0:00

Whether you're all about

0:02

fun in the sun or rest and relaxation,

0:05

Volkswagen has SUVs to get you

0:07

revved up for summer. Have a season

0:10

packed with adventure in the versatile Atlas

0:12

with spacious cargo room. Stroll

0:15

to the sunset in the compact Taos

0:17

with VW Digital Cockpit. Or

0:20

make the most of your summer energy in the

0:22

all-electric ID.4 SUV. Get

0:25

your summer on the road at your local

0:27

Volkswagen dealer today.

0:31

When you're craving a vegan meatball sub

0:33

from the sandwich shop down the road, get Fast

0:35

Delivery through DoorDash. And when you need stain

0:38

remover because you used your t-shirt as a napkin, get

0:40

Fast Delivery through DoorDash. Then later,

0:42

when you're marathoning cooking shows and start

0:45

to think making lemongrass ginger macaroons

0:47

from scratch can't be that hard, you

0:49

can still get Fast Delivery through DoorDash.

0:52

Get groceries and anything else you could need

0:54

from your neighborhood with DoorDash. Place

0:56

your first order now at DoorDash.com

0:58

or the app and get a $0 delivery fee. Terms

1:01

apply.

1:09

I signed an order appointing Jack Smith. And

1:11

nobody knows you. And those who say Jack

1:14

is a fanatic. Mr. Smith is a veteran

1:16

career prosecutor. Wait, what law have I broken?

1:19

The events

1:19

leading up to and on January

1:21

6th. Classified documents and other presidential records.

1:24

You understand what prison is? Send

1:26

me to jail!

1:35

Welcome to episode 41 of

1:38

Jack, the podcast about all things

1:40

special counsel. It's Sunday,

1:42

September 10th, and I'm your host, Andy

1:44

McCabe. Hey Andy, I'm Allison

1:46

Gill. We have lots to cover

1:49

this week, again, including a CNN

1:51

exclusive that the investigation

1:53

into fundraising, our big thing,

1:56

and voting machine breaches is

1:58

continuing with the federal government.

1:59

jury meeting again after a four-week

2:02

break. We also have a motion to vacate

2:05

and the Department of Justice's opposition,

2:07

and that's in the DC case, and then

2:09

we have a partial win for Rep.

2:11

Scott Perry in his fight to keep his phone

2:13

data from Jack Smith. This has been going

2:15

on for a while. Yeah, I'm gonna

2:17

maybe call it a temporary win because that

2:20

one's, as they say, the

2:22

jury's still out. We haven't we haven't gotten

2:24

a final final final verdict just

2:26

yet, but we'll get into that later. We

2:29

also have new reporting on Giuliani

2:31

aide Catherine Fries. Now, am I

2:33

pronouncing that correctly? AG's at Fries

2:35

or Fries?

2:36

I think it's Fries, but she's so

2:38

invisible and difficult to find no one can ask

2:40

her how to pronounce her name. It doesn't matter. Yeah, good point.

2:42

It makes no difference whatsoever. Go with

2:45

your heart. I'm gonna say Catherine Fries,

2:47

like, you know, Fries

2:50

out sort of thing. Okay, so new

2:52

reporting on Giuliani aide Catherine

2:55

Fries and a cooperation agreement between

2:57

the DOJ and UCL Tavares in

2:59

the Mar-a-Lago documents case.

3:02

So let's start in DC.

3:04

Here we have the federal grand jury, right?

3:06

There, the we're talking about the grand jury

3:09

that indicted Donald Trump for conspiracy to

3:11

defraud the United States, obstruction

3:13

and conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding,

3:16

and of course conspiracy against rights. They

3:19

met this Thursday after

3:21

a month-long break.

3:23

Ooh, that's

3:25

interesting to me. Yeah, a little summer

3:27

recess for the grand jurors, which

3:29

we know they probably needed. Yeah,

3:31

and we don't know what that recess was

3:34

for or why they took it or we, I mean, we

3:37

really don't know much here because everything in the, as

3:39

we know, everything that happens at a grand jury happens

3:42

secretly. That's

3:43

right, that's right, and we also know that

3:45

prosecutors, you know, they

3:48

can't use a grand jury unless they're

3:50

actively investigating,

3:52

like, additional crimes or additional

3:54

people and stuff like that. So really

3:57

tease up the question of what are they meeting about.

3:59

We also don't know if they're investigating,

4:02

if they are continuing to investigate, or if they were specifically

4:04

brought back to vote

4:06

on additional indictments. That's always a possibility

4:09

as well. We know that the special

4:11

counsel is investigating voting machine

4:13

breaches in several key swing states.

4:16

We also learned last week that they've been investigating

4:19

potential crimes related to Harrison Floyd,

4:21

our one Georgia defendant who

4:23

spent a little time in jail before he finally bonded

4:26

out. And of course, what we've been talking about

4:28

since last year, the investigations into

4:30

the fundraising from both Donald

4:32

Trump and Sidney Powell packs in

4:35

the aftermath of the election.

