All Episodes
Previous Next
Oct. 5, 2022 - Rudy Giuliani
38:21
Inside the Deranged Political Persecution of President Donald Trump | Guest: Alina Habba | Ep 277
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
This is Rudy Giuliani, and I am back with another edition of Rudy's Common Sense.
Today, we have the great pleasure of having Donald Trump's lawyer, Ilana Haba, who I think you all know.
You've seen her very, very effectively lay out President Trump's position in the cases that she's in charge of and the cases that she's involved with.
And I thought it would be a good time, one, to get kind of an overview of what's happening to the former president, and number two, where the two or three most mentioned cases are.
So, Ilana, welcome.
Hi, thank you for having me.
How are you?
I'm great, thanks.
Well, I'm glad you found some time in what has to be It's like the litigation schedule for several major corporations.
It's funny, trying to schedule a deposition with me is tough, but I always make time for you, Rudy.
You remind me, I don't mean to analogize it to The Godfather, but I used this occasionally when I represented him for two years and people would say, who are your other clients?
And I said, well, like in The Godfather, I have only one client and he's very demanding.
So, tell us first, very simple layman's overview.
What kind of cases are there against him?
And from my point of view, what are they doing to him?
I don't know if a president, ex-president has ever been sued.
I'm sure they have occasionally.
But this is more lawsuits against a single individual than I've ever seen.
Yeah, it's political prosecution, political persecution.
Um, and that's basically if I had to say what they're doing, they are trying to hit him from every angle and hopes that he doesn't run.
That's what a hundred percent.
If I had to look at this, like you said, nobody else has been treated like this.
There is a reason because nobody else had another term.
Nobody else, um, you know, had another term and nobody else had, had, had this option and this travel.
Um, so, you know, we've got what they're doing is they're trying to bully him and the one thing that they forget about him.
There's a couple of things.
Number one, he has a lot of resources, more so than probably any other former or current president ever would.
So, you know, you're trying to drain him financially.
You're not going to do that.
Then they're trying to drain him politically.
You're not going to do that.
He's ahead of the polls.
And that's really what it all is.
So we can go through the cases, but I can tell you that they all are really not on the merits.
They're all just an attempt, sometimes by political PACs that are paying these law firms.
To prevent him from running for 2024 if he chooses.
In fairness, this is what they've been doing to him since he came down the steps and announced for president.
The amazing thing while he was president was how he was able to accomplish what he accomplished with this unbelievable distraction.
He's like a boxer, you know?
He gets back up again.
And they don't realize the people that surround him are also relentless.
I like to consider myself relentless.
I'm not going to be intimidated.
And I think I learned that from him.
It's a system.
They're going to try and intimidate you.
I know they've tried to do it to you.
All the time.
Every day.
And I mean, it's just like a regular day.
If you get a death threat, it's like, oh, I guess it's what Monday 9am.
It's my time to get my death threats or whatever it is that comes my way.
But, you know, the truth is this is political.
It's really not legal based.
They try and find Uh, causes of action, as I'm sure you know, you know, but for the layman, they're trying to find things that they can go after him.
But a lot of these investigations continue for so many years without complaints being filed because they're trying to be creative.
If you have a legitimate concern about something or a criminal activity or civil wrongdoing, a tort, negligence, anything, it doesn't take three years to file that complaint, you know?
And you don't do it 40-something days out of an election when you're down in the polls against your competitor.
It is limited.
So which one would you put at top of, let's use the expression of our great press secretary to the president, top of mind.
Yeah, which one's top of mind?
I think the Attorney General for me is top of mind.
That's the freshest attack, obviously.
You know, it's newer than Mar-a-Lago.
Mar-a-Lago and the, I call it the box hoax or whatever you want to call it.
You know, that one, obstruction of justice, it's bizarre.
It's a presidential records act.
It's very broad.
And I don't see an issue in that case at all.
The Attorney General, I don't see an issue in either.
It's just my personal case.
