 Aloha, welcome to American Issues Take One. I'm Tim Apachele, your host. And today's title is, Indictments Closing in on Trump. It's been a while since we've talked about Donald Trump and his pending indictments, whether that be will occur or not. But in the last two or three weeks, there's been a lot of activity. So to talk about that, we'll be right back. With us today is my co-host Jay Fidale and our special esteemed guest, Jeff Portnoy. Gentlemen, good morning. We've been hearing a lot of... Yeah, good morning, Jeff. Hey, we've been hearing a lot from the news about all sorts of activity, as it concerns potential indictments and certainly new evidence pertaining to the document Myrolautical case, certainly some information about January 6th and also the Georgia election fraud case. So they're all kind of swirling out there in the wind and thought we'd take a little bit of time to discuss some new developments. Jay, to you, you know, right now, Jack Smith just recently was able to get Mark Meadows in front of a grand jury as of yesterday. And the question I have is in its speculation, of course. And that's where we're gonna do a little bit here today. It's a little speculation, a little guessing. But do you think Mark Meadows finally just gave up and decided to cooperate? Or was he compelled with contempt? Or way out there in the left field, was he possibly offered an immunity? I mean, was he gonna go in front of the grand jury and take the fifth, you know? Or did he take the fifth? Yeah, you know, I don't have a clear feeling about that. I'm afraid, maybe Jeff has a more clear feeling than me, but I really can't tell from those possibilities which one prevails. I think maybe he made a deal with Smith. Maybe he made a deal with Smith because, you know, bottom line is he's greatly exposed here. And if, you know, if this thing, if he doesn't cooperate, he could be prosecuted. And so maybe that's what motivates him to go down and talk about Trump. I just, I don't know. I feel that Trump is working so hard on all these cases you wanna discuss today to try to delay them and avoid, you know, prosecution. So I don't have a clear feeling. You know, Jack Smith actually took the opportunity to meet with Trump's attorneys. Their request was for Jack Smith to drop all charges. I suppose it was a courtesy meeting, but it seems to me that Mark Meadows would be one of the last key witnesses that Jack Smith would like to hear from. And now that that conversation's taken place, any guesses on, were any bets? And no pizzas, please. Any bets on how soon we may see an indictment come from Jack Smith on the document Mar-a-Lago case? I mean, it doesn't sound like, you know, that meeting went anyway. It lasted two hours, which in, you know, in the world of these cases, it's really a very short meeting. Maybe it was to say hello. Maybe it was for them to say no. So I don't know if it really tells us all that much. You know, on the timing, you know, I have this kind of mental chronometer, you know, that ticks back and forth every day. And every day is a day later and we don't see the serious indictments credit to Alvin Bragg for doing his thing in New York. But we don't have it from Georgia. We don't have it from Mar-a-Lago and we don't have it from January 6th. So I don't have any sense that this is, you know, building momentum for a prompt indictment on any of those three. And I'm sorry to see that because I think a couple of thoughts, let me share with you. Number one is, you know, Trump wants to delay and I think delay works in his favor. And so I don't understand why the Department of Justice is not moving faster. Let's go to trial already, you know? I'm sure they can get an indictment. The other thing that interests me is that this is being played out in the press. Those elements that you mentioned, you know, asking Jeff and me to opine and speculate, those elements are going everywhere in the country. Everybody is aware of this. Everybody can make that speculation. So you actually have one, the silent chronometer and that I talk about where, you know, where nothing comes out of it for years already. And the other one is the media reporting all these things and that has to have an effect. So we have a trial already going on in the public sphere. And the real question is how does that affect a jury if there ever is one, has that effect, you know, the proceedings, including the appellate courts, if they ever get their hands on this? In terms of the public trial with all the people seeing the media, I would say that for, it's the bubbles. On the one side, you know, you have the liberal people who have already convicted him of all three of these cases. And then on the other side, you have the base which has convicted him on none of these cases. I wish you could put, you know, 330 million people in a room and have them decide. That'd be the biggest jury ever, wouldn't it? Jeff, you know, you're an attorney. You