4:38

Yeah, and I think that that's really, we

4:42

learned early on, September

4:44

actually of 2021,

4:46

that they had already for a couple of months been

4:48

investigating Sidney Powell's pack. And

4:51

that's like well over, gosh, almost

4:56

a year, a little over a year, a

4:58

year and a couple of months before Jack Smith was even

5:00

appointed. So

5:03

I've been wondering where that investigation

5:06

would head, and now we seem to have a little

5:08

bit of an insight in it.

5:11

And new reporting from

5:14

your colleagues over at CNN, Zachary Cohen and Paula

5:16

Reed, who are doing a bang up job by the way.

5:18

Hannah also

5:20

and Poland, Caitlin Poland. Over

5:24

at CNN, they say questions, this is Cohen

5:26

and Reed, questions asked of

5:29

two recent witnesses indicate Jack

5:31

Smith is focusing on how money raised

5:33

off baseless claims of voter fraud

5:35

was used to fund attempts to breach

5:38

voting equipment in several states, won

5:40

by Biden. And prosecutors have focused

5:42

their questions on the role

5:45

of Sidney Powell. I find that

5:48

very fascinating.

5:50

And they have found this out because

5:52

according to invoices,

5:53

obtained by CNN,

5:55

Powell's nonprofit, defending the Republic,

5:58

hired forensics firm. that ultimately

6:01

access voting equipment in four swing

6:03

states, Georgia, Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Arizona.

6:06

Now, Powell has pled not guilty to similar charges

6:08

or charges related to illegally accessing voting

6:10

systems in Georgia. That's some

6:13

of the overt acts on her part. She

6:17

filed for a speedy trial.

6:20

We know Kenneth Cheesebrow was like, get away from

6:22

me, because he also

6:24

did, but the judge ruled down in

6:26

Fulton County that they have to be tried together. And that's

6:28

coming up in October pending any delays,

6:31

the typical delays that we tend to see. But

6:34

Powell has also been identified by CNN

6:37

as one of Trump's unindicted co-conspirators

6:39

in Smith's federal election indictment of Trump,

6:42

the one man four count indictment.

6:44

And Smith's grand jury, this grand

6:46

jury is set to expire next

6:48

week, September 15th, which

6:51

actually this week, but it can be extended beyond

6:53

then. He hasn't ended it. Witnesses

6:56

interviewed by Smith's prosecutors in recent weeks were also

6:59

asked about her role in the hunt for evidence

7:01

of voter fraud in the 2020 election,

7:04

including her own nonprofit group that

7:06

they provided money

7:08

to fund those efforts. So it's

7:10

not just whether she was spending the cash

7:12

on illegal access to voting machines,

7:15

but also using it to fund

7:17

the hunt for voter fraud. And Andy,

7:19

this is interesting to me because it seems to me, it's

7:22

not illegal to raise money

7:25

to look for voter fraud. But if you

7:27

tell your donors you're raising money for court

7:30

challenges, that could

7:32

be problematic. But it's especially

7:34

problematic if you use the funds to pay

7:36

for illegal activity, like breaching

7:38

voter data. That seems to me like you

7:40

and I have been talking about

7:41

this wire fraud case for a while and

7:43

like funding the big lie and defrauding

7:46

donors. But we

7:48

just learned from this CNN reporting that

7:51

these witnesses are being asked

7:53

whether this money or

7:56

been shown invoices that this money funded,

7:59

potentially illegal.

7:59

activity. That puts this

8:02

wire fraud case in a whole new light to me

8:04

because that seems way more open and shut

8:07

than fundraising off the big lie.

8:09

It does. It's

8:12

incredibly powerful evidence

8:15

in the underlying theft

8:17

of voter data case. So

8:21

if she's charged,

8:24

let's say she's charged federally for

8:27

theft of computer information or

8:30

specifically for accessing the voter stuff,

8:33

proof like these invoices that she

8:35

paid,

8:37

the company that conducted the theft

8:39

was paid by her pack

8:41

is very powerful evidence that ties

8:43

her to the allegedly criminal activity.

8:46

So that's one bucket that makes

8:48

it super, super important. But

8:50

the other side of that coin is what you just mentioned.

8:54

If she was raising the money under

8:56

specific assurances

8:59

to her donors, hey, this is going to be

9:01

used, let's say for example, to challenge

9:05

the results of state elections

9:07

in court. And then she takes that money

9:09

and uses it to pay for the cyber ninjas or somebody

9:12

else. That is an entirely

9:14

different offense of mail fraud or wire

9:16

fraud based on the miss,

9:19

you know, she would have been in that

9:21

hypothetical ripping off her donors. You can't

9:23

raise for one reason and then

9:26

spend for a totally different reason. Therein

9:29

lies the fraud.

