 back to Think Tech, and this is America. American issues take one, and we have the honor of being able to talk to Steve Alm, the prosecuting attorney for the City and County, and our esteemed guest Chuck Crumpton about whether Trump could go to jail. What are the chances he's going to be in prison? And you know what, you guys? I'm going to ask you that question first. I'm going to ask Steve that question first. From all that you know about the criminal law and prosecution, and of course recognizing that it doesn't matter who you are, you get to follow the facts and the law and so forth, should he go to jail? Will he go to jail? Okay, well first, let's separate out the two. Jail is pre-trial detention or is a violation of probation. Prison is multi-year sentences. So some, you know, especially if it's one year, you can argue either one. But if Mr. Trump gets convicted, he is going to prison. I think it's the most likely scenario. In the two federal cases, the document case and the electoral case of, you know, the January 6th ending case, you know, they have big numbers, but the likely guideline range would be between three to five years. Now the whole issue about whether he can be safely in a prison because Secret Service has to have 24-7 protection of him raises that whole question. But I don't think he's likely to do home detention in Mar-a-Lago or in some luxury thing. That wouldn't work either. If he gets convicted in Georgia for that case, a couple of the charges, the forgery and stuff carry within a mandatory year. The big overarching charge, the RICO case, the judge has the option of finding him or sending him to prison. But if it's going to be prison, it has to be five years. It can't be anything less than that. So I think the likelihood, if he gets convicted, is that it would carry a prison sentence. So Chuck, is the $200,000 bail enough? You know, frankly, here's the guy who's been telling us how rich he is. The $200,000 doesn't sound adequate. What do you think? The number is virtually meaningless. Well, what about my original question to Steve? Should he go to jail? Or because he's a former president or what have you, big shot? Maybe he shouldn't. Because he has secret service obligations or they have obligations around him. Maybe he shouldn't. I'm actually much more interested and I love to get the prosecutor Steve Stotz on this. What comes out in the cases and what the basis of a jury verdict is, that to me is going to comprise the most interesting questions. And potentially the most influential questions because you've got a criminal courtroom forum for four cases, which is completely different than an open political forum. And the rules, the conducts, the communications are regulated in very, very different ways. So I really want to see what's going to happen in that forum if it's effectively administered by the judicial officers. Well, I think in the New York case, I think D.A. Bragg has indicated that he'd be willing to kind of defer to the other cases. So I think the three other ones, the two federal cases and the Georgia case are the ones to focus on. I think the document case from the outside, and we have to first say these are allegations only. It's a prosecutor saying we think we can prove these things. And they should always answer two questions. One, do we believe the person based on the evidence is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt? And two, do we have admissible evidence to prove that? The two may not always be the same. But even bringing the charges, nothing has been proven, there's no evidence, those are allegations. So like any other criminal case, the prosecutors have the burden of trying to prove each and every one of those charges beyond a reasonable doubt. Looking at on the outside and we're speculating, we don't know all the evidence, but it would appear the documents case looks like the strongest ones. There's been a lot of report in the media on that. There's tapes of supposed conversations between President Trump and different people. So just on the outside, that looks to be the strongest case. However, in my mind, the other federal case that right now the prosecutors proposed to January 2nd date, the special the special counsel, that and the Georgia case are the two are the two most important ones because they go to the heart of what I think is being alleged here that democracy was being undermined and how that was done. So in the January case, it's very narrow. President Trump is the only defendant. They're unindicted co-conspirators. Interesting enough, Mr. Meadows is not one of them. So leading to speculation that he may be cooperating, but they're going to be bringing in witnesses, many of whom are the same party as the president to show that he was trying to get these electors from those various states to try to present an alternative or a fake series of electors and then trying to change the outcome at the U.S. Capitol in order to have the vice president seat or at least bring it into controversy. So maybe the legislature would get involved. So that will be interesting. It's very narrow. And I think it kind of makes sense if they do that one first. The Georgia one, I think really is to me the most interesting one. They've been at this for two years investigating and it really goes to people, everyday people that are hurt by this. It isn't lawyers arguing