FREE VIDEO: Scribble Dooms Donald 🦃

Your Thanksgiving gift! Expert details new smoking gun

JUST IN: Call To Activism’s Joe Gallina delivered a detailed legal analysis on why a hand-written note on a newly-discovered document might blow up Donald’s ENTIRE defense!

While these videos are usually for my paid subscribers, tonight the entire video is a Thanksgiving gift for ALL subscribers, to say THANK YOU for being part of my family! 👇 And if you haven’t joined yet, grab a seat at the table!

Here’s a cranberry appetizer of a trailer — stuffing and mashed potatoes 😉 (that is, full video and transcript follow):

I’ve sacrificed a fair amount in speaking out against Donald including connections to almost my entire family. That is why I appreciate all of YOU even more.

If you enjoy this interview and don’t want to miss future videos, I’d be honored if you’d join me as a paying supporter, by using this button:

---

Watch the full video here to see my Thanksgiving message to you, and get all the shocking details about Donald’s awful day. Transcript below as well, for those who prefer to read.

TRANSCRIPT— edited for flow and clarity

MARY

Hi everybody. I have my friend Joe Galena from Call to Activism with me here today to discuss a pretty significant occurrence that happened in a New York City courtroom in Donald's fraud trial yesterday. So we get deep into that and what it means, what the implications might be for the ruling that's coming down from Judge Engoran in the next three weeks approximately. We also talked a little bit about some of these 14th Amendment cases that are making their way through state courts across the country.

And this one's for everybody. It's sort of my way of saying thank you just ahead of Thanksgiving. I can't tell you how much the community of the goodness means to me. I so appreciate that you take the time to read my columns, to watch these videos, and to comment in your incredibly thoughtful and insightful way. So just wanted to say again in case I don't say it often enough, how much you all mean to me. And I hope you get lots of rest this weekend because it's going to be a long year and we need to stick together and make sure that we're taking care of ourselves. So thank you again. Enjoy the video and have a wonderful long weekend. Take care.

__

Hello everybody, and welcome to today's kind of last-minute Deep Dive. Joe, welcome back. It's great to see you. Joe Allina from Call to Activism is here to help us break down some pretty compelling and unexpected news coming out of the fraud trial, Donald's fraud trial in New York City that broke yesterday, but we're just kind of catching up with it because there are some implications we weren't aware of at the time. And guys, I wanted to get this in before the holiday, maybe give you something extra to be thankful for.

So Joe, it appears that we have a situation in which it looks like Donald's lawyers didn't provide a potentially relevant discovery to the prosecution. One, we'll break down what that means, and two, the potentially damning document we're talking about is potentially damning because of what's written on it. Can you walk us through this?

You know what, let me just stop a second. I want to put the brakes on a little bit because I think when anything happens in a courtroom that would totally destroy anybody else's case or land somebody else in jail, nothing really ends up laying a glove on Donald, and I think we're all really sick of it. So I just want to rein it in a little bit. Objectively speaking, can you talk to us about what happened and what it should mean?

JOE

Absolutely. Well, it's funny to try to avoid hyperbole, but here we are again. This was probably the worst day for Donald in his New York civil fraud case. The facts are the facts, and this was very simply the smoking gun Attorney General Latisha James was looking for. Essentially there are these documents that are prepared by Trump Organization that track Donald's net worth. These evaluations get done by a certain number of people and then they get passed to Mazars, which is the Trump Organization’s audit company, which prints the final version of the document. During the entire trial, we heard a chain of events that occurs when one of these documents is made. Essentially the testimony of Jeffrey McConney, who is the spreadsheet czar--a former comptroller--was that he prepares the documents first and then gives it to Allen Weisselberg. Then Allen Weisselberg sends it to Mazars. But somebody is very specifically excluded--and that's Donald.

MARY

Oh yes. The guy who knows nothing about what's going on in his own company. [s/]

JOE

Right, exactly. He never knows anything, never sees anything--except what was admitted yesterday, the smoking gun blockbuster document which was a statement of Donald's net worth. Written on it in McConney's handwriting was a note that read, “DJT TO GET FINAL REVIEW.” And what that means is that Donald J. Trump gets final review of this document.