9:30

Yeah. And not only that, but you know,

9:32

from the CNN piece, Powell promoted

9:34

defending the republic as a nonprofit

9:37

focused on funding post election legal challenges

9:40

as it disputed as Trump's team disputed results

9:42

in key states. Those challenges and fundraising

9:45

efforts underpinning them were all

9:47

based on the premise that evidence of

9:49

widespread

9:49

voter fraud was already

9:52

in hand. And that also

9:54

makes this a fraudulent

9:56

fundraising, you

9:58

know, allegedly, obviously, Obviously, everything

10:00

is alleged here. But

10:03

to say that you already have the voter

10:05

fraud, to not have it,

10:08

and to fundraise off of that concept

10:11

is almost like a third bucket. You

10:13

know what I mean? Because they were using

10:15

this to expose facto,

10:18

desperately look for voter fraud

10:20

that they had claimed that they already had, and

10:23

they were still unable to find it. But I don't think it's relevant

10:25

that they were able to find it or not, because they've

10:27

raised that money under false pretenses.

10:30

False

10:30

pretenses. Yeah. So

10:32

you can see how these cases can be very,

10:35

I don't want to say tough, but very detailed,

10:37

very nuanced for the prosecutors. Because

10:39

these cases typically turn on the

10:41

real specifics of

10:43

the language in the, whatever

10:46

it was, mailings, advertisements,

10:48

emails, however they advertised

10:51

or requested the donations for the PAC,

10:54

they will have to go into great

10:56

detail analyzing the specific

10:58

language of those statements and

11:02

how they characterized

11:04

what they were going to do with the money and all that stuff. And

11:07

then there'll be a real drill

11:09

down on the individual

11:11

people who drafted those statements

11:13

and then who above them approved

11:16

the release of those statements. And you got to be able to

11:18

tie all that back to, in this case,

11:20

Sidney Powell. So

11:22

they can be complicated cases,

11:25

even in instances like this, where

11:27

it seems from the top level, from the 100,000 foot

11:31

view, it's like, wow, yeah, I mean,

11:33

this seems crazy. She

11:35

took this money and gave it to people

11:37

who go out and steal information

11:41

from county voting systems. But

11:43

nevertheless, I think it's a great sign that,

11:46

hey,

11:48

Jack Smith's team, they are on

11:50

this thing like a dog with a bone. Teeth

11:52

are in, they are not letting go, and

11:55

the grand jury's still working at it.

11:57

Absolutely. And it could.

11:59

be they're looking at these

12:02

things separately or together. A lot

12:04

of pundits and a lot of experts,

12:08

Weissman, Lisa Rubin, a lot

12:10

of folks, the talking heads that I see on Cable

12:12

News Network

12:13

are assuming, and probably

12:15

rightfully so, that this is a look into the fundraising and

12:17

maybe not necessarily a look

12:19

into superseding indictments for

12:22

the six co-conspirators in

12:24

the Trump DC case,

12:26

but they have raised that

12:28

possibility because

12:30

they can bring, Jack Smith can bring

12:32

separate indictment. He

12:35

doesn't have to supersede the Trump indictment. He

12:37

can bring separate indictments on these

12:40

other six.

12:41

But again, my worry is that they will file

12:43

to consolidate or

12:46

somehow try to muck up the

12:48

simplicity of the Trump indictment,

12:51

which has been compared to a rifle shot as

12:54

opposed to Fulton County's-

12:57

Shotgun blasts. Yeah, wide

12:59

pattern. And I'm not criticizing

13:02

one over the other, but one is most definitely

13:05

going to be done a

13:06

lot faster. I think

13:09

that the sprawling RICO case is

13:12

necessary. It's just going to take forever

13:15

and that's fine. That's just

13:18

as grind slow.

13:19

If I were Jack

13:22

Smith, I wouldn't

13:24

do anything to

13:26

threaten the simplicity of my current

13:28

indictment.

13:30

And if he does make a move on the co-conspirators,

13:32

I'm sure he will have gamed all of that out

13:34

to prevent that from happening.

13:37

Yeah. I mean,

13:40

the way that he approached indicting Trump

13:42

with that kind of rifle shot, small

13:45

number of counts, one defendant, it's

13:48

all so intentional. It's so clearly

13:50

strategized to bring

13:53

the most significant person

13:55

to trial before the election.

13:58

And I can't imagine that he would do

13:59

anything at this point that could possibly

14:02

jeopardize that strategy. He knows all

14:04

of this better even than you and I do. Sure.

14:07

That's his main goal with

14:09

this simple— Yeah, he's got years,

14:12

literally years that he could take

14:15

to kind of clean off the rest of the table.

14:18

The mop-up cases, as you call them. That's right.

14:20

The mop-ups could go on for a very long time and

14:22

his remit, his jurisdiction is broad. It

14:26

wasn't just to look at Donald Trump, it's to

14:29

look at all of these efforts that could have

14:31

been intended to overturn the results

14:33

of the election. I

14:36

think those folks who, certainly

14:38

the ones that we know were referenced as

14:41

unindicted, unidentified co-conspirators

14:43

in the Trump indictment

14:45

and many others, I don't think

14:47

they're getting really sound sleep at

14:49

night for good reason.

14:51

No. Some of the

14:53

folks who we found out today

14:56

were not indicted but were

14:58

recommended for indictment by the special

15:00

purpose grand jury in Fulton County, including

15:02

Lindsey Graham, Cleta Mitchell,

15:05

Kelly Loeffler and

15:07

David Perdue,

15:08

all of those folks. There

15:11

were many.