in court. It isn't trying a scheme to get fake electors as serious as that is on a more human touch. It means Ruby Freeman was harassed at her house and people threatened to kill her and her daughter. But when you look at that indictment, it includes specifics, whereas politicians, a lot of them can lie a lot. They can lie to the public. They can lie in other forums. But in this case, like in the Georgia case, if it's a lie to a public official about there, about stuff that's in their Kuliana, that becomes a crime in and of itself. So there are like 22, I think, separate lies that are being alleged, either in the conversation with the Secretary of State Raffenberger on the phone, you know, or, you know, and those involved or in a filing at U.S. District Court by President Trump and Charles Eastman, where in that they in the filing, they say at least 66,000 underage people voted illegally in Georgia and that there were more voters than poll watchers saw deliberate misinformation being done and that other people voted who shouldn't. Each of those separate things are being alleged. And then in the false statements or writings in the conversation with Deputy, you know, with the Secretary of State Raffenberger, he, you know, he alleged it's alleged that he said that Ruby Freeman was a professional vote scammer and known politically operative, that 5,000 dead people voted in the 2020 election and that 139% of the people voted in the November 30 election in Detroit. So these are specific statements that if you're trying to say to the Secretary of State to change the way he operates in an area that he's got authority over, that's a crime. That is an easier thing to prove than that it's part of this overarching conspiracy like Jack Smith is going to have to prove. But it's a lot more human, I think this, this really sprawling indictment that has what, 19 defendants, a whole bunch of unincredited co-conspirators. And I think the prosecutor who has actually done these, apparently she did a RICO case involving school districts that were, you know, fraudulently reporting scores and stuff. But I don't think she's thinking they're going to be 19 people when it finally goes to trial, because I think she's thinking a number of those folks are going to flip. So those are the two, two cases I think are really interesting. And I don't know, you know, I can't, you know, get into her mind. But if that first case actually goes in January, she's now asking for a March date, it's conceivable that but one trial could follow the other. Well, let's look at the dance card, which we had on the screen for a moment. The dance card compiled by the BBC has, you know, all of Trump's appearance obligations and the cases against him and the calendar essentially. The interaction of these four indictments, these four cases, these four trials work here. Does it help him? Does it hurt him? What kind of arguments can he make because of the confluence of all these events? Well, he's going to make the arguments that he can't be ready for any of them in next spring. And then you've got to throw in the Gene Carroll defamation suit, which is now set for January 15. But he will argue there's too much discovery, I can't be ready. And I think that's probably, you know, it was Jack Smith's intention to keep it as narrow as possible, one defendant, and he'll try to argue. Now, it's been interesting what's been reported in the media that the judge in that case, who seems like a no-nonsense person who's got experience, she has said if there are statements made that threaten people's lives or make it, you know, a dangerous situation, that's going to ignore it to do the trial sooner to protect people. And so she's got to be looking at the appellate record as well and make sure that the defense has enough time to prepare for it. But if she gets that trial to go in January, that will really set the course for everything else because I think the Carol case, you know, serious as it is about personal allegations of personal misconduct, that could be moved further down the road. And then if the next one to go is the Georgia one in March, the combination of those two, you know, would be dynamite given what's happening on the election calendar for, you know, the presidential politics. So you didn't mention the Mar-a-Lago trial date. What is that going to happen? Eileen Cannon could move it off to, you know, the next century, don't you think? I think that's like right now it's set in May. And I think it depends on what happens with these other cases. And you like to think the judges would be, you know, following the law and sticking to timelines. She did tend to favor him in certain ways. It appeared from the outside the last time. She doesn't have the kind of experience, you know, that will make this a lot easier to do as a judge. But, you know, that case could go at any time. And I think that's going to be up to her. Again, they're going to talk about, you know, because there's some really complicated issues in there with national security and these classified documents. That's going to have to be sorted out. But at least the defense should be, some of them should be separate people. But you've got Jack Smith and his team involved in both of them. So, you know, a lot is up to the judge when they want to set the trial and when they want to hold people to pretrial deadlines