MARY

Whoa. Hold on a second though. There must be other people in the world with those same initials. I mean, isn't that, I don't know, maybe overstating the case? There may be other people at the Trump Organization with those initials. In fact, I think Donnie is one of them. But I'm also guessing that Donnie, my cousin, does not have any authority of any kind in his father's company. What you're saying is that the initials “DJT” were almost certainly referring to Donald.

JOE

Absolutely. And that basically is a big problem. Why is it a big problem? Because it contradicts Jeffrey McConney's testimony just a day prior. On Monday he sat there on the stand and laid out that chain of events that I mentioned that starts with him and goes to Allen Weisselberg and then to Mazars but excludes Donald Trump. Now we have a document that makes it clear that Donald Trump gets final approval. Just to explain why this is a slam dunk, I can't think of a bigger smoking gun than this document which, according to the state, exaggerates Donald's net worth by over $3.5 billion. The document is full of fraudulent information and written at the top of it is a note saying Donald Trump has to approve it. If you're from the prosecutor-- Letitia James must have looked at this and danced because there's not much better evidence you could get.

MARY

Joe, just off the top of your head, do you know what the date of this document is?

JOE

The document was supposedly a draft that was made in 2014.

MARY

Okay. So at the time he wasn't even running for the Republican nomination yet, so he was fully engaged. And I just think it's really important to take a step back and remind people of the context here. Because of the fact that Donald sadly is a very powerful person and because he gets more publicity than anybody should, and tens of millions of people throw money at him for reasons that we’re still going to be figuring out for decades to come, people think the Trump Organization is a large and complex corporation. In reality, it’s a mom-and-pop operation. This is not a massive Fortune 500 corporation. Very few people work there. I briefly worked with Donald, so I've spent a lot of time in the offices and, with the exception of the foyer and his office, it's literally a large room with a drop ceiling, fluorescent lighting, and a couple of dozen desks.

Nothing happens without Donald knowing about it. Absolutely nothing gets signed off on without his knowing about it or signing off on it. I'm not suggesting that he's intimately involved in negotiations leading up to a deal, but no deal happens without his approval and say so.

That, along with the fact that his former employee potentially committed perjury, is why this document is so telling. I wonder if you have any ideas about whether or not this will allow the prosecution to push for getting more documents that may indeed have been withheld because isn't that a potential pattern?

JOE

Sure. I think that this is definitely going to open a lot of questions. A very important piece to this is that the document was not included in the original documents that the Trump organization was supposed to hand over. They apparently did not realize that Mazers already handed over their documents, which were subpoenaed.

So that opens a whole can of worms about why the document wasn't included and whether that was done on purpose, whether it was destroyed, or whether it was a part of their normal business operations to get rid of documents. Even so, they would be held responsible because even in your normal business operations, the onus lies on the company to retain these documents that might be needed in a reasonably imminent lawsuit or a future lawsuit.

We're going to have to see. I think Attorney General Letitia James does have enough cause to bring up something called a spoilage motion. Basically this tells Judge Engoron that the state believes that the Trump Organization has tainted the evidence by either willfully retaining things that they were supposed to hand over or by not properly retaining the documents that they were supposed to. At that point it would fall on A.G. James to make the case that that this document was reasonably supposed to be held. And then it'll be up to Judge Engoron to see if he agrees. But spoilage can lead to a host of consequences like sanctions. It could allow him to make a negative inference about why the Trump Organization did not include that document in discovery. That is something that the Trump Organization really doesn't want to have happen and it looks like it very well could.

MARY

A couple of things here. First of all, this is an instance in which it's really important to remember that this is a bench trial. There's no jury to manipulate or impeach—which I'm sure the defense would have done if there were a jury. Judge Engoron is the only person with the power to render a verdict here. So I'm pretty sure, based on his performance so far, he can't be swayed. The other thing, just to put it in context, this happened during the defense team's case in chief. In other words, this man was a defense witness. I did not have the opportunity to watch the live tweet threads yesterday so I’m making an assumption here, but I'm assuming this document was presented to the witness on the prosecution’s cross. Have we seen what the defense team's response was either in or outside of the courtroom?

JOE

Well, they did ask McConney questions and he had to be honest because he was under oath. Essentially, he said that yes, on occasion it was his understanding that Donald saw the documents, which was basically an explosion on the defense's table. I think we're going to see how it develops. In my opinion, we may see a spoilage motion coming if A.G. James feels that there was some sort of mal-intent with this document’s not being handed over. I think that's a fair conclusion to make, but it's wild.

