>> Donald Trump criminally indicted again, this time in Georgia.

The Former President, along with 18 codefendants, is accused of multiple felonies related to the 2020 election, trying to put himself in power.

Tonight, how the D.A.

is using a law often associated with monsters as central to her case.

And how much gel time 40 Former President?

A special edition of "MetroFocus" starts right now.

♪ >> This is "MetroFocus," with Rafael Pi Roman, Jack Ford, and Jenna Flanagan.

MetroFocus is made possible by Peter G. Peterson and Joan Ganz Cooney Fund.

Bernard and Denise Schwartz.

Barbara Hope Zuckerberg.

And by Jody and John Arnhold.

Dr. Robert C. and Tina Sohn foundation.

The Ambrose Monell Foundation.

Estate of Roland Karlen.

>> Good evening.

Welcome.

Jack: Donald Trump has been indicted yet again, this time for a legend efforts to overturn the 2020 election in Georgia.

He faces 13 felony charges implicating him the head of a conspiracy to reverse his election loss in that state.

He has 18 co-defendants including Rudy Giuliani and Mark Meadows.

They are all charged under the racketeering act.

Wilson County district attorney Fani Willis has ordered the alleged co-conspirators to turn themselves in by next Friday.

This is the fifth criminal case against the Former President and current GOP front runner.

Joining us tonight -- some say the serious indictment facing Mr. Trump head of the election -- are B.J.

Bernstein, former terminal defense attorney and prosecutor in Georgia, Daniel Richman, professor of law at Columbia Law school, and Ellis Henican, a prize-winning journalist and political analyst.

Welcome to all of you.

It has been a busy couple of days with legal news.

We are hoping you can help us understand this a bit better.

Dan, I will ask you to assume your role as professor.

People are puzzled about this racketeering law.

I have heard people say, how can that be used here?

It is just for the mob and drug cartels.

Help us by explaining generally, what is the statute?

What is its purpose?

How does it work?

Dan: It is true that the statute has its origins on the federal side back in 1970 in an effort to curb traditional organized crime, but it has been used so many different ways and has parallel statutes in quite a few states.

The idea of the statute is to create a framework to put a very large group of people and set of charges to gather.

More narrowly, when you put a bunch of people in a room and court and you claim conspiracy, there is a temptation to split this up.

This does not quite hold together, even though you could say all these activities are related.

But what RICO statutes do is announce legislatively that we are completely open, both from a judicial perspective and a jury perspective to a complex conspiracy in which many people assume many rules that are connected to achieve a criminal end.

Jack: B.J., as a former prosecutor in Georgia, when you are looking at the DAs use of this statute is the overarching statute, is it unusual?

Has it been used recently or even by this district attorney to prosecute other types of crimes?

B.J.

: Absolutely.

Part of that is George's lot was different from the laws of other states, which makes it much easier to go after people.

I have been a part of cases on the federal and state side.

Georgia allows things to be much shorter.

And it allows the indictment of individuals in particular.

That is what we are seeing here in Georgia, a slew of people -- and we only this was coming.

But once I saw the indictment, I was like, wow, there is a lot involved in this.

Georgia has a statute that if the federal government tried to do this the same way, it is not necessarily able.

It is very unique.

But it is allowed under Georgia law.

Jack: Have you seen so many types of cases?

We were saying this is not a mob case, not a drug cartel.

And he seen other types of cases where district attorneys have utilized RICO statutes?

B.J.

: It can be for all types of things.

Sometimes there is a drug situation.

There was a period where sometimes there are things that are in style.

A couple years ago, especially in talking cases in Georgia, it was used under the RICO statute.

It is used in different ways.

It does not fit the TV idea of what racketeering is.

Jack: Ellis, let me come to you for a big picture political thought.

Ellis: Well.

Jack: Let me say this first.

To launch this, let's call it the pre-Donald Trump era.

If a presidential candidate was confronted with one indictment, 2, 3, 4, what would the impact have been on that candidate's candidacy?

Ellis: Goodbye.

Get out of here.

I am sick of using the word unprecedented, but yes, it is unprecedented.

Jack: How and why has this notion -- why does it not apply anymore?

Ellis: Because Donald Trump has a unique grip on a significant portion of American citizens.

People are standing by him.

It sure is a passionate and significant minority.

As long as those people are still with him, not chased away by these four indictments, he is a viable political figure and a major leader in the country.

He and going nowhere.

-- He ain't going nowhere.

Jack: Back to the RICO statute.

You mentioned that it is a criminal enterprise.

And I am sure people who do not have the background will be saying, this does not sound to me like a criminal enterprise.

What can the term "criminal enterprise" mean?

What does it mean in this case?

