 American Issues Take One. I'm Tim Apatialio, your host. Today's topic and title is our justice system attack and is at risk. You know, we have a, we have three branches in government, Congress, the judicial and the executive branch. And they're referred to often as the check and balances system, where one branch, it's a check and balance. So no one branch gets excessive leverage and power. And that's how it's been for quite a while. Well, guess what? When Donald Trump says that the judges in his trials coming up, that they're out to get them and it's a witch hunt and that they're not acting as judges, they're acting as biased individuals trying to get Donald Trump or Donald Trump says that the prosecutors are out to get them and it's a witch hunt. Or when Donald Trump during his administration takes advantage of Obama's inability to appoint judges and he goes far and above to appoint extremely conservative judges to fit his his style and his probably his loyalty test. That's not good for America. Also, when he tears down the FBI and the Department of Justice and says they're out to get them and cast doubt on on the objectivity of the FBI and the Just Justice Department. Or when Donald Trump installs his faithful lackeys, his loyalists, William Barr and Jeff Sessions. These are examples of attacking the justice system, reducing the credibility of the justice system that all in all is not good for America. And that's what we're here to talk about today with me is my co-host Jay Fidel. Good morning, Jay. Morning, Tim. Jay, we've watched Donald Trump recently in court and he's basically using his appearance to cast the court system and the trials as a circus, as a sideshow. And he did so today. He was told by the judge that he should, you know, stop making a circus out of the courtroom and have some respect for the court and the court judge. Donald Trump really didn't do that. What is Donald Trump up to? He's running for president. And he wants to demean the court system. He wants to marginalize it so it doesn't get in the way. And he's been doing a very good job at that. So, you know, there was some commentators who opined that all of his shenanigans in court and the possibility of his conviction and punishment in these various cases would have no effect. And a lot of the people in Iowa felt that's irrelevant. We would vote for him anyway, even if he was convicted and potentially imprisoned. But we have a guy here who is using the court system as a way to get closer to the presidency, which is really shocking. And because it means that he's, in my view, he's succeeding and people are buying it. You know, outside of Donald Trump, you know, I will say Donald Trump has been quite successful, as you pointed out, on gaming the system and reducing the credibility of the justice system. But outside of the justice system, we have a couple of individuals in the Supreme Court. Mr. Thomas, Clarence Thomas, comes to mind where they've accepted some rather generous gifts and behind the scenes payments, if not indirectly, certainly some of them directly. And yet that went nowhere. Those violations of ethics and how a Supreme Court justice should behave while on the bench, that has gone nowhere, really. I mean, it's, but doesn't it reduce the credibility of judges and doesn't that have an impact on the justice system? Yeah, let me let me go down the chain of logic on that. Donald Trump and his acolytes and his friends in the GOP, the MAGA, the MAGA millionaires, you know, have been corrupting the Supreme Court for a while. And the most corruptible seems to be Clarence Thomas. And it gets to be public and it gets to be public that he's involved with his wife, who, who helps him, in my view, write these ridiculous opinions that are neither the law nor the president, nor caring about, you know, the people of the country. And he gets away with it and everybody sees it and knows it and only the abortion decisions a good example. Dobbs really wreck their credibility. And all these gifts that went to Clarence Thomas wreck their credibility. So what do you get out of that? One is people don't have confidence. You know, and what did George Washington say? And, you know, his farewell address and his writings, he was very quotable, we don't realize it. And he said, public confidence is the firmest pillar of the administration of justice. And no words to that effect. And, and so if you don't have confidence in the judiciary, then you don't, you know, you don't believe in it. And if you don't believe in it, it doesn't, it doesn't direct your, your behavior. What I mean is if you make it make a mockery of the courts, which is what Trump has been doing, then people don't believe in the courts. And they change their conduct. And now they don't abide by the rule of law. Now he's doing it because he wants to run for president. He is running for president. He's doing it because he wants power in the old fashioned raw sense of power. He's doing it because he wants to be a tyrant and dictator and autograph. But part of this side effect is that nobody is going to respect the courts. A lot of people do not respect the courts. He says he's going to pardon all the people in the insurrection. He pardons his friends who have no excuse, who are clearly guilty of the crimes they were convicted of. And so people say, well, if they can do it, why can't I do it? If I can see a Second Amendment shooting, why don't I do the same thing? And so I think, I think what we have is a kind of virus, if you will, that starts with his attitude and the attitude of the judges that he has appointed is his loyal and faithful Clarence Thomas judges. And it goes to a lot of other people, not only his base, but people who can't feel, you know, respect for the courts anymore. And that's a breakdown of