If I could give a piece of advice to Donald, I would probably say if you're in the middle of a fraud case, maybe don't commit fraud right in front of the judge's eyes. The issue here is that when you're on trial for fraud, all of this mal-intent and lying and cheating and conning and withholding of documents is just a really bad look. The Trump Organization has already been found liable for fraud. Now it’s just about the damages which could be up to 250 million. I think days like this are a real victory for a James and the prosecution. The more they shine a light on Donald's enterprise, the more fraud comes out.

MARY

I saw somebody point out on Twitter last night that Donald was over on what he likes to call Troth Sential, but I believe is the money-losing Truth Social putting together a massive thread of videos. Again, being mindful of the hyperbole, I thought, “Oh wow, he's really losing it this time.” But we've been doing this for a very long time now, and I think we need to check ourselves when we proclaim that this is the time that he's really gone over the edge. No, he's been having temper tantrums on social media since before many of us were born. Having said that, this thread of videos was absolutely out of this world. I’ve never seen anything like it. The suggestion was that he must have found something out, and I'm now wondering if this is what it was.

JOE

I think there's a good chance of that. I think that people who respect the rule of law and respect justice have really been waiting for Donald Trump to be held accountable for anything, right? Because we've heard him break the law with our own ears, right? We've seen him incite violence with our own eyes. We've seen thousands of examples of business fraud, and yet still he roams free to spread his hate and run for president. So, I am one of the people who’s been frustrated during this process.

I think it's important for us to take a case-by-case basis and to be happy when things like this happen and the truth comes out.

And a very fair and learned judge is on the bench hearing this. I think it's important to remember in this New York civil trial that the Trump Organization has already been found to have committed fraud. This is really just icing on the cake as the judge determines the damages.

I think it's going to be really hard for Donald to wiggle out of this case. I think the damages will be severe, and I think that this day and the fact that documents have not been fairly produced, really strengthens James's case.

MARY

We do need to leave open the possibility that, even though I was joking about this earlier, somebody on the defense side might make the case that DJT stands for Donny Jr. But I think that will depend on, one, whether Donny is willing to throw himself under the bus or, two, whether Donald is willing to throw his son under the bus. I think both things are potentially possible, but if they do make that argument, we'll know that it's absolutely a lie. That is not how it works over there at the Trump Organization.

JOE

In law we always say, do things pass the smell test, right? If the defense ever says that it was not Donald Trump's initials on that document, the question is why would someone else approve Donald Trump's net worth, right? Someone who is obsessed with his net worth, someone who lied about his net worth just to get on the Forbes 400 back in the 90s, why would that person just allow others to put approve an amount without his having say? And the fact that the net worth is exaggerated just fits directly into his M.O. The judge is going to look at the totality of the evidence, and it makes total sense that Donald Trump would look at his net worth, be the one to suggest it be exaggerated, and approve the amount on that document and.

MARY

This was 2014. There would've been absolutely no reason for anybody in the company to go to Donny. There's another legal saying: If you have the facts, pound the facts; If you don't have the facts, pound the table; if you don't have a table, pound Donny. I think that's how the saying goes. I could be wrong.

A question that we revisit with much more frequency than should be possible in a country that hadn't lost its mind--is there any chance at this point, or I should say, is there a greater than say, 10% chance that Donald Trump will see the inside of a jail cell before the election?

We talked about the hearing regarding the gag order in DC that was presented to the three-judge panel and after we spoke, I kind of started feeling a little differently about it. I wasn't as sanguine about how they were going to handle it. It looks like Donald not be as bound as he had been by Judge Chutkan’s gag order. Then we saw in the RICO case down in Georgia, that defendant Harrison Floyd, who clearly violated the terms of his bail, was cut a lot of slack by Judge Scott McAfee. The bond agreement was modified, but Floyd will suffer absolutely no consequences for his behavior. So, I'm sort of white-knuckling it at this point.

JOE

That's a great question. I think it's going to depend on what the final gag orders look like. That's the primary way that Donald could end up in a jail cell—if he repeatedly violates the gag orders with the promise of imprisonment. Judge Engoron has put him on notice of imprisonment. He's previously had a $5,000 sanction put upon him for violating the gag order. We're still waiting to see how the appeals court rules. They were very fair in their questioning.