and the like. So, Chuck, Steve has been talking about, you know, the evidence as you suggested and what a judge might do, a jury might do and so forth, what is going to pop out in these cases. But Trump doesn't have to worry about these orders that will come out or prohibiting him from, you know, approaching witnesses and co-defendants and jurors and judges and trying to intimidate and contaminate the jury pool and so forth. All he has to do is get up there and say, I am innocent. And he's lying, of course. He's not, in my view, he's not innocent. All he has to do is get up there and say, this is a democratic witch hunt. And those would not be within the, you know, the prohibited acts of any of the cases where the judges are trying to contain him. And so he could make, and it would be First Amendment, I am innocent. Okay. Statements to his base. My question to you, at the end of the day, is this going to be tried in court or in the court of public opinion? It's a great question. And I think that's going to depend both on the judges and the prosecutors to a great extent for exactly the reasons that the prosecutor that Steve Baum has alluded to, which are directly correct. I think what's going to be interesting to see is what testimony and evidence can Trump and the Georgia co-conspirator defendants provide that actually is persuasive of innocence rather than implication of guilt. Because what's out there right now, from primarily Republican sources, Trump's own team people, all carry heavy implications of guilt. As Steve said, they're only allegations, but we haven't seen evidence or testimony that would establish innocence of the charges that are alleged so far as far as I can tell. You know, what happens when a defendant in your experience and your practice gets connected with the press and says, I'm innocent, the prosecutors got it all wrong. And let me throw in the fact that Georgia has a law that permits television, and that is going to affect this whole notion of having the case tried in the court of public opinion. Your thoughts? I think you bring up a great point that televising it is going to be critically important. And there's no reason the federal courts don't allow TV, they're so behind the times with this. I did trials as a prosecutor that were filmed from beginning to end. I did trials as a judge that were filmed from the beginning to end. After a few minutes, you forget all about it. You know, and the attorneys are playing to the jury anyway, whether there's a TV in there or not. So I wish the Chief Justice would start with this, these federal cases against Mr. Trump and say, let's televise them. Everybody in the country needs to see this. And in Georgia, I mean, you know, you're going to see one Republican after another called to the stand, you know, because that's who all these witnesses are. And I think it's really important now, you know, defendants saying ahead of time, we kind of expect that. What's going to be tricky is that I think a lot of President Trump supporters think the whole system is crooked. And they think the prosecutors are crooked, the judges are crooked. So, you know, it's going to be hard for them to accept whatever happens. But at least if it's televised, it'll be all over the news, it'll be whether, you know, most of the TV stations, I think will have to cover it. And I think it'll really be important so people can see people saying it. But jury selection is going to be incredibly important in this, because if you're a supporter of President Trump, and you think the whole system is corrupt, I think what he said about shooting somebody on Fifth Avenue is supporters wouldn't care. If a person has that mentality and gets on the jury, you're looking at a hung jury immediately, you know, people have to be open to see, do the facts show that the case has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt, in which case it's their obligation to vote guilty. If the prosecutors haven't proven that their obligation is to prove not guilty, but you have to have open-minded jurors, and this case is going to present a real challenge in jury selection. Yeah, well, I was thinking, you know, you don't always get straight answers from people in the jury pool. And they may say, ah, I can listen to the judge and the facts and the law and the instructions. I'm open for that, and I'll follow whatever the judge tells me and so forth. And they may be lying. They actually may be always Trumpers, and they may be, you know, waiting for their moment to vote for acquittal and thus ruin the possibility of conviction. It seems to me that's a real possibility here. It's a possibility in all criminal cases. I mean, I remember one case, you know, something like asset forfeiture is a tricky, tricky area. And a lot of jurors don't like it. And so I remember when I was the United States Attorney, one of the cases that was done involved asset forfeiture. And at the end of it, two of the jurors said, hey, we're from foreign countries. Anytime the government takes your property away, no matter what, it's wrong. So, you know, and you know, they went through the process saying they could be fair. And the like, I mean, it happens in certain jurisdictions a lot more, it doesn't happen much in Hawaii. I think people are pretty honest about it. But you're right, you can't, we don't have a lie detector test. They can try