enormous, enormous proportion. And if you ask me whether the justice system is broken, I would say, Well, you know, to some extent, it was not working all that well beforehand. There were complaints of, you know, racism and people did not feel they were getting equal justice under the law. But now, now it's way over the top. Now you can't believe in the justice system or anybody associated with it. You know, he did the machinations with the FBI. He did machinations, obviously with the Department of Justice. He did he did machinations, even with the Internal Revenue Service, weaponizing that. It's the perfect lead into autocracy, where he controls everything. And so the justice system is irrelevant. The justice system is marginalized. The justice system is broken. And as we, you know, get closer, and he does more of this directly and through proxies, it will be more broken. And if he is elected president, God forbid, he will, he will put the pennies on the eyes. It won't be a justice system, it'd be a Trump system. And he will use every single institution around justice, including the ones that are already broken as weapons against his adversaries and enemies, as weapons to enhance his own power. So this is a really serious problem. But you know, Tim, we're already well down the road. We are. And you had mentioned, you know, the abuse of the presidential power to pardon individuals at the end of one's term. He's tarnished that greatly. And in his promise to further tarnish it by calling those convicted of the January 6 insurrection, he calls them, you know, patriots. Or in this case, hostages. That's the term he uses, hostages. So let's counterbalance that. Did you, did you obtain any sense of relief or validation that the justice system is working because there was over 1000, those that stormed the Capitol were actually convicted and or took the plea of guilty over 1000. Did that provide any sense that maybe the justice system is still working? Hi, you know, the truth is, you and me, we both follow the news. And there hasn't been a lot of news about it. You know, once in a while, a high profile case with a proud voice and all that, you know, comes to our attention. But those 1000 people have essentially, you know, faded off the screen. We don't hear about them. We don't know about them. We don't relate to them. We don't feel that they are an example that the justice system is working. And when he gets up and says he's going to pardon everybody. And when people around him mischaracterize, you know, what they did and what happened on January 6, you say to yourself, they're making it small, they're making it de minimis. They're making it as if it had no consequence at all. So it's not only that 1000 people were prosecuted, it's that the whole shebang has been mischaracterized now. And thanks to him, we have people who believe that what they did was right. And even the efforts of the courts to prosecute them and try them and convict them and punish them are inconsequential. And, you know, that's the way it is. And this is the same process with Mar-a-Lago. We should talk about that. And the, you know, the case in Washington with Jack Smith. And, you know, the other the other case is I, you know, he is he is making a circus out of it. But it's not just to have fun. It's to have power and to minimize the effect of these prosecutions. And so and he's doing it. It's effective. And furthermore, you know, he's got he's working it in both ends. He's going to appeal. He is appealing every little issue. Try to get it to the Supreme Court, even phony baloney issues. And in Supreme Court, they're either going to rule in his favor or delay it. It will surprise me if they find it, if they actually make a finding that he has no immunity, they'll just push it off, kick the can. And on the 14th Amendment, which you and I have studied so carefully. I don't think that's going to stop him. Supreme Court is going to let him off the hook somehow, either by delaying it, or by, you know, ruling in his favor. And so what he's effectively done, I mean, you got to hand it to him. He has taken all of these cases, all of these judges, all of these, you know, prosecutorial authorities and prosecutors, all of these witnesses, all of these jurors, the whole, even the court clerked and marginalized them. And the people in general no longer have respect for the justice system. And that's what Washington was talking about. So, you know, I'm very concerned that the country is essentially without a justice system. Well, let me hit on that point. He's reduced the credibility of the justice system. To what extent is it reasonable for an American be a Democrat, independent or a non MAGA, GOP person, to expect that there should be a resolution to these 91 indictments, whether Donald Trump is guilty or not guilty. Is that a reasonable expectation prior to the election? Why? He's trying to beat the election. He's trying to delay and defer the whole thing. And people are, you know, they see it happening. But what can they do? What can you and I do? And I think his intent is obvious. And he's making some traction. I will only feel, you know, that there's some some backbone left in the justice system, if that trial goes on forward, if those trials go on forward, and there's supposed to happen pretty soon. But you know how hard Trump is working to derail them. And that'll be another inflection point. Sorry to use that term with you, Tim. That'll be another option. It keeps going the wrong way. So you know, I feel that the justice system stands between Trump and the president presidency. And if he doesn't get tried, and if the trial doesn't, you know, doesn't have the marks of a fair trial, and if he doesn't actually get convicted based on what we know, I think I think it's got to be a