 Welcome to American Issues Take One. I'm Tim Apachele, your host. You know, there's been a lot of hand-wringing for quite a while now about what kind of implications to the rule of law and to our justice system, if a sitting president or a former president is indicted on criminal charges. A lot of hand-wringing on that. And, you know, if you just remember a few years back, well, more than a few years, let's say a few decades, there was a gentleman who happened to be our vice president, Spiro T Agnew. Now, Spiro T Agnew was a governor of Maryland. And some of the things that he did is a governor followed him to the White House and followed him to his role as vice president. And so Spiro T Agnew was being investigated by the Justice Department for extortion, bribery and tax evasion. And they were going to go forward and prosecute him as the sitting vice president of the United States. Well, that was 1973. Richard Nixon was in the middle of his Watergate scandal. And so they wanted to try to finesse the situation. And what they finally did is, excuse me, vice president Agnew pled no low contestry, which means I did it but didn't do it. And they decided to charge him with $29,000 of unreported income. And it was a felony. So he had three years of unsupervised probation and he had a page, I think $29,000 back to the federal government. But that was what the Justice Department did in 1973 to a sitting vice president. Now let's fast forward to 2022 in our Department of Justice to what kind of indictments could be forthcoming to Donald Trump, former president of the United States and what sort of indictments would that have impact on a former president of the United States? So that's gonna be part of the topic, the rule of law, where our Justice Department is on potential indictments. And that's the discussion for today. I'd like to introduce our guest today. And with us today is our special esteemed guest, Vicky Cayetano, my co-host, Jay Fidel and our contributor, Cynthia Lee Sinclair. Good morning, everyone. Good morning. Good morning. JTU, you know, this has gone back and forth in the media of the potential damage that Maryland Garland, our attorney general, could do to the justice system to make our justice system look like something out of a banana republic in South America that we're going after our political enemies. And we're doing so on using the Justice Department as its strong arm. Is there any merit to that concern? And compare that concern to what we did and the Justice Department did with vice president Agnew. No, there may be sleepers in the Justice Department right now, but I don't think that's so much the problem as it is a Merrick Garland, he's soft on this. You know, when you think about it, it's almost two years since January 6th, no indictments of any big fish, only little fish, and that's becoming obvious. And what I'd like to say though about this is that, I think consistent with his spoken expression on it, nobody's above the law and the Justice Department should indict everyone who's indictable, it doesn't matter whether they were former president or not. The public really expects that. I expect that, don't you? And he really hasn't done that. He seems to have this kind of reluctance. And it reminds me of Ann Appelbaum who explained why the Russians were able to undermine the government in Eastern Europe after the war. It was fear, somehow the Russians created fear in the East Germans, for example, including Putin and the likes of KGB at the time. So what I'm saying is we should not be afraid. And furthermore, and this goes to a comment that Cynthia made a few weeks ago, we should not give advice, you know? I mean, the special master came off an MSNBC program. Next day, Trump moved for a special master. And we're all sitting around here giving advice and then the pundits that appear, you know, they give advice and before you know it, the advice is taken. And I'm troubled with trying to select one proceeding or another as the best proceeding, the best place, the best strategical place to do an indictment. My answer to the larger question here today, Tim, is if it's indictable, indict. And right now. Okay, well, let me take you back to Spiro T. Aguio. I mean, they had him in the crosshairs for bribery extortion as governor of Maryland. They didn't decide to indict on those charges. They worked behind the scenes for a plea bargain. And the plea bargain was a tax evasion charge, which was a felony, but, you know, miniscule to the other two charges that they had them in the crosshairs for. What happened to the rule of law there? Well, I'd like to make a distinction. When we're talking about Spiro T. Aguio, we're talking about one kettle of fish. When we're talking about Donald Trump, we're talking about Mr. Teflon. He doesn't negotiate. You can't have him into your office and make a deal with him. That's impossible. And according to Tim Snyder's book, you know, the road to unfreedom. In fact, it's Putin who's calling the shots on Trump. And it's been that way for 10 years anyway. So I don't think you can make a deal with Trump. So that's gotta be distinguished with what happened with Spiro T. Aguio. And so I wouldn't even, if I was Mayor