0:00

Some people are born numbers

0:02

people, and for those people, there's

0:04

IU Online. IU

0:07

Online offers bachelor's degree programs

0:09

in mathematics, informatics, and

0:11

data science. With flexible

0:14

course scheduling, you can earn your degree

0:16

on your schedule and in your budget.

0:18

Numbers that really add up. Earn

0:21

a globally recognized Indiana University

0:23

degree and get to where you want to go

0:26

with IU Online.

0:31

This spring, transform your outdoor

0:33

space into a regular gathering place for

0:35

you and your loved ones with help from Ashley.

0:38

Whether you're into wicker, teak, or driftwood

0:40

inspired furniture, we've got the look

0:42

you're going for.

0:44

Add in accessories like string lights and beverage

0:46

tubs to take your patio party from basic

0:48

to curated and enjoy cozy evening

0:51

vibes with a new fire pit. Visit ashley.com

0:54

or stop by your local store and find

0:56

affordable pricing and expert support

0:58

today.

0:58

Shop and save today, only at

1:00

Ashley.

1:30

Hey everybody, welcome to episode 20

1:33

of Jack, the podcast about all

1:35

things special counsel. It is Sunday,

1:37

April 16th, and I'm your host,

1:40

Andy McCabe.

1:41

Hey Andy, it's me, Alison Gill. Once

1:44

again, a very busy week for Jack

1:46

Smith. I think you referred to him as a subpoena

1:48

factory. Text message.

1:51

Because you know, during the week you and I text back

1:53

and forth about some of the stories that are coming out. But

1:56

there's all kinds of new subpoenas

1:59

and testimony. and some news

2:01

about witness requests made by

2:03

Fonny Willis to the Department of Justice

2:05

last year. There's also been an expansion

2:08

and an investigation into the

2:10

Department of Homeland Security Inspector General

2:12

Khufari over the missing Secret

2:14

Service text messages from January 6th, among

2:16

other things. And there's been a gang

2:18

of eight briefing on all the classified documents.

2:21

And I'm gonna ask you about that because I know you've got some experience

2:23

there. But first, Andrew, who is

2:26

the winner of the contest naming

2:28

the eight Trump aides and allies

2:30

that the court, Jeb Bozberg, compelled to

2:32

testify

2:33

over arguments of executive privilege. Because

2:35

remember, we were tired of naming them all. I

2:37

know, it's a drag, right? There's so many people

2:40

in that list. So I have

2:42

to tell you, it was a hard fought battle.

2:44

AG, we got over 150 submissions, which

2:48

just completely knocked me out.

2:51

They were mostly very creative,

2:54

although I have to say the most

2:56

over submitted suggestion was

2:58

the hateful eight. If you subtract out the hateful

3:01

eight, I think we only got like four or five. No,

3:04

it wasn't that bad. But

3:06

yeah, we got some great ones. I'll

3:08

give you some of my favorites, the Ocho

3:11

Frauds, or how

3:13

about Scheme Team or

3:15

Steel Team 8, which I don't

3:17

know, I just love that one. Shout out

3:19

to all my San Diego

3:22

compadres. The Trader Aiders,

3:26

the Insurrectile Dysfunctionals.

3:29

Let your mind go with that one. The

3:31

Incoate Coupe 8,

3:34

or how about The Unappealables,

3:37

which is actually a shout out to the eighth grade

3:39

English class, Rolo's Writing Room.

3:41

I don't know what any of that means, but if I can do anything

3:44

to help in eighth grade English class, I'm doing it. And

3:48

then another really good one, Only

3:50

the Be Best. I thought

3:53

that was quite funny, but

3:55

none of those are the winner. I think you and

3:57

I were really on the same page here

3:59

with.

3:59

the one that we thought should win. And the

4:02

winner is

4:04

Ocho Nostra. I

4:06

mean, it is so great. Ocho Nostra,

4:08

it's like both creepy and

4:11

like subversive in the reference to

4:13

the Cosa Nostra, of course, but

4:15

yet it gives it kind of like a, I

4:17

don't know, like a very kind of Cinco

4:20

de Mayo vibe or something. I don't know what it is,

4:22

but I really dig it. Ocho Nostra.

4:24

Yeah, or the Ocho, that one

4:27

football player guy. So,

4:31

yeah, very, very good. I think that

4:33

submission came from Aaron H.

4:35

And so we are going to refer to them. I

4:37

mean, we'll probably pick, you know, pull

4:40

all these at some point in tweets

4:42

and things that we talk about, but yeah,

4:45

well, Ocho Nostra. Ocho Nostra

4:47

it is for now and at least for this episode.

4:50

And yes, we have to, I'll

4:52

have to talk to our

4:54

audio folks and figure out how to connect

4:57

with Aaron and record an outgoing

4:59

voicemail for her. I don't have any idea

5:01

how to do those things, but we are going to work it out, Aaron, and

5:04

we'll get this figured out. So

5:07

speaking of Ocho Nostra,

5:09

several of them have already testified

5:12

for a second time before the grand

5:14

jury, including our favorite coach,

5:16

Ken Cuccinelli, Stephen

5:19

Miller, and John Ratcliffe.

5:22

So what are your thoughts about that

5:25

wrecking crew there? I guess Miller, probably the

5:27

first one to mention, of course, he's

5:29

going to have information about the last minute edits

5:31

made to Trump's lip speech, including

5:34

the addition of a line about how Mike Pence should do

5:37

the right thing and throw the votes back to the

5:39

States. Miller always

5:41

at the right hand of the president throughout his term.

5:44

We know that he previously appeared in November and

5:46

December, but on April 4, Judge

5:49

Boseburg ordered Miller to return to testify

5:51

about things he had previously invoked executive

5:54

privilege over.

5:55

Yeah, and I assume those have to be those discussions

5:58

with Donald about... how to

6:01

put those last minute Pence references

6:04

in his speech, right? Because we know

6:06

that from stuff we learned from the January 6th

6:08

Select Committee,

6:09

that those, I think it was

6:12

Representative Luria who presented

6:14

that particular piece of information

6:16

that the speech didn't include any

6:19

mention of Mike Pence until the very last minute

6:21

when those edits were made. And then there were some additional,

6:24

I

6:24

guess, rifts by Donald Trump

6:27

while he was giving the speech that added some

6:29

different references

6:31

to Pence and if he has

6:33

the courage to do the right thing. And-

6:35

Yeah, I mean, it's a very direct line of questioning,

6:38

right? First you wrote the speech, it didn't have that

6:40

reference. Then you put that reference in, why?

6:43

What conversation did you hit? Did Trump tell

6:45

you to put that in? Was that entirely your idea?

6:47

What did you mean by that? When you put it in,

6:49

what did Trump say about it? How did he react

6:52

to the inclusion of that? So

6:54

it really isn't, it's yet, and I mean, I always

6:56

say this a lot, but it's yet another

6:59

small piece that gives you some insight

7:02

into what Trump was thinking. What was his

7:04

actual intent

7:06

in that moment? Crafting that statement

7:08

says something about what he actually

7:10

wanted done. So it's

7:13

an interesting and important line of questioning, I think.