So for me, it's top of mind.
It's, you know, for your listeners, it's a, they've filed a 222 page complaint after wasting taxpayer dollars in New York for three years trying to pin somebody down when there's no damages on how they value properties.
And they didn't, you know, Trump Organization and Trump.
He didn't value them himself.
He had outside counsel helping him.
He had third parties, you know, great companies.
And then the banks had their own vetting and nobody lost a dollar.
But that's the case that, again, it's a drain.
They're trying to hurry up and get some rapid fire trials so that he can't run in 24.
It's the same thing as always.
So that, to me, I would say is top of mind.
It's just a little bit more So that case has, just give us approximates, how many banks involved?
There is no banks involved.
It's Letitia.
How many banks did he take loans from?
Oh, I think there's, well, he doesn't really have much debt.
I mean, the reality is, I think it's Deutsche Bank, maybe Axios, I think maybe two banks.
And none of them have, none of them have Has anyone sued as a victim of whatever it is they say he did?
No.
A private individual or corporation?
No, because nobody's been hurt.
Everybody made money.
And how far back did they go?
They're trying to go to 2011, which is absurd.
You know, only for Donald Trump would they have a statute of limitations, meaning for the non-lawyers how far back you can go in litigation.
It was three years for an attorney general under this statute, which, by the way, the statute that they filed under isn't really a consumer protection statute, but they're trying to apply it to him.
Um, and I could get into that for days, but normal person would be three years.
Wow.
After they tried to start this investigation, they changed it to six years only to further, excuse my language, screw him.
And then they file and they try and go back to 2011, which is comical.
And now they're doing this dance to try and keep that judge and Gorin who's, which is completely improper, um, and judge shop effectively.
So that's our current fight.
So that fight involves the alleged victims, of which obviously there were none, never once complained in any way and asked for any compensation.
So they're doing this to help multi-billion dollar banks recover money that they never thought they were entitled to.
There is no money to recover, actually.
Their $250 million demand can basically be chopped up to Disgorgement of OPO, which is, you know, they sold that that hotel in Washington and and they basically just want to screw them out of any profit they made on anything in the last couple years while this was under investigation.
It has nothing to do with the bank or anybody, you know, that the banks got paid off.
There was no mortgage anymore.
And somehow they're just picking a random number.
Listen, Letitia had her moment.
Unfortunately, the moment is done.
And she spent her entire campaign as a single-issue candidate.
in that voice that she, you know, it was a very strange thing to watch.
But basically now she's got to fight the fight and she's got nothing to fight
with because there's no claims.
It's a joke.
So, you know, that was her moment.
I'm glad she had it.
Now we can move on.
And she spent her entire campaign as a single issue candidate.
I'm going to get Donald Trump without any explanation of what
she was going to get him for.
Basically, she was going to conduct a search of his life and find something she could pursue.
And having found something, it amounts to no victims, no one hurt, and a terrible waste of the state's resources when we're going through maybe the worst crime epidemic maybe ever.
Because it involves the whole state.
Every city in the state is setting records for homicide and rape and murder.
She could be helping those DAs.
Every resource she's using here To pursue this ridiculously victimless nothing could be saving lives.
Well, let's take a short break.
You know, being with a constitutional lawyer, which Alana is, as well as a litigator of vast dimension, it reminds me that over the last year we had some pretty, pretty I'd say significant turnarounds and victories in the Supreme Court for protecting our rights and our liberties.
And boy, we sure need them because we've never gone through a time in which I don't think since the British occupied us in George III with our king and dictator, I don't think we've ever had as much attack and deprivation of constitutional rights.
Of course, we've done entire podcasts on that.
I'm sure we're going to do more, and many of my colleagues have done many podcasts on this.
You need allies when that's the case, and one of our big allies is Patriot Mobile.
It's America's only Christian conservative mobile phone provider.
Let me say that again.
It's the only Christian conservative mobile phone provider.