Dan: Generally speaking, a criminal enterprise can be all sorts of things.

In fact, in the federal system, and I suspect elsewhere, in any case, if the alleged criminal enterprise is not what was originally thought of as a clear, very discrete group, like the Bambino crime family, or even a crew of the Bambino crime family, in any traditional organized crime cases -- and white-collar cases as well --, and enterprise is a bunch of people acting in a related way that -- coordinated way that have common goals, a set of common needs, and are working together to achieve a larger criminal end.

Yes, these people do not like getting colors or participate in things as in the "Godfather" movies but legally speaking, this is not unique.

Jack: Let's take a look at some of the other charges.

We see the term conspiracy woven throughout this indictment.

I suspect that at some point you might hear from the Former President, saying, I have never met some of these people.

How can I be charged with conspiring with them?

Explain the nature of conspiracy law.

B.J.

: It does not mean that all of us have to be in a room together.

It is an enterprise that you are working on.

Everybody is working towards something.

That allows this huge array of one of the largest indictments I have ever seen in 36 years of practicing law, where there are so many different counts in addition to the racketeering.

It is not what we all think about.

Think about the law but it is not the law in that sense.

Certainly in Georgia, it is a way of taking something -- there is a scheme.

There are usually larger multi-defendant cases where different types of participation may be an culpable under the statute.

Jack: We hear often, especially during presidential campaigns, the notion of a post-debate bump.

For a post-rally bump.

Here we have been hearing an extraordinary term.

It is a post indictment bump.

How do you explain that?

Talk about the hard politics of polls and numbers.

Ellis: It is a real thing.

It is provable in a bunch of different polls.

Post indictment dump for -- bump for Donald Trump.

It is the guiding narrative of the Trump story.

He presents himself as a man who is slugging for the people, fighting the swamp and the deep state and all the evil villains in places like Washington who are taking on him, ganging up against him.

Each new indictment, each new criticism is just further proof of how the swamp is trying to get revenge against this liking hero.

It is a brilliant story.

It encompasses every bad, imaginable thing that could happen.

Here are the enemies coming unfairly again.

Jack: Dan, what are the things we have seen previa by the Former President?

Is this defense I have a First Amendment right to speak -- you might not agree with me, but I still have that rate to get my position and beliefs out there.

In the context of a criminal prosecution, is that an absolute defense?

Dan: Not at all.

One of the cases in the Second Circuit and develop nicely was the prosecution who really inspired a leadership bubble with respect to the first bomb against the World Trade Center in 1993.

His point was, yeah, I said inflammatory things, but this is political and religious speech.

That got largely brushed aside in the first instance by the journey and in the second by the Second Circuit with the not so strange notion that words can affect crimes.

Causing other people to commit crimes is denting -- generally accomplished through words.

The legal system is pretty well equipped and has long dealt with situations where words are used to commit crimes.

Every speech has its limits when it runs into the use of words to affect criminal actions.

Jack: B.J., back to you and the thought that this is a big indictment.

I have heard the term "sprawling" utilized.

But there is always a question can indictment be too big?

Or can these guys be healthy for the prosecution?

There are a lot of codefendants here.

You anticipate an attempt by some to say I want to be tried by myself, not part of this whole package.

Generally speaking, prosecutors like to throw everybody into the same box, but we do expect efforts here for people to say, "Cut me out of this"?

B.J.

: This is been developed in the last 30 minutes, the prosecuting attorney's counsel is having to get a never prosecuted Stepien for Fani Willis for one of the defendants because she had a fundraiser for somebody who ran against the lieutenant governor who is the target here.

Now they are looking for a special prosecutor.

Jack: That is interesting.

Explain how that would work?

B.J.

: There is a prosecuting attorney's counsel in Georgia.

It will go through to reach out.

There is a list of prosecutors.

We know who everyone is.

They will go to one of those.

They will step in and take over the prosecution of that particular defendant.

Jack: That is an important point.

It is not the entire prosecution.

It would be that particular defendant to handle the questions and prosecuting.

B.J.

: Yes.

There -- it will change the idea of everybody being tied together.

Jack: I will get to the idea of how long it will take in a minute.

Dan, another defense you could anticipate from the Former President is I was acting under advice from counsel.

How far can that argument go in a criminal case?

Dan: It is a defense and it goes through defendant's state of mind, which particularly in a case like this, is foundational to how the jury needs to think about the case.

The defense is essentially I did not think I was a priority of the law.

This well respected person with a large degree told me I was not.

-- law degree told me I was not.

I took his word.

It served my purpose but I thought I was acting legally.

That is able defense.

The challenge for Trump is that he was surrounded by all sorts of lawyers, many of whom were government lawyers, some of whom were his campaign lawyers, many of whom had a former response -- formal responsibility for giving him legal advice.