Garland, I wouldn't start that. For that matter, if I were Zelensky, I wouldn't start that in dealing with Putin either. So I think in this case, that option is not available. You're not gonna make any deals. And so just go for it, you know, when panel of grand juries on all of those cases that he controls, and then any of those prosecutors that he controls, probably the strongest prosecutor is the black woman in Atlanta. She's the one, she's my idol. But just go for it. Let's go, go, go. We have no time to waste. Okay. Thank you, Jay. I'm just going to say that, you know, do you think Attorney General Garland is being slower? Do you think he's just being very thorough? I mean, you are talking about a former president. And I agree with you. You don't want it to have the accusations that it's all a political vendetta going after Trump. And so maybe he's just being very thorough because as Tim has pointed out, Trump is like Teflon, nothing sticks on him. And it's sad, but there's a good part of our population that seems to support him no matter what, right? It's fake news, it's not real. So I think perhaps Attorney General is not necessarily slow, but is wanting to make sure that what he gets him indicted for, that it sticks, you know? And I think that's really important because the last thing we need is a revolution in our own country with people who don't believe it and say that it's just all politics, not justice. All right, Vicki, that leads me to the question about what charges of indictment would be the one that sticks. I'll just go down a small list. And I know Cynthia has a larger list and I'll get to her next. The small list is the January 6th, his role in the January 6th, and his role as far as trying to obstruct Congress and prevent Congress from doing their business, particularly the certification of electoral votes. Or was it the replacement of fake delegates that were planned to obstruct the vote for the delegates? Or was it the illegal position of classified documents in Mar-a-Lago? Or is it the financial IRS fraud charges, potentially for Trump's business and personal residence, specifically property valuations, the inflation or the under-reporting of those valuations? Or last but not least, conspiracy to commit election fraud by pressuring the Georgia Secretary of State to find 11,780 votes. I mean, the list is long and it's a lot longer than I just mentioned, which if you were Merrick Garland, which avenue would be, in your opinion, the easiest to indict Donald Trump on? Well, I would think that the January 6th attack on the Capitol, everything points to his involvement, his encouraging inciting them to, he never called them off when he could have. So, and that is something that's very public and for the average American who's not so much into the legal aspect of it, it's hard to dispute his involvement on that. Things that become too technical that people don't understand. When they don't understand, they feel this sense of mistrust in the system. So, from a simplistic view, I would believe that without a doubt, that is something that the former president should be indicted on. But I think that if he broke the law in any of the other issues that you pointed out, unless it's gonna take another 15 years, he should face those charges as well. I'm not sure that the law should be, anybody should be above the law or that it plays for negotiation of what we should charge him on or not. But I think without a doubt, the cleanest way is what happened on January 6th. That's my own feeling. I'd like to agree with Vicki. And the reason is something that we haven't really addressed and that is what she has is a public reaction. When we all sat there, and most of the country sat there and watched that horrendous day, we were shocked down to our bootstraps. It was shocking to the conscience. And we understood it, as you said, Vicki. We understood it because it was violence that was bloodshed. It was a death right in front of our eyes. It was a real chakaroo. You come, you gotta see this. This is amazing. They're storming the Capitol. They've breached the Capitol. I mean, everybody in the country was watching it. And that more than, for example, in terms of ease of understanding, the documents that were stolen from the White House. The public has a little trouble. And I think the media is at least partly at fault for this. Understanding what it is to have a PSYOP, ESA, you know, war plan, nuclear secrets, unaccounted for, revealed with empty, empty top secret folders. Where did the documents go? And what this means to national security and what it means to the people who might have gotten these documents or purchased them from Trump. So I don't think people fully understand that. They understand violence, though. I don't agree with you guys, because I think the two that are the very easiest to prosecute is that, like you just said, the documents case, because there's clear national security, there's physical evidence, there's so much physical evidence that makes a difference. And then also the one that is in Georgia, the one that you love so much, Jay. And now, because he's on tape saying, just find me, I just need 1180 votes. Come on, fellas, you gotta