know what subpoenas are all about and the evidence that we gathered as a result of subpoena. We have a case here where the Department of Justice issued suit to subpoenas and they wanted to see surveillance video of various areas of the Mar-a-Lago property. And lo and behold, after the second subpoena was issued, like a day or two after, the pool was drained and the water came into the surveillance room and quote-unquote compromised some evidence. Now, does that pass the giggle test, the smell test? If you're the prosecutor or even the judge in this one or potential judge, how are you gonna look at that one? Bad luck. Bad luck. You know, these things happen. Pool's leaking. Blitz the dental. You know. The upcoming indictments which you guys keep talking about every week since. Every other week, Jeff. It's been how many months now? I don't think they're coming and if they do come, I'm not so sure as Jay suggests, Trump is trying to delay them. I frankly think part of him wants them to come as soon as they can. Now that he's in a race with 106 other candidates and his bases eroding slowly but surely, I'm not so sure he needs some boogie people. Used to say boogie men, but you can't do that anymore. You know, boogie people that he can point to. Nobody cares about New York. Everybody's forgotten about that one already. And, you know, you're gonna indict him for January 6th. I would bet heavily that that will never happen. You're gonna indict him for Georgia. I don't know much about that one but you have a prosecutor who can probably and you know, indict a donut. And then the question is, does the Justice Department indict him for, you know, the classified documents? That one to me is a can of worms, politically and legally. So that was much to do about nothing so far. And you know, yeah, I mean, let's come out of all this. Okay, just your shows, what else has come out of this? Yeah, my show is a duck. I hear it going into the lake right now. Everyone's shooting it down. All right, we have Donald Trump on audio. We have Donald Trump saying, oh, I have, he's waving this document. You can hear the rustling in the background. He says, oh, but I can't show it to you because it's classified. Now, if you remember what his defense was, is only I can, you know, declassify things. Just by thinking about it, I can declassify. So here he's on audio, doing a 180 degree opposite comment about the fact that I can't show it to you because it's classified and it's in my possession. Doesn't this, why is this not just a concrete slam dunk piece of evidence? For what? That he obstructed? He didn't obstruct anything. He wanted to make sure he didn't turn over the documents. That's obstruction, is it not? You know, I don't know. I mean, to me, this is so political and I get it. And, you know, we all know how we... Well, this was a political show, that's true. No, it has some legal aspects to it, I assume. I mean, we all know what a bad person Trump is. It doesn't need any more indictments to prove that. I mean, you know, as Jay points out, 50% of the country thinks he's a scoundrel and 30% thinks he walks on water and 20% aren't sure. You think another indictment is gonna change anything? And, you know, the judicial process is very long and very tedious and, you know, he might get indicted again, but so what? That's my point, Mr. Tim. So what? So what? So what? So what? Is he above the law, Jeff? Is Donald Trump really above the law? Cause if it was me, and it wouldn't be cause I wouldn't do something that stupid. But if it was me, do you think I would not already be in the husk out? I don't know, but I do know this, that it's political. And whenever you get political issues involved with legal issues, it doesn't always turn out the way that some people want it to turn out. So, you know, is he gonna get indicted for one or more of these things? You asked when and how and, you know, to me, it's not a big deal. I mean, I just think it plays into his hands to be honest. I mean, as soon as the Justice Department indicts him, that's 30% will go up to 35%. That is possible. And I think you have a point there. Thank you, Jeff. That's all right. It's always a pleasure. Thanks, good night. You're not going anywhere just yet. Oh, sorry. It's a show over now. It's a show over yet. Yeah, that's right. I don't know what it is when I bring you two together, but I lose all control of my show, my ability to, you know, moderate this program, but it happens almost every time. So, Jay, you just heard Jeff describe that maybe this indictment isn't that big deal because it's political. Do you take issue with those comments? I mean, is Donald Trump above the law? My reaction listening to Jeff, and I always have a reaction listening to Jeff. I think it's true, you do. He wants me to have a reaction, and I do have a reaction. It's all a question of timing, okay? If this had been what the public would have perceived as appropriate