 Ah, thanks so much for joining us on think tech Hawaii rule of law in the new abnormal, which gets more abnormal all the time, whatever that may be. And we are fortunate to have with us today, Professor, or any of the Randall, Professor emerita in the university of Dayton school of law and the creator and mastermind of the largest collection of information and articles on. Racism racism in the law and related topics racism. Or we have Lorraine Della Porta. From Providence Rhode Island, a leading very experienced mediator ahead of her own mediation organization and a professor at both Roger Williams. University school of law and point of P. I school of law, I think, and David Larson professor at Mitchell Hamlin school of law. Media past chair of the section of dispute resolution and the creator of and leader of New York's online dispute resolution program that hugely expanded access to justice for many, many people in New York. So, well, folks, we have a former president back in the news and back in court this week. What do you think this means for the 2024 elections, anything. I mean, the issue really becomes when these 3 cases in the potential 4th one when they're decided I clearly then they're not going to be decided before primary. And I think that I don't act. I don't think any of them will be decided before the primary. And the question is whether they'll decided before the election. The actual election, but I think. I think I think many of the mag of people are cults and I mean, like any cult, the leader can do no wrong. Even when they're doing absolute wrong in the eyes of the cult, there's an explanation. There's a reason and for them. I don't think it's going to impact. I don't think any of this will impact how the mag of people vote. I don't think it'll turn them away from him at all. And listen to some Trump supporters who are saying that people brought up questions about the new indictments. This is effective. And they said, no, if President Trump is on the ballot, I'm going to vote for him. And it's because of the economy. That's like, wait a minute. Do you see the attention to what's happening to the stock market? How well it's doing? Are you aware that unemployment's at 54 year low? Do you have any idea what's actually happening with the economy? And sadly, they don't. And you know, a lot that has to do with the way that, you know, the way we get our news now and how it's very targeted and streamed. There are significant numbers of people that only listen to a particular voice and a particular perspective. They don't hear anything else. And they believe what they're hearing is perfectly true. And I hope, and I hope the general media a little responsible too, because every single day, literally every single day, there's substantial coverage on national news about Trump's reaction to the indictments. And he's saying things that are untrue. His counsel are things that are untrue. And there's no pushback. They just kind of air it and they let you listen to it. And there's people who hear and think that, oh, I hear it every single day must be true. And that's always been one of Trump's strategies, is that if you say a lie enough times, people will believe it. I mean, he's stated that he believes that and that's kind of been as a modus operandi, the way he's approached things. So you would think that the serious indictments that go to the heart of our democracy, and that's the challenge now, that you, you, President Trump, try to destroy democracy and, you know, destroy what America is. You would think that that would have a major influence on voters positions, but so far it isn't, at least on the Republican side. If anything, these indictments have really fueled a lot of the fire for Trump. And, you know, they've really set him up to be kind of a martyr. And he's raising money like crazy. And he's, you know, as we were talking before, he's burning through lots of money and legal fees. But I think people see, you know, he's really got people convinced that the justice system has been weaponized against him. And I think he's using that very much to his advantage to raise money and to set himself up in that way. And it's, you know, it's unfortunate. But I think, like you said, David, if you say something enough times, we know through some brain science that it becomes kind of a, people have a difficulty kind of discerning, you know, fact from opinion or from something they've just heard over and over again. It's almost like a brainwashing that happens. And I think that's what we're seeing. We don't have, we use terminology a lot that we don't really have a common definition for. And part of what we do, all of us, like the democracy, we all assume that everybody knows what that is. And the B agrees with it. And, and you can't appeal to people's desire to save democracy, which is what I think the Democrats want to do, is they want to say, you've got to save democracy. And people are saying, huh, really? Now you want to save it? You know, what about all those years when democracy was working against me and in my people and my group, and you didn't have a problem with democracy? In any way, what does that mean? And I think part of that, that goes to part of the problem. Why so many, I think there's all these people who are going to believe Trump. And I think there's all these people who are, they're not Trump people, but they're skeptical of the Democrats as an alternative. And, and, and so Trump's little Trump's problems can't be used against as a way to build support in the election. Talking about the election, the problem's going to become is going to be the same problem is that the Democrats doesn't don't have a platform that are going to really appeal to a large percentage of the people in those, in key states. And I don't think there's anything they can do to do that. Well, I think I think one thing that Democrats do have to do is kind of take the focus off the caricature that the Republicans are making of Biden. And again, emphasize what's happening in the economy, because there's a lot of Republicans who claim that the thing they really care about is the economy, and yet they aren't