failure. And I worry about that as part of his attempt to become an autocrat. And this is a big part of it. How much damage you think is done to our faith of the justice system, if none of those trials come come to be before election day? Oh, boy. I mean, it's hard to measure. And I guess we're we would be guessing. But I think there's going to be a lot of upset Americans that this didn't occur before, before they casted their cast their vote. What are they gonna do about it? What are you and me? I mean, you know, the standard advice is well, get out there and write an op-ed piece, you know, talk to your friends, make make some make some trouble, you know, have a protest, whatever. But that hasn't worked so far. It hasn't stopped the railroad is railroading the justice system. So I'm not sure and I'm not sure that the media sees this the way in general sees this the way you and I see it. They'll report it very matter of fact. Oh, yeah, the trial was delayed, not not indicating how critical that is, not indicating how that is going, as you say, to result in the loss of public confidence, which has all kinds of other implications. You know, recently, we've been hearing reports, news reports that kind of remind me of back in the 70s and 80s of South America countries where the judges in those countries were either being targeted. And in some cases, assassinated. We've we've had a palethrah of district attorneys and judges now who are receiving threats and a lot of them. Kind of like a third world country, don't you think? Yeah, well, don't forget there was a judge, a federal judge who who there was an attempt to assassinate her and instead they assassinated her son, they killed her son. But it was intended for her. And when he does that stochastic speech we talk about, when he does the, you know, the dog whistle thing calling on his base to take violence, you know, it'll be wild. Mayhem and all that. I think the term that one comes to mind. That one, thank you. You know, if he keeps repeating that and he apparently will because everybody's giving him a pass under the First Amendment. He's using the Constitution as a weapon there. I think there'll be more violence. And when there is more violence, people would be afraid to be jurors and witnesses and judges to be afraid to even to be prosecutors. He's messed up the DOJ something awful. You know, he switched around the US, that is the Attorney General early in his term. He fired not one but two FBI directors and intimidated a whole bunch more got him out of office. So I think I think it's going to get worse this year through his proxies and his outrageous rhetoric. He uses the courtroom as a platform for that. And if he's elected, you know, forget it. We won't have a justice department. We won't have a justice system. Well, he came and gave us a preview of what his second term would look like by appointing faithful faithful loyalists that would do his bidding. We're normally a president not even supposed to call the Justice Department or have any influence on the Justice Department. I'm thinking of Bill Barr. Number one, remember his his contribution to the watering down of the Mueller report and how he basically cast all sorts of doubt and basically destroyed the credibility of the Mueller report. And that ended into a nothing burger. Yes. Or he you know, he basically thought he had the full cooperation of Jeff Jeff sessions. Jeff sessions took his instructions about zero policy at the border. And what was the zero tolerance policy? That was the policy that basically separated infants and young children from their parents seeking legal asylum. Yet that was done. So there's presidential influence on the Justice Department. So what he's done, he now he now is called projection. Remember the term of psychological projection that Joe Biden has now have influenced the Department of Justice and these judges to go after him with these 91 indictments. So Donald Trump's a master at projection. That which he does, he projects on to the person who hasn't done anything of the sort yet. People believe him. And so what are we to do about that? I mean, how you know, he has his First Amendment rights. You know, the judges have made that very certain and very sure. And those will those that our First Amendment attorneys will say that's his right to do such. Is there anything to get in the way of that to stop it? Well, Jack Smith has his file briefs pointing out the effect of these remarks, this stochastic remarks. And that's why he's been arguing to, you know, to to shut shut Trump down for these remarks. But it hasn't worked because Judge Schutkin and other judges are going to give the Trump a pass on the First Amendment, they're going to give him a wide berth, thinking they're going to get reversed on appeal. It's interesting that the judges up there in the Supreme Court who really don't care too much about this, you know, Bill of Rights. All of a sudden, Trump is using them to enforce the Bill of Rights, the First Amendment, in his favor. So I you know, I don't think there's anything much that we can do about it. The only thing we can do about it is have this show and other media have the show and point it out honestly and not be intimidated. You know, but but in reality, Trump is and will do everything he can to pull funding from news sources, including print press, and make it hard for them to survive in in these difficult times. So see, I don't I don't have an answer for that. I don't think there is an answer for that, Tim, I think I don't think there is an answer to it. I throw it out there just because, you know, in some ways, we're we're watching a slow moving runaway train heading for the station. And the brakes seem to be out. I'm sure, you know, that which was considered protocol for decades or centuries