timing, if this had happened, if there had been indictments in what the public considered the ordinary course, then you would have had a kind of a big statement by the Department of Justice that we should have confidence in them, that they don't dawdle, that they get it done. But, you know, it's hard to feel that way now, too much time has gone by, and it makes it worse that the media has played the case out. We've already seen the trial. We already know the evidence, we know. And so what are we left with? We're left with a big, huge, looming question, you know, is should we have confidence in the legal process here? Too much time has gone by for us to have any serious... Well, isn't the wheels of justice slow? If I hear that one more time, I am going to lose my breakfast. But let me know, the wheels of justice can't be this slow. We're talking about public confidence. And the other side of the issue, Tim and Jeff, is that this is, I think, what Trump wants. He is attacking the system. He is draining the swamp. He is criticizing all the law enforcement agencies he can find. And when the Department of Justice doesn't move fast enough, when the DA in Georgia doesn't move fast enough, if it feeds right into that argument, is that these guys can't get their act together? You can't have confidence in them. No one has ever prosecuted a former president of the United States. Don't you have to have 99.9% lined up and ready to go that you are going to be successful in your prosecution? You wouldn't go in at 50% or at 60%. Maybe it's taking longer because you have to be spot on and close up all the doors that there's an escape route to. I mean, isn't that part of why it's taking so long, Jay? But are you suggesting this is a different approach? Because this guy happens to be a former president of the United States. Absolutely, I'm saying it's a different approach. Hasn't Merrick Garland said, without fear or favor, he's going to steam ahead? Well, Merrick Garland says a lot of things. Well, OK, I don't feel there should be a difference. Well, there is. Of course there is. I want to ask, we have a litigator among us. Jeff, may I intercede and ask a question? I have a question, Jeff. When you go to trial, are you 99% sure or even 100% sure? I think the answer is no. You get your evidence together the best you can. You're very aware of the realities, the fact that the judge could be against you, the jury could be against you, your witnesses could collapse on the stand. Who knows what would happen to witnesses who are suborned and jurors who are intimidated and all that stuff? You never get 99% or 100% never. But you lawyer it the best you can with what you have and you sail into that courtroom and you try to get what you want. And that's so not only in civil proceedings, but in criminal ones also. You can't be sure. And often, the Department of Justice has been sure and has failed. So my point is that this whole thing about dotting all the I's and crossing all the T's and the wheels of justice are slow, it's not really that, it's the lawyering that counts. And part of lawyering these days is to feed the media and not doing anything for two years, a year and a half, whatever it is, how long is it now? Doesn't do the job. You've got to get in there, roll up your sleeves, talk to the jury. Am I right, Jeff? Well, partially. But I think both of you make valid points. One, if you're a Democratic administration going after a former Republican president during an electoral season, you could pretty well better be sure that you've got every duck you can lined up where you might not be that concerned about it in a run of the mill case against even a city councilman or something. On the other hand, the delay is not helping anybody and you're just pushing this off till after the election. I guarantee that if he gets indicted tomorrow, he'll never go to trial until after November, 2024. Even the run of the mill criminal cases get put off months and years into the future with the agreements between the prosecutor and the defense council. So, it's a no win situation for the Biden Justice Department. On one hand, they got people like you, Jay, who were all after him for not having indicted Trump months ago. And on the other hand, they're looking at indicting a former president in the middle of an election season, which is only gonna benefit him. There's no question in my mind. That's why when everyone says or you suggest, you know, he's delaying things and delaying things, I don't agree with that. I think he's just waiting and hoping that the shoe drops sooner rather than later if it's gonna drop. So he has something to campaign against because he's running out of things to talk about. You know, it's pretty clear that the election denial issue is not gonna get him anywhere, even as opposing candidates in the primary are gonna be picking him on that. But can you imagine if he shows up as an indicted former president