I would like to welcome everyone on this to the 18th meeting of the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee in 2022. I have received apologies from Collette Stevens and a member who is unwell today. The gender item 1 is a decision on taking business in private. Do the committee agree to take item 3 in private? Yes. Greatful. Item 2 is about proxy voting, which the committee will be aware that we have been looking at for a long period of time. We have received correspondence now from the Parliamentary Bureau and the Scottish Parliamentary Labour Party in relation to proxy voting. What I would like to do today is really take our final discussions on where we stand on proxy voting so that hopefully in the near future we can propose a temporary scheme, which we can invite the chamber to take on for a period of time. As I said, we've received two letters from interested parties, one that seems very much in support of proxy voting from the Parliamentary Labour Party and a longer letter that's come to us from the Bureau. Are there any comments before we start? My view would be just to work through the letter after the comments so that we can delve into some of the questions that we'll need to resolve about coming up with a scheme. Who would like to go first? Edward, I'll start with you. Thanks, convener. I looked at the letter from the Bureau and there's a suggestion in there which I find unhelpful if I can put it that way. I think there's a suggestion that pairing may be used as an alternative to short-term proxy voting. Having been in the situation last year where I was paired for a good proportion of time, I felt that my vote didn't count. I don't think that pairing is an acceptable option if the member wants to exercise their vote because they're there to represent their constituency and if they can't vote and they're only paired, I think it's unhelpful, which is why we came to proxy voting in the first place. I think that that suggestion from the Bureau, convener, is unhelpful and one that I hope the committee will consider as not relevant to the proposal that we're putting forward. Thank you. Any other comments? Alexander, if I come to you. Thank you, convener. I acknowledge and understand the importance of this issue because it has been raised in the past and there is no doubt that there are feelings and views across the chamber and across the Bureau. I think that where we are looking at the possibility of creating a pilot is encouraging because it will give us the opportunity to then look at what the criteria would be, what the duration would be and the flexibility and all of that into this whole process. I am really quite glad that we've got this far and I acknowledge that there is still some way to go to try and meet in the middle with some people's views and opinions, but as a starter for 10, I think we're going in the right direction and it will enhance and support MSPs as we go forward. There will be, as I'm sure we'll find, different views and opinions and all of that, but I think that the consensus at the end of the day will find that we do end up having a proxy voting system of some kind that will support individuals that need that and I'm content to see that progress. I think that Edward Mountain raises an interesting point because there's also a discussion around how we define illness in the first place as well as short-term illness. I think that the Bureau has got a reasonable point in relation to proxy voting not being brought in for a day here and a day there, but as a planned approach to supporting members to still exercise their democratic vote using a colleague's proxy in this place. I think that where there's a pre-planned or predicted absence, if it's reasonable to assume that a person may be absent but not necessarily for, say, four weeks or so, it would seem perfectly reasonable for there to be a proxy put in place either of months upon months, I think, is to unwield it also. I think that we need to think about fluctuating health conditions where someone is unlikely to be able to effectively perform all their parliamentary duties due to illness, but people have good days and bad days, convener, so the idea of when you agree a proxy that you shouldn't be able to, from time to time, take that back to the ownership of your vote when you feel you're able to, perhaps it's a particular debate you've got a specific interest in and you want to do the best you can, make every effort to be there, whether remotely or otherwise, and also cast your vote, so I think that proxies have to be a two-way process where you're not just giving up your vote for a set period of time, but there's a mix in how we codify that, of course, the challenge, convener, but the ability for a member who has given a proxy for a period of months to seek to, as best they can, have something particularly important to them, be able to cast their vote after a specific debate if it's particularly important to them and they feel able to. I think that that's very helpful, thank you. I think that if we deal probably with the pairing question first, I mean, pairings are an agreement between political parties rather than individual MSPs and we are individual MSPs within this Parliament and the role of a proxy is a much more personal exercise of who you trust to exercise your vote. It's interesting that the bureau do acknowledge the fact that a proxy voting would be far more transparent than pairing, which actually, I think, appears on no record anywhere, is the reality of it, so to echo, I think, what you said, Edward, about the fact that it's all in the private behind-the-scenes and actually the important element from our constituents' point of view is has their vote represented by their MSP being cast in proxy voting, you can see that and it remains on the record forever. Alexander, I think, wholeheartedly, I agree with you about the support that exists across the chamber to the principle of proxy voting, but, as always, it's in the detail where people chop and change and then perhaps wear different hats at different times. Coming to your point, Bob, I agree. I think one of the significant areas where there are challenges in getting universal acceptance is illness. I don't think it is for a proxy scheme to define what illness is. The people who will be asking to use the facility of a proxy or an MSP who are bound by the code of conduct, the responsibility they have to themselves, to their constituents and to this Parliament. I have great deal of confidence that the MSPs in this session will exercise that properly, but I think there's nothing wrong in the scheme highlighting, reminding members of the importance of voting because of all of all of the actions that take place within this Parliament, casting your vote is the one that makes the difference more than other. As to the time, I agree, I think that part where it happens behind the scenes of the clerks, but the actual drafting of the scheme will no doubt be a challenge, but I think it needs to be flexible. It needs to sit within a structure of understanding so that people who wish to exercise a proxy and to approach another member to say, will you be my proxy, knows what their expectations are, but also the person who accepts the proxy vote knows what their expectations are. I know we've had a bit of a discussion from the evidence about the length of time for illnesses and I wonder whether or not it would be easier to understand if we defined the level of illness that would allow someone to cast a proxy but to phrase it in the sense where the member feels that it's a serious illness and they can't cast their vote, then they should be able to exercise, with the consent of the Presiding Officer, the role of proxy. Do you think that that would satisfy Alexander? I do, convener. I think that that would satisfy some of the elements to ensure that we have some kind of clarity around the definition. As we all anticipate, there will not be a large number of individuals who will fall into this category. It will be a minority of MSPs that will require to have this facility and on a time basis, whether that's a short time or a longer time, depending on the circumstances and situation they find themselves in. I do believe that that is important and the Presiding Officer has a role to play in ensuring that that is managed effectively. I'm fine with whether the member feels that it's a serious illness. I'm conscious of members' rights to privacy in relation to their health. Those could be mental health issues, underlying health conditions that no-one else is aware about, for privacy and dignity reasons. It could be life-threatening and life-shortening. I'm a little bit nervous about how we protect members from others who might think that, for example, as a mental health condition convener, that does mean that the member has to stay at home and do nothing. They are still allowed to try, as best they can, to go home with their lives. I think that there is a challenge here with the public perception of how we support members who have serious illness to, as best they can, get home with their lives, even if it's understandable that they are not going to be able to be at their work, so to speak, for a period of time. I think that that's why I mentioned in the debate that I know I've mentioned in the past. I think it's those events where the MSP needs to step away from being an MSP for the reasons. I don't think it's something that should in fact ever really be made public. I mean it's an approach that the MSP would make to the presiding officer who is an MSP who was elected by us. In my own mind, I feel that that final decision should rest with the PO, but not as the role of a doctor, not in the role of a council or anything like that, simply in the role of presiding officer where an MSP comes to her in this case and explains that they would like to exercise a proxy for a reason. MSPs in this place have very high standards. They're expected to keep and indeed I think the MSPs in this place set themselves high standards and I don't feel there needs to be medical notes and additional doctors or something like that. I think that's treating it entirely wrong because I think we do have a duty of care to members in here as we have a duty of care to everyone that extends to actually trusting