in our justice system or how we we look at things. Because it wasn't put in as law. No one imagined that someone would break the protocols. And I'm thinking specifically of of when a appellate judge is when they're going through the appointment process. And they check in with a couple senators of that district where that judge is going to be appointed. Well, the protocol was you checked in with the senators and see how they thought about it about that individual that's about ready to be pointed in some cases for life as a judge. That protocol, courtesy, if you want to call it that, has been evaporated. Yet it we're under that system for quite some time. And here's a case where the Trump administration just basically said, Yeah, we don't care. Right, that's a good example. Anyway, the results is the federal judiciary is all the way over on the right. And there's no where they call it a blue slip kind of consent by the Democrats to these appointments. And McConnell did his level best to deny Obama's appointments. And so what we have is you judiciary is always cute over to the right and they're weaponized. It's not a matter of, you know, how good or bad they are as judges, they're, they're politicized. And that is going to hurt us so badly, not only in the result of their decisions, but in the, but in the public perception of where they are, and whether we can rely on them. And frankly, already, we can't with a 63 majority in the Supreme Court, we can't rely on them for anything. And they're the top, they're the top of the pyramid. So that everything, you know, under them is affected by them. To say nothing about all the, the federal judges that Trump appointed hundreds of hundreds, who are also likewise weaponized as Republican judges, as Trump loyalist judges. I mean, look what's happening in the Florida case in the Mar-a-Lago, I mean, Cannon is a Trump judge. At the end of the day, she will do everything she can, not to the law, not to the people, but to Trump. And I can, I cannot believe that Trump will be tried, prosecuted, convicted, appointed, and ultimately punished in that Florida federal case, because Eileen Cannon is going to stand in the way. It's so clear. So not one off there, you know? Well, let's talk about that. Because didn't she very early on make some rulings that were clearly wrong? And she was, was it the 11th Circuit? I can't remember what, what body of judges said, no, you're completely wrong. And she was admonished as a judge. Couldn't that happen again if she comes out with rulings that are way over, as they say, over the tips of your ski? Let me add a thought here, is that when Trump was the first running 2015, 2016, he was unsophisticated, a lot of the things he did. He didn't have experience in dealing with the public this way, dealing with public opinion, dealing with the government, I, you know, I don't think he could have named the three branches of government at the outset. But he's had, you know, years, working with his acolytes to become more sophisticated. And his machinations in court have become more sophisticated, is, you know, his outrageous statements, his attacks on judges and prosecutors and the like, you know, sophisticated, because he knows that he might be able to generate some flashback, pushback from them, okay, which will result in another appeal point for him. Pretty sophisticated. Now with Eileen Cannon, before when she made these erroneous rulings, it was quick enough so that Jack Smith could get into the appellate court, the Court of Appeals there and, and reverse her and the Court of Appeals was sympathetic enough, even though a number of Republican appointed judges. But now, okay, Eileen Cannon knows better. And Trump knows better. The idea is just to delay it. Delay it until he can become president. And then he can send a one liner to the Department of Justice, his new attorney general, and say stop that prosecution. It's a bad prosecution. Can it right now? And he's the president. He has the power to do that. Who is going to stop him? The Court of Appeals is not going to be able to stop him. So her mission as his mission is to delay it all until he can get to be president. I'm you're taking me back memory lane with Trump's disgust and Jeff Sessions, when Jeff Sessions said I'm going to recuse myself from this issue of prosecution. And I think Donald Trump to use a term that we don't hear often, but he went uncorked over it. You didn't expect Jeff Sessions to do that. So there's an example where Donald Trump's naivete or lack of understanding was in play back then. But I agree with you wholeheartedly that he has become far, far more sophisticated and far more knowledgeable about the workings of the justice system, the Department of Justice, and he probably won't make those mistakes twice. Yeah, well, and his stochastic speech, you know, his dog whistle thing, that's more sophisticated. And he has, he has a network him he has an organization around the country. And he can activate it the way he activated it with the evangelicals in Iowa just now in one handily. So he can reach out and touch his base. And he knows who is in his base, and he can communicate with his base, and he can get them to do stuff. And if he needs violence, they will give him violence. And if he wins, that violence will be pardoned. So and they know it. You know, it's like when he offers to people to pay people's defense fees is go beat up some reporter. I'll pay your defense fee. That is a complete erosion. It's it's an open attempt to break the system. Yeah, that was 2015. I remember it well. Yeah. Yeah, I don't get well, you know, you know, these judges have a lot of leeway on on how they want to run their courtroom. And do you envision ever a time where Donald Trump ignores the judge and carries on the