by the Biden administration? God, he's got a great campaign issue. Well, yeah, you're right. This theater is all playing out through the campaign. Yeah. And may they'll have trouble getting him to trial before the election. But let's assume for a moment that he goes to trial before the election. Let's assume that. Or something dispositive happens, you know, to make a result sometime before the election. If Trump wins that, okay, it's a mandate, isn't it? Wait, I mean, I want you to speak, Jeff. No, you don't. I've never ever stand in your way. So if somehow- You're sitting, you're sitting, aren't you? No, I'm standing because- Oh, I'm sorry. I'm standing attention when I talk to some people. I'm sorry. So if Trump prevails in some way between now and the election, it's a mandate. And the crowd will say, see, he was right all the time. He's gonna get an enormous, the landslide of votes if he prevails. Okay, if he fails, you know, if he loses, say there is a trial and he loses the trial, he's gonna call it a witch hunt, part of the same kind of geo, rather a democratic witch hunt against the GOP. And, you know, there's no question what he'll do. He'll try to downplay it. And he'll say, you know, I was just trying to drain the swamp and look, the swamp drains itself. So, you know, I don't think if he wins or loses before the trial, there's really a significant difference because he has arguments in the case. The third possibility is, as you suggest, that nothing happens. That it just- What has been the fallout from the civil verdict against him? Zero. Well, that's- It just gave him the opportunity to go on his internet sites and rail and rail against the judge, the jury, the woman who won the case. So now she's filed a new case. He's impervious to that. We're talking about Donald Trump. He's a Roy Cohn acolyte. He's got 40 years of being impervious to the judicial and legal system. He doesn't care. He's above it in his own mind, no matter what happens to him. He's got the ability to turn it around. He's a master showman. All right, we have a case in the brag prosecution where the judge has laid out some specific instructions to dummy up, to be quiet. Is Donald Trump above contempt of court? No. Now he made his point, though. Would a judge ever say, that's it? Yeah, of course. I give you multiple warnings. Of course. You are going- But he's not an idiot. What has he done since then? He shut up. Yeah. He hasn't said anything about that. Well, remember that's a long time since then. The fickle finger moves on. The news cycle moves on. We can't even remember what happened. And that's the problem. If you're playing for the theater, it's right now that counts. It's the news cycle. I'll tell you, I'll tell you. The best thing that may have happened in the last 24 hours regarding all of these potential criminal cases is Chris Christie. Yes, that was- Wait for the August debate. Wait for the former USA. Wait for the former US attorney who's got nothing to lose. Go after Trump on these potential criminal charges. Because he's the only one who has the opportunity and the ability to try it. So once we know the details- Well, I'm gonna say once we know the details, not if we know the details. Once we know the details of these indictments, will Chris Christie dive head first into that accusation pool? He's gonna do it anyway. Well, you kind of know what the details are. We know a lot of details already. Until you see the indictment, you really don't. I think Christie, I would accept Jeff's point on that. Christie as a force in the public theater is a greater force than any one of these indictments because it's gonna be mono, imano, nose to nose over and over again. It's not just August. It's already happening. It happened in his statement that he made when he announced his candidacy. And so a guy like that reveals Trump and the public will not forget. And if they forget after a week or two, he will remind them. He'll keep that thing going from now till the election. Not only August, but every day. I've got two attorneys on this show right now and I've got to take a look. No, you only have one real one. Yeah, that's me. Here we go again. I got Laurel and I got Hardy on here. Oh, that you do have. That you do have. Okay, so I'm gonna take a left turn here. Jeff, how difficult is it to pierce the attorney-client confidentiality relationship? How difficult is that to happen? And it has happened. So what does that mean? It's very difficult unless you can show the attorney and the client were involved in some kind of criminal activity. And that may be that the attorneys were intentionally hiding information. Now they're saying, I read the other day that they were misled by Trump, that Trump didn't tell them the truth. They're all running for the hills, but he doesn't have any trouble finding lawyers who apparently are willing to work for nothing because he doesn't pay his legal bills. Okay, so how serious is