this is a pattern of pushing the limit around finally and dangerous rhetoric, until he s held accountable. that s not only in the criminal realm, it s also in the when you think about the fact this man is about to go to trial again with ethan carroll in new york, because the things that he violated after that. if you think about the fact that he also had an issue with respect to the judge here in new york with respect to the case, and that case, also talking about that judge firing rhetoric. this really towed the line. of course, january 6th, this rhetoric ultimately sparking what was a capitol insurrection. until someone hold him responsible, and they can, it s ultimately going to be a question of does someone act at his behest, someone acts influenced by his actions. does that inspired someone to do something that was harmful. the rhetoric itself is on the line. what takes it over the line of legality, jonathan, is what happens afterwards.
pursuing policies that actually matter to the american people. lowering costs, as house democrats have done. growing the middle class. instead, you find him again and again, pursuing these far-right political sideshows. you see that in the hearings that are happening every week, total waste of taxpayers dollars. now, apparently, pursuing this expungement. which of course has no legal meaning. i mean you can t erase the presidents acted the way he did on january 6th, in the days leading up to it. he was ultimately impeached for these consequences. we saw what we saw. you lived there, absolutely. back to the legal question that i asked the congressman, you are better qualified to answer, and that is the threats that donald trump is making, both on a social media platform, and radio interviews, campaign rallies, can they be used against him in a court of law? they can t until they can. what do i mean by that? donald trump has a history.
corruption cases, whether it s a senator or a mayor or as now a former and future hopeful presidential candidate, you are always aware that there is a ticking clock that election. you always have to be thinking, in terms of how to move your case forward so you can make the decisions that you may need to make before you hit into the next election cycle. this is something that jack smith has to be acutely aware of, given his background. can you enlighten the as the how we square the reporting that the charging decisions in the mar-a-lago case were imminent? this is a reporting we have from the washington post. then, trump announces he s running for president. and the cases basically sent over to special counsel s desk. does he start from the very beginning? weird as he pick up the case vis-à-vis where the prosecutors
next election cycle. this is something that jack smith has to be acutely aware of, given his background. can you enlighten the as the how we square the reporting that the charging decisions in the mar-a-lago case were imminent? this is a reporting we have from the washington post. then, trump announces he s running for president. and the cases basically sent over to special counsel s desk. does he start from the very beginning? weird as he pick up the case vis-à-vis where the prosecutors initially had it left off? right. so, you do on occasion pick up a case from someone else. the special counsel situation, i think, is the most publicly familiar example right now. but you can have situations where a conflict of interest develops. and the cases for instance, transferred from one u.s. attorney supervision to another. and you don t start over from scratch. for one thing, you have a group
the brady motion scenario with the defense. and i think with a judge you know, i was court ruling. but it looks like the judge made a finding that the judge made an effort this was just the prosecution had has already been made available to the defense. yeah. it sounds like a judge was concerned that all the other defendants would want to delay their trials by months, if not we are talking about four years worth of footage if you wanted him to end. so, it would have a sizable impact on moving the trial through the courts, or moving these cases through the courts. i do have to ask you about the point we find ourselves in, if we look at what the totality of the republican party is doing vis-à-vis january 6th. it now looks like it s not just an effort to undermine the efforts of democrats to hold those accountable accountable those in charge of the insurrection, if you will, accountable. it s become something much more nefarious, which looks like