what they're saying about their own health in it. Edward, do you want to? I'm just going to emphasise and agree with Bob on that. I mean, I took my oath remotely because I couldn't come into the Parliament and that was a discussion I had with the presiding officer beforehand and the presiding officer knew as aware of the situation but no one else knew of the situation and I would say that we need to somehow get across to members that the presiding officer has a pastoral duty to the MSPs as well and that they should have the confidence to speak to the presiding officer. Absolutely and maybe that indeed would form part of the scheme and sort of the guidance, the reminders that you know are always helpful of the role and responsibility. I think the other thing that has come up is in relation to sort of the other aspects. There seems to be very strong agreement that maternity and paternity periods should be covered by proxy because you know I think just common sense that's where proxy voting in relation to public fairs like this sort of started. I know there's some disagreement over the period of time but again you know almost following on from what Edward has just said I think that's a discussion between the member and the presiding officer and I think it is wrong to set an arbitrary period that can't be extended. There's nothing wrong with guidance for the period of time but I think we need to respect that people are individuals and their the effect of circumstances are different on different individuals and if we can't be flexible enough to do that then I think we're in a disappointing place. The other area that has been discussed is and I think rightly so where there's an adoptive situation and someone is in essence taking a new member into the family that would be an expectation and obviously sadly bereavement I think needs to be there albeit that again a very sensitive issue that needs to have the flexibility to be dealt with by it. Are we sort of content for those areas for the trial period at least Bob? I agree before I go on to make a point about bereavement I'm just noting the correspondence that we have talked about the Euro broadly agree that mirroring statutory paternal leave arrangements would be appropriate. I think it has to go beyond that I think is statutory parental leave for fathers two weeks I think and I could be wrong. I think there's been an expectation I hope in this place that fathers should as much as possible follow a gender bias through inequality in society but fathers as possible should be striving to be equal partners in parenting their children and two weeks might just not cut it. I have to say that's another example where you might want to use your proxy sparingly but because of family circumstances you need to use that same with mums as well of course. You're not ill you're a new parent and you're trying to balance everything out so there needs for that flexibility but I think just when we put a time period on parental leave if we're going to do that or not certainly it shouldn't be statutory parental leave I don't think for fathers anyway. I agree with you Bob and I'm conscious that if a male MSP wanted to take maternity leave in the way that it can be shared now then that parental leave block of two weeks may cause problems which is why I am relatively comfortable with allowing the flexibility with guidance because I genuinely do not believe that any of the MSP members in this session would in any way shape or form try to abuse that and I think you know I think what you say Bob about those first two weeks you know crucially important when a new child comes into this world that you know where available both parents pay absolutely every part in making sure that's as easy as possible for each other yeah it's also worth noting that's a conversation MSPs will have with their parliamentary parties as well in relation to that so the discussion has to take place within parliamentary groups about any agreement reached there but proxies is something different that's an individual arrangement from the MSP and the the presiding officer and perhaps I used the wrong expression when I spoke about parental leave because a lot of new parents myself included some will want that leave to devote completely to their children others will want to try and just get that balance so there'll be days where they will be able to or will wish to or make alternative arrangements to allow them to be involved in the life of this parliament more actively and sometimes that wouldn't be possible so it's just equal your your comments about flexibility and every case is individual everyone's at their own home circumstances and I think thankfully at this stage because of the the hybrid nature of the parliament and the remote voting there are a number of different levels and ways in which a member can exercise their vote I think proxy voting is talking to a very small number as alexander said but actually a very important facility to have that discussion and to have the vote cast and recorded as they want so if I go to our sort of sorry is there anything else in the letters that anyone would like to raise sorry I mean it yeah just I noticed in the bureau letter and I know this isn't going to happen but I'm a great one for having things prepared in case it does happen is that they talk about whether the proxy vote has been incorrectly used and whether we ought to have some sanction in that now I don't know I personally believe that it will never happen but if it does happen it is a serious breach of of conduct by that member and I would just like if possible the clerks just to think about whether that's covered by the code of conduct for members and I personally think we ought to write something in there to say a breach of the use of the proxy will make you full foul of section whatever it is in standing orders and I haven't looked it up I apologize I mean I think if the relationship between the person granting the proxy and that person who cast it was abused in that way I certainly think looking at the code of conduct and responsibility not to be disgustious or disrespectful would seem never prejudging a situation would seem to apply fully fairly squarely on that and I think that you know the relationship between the two people one who holds the proxy and one who's granted it has to be based on one of trust and actually you know that is one of the fundamental principles of this parliament so would there become back I imagine there would probably in many forms and similarly I mean I think you know where we look at situations at both in this session and previous sessions where votes have been the wrong way there's always been the availability for that member to put their intent on the record through a standing order but obviously would not change the actual count of the vote at the time because of the way for the need for certainty I just think when we're doing it we could say that the committee believes that this this part of the code of conduct would be breached if if the person knowing yes did that thanks convener I think this also draws attention to the the responsibility on the person casting the proxy not just to cast it as as directed but there'll be situations where business in this place changes quite quickly and speedily as events change and there'll be times where that relationship between the person who's asked someone else to be their proxy and the proxy puts some time constraints and burdens on them to make sure they keep that relationship going and make sure it's not out of sight of mind I know but my colleague how would they would have voted so cast it that way anyway so I'm just wondering whether there's the need just to whenever we drop guidance in relation to this or rules and regulations we just we just say something about the responsibility of the person casting the proxy vote because it could be a burden on them time wise to make sure they check on a time appropriate occasion with the person that's casting the proxy for to make sure they've gathered their views accurately for how they might might wish to cast their vote so I think I would just say that but also about whether or not someone should hold one or more than one proxy I think is worth just hearing a little bit as well whilst there's been nothing to prevent it ideally it wouldn't happen because we wouldn't want the perception of of block voting I don't think that would be the perception but it's just to make sure there would be nothing to preclude one person holding more than one proxy but I can just see how it might not be ideal convener I think it's interesting that you put those those two points at the same time because of the responsibility if you're holding someone's proxy and we know stage three amendments there isn't going to be time to pop out and have long lengthy phone calls about it so it is based on a relationship of trust and then part of that is that you know relationship in how many proxies are you holding and are you doing the right thing by holding more and certainly I don't think proxy voting and we heard very very strong evidence is not to be used to create a block vote which has happened in other parliaments which I think I don't think we heard any evidence supporting at all and indeed some people who were holding those block votes were adam that they didn't want them so I agree with that and I think you know I know we've talked about the figure of not more than two because in relation to the current setup of the parties and there being no independent members here in in this session that would that would work for for all of the parties and certainly for the period of the trial I think two seems to be a sensible number because we don't know it may be that someone who holds two proxy says it's just too hard and it should only be one and we can look at that at the end of the session. Alexander. Also in the letter convener the the bureau discusses the practical operations about the digital voting system and as we know we've had difficulties with it in the past I think it was called robust and that wasn't always the situation we found ourselves in but there will be the opportunity for the digital system to incorporate something in the future and I know that's being looked at and I think that is something to be welcomed