15:12

They were recommending indictments of upwards

15:14

of 30 people.

15:16

With the

15:18

complexity of the case as it is, I can't imagine

15:21

how complex

15:22

it would be. I think it was 39. The

15:25

count that the special grand jury recommended

15:27

was 39.

15:30

That's a huge

15:32

number. We think it's unwieldy at 19. It

15:34

would have been complete madness. It would have taken

15:36

years to get that thing done. But there's

15:38

all kinds of reasons that those people may

15:40

not have been indicted. It's

15:43

a special grand jury. It's not a grand jury

15:45

that returns in indictments. All they do is make

15:47

a recommendation to prosecutors. Prosecutors

15:49

then still have to make a decision like how good do we

15:51

think our evidence is? Because the special

15:53

grand jury is investigative, right? How

15:56

good do we think the evidence is?

15:58

Who would we really need as witnesses?

15:59

in a trial that we do

16:02

bring, and maybe it would be better not to charge those

16:04

people. Or some people like Lindsey Graham just

16:06

presents a whole host of really complicated

16:09

constitutional issues that no doubt he

16:11

would fight all the way to the Supreme

16:13

Court. How's that gonna impact our prosecution?

16:15

It's gonna really slow things down, complicate things. So

16:18

there's all kinds of good reasons for

16:20

not going forward and indicting

16:23

certain folks. But we'll see, I'm

16:25

sure we'll hear more about that as we go on.

16:28

Yeah, but they're also probably not sleepin'

16:30

easy either. And

16:32

we also don't know how many of them may be cooperating.

16:34

We do know that there are at least eight,

16:36

or there are I think eight electors,

16:40

fraudulent electors that were offered

16:43

immunity in exchange for their testimony.

16:45

They appear on that list.

16:46

And that was after

16:49

that report came out before

16:52

those immunity deals were offered. So we don't know how many

16:54

of those people are cooperating.

16:57

Mike Flynn, for

16:59

example, was recommended for indictment.

17:02

Why was he not part of this

17:04

indictment? And none of the what's in the report gives

17:06

us any inkling of why they weren't. But

17:09

it also kind of gives you a little bit of a

17:11

potential roadmap of cooperators in the

17:14

federal case.

17:15

Yeah, Flynn is amazing. To me, he's like

17:17

the ghost of this whole thing. All of a sudden,

17:19

he just dropped out of contention for

17:22

anything.

17:24

He's not thought of as one of the six

17:27

unindicted or unidentified

17:29

co-conspirators in the Trump indictment.

17:31

He really hasn't appeared anywhere, which raises a lot of questions

17:34

as to whether or not he might be cooperating. It's

17:36

possible, it's also possible that

17:39

prosecutors would

17:40

reject an effort by him

17:42

to cooperate because- Gosh, does he have a history? He'd be a terrible

17:44

witness. Does he have a history of being a terrible witness

17:46

and withdrawing guilty cases?

17:49

Can you imagine the crazy

17:51

statements that they would have to

17:54

somehow explain away on

17:56

cross-examination before they got shoved

17:59

right.

18:00

back at him on when

18:03

being cross examined. I mean, it's, he would be tough.

18:06

It'd be hard, I think, to get people to

18:08

believe him. But then again, we don't have a Bill Barr to

18:10

help protect his case. Yeah,

18:13

that's true. But that doesn't mean there won't be one in, you know,

18:15

any time in the future. That's true. All

18:17

right, we have, well, one last

18:19

bit from this story about Sidney Powell that I just

18:22

wanted to get out before we take a break here.

18:24

Smith's team has specifically asked witnesses

18:26

about

18:27

certain conspiracy theories pushed by Powell,

18:29

including that Dominion Voting Systems has

18:31

ties to former Venezuelan President Hugo

18:33

Chavez

18:34

and featured software he used to rig

18:36

his own election. Since then, Dominion

18:39

and Smartmatic have said, those tallies

18:41

were changed after our machines were used in

18:44

Venezuela and also what?

18:46

So,

18:49

I don't see that as being a problem, you

18:53

know, on earth one. But it

18:55

is interesting that Jack Smith is asking about these

18:58

various conspiracy theories. And one

19:00

of the main reasons is because,

19:02

you know, there was

19:05

a proposal made by that

19:07

group, Mike Flynn's and the Rudy Giuliani's

19:09

of the world, for the Department of Defense

19:12

to seize voting machines. Kosh Patel had

19:14

been installed

19:15

over there, probably to head up that work. Oh,

19:19

if Kosh says it's a good idea, we must do

19:21

it. Oh, I know. Especially

19:23

because he has a dollar sign in his name. That makes

19:25

it legit. There you go. But

19:28

in order to, and it was told to

19:30

Trump and his team, in order to do anything

19:32

with voting machines for the Pentagon, we have to have

19:35

evidence of foreign interference. And

19:37

I think maybe that birthed the Italian

19:39

satellite

19:41

thing and the bamboo in

19:43

the thing and the Venezuela

19:45

thing, you know, trying to just

19:48

whole cloth, make up foreign election interference.