7:15

Yeah, I agree. If Jack

7:18

Smith maybe goes after incitation

7:20

of an insurrection or anything like that,

7:22

that could be evidence in that. It could also

7:24

be evidence in the fraudulent electors scheme, the

7:27

Pence pressure campaign, any of those eight prongs

7:30

of cooing that

7:32

went on that went on

7:34

with regard to

7:36

Donald Trump. And then we have former

7:38

DNI John Ratcliffe, Director

7:41

of National Intelligence. He testified before a

7:43

federal grand jury Thursday,

7:45

and he is likely of interest to investigators

7:47

because he personally told Trump and

7:49

his allies that there was no evidence of foreign

7:51

election interference

7:53

or widespread fraud. And we

7:55

know that when Sidney

7:58

Powell and Mike Flynn and Rudy Giuliani, Giuliani

8:00

were pushing for executive orders to seize

8:02

voting machines, that there was some

8:04

discussion about, you

8:05

know, we can't really do that unless there's foreign

8:09

election interference. And that's

8:11

when these Italian satellite conspiracy

8:13

theories started coming to light and

8:16

Sidney Powell is bringing up Venezuela

8:19

and Rudy Giuliani is talking about Venezuela,

8:21

all these different conspiracy

8:24

theories about foreign election interference

8:26

and how that plays into it. John Ratcliffe

8:28

would be able to, you know, testify, assuming

8:31

that he came in and said, I'm not going to testify

8:33

to any discussions

8:34

about that I had with Donald

8:36

Trump

8:36

because of executive privilege, or I want to wait until

8:38

that privilege

8:40

question is settled before I,

8:43

you know, talk about that. Because a lot

8:45

of these guys who have testified

8:47

were, I think, willing

8:49

to testify about their discussions with

8:52

Donald Trump, but wanted to wait until the

8:54

executive privilege question was resolved

8:57

before they did that. I know

8:59

Hirschman was one of those.

9:01

He said, hey, if they asked me to testify and there's no

9:04

executive privilege, I'm gonna. We

9:06

know that the Pats, Pat

9:08

Philbin and Pat Cipollone were on

9:10

that train, Marc Jacob, Engel,

9:13

you know, some of the guys that are Pence,

9:16

close to Pence, Pence, General

9:18

Counsel and Deputy General Counsel. So I

9:21

don't know if Ratcliffe

9:23

was just being recalcitrant and being

9:25

a dick or if he was just like

9:28

really waiting for

9:29

the chief judge overseeing grand juries

9:32

to say, to give him the go ahead. You

9:34

know, it's the go ahead, but it's also coverage,

9:37

right? It's the same reason why you got to

9:39

talk to somebody. Typically this happens when you're

9:41

doing an investigation, you have to go approach a company

9:44

or an organization for records or some sort of

9:46

testimony. They're happy to cooperate,

9:49

but they want you to serve them a subpoena first. So then

9:51

they can turn around and say, oh, I had to do it. There

9:53

was no choice here. This is the law I had to comply.

9:56

Same thing is happening here with I think a lot

9:58

of these witnesses.

9:59

and claimed executive privilege to

10:02

avoid having to relate conversations

10:05

and statements they had with Trump,

10:08

but half of them are not, weren't

10:10

really, you know, their heart wasn't in it. They

10:12

wanted that piece to be litigated

10:16

and if there was a determination

10:18

that there's no privilege, then they were likely fine

10:20

with going in and talking. And I

10:22

think Radcliffe is probably one of those guys, because

10:24

if you think about it,

10:25

he was in his perch

10:28

as DNI, Director of National Intelligence.

10:30

He has access

10:32

to all of the nation's

10:35

foreign intelligence collection. The

10:37

issue of election security was certainly

10:40

a big deal leading into that 2020

10:43

election. You'll recall he was giving

10:45

briefings on it, Chris Ray, Chris

10:47

Krebs, who was the head of CISO, were giving briefings

10:50

to Congress on these issues. So he

10:52

saw all that stuff. He's also

10:54

a guy that previously went along with

10:57

a lot of Trump's crazy demands about

11:01

declassifying intelligence from the Russia

11:03

investigation, things that really, there

11:05

was no reason to declassify

11:08

that stuff other than giving in

11:10

to Trump's kind of demands supporting

11:13

his, you know, his grievance theory of

11:15

life, basically. So

11:18

he went along with all that stuff previously.

11:21

And then at this moment,

11:24

when asked, okay,

11:25

now give us the foreign intelligence that

11:27

shows that Venezuela or

11:30

Lord knows who else were messed with

11:32

the election, that was

11:34

the breaking point for him. And he allegedly

11:37

told Trump and others that

11:39

it's not there. I have no proof for you.

11:41

I can't help you with this. So I would expect

11:43

he's probably

11:45

not reluctant to say that to

11:48

the grand jury, but he just wanted the coverage of

11:50

having the privilege issue resolved.

11:53

Yeah. And same with Cucinelli, right? He had testified

11:55

previously in January and he appeared

11:58

again last week, part of the.

11:59

Hello, Jonoestra. The

12:02

House Select Committee reported Cuccinelli fielded

12:04

a question from Trump and his top advisors

12:07

about the executive branch seizing voting

12:09

machines, right, the DHS? Yeah.

12:11

Now, Cuccinelli also messaged with

12:14

Mark Meadows in November 2020 about

12:16

Dominion voting machines. And

12:19

Trump also considered Cuccinelli

12:22

for special counsel to

12:24

seek out election fraud on behalf of

12:26

the White House after the election. He tried to appoint

12:29

Cuccinelli.

12:30

He floated Sidney Powell as

12:33

being the special

12:35

counsel to investigate election fraud, because I guess

12:38

his $600,000 report from

12:41

the research firm didn't give him the-

12:43

Didn't go the way they wanted. Yeah, it didn't go the way he

12:45

wanted.

12:46

So he was trying to appoint a special counsel

12:48

to do that. And again, weaponized

12:51

the Department of Justice in

12:53

that way. So that

12:55

leaves Meadows, McEntee, Johnny

12:58

McEntee, Robert O'Brien, Dan

13:00

Scavino, and Nick Luna left to

13:02

testify as part of the O'Chanos-tra.

13:05

As far as we know, they may have snuck in without

13:08

the press scene,

13:08

but this seems to be going really

13:10

quickly.

13:12

I mean, they got Cuccinelli,

13:14

and the day that the appellate court

13:16

wouldn't issue the stay blocking

13:19

these guys from testifying under

13:22

executive privilege. She came in that afternoon.

13:25

Yeah, and that's the advantage to having a prosecutor

13:29

like Jack Smith and his team.

13:31

They are continuing to drop grand

13:33

jury subpoenas on these people while

13:36

the privilege issue is being litigated.

13:39

And the advantage there is it forces

13:42

the litigation to go forward more

13:44

quickly, because you have an upcoming deadline

13:46

of having that witness in front of the grand jury. And

13:49

it does seem that the judges, now Boseburg,

13:52

of course, are helping

13:54

to keep that schedule intact, to keep these witnesses

13:56

getting in front of the grand jury, and that's going to help us

13:58

get to the end of this process.

13:59

sooner rather than later. Yeah,

14:02

so a stay was denied, but the underlying appeal

14:04

continues. And these arguments are going to

14:06

be heard in May, along with arguments

14:09

about the Pence executive privilege

14:12

case. That's going to be heard in May

14:14

as well,

14:15

but I didn't see any stay even

14:18

asked for or issued in the Pence case. Maybe

14:20

they were just like, why, we shouldn't even bother asking

14:22

for a stay. Or there was a stay and it

14:24

was denied and everything's

14:25

under seal and we just don't know and the Pence team

14:27

isn't talking. Because again,

14:30

all of these are under seal. We're getting all of this information

14:33

likely from the lawyers of the people who

14:35

are being forced to testify so

14:37

that they can get out ahead of it and spin it like, hey,

14:39

I'm just doing my job and they forced me to

14:41

come in

14:42

or whatever. But

14:44

all of that is set to be heard in May. Now, Andrew,

14:47

what happens if

14:49

they get the testimony, the previously

14:52

privileged testimony that's

14:55

no longer privileged because a stay wasn't granted and

14:57

they must testify to these

15:00

lines of questioning, what happens if in

15:02

May the arguments are heard and then in June or July

15:05

or something like that, somehow

15:06

Trump wins this executive

15:09

privilege battle? Do they just then

15:11

not use that testimony

15:14

in court, but they have it now? Are you

15:16

allowed to just get it and then it gets clawed

15:18

back after a potential litigation like

15:20

this?