because that does give once again a little bit more trust in the system but it plays a part in how how this whole process will progress. I think that's very helpful because the iterative nature of change that this committee is strongly backed with regard to hybrid and the development if the trial was in undertaking it's something that can be looked at as the as matters progress really which is helpful. Edward did you want to. Yeah just the the final thing is the operation of the proxy which I don't know if you want to head off with. I have a just the mechanics of it I'd be quite interested to know your views on it. Yes that's sorry that's no no because then I can answer my point. I mean it's interesting I mean I know discussions have taken place and certainly the discussion that the simplest procedure that I've heard is that it's done by way of during the votes the person casts their own vote during the time and then at the end of it before the votes are counted you pop up to point out to the presiding officer you hold a proxy by way of point of order and you want to exercise it in this way. Having previously ruminated a millinum on ways how this would actually work when someone suggested that just seems so simple because that's what we do now on the off chance that any of the technology should fail during a voting period so the chamber are both used to it but it also confirms on the record separately how the proxy was exercised so I think that's certainly for the purposes of the trial a relatively straightforward simple way. I don't know comments. On a normal decision time that that absolutely works in my mind when you've got a complicated procedure of a stage three debate where you could have amendment after amendment after amendment I think it might be useful in those situations that members have a duty to forewarn the presiding officer or the person in the chair that they will have a proxy vote and and maybe I don't know I don't know the solution to this is work out a way that they don't have to pop up every 30 seconds on every vote to do the point of order because it will take it out. I don't know convener the answer but I do think there is a I think it's a matter of courtesy before each vote whatever stage for the member holding the proxy to remind the presiding officer that they held the proxy for that individual. That's anything that's helpful and the presiding officer will of course be aware having in essence granted the proxy in the first place. I hear what you say about the stage three but I wonder if given the very small numbers that we're talking about and actually given sometimes the chaos that ensues should we have problems with the voting apps even in the chamber if you happen to be one of those downspots the number of points of order that are made even during stage three. I'm not sure it's a massive inconvenience convener I take your point and I accept it and I would dispute there's ever chaos in the parliament. Maybe being slightly flippant convener for what is a serious important subject of course but there is some new technology being involved called parent paper which having for friend that an MSP couldn't have relevant voting slips to pass to the presiding officer as and when if there has to be a trail which might if there's a hundred amendments a hundred points of order can add quite a lot of time on to business in an afternoon but it's not for us to decide that this morning convener but sometimes all technology can work as well. It sounds interesting because I have and this is in no way disrespectful but I have never envisaged the proxy voting's just happening in the chamber. I was actually thinking of course in my own mind I'm actually thinking of people who are joining at present through blue jeans and on and then doing their points of order after that. How strange that is there we are there's a a change of experience in this place maybe I don't experience but yes I mean I agree and I think it's something that perhaps we need to look at and certainly to possibly discuss further and yes I mean people talk of dread over various planning bills in the past and indeed various traffic regulations in the past about it. Is there anything else about the let-all can I just see if we've got a are we happy for the trial to be not less than 12 months just because I think we need to have data to decide how we go forward. The eligibility for a proxy vote we are talking about maternity paternity bereavement are we happy with the phrase serious illness do we just want illness? I personally think illness is sufficient because it puts the expectation on to the members to explain to themselves it's a serious illness rather than having to explain to anyone else. Okay. You know also in terms of parental leave should that include sorry for prolonging the conversation we don't know members' circumstances members could become foster carers for the first time or adoptive parents the first time so would parental be a catch-all in relation to that I'm just thinking in relation to that I certainly know and I agree with you about the use of any sort of statutory definition of time to define the proxy for parental holding and I wonder whether it actually comes to how long the proxy should exist for rather than so do we have an idea that we're looking at a period of time for so once you have a proxy all proxies are the same for a same period of time but with flexibility that we've talked about on an individual basis and indeed the opportunity subject to the consent of the PO who grants the right to it anyway within the chamber it being extended would that give you more comfort of sort of trying to define it into a statutory my apology you know perhaps I didn't make my point particularly enough it wasn't about it's been you said paternal paternal it was to make sure that that covers all forms of family yes your relationship it's not just the birth of a good child but where a member in this place may become a foster parent or foster carer for time or adoptive parent no my mistake absolutely I think it should it should cover that and I also think that we should make mention that it should cover bereavement because again all of these things are not requirements on members to take up a proxy vote it is an opportunity should they wish to to do that period of time that the proxy should last I mean four weeks but to be extended or do we have the flexibility that that's actually discussion between the member and the presiding officer which Edward sorry I mean I I think there's I'd like to feel there was a relationship between each member and the presiding officer where they had the confidence to speak to the presiding officer and by putting a four week period on it initially and then for them to speak to the presiding officer again allows the presiding officer to exercise their pastoral care of the individual and I think that's important I really believe that's important and I also think it's important for the member to continue to feel engaged and wanted by the Parliament say I'm keen on a four week thing but not limited in in the sense that I see maternity levers 26 weeks and you can extend it by another 26 to 52 but only if you've been employed for a certain amount of time before and I don't believe in that I think it we should trust the presiding officer and the members to behave in a way that's appropriate and I'm sure they will and ensure that engagement continues on as you say are we content with that then the verification process or in other words how does it happen I think this really needs to be a discussion probably with the presiding officer's office as well but we are content that it should be the presiding officer that grants the proxy albeit that there will be a there will be a person administrative process that sits underneath that that would be dealt with excellent and we are I think content that the person who grants the proxy should as appropriate be able to take back their vote for specific instances and the scheme should be flexible to show that the transparency again I'm actually content by the fact that from from the purposes of the Parliament we will be aware that a proxy vote is being cast through the scheme of actually casting it rather than anything more public than that beforehand obviously the member may choose to explain what's happening about it but I don't think we need more than that and I certainly don't think other than the member and the presiding officer anything in relation to the actual application itself I'm content with that and I suppose the last bit comes back to the and we've discussed this about what happens when it goes wrong I mean it is a very high onus to become an MSP of trust and honesty and I am quite taken by Edward's suggestion of something in the guidance to remind and did your bob as well to remind members of the the high level of expectation on them and the fact that this is a relationship of trust between because above and beyond the MSP between two people that one holds the proxy did you want to yes absolutely can you know when I made my comment it wasn't about about trust I'm hoping that that's implied but yes of course let's let's let's put something a bit more formally down there it was more about just reminding MSPs that hold the proxy vote about their responsibilities in terms of staying in contact and having that ongoing relationship with the person who's proxy they hold something that Edward said about with the presiding officer to make sure people are away from this place for a period of time don't feel forgotten about and it's and there's that ongoing support offered in the person that holds the proxies also a very important role to play I think in relation to that and there may well be a role I fear to say for this committee but certainly for the parliament when and if the trial period starts to give an opportunity for MSPs to come and ask questions about it and to investigate it so they understand both the obligation but also sometimes the opportunity that they may feel makes some situations easier for them to deal with Alexander the dialogue needs to be there community that as we've already said the trust is vitally important but the communication is also vitally important between the member between the proxy between the presiding officer to ensure that