19:50

When you got Russia sitting right there, but you know,

19:53

they were interfering on behalf of Trump.

19:55

Don't

19:57

look in that direction, whatever you do. We

20:00

don't want to look over there. But I think that kind

20:02

of conspiracy

20:04

theories about foreign election interference might have been so

20:06

that they could justify the Department of Defense or the Pentagon

20:09

somehow seizing voting machines and rerunning the election.

20:11

Yeah, it definitely

20:13

could be that. It also could be just great

20:16

stuff to have and the off chance that Sidney

20:18

Powell actually wants to take the stand someday

20:20

because I'd be walking through, showing

20:24

videos of every one of these lunatic

20:26

statements and then asking, or what

20:28

evidence did you have of this? And

20:30

did you ever find any proof of that? And

20:33

it would be potentially powerful cross-examination

20:36

material as well.

20:37

Yeah, and on the stand she says, we're looking for it,

20:39

donate to defendtherepublic.fart and

20:42

we will make it happen. Yeah, who knows

20:45

what she would have done. All right, we have more witness

20:47

testimony about voting machine breaches in other states

20:50

besides Coffee County, Georgia. And

20:52

we'll talk about that after this quick break. Stick around, we'll

20:54

be right back.

20:55

♪ Bum bum bum ba da da da da

20:57

da da dum da da da da da da da

21:00

Whether you're all about

21:03

fun in the sun or rest and relaxation,

21:05

Volkswagen has SUVs to get you

21:08

revved up for summer. Have a season

21:10

packed with adventure in the versatile Atlas

21:13

with spacious cargo room. Stroll

21:15

to the sunset in the compact Taos

21:18

with VW Digital Cockpit. Or

21:21

make the most of your summer energy in the

21:23

all electric ID.4 SUV. Get

21:26

your summer on the road at your local

21:28

Volkswagen dealer today.

21:32

When you're craving a vegan meatball sub

21:34

from the sandwich shop down the road, get fast

21:36

delivery through DoorDash. And when you need stain

21:38

remover because you use your T-shirt as a napkin,

21:40

get fast delivery through DoorDash. Then

21:42

later when you're marathoning cooking shows and

21:45

start to think making lemongrass ginger

21:47

macaroons from scratch can't be that

21:49

hard, you can still get fast delivery

21:51

through DoorDash. Get groceries and

21:53

anything else you could need from your neighborhood with DoorDash.

21:56

Place your first order now at doordash.com

21:59

or the app and get a zip code. $0 delivery fee. Terms

22:01

of black.

22:02

Deets and Watson's been making

22:05

meats and cheeses the right way since forever.

22:08

What's that mean? It means never cutting corners,

22:10

ever. It means cooking, not processing.

22:13

It means our Virginia-brand ham that's cooked

22:15

to perfection, then twice baked to layer

22:17

the flavors. It takes more time, but

22:19

you can taste the difference. We come

22:21

to work every day to do it the right way,

22:24

even if it's the hard way. Because if it's not

22:26

right for us, it's not right for you.

22:29

Deets and Watson, it's a family thing since 1939.

22:38

All right, everybody, welcome back. Continuing

22:40

with the CNN reporting, special counsel prosecutors

22:42

have also heard from other witnesses, Andy,

22:45

about efforts to illegally access voting systems

22:47

in other states.

22:48

One witness, who met with Smith's team

22:50

earlier last month, that's Bernard

22:53

Carrick, spoke at length about

22:55

how Trump allies access voting systems

22:58

in Antrim County, Michigan, shortly

23:00

after election day.

23:01

They were trying to get allegations

23:04

to put into their bogus lawsuit to

23:08

try to back up these, again, bogus election

23:10

fraud claims. In April,

23:13

an FBI agent and a prosecutor from

23:15

Smith's special counsel office interviewed a Pennsylvania

23:17

resident named Mike Ryan,

23:19

who used to work for a wealthy Pennsylvania Republican

23:21

donor named Bill Bockenberg.

23:24

During his interview, which Ryan

23:27

described

23:27

to CNN, he told him about it, Ryan

23:30

says he told federal investigators that Bockenberg

23:32

worked with Sidney Powell and other Trump lawyers

23:34

to access voting systems in Pennsylvania

23:37

and other states after

23:39

the election in 2020.

23:41

Bockenberg, who helped organize Pennsylvania's

23:43

fake electors, was subpoenaed by the

23:45

House Select Committee last year, but there's no

23:47

public indication he testified.

23:50

When Ryan says he told federal investigators

23:52

that after the 2020 election, Bockenberg

23:54

was in direct contact with Trump

23:56

and a host of the former president's

23:58

most prominent allies and colleagues.

23:59

including Rudy Giuliani and

24:02

John Eastman. So there's

24:03

this, there's this Bockenberg fellow

24:06

now, and we're now we're talking Pennsylvania. It's

24:08

not just

24:09

coffee County. We have Antrim County. We

24:11

have Fulton County is actually Pennsylvania,

24:14

Fulton County, Pennsylvania, not

24:16

Georgia. And there's more

24:18

to come. I'll talk about them in a second.