paying attention to what's happening in the economy, that that a number of things have improved fairly significantly and really historically. And I think they've got to emphasize this and be careful about binomics, not economics, or coming up with some kind of catchphrase, and really be as factual as possible. And one thing, another thing that the Republicans are doing, and they're doing it, it's kind of a tried and true technical approaches is kind of about his own. As soon as you start talking about the indictments, the immediate response is what about Hunter Biden? Hunter Biden, it's all about Hunter Biden. And they've worked very hard to create this false equivalence between anything that Hunter Biden has done, who was never a government official, and if did anything, there are income tax offenses in the gun charge. It's going to play to two misdemeanors and a gun charge that was going to go into a diversion program. They're clearly offenses, if they're true, but they don't equate to what's happening with Trump. But that's kind of been one of their immediate responses. As soon as you try to talk about the indictments, it's what about Hunter Biden? And what about the Biden crime family? And they kind of go on this long rant in regard to the fact that there's no hard evidence that President Biden was ever connected or benefited from anything that Hunter Biden did. And again, the fact is Hunter Biden was never part of the administration. I heard that same statement and I immediately thought of Jared and Ivanka and Trump's own family. And so why aren't people kind of drawing that equivalency? Well, Hunter Biden is Joe's son. What about the Trump kids? And from what I understand, the Trump kids aren't exactly in the clear right now either. So, and again, they weren't public officials, but they held positions within his off the president's office. And so that really makes me curious as to why people don't draw that equivalency. Yeah, the hypocrisy is really the whole thing about weaponization too. I mean, Trump tried to weaponize the attorney general, put all kinds of pressure on Barr, who was not as resistant as he should have been to do certain things. So, so, you know, he clearly tried to weaponize government when he was president. And now he's acting like this has never been done before. And, you know, I'm a huge victim here, in spite of evidence that that I think Biden has worked very hard to make this as Merrick Garland to kind of divorce themselves from these prosecutions. You know, Biden is not talking about any of the indictments. Garland pointed a special prosecutor to the distance himself. So we have levels of distance going here to say that Biden is doing this. It's just not factual. I mean, the thing is, they don't, the people don't need to be factual to get people to believe. I mean, belief is not about facts. It's not about provable, provable effects. It's about emotional connection. And, you know, the problem about appealing to the economy is that for many people, when you appeal to the economy, they're talking about what they pay for AIDS. They're talking about what they pay for gas. They're talking about what they pay to go to Popeye's food. And if that has changed, if that's still high, Wall Street is of little relevance. I mean, it's a little relevance to me. I don't care that Wall Street is improving. And so when you appeal to the economy, based on what's happening on Wall Street and what's happening, even unemployment, because in my community, my unemployment rate is still twice the right way. And so, you know, the whole issue is personal. And we want people to make it non-personal and factual. When, for many people, that's just not going to end life. I'm placing this at the Democrats' door. You know, you should know this. If you don't know this, you should know this. And so when you keep making your camp, when you keep countering about these things that are factually true, but don't go down to the individual person when you talk about the economy, when you are neighborhoods, you're not really appealing. They're not going to really accept that. They're going to reject that. So I kind of think that, yeah, people are not going to talk about Jury of Vanka because they're not in the eye anymore. I mean, it's like short-term memory. What do we talk about? We talk about what's right in front of us. And unless you can find a way to put them in the eye, they're never going to be a comparison for most people because most people will have forgotten what they did. So short-term memory issue in this country, right? So what's the 24-hour news cycle? And then we're off and running to something else. It's a good point. You know, inflation is remaining to be a problem. And I think Professor Randall's right is that inflation is something that touches people on a daily basis. But it has improved significantly. One of the high impact items in any inflationary period is in our automobile-driven society is gas. You know, I just saw that Saudi Arabia announced today it's going to continue its production cutback, you know, and given what's happening in Ukraine, we've lost the Russian source of oil. So there's things happening internationally over which the Democrats have no control. And so that's a challenge. And that's kind of keeping inflation up. But it has improved. Yeah, the other thing kind of I wanted to mention is that as, you know, as I watch national news and I continue to get frustrated at the coverage and I'm listening to this. So there's all this about is I'm what about Hunter Biden? That's kind of one defense. The other defense is the new one that we're hearing now is that this is all about the First Amendment. Yeah, the president, you know, anything he did is protected by the anything he did is protected by the First Amendment. And all you have to do is kind of think this through a little bit. So let's say that there's a requirement to do an environmental assessment report, you know, and say you're manufacturing something that's and it's involving mercury and maybe you're releasing mercury in the environment and you need to at least report how much that is happening. Well, so you