0:00

A Fortune Forecast Update, brought

0:02

to you by the Ohio Lottery. Well, hey there,

0:04

Ohio. We're tracking a lot of jackpot

0:06

activity over the next few days. We have Rolling

0:08

Cash 5 and Lucky for Life in the forecast

0:10

the entire week. But we also have major

0:13

drawings for Powerball moving in, followed

0:15

by Scattered Mega Millions drawings through the week,

0:17

with some classic lotto drawings popping

0:20

up here and there as well. There are big drawings

0:22

every day, so stay tuned to the Fortune Forecast

0:24

Center for the latest jackpot developments. Lottery

0:26

players are subject to Ohio laws and commission regulations.

0:28

Please play responsibly.

0:59

Hey, everybody. Welcome to Episode 21

1:02

of Jack, the podcast about all things

1:04

Special Counsel. Today is Sunday,

1:07

April 23rd. We have a lot to cover.

1:09

I'm your host, Alison

1:10

Gill. And I'm Andy McCabe. Okay,

1:12

so today, Alison, we're going to cover some new

1:15

evidence about text messages tying

1:17

the Trump White House to stolen

1:19

voter data in Georgia that was going

1:21

to be used to overturn the 2020 election

1:24

results, as well as the potential

1:26

utilization by Jack Smith of

1:29

audio recordings from the Dominion

1:31

defamation case against Fox.

1:33

And we'll talk about how a right-wing

1:36

media outlet got faced by

1:38

DOJ in their effort to mine info about

1:40

the Jack Smith team.

1:41

That is amazing. And I

1:43

love that because, you know, we did an episode

1:46

early on about lessons

1:48

learned, like how Jack Smith

1:51

is going to be so much more successful because

1:53

he has the entire Mueller investigation

1:55

to look at.

1:56

Right? And that's sort of... That's right. We'll talk a little

1:59

bit about that. We're also going to...

1:59

to talk about Trump attorneys, make an

2:02

attorneys get attorneys, Boris Epstein

2:04

and his long, long ass meetings

2:06

with special counsel prosecutors

2:08

this week, along with another

2:10

Trump attorney, Evan Corcoran, recusing

2:14

himself or stepping aside as Trump's

2:16

lawyer in the documents

2:18

case and what that could mean for these investigations

2:21

that Jack Smith is conducting. Andy,

2:24

let's start though with

2:25

Boris. Oh, yeah,

2:29

Boris, here we go. Everybody

2:31

hates Boris, right? That's a new TV

2:34

show this week on Fox News. He

2:37

has become the kind of Hollywood

2:40

bad guy figure in the whole

2:42

documents team slash January 16th

2:45

slash whatever else.

2:46

Yeah. So check out this one-two

2:48

punch that happened on Wednesday, April

2:50

19th. The Washington Post

2:53

reported that Trump consultant

2:55

and lawyer, Boris Epstein, was

2:58

going to be taking a more limited role

3:00

in the January 6th case and the documents

3:02

case. Not an all

3:04

out recusal according

3:06

to the sources, but back

3:08

bench you a little bit. And that might be because

3:10

a lot of people are confused about whether or not he's

3:12

legally representing Trump

3:14

or whether he's a campaign consultant.

3:17

But my immediate thought was

3:20

it must be because he's a potential witness in both of

3:22

these cases, right? That's what happened with

3:24

Evan Corcoran. And we're going to talk about Corcoran

3:26

later on in the show.

3:28

He quit Trump's documents

3:31

legal team when he had to go in and testify

3:33

before the grand jury pursuant to an order

3:35

by Judge Boseberg who said, you know, crime fraud

3:37

exception, go speak. We've

3:39

covered that pretty extensively. And

3:42

like I said, we'll talk more about Corcoran a little bit later. So

3:45

April 19th, 2 p.m.,

3:47

Washington Post says he's taking a more limited

3:49

role. Not more than two hours later

3:53

after the Washington Post story dropped,

3:55

New York Times came out with a story

3:57

reporting that Boris would actually be meeting with

3:59

special counsel prosecutors in

4:01

DC. And we didn't have a lot of information at

4:03

the time whether or not he was going to be meeting with, you

4:07

know, like,

4:09

was it people from the criminal division? Is it line

4:11

prosecutors? Is it Jack Smith? We

4:14

didn't know what case it was necessarily about,

4:16

although we had a feeling it might have been the documents case.

4:18

But before we get into some of that, you

4:21

know, speculation or whatever's happening here

4:23

with Epstein, what

4:25

are the circumstances, Andy, under

4:27

which a person would have to meet the DOJ

4:30

in person and talk to prosecutors versus

4:33

like a subpoena? Like why

4:35

are you bringing somebody in to

4:37

talk to you physically? Like,

4:40

you know, I always think of this as a meeting that could have

4:42

been handled by email. What's

4:45

going

4:45

on? So even before we

4:47

get to that, just to touch on this idea

4:49

of like he's kind of stepping back

4:52

from the January 6 case, maybe

4:54

a little bit sort of. Recusal

4:58

is like pregnancy. There's no middle

5:00

ground. You're either pregnant or you're not.

5:02

You're either recused or you're not. You're out of the case

5:05

entirely or

5:06

you're not. So that to

5:08

me right off the top sounds like a bit

5:10

of a euphemism trying to cover for what

5:13

is actually happening here. And then of course,

5:16

the drop from the New York Times kind

5:18

of confirmed your sense that there was something

5:20

a little bit strange happening. So

5:22

why would DOJ want to meet with

5:25

Epstein in person? Well, let's

5:27

just say. Hey buddy, why do

5:29

you bring somebody in physically instead

5:32

of negotiating via email or over the phone or telecom

5:34

or whatever?

5:35

So we have a tendency to think about investigations

5:39

and how they're conducted. We always

5:41

think about the high level people, like

5:43

the target, like what's the

5:45

target or the potential defendant doing?

5:48

What are they thinking? And then you think a

5:50

little bit about like co-conspirators

5:52

and co-conspirators becoming co-operators.

5:55

But in reality,

5:56

much of the investigators time is spent.

6:00

identifying, locating, and

6:02

talking to just plain old witnesses,

6:05

people who are not subjects

6:07

of the investigation, but they have critical

6:09

information that the investigators need to build

6:12

their case. And with a witness,

6:14

just imagine a regular fact witness,

6:17

what you would want to do is you'd go out,

6:19

you'd find them at their home or their work, you'd

6:21

talk to them, you'd convince them to come in for an

6:23

interview, and they would then sit down with

6:26

the agents and also the prosecutor to

6:28

go over

6:30

the scope of what they know so

6:32

that the prosecutor gets an understanding for what

6:34

can this person actually provide for my

6:36

case. Wow.

6:37

So this is sort of like cop shows

6:39

where we see them like, why don't you come downtown and answer

6:41

some questions and go in and talk to the investigators

6:44

or the line prosecutors and figure

6:46

out sort of what they know, right? Like that's probably

6:48

the most common reason you bring somebody

6:51

in. It

6:51

absolutely is. And it also

6:53

gives you an opportunity to flesh out if there's going to be

6:55

any problems, like whether or not this person has

6:58

any privilege that might prohibit

7:00

them from talking about what you need them to talk about, things like

7:02

that. So you would talk and it's friendly,

7:05

right? It doesn't mean that person's a cooperator

7:07

working for the government, whatever. It's just

7:09

friendly. You've asked them to come in and they agree.

7:13

So the next step is

7:15

if they have the information that you need

7:17

for your case, you would then bring

7:19

that witness in front of the grand jury

7:21

and you'd ask them the same questions again for

7:23

the purpose of getting that testimony, quote

7:25

unquote, locked in, right? So it's under oath,

7:28

it's preserved.

