Unindicted co conspirators. What youre watching on your screen is the cover of that page of the indictment if we can put that up on the screen that would be great here. Now, with more we go back to Law Professor and Fox News Contributor Jonathan Turley. Jonathan im looking at that. If you look at the document that made it to the media talking about 10 specific indictments, how do you read it . Using your background as the great Law Professor, you are. Ah well, when youre talking about 10 of diamonds, it has that classic profile of racketeering case thats where willis really gained her fame as a local prosecutor, you often will have large numbers of people linked in a conspiracy to make out that case, you have to establish a pattern. Just a relatively few crimes are may predicate crime list. That is a list of crimes that are the basis for racketeering. I charges in this case they are likely to use crimes like fraud and combine all of these actors in a large sort of comprehensive conspir
and the prosecutors are justmeae willfully blind to the implications of what this case could. there are some serious charges here connected, individuals with regard to specific crimes, but they re usin g broad sweeping racketeering claim citiringweepin in trump. and they re citing virtually every statement, tweet, meetinei call that they have. they re even bringing up that georgia calla again, which wast misrepresented originally when people said that trump ordered the the the georgia officials to find, you know, 11,870 more votes. in reality, that wasli like a settlement call. those were fairly antagonistic partie fics. r they were trying to see if they could resolve their differencetrump wang ts. and trump was saying that what he wanted to where wa votes that number of votes, which he didn t think was that significant, iher investf they g investigation. i disagreed with that. buoing t at is that now going te
willfully blind to the implications of what this case could mean there are some serious charges connected to individuals with regard to specific crimes. they are using broad sweeping team to trump. citing every tweet, meeting, phone call that they have. they are bringing up that georgia call again, clean-up was misrepresented originally when people said that trump ordered the the georgia officials to find, you know, 11,870 votes. in reality, that walls more like a settlement call. those were fairly antagonistic parties. they were trying to see if they could resolve their differences. trump was saying that what he wanted to find were that number of votes which he didn t think was that significant if they did further investigation. i disagreed with that. but, is that now going to be a crime because i can name off the
suggesting that i don t need many votes in a recount the change the outcome. it was a natural argument to make. this was essentially like a settlement call, and state officials were pushing back. i think a good faith saying, look , we looked at it. we don t see those votes and trump was basically responded. if you do a state recount. i don t need many votes. you just need to find 11,000. and this entire election turns over now we can all debate what was in donald trump s mind. but is that really the basis of a criminal case? is that what you want? for future cases, elections have been challenged in this country and virtually every election. i ve covered elections for various networks . probably the last 10 or so elections or are always seems that many and every single one we, we would chart and track the challenges coming from the losing party. we never accused