 But first, former President Donald Trump has been indicted in his fourth criminal case in five months. This most recent charge alleges he and 18 allies worked together to overturn his 2020 election loss in the state of Georgia. The 2024 presidential candidate has been charged along with several others under the state's racketeering law. Nick Allard, dean of the College of Law at Jacksonville University, is here now to explain what this all means, break it down for us, and see what this means for both Trump and the nation given his 2024 presidential aspirations. Thank you, Nick, so much for being here. This is a huge story we're saying before the break. There's a lot of pieces and we're excited to have you here. Thanks for having me and during this first week of our second year of the law school. What a real-life lesson. And we feel like we won the lottery with our 26 megapix, the new students. What a time for them to be going to law school. So lucky for them. And you, my friends, can also join the conversation. Call us at 549-2937, tweet us at FCC on air, email us at First Coast Connect at wjct.org, or message us on the First Coast Connect Facebook page. Now, let's start with, I guess, the very top of the story. What exactly was Trump charged with in Georgia? Well, Trump was charged with 11 counts, and that makes total in the four cases that he's been indicted on of 91 counts of criminal felonies. So in this case, in state court, he's charged with basically a series of actions to defraud the people of the correct vote and the results of the 2020 election, and that involves a lot of different actions. But he's charged also, and these charges are related to the state, the Georgia State RICO Act, that's the Racketeering Influenced Criminal Organization Act, which gives the state broad powers. The federal statute, the federal rate RICO statute, is extremely broad. It gives broad powers and advantages to the prosecutor. The Georgia statute is even broader. And this was, this law, this RICO Act was originally created to help fight organized crime, like mafia, mob, right? Well, it was originally brought, and ironically, one of the people who's used it extensively and very aggressively was one of the defendants under the RICO charge, as Rudy Giuliani used in New York. Now, the reason for this RICO statute was to get at organized crime, organized criminal enterprises like the mafia, where the head of the mafia, the Don Corleones, could insulate themselves from criminal exposure and throw their underlings under the bus and never be tied to the actual crime. So these RICO prosecutions have expanded both the federal level and the state level, far beyond just mafiosa, lacosta, nostra type of activities. And the whole idea is that in addition to requiring an ongoing criminal enterprise to be able to find it, you don't necessarily have to directly connect the head of the enterprise to find evidence of direct involvement in the crime. If it's a criminal enterprise and you prove that the head of the enterprise and you make the other elements of the case, then they can be convicted under RICO and there's broad powers. And I feel like that's going to, we're definitely seeing how broad that is because of how many charges there are and how many people are involved. But how is this latest, how is the latest Georgia prosecution of Trump different from the other three indictments that have been brought against him? You know, you're hearing people say that it duplicates the federal special prosecutor, Jack Smith's case. Can you kind of explain what's similar there? You know, that's a great question. And Al better be careful. He might be like Wally Pips, you know, when Lou Gehrig stepped in for him for one day. And then you know what happened after that. So, you know, you're doing great, but that's a wonderful question. I don't understand all sports, but I know that's a compliment. You know, that is a compliment. Trust me, you know, a record-breaking service to the New York Yankees. Anyway, you hear a lot of people say that the Florida case is duplicative of the federal case, and it isn't. I mean, it isn't for many, many reasons. It's brought under the state law, which is broader. It's far more sweeping. Jack Smith's special prosecutor, Jack Smith's federal case is focused on Donald Trump. This has 19 defendants, and they're all going to be tried together, and it's going to be on television if it remains in the state. So there are many, many significant differences. One of them also is, if there's a conviction, there is considerably less, maybe no latitude for Mr. Trump if he's convicted. And it's if he deserves the presumption of innocence, which he will get. He deserves to have his day in court and to defend himself or not say anything at all under constitutional rights. But if he's convicted, the opportunities for him, maybe if he gets elected, these are all very many big ifs, to pardon himself or to escape the mandatory criminal sentences that are required under conviction are far less under the state prosecution. And what about these 18 associates