15:21

Yeah, it's a really weird fact pattern

15:23

because quite frankly, I just have never seen a stay like this before.

15:26

But what my strong suspicion... He's not going to win. He's

15:28

not going to win. I'm just wondering

15:30

if, like what happens in that situation?

15:32

The mechanics of it. Yeah, sure. So

15:34

the mechanics of it would be that

15:36

that testimony would be declared

15:38

inadmissible so it

15:41

would not be able to be used in a prosecution or a

15:43

trial that might follow an indictment.

15:46

However,

15:49

the sticky point here is the grand jurors

15:51

have already heard it. So

15:53

and in that, you know, that famous...

15:59

saying you can't unring the bell. It's

16:01

already had an impact on those grand

16:04

jurors. Now, they can be instructed

16:06

by the chief judge to disregard

16:09

that testimony because it's no longer admissible,

16:11

it won't go any further, and they shouldn't factor

16:14

it into their decision. But geez, that's

16:16

really hard to do, especially if you imagine

16:18

having sat through hours of, let's

16:21

say, for instance, Mike Pence

16:23

testimony that's like remarkable

16:25

and, you know, riveting and

16:28

they,

16:28

oh, it's hard to imagine anybody riveted by Mike

16:31

Pence talking, but okay, maybe

16:34

they sat there for hours on the edge of their seats

16:36

and listened to everything he had to say, and then to have

16:38

a judge come back to you a few weeks later and say,

16:40

oh, yeah, just forget about all that. Don't factor

16:42

it into your decision when you're deciding whether or

16:44

not to vote for an indictment.

16:46

That's right. It's not just what ends up being

16:48

admissible in court for motions and limonade.

16:51

It's what they use to decide whether or

16:53

not to indict.

16:55

Now, what if they indict before that

16:57

decision is

16:58

done? Because I can't figure out why

17:01

Jack Smith would go ahead and get this

17:03

testimony while there's still an

17:06

appeal pending, like why he wouldn't wait

17:08

for that resolution or for,

17:10

you know, for the appeal to the Supreme

17:12

Court. The Supreme Court refuses to hear

17:14

it like they have before. It either

17:17

says to me that he's on a time

17:19

crunch or he's 100% certain

17:23

that this isn't going to be a winner for

17:26

Trump because it has not in the past.

17:28

He won, for example, the Pat Philbin, Pat

17:31

Cipollone executive

17:32

privilege battle, and he's won other ones

17:34

all the way up to the Supreme Court. So

17:36

perhaps he's just like, I don't even care. I

17:40

just don't get why he's not waiting for the resolution.

17:43

It's maybe, like I said, a time crunch.

17:45

But because if he goes and he

17:47

uses this testimony to indict

17:50

Donald before the resolution of that appeal,

17:52

and then the appeal comes,

17:55

I don't think he's going to win, but he wins

17:57

after the indictment comes down. Then there's...

17:59

can be pretrial challenges to the indictment.

18:03

Yeah, it's it's messy.

18:05

And I think you're I tend

18:07

to agree with your assessment that

18:09

he is likely motivated by prior

18:12

victories. He doesn't hold out nobody

18:14

I think holds out much hope for the appeals

18:17

of these executive privilege decisions

18:20

turning things around. And

18:23

he is under a time crunch. He's trying to get this

18:26

thing done.

18:27

You know, have all this information. And

18:29

then when the arguments come out in May,

18:31

and then there's a decision against Trump,

18:34

and then it goes to the Supreme Court,

18:36

and the Supreme Court refuses to hear it maybe in

18:38

June, then it's resolved, then

18:40

he can indict,

18:42

you know, maybe he's waiting

18:44

to indict until it's, you

18:47

know, resolved, but getting the locking

18:49

in the testimony now, as

18:52

opposed to waiting until later, I Yeah,

18:55

he's taken the chance that he may have to unwind

18:57

it later if the rulings don't go his

18:59

way. But that's a low likelihood event.

19:02

And because the appellate courts

19:04

are not issuing stays of the

19:07

lower courts order, the

19:09

witnesses don't have the option

19:12

of going in front of the grand jury and saying, Nope,

19:14

I appealed. And I still expect that

19:17

executive privilege is going to hold and I

19:19

don't have to answer these questions. They have to answer

19:21

because they are bound by the lower

19:24

courts

19:24

ruling that has not been stayed.

19:26

So he'll get the testimony, he may

19:28

be creating a problem for himself later.

19:30

If the rulings if the appeals don't

19:32

go his way, but it's probably a pretty safe

19:35

bet to move forward. Yeah, they

19:37

haven't gone Trump's way yet. I

19:39

mean, the Jack Smith is batting 1000 and

19:41

there's been a few of these already. So and other

19:44

news to

19:45

former, another former

19:48

director of national intelligence under Trump, Rick

19:50

Grinnell testified this past Thursday, but

19:52

this time in the Mar-a-Lago documents case.

19:54

So we just have a revolving door in two different grand

19:56

juries going in and out of

19:59

these of this testimony.

19:59

The comment

20:03

out of that article I sent to you was indicated they have

20:05

two separate grand juries meeting I think twice

20:07

a week each in DC

20:10

every week, which is a phenomenal

20:13

amount of grand jury time. That is a lot

20:15

of grand jury time.

20:17

And with that number of prosecutors in front

20:21

of grand juries, that often you're going

20:23

to get a lot of witnesses through the door. And that's what we're saying.

20:25

Yeah,

20:26

yeah, definitely. So Grinnell

20:29

is also part of this declassification

20:31

of the Russia documents, right? He was, he

20:33

embarked upon an effort to declassify

20:36

documents that were of interest to Trump because Trump

20:38

believed they could delegitimize the Russia investigation.

20:41

Grinnell remained in Trump's orbit even

20:43

after the former president left office and has been

20:46

seen at Mar-a-Lago as recently as last

20:48

week,

20:49

Grinnell. He also commented

20:51

publicly about Trump's retention of classified

20:54

documents and the former president's

20:56

still unproven claims that the materials had

20:58

been declassified.

21:00

The same grand jury investigating the documents

21:02

kept at Mar-a-Lago has also heard testimony

21:05

from Trump's former National Security Advisor, Robert

21:08

O'Brien, who is also being investigated

21:10

in the other grand jury for January 6th stuff.

21:13

But I think what's interesting here

21:16

is that we're going to see a similar situation

21:18

to some other

21:19

people who have testified

21:21

and what they say to the public

21:23

like Kosh Patel, for example, or

21:27

have told the public on Fox News that Trump

21:30

absolutely called for the National Guard multiple

21:32

times on January 6th, but then in testimony

21:35

under oath, they said, nope, he never ever called

21:37

for it. I think we're going to see another situation where

21:39

what Grinnell has said to the public differs

21:42

wildly from what he testifies to under

21:45

oath regarding the declassification of this material.

21:48

But it could also

21:50

reveal to Jack Smith

21:52

what Donald Trump thought might be

21:54

declassified or whether he knew that

21:57

these items were not declassified or

21:59

whether he was told that.

21:59

don't take them, they're not officially declassified

22:02

yet, stuff like that. Sure. We'll see how that turns

22:04

out. I think that's possible. I think it's also possible

22:07

that this is like a bit of a parrying move,

22:09

right? In a fight you would, you expect

22:11

a blow to come, you see it heading

22:14

your way, and you deflect it before it gets

22:16

there. So that's kind of how

22:18

I think about the Rick Grenell testimony.

22:21

I think it's possible that the prosecutors

22:23

think that one of Trump's possible

22:26

defenses in the document case might

22:28

be, oh no, I thought Rick Grenell

22:31

declassified this stuff for me. So

22:34

they're getting to the source first, they're going to put

22:36

him in there and find out exactly what

22:39

he declassified and what he didn't, and

22:41

when he was in a position to do so and when he wasn't.