to probe in different ways. And, you know, if somebody's wearing a red mega hat, the prosecutor can bump them right off the bat. But apart from that, it's going to be a tricky thing. And, you know, if people don't believe the system is fair, and they don't believe their president, you know, former President Trump has been treated fairly, that's going to, that's going to present issues, same as prosecution. If, you know, from their side, if jurors say, this guy is guilty without hearing any evidence and not being willing to keep an open mind, they shouldn't serve as jurors either. So it's going to be a tricky challenge. Well, this is a whole learning experience, you know? I think most people, you know, never, they couldn't even pronounce the word indictment a few weeks ago. And now, now we have everybody on the street as an expert, an expert in criminal justice. But state and federal criminal justice, they wouldn't know RICO from a hole in the wall. And now everybody knows what RICO is. You know, it's like we're all getting law degrees. Heck, I have this, I have this vision of the William S. Richardson School of Law. And they open a course on criminal justice, you know, and it's overloaded. The line is around the block. Will this change the way law students and lawyers look at criminal justice? Will it make them realize that criminal justice is one of the most, now, one of the most important aspects of practice? I really hope it does. I mean, we've needed far, far more attention and priority to criminal justice reform as we do to immigration reform and other areas for many, many years. And to his credit, Steve Aum has been at the forefront, one of the leaders of criminal justice reform on bail, on incarceration, on reentry, on many of the most critical aspects of criminal justice reform to get back to one of the other points that Steve raised about the jury. In addition to the difficulty trying to impanel an honestly unbiased and open decision-making jury that's going to hear and rule on the facts on the law, you also have jurors who, now that the Georgia Grand Jury names and addresses have been published, jurors who are open and unbiased may be extremely reluctant to serve for being at risk. How do they protect their names and addresses and likenesses, particularly in Georgia where it's going to be televised, from being publicized? How do they protect their families? That's a question for you, Steve. Yeah, that's a really interesting point because the Georgia rules are, from a transparency standpoint, they do publish the names of all the grand jurors. In Hawaii, this is secret. We can't talk about what happened at Grand Jury. Witnesses can if they choose to, but the prosecutors can't. If their names became public, that could be really dangerous. I know in certain jurisdictions, they keep the names private and organize crime cases because they're worried about retribution. But in Georgia, it appears to be a pretty open situation. You are going to have that issue that people might not want to serve on a jury because if they vote to convict President Trump, they may be afraid of retaliation. It's uncharted territory in a lot of ways. It's really kind of scary. I think it is important that people learn about the system and that it does have consequences. And I think for all the lying that goes on in politics and misrepresentation and this partisan world, the courtroom seems to have been in the last few years the only place where I think truth and accountability has happened. And I think it kind of makes sense that now we have multiple cases coming up. I wish some had come sooner, but better late than never. And let's find out. Prosecutors are alleging things. Let's see if they can prove it. It will happen again. His dog whistles may have changed in their nuance, their sophistication. It wouldn't be as gross as, if you come after me, I'll come after you. But it might be more subtle and it might achieve the same benefit. And the First Amendment doesn't allow him to go some of the way. In fact, he's already recorded a counter interview with Tucker, which will be broadcast at the same time as the Republican debate. So he's going to be out there in the media and he's going to be making statements like I'm innocent and I don't know how he would do this, but I suggest to you, Steve, that he's going to find a way to threaten people without threatening them as he has in the past. Mafia style and they will be threatened. And so what do we do about that? We can't undermine the First Amendment, but there must be something we can do to maintain the purity of the decision process. Well, depending on how far he goes in that, I wouldn't push the judge in DC too far on this because it is within her power to have him taken into custody. I certainly would have done that when I was a judge if people said things that I interpreted as a threat. I mean, some of this has already happened, but he's not the president anymore and so he's a citizen. And if she finds that he's threatening people, she could have him taken into custody or start with home detention and then if it happens again, go into custody. I mean, that is a possibility and she would come under criticism, but even though this case is different, it has many things in common with other criminal cases, including the behavior of certain defendants. You know, if she does that, and I