Georgia Considering Racketeering Charges for Trump; NYC Blames Riots on ‘Outside Influencers’

Good morning, everyone. Here we are. Another day, another possible Trump indictment. I shouldn't be laughing, but it's just getting ridiculous at this point. Now, Georgia, we know, is readying the fourth indictment against Trump. And there's a lot of rumors over what might be. Washington, sorry, Wall Street Journal actually has an analysis on this based on previous rulings and previous cases that we've seen out of the same people doing this case. And it turns out one of their favorite charges, Why do they like racketeering? Well, because they can call any crime that involves more than one person racketeering or conspiracy to racketeer if you are believed to have wanted to commit a crime with multiple people. Like it's literally that ridiculous. It's on par with the other things they've charged Trump with, disrupting an official procedure, which was meant for Enron, never meant for the way it's been used against January 6th, never meant to like stop protests against government buildings or on the counting of the votes or something like that. It's ridiculous, never been done before, no precedence for it. But because the requirements of the charge are so vague, they're able to apply it. Same thing with the Espionage Act. Rather than charge Trump for violating the Presidential Records Act, they're charging him with the Espionage Act. And in that charge too, it's like you've never seen anybody charged with it. It's a civil war charge. The amount of evidence you need and the case you need to make it is very little. And so they're using it. Same thing with racketeering. It's a very easy charge. It's not hard to do. And they're using it against Trump. So stuff that was designed for totally different things, they're applying here. Let me explain to you how this works. Here we have Wall Street Journal explaining the way that their sources believe it's gonna take place in Georgia. I think it's credible. Let me show you. Donald Trump faces looming threat of racketeering charges in Georgia case. This is already facing three criminal indictments Donald Trump is bracing for potential fourth in Georgia. That is likely to come with a legal twist he hasn't faced yet. Sprawling racketeering charges. Fulton County District Attorney, Fulton County, remember that during the elections, Fulton County? Fulton County District Attorney Fannie Willis, a prosecutor who made a name for herself, bringing such cases and high profile, charges and high profile cases, has been tight lipped about what case she will make against the former president and others. But lawyers who have followed the investigation, including some who have worked with Willis in the past, expect her to invoke Georgia's RICO Act, modeled after the Federal Racketeering Influence and Corruption Organizations Act of 1970. My personal take so far, I think a lot of the folks in, a lot of the elected officials in Fulton County have vendettas against Trump because Trump was questioning the integrity of their election systems. They did a very half effort investigation locally to look into anomalies in the election. There were serious problems with that. The investigations were severely limited, but they used those severely limited investigations to claim there was no evidence that Trump's claims were correct. My personal take on it, you can't have officials in a local area who are being accused of rigging elections, conduct the investigation into the elections of which they came to power through. You can't do it. We need, I mean, I guess we've never had to deal with this as a country before, but you can't have the people accused of the crime be the ones to investigate the crime. And unfortunately, this is a real problem we're having with quote unquote, our democracy right now, the American Republic. We're having widespread accusations of election fraud, most of which I personally believe are very credible. In fact, I think Democrats in 2016 would have agreed they were credible as well because they were saying the opposite. They were saying against Trump. They were calling into question the same things Republicans are calling into question, but they used various means to fortify the election in their favor, let's say. The problem you're gonna have though, is if in multiple areas, you've had officials come into power through suspected election fraud, how do you allow them to investigate election fraud? Now, I would argue that a lot of the officials in Fulton County, in that area, Fannie Willis and others, probably have a lot of anger against Trump because by calling into question the integrity of the elections, he called into question their legitimacy as elected officials, you see? And so I believe they're gonna throw everything they can at him. Personally, I believe they're gonna do the full extent of the law, maybe a bit beyond it, which is why I think the RICO charge is actually very likely. Let me explain to you what they need for a RICO charge there, racketeering. Georgia's RICO law is a powerful tool for Willis, who has skillfully applied it in the past, legal experts say. Actually, I read some of the cases where Willis, Fannie Willis, did use RICO charges in the past, and it was for ridiculous things, like school board eruption type stuff, like just things you would never expect to be charged using a law that was designed to go after organized crime. Because how do you define organized crime? Well, is a gang organized crime? You could argue. Is if a man and a woman go to rob the Quickie Mart down the road, could you say the two of them conspiring to rob it is organized crime? Well, maybe. This is the problem. The law is so easy to apply, and what it does is it elevates, it elevates the charges and allows you to do a whole lot more when you're going after something. Let me show you a bit more. The state code is modeled after the federal statute enacted in 1970 to help take down the mafia. Before RICO, it was difficult for prosecutors to connect mob bosses with their underlings who carried out crimes. More than 30 states have adopted RICO statutes based on the federal law. Under both the federal and Georgia RICO law, if prosecute, this is it, if prosecutors show that there is an organization of people who commit crimes together on a recurring basis, then members can be prosecuted for crimes the group committed. So let's say you're friends with, you know, Skeevy Bill, and Skeevy Bill is a criminal, and you and him drink beer every weekend because, you know, you went to high school together. Well, Skeevy Bill, you know, he just has a problem of like, you