And they also are very sensitive to the economic times that we're in, which of course the left wing is in denial of.
Everything is perfect.
Everything's wonderful.
Therefore, they got plans to try to help you deal with your being able to use your devices, which are so necessary often for business or staying in contact with your family or So many reasons that you really should contact them.
It has plans for almost any budget and they offer the same nationwide coverage as the major carriers.
So you get the same great service and you know that your money is going to a company that is fighting for the things that you believe in.
Fighting to preserve our form of government, our way of life.
Fighting to preserve our freedom of religion, our freedom of speech, our freedom to defend ourselves under the Second Amendment.
And so many more, all of which have been seriously eroded by, I don't know, Biden says that MAGRA people are semi-fascists, which has no meaning.
They, meaning the Biden people, sure act like fascists.
Sounds like projection to me.
So go to patriotmobile.com slash Rudy.
Go to patriotmobile.com slash Rudy.
That's 972 PATRIOT.
Use the offer code Rudy and you'll get a free activation.
And if you're a veteran or a first responder, there are a lot of special deals for you, as there should be, because you are critical to us.
You are our real heroes.
Come join our movement.
Make the switch today.
Go to www.patriotmobile.com slash Rudy, www.patriotmobile.com slash Rudy, or 972-PATRIOT.
Now let's get back to Alana.
By the way, she's actually draining the DA, if you look at it, right?
And you know this.
But she's working in tandem with them, and she's asking them to turn over everything they have, and try and feed to now, like, the IRS and the what have... It's stupid.
None of these people looked into... Because there was nothing to look into.
Everybody got paid.
There was absolutely no fraud.
There was no criminal activity.
And, you know, look at what they're doing to his prior CFO.
You know, he just pled guilty to... A terrific man, by the way.
You know, he's going to jail.
The guy didn't put a car on a tax return?
You gotta be kidding me.
No, no, that's a real, it's a real, it's actually inhumane what they're doing to him.
I know, I happen to know him, and for many, many years, and he's a very, very, he's your grandfather.
I mean, he's just a sweet, sweet guy.
So, what happens with that case?
What would you say?
We'll dismiss it.
It's a joke.
There's many things that were- What kind of judge do you have?
Well, we're trying to fight that out currently.
That's this week's task.
Like I said, they're trying to say there's open discovery issues and keep it in front of a judge who has no commercial expertise, has proven to be a very big anti-Trumper.
His law clerk is Far worse.
Anti-Trumper, anti-Alina, anti-everything that we are.
This is the judge that held us in contempt because they couldn't believe that he didn't have emails and he didn't have text messages, which the man, he doesn't have.
And we went through weeks and weeks and traveling and searching just to make them happy and make them realize, you know, this is the first problem.
We got to get it into the commercial division.
Good.
And we have some jurisdictional issues and some statute of limitations problems that I think will get this dismissed.
Good. Now that really leads me right to the Mar-a-Lago raid, where somehow the FBI finds a magistrate judge,
which seems kind of inappropriate for a search warrant on the home of a former president.
You'd think you'd go to an Article 3 judge for something that historic, never been done before, that has to raise constitutional questions just by the mere fact that you're trying to get papers of a former president.
Just recently declared his bias by saying he couldn't participate in the case between President Trump and Hillary Clinton.
So what's he doing making decisions about that?
Well, it's again, judge shopping.
They waited until the day, if you look at the dates, it actually It's a very sad lineup of coincidence, as they would call it.
But the FBI went there, got this warrant, waited for something so urgent that you need a warrant, waited several days until the magistrate was in place, and then executed the warrant.
So, you know, it's again, judge shopping.
We're seeing a lot of it.
It's unfortunate.
It works when you have an anti-Trump judge.
It shouldn't work because judges are supposed to be impartial.
But that's what happened there.
And you know, the one thing we have to remember on that one is that The president let them in to Mar-a-Lago when they had gone in June.