help me out here. So I think that's about it. Well, let me add one other thought. It's not a question of the ease of indictment or the ease of prosecution. You know, I would go with what I articulated earlier. If it's indictable, indict it. We don't have time. You know, if I were Merrick Garland, I would be perhaps more sensitive to the fact that our democracy is declining every day. And Trump is running a conspiracy, leading a conspiracy, and that is in a race of time. And we cannot afford to waste one day. So if you can indict, indict. We'll worry about the trial later. Well, Jay, I'm gonna get to Vicki here in a second, but Jay, the title suggests that the rule of law has been delayed, the indictment's delayed because we're right in the middle of an election. And doesn't Merrick Garland, and rightly so, wanna avoid pitching this stuff during the, you know, the last 28 days before a national election? Isn't that Merrick Garland's concern? And that's why he's hush-hush right now? You want me to respond to that? Yes, sir. Yeah, the memo that Bill Barr talked about way back when and Comey was entangled in and talks about candidates. Let me tell you this, and I can say it multiple times if you want, Trump is not a candidate. The second thing is that it's a memo in the Department of Justice. It can be reversed as fast as it was written. I don't know why, I really don't know why Merrick Garland hasn't modified that memo already, he should have. And, you know, finally, the whole thing is we are in a crisis. I don't know why this isn't more in the public conversation. We are in a crisis and this election could wreck the country forever. So Merrick Garland has got to move on it and there's no reason why he can't move right now. Okay. Vicki, what about the criticism that inditing a sitting president, which, you know, the memo says that was not possible, that the only remedy was impeachment, but what about the concerns that going after a former president is likened to a banana republic, trying to pay back for political enemies through your Department of Justice. What about those criticisms? Are they founded or that's a weak argument? I think that's a very weak argument and I'd argue the reverse, that if we don't hold people responsible, accountable to the rule of law, regardless if you're a president or a former president, that is what a banana republic is all about. So I think that's a very weak argument, frankly. But, you know, getting back to what Jay is saying about, indict, indict now, I understand that Jay, but at the same time, don't you think that some people will say it's very political if he brings it at this time with 28 days left in the midterm election, that people who are looking for a reason to accuse the Democrats of coming up with these charges that they're gonna say the timing is just so suspect, like Comey did during the 2016 election and when he brought those charges up or the suspicious comments that he made about Hillary Clinton and some people believe that that cost her the election, the timing of such. So don't you think in some ways that he is being perhaps wise and holding off on that? May I answer? My answer is no, he's not being wise on holding off on that. You remember, you know, the comment made by his friend that if he was indicted as a result of this affair in Mar-a-Lago, there would be violence, remember that? And I think there would be violence. Here's my thought. There'd be violence anyway. No matter what happens, there'd be violence. Whether it's now, whether it's the day before the election, day after the election or six months later, there will be a reaction and Trump will use the media, all his acolytes will use the media and the reaction will be, you know, just as disturbing before, during or after. So I don't think that in the larger scheme it really makes a difference. I also, and this is only reflective, but how come it takes so long when we also have the television in front of our eyeballs? How come it takes so long when we have the goods on him, you know, stealing the documents from the White House? How come it takes so long? You're right about, you know, the United States attorneys and attorneys general being careful, but this is really beyond the call. And if you measure the benefit of being very, very careful against the detriment of letting the Republicans take both houses, of letting Republicans just smash the select committee immediately on December 31 and so forth, you know, there's a balance. There's a balance. So certainly I think we should be concerned about the criticism that Merrick Garland will get in any event at any point in time about how he moved in a witch hunt against the risk that whenever he does that, he's going to be criticized and there could be violence whenever he does that with whatever, you know, to me, I would, as I said, I would just plow right ahead on all of those indictments in the notion of what Merrick Garland said last June. He said, nobody's above the law. We will, you know, follow the evidence wherever it goes. And so we all know the evidence already. We all know, do it, man. I don't know why he's being so tentative, honestly. Yeah, Cynthia. Jay, at that same time, he also said, this