7:28

And we have a really great recent modern

7:31

day example of that with Michael Cohen going

7:33

in a bunch of times to speak to the

7:35

DA at the DA's office or prosecutors

7:38

at the DA's office. And then during

7:40

the last week

7:41

of that whole investigation,

7:43

he goes before the grand jury once or twice

7:46

to answer questions and then maybe

7:48

gets brought back in as a rebuttal, but I don't think he

7:50

did. I think it was somebody else. But so

7:53

that's a very excellent,

7:55

it's not federal, but it's a very good example

7:58

of a

7:59

friendly. Tell us what you

8:01

know. He knows things. They're important.

8:03

He's coming in to provide them. And

8:06

then it's like, yeah, we really need this information.

8:08

We could need it as testimony at trial.

8:11

So then you get them locked in. That's all

8:13

under the assumption that the interaction between

8:15

the government, the witness, totally friendly, no coercion,

8:18

no nothing.

8:18

And why do you do that in person? Just because it's a much

8:20

better, the FBI, I mean, are

8:23

experts I know, and probably some of these

8:25

line prosecutors are experts at talking

8:28

to. We

8:30

talked about this a lot in the Mueller investigation

8:33

when Comey came out with his book about, hey, we're

8:35

way better at

8:37

interrogating potential

8:39

witnesses than this torture

8:41

shit that you're trying to do in stellar

8:44

wins or whatever. It's very much like

8:47

you want to talk to them in the

8:50

office, away from distractions, away

8:52

from their family, away from their coworkers

8:55

or other phones ringing and that sort of thing. It's a

8:57

way to get their attention very

8:59

focused. You have the opportunity to work

9:01

with them on their recollection. Like they may think,

9:03

like, oh, I don't remember anything about X. And

9:06

then you can, through the cognitive interview

9:09

techniques, you kind of go back and reset

9:11

them, put their mind in a place

9:14

in time when events took

9:16

place. You prompt their recollection

9:19

with talking to them about things like what were you

9:21

wearing? What had you done that day before

9:24

you saw the car accident? That kind of thing. It

9:26

kind of brings back for people

9:28

more detail about what happened. Also crucially,

9:31

it really allows the prosecutor to assess

9:34

the witness and to make a determination

9:36

as like, how good is their recollection? Are

9:39

they credible? Do they have other problems in their

9:41

past that might make them look like not a very truthful

9:44

witness? Because all that's important

9:46

for the prosecutor to figure out, could

9:48

I actually rely on this person at trial

9:50

for that? And do they seem cooperative

9:52

or do they seem like a recalcitrant witness who's

9:54

going to be a, you know, like a real

9:57

problem?

9:58

So that's where it gets interesting.

9:59

And you would start with a witness like that in

10:02

the same way. You'd say, we'd like you to come

10:04

in and talk to us. And sometimes

10:06

a not 100% cooperative witness

10:08

will come in and do that just for the purpose of gaining

10:11

their own intelligence, to understand what does

10:13

the government want to know about? What kind of questions are they

10:15

asking me? Who's running this thing? Who's

10:17

the prosecutors, the agents I need to be concerned

10:20

about? Ultimately,

10:22

if that person

10:24

doesn't come in or they do come in and then they don't

10:26

want to go to the grand jury, then you start to wave

10:28

things like subpoenas and compulsory process

10:31

over their head. Then you start talking about,

10:33

well, we'll just bring you in front of the grand jury.

10:35

Well, at the grand jury, sort out all the things

10:37

that you know and things that you have done

10:39

and criminal exposure that you might have. And

10:42

that very kind of

10:44

leveraged, I'm not going to call it coercion,

10:47

but it seems coercive sometimes. That

10:49

process is how you end

10:52

up with either a full on hostile witness

10:54

or someone who ultimately

10:57

strikes a deal with the government. Okay, I'll

10:59

come in, I'll testify, but I

11:01

want immunity for X, Y, and Z.

11:04

Okay, so this could be them just bringing Boris

11:06

in to take his temperature and see what he knows.

11:09

That's one possibility. But we already

11:11

know last year, the feds seized

11:14

Boris Epstein's phone and

11:17

he's been under at least

11:19

some kind of investigation for a while. Because in order

11:22

to see somebody's phone, you have to have at least evidence

11:24

that a

11:24

crime more likely or not occurred. That's

11:26

right, probable cause. Evidence of that, probable cause is on that

11:29

phone.

11:30

So maybe this,

11:33

if it's just a temperature taking thing, maybe it's a more

11:35

advanced temperature taking situation,

11:37

but there are other reasons

11:39

that you would bring a witness in like this,

11:42

aren't there? It's likely

11:44

in this case with the evidence

11:46

off the phone and who knows what other

11:49

evidence they might have from other witnesses, other

11:51

documents, things they've subpoenaed

11:53

that we're not even aware of, it's likely

11:55

that the temperature on Boris is already

11:58

high. You don't have

11:59

to have him come in to explain

12:02

what was on his phone so you understand it.

12:05

You understand it. You know what's on there.

12:07

You know the significance of it. But you might bring

12:09

him in to walk him through

12:12

what's on his phone to confront him with

12:14

things. What'd you talk about in this call?

12:16

Whose phone number is this? Of course, you know

12:18

whose phone number it is. You're just trying to see if he answers

12:20

the questions truthfully and fully. And

12:23

that is all part of this process

12:25

of escalation, I'll call it, not coercion.

12:28

Escalation.

12:29

Where you're making it clear to him that like

12:32

he could be in the soup here. He could

12:34

be in trouble. It's time to start thinking

12:36

about

12:37

doing something other than being

12:39

shady and trying

12:42

to dance with the other side. Yeah and a couple

12:44

of things here. Like I said, they've got his phone.

12:47

And that is another reason to bring people into

12:49

the DOJ offices. To show them evidence you don't

12:51

want to send via email or

12:53

to walk out

12:54

or some sort of evidence that is

12:57

protected. Just evidence

12:59

that you don't want to get out of the

13:01

office. So you bring them in and show it to them and then they can

13:04

take notes and leave. It's

13:06

also a note

13:09

that Boris Epstein was

13:12

part of the alleged conspiracy

13:15

to obstruct justice in the documents case. He

13:17

is the one who coordinated Corcoran

13:19

and Christina Bobb's letter of attestation.

13:23

That classified documents had all been handed

13:25

over pursuant to that May 11th subpoena

13:27

that they all went down and had a party about on June

13:29

3rd of Mar-a-Lago. A

13:31

little two months before the

13:34

actual search warrant was executed.

13:37

And so I could see them and

13:39

again, we're just speculating here. But

13:41

I could see them saying, oh hey, we talked

13:43

to Bobb. We talked to Corcoran.

13:45

We got

13:46

Corcoran's notes now and we've

13:49

got transcripts of audio

13:51

calls. And

13:54

what do you have to say about this? You

13:56

could be looking at an obstruction charge unless you

13:58

want to help us with the fraudulent electors.

13:59

or something else. I mean, you know, again, part

14:02

of, I guess, to make it more general,

14:04

part of this entire escalation

14:06

situation that you're talking about. That's right.

14:08

You have no idea what Jack

14:11

Smith's team

14:13

may have gotten from Christina Bob and

14:15

or Evan Corcoran. It could be that,

14:17

you know, either one

14:19

of them sat down in front of prosecutors and said,

14:22

oh yeah, this whole thing was planned

14:24

from the beginning. Or the plan was don't

14:26

give up everything, keep all this stuff that Trump

14:29

wanted. Okay, how'd you know the plan? Oh, well, but

14:31

Boris told me he called me on such and such a date

14:33

and said, here's what you do. Here's what

14:36

you tell the feds, get them out of there and give them nothing.

14:39

And that's, I'm completely speculating

14:41

here, saying that just to create the hypothetical.