it when his former attorneys are going in and facing a grand jury? How serious is that? Well, you know, I don't know because my guess is, as Jay speculated before about Mark Meadows, they may go in there and take the fifth. I mean, why fight the subpoena, which you're gonna lose? Just go in and plead the fifth. Hope you get a deal. But it's very hard to pierce an attorney-client privilege. I mean, we saw that word organized crime and this is very similar. So, you know, unless there was some conspiracy to violate the law, did what? He got Mark Meadows to go in or he got the answer? No, no, no, he got Trump's former attorneys to go in. They've gone in. But what have they done? What have they said? Well, we don't know yet. Right. Come on. That's my point. I like to add one point. The fact that they have gone in. All right, the bottom line is it's very, very hard. I like to add that when Congress, when the House subpoenas Mark Meadows, the House subpoenas Mark Meadows- Is this Laurel or Hardy that's talking now? That's what I want to know. It's Abbott. Costello. Well, you keep it up and I'll say heckle and jekyll. Keep it up. Most people are watching this thinking they're watching the Three Stooges. No, they're watching you, Jeff. All right, Jeff, that's enough of that. Go ahead, Jay, you have the floor. Yeah, so you realize that Meadows was subpoenaed by the House January 6th committee and he refused. He told them all to get stuck. He wasn't going to respond to the subpoena. So then they went to the Department of Justice and said, would you please prosecute him for contempt? And DOJ said, no, they weren't going to do it. And I don't remember or maybe nobody ever knows why they took that position, but he really never was accountable for his failure to appear in front of Congress. Well, look, I mean, Tim, we're joking around and obviously this is very serious stuff. I just think it's very, very hard when politics trump the legal system. And I say that using the words advisedly. And it's such in a difficult situation for the Justice Department because on one hand there may well be very legitimate legal reasons to indict Trump, but on the other hand, there may be overwhelming political reasons not to. That's a very difficult dilemma. All right, so let's go with that. Let's go with that. It goes beyond politics. This is the Autocrat's playbook. You try to diminish the authority of the government. And we had that even a week ago and for that matter, the Freedom Caucus still takes the position that we shouldn't increase the debt ceiling and the country should just dissolve. We don't want any stinking government here. Well, okay, Jim, I'm gonna go with that. I wanna ask Jeff that question. That autocratic issue is on the table right now. Okay, by the fact that this is political season, that there is a prosecution or potential indictments, does that erode the confidence of the American public when it concerns the justice system? That politics seems to give a former president a get out of jail free card. No, I think because I think your view on that is directly related to your view on the political issue. It's totally colored by your politics as to how you feel about no indictment, a delayed indictment. Okay, well, let's say we have half the country, 50% of the country, because it's 50-50 split practically in this country. All right, well, let me put it this way. Okay, how many people do you think are really concerned about the fact that a president took a classified document to his house? No, seriously, you ask 100 people to list the top 10 things they're concerned about. I don't think it shows up in the top 10. I'm just being totally honest. I don't think the public gives a rip whether it's illegal or not. Let me answer that question. It depends on who's he's shown it to. If he's showing a classified documents that God knows who in Russia or his, you know. That's not the test though. The test is he did it. And the failure here is that DOJ could have had some kind of accountability here if it moved quicker. It gave Trump and his friends the opportunity to mess this all up and confuse people and make them ask the very question that Jeff is asking. You know, is it really not? Well, I would argue, Jay, that because if you did a rushed prosecution and indictment, it would look even more political. What's a rushed prosecution? We know- Well, I mean, you said this was taking too long. I mean, if you were to put this on a fast timeline to Jeff's point, now you really made it look like it's a political get-even. Well, I think the liberal side of the, you know, the room is going to find anything he did was indictable and convictable. Well, I'm telling you this, if they do indict him. The conservative side of the room is gonna find that it's all a witch hunt and it doesn't matter and the delay makes them wonder about the institutions around government. But you raised before the odds of when someone should or