everybody is is aware of what the roles responsibilities are and that everyone is being looked after and I think that's important as well excellent thank you well sorry Bob I do recall during the debate we had in the chamber I spoke in relation to proxy voting of further consultation with members I think for clarity that was I'm not sure I made it clear in the chamber it's further consultation following a review of how the temporary rule change has has worked rather than another period of consultation before we'd move I think that is the situation I just wanted to say yeah I think my own head in relation to that if that is the case my my secondary comment would be that I'm just wondering if we offer MSPs the opportunity to give not quite feedback in your time and how it's going but a year is quite a long time before we start kind of engaging with the MSP has it hasn't worked with whether after a period of time we then start to do some of that consultation work a kind of moment almost like an interim review because I'm just conscious during the debate in the chamber I was talking about further consultation with members and it's making sure I'm sure members are very keen to see this happen but just to make sure we're taking all members or as many members with us as clearly and openly as possible I think that's very helpful Bob I mean the procedure would be a temporary rule change which would sit next to a very short report from this committee to go to the chamber to be voted on and then the trial period would start I'm slightly concerned that any member who wants to exercise a proxy fears that the minute they exercise it the committee will be there watching them and asking them how it's going but certainly I think you are right that during the period of the trial what evidence does come out what opinions and views members have there would be more than welcome to share those with the committee so that when this committee came to review it for the purposes of either continuing the temporary rule change or whatever that can be taken into account I think there needs to be some flexibility because we have no evidence how this works it has never been done and I certainly don't want to frighten any members away who may wish to exercise a proxy vote with fear of this committee hugging their shoulders to see how it goes yes yes it'll be helpful as well for the first year that if the clouds could keep a record of the amount of times that proxies are used to inform decisions on how to do it yes because I know it's difficult to do it retrospectively it's easy to do it at the time yes a watching brief may be sensible maybe some enthusiasm as I say over the first time it happens so we will we will see in a wait can I thank the committee for that I'll now close the public part of this meeting and thank those who are watching


Good to have you all back to another episode of Think Tech Hawaii's human-humane architecture, our persistent search for humanity and humility in the built environment. We're broadcasting life again from the opposite ends of the world, me near Munich, in fact in Würzburg I'm kind of now, but from an American perspective doesn't make much difference. And then we have you DeSoto back in Honolulu, Hawaii. Hi DeSoto. Hello everybody, hello Martin and you can hear I'm in an easy breezy room and the trade winds are blowing outside. You can probably hear that in the background. And you pointed out I'm wearing, I'm overdressed for the tropics so that indicates that I'm not there. That's right. So let's go to the first slide and apologize a little bit for this is actually the volume two of our shows about the vintage village and we were a little bit under the weather under the clouds of the election night. And this here illustrates from a German perspective because this is one of our most critical left wing weekly and magazines here the Spiegel, the mirror that has been following the tragedy of the who was ruling our US or America. And I remember as trying to do it kind of a therapeutic self treatment. I was once doing a show with our founding uncle Jay that we see at the very top right and we call it the cynical classicism because Trump as money of many of his stupid things. He was trying to mandate a style which we're thinking we should be past that. Because that while the 20th century might have been about form. The 21st century that we're in should be about perform. So anyways the next slide is basically explaining a little more because when we were airing there were the first kind of predictions of where the votes are going and and these snapshots of these color coded maps here the one at the very left was the one that I saw when I woke up hours later after I show and I was pretty depressed because it was very very red. And fortunately that has shifted to more blue and that much blue that were have our hopes back up that we're going to go back to what at the very bottom right where we're talking to Ron you remember what we're talking about as far as inclusivity which we see at the bottom right. So well we were talking about Martin Eichler who was a builder of homes mass builder of tract homes and suburban homes in California in the 50s and 60s. And he was a very forward thinking man. He was inclusive in terms of who he would sell his homes to which was at a time of segregation in which people of color were prevented from buying homes in suburbs in many situations and he also was inclusive in terms of who he hired to work for him he hired disabled people he hired men who had just gotten out of jail. So he was a very forward thinker in addition to being an architect who designed homes that we've been looking at and really praising for their attributes from that time period 50 and 60 years ago. Yeah that we want to so desperately and urgently reconnect to and we want to add that the very bottom right picture when our friend Ron Lindgren was describing that we weren't quite none of us were quite as specific as we should have been because this is an image that Eichler had in his office on his wall and if you would see these two boys from the other side you would see that one has a white face and the other one has a black face. So it's a black boy going along with a white boy and that again was rather shockingly provocative to say in times where racism was even more present than we had them increasing unfortunately in the last four years. So again we have our hopes high up there that we're going to reconnect to these good times best times of America they were you know hanging around until as we said the 70s even the late 70s and just with Jimmy Carter then you know we had to let them go and hopefully and pick them up from there again. So what we also want to do as we said we want to be inclusive again we don't want to be nationalist again we want to again take advantage of the best of all worlds that we represent and so let's go and pick up from where we had left last time and go to the next slide and what were we talking about this soda here. Well we're back in the Munich Olympic Village which was constructed for the 1972 Olympics and we were in an area which originally had been built as you said for the female athletes to use as housing and this I thought was remarkably similar to the container housing that we keep talking about using shipping containers in terms of the scale and the size. You said that these probably are preformed precast concrete panels which were set up in to make these similar houses these similar size houses unfortunately because of deterioration they had to be demolished but because they were historic they were rebuilt to look very similar to the originals and you just got to walk around and look at them and take pictures of them and you saw that they also the individual tenants which now are university students are allowed to paint them or decorate them the way they want and it's a nice little village it really looks like. Yeah absolutely and more specifically about deterioration it was actually that they weren't up to energy code anymore so right that's right they rebuilt them recognizing they had to be insulated better which once again we don't need to worry about that too much in Hawaii if we built the right way and allow the natural systems the trade winds to do the job. Right and next slide is I'm taking advantage of my remote situation being the sort of you know the ambassador abroad so to speak I'm have arranged with the emerging generation to make the best out of this and then basically being up a little later in the afternoon so I can be help them early in the morning and to show them around and I was walking them through the village and then there was a door open and I basically knocked on that open door and the the student who lived in there you know allowed us in and so you here you see the the students comments about how did we get in and oh this looks so efficient and so spacious they're pretty much like a pioneer of what's so prominent these days which is the tiny house movement right they're kind of early examples for for tiny houses so go to the next slide. They again dealing with thermal performance on the bottom right you supposedly see the original condition with world on shades at the very bottom left you see them improvising more kind of horizontal awning and again you know I've been sharing my experiences with our firm as at the top left an exoskeleton where the structure could shade itself or again frames with world on shades so that's certainly something that again with a new leadership a new management of our country and one of Biden's utmost goals is to rejoin the the Paris initiative of climate change combating so we will increasingly move more into things as we've done in the past four years luckily and hopefully so the next slide is there is a piece of new construction within the historically preserved which is rather interesting and then next slide is going to show us a glimpse of how that looks like and what's your opinion what's your feeling how do you think this well if I'm if I'm reading this correctly the court the open space in the foreground is is that original or did is that original or did they replicate no that is original and again or we talked quite a lot about these kind of pipes you know and here we can actually see how hollow they are there's much