 Aloha. Good morning. Welcome to American Issues Take One. I'm Tim Apachele, your host. And today's title is Federal Criminal Investigations of Trump. Well, I think it's fair to say that this has never been done before. Even with Richard Millhouse Nixon, he was never federally investigated by the Department of Justice. Bill Clinton had his problems, but the DOJ did not actually formally investigate Bill Clinton. So the first time in presidential history, I think we have a new one here. And that is Donald Trump is formally being investigated by the Department of Justice, specifically the Attorney General, Merrick Garland. To my guests, good morning. Jay Fidel, co-host, and our regular contributor, Winston Welch. Good morning. Jay, I don't have to go far back in our memory banks and our previous shows to report that you and I and maybe a couple of other guests would refer to Merrick Garland, our Attorney General as the following. AOL, AWOL, MIA, missing in action, out to lunch. Are you surprised that Merrick Garland has been working in the behind the curtains, behind the scenes that actually has been investigating Donald Trump? Were you surprised by this interview with Lester Holt on NBC and the Washington Post's article? Somewhat. Come on, Jay. You know, don't get too excited about this. The fact is that in May, he signed that, the end of May, he signed that push look in a memo that said, oh, I need to follow Bill Barr's policy and we can't go after anybody who is running for president. That's only May. It's only a few months ago, really. He is three months ago, that's all it is. And then, of course, don't forget that the reports through Lester Holt and others about how he was examining witnesses from the White House, the top levels of the White House, that only happened a few days ago. That didn't happen right after May or even before May. So I'm not surprised in the sense that, I believe there had to be, I told you this before, there had to be a conversation along here somewhere where Joe Biden says, hey, my popularity is going down and people are really not happy with you, Merrick. You gotta tell him you're doing something. So Merrick told us that he was doing something. I don't see this as a huge big revelation. I think it was politically necessary for him to say this and to call Lester Holt and his media friends and say, I think I'd like to have an interview now and then make statements that's supposed to give the public some confidence. And remember back when this happened last time and people were criticizing Merrick, he gets up there and he used the same language. We will follow the evidence wherever it goes. We are not gonna hold back and blah, blah, blah. Were you comforted by that statement? Were you comforted when Lester Holt said, this investigation could potentially tear the country in two. Were you comforted that his response was, yes, and I'm concerned about that, which he didn't say, but he said, we are gonna follow the evidence to no matter where and who it goes to. I was comforted by hearing that. Were you? I'm happy for you. Yes, me too, I'm very pleased for myself. But let me say that. But were you comforted? I am not confident that Merrick Garland's investigation is gonna move that quickly. That we already know it hasn't moved very quickly. This is fresh now. And I don't think he's been running a parallel to the select committee. I'm not sure how aggressive he really is. And I fear he does not fully understand that, although we certainly appreciate his care and caution, his moderate approach to things, but the fact is that voting has already started. I already voted myself. I'll tell you that now. And a lot of states, people have already voted. And sure, there are glimmers of hope, which we will hear from Winston about that, that maybe the GOP is changing its tune, but those are glimmers. We still have a huge base in this country and Trump for all his continued lying is still doing it. So I'm not sure this investigation that is Merrick Garland's investigation is gonna get to a point where it has the necessary effect. A lot of people say, well, there's an indictment that'll change the way the base thinks. Really? Will it? They love him. They still love him. Or a lot of people say, if he gets into a jury trial, if he winds up in trial, then don't be so sure the trial's gonna happen right away. You know, I mean, he is a master at delaying, deferring, deterring, and derailing legal proceedings all his life. Yeah, I'd like to address the 50 ways. I'll give you one more point. A lot of people say that right now, today, there is evidence that would convict him right now from what we have all seen on television. But whether that gets in front of a jury in time to make a difference is another question. Good point. And later in the interview, I'd like to talk about the 50 ways Donald Trump can leave Merrick Garland in the dust in all the attempts of the Department of Justice because Donald Trump is a master at it and we could discuss that later in the show. Winston, what was your big takeaway from either the interview that Merrick Garland had with Lester Holt or the article in the Washington Post? Well, regardless of what Merrick Garland has just said, I think we can go on his, like Jay was saying, he's used the same sorts of words and he hasn't really, it's just kind of like just teasers about what's going to come down. But when I had heard, oh, is there some grand jury being assembled, he has said all along that no one too high, no one is immune from investigation and prosecution in these matters. That