circus, so to speak, and the judge finally gets fed up with it, and says you have a right to attend your trial, but we're going to basically put you off in the corner where no one can see you, or potentially hear you. Do you see that ever happening with the former president of the United States were in effect in the courtroom? He's muzzled? Hasn't happened yet. But I would like to see it. And I think it should happen. And I agree that it could happen just after a while. What would that look like? I mean, I'm sure there's there's defendants that come in, they scream and shout. How are they muzzled? How are they controlled in a courtroom, yet still allowed to be in the courtroom? Well, using video? Is that how they're doing it now video? I know I don't think they are. Unless it's really, you know, a kind of a dangerous situation. I don't know if they do that. But they could make a plastic like Adolf Eichmann, you know, they put him in Israel, put me on a plastic plastic shield. And it was I don't know for soundproof, but it was at least some barrier. The other thing is that the judge can say, Donald, you know, you're really being disrespectful. So that's 10 grand. You want to do it again? And this this will be at this contempt. And if you do it three times in a row, I'm going to make it criminal contempt, and you're going to go to jail in the tombs under the courthouse. And you'll stay there until I feel that you're not going to do it again. And so forth. I mean, a courageous judge who's not worried about about stochastic speech against him, because Trump can go right outside in the front of the courthouse, in front of the media, and he can say those stochastic things. And before you know it, the judge is imperiled. But you know, I think there are ways that you could shut him up in the courtroom. I'm not sure that that works, but that you could do that. I think a lot of this, you know, Tim has to do with the media. I really, you know, you always come back to the media and I always come back to the media, too. They are giving him so much publicity. He's a master at getting them to cover his obnoxious remarks. And the media communicates those remarks to his targets, you know, to the judges and the jurors and the prosecutors. That's how he talks to them through the media. And I notice some media will not give you the sound file. They won't tell you what he's saying, except maybe a few summary words, and they'll just have the video of him. And that's a good idea. I think that the media is responsible for a lot of what we are talking about here. He uses them as a platform. And they have really got to stop doing that. Likewise, the Bar Association, the lawyers, as a matter of protecting a rule of law, the Constitution, the democracy, the lawyers have got to have got to speak up. And they've got to condemn things that happen. They've got to take a position, including the American Bar Association, the State Bar Associations, and lawyers who are, you know, lawyers who are public figures. Some of them do, but not many. Well, we've said that for the last four years that the Bar Associations have been relatively mum, silent. As we also said, the Society of Professional Journalism has been quiet, mum on the ineffectiveness of reporting. So in some ways, what you said earlier, of course, he sounds like maybe the case, that is, the American public is helpless on watching Donald Trump slowly dismantle the justice system. I hope that's not the case. But it does kind of keep me up at night sometimes. Well, it's part of his march to autocracy. I mean, if there's no justice system to prosecute him, if these prosecutions don't work, if they get derailed, which is obviously what he's trying to do, then what stands between him and autocracy? Not much. Not much. So it's really important to him that he do this. And he's done a really terrific job at corrupting and undermining the justice institutions in this country, the justice officers, officials in this country. I mean, think of the poll workers who must be intimidated badly about the November election because of what has happened, including that stupid Giuliani case. Think of the election officials, you know, who might or might not leave them on the ballot under the 14th Amendment. They must be intimidated too. I'm sure they get calls. Yeah, but doesn't that jury award send a statement? Doesn't a thousand convictions of those that participated in January 6, 6 send a message to all future would be insurrectionists and or people that want to threaten poll workers? I wish I could agree. I actually think that Trump will has told them or will tell them that he'll take care of them. It's it's mafioso stuff. He'll take care of them. Yeah. Okay. Unfortunately, I think you're right. Any last last story conclude today? Well, I think that, you know, the way to solving a problem is the first step is to understand the problem, know about the problem. And, you know, this is an interesting conversation. I I told you before the show, I thought it was very important conversation, because it hasn't been covered as such as as such as the deterioration of the justice system that, you know, the examination of whether it's broken and how it got broken and the fact that Trump has done a lot to break it. I think we have to understand that not just you and me, but everybody, once you understand it, maybe you can figure out a solution in which you are part of that solution. So far, it really hasn't happened. All right. Thank you, Jay. Appreciate it very much. It has been an interesting discussion. I want to thank our audience very much. And if you like this program, please click follow and give us a like. And until then, I'm Tim Apacheo, your host for American Issues Take One. Mr. Fidel, thank you for joining us. And until next week, aloha.