22:44

So they have all that stuff in the tank in

22:47

the event

22:48

Trump is indicted and he presents

22:50

this, or a similar defense, essentially

22:53

pointing the finger at Rick Grenell at trial,

22:55

the prosecutors will have the information

22:58

they need locked down, sworn under

23:00

oath in a way that makes it very

23:02

effective to shoot that defense down at trial.

23:05

Yeah, very good point because Trump's

23:07

defense, I mean, hey, he told me they were declassified.

23:10

That's right. That's why I took him. That's exactly right. And

23:12

then you get Grenell up with perhaps some emails

23:14

and statements and notes where he specifically

23:17

said that certain things were not declassified,

23:19

but they were taken anyway. Because we know

23:21

also Mark Meadows wrote a memo

23:23

at the very end of Trump's tenure,

23:26

like third week of January,

23:28

second week of January 2021, telling Trump that

23:30

a lot of these documents

23:34

haven't been declassified. They haven't gone through.

23:37

There's concerns over at FBI and

23:39

DOJ about declassifying these

23:41

certain documents. And then he went

23:43

and ran and grabbed a bunch of them and gave them back

23:45

to the DOJ. So I mean, there's a lot going

23:47

on. And that's a part of the documents

23:49

case that I think goes a little bit

23:52

off the radar. And we'll keep you

23:54

posted on it.

23:55

And Andy, we have a really big update on that sleeper

23:57

case that you talked about back in

23:59

in December that Jack Smith is looking

24:02

into wire fraud. And Randall

24:04

Eliason wrote that piece saying, hey,

24:08

if it's white collar, it's gonna be wire fraud.

24:10

That's right. And so we've got some

24:12

new stuff about Jack Smith looking into the

24:14

wire fraud and the Trump packs. We'll have more on that

24:17

after this quick break. Everybody stick around.

24:19

Oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh,

24:21

oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh.

24:24

Tackling home projects. Pathways

24:26

has home equity products designed to fit

24:28

your needs. Find out more at pathwayscu.com.

24:31

Pathways Financial Credit Union, your true financial

24:34

partner. Member NCUA, equal housing

24:36

lender, NMLS ID 237769.

24:40

When you're behind the wheel, it's

24:42

okay to rock out to your music, but

24:45

it's not okay to interact with your phone

24:47

screen and electronic devices while

24:49

driving. In most cases, anything

24:52

more than a single touch or swipe is

24:54

against the law. That means no

24:56

texting, no typing, no scrolling,

24:59

no shopping, no browsing. If

25:02

an officer sees a violation, they can

25:04

pull you over. So remember,

25:06

Ohio, phone's down. It's

25:08

the law.

25:11

Some people are born numbers

25:14

people. And for those people, there's

25:16

IU Online. IU

25:18

Online offers bachelor's degree programs

25:21

in mathematics, informatics, and

25:23

data science. With flexible

25:25

course scheduling, you can earn your degree

25:28

on your schedule and in your budget,

25:30

numbers that really add up. Earn

25:32

a globally recognized Indiana University

25:35

degree and get to where you want to go

25:37

with IU Online.

25:43

This spring, transform your outdoor

25:45

space into a regular gathering place for

25:47

you and your loved ones with help from Ashley.

25:50

Whether you're into wicker, teak, or driftwood

25:52

inspired furniture, we've got the look

25:54

you're going for.

25:55

Add in accessories like string lights and beverage

25:58

tubs to take your patio party.

25:59

from basic to curated and enjoy

26:02

cozy evening vibes with a new fire

26:04

pit. Visit Ashley.com or stop

26:06

by your local store and find affordable

26:08

pricing and expert support today.

26:10

Shop and save today only at

26:12

Ashley.

26:19

Welcome back. Okay. So back

26:21

in December, there was some reporting that you

26:23

and I discussed about subpoenas that

26:25

were sent out requesting information on

26:28

Trump's super packs. So

26:30

let's take a little trip down memory

26:32

lane here, AG. So you'll recall

26:34

that, uh, it was first reported by ABC

26:37

in September of last year. And

26:39

ABC said, uh,

26:41

the subpoenas, which were sent to

26:43

several individuals in recent weeks are

26:46

specifically seeking to understand the timeline

26:48

of save America's formation,

26:51

the organization's fundraising activities,

26:53

and how the money is both received and

26:55

spent by the Trump aligned pack.

26:58

Okay. So that's going all the way back to September,

27:01

meaning the, you know, and that those subpoenas

27:03

went out in August. I just want

27:05

to point out that that's before Jack

27:07

Smith got here.

27:08

That's right. And, and let's remember that was

27:10

kind of a new subtext,

27:12

right? It was not something that featured

27:15

prominently in the work of the January

27:17

six committee, at least not in the hearings that

27:19

we, that we all watched on TV, this kind

27:21

of direct investigative action

27:24

or investigative action directed at the

27:26

packs. All right.

27:27

And that could have come out from the January six select

27:29

committee because, you know, they did call it the big fraud.

27:31

They did the big, the big grift, um,

27:34

uh, rep Zolofgren did. And, and

27:36

it was, um, in July, uh, actually

27:39

after, um, a good number of those

27:42

hearings had taken place that Jack's or

27:44

that Merrick Garland, excuse me, appointed JP

27:47

Cooney,

27:48

uh, to be in charge of the financial part of the

27:50

investigation of Trump super PAC. So this is going

27:52

back eight or nine months now. Yes, that's right.

27:54

So then in December after Garland appointed

27:57

Jack Smith, Caitlin Paulins

27:59

at CNN report. She said

28:01

in recent months, however, the financial

28:04

investigation has sought information

28:06

about Trump's post-election Save

28:08

America PAC and other funding

28:10

of people who assisted Trump, according

28:13

to subpoenas viewed by CNN.

28:15

The financial investigation picked up steam

28:17

as DOJ investigators enlisted

28:20

cooperators months after

28:22

the 2021 riot.

28:24

So this now has been going on

28:27

since since right

28:29

after the right happened. That's right. That's right. Because

28:31

we remember they sent out

28:33

a bunch of subpoenas soon after Merrick Garland

28:35

got there asking for information about

28:37

fundraising and the money that supported

28:39

the rally on the ellipse on January 6th.

28:42

Right. That's right. That's right. So

28:44

then in January, Dossie

28:47

at the Washington Post reported an expansion

28:50

of the probe into Trump's election fraud

28:52

fundraising.

28:54

And I quote one person with knowledge

28:56

of the prosecutor's inquiries said

28:58

they appeared to be exploring whether people

29:00

who approved the ads saying the election

29:03

was stolen separately acknowledged

29:05

their fundraising pitches were based on

29:07

lies.

29:08

Prosecutors also sought information about

29:10

a quote election defense fund

29:13

cited in some fundraising emails

29:15

that asked for donor money to challenge

29:18

the election and any documents about

29:20

whether such a fund existed. Or

29:22

whether there are plans for such a fund.

29:24

Yeah. Now, and I have a prediction here because

29:26

I know the January 6th committee had subpoenaed

29:29

a company called Salesforce

29:32

and Salesforce was responsible for putting

29:34

all the ads together and the fundraising emails

29:36

and text messages that were sent out by the Trump

29:38

organization and the Trump campaign

29:41

to to fraudulently raise money off

29:43

of these election lies. And people at

29:45

Salesforce, like you were talking

29:47

about in the first segment, got, you know, said, hey,

29:49

just subpoena us for this stuff. We're happy to

29:52

hand it over.

29:53

But then Trump came in and sued to block

29:55

it

29:55

and held it up in the courts with

29:57

his, you know, delay magic wand.

29:59

So eventually the

30:01

select committee disbanded

30:03

and they had to cancel that subpoena

30:06

for Salesforce and they just dropped it because

30:08

they weren't gonna get that information. I

30:10

am willing to bet you all the

30:12

beans that Jack Smith

30:14

or the Department of Justice before Jack Smith

30:16

got there did not have a hard

30:19

time getting the documents and information

30:21

from Salesforce.