know, committing crimes here and there. But because you're conspiring together, maybe he tells you about his crimes. You're like, Bill, I love you, man. We went to school together growing up. You're kind of skeevy. But he's like, yeah, that's why they call me Skeevy Bill. Well, they can come after him and get you through guilty by association, which is actually a crime. And then if they can prove that you conspired with him, maybe you discussed his crimes. Well, you're going to jail just like Skeevy Bill is, hypothetically, of course. And what they're doing with Trump is, well, they're gonna have to prove that Trump, one of the things they have to prove that they wanna do this is that they committed crimes on a recurring basis. Very likely, they're gonna try to use the broader picture of Trump trying to overturn the elections, maybe the dueling electors in seven states, or, for example, trying to call for local investigations into election fraud in multiple states, and claim that if it was illegal in Arizona, well, it must have been illegal everywhere. Trump was trying to do this rampantly. His lawyers are probably gonna be labeled as the group with which he committed the crime. And there you have it, a RICO case. We'll see how far they go in with this. We'll see what they end up doing with it. But this is the rumor right now. Fannie Willis has aggressively used RICO charges in the past as a way of going after people. I think it's a very credible claim. We'll see. That said, something else here. Mike Pence, Mike Pence, who was apparently secretly taking notes to incriminate Trump while he was working under Trump and didn't tell anybody. The silver fox, the individual who everybody thought was just stoic and sitting on the sidelines, supporting Trump quietly, was actually conspiring on the sidelines and watching Trump carefully, because he was writing notes with which to incriminate his boss, quote. Now, Pence is making a lot of statements publicly against Trump, saying he's gonna testify against Trump, saying that Trump tried to force him to violate the Constitution, that Trump asked him to violate the Constitution, refutes a lot of his statements, noting that Trump's narrative is different, let's put it that way. But one of the big claims Mike Pence has is that he was not legally allowed to choose to either read the dueling elector votes on January 6th, which would have been from the seven states that put forward dueling electors, or to refuse to count the votes, which would create a constitutional, it's in the Constitution, you might remember during the election I was going over what happened. It sends it back to Congress, I believe the House of Representatives, and you have to have like a special election. This is actually in the Constitution. Pence claims he doesn't have the right to do it. He claims that Trump asked him to violate the Constitution. After all this went down, Democrats voted and actually changed the law. They changed the law that would have allowed a vice president to do that, they can no longer do that. And so Mike Pence can say, I did not have the legal right. He doesn't currently have the legal right, but at the time he did, which is why again, they changed the law. And Pence came out now and he admitted it. Let me show you the video that's making some rounds right now. A lot of people are posting this here, you have Jack Pesso, big friend of mine. May play it just the first 20 seconds, you can hear Mike Pence talking about how he was asked to go against the Constitution. I don't know. It wasn't just that they asked for a pause, the president specifically asked me and his gaggle of crackpot lawyers asked me to literally reject votes, which would have resulted in the issue being turned over to the House of Representatives and literally chaos would have ensued. Where he says, ask me to reject votes, which would have overturned it to the House of Representatives. He didn't say he didn't have the legal right to do it. He didn't have the legal authority to do it or that it would go against the Constitution. No, according to the Constitution, according to the way the law is, it is written, it happens just like Mike Pence said in that video. If the vice president rejects the votes, which is why you have the vice president do that, which is why you have that role, it's a check and balance on the election system. If the vice president refuses to count those votes, it goes to the House of Representatives for a special election. That is the way the law is written, that is the way it was interpreted, that is what Trump's lawyers said, that's what many people said, that's what I reported looking at the law in my own interpretation of the law and the interpretation of many people, very smart people who are very well-versed in the Constitution. And Mike Pence in that video says that. So why is he saying that that's what would have happened in this video, where on a legal level, he's saying he did not have the constitutional right, when obviously he's aware of what the Constitution actually says. People are asking that right now. Also, Mike Pence got the last donations he needs to enter the debate stage, he's still in the race. That says, jump over to Epoch TV and we'll talk about how the New York City mayor, after you had, let's call them youth, riot across the city, thousands of them jumping on cars, hopping on moving vehicles, causing general chaos. In reality, they didn't cause as much damage as a lot of the mass protests do, but it was chaos, they were just breaking cars and just acting like thugs, basically. But the New York City mayor is blaming all of this, the violence or the attacks and random acts of just destroying property, he's blaming it on outside agitators. You know, funny, I feel like I've heard of other mass protests and potential riots where small numbers of, let's call them outside agitators, seem to have sparked the violence and caused most of the trouble. But in some other cases I'm aware of, they arrested just about everybody and some people were sent to the gulag for two years. It's funny that you can have outside agitators responsible for sparking something and they're the ones responsible and nobody else is. It'd be interesting if they applied this in other ways. Let me show you this, let's jump over to Epoch TV for that because YouTube likes to ban me and give me strikes. So come over to Epoch TV, it's our own platform, we can talk about anything out there, nothing's off limits. Join us on Epoch TV, epochtv.com, we have a flash sale right now also, so get your subscription and I will see you there. Ashley from California, you're saying, does New York City...