may be true, but does the nation at the end of the day have the stomach for it? And Lawrence Tribe had an interesting interview on July 22nd, where he said nothing could be more dangerous to the country than not holding Donald Trump accountable for his role on the January 6th attack. NPR had a poll out about the same day, it was maybe the 21st of July last week, and it was talking about how people perceive these things. And based on, Republicans said there's 44%, we're watching the hearings a lot or some of the time. Democrats 80% and independents 55, overall 58% of people were paying attention to the January 6th committee hearings. This actually is really startling to me because although we hear about the Nielsen ratings and whatnot, but actually people are paying attention to this, according to NPR and their survey that they did with PBS and Merist Poll. So while we might think that our countrymen and women are maybe asleep at the wheel on this, they're not, they're interested in it and they are paying attention. And what's happened is that six in 10 said in that Merist NPR poll is that they don't think Donald Trump will face any charges. So half of respondents said that he should be charged with a crime, including nine and 10 Democrats, but only 10% of Republicans, independents are split 49 to 46%, well, that's half and half. So at the end of the day, if he does do something, it's going to be seen as absolutely partisan, but in this environment with the Supreme Court and the way that Congress has been run and all the shenanigans going on all the way around, it'd be hard, you could, that would be very easily spun into something. Now, what I think what Lawrence Tribe was on is he said he has to be. Merit Garland has, it's not if, but how quickly he needs to move against Donald Trump. How do we hold Donald Trump accountable without putting him in prison because we don't put presidents in prison in this nation? It's just even if the House arrest. Well, how about if, I don't know, I mean, you guys know more about it. It's an ankle bracelet. Could he not be found guilty of what the January 6th committee has laid out so clearly of just a really egregious behavior by a president, a new category. Let me jump into that. Because I listened to Lawrence Tribe last night on Lawrence or Donald's show and he was very, very pointed to the fact that Merit Garland seemed to be pointing in the direction of obstruction of a federal election process. And there could be four or five different potential charges. One, potential criminal charges could be the following, defraud the US government. Well, how is that? The fake elector scheme, that's defrauding the United States government. Number two, obstruction of a federal election process. That's the one that Merit Garland seems to be sniffing and pointing in the direction of. Number three, incitement of a violent insurrection of the US Capitol. That's pretty hard to prove. That has to show a really direct link with the proud boys and the oath keepers and all those wing nets. And last but not least, conspiracy of sedition. Again, pretty hard charge to prove although the Department of Justice did prove it with one of the insurrectionists that broke into the Capitol, they did charge and they got a conviction on conspiracy of sedition. So those are the four main ones. And it seems to be that Merit Garland might be looking at the interference of a federal election process. So let's just assume that this all goes to court. It goes before a grand jury. Evidence is presented, which I don't think we would hear if it's a grand jury, right? It's all done sort of in secret, isn't it? But even if it were an open court, the court of public opinion is ongoing right now. The January six hearings have shifted people's opinions. So in the court of public opinion, Donald Trump has been found by the majority of Americans to be unfit for a second term. And this is true for Republicans that don't want him to run. I mean, likewise, Democrats don't want Joe Biden to run, but he will if he needs to. I don't want to take an indictment for that to stick. That's my question. If you don't want him to be able to legally run for president again, yes, but people don't want to see trials even with this egregious behavior. I mean, we've never had this happen before. So how do we face this? I think if he were found guilty of let's just say, you know, calling up and asking for another 11,000 votes or whatever it was or twisting them, we all know this, what's out there. And some people view it as, you know, they're viewing the January six as an isolated incident rather than four years of cumulative misdeeds or even just centered around the last two months before, you know, the January 20th when power was actually handed over. It seems as if the goal is just to say this fellow should not run again. Even if he runs, I don't think that America has the stomach for him, but even if he were to run, that there'd be some sort of understanding that if he were found guilty, his sentence would be commuted to zero days to just living with that sentence because that's the goal. But yeah, but still convicted, still convicted. Convicted, but you know, he was also tried twice in the impeachment and we will come up with the same thing. So we have to be very careful here that we recognize what's happened as a nation, but also recognize we need to move beyond this and we need to recognize it, but we're not gonna change hearts and minds of people that just don't, that think this is just purely political nonsense. And so how do we