in them right yeah so we talked about it so that one is original but the building is new so the pavement is old the pipes are old the building is new okay okay well you were pointing out that that in the midst of this very innovative 1972 complex this new building is not particularly innovative and that's something that we're going to come back to as we continue this show the whole concept of carrying on innovations from a time when people were more innovative to try to keep that updated rather than simply saying this is what we're going to do now because it's easy in chief and that's what everybody expects and and and innovation gets us to the next slide because innovation of this development wasn't just within the built environment but it was also in the natural environment what we're seeing here right yes yeah and you I asked you what that big tower was in the background and this is a big open space park area and in the background is the sort of iconic structure which is a broadcast tower and that was because it was before satellite so you needed the big tall towers to broadcast television transmissions and I also said that there was already one in East Berlin this is the time of East and West Germany and in East Berlin there was this very large iconic tower so this is the West German version of that but in this area of parkland you can see that there is a berm or a artificial hill at the base of that tower in the distance and this is something that's replicated at the other end of the development so in both cases to screen out a large busy street they built this earthen berm and then planted trees on it and also from the street you don't see the whole complex you see what looks like parkland or forest or woods so it's beneficial on both sides yeah absolutely and next slide is this sort of very packing it very densely with these terrace towers here allowed them to free up space for recreation in open spaces there's also this artificial lake in this you know very innovative community and we will show you now in the next slide how beautiful it looked like from the very beginning right the solo well actually from the very beginning and you can see this is it under construction the construction cranes are still in the midst of all these buildings and it actually looks pretty terrible at this because it's just concrete it is a dense concrete complex and it looks very unappealing it looks institutional it doesn't look warm it doesn't look inviting but in fact that was just the way it looked when it was constructed and if you go to the next slide we're going to see that it changed quite a bit through time because it's covered with greenery now now as we have to point out this is in a temperate climate so during the winter it's not as green because everything has lost its leaves but during the summer not only is there a lot of foliage at the bases of these towers but there are these troughs which are filled with and we're going to see in some cases large mature trees that screen things that green it up that give you humidity that give you more oxygen and make the whole thing look a lot more inviting and a lot more livable and why it looks like a jungle eyes kind of a sculpture in large so like a formal approach it was actually designed the opposite which we're always recommending is the better way to go and gets us to the next slide which is the inside out design approach right yeah and we're seeing here I screenshot that from a documentary on local TV from some years ago and it's featuring one of the associated partners with banish the architect of record Fritz our who grew up in this neighborhood because the architects were so convinced about it that they thought I want to live in there what I designed which isn't always happening but it shows that they're really you know we're believing in what they were doing and so the sun basically decided to also stay there and raise his family and he is however privileged to have a ground floor unit within a large talking courtyard or last theme for the last nine shows so he has a courtyard but you had a concern right that we were then discussing well if the courtyard certainly looks really nice but I thought you don't really have a lot of privacy in the courtyard because when you're down there everybody in the building above you can look down at you and in reality you cleared that up for me the troughs which are used as planters are so wide that you cannot actually stand and look over the railing from your balcony so in fact you don't have people looking down on you and spying at you in your backyard or your courtyard you have privacy as well as all of they them have privacy in their balconies not only from people looking up but also from people next door to them looking from side to side so it's a very successful design in terms of that again making it more livable and more appealing yeah and going to the next slide showing us more the side of representative units which all the stacked ones here you can see I pulled this from websites from some for sale or for rent you can see there's a multitude of different situations there's even a two-story one at the top right you see that spiral staircase different fenestrations they're all pushed back so they're not you know basically shaping the front of the building they're in the back so they're allowed as well but next slide certainly which you had been you know already saying we want to talk about it this is the most feature is how it got basically taken over by the natural environment who really kind of jungle eyes and nature is crawling over and invading the structure and that reminded us of our friends from Killingsworth and Ron Lindgren and Larry Stricker here is Larry's ihilani hotel up there with a Carlos Denise rendering where he said we wanted to Bougainville the whole thing and I got value engineered and only other other floor ended up but still it's a very prominent feature of the Killingsworth office and next slide at the top right is my most beloved detail of that parking garage slash gym part of the ihilani which shows the superb easy breezy space with around the structurally expressionist tectonics and the fenestration is basically plantation is plants and is a curtain so ever since I saw that I thought wow it's it actually you know it works it is it has happened and ihilani has been around since the early 90s and then here you know the German architects basically have and we use the term zeitgeist have been you know in the same zeitgeist doing this here and this is what you were been talking about before look at that mature tree in the middle of that big picture here right so these troughs are really big and can hold a lot of soil so there isn't just little flowers growing in there but as you pointed out only in the summer few months a year not so much anymore and the next picture is going to show us what we're going to have next most likely it's this white stuff that if I'm saying you don't know you might be offended and saying yes if I go up to the top of Mauna Kea I have it but that's pretty much it from yes knowing it in Hawaii right and so that might give you some chills but also what might give you some chills are the little pictures at the top right yeah because those are real estate listings for these apartments and we see that they do not rent for cheap they are going for as I remember one to two to three thousand euros a month so that's comparable and even more than dollars and then in the upper right there's a little one for sale that's a studio that you said was about 330 square feet and it's about well it's 249,000 euros so as you said it's up around 270,000 $75,000 so the prices are not dissimilar to what we know in Honolulu and as you said to me this is because it's a very desirable place to live so the prices are high because people want to live there and that shows you it's successful but it also shows you that a certain segment of the population is shut out because it's expensive and that percentage of the population is growing unfortunately so they should be in the center of our attention of developments new developments and that gets us back to Hawaii what might this all be good for next slide for you know multi-story developments here are cargo courtyard cabana clustered that I did a show with with jay about where again we stack cargo steel and shipping containers um we again in the tropics we should dwell and basically massage um our easy breezyness because it allows us to be way more cost efficient uh and effective and the next slide while you know cargo steel is not for everyone you know we have other kind of post-contact uh local construction methods as for example precast concrete right out there at gray specific rocky mountain precast that in the top middle picture a quote of a show that you have been investigating and doing a phone interview with its architect bandit canista con and he's been using that method for its molly lofts we've been doing it a lot and then also on the island there is the kahala apartments and this is from the old when the website of alfred y's office was still up there the kahala apartments were pretty much built the same way as we see at the at the bottom there where the whole olympic village pretty much has been prefab so that was really innovative at its time and it's still a very desirable construction methods that we should look more into because um next slide uh as you kindly um uh update me on what's going on on the island but sometimes it's depressing me which is not your fault but the fault of people who are proposing this and what are we looking at here well we're looking at the plans potentially for what's going to happen to alamuana center and one thing obviously is the train station determinists of the train line is going to be there so that is spurring a lot of development there but the um the current owners of alamuana i believe are seeing it less and less as a shopping center and more and more as a real estate venture in which they can build more high rises on that very now valuable piece of property that's very centrally located and it's ripe for development so they're proposing a bunch of towers be built in addition to what's already there uh that's the shopping center and we are i mean we'll see how much of that actually happens and we'll