to have to get up there and try and convince people that the reasonable inferences and implications of that testimony are not to be accepted because of what he says. So given all of that, Vicki, it seems to me that Trump has to dig deep in his kit bag of tricks. And we have seen in the past that one of his kit bag of tricks is to foment unrest among the base, to foment protest and provocation in the streets, to do distraction to the extent he can in Congress, to attack Joe Biden, to attack anything that's happening within the government or the country in order to distract the public from the focus of this trial and the other trial. And I think we can expect to see that. What do you think? Yeah, I would say in my statement here, a closing statement, that I really think it's so important. I would appeal to the people who support him because many of them are good people. That you may support him and like your candidate, but I hope you love our country and our democracy much more because nothing should compromise that. And this man is so dictator and arrogant like he is going to plunge us into civil unrest. I hope they see that. And the other thing I would point out that I've noticed, that's very interesting is nobody is closer to any person than your own family. And usually in situations like this, you're surrounded by family members who stand up for you, who say this is not true about my husband or my father. I've not seen any family member around him saying this. And I so hope that his supporters' eyes will be open to say, look at that. That's very interesting. The people knowing this are not there to defend him. Doesn't that speak volumes? It does. We should all be watching. They should all be watching. Not in the back of the courtroom, but not making predictions. Medford, I think we're running out of time. Give us your thoughts about when this is going and what it means in the larger context of American history, American political history. Go into themselves and come to the conclusion that they were wrong. I think what you will have, when you get in the cradle, you will have protests on the left, when you get an indictment and when he becomes sentenced, you get an uprising on the right. And I don't know which one will be stronger. I think at this point, I do not think we will come to January 30, 1933 in the United States. Trump isn't Hitler, but nevertheless, the political conditions of this country are very, very fragile. And I hope that what is happening in Georgia, that the Republican leaders have really come to the conclusion that they have to get out from under Trump's umbrella, will play a role in the future. We will see that when is it next Thursday, when you have the candidates coming together. But I think at this point, it's only Christie, the former governor for New Jersey, who has regained sanity. All the others are cowards, including Pence, and the Santas certainly also. So what you have there is a very miserable picture of American politics at this point. And then you have the sleazy charges against Biden's son Hunter, which isn't helpful at this point either. So American democracy is in a very, very difficult situation. Some say, Manfred, that as in the case of ancient Greece and Rome, the demise of the notion, the role of the citizen. I don't like the medical age, but the role of the citizen declined and therefore the society declined. And that has led us right directly into the dark ages. Clearly, are we heading into the dark ages now? I would refer to what would be the collapse of the Ramah Republic and the emergence of the authoritarian Third Reich and fascism in Italy and Japan in all kinds of other places at that time. So for that reason, fascism can happen in this country. Now, whether it will happen this or next year, I don't know because you're not going to make a prediction. I want to offer Vicki one moment to rebut your disagreement with our optimism, Vicki. Well, look, I understand where Manfred is coming from, but I am a believer that without hope, we are dead. So we must have hope. And so I feel that the fact that this is even coming, that there is a trial, that there's indictment, that there will be a trial set should speak volumes that democracy is still alive in our country. Thank God for that. I do hope that eventually people will see the light and understand, like I said, that it's not about our differences. We need to respectfully have differences. This is what has made our country so good in the past, but this is about not falling for the lies and the narrative of an arrogant dictator who believes that at any cost, he should be president of the United States. That is very wrong. And that I'm hoping and praying that the people who support him will eventually see. I see Fanny Willis as a tremendous hero, a heroine of major magnitude. She's come this far and she has every indication of going further, likewise Jack Smith. And it takes a few heroes to save our democracy, doesn't it? How do you see these people in the context of Trump's assault on democracy? I think two things just real quickly. One, Trump has not done well in court proceedings. He's never successfully tested his credibility in any court proceeding so far. Second, Trump has not done well against strong, non-intimidated leaders, particularly women leaders. So for those reasons, I think there may be reasons for hope together with point number three. People will be given the opportunity in these cases to see Trump not as a politician, but as a criminal defendant who doesn't get away with the things he can as a politician with the media in a courtroom. That may color enough perspectives on him to make a difference. Chuck Selton, Manfred Hennigson, and Vicki Caetano. Thank you so much for this very important and thoughtful discussion. Aloha.