he s identified as a white house aide, a trump guy, he has his podcast, sure. but as i mentioned, steve bannon is a convicted felon slated to go to federal prison. so, you can bet that he s going to say whatever he can say to go after these types of prosecutors. speaker mike johnson is trying to legislate or plan based on this grievance. jim jordan said they want to make d.a. bragg testify before congress. conservatives say autonomous. they are usually the ones say there should be no federal intervention. trump would rather talk about this hypothetical payback than his own verdict this week and his own looming sentencing. mr. bannon, even more explicit, because he may have even more to lose and more of a rush. he s actually already been sentenced to federal prison. he s just appealing that right now, saying prosecutors are the ones that should go to jail. and trump, in interviews, is finding that rhetorical ground, where he s not exactly saying
accountable. new york times with this, quote within hours of a jury finding mr. trump guilty last week, the anger conyield into demands for action. since then, the prominent gop leaders have demanded they use every instrument of power again democrats, included targeted investigations and prosecutors. here step miller puts it is every house committee controlled by republicans? in every way, it needs to right now with every republican d.a. to start is every donor off the sidelines and in the game, the rich guys, the wealthy guys? everything facet of republican party politics and power has to be used right-to-now to go toe to toe with marxism and beat these why do you have to talk to
good evening, steve. steve: good evening, bret. this is clearly a big win for former president trump and a big loss for the fulton county d.a. fani willis. the georgia state court of appeals has put a pause on the case. no more motions. no more testimony until they decide whether fani willis can continue in her role. keep in mind, this case has already been delayed for months. there was some testimony dramatic on national television when it was learned that the prosecutor and the d.a. were involved in a romantic relationship. the big question whether that relationship began before or after that chief prosecutor nathan wade has hired. a lawyer with little felony experience. handled traffic violations. the head of a chief racketeering case earning $600,000 a year. a couple of key questions, did that affair begin before wade was hired and did the two misuse government money? did they spend some of that $600,000 on themselves traveling
it needs to right now with every republican d.a. starting every investigation they need to right now? president biden should just be ready because on january 20 of next year, when he s former president joe biden, what s good for the goose is good for the gander. and i am going to encourage all of my colleagues and everybody that i have any influence over as a member of congress to aggressively go after the president and his entire family, his entire crime family. i m talking about tit for tat. you just wait. and it won t be hunter biden the next time. it s going to be joe biden. it could potentially still be barack obama. it could still potentially be hillary clinton. that lady used to pretend to be a journalist. calls for retaliation flourished on social media as well. republican congressman mike collins of georgia writing, time for red state ags and das to get busy. wait, do they have trump
obstructed an investigation. the decision is, well, to i not do it because it s martha stewart? that s wrong. yeah. and you knew it could upset snoop. well, snoop, i don t know that they had a really close relationship back then. wow. spoken like a lawyer. we have to really look at it. yeah, they had a business relationship. i know what you mean, though, all jokes aside that when you re a prosecutor, you re exercising unitary power in a way that s different than most of the government. people criticize congress, but it s all a blend and a mix. this d.a. bragg, like when you had that job, got criticism for different thing, and then you have to say, how much of that is in the moment and it s fine. these people are public official, subject to public discussion. and how much in the case of bragg became a pile-on that wasn t true. in other words, judgement, sure, you can debate. was the case weak, no, it was strong enough to win. was the case stale? no, it was fresh enough to win