30:22

Not at all. Those

30:24

people were like, hey, we do not wanna be in

30:26

the middle of this thing. Here you go. Here's the documents.

30:28

Thank you very

30:29

much. Yeah, and Jack Smith's

30:31

got the power overseeing the DC

30:33

grand jury that he's running as would

30:35

have the DOJ before Jack Smith got there.

30:37

So I wouldn't be surprised if we

30:40

hear sometime in the next week or two

30:42

that Department of Justice has

30:44

the records from Salesforce with

30:47

regards to Trump's pack and the fraudulent

30:49

fundraising. But here's

30:51

what's cool. Now we have more

30:53

subpoenas related to this investigation.

30:56

Cipina. All

31:00

right, so again, from Dossie at the Washington

31:02

Post, just this past week on

31:04

April 12th, quote, the new subpoenas

31:07

received since the beginning of March,

31:10

which have not been previously reported,

31:12

show the breadth of Smith's investigation. The subpoenas seek

31:14

more information and specific types of communications

31:17

so the prosecutors want to compare what

31:19

Trump allies and advisors were telling

31:21

one another privately about

31:23

voter fraud claims with what they were seeing publicly

31:27

in appeals that generated more than $200 million in

31:31

donations

31:32

from conservatives. So that's

31:35

really, really big news. And can you

31:37

explain just for a second why some

31:39

people might be subpoenaed again? Or

31:42

like if subpoenas went out in August and

31:44

then December and then January

31:46

and then March, why are there so many rounds

31:49

of subpoenas? Does it have to do with

31:51

getting more leads and information at each level

31:53

that you question, folks?

31:55

Yeah, you know, you can think of the first

31:57

round of subpoenas like that's throwing the

31:59

net.

31:59

out and to see what kind of

32:02

fish fall into it. You get the

32:04

results from that first

32:06

inquiry back and that leads you,

32:08

you know, it may uncover

32:10

for you things like, you

32:13

know, you can imagine like bank account numbers

32:16

or identify people

32:18

who are involved in particular communications.

32:20

Well, that gives you a whole new round

32:23

of targets that you want to subpoena

32:25

in your next round of subpoenas. So this is the sort

32:27

of iterative process

32:29

that happens

32:29

when you are conducting a

32:32

grand jury investigation. You

32:34

are constantly asking for information and

32:36

then analyzing that information to

32:38

develop new leads, new targets,

32:41

new directions.

32:42

And that's much like with the documents, they

32:45

subpoenaed them, they got the, well, first they

32:47

got the boxes, noticed classified stuff was

32:49

missing, then they'd sent out a subpoena, then they go

32:51

down, then they get more, they develop more

32:53

information that there was additional

32:56

documents. So they get a

32:58

search warrant, signed off by a judge

33:00

and they go down and get that. And then they send out

33:02

subpoenas to 27 different aids

33:05

and valets and you just

33:07

keep kind of, and then finally you get to

33:09

Corcoran.

33:10

You very

33:12

rarely ever open an investigation,

33:14

you

33:15

know, knowing or having a strong

33:17

idea of who was involved, who's

33:20

responsible for the crime or whatever

33:22

you're looking into. And then you go out

33:24

and make one request and get the piece of evidence

33:26

to convict that person and then it's all done. That's like

33:28

TV, you know, it happens in the, over the course

33:31

of an hour. In reality, these

33:33

big investigations, particularly white collar investigations

33:36

that are by definition, very document

33:38

intensive communication, like historical

33:41

communication intensive. So emails,

33:43

text messages,

33:45

things like that. It takes time

33:47

to get the legal process,

33:50

to serve the legal process, to wait

33:52

for those entities to either pull

33:54

the information together and get

33:56

it to you or maybe fight you in court over

33:58

it, over privilege or other.

33:59

other things,

34:01

you get it back and then it all has to be analyzed.

34:04

You know, you, you kind of buried in reams

34:06

and reams of data. You got to sort through it

34:08

and figure out where to go next. So it's definitely

34:10

a

34:11

process, but I should also say this

34:14

is the meat and potatoes of

34:17

DOJ white collar investigations.

34:20

So many of these investigations come

34:22

back to your basic fraud charges.

34:25

Wire fraud, male fraud,

34:27

securities fraud, they are

34:29

tried

34:30

and true. Prosecutors,

34:33

they come up as prosecutors, they're trained

34:36

and they, and they, you know, cut

34:38

their teeth on these fraud cases

34:40

for years and years and years. So they have a great

34:42

sense of what sort of evidence you need

34:44

to make these cases stick. They're

34:47

not that complicated. And you have

34:49

these like tangible things to

34:52

put in front of jurors in a trial,

34:54

like phone records, like emails, like

34:56

bank records, or a witness that's going

34:59

to, you know, kind of put context

35:01

and interpretation around those things. So it's

35:04

much easier to prove a fraud case

35:06

than it is to prove a case for,

35:08

you know, sedition or seditious

35:11

conspiracy or inciting an insurrection.

35:13

Exactly.

35:14

Yeah. And I do want to mention that the fraud

35:17

statute carries with it a 20 year

35:19

max sentence, a 30 year max sentence,

35:21

if it negatively impacts a financial institution.

35:24

That's right. So

35:25

it's not just a throwaway

35:28

case, you know, it's, it's, they're

35:30

significant

35:31

charges. Very significant, significant charges.

35:33

It's what Bannon was charged with in

35:35

his, we build the wall scheme,

35:37

where he defrauded donors saying he

35:39

would raise money to build his own private

35:41

wall on the Mexico border and then used it to,

35:44

I don't know, fix up Guo Wengui's yacht or

35:46

whatever the hell, you know, pay his mortgage

35:48

and stuff like that. So that's defrauding donor. When

35:50

you tell a

35:51

group of people that you are fundraising for

35:53

one thing, and then you spend the money

35:55

on other things, or that that one thing

35:58

that you're raising money off of is lie

36:01

like the big lie and you

36:03

can prove it and then intent then you

36:06

end up with these

36:08

like you said the bread and butter wire fraud charges.

36:10

Now of course Bannon was pardoned by Trump.

36:13

Yeah so there you go but so like

36:15

in this case so just in terms

36:18

of the questions around the legal

36:20

defense fund

36:21

if you raise money off of the

36:23

claim that like hey contribute money to my legal

36:26

defense fund you actually have to have

36:28

a legal defense fund and if you have one and

36:30

I know this AG because I used to

36:32

have one it's not just like

36:35

oh I cooked it up in the back of my mind give me some

36:37

money I'll throw it in my bank account and call that

36:39

you know stuff I'm gonna use for the lawyers. No you

36:41

actually have to

36:43

set it up it's almost kind of like you incorporate

36:46

it in a way I don't know what the

36:47

correct legal term is for that but you

36:50

set it up it's on file in the

36:52

state where you live or where the entity

36:54

is is based you have to file tax

36:56

returns for the for the defense fund

36:59

so that's why they're asking all these questions

37:02

if they can prove that none of that stuff

37:04

ever happened with this with

37:07

the with the PACS legal defense

37:09

fund. Yeah

37:10

or the election fraud the election

37:12

fraud didn't exist. Exactly

37:15

if they haven't taken any of those steps

37:17

to actually you know file the right paperwork

37:19

to file you know tax returns at the end

37:21

of the year to declare the money that they've

37:24

that they've brought in then the thing didn't really

37:26

exist which makes all of the fundraising

37:29

emails

37:30

a complete fraud. Yeah

37:33

and and that leads us right into our next

37:35

story from Caitlin Polance at CNN who's

37:37

just by the way excellent reporting I

37:39

recommend you follow her and this

37:41

is reported on Friday April 14th quote federal

37:43

prosecutors investigating former president Trump's

37:46

handling of classified documents this is the documents

37:48

case are pressing multiple witnesses

37:50

for details about their attorneys including

37:53

whether any of them have attempted to influence

37:55

testimony in order to protect the former

37:57

president

37:58

many of those lawyers have been paid out

38:00

of the money raised on fraudulent

38:03

electorlies. And by the

38:05

end of 2022,

38:06

Save America PAC had paid $16 million

38:09

for lawyers, and this is clearly not a legal

38:11

defense fund,

38:12

who defend Trump himself

38:14

and people who work for him in the ongoing probes

38:17

and in response to other legal issues.

