 the 18 alleged co-conspirators, mostly his attorneys like Jenna Ellis, Rudy Giuliani, and John Eastman, who was the intellectual architect of that elector scheme that Mike Pence rejected. It's a scheme that was laid out in this six-point memo that was released. I've highlighted a couple sections of this, including one aspect is that Pence would gavel in Trump as re-elected after kind of rejecting one slate of electors for another and then force the other side to fight it out in court. So going on a sort of offense and point six here, he says the main thing here is that Pence should do this without asking for permission either from a vote of the joint session or from the court. Let the other side challenge his actions in court. Eastman recently appeared, he appeared last week on Laura Ingram's show on Fox and this is what he had to say in his defense. You know the people that I was representing had a right to counsel and what's going on here with the bar complaints against everybody involved in any of the litigation, this Fulton County complaint, the unindicted co-conspirators and the federal action, they're trying to stifle people from being able to get representation in election challenges. If disputed questions of constitutional law all of a sudden become criminal, we could throw the entire legal profession, the entire legal academy in jail. The fact of the matter is throughout our history, significant leaders in Congress have argued that Congress doesn't have authority under the 12th Amendment, that the founder specifically designed it that way so that the president wouldn't owe his job to Congress. It's a core separation of powers principle that the founders adopted and he just doesn't, he ignores that in his analysis. So the notion that this is well settled is crazy. Is bringing the attorneys into this case criminalizing dissent and criminalizing the profession of law as Eastman suggests here, Ilya? In a word, no. Because what Eastman and some of the others were doing here went beyond simply giving legal advice. It was participating in urging a scheme of illegal conduct. In this case, as you tie it in that memo, trying to get pens to illegally reject the electoral votes and the like. And there's many cases involving mafia lawyers, for example, where when the lawyer doesn't merely advise his client and sort of how to defend himself in court or something like that, but instead, you'll participate in a scheme for for illegal action, you know, lawyers can be prosecuted for that. And this is far from the first time that this has happened to be sure there can be cases where there's gray areas as with many legal doctrines. In this case, with Eastman and so many others, I don't think it's that much of a gray area because Eastman was clearly urging the specific plan that was adopted here. He wasn't even merely saying like, you know, somebody else wanted you to plan. And they asked Eastman whether it would be legal or not. You know, Eastman went beyond, you know, something like that. So if, you know, a mafia lawyer advises his, you know, his mafia client that, you know, we should we should kill this person and not only that, but it would be legal to kill him because it would just be self defense or something like that. You know, the mafia lawyer could be prosecuted for that. And he couldn't hide behind, you know, the idea that he was just giving legal advice that the planning of future crimes is one of the standard exceptions to attorney client privilege and one of the kinds of things that historically lawyers can be and have been prosecuted for when they engage in it. Okay, but isn't that kind of an extreme metaphor? You know, he wasn't advocating anyone be killed. His argument is that this is a legitimate contested area of constitutional interpretation. You just agree, you just disagree that this is in any way a valid way to interpret the Constitution. So his argument was extremely bad, but this is going beyond merely making a bad argument in the abstract. This is urging a specific course of action and planning it out. And I don't think it's at the comparisons to mafia is all that extreme when you recognize the dire horrible consequences of what would have happened if this scheme had succeeded. That is that a president would have been able to stay in power despite losing an election. That's not exactly the same thing as carrying out a murder, but it's nonetheless a large scale awful crime. One of the things that worries me a little bit about the seditious conspiracy wrapper around this is how far that can be extended. I mean, we're already roping in attorneys who are advancing these legal theories or courses of action. The sedition charge has been used to prosecute and sentence to decades in prison. There is no sedition charge in any of these cases. Okay, so there's a conspiracy charge. There's the rego charge. Then we can say that the sedition charge is a separate charge that's been applied to the January 6 rioters who are now some of them are facing decades in prison, some who were not even there. I'm worried that this approach, this expansive approach is handing unbounded power to suppress dissent to whichever party controls the state. Should I be worried about that? I think in this particular set of cases, no. When you talk about the January 6 people, yes, some of them weren't there, but those who weren't there were ones who were involved in the planning of the attack on the Capitol. They weren't merely people who just said the election was a legitimate or to Trump really won. They were leaders of organizations like the old keepers and the proud boys who were directly involved in the planning of the attack. If you're involved in a planning of a violent action, you can certainly be charged with that even if you weren't personally present there. On the breadth of a conspiracy, as I said before, I'm not an expert on RICO, but when you're looking at people like Eastman, these were people who were in the inner circle of planners specifically planning out the specific actions regarding fake electors, rejecting the plan to have Trump reject the ballots and reject the electoral votes and so forth. These are not people with some far out indirect connection to the plan. These were essentially the planners themselves. In the Georgia case, admittedly, I'm not familiar with all the details of all the indictments of the 18 different people, so perhaps you can find someone among the 18 who was much further removed than Eastman, and if so, we can talk about whether it's a good idea to charge that person or not, but with someone like Eastman and other people closely involved in the planning, I think there's no great slippery slope risk. Indeed, there's a slippery slope risk the other way. If you let these people get off simply because their lawyers are to like, because then that creates an obvious incentive to use lawyers to plan your schemes to stay in power. Hey, thanks for watching that clip from our conversation with Ilya Solman about the Trump indictments. For another clip, go right here. For the full conversation, click here.