However, we're yet to see exactly how that's going to turn out because there has been some speculation that the Appeals Court indicated that they'll probably pare the gag order down, making it less broad, so as not to run the risk of crossing the line where they're limiting Donald Trump's constitutional rights to free speech. But as we know, you don't have the right to engage in hate speech and you don't have the right to speech that's going to cause imminent death or harm to people. That's the balance that they're going to strike.

MARY

I'm sorry, but he seems to have total impunity to threaten whomever he wants, and I am heartily sick of it.

JOE

Absolutely. I'm hopeful that at least there'll be some part of the gag order reinstated. And Judge Engoron seems to on his last nerve. I think jail could happen. But I'm with everybody else who's been watching the news and just waiting for the day Donald is held accountable. I do have faith in the system, and I do think his duck is cooked in quite a few different ways. They’ve already found fraud, and Donald makes it worse every time he testifies--he makes it worse in every trial he’s involved in. It's going to be an interesting ride.

MARY

Now, this is going to have to be the subject of another Deep Dive because I think an entire video needs to be dedicated to this topic, which is more broadly what we're talking about: accountability and the system holding or not, or the limits of the system, which is made up of imperfect and, in some cases,corrupt human beings. We've got the imperfect but decent in Judge Engoron and Judge Chutkan and Judge McAfee. And then we have the corrupt, inept and incompetent in Aileen Cannon. But more specifically, we have several cases winding their way through state courts right now regarding whether or not Donald can be stricken from ballots in those states based on the fact that he is an insurrectionist.

To those of you who aren't familiar with the Constitution, and Donald would be among them, Section Three of the 14th Amendment states very clearly that anybody who has taken part in an insurrection cannot ever, ever either again or ever period, hold an elected office in the United States of America. In Colorado, a judge found that, lo and behold, Donald actually took part in an insurrection. He incited it himself. He is an insurrectionist. He fits that definition. However, and I'm sorry, I'm going to call it copping out and being a coward, Judge Sarah Wallace also found that, based on language in Section Three of the 14th Amendment, Donald doesn't meet the definition of an officer of the United States. Joe, can you please explain this to me as if I had just landed here from another planet because it makes my head explode. It's just sophistry at this point.

JOE

This Colorado decision is frustrating, right? Also wild and crazy because the judge literally held her nose when she was making the decision because she didn't contradict herself per se, but she knew that the ruling didn't quite get it right, but she was sticking to the facts. Here's the thing, I think that there's a little bit of the cart going before the horse when it comes to the insurrection because Donald has never been adjudicated as an insurrectionist in court. I think that's part of the issue here, that the judge just didn't want to go on record. And even though she said that Donald met the definition I think she just didn't want to go that extra length, I think she probably should have.

However, when it comes to constitutional rights and dealing with the Constitution, we also have to expect high bars when it comes to removing people's rights. We want that due process, and we want every judge to get it right, because every one of these cases is going to end up before the Supreme Court. And I think that these judges are using a lot of discretion because Donald is a former president. I don't think that's fair a hundred percent. I think that he should be treated like every other American and that he's not above the law. But the reality is we're seeing in a couple of these decisions that that may have played a role.

MARY

Let's be clear, if it had been anybody else in government from the vice president on down, the judge would've stricken that person from the ballot. And her decision was based on the notion that Amendment 14, Section doesn’t apply to the president simply because he takes a slightly different oath. The words “support the Constitution” aren't included. I'm sorry, it's crazy.

But it would've been appealed either way. It is going to the Colorado State Supreme Court, and as you said, it will continue on to the Supreme Court. So, we'll keep an eye on it, but just in case anybody else was feeling made crazy by this, so were we. It's literally a Solomonic solution and it does nobody any good.

JOE

While the Colorado decision was kind of frustrating, I do think it's important to remember that there are 15 states that are hearing these cases on the 14th Amendment and whether Donald should be barred from running. So, while the Colorado decision I think didn't quite get it, we do have some other cases coming up. Some are in blue states, a couple are in red states, most are in purple states. A lot of fair judges, some Obama appointees. It’s a good mix. We're going to keep a close eye to see how those develop.

I think we have so many different trials, and some of them will maybe have reached verdicts before the election. I think that could add to the question of whether Donald Trump is constitutionally barred or prohibited from running. And then there's that question about insurrection and what that means. I think it's possible for at one of the 15 judges to find that he is an insurrectionist and is therefore barred from running.