decide I'm not going to report it. And then the children are injured, people in the community injured, and you come back and say, Well, that was my first amendment right. That's my first amendment right to say whatever I what about my mercury pollution. You know, it's like, so you follow your income tax and you put in $100,000 of deductions that didn't exist. You can say, Well, that's my that's my freedom of speech. I was just speaking about the deductions that I have. You know, there's this idea that's being promoted that that somehow there's no that there's a kind of a First Amendment right to commit a crime that it's one thing to maybe talk about committing the crime and it's a few things that are problematic. You talk about committing the crime against the president. Well, even if you don't do it, that could be a problem. But there's most things you could talk about doing that are going to be okay. But when you take action, actually implement what you're talking about. That's when it really becomes problematic when you when you file the false environmental assessment report when you file the tax report. That's different. That's not the First Amendment. That's not a First Amendment issue. And then the other thing that's being bandied about is that Trump can't be prosecuted because attorneys told him that what he was doing was okay. And somehow that if an attorney tells you something, and you do it, no matter what it is, you are absolutely immune. So I guess presumably if an attorney told you that if you had a offense to speak with your neighbor, and that it's okay to settle it by taking your handgun shooting that person, that oh, I guess you're okay because the attorney said you could do it. That's again like a ludicrous idea. So we've got these ideas that this is a First Amendment issue, that he's immune because an attorney told him. And he's doing this to play to the kind of court of public opinion, hoping to get a juror on there. That's not going to listen to the case. You know, that's going to be persuaded by all these kind of mistruths. And it's not going to, you know, it's going to not vote for conviction. And that's really what they're trying to do. Trying to, you know, basically poison enough people that statistically they'll get somebody on that jury. That's not going to, that's not going to convict. What extent do we law professors have contributed to this problem by training lawyers to think that it's their job to come up with a defense. But we know that's not true under ethics. But I keep wondering, are lawyers an ethical violation when they go out and promote a view of the law that does not exist and don't make it clear that they are in fact arguing to the law to be changed. I mean, I think there's a difference between going public and saying the law is this, this is a free speech rights, and that I think it ought to be a free speech rights. And what I'm arguing for the law doesn't make it a free speech right right now, but I'm arguing for the law to be changed. I don't have a problem with arguing for the law to be changed. I mean, to even to include action. I don't think that it should include actions, but I think that that's, that's an argument that can be made. And it would be up to the courts to say yay or nay to it. But I think the problem I have is the lawyers are not clearly articulating the difference between what the law is and what they would like it to be. And is that an ethical violation and have we been poor law professors for not making sure that our students understand that different. Yeah, there's a description of the January 6 that goes right to what you're saying. And one person described it as a coup looking for a legal theory. And that's what that's what the attorneys are doing that, you know, instead of, instead of kind of just being honest about what happened here that they're trying to be as creative as possible to somehow justify what on its face is illegal action. And I think that at least in my understanding kind of goes to what professors Randall is saying that, you know, to think that that's okay. It's problematic. I mean, I think we teach our students, you know, about zealous advocacy and I and I hope, you know, we're doing enough to help them distinguish between zealous advocacy and crossing over a line where they're, you know, having, you know, telling clients to do things that are, you know, against the law and if they're interested in, you know, changing well, I think making that distinction that this is the laws that as it stands now and here's maybe ideally or aspirationally where it should be and helping the students to understand those differences. I think we absolutely have a responsibility to do that. Well, and if you're going to rely on the advice of counsel defense. It doesn't help a lot when your vice president refers to those people you rely on is crack box. And when those that are in the public light already Rudy Giuliani is Sidney Powell. John Eastman have been not only thoroughly discredited but their licenses to practice are up with recommendations against them in several of those cases. So, I think the advice of counsel has the advice of counsel ever been a defense. I know that if the if you get an opinion from an attorney general that's in writing that you can use that opinion to kind of sway to court your way. Can you really go into court and say my lawyer told me to do it so I'm innocent of whatever it is I'm being charged. Yeah, I think I think the theory is that you know that I'm being charged criminally and for these criminal offenses it's got to be a mens area. You know there's got to be an intent and because they told me it wasn't a problem I didn't have the requisite intent. The problem in this case is many, many people of his own advisors said, No, you cannot do that. Yeah, a lot of evidence now. And you know that's what makes this these indictments so interesting is that a lot of the evidence is coming from Republicans, people in the inner circle. So to the great he's going to say that I never had the requisite intent, because I was advised in this matter it's just not true. So that's why you're going to get these people