24:20

But what are your thoughts on this Bockenberg guy? This

24:22

is really fascinating. You know, they, it's like,

24:24

you were getting a little peek into

24:26

the nuts and bolts of the investigation,

24:29

right? They, they somehow turn up Ryan.

24:33

Ryan takes him to Bockenberg.

24:35

According to Ryan, Bockenberg has,

24:37

is in a,

24:38

it could be in a position to provide

24:40

amazing direct evidence. Right. That's

24:42

cause he was allegedly in direct contact

24:45

with

24:45

all these characters, Giuliani, Eastman,

24:48

and Trump specifically. So

24:50

super important guy to actually

24:53

talk to. And what do we know about him?

24:55

Approximately nothing, right? There's

24:57

no record that he talked to the committee

24:59

and we don't, we're not aware of

25:01

any like a subpoena fights

25:04

or any, or grand jury

25:06

appearances. Doesn't mean they didn't happen. It just means we're

25:08

not aware of them.

25:09

To me, this smells like a

25:12

guy who was, who was very

25:14

covetously protected

25:17

by the federal prosecutors. Yeah.

25:19

So what I feel like too. Yeah. So

25:21

he likely talked to the committee but

25:23

did so under kind of special agreement. And

25:26

you know, you,

25:28

you, if you thought, if you were on Jack

25:31

Smith's team and you felt like this guy was going to be a vital

25:34

witness to some of your future federal

25:37

prosecutions, you really don't want him going on

25:39

record with the committee months earlier. So

25:41

yeah, I think

25:43

he's someone who would make probably

25:46

a pretty

25:47

respectable, believable,

25:49

and therefore powerful government

25:52

witness. I don't know that he is. I'm

25:54

just speculating that

25:56

according to Ryan, what he had direct access

25:59

to could be very. valuable. Yeah,

26:01

and CNN even says it's unclear if

26:04

Bachenberg's been contacted by Smith's team or the

26:06

FBI and of course Bachenberg

26:08

did not reply to requests for comments

26:11

from CNN. This sounds like like you,

26:13

I'm with you, this sounds like a super protected

26:16

witness. And he's a rich dude so that

26:18

helps him as well. He's got leagues

26:20

of lawyers navigating this thing for

26:22

him, he's able to kind of stay away from the media,

26:24

he's probably hard to find, hard to, not

26:27

somebody you could just like

26:28

walk up and start asking him questions while he's

26:30

on his shift at Starbucks.

26:32

So yeah, it has all the

26:35

stench of a protected

26:37

witness. Yeah, and nobody

26:39

really has ever heard of this guy. That helps in

26:42

a lot of cases. You don't have to

26:45

have any kind of preconceived notions from

26:47

a jury about a person.

26:49

Like if you brought Mike Flynn up to the stand

26:50

in DC. Exactly.

26:53

He's the Mike Flynn. Who's

26:56

this fella? Oh, former general? Oh,

26:58

cool. Yeah, it's not. All

27:01

right, let's go to Michigan because the Secretary of State

27:03

Jocelyn Benson told CNN she's spoken

27:05

to investigators at both the state

27:08

and federal level

27:09

about the push to access voting systems.

27:12

Benson says when she met with Smith's team

27:14

earlier this spring, this has been going on for

27:16

a while,

27:17

she, like Bernie Carrick, was asked specifically

27:19

about efforts related to Antrim County.

27:22

That's in Michigan where Powell and

27:24

a lawyer named Stephanie Lambert helped fund

27:26

a team of pro-Trump operatives who accessed

27:29

voting systems. Now,

27:30

Lambert has been charged by state

27:32

prosecutors in Michigan for her alleged

27:35

involvement

27:36

in the conspiracy to access voting machines

27:38

there. And Lambert is also linked to a breach

27:40

in Fulton County, Pennsylvania, where

27:43

she provided legal representation for the county

27:45

after two Republican county officials secretly

27:48

allowed a forensic firm to copy

27:51

voting machine data. So

27:53

Lambert,

27:54

you know, while Jack Smith is investigating this,

27:56

Michigan was like,

27:58

we're going. And they just. They indicted

28:00

their people on that

28:03

voting machine breach, as Fonnie Willis

28:05

has done.

28:07

And so it's going to be interesting to see where the line

28:09

is between

28:10

what federal prosecutors do and

28:12

what state prosecutors do.

28:14

And right now, the line seems to be

28:16

at

28:18

kind of the national

28:20

team, the Powell-Juliani,

28:22

free sort of team

28:25

that went around to all these, to Patrick Byrne,

28:27

that whole group.

28:28

That seems to be where the cutoff

28:30

is, where everybody in the individual states,

28:33

maybe Jack Smith is like, you do them, I got

28:35

the top.

28:37

It could be. It

28:39

could be kind of a prioritizing resources

28:42

sort of thing. We know that he's interested

28:44

in it, right? It's one of the main themes

28:46

in the Trump indictment.

28:48

I still think that

28:50

he's coming back around for these people. I

28:53

think they are potentially looking

28:55

at some federal criminal liability.