should not be indicted, both of you. I don't think there's any question in my mind that unless they are about as close to 100% sure that the evidence is so overwhelming that any jury, whether they have a high school education or not, will do something other than convict. They are not bringing that indictment. And I can understand why they are uncovering. They can never have that. And they can and they are uncovering every rock that they can possibly find. And I think if they don't feel close to 100% and I mean, very close, he will not be indicted. Because the worst possible thing, Jay Fidel is an indictment and an acquittal. That is the worst scenario of any kind that the three of us can consider. That could happen. That could happen no matter how well-prepared they are, how many dots, the i's, the crosses, the t's, it could happen. And while that trial is going on, there'll be all kinds of shenanigans. So when do you reach the point of 100% you don't. And if that's the test on whether to indict him or try to indict him. Well, yes you can. Yes you can. I mean, let's assume that Mark Meadows spills the beans. Let's just assume it. You're pretty close to 100%. Right there. I mean, you are. Well, that's a big assumption, by the way. That would be a vote for immunity then, wouldn't it? But even if he spilled the beans in that meeting with the Department of Justice, or the grand jury where he was testifying. And I'm not sure that really does it. I'm not sure that gives you 100%. Well, but it's not by itself. I mean, my assumption is that they are going step by step by step by step. You and I may feel they're taking too many steps that it's too delayed. I come to the bottom line, which I just said. An indictment without a conviction is the worst possible scenario. No indictment, no indictment is 10 times better. Okay, wait, oh, is it really? Yes. First of all, I disagree, because I think that if you can't get a conviction, it may be just the way things go, no matter how much evidence you have lined up. And the other thing I wanna add, is that if you have no indictment, no indictment after spreading all this evidence so far that they have all this tabloid reporting for the past year and a half, where everybody in the world really knows what happened here. Okay, and if you have no indictment, what does that say? What does it say if you wanna take the other side of it, I'll play the 35% that love Trump. How come Hunter Biden hasn't been indicted yet? You wanna talk about no indictment taking forever. I mean, how about that, Jay? You must be very happy about that one. They got no evidence. Oh, no, no, they have no evidence. They have the computer, they have a guy who's been involved in all kinds of things. I'm not saying he should be indicted, I'm just saying, how come you're not concerned about how long that's taking? That investigation is still ongoing. They have no evidence. Well, then why are they still investigating? I just think that no indictment- That's another question, by the way, going back to my earlier point. That's take two, that's right. If the Department of Justice decides, you know, like for example, just a few days ago, they said, we are not gonna prosecute Pence, right? That was a public announcement, you know? That game is such a shock, by the way. You don't look shocked to me. I was shocked by that statement. The guy that your consultant behind you may look shocked, but you're not shocked. What I'm saying though, is that that is really something that they said they weren't gonna prosecute, okay? And they're not gonna say that with Hunter Biden, because you know why? It sounds too political. If they were forced to make a decision and say what their plan was, if they were forced to make a decision and say, you know, we don't have it on these other two cases, January 6th in Mar-a-Lago, we are not gonna prosecute. How many boxes did they find in Biden's? Offices in home of classified documents? Let me finish. Well, it's how he treated it. The way Donald Trump treated it versus Biden is day and night. Well, that's true, but that doesn't change the crime. If you rob the bank and then decide to return the money, you still rob the bank. Hey, as a former bank manager, let me address that. No, I just, okay, guess what? We've run out of time. You know, I'm reluctant to ask for last thoughts. I really am reluctant, but however, I'm a masochist. So Jeff, go ahead. I'm done. Jay, by all means. I'm done too. I can't afford to have this thing. Are we done yet? We're out of time. I'd like to thank my guests. My esteemed guests, Jeff Portnoy and my ever-loving co-host, Jay Feiduck. My God, when I do this show, I never know what I'm gonna get. And guess what? I didn't know I was gonna get this. All you get is brilliance. Yeah, yeah. All right, guess what? Why don't you join us next week for American Issues Take One? I'm Tim Apachele, I think. And won't you join us next week? Until then, aloha.