14:43

But like, if that's the case, then

14:45

you're at the point now in this investigation

14:47

where, you know, you talk about flipping

14:49

up, right? You always start at

14:52

the operational level, and then

14:54

you keep going up and up and elevating

14:57

to targets of greater responsibility

14:59

and greater significance. It's

15:01

entirely possible that they think of Boris

15:03

in that way, that he is someone who was really

15:06

calling the shots behind Corcoran and Bob,

15:08

and therefore is ultimately could be held

15:10

responsible for the obstruction that

15:13

they

15:13

executed. And it could be the opposite. It could

15:16

be that they have a fraudulent election scheme

15:18

evidence that he participated in that conspiracy.

15:22

And they're using that to get documents information

15:24

or save America pack information,

15:26

which

15:26

I want to talk a bit about as

15:29

well. Those are generally the main reasons

15:31

that you would bring somebody in. At the end of the

15:33

day, it may be, and

15:35

I would find this to be reasonable and logical,

15:38

it may be that Jack Smith's team has concluded

15:40

that Boris Epstein is

15:42

very close to Donald Trump.

15:44

In terms of the hierarchy of how decisions

15:46

are made at Mar-a-Lago,

15:48

you could be one heartbeat away

15:51

from Trump if you have some

15:54

good, some leverage, some sway

15:56

over a guy like Epstein. So, we'll

15:59

see how that goes.

17:54

or

18:00

the discussion between Epstein

18:03

and DOJ or Jack Smith's

18:05

team right now is what he'll be able

18:07

to testify about and what he can't testify about

18:09

because of claims of privilege. That's

18:12

the kind of thing that the lawyers negotiate

18:14

over the phone.

18:15

You don't come in for two solid

18:18

days of in-person meetings

18:21

to work out a legal technicality

18:25

like that.

18:25

Right, and I do agree. I just want to interrupt you really

18:27

quick. I agree with you on this because the way

18:30

that Jack Smith has operated in the past is

18:32

he brings you into the grand jury and then

18:34

if you invoke any kind of a privilege or

18:37

take the fifth, he'll run across

18:39

the hall to Boseburg or previously

18:41

of Barrow Hall and deal with it there,

18:43

right? And that's generally how subpoenas work, right? You

18:45

show up, you invoke your privilege, and then we discuss

18:48

it. We don't sort of preempt any sort

18:50

of privilege discussion.

18:52

That's right, and you would have to also prepare

18:54

like a privilege log, which is like a list

18:56

of all the things you have and a claim

18:58

for specific privilege. Some of that would

19:00

be done with Epstein's attorneys

19:03

ahead of time, just so everybody knew like,

19:05

okay, what ground is everybody going to be standing on?

19:07

But then you're right. You would actually, you'd say if, you

19:10

know,

19:11

they would call, you can imagine prosecutors

19:13

calling Epstein's attorney and saying, we want to come

19:15

in and interview him. And then Epstein's like,

19:18

well, what do you want to ask him? And then they say, well, we're going to ask

19:20

him about X, Y, and Z. Okay, well, he's

19:22

got attorney-client privilege with all these entities

19:25

and these people, so he's not going to testify about

19:27

any of that. So they would noodle that back

19:29

and forth a little bit to see if they could come up with something

19:31

that was worthwhile. And if they couldn't, bam,

19:33

you hit him with a subpoena, and it's like, okay, fine,

19:36

you come in front of the grand jury, you make your claim

19:38

of privilege, and then we'll litigate it quickly.

19:40

So the almost 16

19:44

hours he has spent over the last two days

19:46

indicates to you that this might be more

19:48

of the accelerated sort

19:51

of pressure stage, right?

19:53

I think it's substantive for sure.

19:56

You don't do two days over, you

19:58

know, legal arguments.

19:59

between the sides that can't even make the final

20:02

decision. So

20:04

it's definitely substantive. Whether they're really turning

20:07

up the heat on him is

20:08

possible. Maybe that

20:11

the heat has already worked, and he's now in

20:13

there testifying. There's just all

20:15

kinds of possibilities, but

20:18

I think it's serious. Yeah.

20:21

Oh, and one last thing, one last

20:23

reason you bring people in to

20:26

the DOJ's office is if you get a call and

20:28

say, we're going to indict your guy, come

20:30

in and you have one last chance to argue

20:32

against indictment.

20:34

And I honestly don't have

20:36

a temperature reading as to whether that could be

20:39

this or not, other than does that take two days.

20:42

Well, that's an interesting prospect.

20:44

So typically, when that happens,

20:47

and to

20:49

be fair about the unfairness

20:51

in it all, that only happens to really high

20:56

profile people get that last minute opportunity

21:02

to make their case to the prosecutor to try to convince

21:04

them not to indict your client. But usually,

21:07

that conversation is only between

21:09

the attorneys. You wouldn't actually bring

21:11

the client in for that. Now, I

21:14

say that with full disclosure here.

21:17

My attorneys did that in my case

21:19

when there was a criminal investigation

21:21

open on me for zero reason,

21:23

but nevertheless, I hung out there for two years. My

21:26

attorneys went in and talked to the prosecutors at every

21:28

level many times explaining

21:31

to them that there was no case here. And one

21:33

of the times they said, well, we would really like

21:36

to talk to your client.

21:38

And this is not

21:40

something that any sane person who

21:42

actually was facing criminal liability would

21:44

ever do, which is why I said, yeah,

21:47

sure, I'll go in and talk to them. So I went

21:49

in to the prosecutor's office, and

21:51

they let them ask me whatever questions they wanted

21:53

for, I don't know, like three or four hours seemed

21:56

it was a very long conversation.

21:59

And that was it. So I

22:02

guess I say that just to indicate that

22:04

there's a lot of possibilities here, but at

22:06

the end of the day, what we know is Epstein

22:09

is here in person, long

22:11

sessions. Those are substantive

22:14

conversations about something, whether they're looking

22:16

at him as a witness or a cooperator

22:19

or a target.

22:22

There's different likelihood on all those possibilities,

22:24

but it's one of them. Yeah, and I think it's

22:26

possible that they're not just talking about the fraudulent

22:29

electric scheme in January 6th or just

22:31

the documents case or obstruction in

22:33

the documents case. They could also be talking about the Save

22:35

America PAC fraud investigation.

22:37

As I said, he retroactively

22:40

made himself a legal advisor for that organization.

22:43

And we'll talk about this a little bit later

22:45

in the show,

22:46

but a lot of lawyers are being paid out of that PAC and

22:49

they could be asking questions about that among

22:51

other things. There's so many things that

22:54

he has information about on so many

22:56

cases across so many different times,

22:58

potential crimes, alleged crimes, that

23:01

I can see why he could be there for two

23:03

days. No doubt. I mean,

23:05

there was reporting just this week from

23:07

CNN, Caitlin Poland's reported that a

23:10

number of Trump associates

23:13

and staffers and people like that

23:15

who have had their legal

23:17

representation paid for by the Save

23:19

America PAC have now been interviewed

23:22

by the special counsel team with

23:24

questions about that representation

23:28

and how their lawyers treated them and

23:30

the kinds of questions they asked them. And this

23:32

is all getting at that topic that you and I have

23:34

talked about

23:34

a couple of times now, particularly with the example

23:36

of Cassidy Hutchinson, who we assume, we

23:39

don't know for sure, but we assume is probably in that group,

23:41

that this

23:44

Save America PAC paying for everybody's lawyers,

23:47

is it really trying to provide representation

23:49

to people who need it or is it an effort to

23:51

control their testimony, to limit

23:53

what they say, to keep

23:56

them from cooperating fully with prosecutors

23:58

all in an overall effort to.

23:59

protect Trump. You know,

24:02

one guy I'd like to talk to to find out the answer to that

24:04

question would be the self-designated

24:09

and therefore retroactive lawyer for

24:11

the safe America pack Boris

24:13

Epstein. So all roads

24:15

bring you back to Boris and one way or another there's

24:17

a lot of possibility there.

24:19

Yeah, absolutely. All right, we're

24:21

going to be right back. We've got some breaking news that

24:23

came out on Friday to talk about and a

24:26

couple other things. We're just going to take a quick break. Stick around.

24:28

We'll be right back.