38:19

And of course, several of Trump's closest aides,

38:22

who are now witnesses, remain

38:24

on his payroll and also receive hefty

38:26

consulting fees through the Save

38:28

America PAC. Now, again, it's not

38:30

illegal to have your

38:32

defense

38:33

paid for by a third party. That's

38:36

right. But if it's

38:38

being used nefariously or

38:40

corruptly to suborn perjury or to

38:43

coerce witnesses,

38:44

that's when you start running into trouble. It's a little harder

38:46

to prove

38:48

than just straightforward wired fraud, like

38:50

you're just, you know, you're raising money off of fraudulent

38:52

stuff.

38:53

But

38:54

that Jack Smith is looking into this and

38:56

this has to do

38:58

with the January 6th committee and perhaps

39:00

obstructing their work. It has to do with

39:02

the documents case. It has to do with the PAC,

39:05

the Save America PAC case, has to do with

39:07

Sidney Powell

39:08

and her investigation into her

39:11

PAC and has to do with

39:13

the January 6th investigation by Jack Smith. This

39:15

touches every single investigation. And

39:18

now we know that Jack Smith,

39:19

and probably as part of his obstruction

39:22

investigation,

39:23

is looking into where this money went and

39:25

if it paid for these attorneys and if that is in

39:27

fact illegal or just

39:29

normal course of events. Yeah, it's a

39:32

very tough thing to prove. You

39:35

basically have to have evidence

39:37

that

39:38

the attorney, let's say in

39:41

this example, Trump is the third party. So let's say

39:44

you have a witness who's

39:46

speaking to the grand jury and Trump decides

39:48

to pay for that witness's attorney. So

39:51

that attorney you'd have to prove is actually

39:54

not

39:55

really genuinely representing

39:57

the witness in the best interest of the

39:59

witness.

41:58

And that could

42:01

substantiate your claim that, oh, the legal

42:03

defense fund is actually a fraud because they

42:05

weren't, people's money wasn't actually

42:08

being used to

42:09

overturn the election

42:11

or something like that. Yeah, for sure. All

42:14

right, we got a couple more pieces of news. We'll

42:17

hit in a lightning round style as

42:19

soon as we take another quick break and then we'll also

42:22

answer a listener question. So everybody stick around. We'll

42:24

be right

42:24

back. Hi, I'm Harry. I'm

42:29

Harry Littman, host of the Talking Feds Podcast,

42:32

a weekly round table that brings together prominent

42:35

figures from government law and journalism

42:37

for a dynamic discussion of the most important

42:39

topics of the day. Most news

42:41

commentary is delivered in 90 second

42:43

sound bites that just scratched the surface of

42:46

a new development, not Talking Feds.

42:49

Each Monday I'm joined by a slate of Feds

42:51

favorites and new voices to break down

42:53

the headlines and give the insiders view

42:55

of what's going on in Washington and

42:57

beyond.

42:58

We dig deep, but keep it fun.

43:01

Plus sidebar is detailing important

43:03

legal concepts read by your favorite

43:05

celebrities, such as Robert De Niro

43:07

explaining whether the president can pardon

43:09

himself and Carole King explaining

43:12

whether members of Congress can be disqualified

43:14

from higher office and music

43:17

by Philip Glass. Join Talking

43:19

Feds wherever you get your podcasts

43:22

and don't worry. As long as you need

43:24

answers, the Feds will keep

43:26

talking.

43:28

Some people are born numbers

43:31

people. And for those people, there's

43:33

IU Online. IU

43:35

Online offers bachelor's degree programs

43:38

in mathematics, informatics, and

43:40

data science. With flexible

43:42

course scheduling, you can earn your degree

43:45

on your schedule and in your budget,

43:47

and get to where you want to go with

43:49

IU Online.

44:00

This spring, transform your outdoor

44:02

space into a regular gathering place for

44:04

you and your loved ones with help from Ashley.

44:07

Whether you're into wicker, teak or driftwood

44:09

inspired furniture, we've got the look

44:11

you're going for. Add in accessories

44:13

like string lights and beverage tubs to take

44:16

your patio party from basic to curated

44:18

and enjoy cozy evening vibes with a

44:20

new fire pit. Visit ashley.com

44:23

or stop by your local store and find

44:25

affordable pricing and expert support

44:27

today.

44:27

Save today only

44:29

at Ashley.

44:36

All right, welcome back. So a couple of quick things.

44:39

First of all, we had a gang of eight briefing

44:41

congressional leaders known as the gang of eight, right?

44:44

That's the leaders of the Senate and the House and

44:46

then the leader, the chair, co-chair of the

44:48

intelligence committees

44:48

in both houses or both, you

44:51

know, in the Senate and the House, eight

44:53

of them. Four Democrats, four Republicans

44:56

have begun receiving access to classified documents

44:58

found in the possession of the former guy, Trump,

45:01

President Biden and former

45:03

vice president Mike Pence.

45:05

And Andy,

45:07

normally the DOJ wouldn't share

45:10

documents that are part of an ongoing

45:12

criminal investigation with Congress.

45:15

Why are they doing so now?

45:17

Does this signal that maybe Jack has the testimony

45:20

locked in that he needs

45:22

locked in and is fine with sharing

45:24

these documents now with the gang of eight?

45:27

You know, I can't imagine that Jack is very

45:29

comfortable with this. Even if he's

45:31

got the lion's share of his testimony

45:33

locked in, you don't want your evidence.

45:37

The actual documents you're going to use as evidence

45:40

in a potential prosecution, you don't want that

45:42

floating around up on Capitol Hill. And it also

45:44

does put you in this awkward position of sharing

45:47

something,

45:49

evidence in a criminal investigation,

45:52

likely criminal prosecution with Congress.

45:55

That's like a line in the sand that DOJ never

45:57

wants to go over. So that's all on one side

45:59

of the equation.

46:00

The problem is there's a sec there's another side

46:02

to that equation and that is that the

46:05

intelligence committees specifically

46:07

have an obligation to conduct oversight

46:10

and

46:10

particularly oversight of matters

46:13

that are considered intelligence failures

46:15

and The loss

46:17

of classified material although we seem

46:19

to be talking about that a lot these days the

46:22

loss of classified material or the spillage

46:25

as we like to say of classified outside

46:27

of

46:28

approved places and containers

46:30

is

46:32

Qualifieds is that sort of a intelligence

46:34

failure? So Congress has a legitimate

46:37

oversight Role here

46:39

and that's what they're using to demand access to the documents

46:42

now I mean

46:42

couldn't Jack Smith have written a letter like Like

46:46

Alvin Bragg wrote to Jim. Good saying

46:48

look we have these documents are part of an ongoing criminal

46:51

investigation You can't see them yet. He

46:53

could but here's here's where they have an opening

46:55

in addition to the criminal investigation You

46:58

also have the intelligence community conducting

47:01

a damage assessment. So risk assessment

47:03

the risk assessment, right? so there they've already looked

47:05

at all the documents and Determined

47:08

like to make decisions about which sources

47:11

and methods now need to be protected maybe Accesses

47:14

that we had in foreign places need to be shut

47:16

down. Maybe sources need to be moved That's all

47:19

very real and important work that has to

47:21

get done and that's right in the lane

47:23

of Intel stuff that Congress

47:25

has oversight over So my

47:28

guess is that I would

47:30

have hoped that the only thing Congress

47:32

would have seen were summaries of the documents

47:36

to kind of address this issue

47:38

of

47:39

What sort of danger have does this

47:41

bill present to you know classified

47:44

sources and methods? It's likely Congress

47:46

wasn't satisfied with that or demanding looking

47:48

at some of the exact documents so if they're getting

47:50

them from let's say the DNI or

47:53

from Intel community representatives

47:55

rather than the prosecutors who are investigating

47:58

the case they can kind of

47:59

fig leaf it a little bit and say, well, oh, we're

48:02

not asking for evidence from the prosecutors.