28:58

I just think he's kind of not going to do it now

29:00

for the reasons we discussed earlier in the show. I

29:05

don't think any of them are safe.

29:07

And someone like this, if

29:09

the state's going to take a run at someone

29:13

like this lawyer,

29:14

Lambert, then fine. Do

29:17

what you're going to do. He can still come in behind

29:20

them, separate sovereigns. He can charge for whatever

29:22

he thinks he has federally. That

29:26

could be just one more motivation to get

29:28

someone like Lambert to cooperate. You

29:31

never know.

29:32

That's what I was thinking. You

29:34

get these cooperations on the state level. That's

29:37

going to filter up to the federal level

29:39

as well.

29:41

Yeah, absolutely. You can't walk

29:43

into state court and admit everything

29:45

you did under a cooperation agreement and then

29:48

expect to defend yourself against very

29:50

similar charges at the federal level. If

29:53

you're cooperating, you've got to go all the way. You've got

29:55

to cooperate everywhere.

29:56

Yeah. Now get this. Lambert,

29:58

as I said, is a very good person.

29:59

wasn't not only charged in Michigan,

30:02

but she's linked to a breach in Fulton County,

30:04

Pennsylvania.

30:05

And that breach is currently the subject of an

30:07

ongoing probe being conducted by a prosecutor

30:09

selected by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court.

30:12

Did anybody know about that? There is a special

30:14

prosecutor in Pennsylvania.

30:15

That was a new one to me. Yeah, me too. So

30:19

there are just, you know, Fonny

30:21

Willis kind of Jocelyn Benson,

30:23

Dana Nessel type investigations, I should say,

30:26

going on in Pennsylvania as well.

30:28

And Lambert has also been identified

30:31

by CNN as an undidited co-conspirator

30:33

in the Georgia indictment,

30:35

which alleges she worked with Sidney Powell to secure voting

30:37

system data that was copied from Coffey County.

30:40

So she's all over the place. So Lambert

30:42

seems like something that the feds would be interested in

30:44

as well. Now emails obtained by American

30:47

Oversight indicate Bockenberg, we'll talk about

30:49

that guy again,

30:50

was involved in discussions about funding

30:52

for the Arizona audit and helped

30:54

facilitate similar reviews in Pennsylvania.

30:57

So this team

31:00

has their fingerprints in

31:02

most of these key swing states that Biden

31:05

won in an effort to steal

31:07

this voting machine data

31:10

to try to somehow prove that

31:12

there was some sort of election fraud. And

31:17

Powell was funding it. Yeah,

31:19

the whole thing. Okay, if you're listening

31:21

to this and you're finding it hard

31:23

to keep all these players straight without a scorecard,

31:26

I am as well. But I think

31:29

the

31:29

message here is like the scope,

31:32

the array of potentially illegal

31:35

activity

31:36

that this, the A-team was involved

31:38

in,

31:39

the Powell's, the Eastman's, the Cheesebrows,

31:41

the Giuliani's, and of course, Trump calling

31:44

the shots and with a high degree

31:46

of knowledge and involvement in all

31:48

of this stuff, it's staggering.

31:51

It's staggering. And they really, for a group

31:53

of lawyers, they took

31:56

some unbelievably irresponsible

31:58

risks. Forget about the... fact that they're trying to overturn

32:01

democracy. Let's try to put that aside for a

32:03

second. In terms of just their own

32:05

self-preservation, these are lawyers

32:07

and they're engaging in like illegal,

32:10

pretty clearly illegal activity in multiple

32:12

states at the same time. It

32:14

just goes to show you like the level of, I

32:16

don't know, it must have been like straight up desperation,

32:19

you know,

32:20

that have to deliver some sort

32:22

of result for Trump

32:26

or just a desire to, right, to be the

32:28

person that shows up with the gold, you know, the

32:30

gold brass ring or the lucky penny

32:32

that they discovered in Antrim

32:34

County or Coffey County or wherever

32:36

it was. It's really a

32:39

staggering, a

32:41

staggering array of potentially

32:43

very serious criminal activity.

32:45

Yeah. And I guess what for a spot in his cabinet?

32:48

I mean, you know, I

32:50

guess to be one of the very best people,

32:52

you know, one of the

32:54

very, yeah, the very best, only the very best people

32:58

be best. That's right. That's

33:00

all right.

33:00

Well, it's good to know. Jack

33:02

Smith is investigating the vote, the voting machine breaches

33:05

in multiple key swings, swing states,

33:07

though many witnesses involved in Coffey County

33:09

down in Georgia have testified they have not yet been contacted

33:12

by the

33:12

special counsel's office. So

33:15

let's real quick talk a little

33:17

bit about freeze. Yeah.

33:20

So, you

33:21

know, this is the mysterious Rudy Giuliani

33:24

aide who evaded indictment in Fulton

33:26

County and

33:27

her name is we've decided Catherine

33:29

Freese.