24:34

So

24:57

stay tuned to the Fortune forecast center for the latest

24:59

jackpot developments. Autery players are subject

25:01

to Ohio laws and commission regulations. Please play

25:03

responsibly.

25:05

At Discount Tire, we know your time is valid.

25:07

Get 30% shorter average wait time when you buy

25:09

and book online. Did you know Discount Tire now

25:12

sells wiper blades? Check out our current deals at

25:14

discount tire.com or stop in and talk

25:16

to an associate today. Discount tire. Let's

25:18

get you taken care of.

25:21

This podcast is brought to you by ramp the

25:23

only corporate card and finance software that makes

25:26

your finance team smarter. Ramp software

25:28

lets you control spending, automate busy work and

25:31

save money with automated savings alerts. Businesses

25:33

save on average 3.5% in their first year

25:36

and close their books eight times faster. Make

25:39

smarter business decisions with ramp. Now

25:41

get $250 when you join ramp. Go to ramp.com

25:44

slash apply. RAMP.com

25:46

slash APPLY.

25:59

groceries delivered too. So I downloaded

26:02

the Instacart app and sure enough, it has

26:04

all my favorite stores. Macy's, Lin's,

26:06

Fresh Market, Dan's, Dick's, everything

26:09

I need delivered right to my door. Oh,

26:11

the dog treats are here. Download

26:14

the Instacart app or visit instacart.com

26:16

to get free delivery on your first order. Offer

26:18

valid for a limited time. Minimum order $10. Additional

26:21

terms apply.

26:28

Welcome back. All right. There's some

26:31

new explosive reporting coming out from

26:33

Zachary Cohen at CNN.

26:35

Cohen reports that in mid January 2021,

26:38

two men

26:39

hired by former president Donald

26:41

Trump's legal team discussed

26:43

over text message what to do

26:46

with data they obtained from a

26:48

breached voting machine in a rural

26:50

county in Georgia, including whether or

26:52

not to use it as a part of an attempt to

26:55

decertify the state's pending Senate

26:57

runoff results.

26:59

Wow. So this, yeah, this scheme involved

27:02

Jim Penrose, Sidney Powell,

27:05

Doug Logan of the Cyber Ninjas, Rudy

27:07

Giuliani, and the three people that

27:10

actually executed the burglary of

27:12

the voter data in Coffey County,

27:14

Georgia.

27:15

Yeah. And remember we've seen like

27:17

there's been some pop-up reporting here and there of

27:19

actual video footage of

27:22

these two people going into the Coffey County

27:24

voter registrar's office,

27:26

somebody, you know, going onto the computer,

27:29

downloading these data, handing them to these

27:31

people.

27:32

And now we have a connection

27:35

to several

27:36

criminal investigations. And

27:39

in the text messages, which were obtained by CNN,

27:41

which have not been previously reported, Penrose,

27:44

Jim Penrose, references the upcoming certification

27:47

of John Ossoff. So it's not just

27:49

about Trump's 2020 election loss. Now we're

27:52

talking about Purdue, David Purdue,

27:54

who lost to Ossoff. Remember, because

27:57

we found out in the wee morning hours of January, January, January,

27:59

January, January, January, January, January 6th

28:01

that Democrats seized control of the

28:03

Senate because Ossoff and Warnock won their

28:05

seats in the Georgia runoff. And then

28:08

we were happy for like

28:09

a couple hours. Thirty seconds. And

28:11

then bam, we were blindsided by that.

28:14

It was like really big news

28:16

that got zero coverage because very quickly

28:19

we were watching the disaster at the Capitol.

28:21

Yeah. So Penrose

28:24

basically texted, we only have until

28:26

Saturday to decide if we're going to use this report

28:28

to try to decertify the Senate runoff election

28:31

or if we hold it for a bigger moment.

28:34

The texts were obtained from someone familiar

28:37

with the Fawny Willis probe, by the way. And

28:39

it's also being used possibly in

28:41

the Michigan investigation. A lot of people

28:43

forget because it's not getting the media coverage

28:46

that Fulton County and Manhattan D.A. and

28:48

Jack Smith are getting.

28:49

There's a criminal investigation into

28:52

election interference happening in Michigan,

28:55

which is run by Gretchen Whitmer and

28:57

Nestle and like all these amazing,

29:00

Jocelyn Benson, amazing, amazing people.

29:02

And so this has to also

29:05

do with Cyber Ninjas, which ran that racket

29:07

down in Arizona.

29:09

And ultimately waved the white flag at

29:11

the end of it that they found nothing. A hundred

29:14

times, right? But so

29:16

this seems to have a lot to do with a

29:18

state election official

29:20

and

29:21

maybe attorney general

29:24

or district attorney investigations.

29:26

But this could also tie in

29:29

to you like, why are you bringing it up on the

29:31

Jack podcast about Jack Smith? This

29:33

could tie into his investigation, couldn't it?

29:36

Well, it could. And on a number of different

29:38

ways. We know that Jack Smith

29:40

is examining and is interested in the broader

29:42

effort to breach or seize voting

29:45

machines. We know this because of some of the

29:47

questioning that Cucinelli and others from DHS

29:50

received under grand jury

29:52

subpoena asking questions about did Trump

29:55

asked was he was he was it suggested to him

29:57

to seize the voting machines who did that? Of course,

29:59

we know that's Mike. Flynn and Sidney Powell.

30:02

So that's a piece of what they're looking at

30:04

in those crazy

30:05

town meetings leading up to

30:08

January 6th. Yeah. And

30:10

Derek Lyons, who was a

30:12

deputy White House counsel in the Trump administration,

30:15

testified to the January 6th committee, we saw it

30:18

on video,

30:19

that Rudy Giuliani brought up

30:21

Georgia voting machines in that

30:23

infamous December 18th, 2020

30:26

Oval Office meeting, which is also being

30:28

investigated. And well, I should say,

30:31

in conjunction with what you just mentioned,

30:33

with a seizure of voting machines, and

30:35

we talked about this last week when Flynn and Sidney

30:38

Powell, like you said, came in and said, here's

30:40

a draft executive order, you know,

30:43

saying that you can seize voting machines. Good get them. You're

30:45

the king. You can do anything. Yeah. And everybody

30:47

was like, no, you can't. That's stupid. No, you can't

30:49

seize voting machines, cooch and all. And now there are

30:51

all these people, like probably even Hirschman,

30:54

who are testifying, the

30:56

pats, I don't think they were there because they had been

30:58

disinvited because, you know, lawyers

31:01

with common sense, quote, the normies, I

31:03

guess, as they were called, were

31:05

disinvited to these kinds of meetings

31:07

and emails and stuff.

31:09

But Derek Lyons told them that, that Giuliani

31:11

brought up the Georgia voting machines in that

31:13

meeting. And here's his testimony. Lyons

31:16

said, quote,

31:17

his Rudy's point of view was that

31:19

in some way, the campaign, I believe, was

31:21

going to be able to get access to voting machines

31:23

in Georgia

31:24

through means other than seizure

31:28

and that like stealing. And

31:30

that evidence could be leveraged to gain

31:32

access to additional machines,

31:35

meaning, hey, look, we got this

31:37

information. We don't know how, but look,

31:39

we got this Georgia voting machine information.

31:41

This is the pretext for

31:43

seizing all voting machines or, you know, voter

31:46

data or whatever to stop the election, which

31:48

is what they were trying to do. So that

31:50

is exactly the line

31:52

straight to these Jack Smith investigations.

31:55

Yeah. Not to get into too much of a legal argument

31:57

with the distinguished Mr. Lyons, but actually.

32:00

government actors, people acting on part

32:02

of the government, going out and taking voting

32:04

machine data. That's a seizure. It's an

32:07

unlawful seizure, but it's definitely a

32:09

seizure. And I think

32:11

it's also important

32:13

to put this in the bigger context. We

32:16

know that Jack Smith is looking very

32:18

closely at the electors scheme, very

32:20

closely at the effort to

32:22

delay the certification, very closely

32:25

at the pressure campaign on Pence,

32:28

all that stuff. But

32:29

most of that has at least

32:32

one thread that comes back to this

32:34

idea of fraud.