see what these buildings end up looking like but um they don't look as though they're going to be particularly what we would prefer to see and one of the things that's particularly is makes that a noticeable is right in the middle of all of that is the alamuana building from 1961 which was an extremely innovative building for its time it was from a time period in which innovation and technological advancement was really looked up to and we're seeing the buildings being built around it as not taking advantage of that not harkening back to what was originally designed there but just building a bunch of glass boxes which are hermetic and are users of fossil fuels and no indication of what even the olympic village did in the 70s in munich and temperate climate large lanais here we see no lanais right and that's a shame if how it uses doing that it's bad enough but then these people should learn and see well what can we do differently and next slide again provided by you kindly but again making me depressed is it doesn't get better the more they reveal the details of their project this one here also location wise you know makes me sad because in this location i used to be in my little favorite hole in the wall koreen restaurant that has yummy things for decent money and they're most likely not able to go back in because of the rent is going to be too high and while this building is orientation wise okay it's running mauka makai but then fenestration wise it's very much alike if you look like the symphony that you see in the middle compared to the provocative sunburn that lady here has because these buildings are doing the same thing and you've got to power against this with burning fossil fuel and as you pointed out it's even more tragic because you can see in this aerial view on the left you see the iconic alamuana building you also see 1315 alamuana boulevard which is by alfred yi and yama saki as very very great bichlametic pioneers that did it all right half of a century ago right so next slide we obviously want to see a reconnection to that because again here are here's the legacy of that of that site right it wasn't only john graham basically with the alamuana building probing and testing for the world fair in seattle with an equal similar rotating restaurant right but it was also alfred yi again with the alamuana hotel that if you look it up was built just two years before the olympic village and can pride itself as having been the tallest structure you know at that time so as you and your great show referencing at the bottom right there's a tradition of innovation on the island and you want to evolve that right yeah and so next slide is you know suggestions to do that we're looking at primitiva one that we've been covering here and there and the great alfred yi before he then passed away had the chance to look at us and cheerleaded us and said you know keep on going that way and you were sitting next to who else who we see at the very top left one is in a review we had neil abacromby at at your class in which we critiqued and or listened to the presentations of your emerging generation students and i was present also along with him and so i've gotten to see as you've gone through this what what your students have come up with for these types of not only being innovative but also dealing with things that we have to deal with now not only in terms of costs but livability and so on and not another c is covet right you pointed out easy breeziness is the way to go and to breathe easy you want to be outside we soon and right now starting can't do this anymore but you can and you should in hawaii and so the next slide was primitiva two that tried to do that even more with the less territorialized nature of the units but more be like a fluid cascading landscape that is more built upon what people do anyways on the beach and popping up their tent and have a more informal settlement right why can't we adopt that and in housing as well and the last slide we want to show because we're launching primitiva three in the spring and it's basically the great structural conceptualist of the olympic games part with a gigantic tent structure we were talking about fry auto is a is an informal mentor of that project and we're just like tarzan and jane you know have been using tensile structures to move through the jungle we're looking at if a tower couldn't or shouldn't do that as well so obviously stay tuned for that we will keep you updated on that one so with that thank you for that half an hour of taking me back to paradise and your birds and at one point the breeze was so strong we couldn't hear you anymore right and the dog has decided to stay on the comfy side today so treasure the tropics and see you next time again to soda and everyone else a little


Welcome to American Issues Take One. I'm Tim Apachele, your host. The title of today's show is Trump's January 6th indictment arrives. Very quickly, if you looked at the 45-page indictment, the thing that jumped off the page for me is the following. That dishonesty fraud and deceit to impair, obstruct and defeat the lawful federal government's function by which results of the presidential election are collected, counted and certified by the federal government. That is one of the charges in the indictment for Donald Trump. With that, we're gonna discuss this whole indictment. I have my co-host, Jay Fidel, our special esteemed guests, Chuck Crumpton and our other special esteemed guests, Jeff Portnoy joining us today for this discussion. Thank you all for coming. Jay, to you, of the four points of the indictment, none of those charges or none of those points involve the specific charge of sedition. You and I and the guests here on today's show have previously discussed the pros and cons of having sedition as one of the indictment charges and lo and behold, it's not there. Was Jack Smith wise to leave it off the table? But he included the elements that led to sedition. What do you think about that point? Well, obviously this was not a mistake. He intended this. He intended not to talk about sedition or for that matter, the insurrection itself. And of course, there's a reason for it and everybody's speculating on what that was. But I think the overarching takeaway on that is if he doesn't wanna get involved in a long-term trial, he wants it simple. And that's why he left it out. That's probably the reason, but who knows, maybe later we'll find out. Keep in mind that the sum total of the years in prison called for by the four counts that he did specify is 55, 55 years. And that'd be enough for me, that'd be enough for me. But I think there are a lot of other issues that are gonna come up here in the defense of democracy. One of them was written up in today's times. It was all about the freedom of speech, freedom to lie, if you will. And Jeff has been studying this for his whole career, First Amendment. And I would be very interested in his thoughts because there are people who take the position that we really have to be very careful about cutting back on the First Amendment. Up till now, you could lie within the protection of the First Amendment. This is gonna be a new wrinkle on that. Okay, thank you, Jay. Jeff, to you on that point, did Jack Smith take off sedition in order to take off the defense of the right to one's First Amendment? Well, I can't speculate on that. I do think it's clear that Trump's defense is going to be that this is all protected under the First Amendment. His lawyers, I think, are taking a very expansive and unsupported view of the First Amendment and claiming that it's absolute because anybody with one year of law school knows that it's not absolute. There's defamation. You can't shout fire in a crowded theater. You can't threaten someone to harm, but it's pretty broad. So I think Jack Smith has a chore ahead of him in trying to show that a lot of what Trump said is not protected by the First Amendment because I think a lot of what Trump said is, you have the right to lie. There's no law that says you can't lie about anything. Now, if the lie leads to some unanticipated or untoward event or a criminal act, that's a different story. But I have to admit that on prior shows with you guys last year, I thought getting an indictment out of January 6th was gonna be a real stretch. I think the Republicans have already shown they're making hay out of this. Why did it take so long? That's a legitimate question, including many Democrats are asking. Did you do it? You wait till now to try to get it before the election? And the bottom line is, Trump is more popular today than it was yesterday. Okay. Chuck, by taking off the charge of sedition, did that also, and we discussed this last week, did that also take off any opportunities to prevent Donald Trump from seeking office in 2024 under the 14th Amendment, section three? No, and we talked about this last week, but that's not the language of section three of the 14th Amendment. It's actually much broader than that. It's to engage in insurrection. Whether engage means verbally, by action, by inciting, those are all questions. But I think just right, I think Trump and his lawyers focus is, this is all protected speech and activity, and you can't connect us to the crowd boys or the others in ways that make us responsible for their actions on January 6th. I guess it's how you perceive or how you look at the indictment, 45-page indictment. What I saw on there was several examples of actions taken, be it the fake electors, be it trying to appoint Jeffrey Clark, and he was actually appointed for about less than a day as the Attorney General to construct letters to say that the Department of Justice is looking into fraudulent election practices. So there's actually specified actions taken. How does that stack up with words versus actions? But Tim, there's nothing that says you can't go out and hire a lawyer that's gonna do and say what you want. No, I agree. He's got two lawyers who are alleged co-conspirators. The argument is he went and found somebody that's crazy and he'll say whatever he wants. But that's never been a dissent that I'm aware of a prosecution. Advice of counsel is a legitimate defense assuming that advice is not completely crazy. Like, hey, we got a witness, we need to go out and kill. I mean, so he gets somebody that says, you know what, my interpretation of the Constitution says you can do X, Y, and Z. He's gonna rely on that defense.  