He had told them you have free rein and they told us, or the attorneys handling it rather, to add a padlock to the location.
They then leave for two months and then raid.
Again, political motivation is totally suspect.
It doesn't make sense to me.
You had people open and willing and cooperating, and now they're saying there's obstruction of justice with somebody who was willing to have you in their home.
I'm not following that narrative either.
And they claim that these were, without specifying, very sensitive papers.
I mean, super sensitive.
At a point they talked about nuclear secrets, although they leak that.
They illegally leak that.
Which gives you an idea of, they're basically criminals.
People who leak things like that are dishonest, dishonorable people.
We had that with the Attorney General in New York.
We had the Attorney General of New York's office leaking, and I picked up the phone and called them one day.
There was a leak of something that only three people in their office knew, and I was very upset.
I almost ceased communication via phone because of it, and quite honestly, Of course.
Mueller did it all the time.
And they claimed that Mueller was leak-free.
really not to be speaking to the press.
I've been with journalists when they've called and it was shocking.
Of course.
Mueller did it all the time.
And they claimed that Mueller was leak free.
I could hear him leak.
Yeah, you work for the government.
You're not me.
You're not a private attorney.
You work for the government.
You are not to be leaking government investigations, but they do it.
So in my opinion, and I'm sure you join me in this, there needs to be such a complete overhaul.
FBI, you know, we've got the DOJ, AGs, prosecutors, everybody.
It's sad what's happening and it's very frightening.
Well, Explain to me why this doesn't just dispose of this thing immediately.
To get a search warrant against anybody, there has to be exigent circumstances.
To get a search warrant against a former president about something that is a paper dispute, no violence involved, no indication of destruction of emails, for example, like Hillary Clinton, they wait Three months while this sensitive information could be stolen by anyone or used by anyone.
They then wait for this particular judge.
You know, he gave them 11 days to execute the warrant.
Now, on my experience with a warrant in organized crime and terrorism cases and cases involving national security, the judge usually puts the word forthwith in.
Forthwith.
Or two days.
Three days.
I mean, in fact, sometimes you ask, you say to the judge, I can't do, put forth within, that's a little more open.
We can't, we got to get our stuff.
And then the judge will say to you, well, you should have been organized before you came here.
I mean, the idea of getting it is, it's an emergency.
Well, they completely belie that by waiting 11 days and then they take the weekend off.
They get it on a Friday, they execute it on a Monday and they spend a weekend in Palm Beach.
Doesn't that prove that this is fairly unimportant?
And it's out of the D.C.
office, by the way.
So, yeah, so that we have to go back to D.C.
and deal with them.
You know, and then the other issue is these this document narrative has been actually going on since he left office.
So it's far longer than three months.
And if you look at the list, I was on a show the other night and they had a list of every single President and where they had stored their documents and had admitted that they had classified documents, you know, Obama, the furniture warehouse you had there and they're not secure.
They're not surrounded by Secret Service.
Once it's in a parking lot with a McDonald's.
You have a sock drawer.
You have, you know, somebody's private attorney smashing phones and wiping bleach-pitting emails.
It's crazy.
But President Trump had them in a stored—he had all his documents that were personal, declassified, whatever, not even getting into that—in a stored location with Secret Service locked and gated.
But nothing happened to any other president.
It's just so political.
It's so awesome.
If I'm correct, and I may not be, but I haven't seen a contradiction to this.
President Obama has a group of documents that he is going to digitize.
Now, he's out of office, what, a decade?
And he hasn't digitized them.
It took me, I digitized my records for eight years in the mayoralty.
And it took me a year to do that.
It doesn't take forever to digitize records.
And they've done nothing about it.
Because he's not Trump.
Their biggest fear, all of these people, and they're being funded by the Soroses, and I've identified different packs on some of these cases that we're going to have to investigate, that are literally funding anti-Trump cases with some of these big left-wing firms.
Just because he's leading in the polls.
There's just no other reason why.
If the man is not a threat to you, why do you keep attacking him?