do that deftly and skillfully? I think Merrick Garland has a lot to consider about how he goes about this, but in the court of public opinion, the public has already weighed in and there's many other people who can take the place of Donald Trump and Joe Biden for that matter in the 2020 elections. Thank you, Winston. Hey, Jay, to Winston's point, are people looking to ensure that Donald Trump is prohibited from running for president of the United States in 2024 or are they actually looking for a conviction in jail time? Is there something in between that will sue the American ire, particularly against Donald Trump and his tactics of trying to obstruct the transference of power from one president to another? Your thoughts? Let me break it down in three parts. The first part is everybody seems to be assuming that we don't have a rule about circumstantial evidence. I don't think the press is being accurate legally. They suggest that you have to have all this hard copy evidence to convict the guy of suspicious conspiracy and what. We have four years of circumstantial evidence. We have so much circumstantial evidence that will blow your mind. I had a dinner with a couple of long-term litigators and I asked them, do you think there's enough evidence from what you see on television to convict him? And the answer was instantly yes. And I feel that way too, instantly yes. Assistant to public doesn't understand, appreciate the legal definition and the importance of the concept of circumstantial evidence. And so there's one way that Trump is going to slip out of this. He's gonna confuse them. And I must say, I don't think the media doing a good job at clarifying that. Second answer to my spate of questions I'm gonna answer for you. I think it's unprecedented. I think he engaged in high crimes and misdemeanors and treason to the extent that it applies and suspicious conspiracy. And when you start putting all the pieces together connecting the dots as we like, he corrupted everybody in the government. He corrupted every agency. He corrupted the Secret Service. He corrupted everybody. He's a real felon. He's a real criminal. And I would put him in a jumpsuit and I'd put him in jail. And I'd put him in jail for a substantial period of time. I don't care that he was the president, never. My president, was he your president? Whose president was he? He's a corrupt individual. And he used the office to manipulate, corrupt and make advantage for his own personal interests. So I wouldn't give him two cents for the fact that he was president and he wasn't. He goes to jail. Put me on the jury. I'm volunteering right now. Okay, that's the second thing. I'll see what we hear. I guess you answered my question is, would having him never being able to have the ability to run for office satisfy people? I'm getting a sense that that's a no. You asked me whether we needed to have a conviction of participating in an insurrection or some other legal statement, decision, conclusion to that effect to stop him under chapter, or rather 14th Amendment section three. The 14th Amendment section three does not have any execution provision. It's not well drafted in the sense that it doesn't say it goes to Congress or it goes to court. Doesn't say anything like that. And leaves it up in the air. Maybe they intended to do this. But I think it's fair enough that a court could and would say, assuming it wasn't a corrupted Trump judge that he participated, he organized. He organized it, man. He was the center of it. It wasn't some stump from Wisconsin, it was him. He organized the insurrection. Circumstantial evidence included. And maybe you don't even need it in that case. So I would say it should be very clear to anybody who appreciates the truth that he falls within section three of the 14th Amendment. And a judge certainly could say that. And I've told you before, I think that there may be a standing issue who, what John Q. Citizen could raise that to a judge. Does it have to be somebody who's running against him? Who knows? But there's nothing in it that says you have to have a judge, a jury, a trial. You can probably have it in the way of a rule 56, federal rules of procedure, declaratory judgment. Whereas some judge says, I declare that section three of the 14th Amendment applies. And that's that. Of course, Trump will appeal that and be around the barn with the Supreme Court. But I don't think you need an act of Congress. I don't think you need anything fancy. I think that the holding of one judge theoretically could do it. In any event, please understand that we are now entering into a new phase of American history. It is the phase of legal chaos. And Trump wants that, likes that and so forth. And he will oppose anything that runs against his favor. And he will appeal from every single decision and every interlocutor decision by every legal judicial officer that runs against him. So we're not gonna get this resolved by November or by 2024. It's all gonna be up in the air. This is very damaging. And this is his intention. All right. Thank you, Jay. Hey, Winston. In the Washington Post article, it mentioned specifically that couple of Vice President Mike Pence, top age have been cooperating with a grand jury. There hasn't been a grand jury that is currently underway over these specific things that could be elements of prosecution for Donald Trump and they testified. Does that put Mike Pence squarely in the eyes of the other, the January 6th hearing committee for a subpoena or the Department of Justice for a subpoena? He's threading the needle here. I