MARY

I think that the importance of the judge’s finding Donald committed insurrection gets buried in the disappointment her ruling meaning nothing in the context of the 2024 election. However, a judge found that Donald engaged in insurrection against his own government. That's not nothing. Do you have any thoughts on whether or not that might play a role in Jack Smith’s DC case in front of Judge Chutkan?

JOE

I think it could. I think Donald is an insurrectionist. I think we all saw him incite violence and he is a dangerous person. His running for president is a five-alarm fire for our country. So I do think it's persuasive. At the same time, I personally, think it's better for America, if Donald runs. I want to see him lose so big that there's no question, no one can think the election is rigged, that it’s a historic loss forever. That would be a perfect ending.

MARY

That's a really important conversation to have. And we will have it. Maybe we'll put a panel together because that may be something we face. Given the promises of political violence, it's not necessarily the case that his losing will matter to people. People will think it's illegitimate either way. So, a conversation for another time, but a really important one.

I don't know if you're having deja vu, but much like in 2016, Donald got some crazy doctor to say that he's the fittest person who's ever lived. Plus, he's taken all sorts of cognitive tests to show that he's in his right mind and cognitively unimpaired, I guess. One question would be, why is he taking cognitive tests? You only take cognitive tests if your doctor thinks there's a problem. So there's that, but no tests are referred to. The language is very vague.

This is a guy who surrounded himself by questionable medical professionals. Remember the fifth Beatle doctor, Harold Bornstein And Ronny Jackson, who has to be one of the most vile people in Congress and who, for reasons I don't begin to understand, was entrusted with the health of President Obama. First of all, why was this letter released now? This seems to preemptive. Are we going to hear something about his health? What is the point of this letter? As far as I know, nobody was asking for it.

JOE

Well, Mary, the number one qualification to running for president is if you can memorize the words  man, woman, person, camera tv, and we can all rest assured that Donald can remember those words. It's more of the same, right? He lies about his taxes, lies about his net worth. And here he is going to say that he's the healthiest man in the world when everyone looking at him can see that he doesn't look like that. We've all heard the clips, we’ve all heard his verbal stumblings when he gives his speeches, so we just have to remember to believe our own ears and eyes and make our own judgments.

MARY

Presumably the Biden team will release an actual medical report with actual results and numbers that can be verified. That was a question from Jean, so thank you for that.

I love this question--Rosemary asks “So much for business genius. Is it too late to sue NBC for ‘The Apprentice?’” Speaking of fraud . . .

JOE

It's crazy. It reminds me of that there was a giant class action lawsuit that was filed about COVID. A survivor sued Donald Trump for his mishandling of COVID and the case was thrown out because Donald was “acting in his capacity as president.”

MARY

What to kill Americans? Yes, he was indeed.

JOE

Unbelievable. But, yeah, it seems like we all have been punished as a nation. We should all be able to hold Donald Trump accountable in court of law. I like that idea.

MARY

I'm all in. Alright, we've gone long, but this is to give people an extra treat and I so appreciate your being here, Joe, and filling in at the last minute when something comes up.

I'm going to share a little secret and then we'll go. Sometimes people think I'm too mean to Donald or that I shouldn't be taking pleasure in his misfortune. All right? I do feel bad for him in one specific way. Donald has been playing golf probably for 60 years. It's the thing he spends the most time doing and he's never gotten better at it. That is just the saddest thing. He's so bad at it that he has to cheat in order to win. I only like to do things I can get better at. So I guess that's the problem with thinking you're good at everything--you never bother to try. So, if you have the misfortune of being on a golf course with him at the same time, watch out.

JOE

It's really funny. I love reading the accounts of everyone who says he cheats. It just makes so much sense.

MARY

Of course it does, because he deserves to win--it doesn't matter how.

On that festive note, Joe, seriously thank you again. I hope you have a wonderful Thanksgiving weekend and I hope the news cycle just chills out a little bit for everybody's sake so we have some time to relax and digest and all that other stuff. And I'm pretty sure it's going to pick up again next week. So we will be in touch.

JOE

Thank you so much, Mary, and really appreciate everything you do. I think I speak for everyone when we say we love you and appreciate your voice and everything you're doing for the country.

MARY

Oh, that's really very kind of you, and I appreciate everybody's support. So let's remember we're all in this together, and every once in a while we need to take a break. So please, everybody, except me, take a break this weekend and we'll be back at it next week. Take care.