is seeking to compel a lawyer for the former president to testify before the grand jury. according to a source familiar with the matter. prosecutors alleged in a sealed filing that they have evidence that some of trump s conversations with the attorney were in furtherance of a crime. the special counsel is reportedly asking a judge to invoke the crime fraud exception. and force an attorney to testify under oath about conversations between him and his client which in this case, would be evan corcoran and one donald trump. the new york times which was first to report the news at the special counsel is zeroing in on this quote, whether trump or his associates obstructed justice in failing to comply with demands to return a trove of government material he took with him from the white house upon leaving office, including hundreds of documents with classified markings. one potentially very important piece of evidence determining whether the ex-president or his attorneys obstructe
being charged. no charges and no more comment. so we re not going to hear and we shouldn t be hearing about how he might have been 50% guilty. the doj doesn t charge him, and they shut up. dave, what does it mean that one of the participants in the trip across state lines, which i think is what made it fall into the federal jurisdiction in the first place was convicted with the same crime with the same person and they had the goods, how do you avoid the perception that i think fritz is alluding to that doj flinched when it was a more powerful person? well, you know, it s a good point, nicolle. it s not good for optics. joel greenberg confessed, he admitted it. that s why they re able to get a conviction against him. he went down for 11 years. remember, he could have gotten life if prison. child sex trafficking was the big whammy. greenberg cooperated so much and ratted out so many people that
gleeful, villainous, loathsome figures, and one of the most powerful people in kevin mccarthy s congress today. and he will be more powerful as a result of this. he was no chagrinned that he was under this cloud for some time. it s a reminder that it s one thing to report something, believe it, and quite another to be a federal prosecutor and bring these kinds of charges that you have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt, and the reality is this has always been a big question mark over this. joel greenberg may be one of the most, shall we say, you know, challenging witnesses to rely upon if you are a prosecutor. so matt gaetz will continue his deplorable career, but he won t have to worry about this. and i have to say that even though he might have skated on this particular charge. it s not really that surprising,
was joel greenberg who s now in jail and the alleged underaged woman at the center of the child sex trafficking allegations. yeah, nicolle, that s the key to this is the lack of corroboration of these two key witnesses. now, i thought that matt gaetz s ex-girlfriend who was given immunity to testify before the grand jury, and has no ax to grind with her ex-boyfriend, they re apparently friends, apparently she didn t provide enough corroborating evidence. she was close to not only matt gaetz but the alleged victim. the doj was not going to put on case against matt gaetz based on the testimony of a convicted liar, like joel greenberg who tried to frame someone else for child sex trafficking and the alleged victim who lied about her age to put a profile on the seeking arrangements web site. so it looks like this case is now at an end.
harry, i won t touch that matt gaetz s girlfriend is friends with the victim who is allegedly the 17-year-old with whom he had sex, but what does it say to you? this case i believe was opened under bill barr, continued for two years under merrick garland. we saw the receipts of the transactions and the testimony of joel greenberg was deemed credible, not just by doj but by this judge that resulted in a significantly shorter sentence. and the facts haven t other than matt gaetz s denial, which is only, a lot of the paper document corroborations seem indisputable? yeah, all true, and by the way, this woman, the ex-girlfriend, was sort of the purveyor of the victim as it were. but, yeah, all kinds of documents. it doesn t seem much doubt that it happened, and moreover, under federal law it s weird, but it was basically strict liability. if the victim was 17 at the time, he was guilty of sex trafficking under federal law.