mean, he wants to keep the base of which he was brought on the original ticket in 2016. Those conservative, religious, sort of fundamentalist God nation family folks that joined and then just held their nose because he was paired with Donald Trump. So he's trying to go after that. And yet that's not, it is the base, but they have an overlay of now Trumpism on top of that. So there needs to be this peeling off of somehow these four, five, six years of overlay to get back to that original sort of right wing religious base that he does appeal to. Now that's not where like an Adam Kitzinger might be or Liz Cheney who don't really have the religious element of the science behind them. They're more, we'll call it principled conservatism. And then there's the Trump factions. So can the understanding of or the impact of Donald Trump be peeled away from those two bases of that one, Mike Pence might appeal to and two that Liz Cheney might appeal to and that we have those two factions of the party then reclaiming the Republican party from what it's been under these last many years. I don't think it's gonna happen. Okay, so I understand the political weave he's trying to thread through here, but does it give him cover now to come forward and provide testimony knowing full well that the cat's out of the bag and there's a federal criminal investigation that about Donald Trump. And does he now just respond to any subpoena that comes his way? And does he really open things up? As John did deed for Richard Nixon is Mike Pence the new John Deans, if you will, that really opens up this investigation and sheds light on criminality. Well, it's an interesting question and he actually has a chance to really see some power here. So if he really wanted to and he really wanted to do this well, he could say, I was privy to these conversations. I was duped along with you, my fellow Americans. And I know that you are principled conservatives and that we were led astray. And now actually I'm the leader of the Republican party as we once understood it or should be the leader and reclaim that mantle from where, how it's been tainted in the eyes of the general public so that we have a chance of winning. It's something that he could do and make into a strength, but his polls, his poll ratings are so low right now. However, it's not impossible that, you know, he's seen on some grounds, I think rightly so that he did not buckle under that pressure. So he has some street cred out there, even among people that really are opposed to many of his positions on the left or even in the center. So he could really make some lemonade out of lemons here if he were to do that. One thing that I wanted to throw out is, do we have had a national trauma really? We're all in PTSD and we have got everything on this and add on COVID and whatnot, but do Democrats really wanna have Donald Trump as a martyr going into these 2022 elections or 2024 elections where he's gonna be fighting this tooth and nail the whole way there and just saying how corrupted. Yeah, the answer is probably because it'll take away from issues of the economy. It'll take away issues from, you know, immigration issues that the GOP should be focused on. So if Donald Trump is going to plan a flag in his own defense, that's the last thing, I think Republicans want. That's one argument. The other one is that it will galvanize people and saying the whole system is so corrupt and unfair. Look how I've been treated. So that's another way to look at it. I think right now, I mean, you've got this respect for Marajak going through Congress and I think the Republicans don't know whether the turn right, turn left or go up or down. Because they really don't want this to be about that. They want to get back that focus on inflation or whatever. But too late, it's in the Senate. They're gonna have to decide one way or the other. It's gonna be one way or another. And if Mitch McConnell could find some way to punt on this, he would or will. But it's interesting, but if you make it all about Donald Trump, he's such a good master. He's an excellent master at bamboozling the public and leading them in whatever path he wants them to do. So I'm not sure that if they want and prosecuted that that's in the best interest of the nation or the Democrats specifically. Okay, thank you. Jay, what's in the best interest of the nation? I think I know your answer is, but is it conviction? Is it prevention from running in 2024? Or is it just we move along? Don't pay attention to this anymore. We have bigger problems here in this country. Climate change, inflation, cost of living, immigration, crime, assault weapons, and the list goes on. What's in the best interest of this nation, in your opinion? Truth and justice. We no longer have confidence in the country and the democracy. We cannot afford to turn our back. We cannot afford to be afraid of having truth and justice. This man has to be tried, convicted, and punished. If we don't do that, we carry it for the rest of our national lives. All these other issues are subordinate to the fact that Trump raked the country. And he is not a Nixon and he is not a Clinton. He is a Hitler or a Putin is what he is and we have to stop him, not only for ourselves but for the free world. He cannot be let go. He cannot be free. We have a point to make and we must make that point before we look at anything else. We are in a crisis now. The only way you can deal with this cancer is to remove it. I can't imagine any other solution that would work. And just for us, we've been talking about this