think she, as Tonya Chukin is wrong, she might very well do that, I agree. But if she does that, it has implications. On the one hand, you have the base which may rise up and protest, although they haven't been protesting as much these days, and you have the possibility that the jurors and witnesses will be encouraged, that they're protected now, at least in terms of these orders. So Chuck, how do you think that would work? Would it be a good thing for him to be incarcerated or would it lead to unpredictable results? Well, I think first you got to look at the threshold question. Is he going to be able to couch intimidation and other things within the campaign framework and say, hey, this is political campaigning. This is First Amendment stuff. Or because the criminal cases are out there, if he comments on them, is he going to be subject to the judicial discipline that any other defendant would be if they engaged in that kind of company? And so it is going to be a test of whether he is or is not above the law. It's exactly right about that. So Steve, you know, I mean, it's really interesting for you as a former criminal judge and a prosecuting attorney to see this unfold, you must be glued to the tube. And I know you will be glued to Fannie Willis' trial. I'd like to see that soon so we can all learn from what happens. And it certainly will have a downline effect on the other case as well. But my question to you is, do you see it professionally or do you see it as a new world in criminal justice in this country possibly affecting Hawaii Day? Well, it's mostly watching it from a professional view, but it is something new because we've never had a former president indicted for a number of things. But I have to say that, you know, I have to tell people my experience in like in the federal system and as prosecutors, it was the Department of Justice, the U.S. attorneys are full of professionals. And when I was there, I was appointed by President Clinton. There were many members of our office who hated President Clinton, who were Republicans, but it didn't affect what they did on a day to day basis. The Justice Department, I was so impressed with the professionals from one end to another, really did their jobs. And the idea there's a conspiracy in all four states to manufacture evidence is I think is ridiculous. But again, I keep going back to the prosecutors have alleged things, they have to prove it now. The ball is in their court. And I think I hope the federal cases get televised. But I think having the state case televised in Georgia is absolutely critical. So we as a country can see what people say, you know, whether they're Republicans or Democrats, and it'll be an educational opportunity that I don't think has been matched before. And I think as badly as the OJ case was handled, no offense to Jajito, I think the judges who are handling these cases would do a good job of running it the right way, being in control of the courtroom. And I think it'll be a learning experience for us all. Not would. It's also a learning experience for the defense bar. You know, I'm amazed to find that multiple defendants were represented by the same lawyer. And that lawyer was paid for multiple defendants by Donald Trump's PAC. And I wonder, you know, is that proper? Could that happen here? What would a prosecutor say about that? Because it does contaminate their testimony. And indeed, we find out that they were caused to lie. And it's not the first time Trump has done that. It leads for creative defense lawyering, doesn't it? Yeah, you have to look at each situation. And if people's strategy, you know, arguably is exactly the same, then one, you know, person may be able to testify, one attorney may be able to represent more than one person. But if they have diverging things or one person's, it would totally change it. We just saw a witness in the documents case has now changed his testimony. And it looks like he's going to be working as a cooperator with Jack Smith. He's not the last one to go. And I think those 19 in Georgia, I would guess from the outside, and I have no interior information, I would guess a lot of them are going to be to end up flipping and test a line for the government, because the thing about a RICO case and a conspiracy case is a statement by one and action by one is held to all of them. So this criminal enterprise, they're alleging everything anybody says is going to be held against everybody else. It's a tremendously powerful tool for prosecutors. And they have this funny wills has experience in doing these cases herself. So it'll be interesting to see how that plays itself out. You know, when you talk about flipping, and when we hear about flipping and learn about flipping, you know, I mean, like RICO, people didn't know a few months ago what flipping was. Now they know, and they know how important it is. And we know that prosecutors love to flip a witness. I mean, this is a tremendous success. How do you do that? Give us a minute or two on how a prosecutor flips a witness. Well, as prosecutors, you're talking to the defense attorneys. They're talking about the effort. That witness will have to make a proffer and say what they would testify to. And they're going to have to be honest about everything. And if they've made statements in opposition to that, they're going to have to account for that and explain why