Essentially, he pushed them aside and picked the lawyers he wanted, many of whom are indicted in Georgia.

As a general matter, you cannot go picking and choosing advice and taking only that that serves your interest.

Two, your chosen lawyers is interesting, because you are picking people who are not formally responsible for giving you legal advice, which suggests you are really reaching for it.

Obviously a challenge is somewhat diminished in front of a jury where those lawyers are charged, too.

You are not necessarily responsible for knowing that your lawyers are criminals, but it opens the force of the prosecution's case that this is a guy who is using legal advice from a couple of outlandish sources as a cover for doing that which he intended to do that was criminal and that he knew to be criminal.

Jack: Ellis, back to you for more political views.

We have seen the other candidates for the Republican nomination, with the exception of Chris Christie and Asa Hutchinson and some others, who have said this should all be disqualifying.

We have seen others maneuver delicately around this.

With this fourth indictment -- many are saying this could be the most consequential.

I am not so sure we can say that, but some people think that.

Are you surprised that you are not seeing, or do you think you might see -- and maybe the upcoming debate, there is suggestively Former President is not going to participate -- might you now see more candidates saying this is too much?

Ellis: Do not hold your breath.

People think -- keep thinking this will to put over the edge but so far there is nothing that over the edge.

-- nothing that will check it over the edge.

-- tip is over the edge.

Yet Christie is taking that approach but the others, maybe they harbored dreams of serving in some capacity in a future Trump administration.

And maybe, more importantly, the moment, he seems to have a grip on a large percentage of the Republican voters who will turn out to primaries and caucuses, some 80%.

The figure that if all these cases end up destroying Trump, I want to inherit his supporters.

I do not want to trash the guy they love.

I want to tiptoe carefully.

These prosecutors execute the hit job and I get the supporters.

It is making them all look like wimps.

Jack: I am sure you are curing a lot of people saying that.

B.J., tell us a bit about the judge assigned to handle this case, Judge Scott McAfee, fairly new to the bench but a well established background as a lawyer.

B.J.

: Very due to the bench.

-- new to the bench.

This judge was appointed during the pandemic.

It -- courts are really only now started to have jury trials in the last few months.

This judge is coming in and none of us know what to expect.

None of us have any anecdotes of how he will handle the court room, control it.

What is his personality like?

Some runny take ship.

-- run a tight ship.

Some are less formal.

Jack: End of trial lawyers like to know who they are in front of.

They like to have a sense of how much will the judge want us to do this or that.

The former prosecutor appointed by the Republican governor as he states inspector general, appointed by the Republican governor, to this seat on the bench in February.

As an aside, that is a lot of experience as a lawyer.

You are saying, here is one for you.

Now that you've only been on the bench a few months.

Another question -- cameras in the courtroom?

Do we expect them?

B.J.

: We do have that in Georgia.

I had cases where they have appeared on TV.

But it is up to the judge to determine if that is the right thing to do.

He thought down here is been let the public see what is happening.

There is some benefit to letting people see and hear not just the reporters.

We will have to see what happens.

Jack: Dan, the district attorney Fani Willis is hopeful to get within six months.

Realistically, do you think we might see this get started within six months?

Ellis: I cannot -- Dan: I cannot claim to know, but that hope seems unrealistic.

We are already seeing an effort to remove the case.

That is going to take some litigation, both on the stateside and on the federal side.

Perhaps an appeal from that.

When he started doing the math of not just that issue, but what one imagines to other pretrial claims that can be raised by Trump and his codefendants, maybe time goes differently in Georgia than in federal court, but I am not seeing that.

Jack: Less than a minute left.

I was going to come to you for the last thought.

We could be looking literally and figuratively in multiple boxes at the trial of the former president and his codefendants taking place on camera and an active presidential campaign going on on camera.

How we deal with all of that?

Ellis: You are right to look at the clock.

It is a story of the clock.

Whitehurst -- four trains all coming into the station.

It is to have to be four indictments and these are all serious.

It comes down to the question of how it interacts with the campaign.

If Trump is elected, is power to save himself from conviction and prison in federal court.

Keep an eye on the clock.

Jack: There is a lot more to talk about.

I hope we can get you altogether.

Certainly appreciate your wisdom.

You help us enormously to understand all of this.

Thanks a lot.

♪ >> MetroFocus is made possible by the Peter G. Peterson and Joan Ganz Cooney Fund.

Barbara Hope Zuckerberg.

And by Jody and John Arnhold.

Barbara Hope Zuckerberg.

Dr. Robert C. and Tina Sohn foundation.

The Ambrose Monell Foundation.

Estate of Roland Karlen.

♪