is the biggest, you know, case, the biggest prosecution of our history. So maybe he's a little overwhelmed. Maybe that's part of it too. He's got more resources than you can shake a stick at. He's got the whole Department of Justice. Yeah, Jay, but we said the Department of Justice may have a whole gaggle of loyalists to Trump and maybe they're putting the brakes on. That was the next thing I was going to say, exactly, right? Maybe. He is the Attorney General of the United States of America. That is true. OK, Cynthia, Jay just mentioned, and Vicki mentioned, we all mentioned that no one is above the law. I have gone back to history because sometimes history does shine a light on the path of the future and the present. And when Nixon said, when the president does it, it means it's not illegal. That's what he said when he was in the midst of his Watergate scandal. Is that, are those words starting to ring true here now for Donald Trump? Well, if you look at the DOJ memo, there was written that says you can and died a sitting president, maybe so. But he's not a sitting president anymore. And he's doing some of these things outside of his presidency. So some of the things that he's done, that he can't use that as cover. And I don't think he should ever be able to use it as cover. I agree with Jay. That memo should have been rewritten immediately, just after they found out just how much risk the country was at because of him doing these things unstopped and un-fettered because they couldn't touch a sitting president. So he thought, OK, cool, let's just do whatever I can get away with, which is just what he did. So I think they need to change that memo right away. All righty. Can you imagine any situation? And I could actually imagine one because it's happened. Can you imagine any situation where the president maybe is above the law? I'll just draw out an example. President Johnson really never went to Congress to engage aggressively in the Vietnam War. He basically cited the Gulf of Tonkin as his springboard to dedicate a bunch of troops and military. And we basically declared a war without going to Congress to declare a war. Would that be an example of a president acting above and beyond the law? Because the law says Congress shall be consulted. So absolutely, yes. I think that. Is there any other kind of a situation you can think of where maybe that's the case where the President of the United States is above the law? Well, he was above the law when he pardoned Nixon also, right? Just because he didn't want to have a bunch of political stuff that was going to turn. It was legal to pardon anybody. So he was within the law there. But was it right? I don't think so. But he was within the law. But so I guess what I'm saying is Nixon's words 50 years later starting to ring true. And certainly for his base, it is. But how about through our justice system? Are they reluctant to aggressively, as Jay has suggested, reluctantly, aggressively indict him on everything that they have they have evidence for? Or they just they're squeamish. We have to remember where they come from. Well, at least where Merrick Garland comes from, which is right, the Federalist Society. So that means that he's very conservative. That means he's very judicious. That means he's going to be really careful and take his time making decisions. And most of the time, the Federalists believe in full presidential power. So they kind of want to afford as much complete power as they can to the President. And I just think that's so dangerous. Because then that sets us up to be that third world country type of a country where all of these just continual upheavals in who the government is, because who's the strongest who's got the most guns or the best propaganda and the most money. And that's what gets us out of the rule of law. Who has the most integrity? And gets us into who has the most power. And so I'd like to choose that we stay in the place where we choose the person with the most integrity and establish that we are putting people in place that have the most integrity. All righty. We've run out of time, but I want to get to this last question for both Jay and Vicki on this. And that is, Jay, you and I have talked about the possibility that a lot of Trump loyalists are embedded in a great number of our federal agencies. The post office comes to mind, the Secret Service possibly, and possibly the Department of Justice. What's to be done about that? I mean, I know we want to avoid the McCarthy Red Scare era, but what if there are loyalists that are bent, not following their oath of office, but rather making sure that the potential run for Donald Trump occurs and his agenda is implemented? Yeah, I mean, there are so many indications that Trump left time bombs all over the government. And I don't know if it's really been explored to the extent it could be, but I think my personal view of it is those agencies you mentioned and others, don't forget Homeland Security. And so he's got acolytes hither and yon. And the question then is whether Biden as president can remove those people. And the answer is, well, some of those people are civil service, you know? So the senior civil service, it's not so