“EXPLOSIVE!” Trump lawyers face CRIMINAL CHARGES in new update

You're watching The Legal Breakdown.Glenn, we've got some explosive news here as far as Trump's efforts to overturn the 2020 election are concerned.We obviously saw a number of states come forward with attempts to prosecute those who were involved in Trump's election theft scheme.And it looked like these Republicans were able to get away with it across the board.That doesn't seem to be the case right now as we've got a very aggressive Arizona attorney general who just took some action here.Can you explain what just happened?

Yeah, Brian, the Attorney General for the state of Arizona, Chris Mays, just announced that she will be representing to the grand jury criminal charges for who?Rudy Giuliani?Mark Meadows, John Eastman, and a total of about a dozen GOP activists, all of whom were allegedly involved in the fraudulent scheme to try to give electors to Donald Trump, even though he lost the election.So, Brian, originally, these folks were charged criminally with things like fraud and forgery because it was pretty obvious that they had created these, you know, fake electors certificates to try to give Donald Trump an election that he lost.And here's what happened.You know, this seems now like a hundred years ago, since courts all around the country were trying to hold Trump and company responsible for trying to steal elections in the various states.

Undoubtedly, our viewers will remember the RICO prosecution down in Georgia, where we should never forget Four people pleaded guilty to being part of that RICO conspiracy to try to help Donald Trump steal the election in Georgia, including three of his lawyers.So, you know, these were not baseless charges, but the Georgia RICO case eventually went away.People should also remember, Brian, there hasn't been much reporting about this in Nevada and Wisconsin.There are still criminal cases up and running for some of Trump's, you know, associates and supporters trying to steal the election in those cases back in 2020, 2021.So, Brian, let's kind of get down into the weeds.We need to do a really short Legal Breakdown Law School class so people will understand what's really going on here.

So, law enforcement authorities, prosecutors in Arizona presented to the grand jury the evidence.that Giuliani and Meadows and Eastman and a dozen others committed crimes to try to help Donald Trump steal the election in Arizona.The grand jury indicted.But then the trial court judge decided there was some defect in the grand jury procedure.Specifically, there was a finding that the prosecutor or prosecutors who were in there presenting the case to the grand jury, and this is language that comes from the opinion, quote, failed to present the grand jury with the precise text of the law they were alleging these folks violated.And I don't want to call that a technicality because I think that does a disservice to what we as prosecutors are obligated to do both legally and ethically before the grand jury.

But here is a piece that maybe is not intuitive to people and I need to take a minute to explain.I was a career prosecutor, 30 years, in multiple jurisdictions.I prosecuted first in the military's criminal justice system, and then in both the federal and local jurisdictions in Washington, D .C., because in D .C.

there is no state, there's no district attorney, so the federal prosecutors do it all.We do all of the federal prosecuting in federal court and appear before federal grand juries, and we do all the local prosecuting, the murders, the rapes, the carjackings, et cetera, in Washington.the local court for the District of Columbia, the superior court for the District of Columbia.and we go into the local grand jury.We do it all, soup to nuts as prosecutors in Washington, D .C.

Every time I walked into a grand jury room, here is what happened, and here is what was supposed to happen that apparently didn't happen as it should have out in Arizona.First of all, the only people allowed in the grand jury room, Brian, it's a secret proceeding by law, the prosecutor.The grand jurors, the people from the community who are sitting as the conscience of the community, to do what?Be a check against prosecutorial overreach, abuse, and misconduct.So it's the prosecutor, the grand jurors, it is a grand jury reporter, think court reporter, who is both transcribing and is recording, audio recording, every single word of every open session of the grand jury.The only other person allowed to come in there is the witness I bring in to testify.

That's it.There's no judge, there's no defendant, and there's no defense attorney.And prosecutors actually have a dual role before the grand jury.I was the prosecutor presenting the incriminating evidence and urging the grand jury to return indictments on whatever criminal charges were supported by that evidence.However, the second hat I wore in the grand jury was legal advisor to the grand jury.What does that mean?

It means I had a responsibility, both legally and ethically, to present them the precise language of the crimes, the criminal offenses, the statutes that are in the law books, that I am asking them to indict the defendant for having violated.And I have to break it down by what's called the elements.Each fact that must be proved by probable cause in the grand jury, if the grand jury is to indict, I have to preciselythem the language of each element of each criminal offense in my capacity as legal advisor to the grand jury.Usually, we were very careful to make sure we did it and did it right, because we didn't want a legal challenge to the sufficiency and legality of the indictment that we had the grand jury return.Well, it looks like out in Arizona, According to the reporting and the quotes from the court ruling, the prosecutor failed to present the grand jury with the precise text of the law that they were asserting Rudy and Meadows and company violated.

