Indicted Trump Lawyer Demands Court Tell Him Identities Of Un Indicted Co Conspirators

Former Trump lawyer, and current Trump co-defendant, Kenneth Chesebro is demanding that the court in Georgia unseal the names of dozens of un-indicted co-conspirators. Chesebro claims in a legal filing that the names are super important because he needs them in order to prove that there was no conspiracy. That makes absolutely no sense - but that's what you can expect when you have absolutely no real legal defense for what you've been accused of doing. 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.

One of Donald Trump's former indicted lawyers, which I feel like I've been saying that phrase a lot recently. But anyway, Kenneth Chesbro in the state of Georgia has now filed a motion with the court to unseal the names of the 30 unindicted co-conspirators, because as Mr. Ches Bro's, lawyers argued in their court filing, he can't properly defend himself if he doesn't know what these people said about him. And in order to really know what they said about him, he needs to know who they are. Hmm. You see, that's kind of a dumb argument, right? Like it doesn't matter who said what. You just have to refute what is said. But they say, no, no, no, no, no, no, no. We need to know who these people are. Otherwise we can't craft a defense if we can't put a, put a face to a quote. Right?

Here's what they argued in the filing. the identify of the unindicted, but known co-conspirators is needed for Mr. Chesbro to be able to adequately challenge the state as it attempts to meet its requirements to make a prima facies showing of the existence of the conspiracy. Knowing the identities of the co-conspirators, it will be near impossible to follow what statements or evidence come from the unindicted co-conspirators the state relies on in order to prove the underlying conspiracy. Lawyers also said that quote, unindicted co-conspirators are def facto witnesses and subject to disclosure, and that their client must be able to challenge whether the unindicted co-conspirators testimony is sufficiently corroborated.

Sounds like your dude wants to lie and he needs to make sure that he doesn't get caught in a lie by knowing who said what, right? Being able to match the quote with the actual person so he knows, okay, I can't lie about this because that person is the witness and they know that I'm wrong, so I'll have to move on to the next one. That's what it sounds like to me. Maybe I'm wrong, but I don't see why knowing the actual identities of these individuals helps you craft your defense. Plus, if these are witnesses to his behavior, shouldn't he be able to figure it out Like you do get to see the evidence, you, you're gonna have that. And if he's like, oh yeah, this is obviously from when I met with this person at, you know, Chili's or whatever it was, so he should be able to do that. I don't see what unmasking these unindicted co-conspirators will do, except of course, possibly give people like Donald Trump all they need to start attacking them to go after their credibility. And that's what Chas Bro's lawyers are hoping to do as well. If we don't know who they are, we can't dig up dirt on them and

Attack their credibility. Now, to be honest, that actually is an important part of a, of a legal proceeding. You know, being able to discredit a witness that is, you know, one of the primary jobs of the defense. So, believe it or not, as stupid as I think it is, and as you know, kind of underhanded as I think it is, what they're doing is legally correct, and there's a good chance they could end up winning this motion. Now we'll have to wait and see what happens. But again, being able to cast doubt on the witness's testimony is a vital part of any kind of criminal defense.