What, for justice?
This is not justice.
This is dual system of justice, and it's pathetic, it's obvious, and it's only going to invigorate his base more.
Well, let's take a short break and we'll be back with our conclusion.
Not long ago, Mike Lindell, the inventor of MyPillow, and his team fit me for my very own MyPillow.
They also introduced me to their wide assortment of other incredible products, like their mattress topper, their sheets, towels, slippers, and more.
Sleep is incredibly important to me, and I can assume for all of you.
It's time you give MyPillow a try and see for yourself.
You can get great discounts on MyPillow products by going to mypillow.com right now.
And seeing each of the specially priced items.
That's mypillow.com and use the promo code Rudy.
Welcome back to our very, very interesting interview with a superb lawyer, Alana Haber, who happens to be Donald Trump's lawyer involved in historic litigation because hopefully someday this is all going to be looked back on and this will never happen again to another president or ex-president because this amounts To persecution, for purely political reasons.
But let's get to another case that people don't know as much about, but it's quite significant in how far these judges will go in defying common sense and rationality, just in order to get him.
Like, I mean, I think James, a few times when she was running, used the words, I'm gonna get him.
I'm going to get them.
So tell us about the Carol case.
Oh, my favorite Carol.
E. Jean, E. Jean Carol, the lady who loves to make herself relevant through my client is the best way that I could describe this one.
You know, the facts of this case are really undeniable.
what you know the real facts of this case are very simple.
I'll give you the real facts.
Okay let's go to the real facts first and then the ones that are in litigation.
Here's my client's facts and I'll give myself my caveat waiver because they love to listen
to me and then write threatening letters because they don't like me talking about this suit because
it's so weak. But we have a person who claims that she was assaulted, raped, but this is not a rape
This is a defamation case.
The press will write it like it is, but it's defamation.
What happened was she said something happened.
By the way, in the 90s, and she can't give us a month, a day.
She can't even narrow it down.
Something traumatic like that.
Then she says, oh, it's within these two years.
But she doesn't talk about it to anybody.
She mentions it once, doesn't talk about it for years, goes in and files a lawsuit.
When?
When he's the president and her book's coming out.
It's the typical, typical scenario we see.
I've had these cases before.
I've won these cases before.
And then she, you know, sold some books.
and is now relentlessly trying to go after him again because there's another election coming up
that he may choose to front it.
It's a defamation case.
Sure, it's a defamation case.
And we argued in front of the, actually I didn't even,
this case has been going on for so long.
It's one of those ones that won't go away.
The Southern District of New York decided that the president is not an employee of the United States.
I argued that that... You're sure this was about this president and not President Biden getting more money from China than the U.S.?
I know, I know.
No, this president was not an employee of the United States when he was employed by the United States.
And that's what the whole thing was.
What was the rationale for it?
Who was employing him?
It was really basic.
The judge said he is the highest person in a particular part of the government that nobody else is in.
Therefore, he has no boss.
Therefore, the United States is not his boss.
Therefore, he's not an employee.
Long story short, I argued this in front of the Second Circuit in last November, and we just won and reversed the lower court's decision that he is, in fact, and all presidents, frankly, are employees of the United States.
This had to actually get reversed?
It got reversed by the Second Circuit.
Who was the judge?
There were three judges.
Who was the judge?
Oh, the Southern District of New York judge was Judge Kaplan.
Now let's get to the final one, and there are so many more, but I just wanted to give people a flavor of what you and the other lawyers have to deal with.
Because a lot of it takes place behind closed doors.
Your side is I'd say ethical and careful in what you say to the press.
Meanwhile, their side is silent to the press, and then they leak everything below the surface.
And therefore, we never know if it's true or not.
Like, I don't know if it really involves nuclear anything.
They said that, now they seem to have taken it back.
When I was representing him, they were leaking every two weeks that they were going to indict Donald Trump Jr.
And we found out later that was being done to unnerve him.