it changed. But what's important to remember, too, is if somebody flips in the Georgia case, you may find that person in federal court testifying as well, because the prosecutors aren't going to let them say, okay, you'll be honest in one courtroom, but that'll shield you from another one. I think they'll make it a condition of it that if you are changing your testimony and flipping, you're going to have to be honest about everything. So you may find yourself testifying in Atlanta, but also in DC. So now you have to have corroborative evidence. It has to make sense to the jury why somebody would have changed their testimony or why they're willing to testify to the government. But in many cases, it's pretty logical to them, yes, they may get a reduced sentence, but at the same time, they were there in the room. They knew what was going on. And most of these witnesses are not people with criminal backgrounds and otherwise. That's what we have to face in certain cases. I don't think that's the case here. I don't think virtually any of these witnesses that I'm aware of have criminal backgrounds. So they're not going to be dragging that in with them into courtroom. That's the thing about criminal backgrounds is important. There's no violence here. There's no assault or battery. There's no murder, none of that. It's just a murder of our democracy, which is a white collar crime. And I would imagine that justice establishment treats white collar crime differently. And the judge, the jury, treat sentencing for white collar crime differently. Here's a guy with a suit and tie. We're really going to put him in the tombs. Exactly what you're saying. They get treated more leniently often. That's why it was pleasantly surprised when it became the federal prosecutor. Those folks, white collar crime, they went to prison too. Because otherwise, a judge will look at them and see themselves. They belong to the same clubs. They wear the same clothes. It's easy to try to treat them differently. And that's not appropriate. Now at the same time, there are going to be things about threats to Ruby Freeman and some of what people came to her house and they threatened her. So there is going to be a little bit of that coming into the case. But in general, white collar criminals do get treated more leniently by the system. And that's wrong. If you're stealing one way or stealing from another way, you should be held accountable for all of it. Amen. Almost out of time, Chuck. So I want to get your thoughts and I want to go back to the question I asked you at the outset. Trump go to jail. Will Trump go to jail? Give us your thoughts about that if you don't mind. Or if you want, you can take the fifth. I think the answer has to be a dependent answer. If our criminal justice system, particularly in the two most important cases, honors and establishes accountability, the answer to your question has to be yes. It's a test of our system. And it's a test against somebody who challenged that system more flagrantly, more violently, and more overtly than anyone has in history. So I want to see if there's evidence of innocence, not just non-guilt. I haven't seen any. But it's not a done deal, is it, Steve? We don't have the jury impaneled. Anything could happen. And he may be acquitted, or he may not be sentenced to the degree we would like. We, me anyway, would like to see him sentenced. So there's miles to go on this before we get a result that will be a satisfactory protection accountability for people who have conspired to derail our democracy. What's your level of confidence on that? Well, unlike many crimes, if you believe the prosecution's version, this has been played out in public, a lot of this. So the question is, when it gets presented in court, will the system work? This is a real stress test about it. And jury selection will be more important in this case than any other I can think of. In all the cases I've been involved with and I've watched, you know, nationally and otherwise, it's getting an impartial jury is going to be incredibly difficult. But even in other horrific cases and stuff, they've been able to seat jurors, you know, unbelievably, but people don't read the newspaper, they don't watch TV, they may not even watch Think Tech, Hawaii, you know, they're, you know, and they may be open to dealing with the facts as they come. I hope that can happen. I hope we're able to get, you know, get, you know, get some verdicts in this case, whether it's, whether it's a conviction or an acquittal, but I hope the system can work. Televising it is going to be critically important. And the Chief Justice should do that for the federal cases. There's no reason every federal case isn't televised. But this case cries out for it. And maybe it'll be the reason why they start publicizing or filming federal cases, just have one TV camera in the background. It won't interfere with the trial at all. But it'll let our citizens see, you know, what, what many people think has happened, but has not been proven in there. Yeah, we have to connect up that, you know, the trial in public opinion with the trial in the courtroom and bring them together. Well, Chuck, thank you very much for coming on the show today. Always appreciate that. And thank you, Steve. It's really interesting to talk to a prosecutor about these things. We really appreciate you coming on. Aloha.