Yeah, I agree. But to counter that, he did get the explicit specific advice from his attorney general. Well, so what? Well, vice president, his other attorneys, his staff, and most likely family members. So I guess you have to weigh that which he believed versus that which he was told. Well, all I can say to that issue is that's gonna be really hard. I mean, these were licensed attorneys who gave him allegedly advice that he chose to follow despite the fact that other attorneys were telling him something different. I doubt you're gonna get a prosecution conviction out of that. I really do. Okay, well, you go on record for that. And I think that's good. Okay, thank you. I don't wanna go on record because I went on record. Oh yeah, you're on record. I don't wanna go on record because I said he wouldn't get indicted. That's true, you did. I remember that. So my credibility is shot to begin with. Okay, we'll note that. Jay, let me ask you this. To what degree did the House Select January 6th Committee report serve as a guidepost for the Department of Justice? As Jeff alluded to that there was really nothing happening for the first year. Certainly the FBI wasn't acting. No one was really acting on it until the appointment of Jack Smith. So he did a lot of work in a very short time. You and I criticized Marilyn Garland multiple times for doing nothing. And yet Jack Smith put this together in short order. To what degree do you think he used that House Select Committee report? Oh, to a large degree. Lawrence O'Donnell spoke on MSNBC on that very question yesterday. And what he said was, gee, you have to give them credit. The House Committee laid the pathway. And had it not been for the House Committee, a lot of the information that went to the public would not have gone to the public. I mean, you have to recognize, and this will continue, that this is a trial in public. This is a trial among the country, the people. And that was happening in the House Committee, the Select Committee proceeding. So you can say that Merrick Garland was slow. I'm not sure he did nothing, but it was slow. And I guess he didn't wanna get in the way, but certainly the Department of Justice could use, and I'm sure it did use, the proceedings, the testimony, the analysis of the House Committee and its staff. So on balance, I would say it was very helpful to the Department of Justice. If they can prove to a jury that Trump himself either directed or tried to direct people to delay the vote or somehow subvert the vote, which comes close to this addition, which he's not been indicted for, they might get a conviction. But I still stand by what I said. I don't care if he's been indicted. I don't see him getting convicted on what happened on January 6th, as far as the riot at the Capitol. I think he's gonna be convicted, whether he's convicted of insurrection that's not likely, hasn't been charged with it. But I think he will be convicted. And you can say, well, maybe the First Amendment will be helpful to him. There's a lot of other things. For example, there was an article in today's paper about the constitutional requirement that a defendant be present at his own trial. This is a very convoluted kind of thing.  I don't know what. But when you take it all, shake it and bake it and you consider this is happening in Washington and you consider that it's happening in front of a judge who is a serious-minded judge who isn't gonna take any tomfoolery here, the probability is that he will be convicted of something. The other aspect of that is he must. And I think that has saturated the public consciousness or at least the liberal side of the public consciousness. And by the way, juries in Washington are liberal and they have shown that many times. And so I think they're gonna see, we're all gonna see that he has to be convicted if the country is to survive. Okay, thank you, Jay. Jeff, to you on the point that you raised about if there is a conviction, most likely it'll be the obstruction of the official proceeding process to transfer power from one president to another. That's number two, conspiracy to obstruct the election's official proceeding, the country to the January 6th electoral college votes. Of the other indictments cited, the other three, do you think that's the one that has the best chance of a conviction? The one I just read. I do. I think there's a federal statute on that. I think you could argue and I think they will, that he's arguing for people to commit a crime because it is a crime and you can't do that. And so I think he'll still rely on the fact, well, I never told them to do anything. I just kind of said, put everything on pause for a day so we can sort everything out. Look, we're talking about the legalities and I think that's important, but this is so intertwined with politics and where the country is, you can't just look at it like this is Al Capone. By the way, I think Trump may now have more indictment than Al Capone. I have to check that. But having said that, this is so much more than whether he gets convicted because between now and whenever any of these trials occurs, this country is so divided and each day is more divided. And yes, I know, Jay, you're watching MSNBC and reading the New York Times. Maybe you should watch Fox and, you know, the news channel and see what else is going on with 40% of the country because in the last 24 hours, the last poll that came out yesterday had him beating Biden in the legitimate poll. So he's just getting strengthened. He's loving this.  This is making his campaign. Okay, so, yeah, I mean, you can't divorce the two. You know what?  Stabbing them at midnight or whatever it is. This vampire walks the earth. Okay, I like that statement. Thank you. Chuck, Chuck, one of the charges is conspiracy against basically voting rights that the voters were disenfranchised. Is that an uphill push? How do you prove that? You know, I kind of like that one because whatever you say about the First Amendment, Trump's personal call to Brad Raffensperger, the Secretary of State of Georgia, to find him 11,000 some-odd votes to change the votes, to change the voting result. That's not protected speech. Yeah, I think we have a disagreement on that because if he had said, I want you to find 11,000 votes that we can discard and find a way that we can say they're not legitimate, that's one thing as I read that charge. But to say, hey, go find me 11,000 votes that we haven't counted yet, that's something different. Chuck, I think there's a big difference between taking away a vote and trying to find the vote. Yeah, I believe Trump's language that was quoted was, find me. Yeah. Does that mean uncounted votes? Does that mean change the votes? Hey, hey. Well, I think you have to take the statement in the context of the entire call. And if you listen to the entire call, I'm pretty sure a jury will be able to figure that one out. OK, and then continue. Thank you. With the falsely electors and the two of those together make it pretty clear what the intent and the meaning were. There you go. But remember, guys, 1972, the Democratic Party refused to accept the electors in Alabama or Mississippi, tried to present their own electors. How come there was no indictment then and begin? You know, I think Trump is as evil as it can be. But you got to look at history as well. OK, good point. Jay, this indictment involved one individual, Donald Trump. Co-conspiracers were not named in the indictment. Let's go down the list of likely candidates of co-conspiracers, Rudy Giuliani, John Eastman, Sidney Powell, Jeffrey Clark, Kenneth Chesrow. And there's a sixth one there. We have no idea. Was this a smart move to speed the trial on by not naming co-conspiracers? And second part of the question is, when do you think Jack Smith will go after the co-conspiracers? Soon enough, he will. I don't think he's not going to do that, but he's focused right now on Trump. Trump is the keyhole to everything else. And I think he's done this and many other things in order to have a speedy trial and in order not to get the way laid. Lord knows Trump will find every possible defense that he could find and he will appeal.  We've all been listening to this for six years. So they probably will convict on something and they'll take a look at the whole comprehensive is what they'll do. So what I'm saying is I think the appellate process is going to take a while and there are appeal points. There will be appeal points no matter what. And those appeal points are going to stretch out beyond the election date in 2024. So I think, you know, the bottom line is not so much that he will be exonerated somehow and who have been convicted, but that the process will take beyond election date. In the meantime, he's going to run as hard as he can run. And you're right, Jeff, you know, the polls are showing. I don't know whether they'll continue to show this, especially when there's still another fourth indictment coming down here soon. But right now the polls show he's popular and I know I suspect that he has a viable chance, if not the best chance from the Republican side, to win that election. So I'm not, you know, in general, I see this as another inflection point. I'm encouraged by the fact that finally we had an indictment, but I'm still worried that Trump will find a way to become president again and we will all regret that greatly. Yeah, AJ, let me talk to you about right now. You know, it seems like we almost need a trial calendar traffic cop because these indictments are coming fast and furious and these trials are going to take time. And you know, I think he has the right to say I need time for a proper defense. My attorneys need time. We have the Mar-a-Lago case basically transferred from December of 2023 to May of 2024. There's now a slot open for December 2023. Forget it. Forget it, okay. Jay, what do you think? You think that's the proper place to slip in this calendar trial? Well, who knows? It's going to be a judicial discretion. It's going to be Judge Toucan, Tanya Toucan, I think it is. She's Jamaican and she's been around the block. She's been a serious contender in the various trials of the people who are at the