So it's not really a technical defect, but it does feel like a technical shortcoming of the presentation by the prosecutors in Arizona.So what happened?A trial court decided to throw out the indictment because of this defect.an appeals court upheld that dismissal and now the Arizona Supreme Court has, without even offering an opinion, just said we're not going to disturb the lower court's ruling.What does that mean?It means the Attorney General for the state of Arizona, Chris Mays, has an opportunity to just send the prosecutors back into the grand jury present the evidence anew, make sure they don't engage in that shortfall when they're presenting the precise text of the law they're asserting was violated, and that should cure the defect.

This is a long, drawn -out procedure, but it looks like Attorney General May said, well, no, we're not giving up.We are going to move forward.We're going to make sure we're on our prosecutorial P's and Q's this time.And we are going to seek an indictment again.And Brian, I predict they're going to obtain an indictment again against the people that we've been discussing.And then there will be three states that are continuing

It's worth asking here because this is almost an inevitability.What happens if and when Trump tries to bigfoot the states, either by issuing pardons or even trying to move these cases from state court into federal court, where, of course, you know, he can have his way with them?What happens in those instances?

Yeah, the good news is he can't issue pardons for state criminal prosecutions or convictions.So state convictions are pardon proof.And Brian, if our viewers will remember, Mark Meadows, I think, tried to get his case down in Georgia when he was being prosecuted for those RICO charges, moved to federal court, and the federal judges would have none of it.So I don't think Trump will be successful on those two fronts.Of course, will he try to interfere in the upcoming midterms in any other number of ways?It wouldn't surprise me at all.

And that's where we have to make sure the court stands at the ready to issue injunctions and put a stop to whatever Donald Trump is trying to do to interfere in midterm elections, suppress voters, or somehow hinder voters' access to the polls.You know what?The state attorneys general are preparing for that as we speak.They are ready to meet the force of anything the executive branch of the federal government does to try to wrongfully, unlawfully interfere in the upcoming midterm elections.And I don't say this casually or cavalierly.I think we're going to make it through and then we're probably going to have the blue wave that so many are predicting will come at the midterms.

Glenn, watching this process unfold,out and you reminding us that there's still ongoing litigation for this in Nevada and Wisconsin, and of course, we'll add Arizona to that list.It's 2026.This took place in 2021.How is it possible that this whole process is moving so slowly?I mean, we have seen in other countries, Brazil, for example, when Jair Bolsonaro tried to pretty much enact the same scheme to hold on to power himself, this person has already been prosecuted.

It's already done.And we are double the amount of time that it took the Brazilian prosecutors to actually seek some accountability, double the amount of time.And still this process you know, in Arizona, in Nevada, in Wisconsin, is just working its way through the system.How are we five years into this process so far in these states and still haven't seen some conclusion?

You know, Brian, it's a fair question.And, you know, let me offer a couple of observations from somebody who worked in the criminal justice system for 30 years.First of all, courts tend to move at a glacial pace in the United States of America.I wish that wasn't the case.There is no need for it.I mean, you want to be careful, you want to be thoughtful, you want to be thorough in giving both parties a fair shake in litigation, but it doesn't have to linger for months and years.

You know, I have long been a proponent of what we call accelerated dockets and there are all that means that's a fancy term for saying we need to move cases through the system more quickly both criminal cases and civil cases because you know if a litigant deserves to win a judgment and be made whole well that should happen sooner rather than later not years down the road and frankly if a defendant isbeing criminally prosecuted, well, then the law needs to go about holding that person accountable for having victimized perhaps a fellow member of the community.The victim has a right in speedy justice.Similarly, if somebody is wrongfully accused as a criminal defendant, Well then dammit, you need to move to a resolution so that person can be exonerated.There's every reason for the courts to move more quickly.I have long advocated for accelerated dockets because there's nothing that says you can't have a party file a lawsuit, for example.

You conduct discovery in 30 days.30 days after that, you file your motions, you have court hearings, and within 30 days of those hearings, you need a resolution from the judge.What have I just set out?A 90 -day track.There is nothing improper.There's nothing that is not feasible, not practical to do that.

I even created, in my own mind and in my videos, something called the IBDC, the Inter -Branch Dispute Court, so that when two branches of government are butting heads legally, like Congress issues a subpoena to an executive branch official and the executive branch official says, take a flying leap, as happened in the first Trump administration.What happened?That matter bogged down.They were trying to subpoena White House counsel.That matter bogged down for more than two years in the courts, Brian, and it never did get resolved.It ended up being negotiated away.

That's insanity.You should have, in interbranch dispute court issues, you should have like a two -week, two -week, two -week track, where in six weeks, case is resolved and the business of governing the American people can move forward.This can be done.We just have to have the political will to do it.As you said, other countries seem to manage to do it far better than us and we should probably take a lesson from our failings and their successes.

Well, look, I think your advice and your analysis here is exactly why your voice should be amplified in this space.So a reminder to everybody who's watching right now, if you'd like to support our work, amplify our voices in these spaces, the best way to do that is to subscribe to both of our channels.Those links are right here on the screen.They're also in the post description of this video.So if you're not yet subscribed, please go ahead and subscribe.I'm Brian Tyler Cohen.

And I'm Glenn Kirshner.You're watching The Legal Breakdown.