32:36

That what many of these people did was

32:39

committed a fraud against the United

32:41

States of America, against the government,

32:45

against the voters, in trying

32:47

to tip back the results of

32:49

this election knowing that

32:51

there was absolutely nothing to any

32:54

of these arguments. There was nothing to this evidence

32:56

of his all essentially being used to

32:58

deceive people to commit some level

33:01

of fraud. And I think that's

33:03

really where

33:04

the foundation of whatever

33:07

case he brings against

33:09

anyone, Trump or any of these other people,

33:12

a lot of that case is going to be based on very

33:15

basic claims of fraud.

33:18

Yeah, for sure. And then to

33:20

go, I'll read a little bit here from Cohen's

33:23

article in CNN,

33:25

in their hunt for evidence to support their baseless

33:27

claims of voter fraud

33:29

after the 2020 election, Trump allies

33:31

hired a little known Texas based security

33:34

company called Allied Security Operations

33:36

Group

33:37

to investigate alleged voting machine irregularities

33:40

in a handful of swing states that Trump lost, including

33:42

Michigan,

33:42

Arizona and Georgia. A few

33:44

weeks before the Coffee County burglary

33:47

in late December 2020,

33:50

Trump allies were granted access

33:52

to voting machines in Antrim County, Michigan.

33:55

That's a county of about 24,000

33:56

people where Trump won handily.

33:58

Same with Coffee County. It's very

35:59

and show the chain of custody. And

36:02

this person told this person what to do. That

36:04

person went and did it. You know, you have to be able to

36:06

really build this thing brick by brick. And

36:09

in this case, that's clearly kind of what

36:12

they're adding here with this text

36:14

exchange between these guys about

36:16

Georgia.

36:17

Yeah, and further, Arizona was going

36:19

to use the Allied security

36:22

people for their report, the

36:24

Bundren guy. But because

36:27

of the backlash on the Antrim County,

36:30

the scrutiny over the Antrim Report, Arizona

36:34

opted for a different firm to

36:36

investigate their false

36:41

claims of election voter fraud called Cyber

36:43

Ninjas. Bring

36:44

in the Cyber Ninjas. But

36:46

Bundren remained involved in that process,

36:49

the guy from ASOG and the Allied

36:51

Solutions, or Allied Security Operations,

36:54

and coordinated directly. They all coordinated

36:57

as part of this. And he also worked

37:00

with fellow ASOG member, Allied

37:02

Security member, Phil Waldron.

37:05

He's a retired Army colonel who was part of Giuliani's

37:07

team that helped write up that entire

37:10

slideshow on how to pressure Pence to

37:12

throw out the electoral votes. So

37:14

this is all rrrr,

37:17

like bleh.

37:19

The overlaps and the cross-currents,

37:22

they're just very hard to keep track of. But that's

37:24

why we're here. We're shedding

37:26

a little light on the whole thing. But fascinating,

37:29

really good stuff. Yeah,

37:30

absolutely incredible how everything is

37:32

tied together. Connect the dots,

37:35

la, la, la, la. And that's

37:37

what we're doing. I am Charlie

37:39

from Always Sunny in front of my murder board, talking

37:43

about how all these things mixed together. And Zachary Cohen

37:45

at CNN did an excellent job of

37:47

writing this up. So I highly, highly

37:49

recommend you check that out. All right. We're going to take

37:52

one more quick break, and then we've got some more stuff to talk about.

37:54

Stick around. We'll be right back.

37:56

Bye.

38:00

Hi, I'm Harry Littman, host

38:02

of the Talking Feds Podcast, a weekly

38:04

roundtable that brings together prominent figures

38:06

from government law and journalism for

38:09

a dynamic discussion of the most important

38:11

topics of the day. Most news

38:13

commentary is delivered in 90-second sound

38:15

bites that just scratched the surface of a new

38:17

development, not Talking Feds.

38:20

Each Monday I'm joined by a slate of Feds

38:22

favorites and new voices to break down

38:24

the headlines and give the insiders view

38:27

of what's going on in Washington and

38:29

beyond.

38:30

We dig deep, but keep it fun.

38:32

Plus sidebars detailing important

38:34

legal concepts read by your favorite

38:36

celebrities, such as Robert De Niro

38:39

explaining whether the president can pardon

38:41

himself, and Carole King explaining

38:43

whether members of Congress can be disqualified

38:46

from higher office, and music

38:48

by Philip Glass. Find Talking

38:51

Feds wherever you get your podcasts

38:53

and don't worry, as long as you need

38:55

answers, the Feds will keep

38:58

talking.

39:00

These

39:24

days, I do all my shopping online. Clothes, books,

39:27

outfits for my dog, I love it. Then

39:47

I

39:53

thought, why not get my groceries delivered

39:55

too? So I downloaded the Instacart

39:57

app and sure enough, it has all my favorite

39:59

stores, Macy's, Lin's, Fresh

40:02

Market, Dan's, Dicks, everything I need

40:04

delivered right to my door. Oh,

40:06

the dog treats are here. Download

40:08

the Instacart app or visit instacart.com to

40:11

get free delivery on your first order. Offer

40:13

valid for a limited time. Minimum order $10. Additional

40:16

terms apply.

40:23

Hey everybody, welcome back. So we spent

40:25

a great part of the show in

40:27

the first segment in the A block there talking

40:29

about

40:30

Epstein, Boris Epstein, and how he

40:32

was, you know, back benched

40:35

or slowly retreating from

40:37

working on Trump's legal team. You know, like

40:39

you said, it's like you're being, it's like pregnancy.

40:41

You're either on the team or you're not.

40:44

And he's more like Homer Simpson slowly

40:46

backing into the shrubbery. But we do

40:48

have somebody also on Trump's legal team

40:50

who has made a clean break

40:53

with the legal team that he was working

40:55

on. And that's Evan Corcoran. We know

40:57

the story. We know the backstory that

41:00

he came in and testified previously

41:02

to the

41:03

grand jury. He invoked some

41:05

attorney-client privilege.

41:07

And then Jack Smith's team overcame

41:09

that invocation of attorney-client privilege using

41:11

the crime fraud exception. And

41:14

then he, Corcoran, had to come back

41:16

in and testify to what he knows

41:18

and also hand over some notes and invoices.

41:21

Invoices is interesting and

41:24

things like that. So

41:26

then all of a sudden we hear it. Because a

41:28

year ago when Bob withdrew as

41:32

legal counsel on the documents case and lawyered

41:34

up, I was like, all right, your turn, Corcoran. I

41:36

mean, you guys are witnesses in this case.

41:39

Well- She was very forward-leaning

41:42

about that actually. She immediately pulled

41:44

the rip cord, got a lawyer, and started meeting

41:46

with DOJ, which is the smart thing to do

41:48

under the circumstances if you're thinking along the lines

41:50

of staying out of jail and retaining your law license.

41:53

Yeah. So Corcoran just

41:55

now has recused, I

41:57

guess, I'm not sure, left the legal team.

41:59

and was brought in to

42:02

testify again to the

42:03

committee. Or

42:07

not the committee, the federal grand jury.

42:10

Sorry, so many investigations that I

42:13

can't keep them all straight. I

42:15

think this is interesting because he says that

42:18

it was his law firm that made him do it,

42:20

right? The law firm was like, we don't wanna,

42:23

we can't be

42:23

part of that and part of this at the same time.

42:26

But then why didn't they do that when he testified

42:29

before? Or did he

42:31

or did they? Hard

42:34

to say. That sounds a little bit

42:36

to me like him kind of putting

42:38

the blame on the decision on someone else.

42:40

Kind of like, my parents won't let me. So

42:44

that's hard to know.