48:04

We're asking for intelligence

48:07

from the intelligence community. Essentially,

48:09

it's the same material. So there's jeopardy

48:11

there. But...

48:13

Yeah, but Jack Smith fought tooth and nail

48:16

the Eileen Cannon special master

48:18

classified documents thing to keep those documents

48:21

out of the hands

48:22

of even the special master

48:26

with the argument that

48:27

yes, we're doing a risk assessment,

48:30

but these are inextricably linked to

48:32

a criminal probe. They cannot be

48:34

pulled apart. It's odd to me because they

48:36

say that the gang of eight saw actual

48:38

documents perhaps, and there's things that

48:41

we don't know. Maybe the Goldilocks documents

48:43

that are going to be used in the case were

48:45

not shown. I honestly

48:48

don't know, but it seems like

48:51

from the reporting at least that all the

48:53

classified documents they have were shown to the gang

48:55

of eight, like the actual docs. It's hard

48:57

to say how they arrived at that, if that's

48:59

in fact what happened. In

49:01

my own personal experience,

49:03

these things, sometimes you will lash

49:05

yourself to the mast and go down with the ship

49:08

fighting, yelling and screaming at the AG

49:10

and the DAG and everybody else saying, no, no,

49:12

no, don't do it. You can't do it. You're going

49:14

to ruin my case. But they are subjected

49:17

to political pressures and political

49:19

realities, and sometimes they'll

49:21

split the baby and do something that they wouldn't

49:24

normally do. This feels

49:26

like one of those moments.

49:29

And I'm not trying to defend it, but

49:31

the gang of eight is typically the

49:34

smallest, most discrete

49:36

group that you can convene up on the

49:38

Hill. So when you have something super

49:41

creepy, sensitive that

49:43

you feel like you absolutely have to notify

49:46

Congress about, but you want to do it in

49:48

the most secure way, the way least

49:51

susceptible to leakage and stuff

49:53

like that, you just request a gang

49:55

of eight briefing. So that's obviously what they did here.

49:58

And I think

49:59

I think there's a good chance that you won't hear

50:02

things leaking out of that briefing, but

50:04

look, it's Congress. You never know.

50:06

Well, I have to imagine Kevin McCarthy

50:08

would run back to Donald and let him know what they've got.

50:11

But I mean, again, like you said,

50:13

split the baby and we'll see. We'll see. I

50:15

think we'll probably know more as time goes on. Yeah.

50:18

What they got

50:19

a peek at. Also Kufari, who I've been

50:21

like hammering on, he's the inspector

50:24

general at the DHS, Trump

50:26

appointee. He's suing the counsel

50:28

of the inspectors general on integrity and efficiency.

50:31

So if you ever wonder, like if you've got a

50:34

nefarious inspector general, what

50:37

is the check on that guy? And the answer

50:39

is the counsel of the inspectors general on integrity

50:41

and efficiency. It's a panel of inspectors

50:44

general that investigate other

50:46

inspectors general. Well

50:48

Kufari is suing them.

50:50

And the lawsuit revealed that on Monday investigators

50:52

demanded records related to the deleted text

50:56

messages of the office of

50:58

inspector general Kufari, his deleted

51:00

text messages. Now

51:02

Kufari was investigating

51:05

the disappearance of the Secret Service text

51:07

messages and he waited until

51:09

the day after 18 months

51:11

had passed,

51:13

after January 6th,

51:15

to tell Congress

51:17

that text messages were missing. And

51:19

I find that that's a very interesting

51:21

period of time because there are some records

51:24

retention rules

51:25

in the department, in the US Secret Service

51:27

department, in that agency or DHS that

51:29

say after 18 months you can delete

51:32

anything. We don't keep records after 18 months.

51:35

And so that's when he came to Congress and said we can't

51:37

find any of these text messages. It just happened to be,

51:39

and then they were like, oh well why did you delete them? Oh well

51:41

we kept them for 18 months.

51:43

So this investigation

51:47

has paralyzed the inspector general's

51:49

office, alienated Kufari from

51:51

the watchdog community and

51:53

led to calls for Biden to fire him. Now

51:56

the lawsuit, an unusual broadside against the federal

51:58

watchdog community, and led to

51:59

community by one of its own, accuses

52:02

the panel, that that CIGI council

52:05

of investigators, of exceeding

52:08

its authority and of illegal interference

52:10

in the operations of one of the government's largest

52:12

oversight offices. This sounds like something Trump

52:14

would say. But this

52:17

panel said, he's Kufari,

52:20

challenged the structure of a body statutorily

52:22

created by Congress. Um,

52:25

we're appalled and exhausted

52:27

by him, they said.

52:29

I love that. Appalled,

52:31

not just appalled, appalled and exhausted.

52:34

That is so visual. And you know,

52:36

everything about

52:38

him is just so suspicious

52:40

and weird. And now you have

52:44

a guy who is an IG whose

52:46

job is to conduct oversight and

52:48

he's suing the other IG's

52:50

for conducting oversight. I mean, it's just, how

52:53

is he still in his job? I don't, I don't understand

52:55

it.

52:56

The only thing I can guess is maybe Biden

52:58

is just waiting. Like, but you guys

53:01

figure this out, have CIGI investigate.

53:03

I'm going to stay out of it. And also

53:06

if you still work for the department, it's easier

53:08

to get your testimony. If,

53:10

if it comes down to that,

53:12

or it's easier for the inspectors general to question

53:14

you, because inspectors general generally can only question

53:17

people who still work

53:18

for the, for the department.

53:20

Although

53:21

Merrick Garland allowed for

53:24

former Department of Justice employees

53:27

to be questioned by the inspector general at DOJ

53:29

right after January 6th.

53:32

So

53:33

I don't know, we'll see, but that, that investigation

53:36

is, is now broadening. And

53:38

then finally, um, some interesting

53:41

insight into the Fonny Willis

53:44

investigation, something I didn't know. I don't know

53:46

if this has been previously reported,

53:48

but aides to Fonny Willis

53:50

filed what are known as two requests.

53:53

That's named after a 1951

53:55

Supreme court case.

53:57

And she filed those requests for Donna Hue and

53:59

Clark.

53:59

to former DOJ Trump people.

54:02

And under that rule, local prosecutors are required,

54:05

they're required to get authorization from the DOJ

54:07

to question current or former employees.

54:10

But the requests

54:11

were ultimately rejected.

54:14

And I'm wondering if

54:15

DOJ was like,

54:17

they didn't have any way to stop Fonny

54:19

Willis from bringing in Meadows and

54:21

and Rudy and you

54:24

know Lindsey Graham.

54:25

But they do have that, you

54:27

know, ability to stop

54:29

former DOJ. Department employees. Yeah, department

54:32

employees. So the basic policy

54:34

at DOJ is, and

54:37

I'll quote it here, no present

54:39

or former employee of the Department of Justice may

54:41

testify or produce departmental records

54:43

in response to subpoenas or demands

54:46

of courts or other authorities issued

54:48

in any state or federal proceeding without

54:51

obtaining prior approval

54:53

by an appropriate department official. So

54:56

that's what opens the door for what you've referred

54:58

to as the 2E request. And

55:00

here it's not crazy to think that

55:02

Fonny Willis would love to get

55:05

Donohue and Clark in front of the grand

55:07

jury, find out what they'd say and potentially use

55:09

their testimony in a possible

55:12

indictment of you know Donald

55:14

Trump or Rudy or anybody else that's involved

55:17

in the Georgia investigation. So

55:19

she files the request to get their testimony

55:22

and DOJ says no thank you very

55:24

much, you cannot have them as witnesses. Also

55:27

not unreasonable

55:30

under the circumstances because DOJ

55:32

in the form of Jack Smith, he wants those

55:34

witnesses first. He doesn't want those

55:36

guys testifying under oath anywhere

55:39

except for him. So he can control

55:42

the questioning and make sure that

55:44

that grand jury testimony in Georgia

55:47

or anywhere else isn't creating

55:49

problems that he would then have to deal

55:51

with if he uses them

55:54

as witnesses in his potential

55:56

proceeding

55:57

on the Trump investigations.