who have been charged along with them? I mean, are they all looking at the same outcomes here and how did, how are the prosecutors able to find all of them and charge all 18? They've been working at this meticulously, sadly, professionally for two and a half years. There was an initial grand jury, then the grand jury was created a special grand jury to expand the authority. There's been subpoenas, so there's a massive amount of evidence that will be brought into play, including the tape, the famous recording. It's not a tape anymore, I guess, but it's recording. I'm dating myself. The documents, a lot of documents and, you know, the documents tell the tale. They can't be impeached. They're evidence. They're solid evidence. And then some of these 19 may flip. They may cut a deal and begin to be testifying. And in addition, you know, they'll all be tried together. So if it appears on television and it looks like it will unless it's removed, we've already seen some of the initial sites on television. You're going to see the company that Mr. Trump keeps. They're all going to be together. And that will be a remarkable scene. And let's talk about some of the people who are involved, because these are big names like Rudy Giuliani, Trump attorney and former New York City mayor, John Eastman and other attorney on Trump's team, Trump's chief of staff, Mark Meadows. These are names that you would hope would never end up in this kind of case, but what is the significance of Mark Meadows trying to remove the case to federal court? Well, there's a lot of questions in that question, so I'll try to unpack it. So first, the removal that we heard Mr. Meadows. That's a very interesting effort. Now there is a statute that permits under certain circumstances when charges are brought in a state court for a federal official who's acting under color of his authority as an official to remove the case to federal court. So he has sought that Mr. Trump hasn't yet. Others haven't yet, to my knowledge. And so that will be debated, but it's not a clear cut argument either way in my personal view. That is one of the interesting things is if under the law, Mr. Meadows has to argue that he was acting under color of his position as the chief of staff of the president. So what does that mean? Does that mean that he was acting on behalf of the president or was off on his own job on his own? Make it better or worse. And as a defendant charged with criminal activities, his defense is likely to be, well, I was just following orders, right? So that's a very interesting motion. Another aspect of the motion that's very interesting is that if he removes it to the federal court, and by the way, the prosecutor, Fulton County District Attorney, Fonnie Willis, will still be prosecuting the case and that Georgia, I almost said Florida, the Georgia statute, I know, right? The Georgia, it's not funny, so forgive me for laughing, but the Georgia statute will still be tried and the Georgia witnesses, which by the way are all Republicans, are not mainly Republicans. This is a war between, in the Georgia case, the Republican Party because many of the defendants are former Republican, you know, chairman party leaders and others and so on. And the people who are already outspoken and have been witnesses include the Lieutenant Governor and today or yesterday, the sitting Governor Kemp had some very tough comments to make about the case and about Mr. Trump. So this is a war within the Republican Party with the witnesses, some of the victims, some of the workers, the election workers who were... Ruby Freeman was a poll worker and she and her daughter had to go into hiding because so many of President Trump supporters were sending death threats. And one, I think a police chaplain from Illinois showed up to their home and allegedly threatened them. Exactly right, full marks. Al, you better hurry back. But no, exactly right. So many, most of the characters are going to be Republicans in this state of Georgia. And so for that reason alone, you know, the removal is kind of interesting, but it's still be in a federal court in Georgia. And also it's very interesting that in the 11th Circuit, Mr. Trump is involved in a RICO case that's been brought against Hillary Clinton that's still pending appeal. So in one case, he's going to be advocating the power of RICO. In the other case, his attorneys will be, you know, probably saying that it's overreach and an inappropriate use of the statute to apply in a political situation. So, I mean, Mr. Trump has been known sometimes for being inconsistent, but this may be one very excruciating situation for him to have to argue both sides of the same issue. Right. I mean, it sounds like they're going to use what they can to whatever advantage they can and not ending up in prison, it sounds like. Well, if there's a conviction. Correct. If there's a conviction, the prison terms are mandatory. There's mandatory under RICO. There's mandatory minimum. I think they're five years. You can check me on that. And the maximums for each count are 20 years. So this is very