42:46

But

42:47

it's also impossible. Like in

42:50

the regular world of

42:52

litigation and even the regular world of criminal

42:54

defense, the idea

42:56

that your attorney would end up

42:58

having to go before the grand jury and essentially testify

43:01

against you is almost unheard

43:03

of. It's so rare, that happened here.

43:06

And the idea that you would then continue having

43:10

that person represent you, it's just,

43:12

that's the time to find a new attorney. I

43:14

mean, it's insane.

43:17

Unless there's none left. There's not any

43:19

lawyers left that are willing to take

43:22

your case for less than a $3 million

43:24

upfront cash retainer. Or,

43:28

unless you have some other reason

43:31

for wanting to remain connected to

43:33

your, I

43:35

guess, former kind of still

43:37

current attorney who testified against

43:40

you. And that would be to keep

43:42

tabs on what's going on with that guy and

43:44

who's he actually meeting with and what's he saying

43:46

about me and let's

43:49

keep him under the tent just for now.

43:51

Yeah, and before this all happened, Corcoran

43:53

made a trip up to talk to prosecutors

43:56

at the Department of Justice and we weren't sure what that

43:58

meeting was about, except. that it had to do

44:01

with the documents case. And obviously, I

44:03

think Corcoran is more steeped in the documents

44:05

case, less like an Epstein,

44:08

who was one of the architects

44:10

of the fraudulent electric scheme, architect

44:13

of the letter, the attestation letter

44:15

in the documents case, architect,

44:18

like

44:18

Save America, PAC legal counsel. His

44:20

fingerprints are on everything. Every single

44:23

criminal investigation you could think of, he's part of. But Corcoran

44:25

here is the guy who

44:26

wrote the letter that

44:30

Christina Bobb signed.

44:32

And Christina Bobb insisted on

44:34

having edits be made to that

44:36

letter to say, to the best of my knowledge,

44:39

we've handed over all the documents pursuant

44:41

to the subpoena issued May 11th,

44:42

et cetera, et cetera. And

44:45

so, I

44:47

think his feet are firmly planted

44:49

in the old documents case. But

44:51

he would be one of the last witnesses.

44:55

And he's interviewed, Jack

44:57

Smith, they've talked

44:59

to in subpoena, I should say, not just interviewed,

45:01

but subpoenaed,

45:02

more than two dozen witnesses, just

45:04

in the documents case alone. And

45:07

Corcoran and Boris would be

45:09

the last two. It

45:11

could very well be, they could very well be. They're certainly

45:13

not on the front end of your witness list. You

45:16

never really know what those folks, if

45:18

in fact, are coming in and they're testifying

45:21

completely, you never know what they're gonna

45:23

say, and they could bring someone

45:26

up or mention something that then sends you back

45:28

out scurrying with another grand jury subpoena. That's

45:30

the way grand jury investigations work.

45:33

But yeah, it's hard to imagine

45:35

that there's a whole boatload

45:37

of additional people that need to be talked to, at least

45:40

on the documents case.

45:41

Yeah, and that might be why Chris Kyes

45:43

and Jim Trusty were brought in, because Trump

45:45

was like, well, eventually, all my lawyers are gonna be witnesses,

45:48

so I need two attorneys that didn't know me until

45:50

now to come in.

45:52

Who

45:54

can't be called as witnesses against me,

45:56

except maybe even in obstruction of justice

45:59

in other ways.

46:01

All right, so we'll see what happens with

46:03

Corcoran. We'll see what happens with Epstein. As

46:06

soon as we get more information, we'll be able to talk to you about

46:08

that probably on the next episode of Jack. But

46:10

interesting, we know this week, and

46:12

this isn't a Jack Smith story, but Fox

46:14

and Dominion have settled their

46:17

defamation case for $787.5 million, half of what was initially

46:19

asked, and

46:22

apparently no apology. They don't

46:24

have to admit on air that they

46:26

did anything wrong. And

46:29

I have many, many feelings about that. But what I

46:31

want to talk to you about today that has

46:34

to do with the Jack Smith investigation is

46:36

a little interview

46:37

that a lawyer for one, Abby Grossman,

46:40

who was a former producer at Fox for

46:42

the Bartiromo show,

46:44

she was fired

46:47

because she filed a lawsuit saying that those

46:49

Fox lawyers coerced her testimony,

46:52

told her to not recall things that she recalled,

46:55

and also that

46:57

she had recordings and more

46:59

evidence that were suppressed by Fox

47:01

lawyers that she wanted to come forward

47:04

with. And that evidence, including

47:06

not just that

47:08

evidence, but also the fact

47:11

that Fox lied to the court about

47:13

Rupert Murdoch being an executive

47:16

at the Fox News News,

47:19

versus the Fox Corp, prompted

47:22

the judge in that case to appoint a special

47:24

master to review and investigate

47:27

wrongdoing by Fox's lawyers. Now that has

47:29

dissolved because of this settlement,

47:32

which I'm bummed about, would have loved

47:34

to have seen, yeah, and it would probably be Barbara

47:36

Jones again. She's like everybody's favorite

47:38

special master these days, these

47:41

days, I mean, in the last five years. And

47:43

I would have loved to have seen that go through

47:45

to fruition. But what

47:47

did that lawyer tell Ari Melber, Andy?

47:51

Well, the lawyer for Abby Grossman tells Ari

47:54

Melber that multiple law enforcement

47:56

agencies contacted them about

47:58

obtaining the recordings.

47:59

they had of the Fox News anchors.

48:02

So this of course causes

48:05

us to wonder, gee, what could those

48:07

law enforcement agencies be? And

48:09

would one of them be the

48:11

special counsel's office? Yeah,

48:13

because you know, at first I was like,

48:16

why? You know, first of all, there

48:18

wouldn't be a criminal case against Fox,

48:21

could there? No, I doubt

48:23

it. But, I doubt it. You know, I mean, I

48:25

did talk, I doubt it too. I did talk

48:28

a little bit about it with Pete Strzok, who

48:30

said, well, you know, I mean, if they were

48:32

giving in-kind campaign contributions

48:35

by coordinating messaging

48:37

with the Trump campaign, perhaps, but

48:39

that's real hard

48:40

to prove. Yeah, there's a lot easier

48:43

campaign finance violation cases

48:45

that don't get brought. Right.

48:48

I think that one would be tough. But more importantly,

48:50

there's recordings

48:53

of Rudy saying they don't have any evidence

48:55

of voter machine fraud, at least, quote,

48:57

not yet.

49:00

And there could be some coordinated

49:02

messages with people in the

49:04

Trump circles

49:07

saying that they know they lost the election,

49:10

that it was all BS, right? Because that was the

49:12

big lie, that Dominion

49:14

was trying to prove.

49:16

And they did prove, it was ruled

49:18

by the judge before the settlement happened, that

49:20

these were false, falsities, they were lies,

49:23

this misinformation about the voting machines.

49:26

And that could be of keen interest to Jack

49:28

Smith,

49:30

considering

49:32

everything we've talked about in today's show, about

49:35

his investigation into the seizure

49:36

of voting machines. I think

49:38

that's possible. I think

49:41

it's also, let's not forget that

49:43

some Fox figures, on-air

49:47

talent, things like that, were actually in contact

49:50

with Trump during the period that we

49:52

know Jack Smith is most interested

49:54

in. That

49:56

lead up to January 6th, then the weeks

49:59

after the election.

49:59

and before the 6th. So

50:02

it's possible that these they believe these recordings

50:04

would be relevant to

50:07

testimony they may already have

50:09

or may be seeking from these people.

50:11

People like Sean Hannity and

50:13

others who we know were in direct

50:15

contact with Trump and that testimony

50:18

could be very important to

50:21

proving this really elemental

50:24

fact which is Trump's intent.