55:59

Could the Department of Justice,

56:01

could Jack Smith's special counsel office have called

56:04

Fonny Willis and asked her to stand down, much

56:06

like Berman at the Southern District of

56:08

New York called the Manhattan

56:10

District Attorney's Office and asked them to stand down?

56:13

Is that a normal request? Is

56:16

that why Fonny Willis' imminent

56:19

indictments have not happened

56:21

for now three months?

56:23

You know, I doubt

56:25

it. I don't think they would do that, especially

56:28

with the way this issue of, it's

56:31

not even really a real thing, but the

56:33

question of prosecutorial coordination,

56:36

you know, the coordinating, seeking indictments

56:39

in different jurisdictions has come up largely

56:41

out of the

56:42

Trump-New York indictment.

56:44

That's become such a controversial

56:46

and disgusting thing. I would expect that Jack

56:49

Smith doesn't want to get anywhere near

56:51

that. He doesn't want to be involved in that at all. That could just

56:53

make things look suspicious

56:56

later, and he doesn't have to do it because by

56:58

policy, DOJ can stop

57:00

Fonny Willis from reaching any of the witnesses

57:03

that he really relies on, any of these current

57:05

or former employees, and the way

57:08

to block her officially without getting involved

57:10

in anything that could be accused later of being

57:12

suspicious is just to rely

57:14

on the policy. She makes the request. They

57:17

turn it down. Thanks very much. See

57:19

you next time.

57:19

But he can only do that for former DOJ employees,

57:22

which he did, or which

57:24

Garland did actually because this was before Jack

57:26

Smith came on board.

57:27

Yeah, so he can't do anything about

57:29

non-DOJ employees, but he'll

57:32

shut her down as much as he can, I think, on those

57:34

folks.

57:34

I think that kind of shows that he's not

57:36

doing any coordination with Fonny Willis. Otherwise,

57:39

we wouldn't have seen her

57:41

be able to question Mark Meadows

57:43

and question Rudy Giuliani and other witnesses

57:45

that the DOJ probably didn't want anybody else

57:47

to go testify anywhere else with.

57:49

And then he also has to worry about the January

57:52

6th testimony that a lot of these folks gave and

57:54

whether all that testimony matches up.

57:56

That's right. All right, we got a couple

57:58

minutes left. Do we have a listener question? We do.

58:00

We have a question this week from Kim

58:03

Zee, and Kim writes, Regarding

58:05

Pence's testimony, will the special

58:08

counsel have to revisit the question of immunity

58:10

when it comes to the fake electors?

58:13

That was the plot that his role on the dais

58:15

involved. How will the appellate

58:18

decision affect that case?

58:20

So here's how I think about that, Kim,

58:24

and

58:27

AG tell me if you see it differently. I don't

58:30

think that it will be

58:32

much of an issue, because the

58:35

questions that Jack Smith wants

58:37

to ask

58:39

Mike Pence are really

58:41

more generated or geared towards

58:43

the things that happen in the lead up to

58:45

January 6th, like ending

58:48

probably on the morning of January

58:50

6th with that infamous,

58:52

you know, kind of aggressive phone call

58:54

between Trump and Pence. And

58:57

I would expect that he'll probably stay

58:59

away from, you know, all the,

59:01

all the bad stuff, all the

59:03

things that could possibly be evidence of

59:05

criminal intent and, and,

59:07

and crimes,

59:09

even regarding the fake electors, that

59:11

stuff all happened in conversations leading

59:13

up to Pence's arrival at

59:16

the Senate and his role in certifying

59:19

the election. So the actual mechanics

59:21

of what was he thinking when he was certifying the votes

59:23

and what kind of conversations was he having with

59:25

people on the Senate floor

59:27

that day, that stuff is probably going to

59:29

fall within the specter of, you

59:33

know, privilege that he's, he's now

59:35

created with this wacky thing.

59:38

But it's, it's not the

59:39

meat really of what Jack Smith is going

59:41

to be looking for. No. And even if a court

59:43

determines that the

59:45

discussions Pence had with Trump

59:47

about what he was going to do or what he wanted him

59:49

to do as president of the Senate

59:52

would not be protected by speech or debate

59:54

cause privilege because Judge Boseburg

59:57

determined that anything that

59:59

was discussed even if it has to do

1:00:01

with him being a president of the Senate

1:00:03

or his role that day, anything

1:00:05

that was discussed that is a crime

1:00:08

or that could be in the furtherance of a crime

1:00:11

is not protected by the speech or debate. Just

1:00:13

like Judge Beryl

1:00:17

Howell decided in the Scott Perry case, like

1:00:19

sure, at your stuff as

1:00:21

a member of Congress, but any discussions

1:00:24

you had with the executive branch

1:00:26

about overthrowing the government aren't protected

1:00:28

by speech or debate, you know, because it's supposed to

1:00:30

protect Congress from the large

1:00:33

hand of the executive branch coming in. You can't

1:00:35

coordinate and conspire

1:00:38

with that if, and expect

1:00:40

to be covered by that privilege.

1:00:41

So Jack Smith's gonna get the answers to every

1:00:43

question he wants answered. That's right, and

1:00:45

if, if Trump or Pence tries

1:00:48

to avoid answering a question by

1:00:51

making a claim of Fifth Amendment

1:00:53

privilege, which is different from the speech and debate clause

1:00:55

privilege, that's really the only circumstances

1:00:58

where immunity comes in,

1:01:00

and you know,

1:01:02

it would, it's a likely, I can't

1:01:04

imagine that happening, because he doesn't really have

1:01:06

any sort of a credible claim of criminal

1:01:10

liability under the matters

1:01:12

that he's being questioned about, but even

1:01:15

if he did claim the Fifth, as we discussed

1:01:17

last week, you know, the prosecutors would

1:01:20

very quickly immunize him and then

1:01:23

he'd be compelled to answer the question. So, they're

1:01:25

not after Pence.

1:01:27

They're not going after Pence on any of this. Alright,

1:01:29

cool, thank you so much for that question. Very

1:01:31

good question. If you have questions, you can send them to us at hello

1:01:34

at molarshirot.com. Just put Jack in

1:01:36

the subject line. Wow,

1:01:37

what a week of news, and I imagine

1:01:40

it's only gonna get busier as time goes

1:01:42

on. So, thank you so much everybody

1:01:45

for listening to this episode of Jack.

1:01:47

We look forward to talking to you next week. I've been Alison

1:01:49

Gill. And I'm Andy McCabe. We'll

1:01:51

see you next time.

1:01:59

This spring, transform your outdoor

1:02:02

space into a regular gathering place for

1:02:04

you and your loved ones with help from Ashley.

1:02:06

Whether you're into wicker, teak or driftwood

1:02:09

inspired furniture, we've got the look

1:02:11

you're going for. Add in accessories

1:02:13

like string lights and beverage tubs to take

1:02:15

your patio party from basic to curated

1:02:18

and enjoy cozy evening vibes with a

1:02:20

new fire pit. Visit ashley.com

1:02:22

or stop by your local store and find

1:02:24

affordable pricing and expert support

1:02:26

today.

1:02:27

Shop and save today,

1:02:28

only at Ashley.