similar. This is very serious legal peril. Also, it should not be ignored that the conviction rate for this district attorney is in the 90s, 90% of the time she prevails. And this is Fannie Willis. Fannie Willis. And also, she is an equal opportunity prosecutor. She has prosecuted black rap musicians. She has prosecuted other people under the RICO statutes who are involved in corporate criminal activity. And she's very, very experienced and spent a lot of time building her case. Now, she is very aggressive and their arguments will be made. And we haven't heard the public hasn't heard the facts, but I would urge the general public, if they can, it's readily available to read the indictment. It's in readable English. It tells a story. Then watch the trial. Listen and form your own opinion. If you will, pretend that you're a virtual juror in the court of public opinion and form your own opinion. Has the case been made or hasn't it? Now, I know Americans have strong feelings on both sides of this case and both sides of the debate that's going on. Certainly the legal case. That's a great practice. We should form their own decision. We're in a world where the pursuit of the truth is very difficult. There's a lot of information, misinformation, and this is very complex stuff. Right. I mean, you almost are getting a legal education from just listening to the news, but you want to make sure you have a good legal education. Absolutely. We're meeting voters and the American public to study up, look at the facts, watch yourself as much as you can of the proceedings, and form your own opinion. A great exercise for sure. It's WJCT News. You're listening to First Coast Connect. We're speaking with Nick Allardine of the College Law of Jacksonville University going over the Trump indictment in Georgia and really breaking it down piece by piece. You can also join the conversation. Call us at 549-2937. You can also tweet us at FCC on air or email your comments to First Coast Connect at wjct.org. And we have a tweet from at Jules and Jack's. She was asking, what does Dean Allard make of the fact that so many of the former president's co-conspirators are attorneys? Are you concerned that the Bar members are more partisan? That is a wonderful question. And here's why. It is a sad thing whenever an attorney, we recently had a very prominent case here in First Coast of a very prominent attorney being tried for defrauding his clients. It's a sad thing when you see that and it happens. We live in an imperfect world. But those people I can assure you are the outliers. Now also I'll note that these are allegations. They too, those defendants are entitled to the presumption of innocence. To say their case, but it's a sad thing that they've even been engaged in activity or near enough that their scruples can be challenged. So this is why, and this is bringing me back to your law school here in Jacksonville, Jacksonville University College of Law. From the very first day, we emphasize the primacy of not just knowing how to practice law and being smart, which they will be, the ethics and values and the need for lawyers to serve others in the public interest, the public good. And you have those dual responsibilities. My deanship is named after a very well-known and highly respected Jacksonville attorney, Randall Seaburg Jr., who devoted his whole life to ethics. So every time I'm introduced in that way as the Randall Seaburg Dean, it reminds people, I hope, and connects our law school in our effort. So this is what we're working on. But my point is that these lawyers are the outliers, and they remind us of what's right or wrong. And I should also note that over the last year, the Florida Bar conducted a massive survey of what is most important in practice. Now, when I heard that, I expected there would be, well, more affordable legal services, higher pay, better use of technology. The number one finding of judges in the outstanding Florida Benchen Bar was ethics and professionalism. So this is what the outstanding Benchen Bar stand for in Jacksonville. And by the way, in Jacksonville, I'm told by Max Mara, but other people that follow these things, that there are far fewer conduct cases brought against unethical lawyers than any other place. So that's a very important thing. And so that's a long answer to a very good question. It is very disturbing and upsetting that anybody is involved in this case. For us, it's very hurtful, but it's a learning moment for us to see what are the ethical and professional responsibilities of lawyers, which is not only for themselves to do well, but to do good. And we have another question from Lisa from Tallahassee. Well, thank you so much for calling us all the way here in Jacksonville. Good morning, Lisa. Please keep it on topic and keep it brief. Yes. Good morning. Well, I asked question because, you know, it's hard to keep all the strings of these separate, but I know Jack Smith, there's a question about protection of witnesses because of, you know, Trump publicly berating and threatening and encouraging, you know, retribution