50:26

What did he actually believe

50:29

at that time? This goes back to a point you and I have talked

50:31

about probably every week one of Trump's

50:33

main defenses will light if

50:36

in fact he's indicted and goes to

50:38

trial

50:39

will likely be he will claim that he legitimately

50:41

believed that the election had been stolen from

50:43

him and therefore the efforts

50:46

that he took were not fraudulent

50:48

or deceptive it was just an effort to restore

50:51

the his rightful

50:53

victory. I can't believe I just heard myself say

50:55

that but nevertheless all

50:58

of this evidence about things that people

51:00

told him whether it's his own lawyers the White

51:02

House lawyers his own hired

51:06

forensics company that produced a report

51:08

that said yeah no fraud here either all that's

51:11

just a mountain of evidence

51:14

to contradict a defense like

51:16

that. So just show the jury that it's

51:18

really unreasonable it would have been unreasonable

51:21

for a defendant Trump

51:23

to not understand

51:26

that there was no fraud in the election. Yeah

51:29

and I mean there's there's

51:31

first of all like

51:33

there's a bunch of stuff that we

51:35

didn't get to see there was evidence that

51:37

we didn't get to see in the Dominion defamation

51:40

case that were communications between Fox News

51:42

anchors and all sorts of other people

51:44

and executives it's and stuff like that. Now

51:48

and we still have a case out

51:50

there pending that

51:51

is going to be deciding

51:55

or at least commenting on or considering

51:59

the definition.

51:59

of corrupt intent as it relates

52:02

to

52:02

Title 18, Section 1512 C-2 obstructing an

52:04

official proceeding,

52:07

which is one of the crimes I assume

52:09

the Jack Smith is probably looking at

52:12

with regard to Trump. So that's

52:14

coming out in May. It's different from

52:16

the one we just had, right? That

52:18

was only looking at whether C-1 and C-2 were

52:20

married and depended upon each other.

52:23

This other one, and the reason

52:25

that they didn't change the law in

52:27

this more recent ruling that came out is

52:30

that they are going to be deciding,

52:32

because somebody filed to dismiss the charges

52:34

on the definition of corrupt

52:37

intent, that'll be decided. I don't think the law

52:39

is going to change. I don't think they're going to rewrite the boundaries

52:41

of what corrupt intent is, and Jack Smith will

52:43

have always had to prove

52:45

corrupt intent. But Andy, have you ever

52:48

gotten evidence from discovery

52:51

in a civil case? I know we did it. The

52:53

one that stands out in my head

52:55

is

52:57

the guy named ... I can't remember his first name,

52:59

but I remember his last name was Koch. He

53:02

wanted to be Secretary of the Army and

53:05

Manafort ... We have David Pekker,

53:07

we have the Koch

53:08

guy. Okay. I got it. I'm with

53:10

you. Yep. He was a banker who

53:12

gave a quarter of their

53:16

balance sheet to Manafort to get him

53:18

to have Trump make him Secretary of the Army. It

53:21

was a bribery thing. The DOJ

53:24

was able to get ... The Mueller team, I

53:26

believe, was able to get a ton of information

53:28

because of a divorce proceeding

53:31

with Koch. Have you ever

53:33

reached into a civil proceeding? When can

53:36

you do that? Can you do it after discovery

53:38

is closed? Can you do it after the resolution of the case?

53:40

Can you do it anytime? To reach in

53:42

for all of that discovery

53:44

that was brought, and is it legal to get all

53:46

of the discovery that was brought in a

53:48

civil case? You know,

53:50

these are all really good questions,

53:53

and having spent my life on the criminal

53:55

side, not the civil side, I'm not sure I have all

53:57

the answers here, but I've never had ...

53:59

I never had to do that in any of my criminal

54:02

investigations to reach into a civil

54:04

case, chasing around

54:07

Russian OC figures and terrorists.

54:10

They were not

54:13

prolific litigators on the civil

54:15

side, I guess, the ones that I had. But it's

54:18

essentially like any other

54:21

information. And in

54:23

the course of a criminal investigation, particularly

54:26

a grand jury investigation, as soon

54:28

as you know it exists and you

54:30

know who the custodian of those

54:33

records is, obviously,

54:36

who has possession and control

54:38

of those sorts of records, you

54:40

can just hit them with a grand jury subpoena. Now

54:43

you might have a fight on your hands. Sometimes, at

54:46

the conclusion of if a

54:49

civil case is resolved through a

54:51

settlement, sometimes the

54:53

sides will make as a part

54:56

of that settlement, they'll require each

54:58

side to destroy the evidence that the other one

55:00

provided or return it or what have

55:02

you. I don't think that happened

55:05

here though, because this lawyer said

55:07

we're doing that. Yeah,

55:10

I think that it's possible in more cases

55:12

than not.

55:15

But I think Fox could sue to block that discovery

55:18

from going to the Department of Justice and we might see a

55:20

legal battle there. They could try,

55:22

but what I'm

55:25

likely that the government will do is they'll just

55:27

serve the subpoena directly on Fox. Hey,

55:30

you're a business, you keep these records as a part

55:32

of your business enterprise

55:35

and we want them.

55:36

And so you'd have a fight on your hands, but I

55:39

don't think it's safe to say

55:41

that pretty much anything you know about can

55:43

fall within the scope

55:45

of what you can try to get as a part

55:47

of the grand jury investigation. By

55:49

the way, it was Stephen Koch and

55:51

he was sentenced to a year and a day in prison

55:54

for that bribery scheme. There you

55:56

go. All right, let's take some.

55:58

listener

56:00

questions. Sure, yeah.

56:02

So the listener questions this week are pretty

56:04

good. I found two actually

56:06

that both go to the same questions of

56:09

timing. Okay, so

56:12

our first question comes from Kevin. Kevin

56:14

says, I know that Trump has tried to

56:17

apply this artificial timeline for

56:19

him to be charged, at least federally,

56:21

the

56:21

closer to the primaries, thinking

56:24

that much more of a stink will be raised

56:26

by his re-Trump-licans.

56:28

Is that gonna stop Mr. Smith from bringing

56:30

at least the documents case, especially if

56:33

he uses the fact that he has other cases

56:35

open on him? I really don't think this should matter,

56:37

but does Jack or Merritt

56:39

Garland, I really hope not. Thanks and great podcasts.

56:41

So it's a good

56:44

question because it raises this issue that's been concerning

56:46

me a lot lately, which is as we get deeper and deeper

56:48

into the calendar and therefore deeper into

56:50

the election season, how is that

56:52

gonna influence what Jack Smith

56:55

decides to do?

56:57

So first of all,

56:59

it's not relevant, you know,

57:01

the same, the reason it kept Mueller from indicting

57:04

anyone, that OLC, that

57:06

DOJ OLC policy that you cannot indict

57:08

a sitting president, is obviously not

57:10

relevant here because Trump is not a sitting

57:12

president. But what might

57:15

be relevant is the general

57:17

DOJ policy that you

57:19

shall, thou shalt not take overt

57:24

actions in the period

57:27

just before an election.

57:29

Now that period is not particularly

57:31

clearly defined. Some people at DOJ,

57:34

if you ask them, they'd say that's two months, some

57:36

people would say it's three months. Generally,

57:38

I think most people would say somewhere between 60 and

57:41

90 days before the election.

57:43

So that basically defines, I think,

57:45

the runway that

57:48

Jack Smith has to deal with.

57:50

And I think those are, though, also overt investigatory

57:54

steps, right? Like if you've already

57:56

indicted, there's no rule

57:59

in the judiciary. Judiciary system that says we have

58:01

to postpone a trial. However, I could

58:03

feel a lawsuit coming from Donald Trump

58:05

saying you're Interfering with my ability

58:08

to campaign Etc.

58:10

We've never seen anything like that. It might have to be litigated

58:12

But you know Garland was asked point-blank

58:15

does it matter that he's running for office?