for how many, four, five years? He has to be cut out. And we should not be afraid of him. It's like Merrick Garland says. I'm not sure I agree with what he's gonna do. But, you know, without fear or favor, we find the truth, we punish the wrongdoers. That's what the country is about. Let me tell you guys, if it was us, we go to jail. We'd be wearing the orange suits. Why can't he wear the orange suit? Everybody has to be subject to the same rule of law. Anyway, I've said this before. Well, let me just tag onto that. So if a conviction is not obtained, or even an indictment, does those independents, those who are non-Trump GOP, those Democrats, do they lose faith in the system and decide to check out, become apathetic? What happens? All of that may happen anyway. I think we've come to the conclusion it's almost impossible to anticipate what's gonna happen in the next six months, much less the next couple of years. We just have to steam ahead. And one piece that's in our daily advisory today is taking off the New York Times, Brett Stevens opinion, which makes note of the fact that we do not have a national leader now. And that's another way of saying we're in leadership chaos. We have to have a national leader to deal with this. And I guess if we're in national chaos, and this is, as I said before, what Trump wants, we'll never be able to resolve it. Somebody has to emerge. Without that leader, and without the leadership of truth and justice, the country is in big trouble no matter how you cut it. So I wouldn't worry about being afraid of him. I wouldn't worry about the chaos that he will create because he will try as hard as he possibly can to create chaos anyway. We have to find our moral compass and do what is right. He has put us off that track for what, five years now going on six, we cannot afford to be off that track for one second more. All right, well, the New York Times states we have no leadership, not unlike England and Italy right now. So I guess we're in fine company. All right, we've run out of time. So Winston, let's go around and ask for your last thoughts on this topic and let it fly. Well, Jay makes some very compelling arguments as always. And when I'm in my, I don't wanna call it pessimistic mode, but more of a, in his brain mode, I understand what he's saying. And then there's the other part of me that says, how do we, okay, there's the problem, what's the solution? Is that the solution? It's one solution, but is it the solution that will help and heal our nation? I don't know, maybe there's some varieties inside of there that are less than putting Donald Trump in prison, but at least something that allows some official recognition of what's happened. At the end of the day, we have a lot of really big problems that we need to face and we don't need more, we need to figure out what the best solution is regarding this particular topic and this particular man so that we can move forward in the best way possible. And I don't have a clear mind on it actually. I am of two or three or four minds on this, like probably most of our country men and women are, but we will find out more as time goes by, we'll see people are gonna do what they're gonna do, Mayor Garland's gonna do what he does and things, the chips will fall where they may, but at the end of the day, I will hope that he has some wisdom in choosing the best for America overall and it's very hard work that we have to do ahead. As a nation, no matter what he decides or doesn't decide. He's not in a position to make that kind of policy. He's the chief lawyer representing the United States of America. He should not be concerned with those issues of public policy. Well, and he referred to that last night, when Lester Holt asked that directly, that this could cut the country in two, he goes, basically he said, that's not my problem. My problem is following the evidence to whoever, whenever, wherever. Right, and if that is a telegraph of what? No, no, it's Joe Biden's problem and I don't think Joe Biden's doing a great job at it. It's all of our problems. It's all of our problems. It's all of our problems. It's the Supreme Court's problem. It's Congress's problem. It's the two political parties' problem. Okay. You know, I wanna make my last statement to compare this to a bicycle. There were times, you know, when I rode bicycle on a regular basis and raced bicycle. And one of the fundamental rules about riding a bicycle is all about equipment. And you can go out and buy, you know, components, you know, like the pedals and the gears and all those things on a bicycle, but it's meaningless if the frame is broken, meaningless. You can spend a whole ton of money buying a new shifter. Meaningless if the frame is broken. Our frame, she is broken. We have to fix the frame and frame is a play on words. It's the framework of the United States. It's the social, legal, community mesh that binds us together. It's the moral compass. We have to fix that first. And all these problems we have are second. First, we have to get a country again. Profound. Thank you, Jay. Thank you for your last words. I visualized playing cards that were clipped on with clothesline clips on the spokes of a bike that might save the day, but you're right. It does come down to the frame. So we've run out of time. I'd like to thank you, Jay Fidel. Winston Welch, thank you for attending and for providing your great thoughts. Won't you join us next week for America Issues? Take one. I'm Tim Apachele, your host, and we hope to see you 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.