and including what happened in Utah with the gentleman that was going to go after Alvin Bragg. In Georgia, we've already seen what he has had done with Ruby. I can't remember her name. Ruby Freeman. Is there. Yes. What can if I know he's not gotten before the judge, I don't believe that what protection can be baked in from the front end that he crosses the line is ironic. We're talking about Rico charges because this is very mob behavior. What he crosses over the line is there a possibility that he can be with word. I'm not going to say put in jail, but I mean he presents a very real danger. So a lot of the people that would be providing information, both he and his implied orders to his people just like January 6. In all of these cases, we know what he does. He threatens witnesses and would intimidation. So I'd like to. I mean, like I said, there's four cases going on and I know it's complicated and what's the name. Chuchan has put him on notice. So I'd like to hear what you have to say about witness protection, witness intimidation and that kind of thing. Thank you. Thank you so much, Lisa. That is an exquisite question about the integrity and maintaining the justice system and in particularly the people, the everyday people were doing their part to testify to run the courts. And it just goes to the heart of our justice system. And if I may make a personal comment, you know, I believe that Mr. Trump is lighting matches in the dynamite shed right now and it is very, very dangerous. Now, so forgive me for that personal comment and observation. So for example, he is planning a he said that he's planning next week a press conference where he's going to give a report on why the election system, why the election election was stolen and why there was election massive election fraud. And so we'll see. I mean, the governor of Georgia has said, you know, he's that's just not possible. There was no election fraud and there's no proof of that. And in fact, the Trump organization brought over 50 cases and none of them prevailed. They lost in 50 cases trying to show evidence of election fraud across the country. But to your question, he has been making inflammatory statements and naming people and releasing on social media, the picture of the judge and things. He's just, frankly, I'm sure his lawyers are very uncomfortable both about the press conference that he's planned and the comments that he's making. There are some folks who have told me that they believe that what he is doing, first of all, it's kind of childish. If you forgive me for characterizing it, I shouldn't be doing that. I should be just unpacking this and so hard. It's difficult. It's difficult not to them. This whole and it's unbecoming. It's unbecoming. I when some of the characters that are involved in this case was on the television, my three year old grandson looked up over his shoulder and said, what a cry baby. And so out of the mouth of babes, you know, and I mean, it's not like take your medicine and eat your vegetables. It's constantly blaming other people, but also putting people at risk and it's a very, very serious. Right. And it should not be happening. So maybe, you know, what is he doing? I mean, he's very shrewd. He may be trying to provoke the judge to react. He may be going as close to the line as he can. He may be trying to provoke the judge to react and to issue an order which then he can challenge and try to delay things. But it is very dangerous to put at risk given the world that we live in. And I think that almost all Americans are decent, good people who, even though we disagree, we agree to disagree peacefully. But there are those people are very riled up. And, you know, this harkens back to other huge moments in our history where we've come apart and had difficult times and violence. I mean, this puts our democracy on the edge like the time leading up to the Civil War and, you know, like the time back in the early days of the republic when Aaron Burr plotted to set up a separate country. He treasonously did that. And so there's a lot at stake right here on how this turns out either way. And what would you say is at stake? What is this controversy stuck up in U.S. history? Well, first of all, the most recent memory is the Watergate. So it's certainly worth comparing that. And you have the cast of characters now, Mark Meadows, Rudy Giuliani, so many others who are going to become even more household names than they have been. And, you know, I harkened back. I remember when I was growing up and watching the Watergate hearings and, you know, had those HR, I mean, Halderman, Erlichman, Rosemary Woods, who had the famous 18-minute tape. She was the president secretary. They had recordings then that were critical and documents then. I guess things done today. Yeah. And that'll happen again. But I think that this case by far overshadows Watergate. It engulfs. It's like a tsunami compared to the Watergate flood of impropriety and for so many reasons. And this puts the very core like Watergate, but it's a much broader effort than a burglary of the Watergate.