 Let's look at the the the case the the actual case that Georgia has laid out against Trump This is there's 41 counts. There's 19 defendants named Including Trump and many of his lawyers Rudy Giuliani You mentioned John Eastman Act one that they zero in on here is on the 4th of November Which would be election night? 2020 when Donald Trump gave a speech where they say he falsely declared victory and falsely claimed voter fraud We have a clip from that speech. Let's take a look at that clip and then talk about it in the context of this case We won states that we weren't expected to in Florida. We didn't win it. We won it by a lot And it's also clear that we have won Georgia We're up by 2.5 percent or a hundred and seventeen thousand votes with only seven percent left They're never gonna catch us. They can't catch us But most importantly, we're winning Pennsylvania by a tremendous amount of it and all of a sudden everything just stopped This is a fraud on the American public. This is an embarrassment to our country We were getting ready to win this election. Frankly, we did win this election So I should also note that they the The Georgia case the prosecutors alleged that the speech was actually drafted four days or some version of it was drafted four days before The election will be interested to see if they present evidence of that But how might that speech Ilya particularly if there's evidence that it was drafted in advance Implicate begin to implicate Trump in criminal conspiracy So what I would say is no one including the prosecutors in the Georgia case claims that merely giving that speech is illegal This is something that is misleading and so the criticism that is offered of the indictment that when you have the listing of the acts The at the listing of acts is not a listing of things that the prosecutors say are by themselves illegal Rather that speech which included a number of false claims that we can talk about Is just part of the evidence Indicating that Trump had a broader scheme to overturn the election result after he lost it and indeed one that he began The way down even before the election. That's why it's important. It was drafted ahead of time Because it's clear that he was gonna claim fraud regardless of how and by how much he lost And you know, there's evidence of that but merely saying I was the victim of fraud would not have led to this indictment Rather the statements about being a victim of fraud all statements were part of a scheme that involved things that are actually worry legal which is Trying to replace the real electors with false electors pressuring state officials into falsifying the vote counts as in the famous call with the With the secretary of state of Georgia where he said we'll find me 11,780 votes which has happened to the exact number of votes he was needed to overcome Biden's lead in Georgia So this is similar to if I merely say, you know, Bob is a scumbag and he deserves to die That itself is perfectly legal. At least it's not a criminal violation You know sending aside possible claims of libel or slander But if I then proceed to tell my flunkies, you know, go out and whack Bob Then the previous statement where I say to Bob deserves to die could be brought as evidence against me in court evidence of the motive And plan that I had to you know to have Bob killed and the same thing applies to Trump statements alleging fraud and also to Trump's plans that were clearly weighed down even before the election to a wedge fraud In any situation where he might lose it's worth going for a moment If we have time on what was false about Trump's statement and that is But but if we could get out or if you'd like to move on, you know, please do lay it out for us I think yeah, so It is true that in some of the states to Trump ended up losing on election night He was still leading in the count, but that was because of the so-called blue shift Where because Trump for many months before the election had claimed that absentee voting or mail-in voting Was fraudulent or suspicious? Many Republicans believe what he said and so Republicans Disproportionately voted on election day Whereas Democrats has a result disproportionally voted by mail into many states which permit this and therefore In states like Pennsylvania and some others which first counted the in-person vote and only later counted the mail vote initially Republicans started out with a big lead But as these other votes which were disproportionately democratic were counted and there's nothing wrong with counting them Indeed it would be illegal if they had not been counted an unfair as well Then what initially started out as a a lead for the Republic for Trump turned into a lead for Biden And many experts predicted ahead of time that this is what would happen given the hesitancy of many Republicans to Do mail-in voting? Which was a new thing in the 2020 election before 2020 actually mail-in and absentee voting in many states was actually Somewhat disproportionate Republican but Trump ironically himself was responsible for the seat for the trend Which led to the perception that you know, he had a big lead which would somehow you know undermine and Really within hours of that statement it became very clear that in in that in these states The eventual vote count would show That trump had pretty decisive we watched the ultimate we watched pennsylvania But I think something like a high close to 80 or a hundred thousand votes And he watched these other states the swing states by many thousands of votes as well And it's so clear also to be clear You know to the extent that there were any irregularities with the ballots and the mail-in balloting The trump team did challenge the stuff sure and I assume we are all in agreement here that that's a totally legitimate route Trump and his supporters filed over 60 lawsuits Challenging the results in various states that itself is perfectly legal Though I think it was somewhat abusive in a case where the overwhelming evidence was that there was no chance That the results would be overturned But he certainly had a legal right to do that and that wasn't the crime And it's worth noting that trump lost all but one of those cases and the one he won in pennsylvania Did not come close to overturning the Large margin that biden had in that state and it's important And this is relevant to the criminal aspect of the case that he continued his fake electoral scheme And other efforts to overturn the election even after he lost all those cases And even after it became clear from the way those cases developed That he and his supporters had no real evidence of fraud on anything like the scale necessary to change the result It's also correct. Hold on get me correct me if i'm wrong here But is it also correct that some of the judges overseeing and issuing you know rulings on those lawsuits were in fact also trump appointed? Yes, absolutely. And indeed one of the most eloquent and powerful opinions On this issue Was written by a third circuit trump appointee Who you know, he had nominated for that position? And it's worth noting that in some of these state cases that were brought in state courts Many of those cases were also decided by conservative republican judges obviously state judges not federal ones and conservative republican election officials in a number of these states like georgia also certified the results brad raffensperger to georgia secretary of state Whom trump tried to pressure in that famous or notorious call He is a conservative republican He would have been very happy to see trump win the state of georgia But he knew that simply wasn't the case given the margin of Over 11 000 votes and given the lack of evidence of fraud or other problems and anything like the scale That would have been necessary to overturn that margin So it's not the case that only liberal judges heard these cases or only liberal democratic officials were involved in Certifying the results. Thanks for listening to our conversation with ilia soman on the trump indictment for more clips Go here for full conversation. Go here