testify and it's going to be interesting. You know, as Mark Meadows going to come forward. He's been very much under the radar and people are speculating that he's going to testify and talk about what Trump actually knew and what he was told and what he actually acquiesce to instead understood. And you know as soon as we get that kind of testimony. Now this idea that well because I did it because a attorney because a Sydney Powell said it's okay. Kind of goes away when a lot of other people are saying don't do it. And when you actually have in previous given an understanding that you know that what you're doing is illegal. Absolutely. I mean, they've got Mike Pence, you know, testifying and saying that Donald Trump when when he wouldn't acquiesce to Donald Trump's request, he said oh Mike you're too honest. Yeah, because wouldn't he wouldn't start you know, be certified so I mean you have that. And I'm sure many more will come out and he did a lot of Trump did a lot of answer shopping with attorneys and there's a lot of evidence of that where he went attorney to attorney until he got the answer that he wanted. And a lot of people on record of is telling him no, you know, that's false. So our last few minutes. If it's going to come down to whether this case has enough of an impact on enough independent voters in swing states to make a difference. Is there anything in this case that you see that might contribute to making that kind of difference. I don't know it depends on whether the swing voters I mean it depends on whether the swing voters are are how much they want to believe in the and I'm using democracy and quotation marks. And how much what he did was undermining that democracy there's obviously the conspiracy against rights. Based on the civil rights statute that have a huge difference because it could bar him from holding office. I think if he was found guilty of the conspiracy of rights in fact that statue, I think has a death penalty attached to it on some of the thing. So I think that it could swing voters. I mean first of all it could swing the election because he may not if he was found guilty. He may be enjoying from holding office because of being found guilty under the statute. And I think that, you know, it depends on running against who's running against him. I so hate the status that it would be hard foot for me to, you know, vote. I mean, let me, excuse me, I'm just the Biden thing I think part of the problem is Biden is aging, and we don't want it so it's Trump but but Biden is more visibly aging. And that that's got to have an impact when you go, you know, the devil's choice do I want to be killed with a bullet to my head, or do I want to be killed with a knife my heart. You know what, I don't know that swing voters will say you know what I'm just gonna stay home. I heard that you're right. I hear a lot of kind of apathetic response. When I talked to you, particularly younger people, they've just kind of had it and they're just my fear is they're not going to show up. So is it going to come down to the least worst alternative is that what really happened in 2020. That's what always happened. For those of us who don't believe in the Democrats are the Republicans. You know, but yeah, I think it's going, it's going to come down to the least first alternative and it depends on how you see that. And if you think those prosecutions have been politically motivated. Even in part, you might be willing to ignore them are a guilty. That's why that that about isn't so dangerous to say that Oh, the only reason he's being prosecuted is revenge for the fact that we've called out hunter Biden. And that's why that that that line of argument is so so damaging. You know, one thing that's been reflecting along is that you're running against somebody, and yet you're refusing to challenge that person based on the facts. I would have watched the Democrat, the Republicans in the primary field, you know, kind of continue to support Trump is just unbelievable. You know, and a handful of a couple of them, Christie, for example, has been calling him out. But most of them are not. And, and that's just befuddling because that's the person you're trying to beat and now the person that set up for you with these indictments. Why are you not fleshing those out and explaining why that disqualifies this person from being president but they for the most part are not doing it. I think a couple of them are starting to maybe turn the corner a little bit I heard Nikki Haley kind of save you know if you vote for Donald Trump it we're going to be talking about lawsuits for the next four years if you vote for me will be talking about issues. So I think there's there's little pieces that you see of people starting to distance themselves, but I also you know think that some of them are like well if he wins. Maybe I'll be Vice President, maybe with the exception of Mike Pence. Right. Our thinking part of the problems is is Donald Trump is so file and retaliatory. And if you feel powerless. The least thing you want to do is get on his bad side if he went. Because she's looking at four years of harassment and maybe in career being destroyed and I think people Republicans are probably thinking that you know for Republicans in the field thinking I don't have a chance to win, but he does. And if I come out against him. I'm basically setting myself up to be the whipping his whipping person. Yeah, you know, and the criticism is that the current administration is weaponizing government. But you know that he that Trump is, you know, well, that's what the nice government. Yeah, I mean that that's that's what he does. And so, so yeah I agree with Professor Randall. That's probably that element of intimidation. I wanted to thank all of you for your time. We're still left with the question, will this case make a difference, and will it make enough of a difference in 2024. Whatever the choice may be. Professor Randall Lorraine. David. Thank you so much for joining us. Those of you who view this now and in the future. Thanks so much. Come back. We'll be back again in a couple of weeks. Think Tech Hawaii. Thanks for supporting us. Aloha.