interaction in Washington. She does not take wooden nickels. I don't think she's going to allow him to throw wooden nickels. And I think she's dedicated to having an early trial on this. You know, between the time of the indictment and the time of his required first appearance in 48 hours, not bad. That's a good start. And I think we can already see where she's going. So, you know, I'm very worried about Eileen Cannon, but this judge is a different kettle of fish. Okay, thank you. Jeff, you said no way. Can you explain that, please? No way. Okay. Even a routine federal crime doesn't get tried in four months. Just a routine bank robber. It's just not going to happen. Now, will it happen before November? Yes, I think that's likely. What happens with these other trials is also interesting. Which case takes priority? Jack Smith doesn't decide that. That's going to be up to all the judges, including state judges who will probably defer once the state indictments come down. Do you think coordination has already taken place or ought to take place between all the prosecutors that are bringing these indictments against Donald Trump? Do you think they got together and say, how are we going to coordinate this and do we need a traffic cop? Well, we have two Jack Smith cases. I'm sure it's all being coordinated. And we got a New York case, and we're going to get according to Jay, and he's probably right, a Georgia case. And I think there'll be a combination of motions as to who brings them and how they're brought and what the judges do with the federal judges. I'm sure the state judges will defer. The New York prosecuting attorney has already set a trial for Mark, but he's made it clear a day or two ago, whenever, that he's perfectly happy to allow the Trump trial, the Washington trial, to go first. So I'm not sure that you need a whole big infrastructure on this. Judges talk to each other. They call up and say, when do you want to do yours? And will you agree to move it for mine and including judges from the federal side to the state side and back and forth? You cannot discount public opinion. And there's another issue which deals with when the trial is. They've already begun their crusade on this, and it makes a compelling argument to a layperson. You took two and a half years to bring an indictment, and you want me to go to trial in four months. That is a losing argument for the prosecution in the court of public opinion. There's enough problems with trying to convict an ex-president with 40% of the country. You can't hand them additional arguments that actually make sense, even to rational moderates. You can't say, you need to go to trial in four months, and yeah, we took two and a half years. It ain't gonna happen. I'm just telling you, and frankly, if I was the prosecutor, Jack Smith, I wouldn't push it. You're already fighting other things. And by the way, we're not gonna get to it today, but I brought it up because you need, you guys, we need to discuss this, so you guys at some point, what happens if he gets convicted? What happens to the United States of America? Okay, thank you. Jeff, that's a great point. And Chuck, I wanted to bring this apart. I wanna intersect that with this question. That is, this is a historic moment in the American history. This indictment has never been filed against the President of the United States or former. What does that stake with this indictment? And to Jeff's point, what happens if Donald Trump is convicted? Those are great questions, and exactly as Jeff just said, we don't have anywhere near the time to be able to go into all of those. But I think those are exactly the questions. Connecting the issues, what understanding what really is at stake is going to be key to the 2024 campaign and elections. Okay, well, Chuck, let me ask you this. It's pretty clear that this trial will not be televised, although there's, you know, those are those opinions out there saying that, given the importance and the weight of that, perhaps it shouldn't be televised. How will the public know what's going on with this trial other than any other trial? Well, Jeff's the expert on that one. I'm going to defer to him, but there's going to be coverage literally up the wazoo on this thing. There'll be no television in the federal courts. I can tell you that, no matter what. You'll see a bunch of artists rendering and you'll have 24-7. I'll tell you who's the big beneficiary, CNN. They don't have to worry. It'll be 24-7, it's already started.  As does MSNBC and Fox and News Nation. This is a media bonanza for the New York Times, for the Washington Post. It's something they dream about and I'm being a little bit cynical about it, but this is something like, wow, we've got 18 months now of 24-7 coverage. To that point that Jeff just made, does this take the oxygen out of the room for the 2024 election campaign for the GOP party? So yeah, this is intertwined with the campaign and he will be using it for the campaign. He'll be taking off on everything he can and showing that this is just another element of the witch hunt and he'll try to, as Jeff says, he'll try to get votes on it. So I think it has a huge effect on the 2024 campaign. I would like to say that if we had a conviction beforehand, and that depends on the trial setting of course, which is a very special unprecedented issue on trial setting. And also if we had a ruling from somewhere that we could televised these proceedings, that would also help because ultimately this is being tried in the court of public opinion as it has been. So that's gonna lead to a determination of votes. I suggest to you that as time goes by, then more of this comes out, whether it comes out in a non-televised or a televised way and as this comes out on the media and all the media, I think people are gonna be more and more aware of what he did and why he did it and how he did it. And I think that's gonna eat up the edges of his base. I think public opinion will probably change as the trial proceeds, which is just another reason why the trial should happen soon. So that process starts soon and we all find out, what's behind that 44 pages of indictment. Let's hear the story, witness by witness. Because I think that a lot of people are going to be affected by that evidence, even more than the select committee. Well, I disagree with you, Jay. I think you will get a little bit on the margins. You can't tell me that the country hasn't already figured all this out. After two years of constant bombardment, all these other indictments, his popularity hasn't diminished at all. It's increased, everyone knew this was coming. Yeah, there'll be some independence. And I don't think he'll be elected president, by the way, no matter what. I don't think that's going to happen. It's clear to me he can't get more, even with Biden screwing things up, he can't get more than 40 or 43, 44% of the vote, whether he's indicted, convicted or not. The interesting question, by the way, which I have not researched, but I know has been raised already today by constitutional scholars, is can a convicted felon be eligible to serve as president? They've never had to really address that issue before. And now it's already starting to be debated among constitutional scholars. But I think it's ironic, in Mr. DeSantis' home state, if you're a convicted felon, you can't vote. But hold on, serve as president in the United States. Oh boy, there we go. That's for another show. Hey, we've run out of time, so I want to go around the table. Jeff, I know you need to get out of here. We get last thoughts, and Jeff, I'll start with you. I think I've said my piece. I look at this, yes, clearly it's a tremendously important constitutional battle. Democracy is at stake, but I don't think you can completely, oh, I don't think you can discard at all what the political ramifications of these indictments are. And I think they have to be looked at in the same box. Okay, great. Thank you for those words. Chuck, to you on your final thoughts on this indictment. Well, I think the question that's been raised, whether this one winds up going first of the three, and potentially four, with Georgia indictments is going to make a big difference. There are a lot of reasons for that to happen. I agree with Jay that it, but I also agree with Jeff that it's going to be really hard to push it given the amount of time it's taken to put it together. But we've got a judge who's probably not likely to indulge along continuances. So sometime before November, that'll make it interesting. Okay, thank you, Chuck. Jay, you get the last word on this topic. Okay, we've been talking about inflection points for six years. And to say that this indictment takes us off an inflection point would be wrong. It doesn't take us off. It creates new ones, a number of additional inflection points. And you will see with all the media coverage we're going to get one way or the other, that there'll be an inflection point every few days, every week. And the question ultimately is whether Joe Biden can win. And Trump is going to be the name on every household. Trump is going to be more in the center of things, the center of the circus, if you will, creating chaos, using his whole bag of tricks, including let us not forget violence and fear. He's an autocrat using his bag of tricks. So I'm not sure that Biden can win against him. When it comes down to it, we are at a series of inflection points and the stakes are astronomically high. And in a year's time, we may not have a country. And I am very worried about that. Okay, thank you. Before I conclude, as we look at the trial calendar, I've also reminded of the Eugene Carroll civil case that needs to be brought up. So very, very busy times for very busy people. Okay, so I would like to thank my esteemed guests, Jeff Portnoy, Chuck Crumpton, and my co-host Jay Fidel. Thank you very much for taking the time to give us your opinions and your thoughts on this very important historic matter. I'm Tim Apachele, your host for Americans Issues. Take one, please join us next week. And until then, aloha. Thank you so much for watching Think Tech Hawaii. If you like what we do, please click the like and subscribe button on YouTube. You can also follow us on Facebook, Instagram, and LinkedIn. Check out our website, thinktechhawaii.com. Mahalo.