There never was really, Mueller actually concluded that what they were investigating Donald Trump Jr.
for really probably wasn't a prosecutable crime because he can't value information.
And it was made up?
Yeah, I mean beyond that, you know there's two things about what they do.
They use false evidence to prove something that's not a crime.
So you've got two levels of defense in most cases.
I think the fact that Liz Cheney put on this production, televised, says again what I'm saying, which is that the American public should open their eyes to the dramatization and the sad reality of what is happening to our country.
Um, where we used to just go to the polls and say what we feel and listen to real issues in this country when picking a president.
And now instead it's let's tarnish someone's name as much as possible.
And, uh, you know, if I'm not saying that there weren't people that did things wrong, obviously, um, there were, but there's been a ton of stories out there that some of these people were planted and all of that.
And, um, You know, he never told anybody to go raid and loot and he does not promote violence and he did not promote violence.
But, you know, they've got to blame him.
They find a way to loop him in.
And now the time that's gone by has been helpful in a way because it's allowed for the exposition and of all of the statements made by Democrats about the 16th election being illegitimate, stolen from the chairman of the committee, to Pelosi, to Hillary Clinton, numerous times talking about how he's illegitimate.
No consequence for them of any kind.
Now the current press secretary, I'm sure you saw Peter Doocy, the press secretary, what about you tweeting in 2016 that
the election was stolen?
Was that a problem?
Because evidently when he says it, it is.
You know, the hypocrisy, it's endless.
Well, we've seen those words be spoken when the SCOTUS decision came out on abortion.
They were spoken by numerous people that are government employees.
And nothing was said or done about it.
It was the press just won't cover it.
You know, we've heard this time and time again.
So they're allowed to do it.
Or say anything remotely controversial that gets people worked up, and they tell them to go to the Supreme Court justices' homes.
I want to tell you, Gorsuch, I want to tell you, Kavanaugh, you have released the whirlwind, and you will pay the price.
You won't know what hit you if you go forward with these awful decisions.
And if you see anybody from that cabinet in a restaurant, in a department store, at a gasoline station, you get out and you create a crowd.
And you push back on them.
And you tell them they're not welcome anymore, anywhere.
But nobody is under investigation.
Hunter Biden's not under investigation.
It's just a dual system of justice.
Well, I think this country remains disunited until that's ... You can't have people united when there is a feeling among at least half the people in the country that they're going to be treated very, very unjustly and very differently than the other half.
I mean, conservatives look at a history now going back to Obama.
Where they are treated very, very differently.
And the Hunter Biden thing sticks out like a massive sore thumb.
Every time somebody gets arrested, usually Hunter Biden is guilty of that crime.
And there's documentary evidence of it, staring the FBI in the face and nothing is done to him.
It's not a question.
It's not a question, but there's nothing going on on that because we have a Biden administration, a Biden DOJ, a Biden FBI.
It's not appropriate.
Well, as a last inquiry then, let's look at the situation with the electors, which seems to be troubling possibly the committee and also the Democratic district attorney in Fulton County.
And that is that electors were put up as alternates in case in the, I think it was four or five states, the legislature would reach a different conclusion after the electoral college met.
They were put up that way.
There was no deception about it.
And this was a practice that was followed by Nixon and Kennedy in 1960 under almost exactly the same circumstances.
On election night, they gave the state to Nixon.
On Electoral College Day, they voted for Nixon.
And Kennedy put up an alternate slate.
Right before the election, the court reversed and said Kennedy had actually won.
And rather than appeal it or Nixon just agreed to substitute Kennedy's electors.
So the advice given by Professor Eastman, who they're torturing, was put up alternate electors should at the last minute the legislature decide that Trump won Georgia.
Now there's a report from Senator Ligon in Georgia saying he won Georgia.
So it's not as if this was fantasy.
Had they decided to vote on that, then the votes would have been taken from Biden, but there'd been nobody to give them to.
And it was done in the open.