58:18

Will that influence your decisions

58:20

at all and he said no

58:22

that has absolutely nothing to do with any

58:25

decision I'm gonna make and I can't imagine that

58:27

Jack Smith would be more conservative

58:29

than Garland on this

58:30

man no, no, and I I do think

58:32

that the Take no action

58:34

and the lead up to an election policy

58:36

would prohibit Jack Smith from

58:39

indicting Trump

58:40

in that period So he's got it. He's

58:43

gonna indict him. He's got to get that done before

58:45

whatever 60 or 90 days before the election But

58:48

once it's done, it's done I I

58:50

don't think there's any prohibition

58:52

to going forward with that indictment in

58:55

the normal course of business if whether it's

58:57

a trial or whatever Because

59:00

the reason we've discussed before it's

59:02

different, you know when you indict trying

59:04

to indict a sitting president you are you're really denying

59:08

the people the country the

59:10

good and Honest

59:13

services of their president because you're

59:15

throwing this massive distraction on

59:17

his plate

59:19

That doesn't apply when people

59:21

have had the choice. Do I vote

59:23

for a guy who's under indictment or do I not?

59:26

That's how I mean, I don't look I say this so it's

59:28

not like it's a resolved issue I don't

59:30

think that is ever quite been in this

59:33

situation before but that's my guess of how

59:35

they would justify it

59:36

and if and if For some reason I don't

59:38

see this being the case But if for some reason

59:40

Jack Smith has not indicted Donald Trump or

59:42

at least made a charging decision about Donald Trump

59:45

Before the 60-day window before

59:47

the election if for some reason that

59:49

hasn't happened and we elect reelect

59:52

Joe Biden Then everything

59:54

just resumes as normal. I'm on that

59:57

game on if no no for Republican

59:59

wins

1:00:00

wins, then the investigations will probably

1:00:03

end or be stifled. But I guarantee

1:00:05

you they will just be ended.

1:00:07

And

1:00:08

you have to remember though, that

1:00:10

even if indictments and convictions

1:00:12

happen before the election, if a Republican wins,

1:00:14

they're going to pardon everybody for these

1:00:17

Jack Smith federal

1:00:17

crimes that are brought up. So

1:00:20

I still don't see a

1:00:23

clock. The only thing is, is that

1:00:25

you have to make sure a Republican doesn't win

1:00:27

in 2024 and take over the White House

1:00:29

and stop everything. Because they'll either stop it by stopping

1:00:31

the investigation or stop it by pardoning everybody

1:00:33

if it's already been done. And that is the

1:00:36

case whether or not Trump

1:00:38

was indicted a year ago or next

1:00:40

year. It

1:00:42

doesn't matter. You could

1:00:44

even stop an investigation by just issuing

1:00:47

preemptive pardons. Like you don't even have to be

1:00:49

charged to receive a pardon that

1:00:51

keeps you from being charged.

1:00:53

Bannon. No, Bannon was charged. No, he was

1:00:55

charged. Yeah, he was charged. Yes, you know, Matt

1:00:58

Gaetz and all of his friends who were asking for pardons

1:01:00

at the end of the last administration. Okay,

1:01:03

so second question, same basic theme

1:01:05

comes to us from Janice. Janice says, if Trump

1:01:08

is federally charged in three separate cases,

1:01:11

meaning January 6th, the documents

1:01:13

case and wire fraud,

1:01:15

would there be three separate trials

1:01:17

or would any of them be collapsed?

1:01:20

I think that it's

1:01:22

a really good question. There's kind of a division of opinion.

1:01:25

I mean, I think most people think of it as two cases, not

1:01:27

three, basically the documents case

1:01:30

and then the case of everything that's

1:01:33

connected to January 6th, whatever comes

1:01:35

out of that, if anything.

1:01:36

Yeah, I would kind of consolidate the wire

1:01:39

fraud with the fraudulent electors

1:01:41

scheme because as we were just talking about

1:01:43

with that voter machine thing and

1:01:45

how that has to do with

1:01:46

both. Right. It's all part of the

1:01:48

same mess. It all arises from the same basic

1:01:50

facts. So that's certainly arguably

1:01:53

one possible

1:01:55

case that could go forward and then you have the documents

1:01:57

case that's arguably separate.

1:01:59

it. Some folks

1:02:02

think that it's unlikely that Jack

1:02:04

Smith wouldn't even bring an indictment

1:02:06

unless he addresses all of that stuff

1:02:09

in one indictment. I'm not so sure about that.

1:02:11

But even if, let's say, the documents

1:02:14

case gets indicted and then January

1:02:16

6th is ready, you could

1:02:19

supersede the existing indictment

1:02:21

with the January 6th related questions,

1:02:24

possibly, if you could make the argument that they're close

1:02:27

enough related and

1:02:28

bring them all together at one

1:02:30

time. But I think the

1:02:32

more likely resolution

1:02:36

is those two cases

1:02:38

get indicted separately and

1:02:41

then proceed down their own tracks on

1:02:43

separate timelines. Yeah, I agree. That's

1:02:46

exactly how I see it going down

1:02:48

as well. But the question remains is,

1:02:52

if he's ready to go on the documents case, does

1:02:54

he wait until he's ready to go and make a charge of decision

1:02:56

on the January 6th case?

1:03:00

Because sometimes

1:03:01

that prosecutorial discretion

1:03:04

brain has to look at everything

1:03:06

ahead of you to decide what you're going to charge.

1:03:10

So I don't know. I don't know if he's going to do that or not.

1:03:12

I'm with you. I tend to think he

1:03:14

won't. I think if he's got the documents case, he'll charge the documents

1:03:17

case, start the speedy trial clock

1:03:19

on that sucker, and then go

1:03:22

forward with a separate batch

1:03:24

of indictments on January 6th, which

1:03:27

may or may not include the president. Eastman could

1:03:30

be the tallest hog in the trough that

1:03:32

gets taken down on that case if there's not enough

1:03:34

evidence there.

1:03:35

So I tend to agree with you

1:03:37

on that. And I think they're both pretty

1:03:40

close to being wrapped up because

1:03:42

you've got Pence in the January 6th

1:03:44

case

1:03:45

is the next guy coming in. And

1:03:47

you've got Corcoran in the documents

1:03:49

case and Eppsstain in all

1:03:52

of it. And we're at the tippy top.

1:03:54

Still waiting to see Mark Meadows show up

1:03:56

somewhere, but keep your fingers crossed.

1:03:58

There's a- So he's a little time left.

1:04:01

Well, he's been ordered as

1:04:03

part of the Ocho Nostra to

1:04:06

come in. And so I'm assuming

1:04:08

he would come in before pence would, I'm assuming everybody

1:04:10

would come in before pence would.

1:04:12

But who knows? Who knows? We'll

1:04:15

see. We'll see. Well, excellent

1:04:17

show. Great conversation. Thank you so much.

1:04:20

Once we get all this information, we'll put it out. You know, we

1:04:22

talk about this on the Daily Beans Daily. We go

1:04:24

in depth here on the Jack podcast. Listen

1:04:27

and subscribe.

1:04:29

And if you want to be a patron

1:04:31

of this podcast and get these episodes ad

1:04:34

free, you can do that by going to

1:04:36

patreon.com slash maulershirot. So

1:04:38

thank you very much to our patrons who are listening right

1:04:40

now. You make this show possible. Any

1:04:43

final thoughts before we take off for the week?

1:04:45

No, I stumbled across

1:04:48

one thing that it deserves, I think, a very brief mention,

1:04:50

which is it was good to see that

1:04:52

Judicial Watch. There's

1:04:55

our right wing media outlet,

1:04:57

Judicial Watch announced on

1:05:00

there in a release today that they

1:05:02

had failed in their effort

1:05:04

to foyer the

1:05:06

names and identities of all those

1:05:09

people associated with the Jack

1:05:11

Smith special counsel team. So

1:05:13

they'd filed apparently on December 9th

1:05:16

for all staff rosters, phone lists

1:05:18

or similar records. And on April

1:05:20

12th, the Justice Department said that

1:05:23

under Exceptions 6 and 7A of FOIA, there

1:05:27

will be no soup for Judicial Watch at

1:05:29

this trough.