Trump Attorneys Scrambling As Indictments Loom

*Nurture your body AND your mind with Mosh protein bars Head to to save 20% off plus FREE shipping on your first 6count Trial Pack.

Donald Trump's lawyers are scrambling to craft a narrative as indictments seem like a real possibility from the Georgia grand jury. For now, his lawyers appear to be settling on attacking the foreperson of the special grand jury after her media circus last week, and they are zeroing in on certain words that she's used in interviews that could tank any indictments. Ring of Fire's Farron Cousins explains what's happening.

Check out our merch by visiting our store

Subscribe to our podcast

Become a member today!

Support us by becoming a monthly patron on Patreon, and help keep progressive media alive!

Spread the word! LIKE and SHARE this video or leave a comment to help direct attention to the stories that matter. And SUBSCRIBE to stay connected with Ring of Fire's video content!

Support Ring of Fire by subscribing to our YouTube channel

Be sociable! Follow us on:

*This transcript was generated by a third-party transcription software company, so please excuse any typos.

Donald Trump's attorneys have basically hit the ground running, trying to come up with a preemptive attack on the, uh, Georgia indictments that seem to be looming on the horizon. It's generally pretty widely accepted at this point that indictments will come from Georgia. Whether or not they're gonna hit Trump, we're gonna have to wait and see. But Trump's lawyers are operating under the assumption right now that yeah, indictments are coming. So let's jump on the messaging. And the messaging, of course, is that the foreperson of that jury kind of ruined everything for everyone with her ridiculous media circus that she created last week. So this past Sunday, two days ago, Trump's lawyers go on tv, they're on, uh, uh, what was it? Face the Nation with Robert Costa. And they said this, and this is actually a very interesting statement cuz it shows that they're not just saying, oh look, she's out there talking about the case.

They don't care about that. They claim it's the specific wording that she used. So one of her lawyers, he said this, the 30 year old foreperson to us has actually provided us a lens and made us aware that every suspicion we had as to this questionable process was in fact a reality. It looks like they lost perspective over keeping separation between the prosecuting attorneys and the members of this grand jury. There cannot be a relationship when the foreperson uses the word we, that lets you know there's a relationship there when she says in interviews, certain battles were not worth us battling. It's not the special purpose grand jury that's litigating, it's the District attorney's office. So there's zeroing in on certain words that she used that basically as he says, show that there was a relationship between the prosecutors and the grand jury, of which there is not supposed to be one, right?

The uh, uh, prosecutors go in, they present the evidence, that's the end of it. There's no relationship. They're not sitting down consulting with these people saying, should we do this? Nah, that battle doesn't seem worth fighting. So yes, that language could in fact harm Fannie Willis's, uh, indictments should they come down. At the same time, you're also taking the word of an individual who's not in charge of indictments. See, that's the part that Trump's lawyers keep forgetting about this. Let's be perfectly clear what that jury foreperson did last week was incredibly damaging. But the question is, does it taint the entire investigation? And personally, I think no. A lot of legal experts also think no. Plenty of legal experts also think it does. So there's a big divide. But here's the thing. That special purpose grand jury for which this woman was the fur foreperson, they can't issue indictments. All they can do is make

Their, their recommendations and of course, hear evidence. Fannie Willis had to go to a real grand jury after the special purpose grand jury ended and present that evidence to see if she could get indictments. So effectively, the special purpose grand jury was only a fact-finding mission. They weren't allowed to draw any conclusions. That's what the real grand jury is for. So if those indictments were to come down, they're not coming from that foreperson. Do you see what I'm saying here?