It could be challenged in court.
It could not be, there were no false names used or false dates used.
So I don't understand what this is an investigation of.
It was okay for Nixon and Kennedy, but not for Trump.
No, that's exactly, well, that's it.
You just said it.
And this poor man Eastman, this man, I don't know, do you know Professor Eastman?
You probably do.
No, I don't.
I mean, he's like your grandfather at Thanksgiving.
First of all, he's a constitutional scholar, 25 years of one of the main textbooks on constitutional law.
He was president of the law school.
He was dean of the law school.
He's the most distinguished professor at the law school.
The position that he has is supported by two-thirds of the people that are written on it, about this using the substitute electors.
His position on the power of the state legislature was just affirmed in a 2017 Georgetown Law Review article.
Professor Larry Tribe wrote the same thing.
In 2003, when it would help Hillary Clinton, or would have helped Al Gore.
So this is a very arguable, but defensible scholarly position.
And he's a scholar, he's not a criminal.
They're treating him like, it's almost like mean and inhumane, what they're doing.
Well, I think that's the same thing with Trump, you know, what they're doing to the kids, what they're doing to him.
It's inhumane.
It's ridiculous.
Meanwhile, you know, Zuckerberg was allowed to usurp and go around all of the fundraising rules and, you know, funded all of the states that he wanted through loopholes, as we know, to try and shift and using Facebook and all of these other things.
To shift votes.
It's just, you know, make sure those votes got counted and those people were in.
We had states where I think there were more votes than people.
Like I said, it's the same thing with every case.
If you look at them all, they're one and the same.
They're something that's not criminal activity that they will spin into criminal activity.
You know, Presidential Records Act, there's no crime or penalty on it.
So instead, they'll charge him with something like espionage, because that does have a penalty, which is indictment and those items so that he can't run again.
So they take these normal things that were done in the open.
Also, you know, the records that I mean, go down every case we've talked about on this call, right?
And you try and criminalize it, and the never-Trumpers will support it, and the Trump-believers will come to his side, and his poll numbers will go up the more they try and pound him down.
And it's sad what they're doing, and the amount of people that have gotten subpoenas, and called in, and grand jury testimony, and they keep searching.
It's much like BAG, you know, three years on property values.
It's absurd.
Well, you know, Alana, that's why your role is so important.
Not just your role in court, but your role on television and the others.
Usually lawyers, you know, argue their case in court or they argue their case to the U.S.
attorney or they argue their case to the D.A.
But in this case, if you don't keep public opinion at least balanced, they'll go wild.
I mean, if they had like a 70% public opinion that he should be indicted for fake electors, even though they don't know what it means, they'd go ahead and do it in a minute.
Because these people are not guided by principles of law, so what you're doing for him I have great respect for, and I think it's much more critical than a lot of old-fashioned lawyers realize, because they never handled a case like this.
This is a sui generis.
You don't have cases like this, and you and a couple of your colleagues really have an instinct for it, and not all lawyers do.
I mean, they're great in the courtroom, but in this case, you got to be great in the courtroom, and you got to be great with the public, and you're doing our former president, who was one of the greatest presidents we ever had, And my friend of 32 years, you're doing great service for him.
Thank you.
And keep it up and don't.
I know, I know what you're going through, I'm not even going to ask you how much, how much I think the Hebrew expression for it or Yiddish expression is how much sorrow, sorrow, whatever it is, how much grief you're taking for this.
Oh, yeah, a lot.
But don't worry, in other Yiddish words, You've got a lot of chutzpah and you make new friends.
You lose old friends who can't get past the Trump derangement syndrome.
And then you make new friends who respect that you're doing what is supposed to be done in the highest tradition of a lawyer.
Yeah, I think it's just trying to preserve.
Think of John Adams.
Every time they come after you, think of John Adams and the British troops that he represented and what a great thing that was that set a precedent for American lawyers.
God bless you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you, Anna.
▲
Export Selection