Speaker 1: A single very strange woman may be jeopardizing what could be a coming Trump
indictment out of the Georgia grand jury that ended its work a few weeks ago.
Let me set this up and this is this is weird and cringeworthy and just bizarre.
One of the members of the grand jury in Georgia that recently finished its work, issued its
report, and apparently some indictments are coming, although we don't yet know whether
Trump himself is going to be indicted, has been on a very strange media tour that I can't
imagine is useful to anybody other than maybe herself.
She is named Emily cause and she was the foreperson of this grand jury in Georgia.
She has been going around giving cringeworthy interviews, speaking in a bizarre way.
And I don't know if you know that.
I just don't know what.
I don't know why.
Everything about this woman is so strange, but she is, according to legal experts, potentially
jeopardizing the indictment of Donald Trump.
We're going to play a first clip here from MSNBC.
Her demeanor is bizarre.
It's cringe.
It's strange.
But most importantly, this could really be I mean, the the giddiness and even just listen,
under the best of circumstances, this probably isn't a good idea before indictments are announced.
But in particular, her demeanor and her giddiness and everything about it, it's not helping
anybody other than maybe Trump.
Speaker 2: Did you personally want to hear from the former?
I wanted to hear from the former president.
But honestly, I kind of wanted to subpoena the former president because I got to swear
everybody in.
And so I thought it'd be really cool to get 60 seconds with President Trump.
Of me looking at him and be like, do solemnly swear.
I'm beginning to swear him in.
I just I kind of thought that would be.
Speaker 1: Oh, my God.
This is.
This is very much not good, guys.
This is very, very much not good.
Speaker 2: Awesome.
Speaker 1: I can see it would have been awesome.
Not indicated by the facts.
Not necessary.
Out of a sense of duty and justice.
It would have been really cool and awesome to subpoena Trump.
Speaker 2: Oh.
Trying to get the former president to come talk to us.
Would have been a year in negotiation by itself.
So it sounds like that was ultimately a battle that you all decided not to.
Exactly.
That's kind of how it ended up.
Was that in.
I'd be fascinated by what he said, but.
Do you think he would have come in and said anything groundbreaking or just the same kind
of thing we've heard?
So at some point you don't need to hear 50 people say the same thing.
You know what I mean?
At some point, you kind of start to get the gist.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I got that.
Then she went on CNN and it was an equally bizarre interview.
Speaker 3: You know, it's interesting.
That just raises more questions.
Speaker 2: I know.
I know.
I'm sorry.
No, no.
Speaker 3: Please do not apologize.
I'm very appreciative of your time.
When you say there's no plot twist and you know, people won't be shocked.
People are going to people are going to hear that and they're going to think that means
that Donald Trump is definitely on that list.
I know it's delicate, but can you can you speak to that?
Speaker 2: I can't.
Well, I might be able to according to instructions, but I don't want to I don't want to speak
out on something.
That's the judge, like I said, consciously chose not to release at this point.
I don't know if I would interfere with the DIA's investigations.
I don't know if I would interfere with procedures in some way.
I just I very much do not want to cross that line.
Speaker 3: But in your view, people will not be surprised when they see the list of names
to come out, who you recommended to face indictment.
Speaker 2: Especially if they've been following the investigation.
I. I can't see it being a shocker.
Speaker 3: You know, Donald Trump.
Speaker 1: But this is just such a terrible idea.
Speaker 3: Statement last week about the partial report that the judge did release the pages
that he did.
And the way that he described it is he said that your report means total exoneration for
him is how he put it in his statement.
What's your reaction to that, Emily?
Speaker 2: I did see that today, which was fascinating.
I'm not positive he read the right document.
But I will say that if what he was talking about was our statement where we indicated
that there was no evidence of widespread fraud or widespread vote fraud in the Georgia 2020
election, that might have been what he meant.
Other than that, I'm not positive what he meant by that.
Speaker 1: So, anyway, as fascinating as this is, this is potentially a really, really,
really bad thing.
And here on CNN are former federal and state prosecutor Eli Honig explaining it all to
Anderson Cooper.
Speaker 4: Perspective now from CNN senior legal analyst Ali Hoenig, former assistant
U.S. attorney.
He's also the author of the new book Untouchable How Powerful People Get Away With It.
Also with us, our chief political correspondent and co-anchor of CNN's State of the Union,
Dana Bash.
First of all, why this person is talking on TV?
I do not understand.
She's clearly enjoying herself.
But, I mean, is this responsible?
She was the foreperson of this grand jury.
Speaker 5: This is a horrible idea.
And I guarantee you that prosecutors are wincing watching her go on this.
Speaker 4: I was wincing just watching her eagerness to like, you know, hint at stuff.
Speaker 5: It's painful in that respect.
This is a very serious prospect here.
We're talking about indicting any person.
You're talking about potentially taking away that person's liberty.
We're talking about potentially a former president for the first time in this nation's history.
She does not seem to be taking that very serious.
Speaker 1: There's no reason for her to be out.
No, there's none.
It's a.
Speaker 5: Prosecutor's nightmare.
She mark my words, Donald Trump's team is going to make a motion if there's an indictment,
to dismiss that indictment based on grand jury impropriety.
She's not supposed to be talking about anything, really, but she's really not supposed to be
talking about the deliberations.
She's talking about what specific witnesses they saw, what the grand jury thought of.
Speaker 1: So you get the picture now, A couple of people a couple of you emailed me and said,
David, is it possible that she is pretending and playing a character in order to derail
the entire thing?
I don't know.
Everything about this is so weird that the truth could be anything.
Trump already launching an attack on her on his platform.
Truth social posting quote This Georgia case is ridiculous.
A strictly political continuation of the greatest witch hunt of all time.
Now you have an extremely energetic young woman, the get this foreperson of the racist
DA's special grand jury going around and doing a media tour, revealing incredibly the grand
jury's inner workings and thoughts.
This is not just this.
This is an illegal kangaroo court.
Atlanta's leading the nation in murder and other violent crimes.
All I did is make two perfect phone calls.
Now, not everybody's reactions to this are sane.
Charlie Kirk, for example, said that the woman is a witch.
Speaker 6: Yeah, it's really funny.
Someone might go to jail and have to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars to defend
themselves, but that warrants a giggle that maybe that was just a nervous giggle because
you're in front of millions of people making a complete fool out of yourself.
And now we learn about her love of alchemy.
No joke.
She posts on her social media page about herbs, about casting a circle, demonic circles, how
to cast spells.
Not a joke.
This is all on her social media page.
Speaker 1: Yeah.
Now this is why you don't go out and do a media tour.
So I hope that this doesn't derail whatever was coming.
I hope it's not used in the future, as Ellie Hoenig suggests, for a dismissal.
But this is a very, very bad idea.
And now all we can do is wait.