easy to remove civil service. You have to go through a process. And if they don't like what you're doing or if the GOP doesn't like what you're doing, they'll make a big fuss about it and take all those cases to court and we'll have pandemonium and chaos. So I guess for those cases, Biden is genuinely reserved about it and okay for him. There are other situations where he could remove bad apples, time bombs and he hasn't done that. And I really do not understand, like for myself, I do not understand why he hasn't done that. He could have should have done it in January or February of 2021 and he didn't do it. So here we are and frankly, the longer we wait, the more difficult it becomes. So I don't know the answer to your question, Tim. That's okay, sometimes there aren't. Vicki, same question to you. Do you buy the premise that Donald Trump has left time bombs in various federal agencies and those time bombs or acolytes are working aggressively to undermine our democracy? I think he has, but I think one has to really distinguish between loyalty versus disruption. And I think that's how the American public, we've really got to bring this country together. Otherwise we will could face civil war. I mean, that seems preposterous, but when you see what's going on, it's not so out of reality. So I think it's important to really distinguish loyalty to a former president, disruption to our country, to the future. This is what needs to be communicated to the American public. And that should not be tolerated, that kind of disruptive government because democracy is what we all cherish and we must work to keep that. Okay, I can't resist because there's a lot of folks that say we're currently in a cold civil war right now. There's great polarization between Democrats and Republicans and mega GOP. I'll make that distinction. Would an indictment of Donald Trump warm up that cold civil war? I think we must really push that no one is above the law. And I think the important thing is to show the evidence so that people understand that. Alrighty. Okay, time for last comments. Cynthia, I'll start with you. Have a rather troubling quote for us today. Of course you do. First idea, right? Yeah, you know me, I like my last one. I do, that's why I said what I said. This one comes from Marjorie Taylor Greene. And it is, if we lose the house and she was talking about and two, the possible next speaker of the house, you know, McCarthy just might end up in more power than we ever want. This is what she says. I think that to be the best speaker of the house and to please the base, he's going to give me a lot of power and a lot of leeway. And if he doesn't, they're going to be very unhappy about it. And that's not in any way a threat at all. I think it's just a reality. Sometimes a threat is an implied threat. It is a threat. Yeah, that's of course it is. It's not a threat, it's a factor, you know, it's a problem. All right, well remember, she thought that people were paying for lasers, space lasers to burn the forests of California, amongst other things she believes in. Okay, thank you, Cynthia. And she's talking to the speakers here. That's what's so scary. I don't forget that. So I'm glad you brought that up. All right. I'm about to get the speakers here. So we're in trouble. Here we go. All right, Jay, your last thoughts. Thank you, Cynthia. Although it remains logically possible that Merrick Garland will empanel a grand jury and find an indictment on the two things that are on his desk. That is the Mar-a-Lago and January 6th. At this point, my thinking is that he will not do that. It will not happen. And the big issue is when you take that fact, that likelihood, against the fact that we are probably gonna, Democrats will probably lose both houses in November, November 8th. And even if they don't, there'll be litigation over it. There'll be all these strange maneuvers in battleground states over it. There'll be chaos over it. We are facing a brick wall of problems. And I don't know what will happen. I'm very worried about that and the country and Mr. Teflon. Okay. Vicki, you get the final word today. You know, I just wanna say how much I've appreciated the last 30 minutes of discussion. And I think that sometimes in Hawaii, we tend to be a little too isolated. But the fact is what happens on the mainland, what happens in our country, we are part of the United States of America. And what happens in America affects the whole world. So we're all in this together. And I think it's great that we have this program. I'm so honored. And thank you for having me on. But I hope that our people in Hawaii will really be attuned to what's happening with the midterm elections. Because, you know, not just what's happening locally, but what happens in DC affects us as well. Thank you. Thank you. You're here. I'd like to thank our guests, especially our special guests, Vicki Cayetano, my co-host, Jay Fidel, and our contributor and special guest, Cynthia Lee Sinclair. I'd like to have a final word. And it's simply this, no one is above the law. And with that, I'm Tim Appichelle, your host for American Issues. Take one. Won't you join us next week? 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.