33:30

So we have from Betsy

33:32

Woodruff, Swan and Kyle Cheney at Politico,

33:35

according to them, she helped Giuliani

33:37

woo potential donors to finance

33:40

Trump's effort to reverse the results

33:42

of the election. She helped draft a

33:44

quote, strategic communications plan

33:47

for a final push to keep Trump in office.

33:49

And this is apparently a document that became

33:51

a focus for the January six investigators

33:55

and that called for placing ads on radio

33:57

and TV alleging widespread voter

33:59

fraud.

34:00

At the same time, Fries warned other Trump

34:03

aides that their claims about dead people voting

34:05

in Georgia were weak,

34:07

but Trump continued to trumpet those claims

34:09

anyway. So it was like, hey, what's

34:12

with the weak sauce on the dead Georgia voters?

34:15

Come on, bring me some real stiffs

34:17

who voted. Bring me some live dead people.

34:20

I need more dead people. This is, I'm

34:23

not- Bring out your dead, you

34:25

know. I don't have great confidence

34:27

in your dead people. I need better

34:30

dead people who voted. A

34:33

host of emails and documents exchanged by

34:35

Fries and other Giuliani aides have been turned

34:37

over to the special counsel, Jack Smith, according

34:40

to a person familiar with the investigation.

34:43

Now Fries has not been accused of any wrongdoing by

34:45

prosecutors or by Congress,

34:48

and she's not been mentioned in either

34:50

of the criminal cases charging Trump with

34:52

conspiring to subvert the election.

34:54

Two Georgia election workers

34:56

who are suing Giuliani for defamation

34:59

tried unsuccessfully to subpoena

35:01

and depose Fries,

35:03

but after searching for her for months, they

35:05

gave up saying that Fries had vanished.

35:09

They also couldn't get discovery out of Bernie Kerrick

35:11

or Rudy because of Rudy's failure to produce

35:13

discovery. The judge awarded Ruby

35:15

Freeman and Shemoss a partial summary

35:18

judgment,

35:18

leaving only damages to be determined at

35:21

trial. So Rudy's failure

35:23

to produce discovery and respond to

35:25

things like that really came back to

35:27

Biden in a hard way. But

35:30

this evasive

35:32

Fries seems to have slipped through the net

35:35

and dodged service or something. I don't

35:37

know how hard they tried to look for her,

35:40

but apparently they were not successful.

35:42

Yeah. House January 6th Select

35:44

Committee sought to depose her, but never managed to get

35:47

her testimony. And we'll see

35:49

if Jack Smith has more luck. He has a lot

35:51

more tools at his disposal than Congress to

35:53

get her testimony if he needs it. He

35:56

does. And she doesn't feel like a a

36:00

secure secret witness

36:02

to me, like the Bachenberg guy does. She

36:05

feels just like we can't find her. She's hiding

36:07

in the house with the blinds drawn. She

36:10

sees a service guy coming up the path. She's

36:12

like, no, no, I'm not here today. I'm

36:14

kidding, obviously, but you know. She's

36:16

in Siberia with Tara Reade or something,

36:18

I don't know. If Jack Smith wants to find

36:20

her, he's got the entirety of the

36:23

FBI behind him. He can probably

36:25

find her. I don't know, maybe

36:28

she's like a super,

36:30

you know, she's superhuman powers

36:32

of evasion, but I wouldn't

36:35

bet on that. And I would expect we'll

36:37

see or hear more from her at

36:39

some point in the future.

36:41

Okay, we are gonna be right

36:43

back with an update on the Scott Perry

36:45

phone warrant and a weird motion

36:47

to vacate filed by Donald Trump in DC.

36:50

So stay with us.

36:52

♪ Ba dum ba ba ba da da da da

36:54

da da da da da da da da da

36:56

Whether you're all about

36:58

fun in the sun or rest and relaxation,

37:01

Volkswagen has SUVs to get you

37:04

revved up for summer. Have a season

37:06

packed with adventure in the versatile Atlas

37:08

with spacious cargo room. Stroll

37:11

to the sunset in the compact Taos

37:14

with VW Digital Cockpit. Or

37:16

make the most of your summer energy in the

37:19

all electric ID.4 SUV. Get

37:22

your summer on the road at your local Volkswagen

37:24

dealer today.

37:27

Get 30% stronger in just eight weeks

37:30

with GNC AMP Weibolic from America's

37:32

number one protein powder brand for building

37:35

strength. Weibolic increases strength

37:37

and stamina with half the sets in the gym

37:39

and delivers clinically proven results with 40

37:41

grams of ultra pure protein per serving.

37:44

Before a workout, after a workout, even

37:46

on days off, amplify your results

37:48

and enjoy amazing flavors. Grab

37:51

GNC AMP Weibolic today at GNC.com

37:54

or visit a GNC store near you.

37:57

When you're craving a vegan meatball sub

37:59

from

37:59

the sandwich shop down the road, get fast

38:02

delivery through DoorDash. And when you need stain

38:04

remover because you use your T-shirt as a napkin,

38:06

get fast delivery through DoorDash. Then

38:08

later, when you're marathoning cooking shows and

38:10

start to think making lemongrass ginger

38:13

macaroons from scratch can't be that

38:15

hard, you can still get fast delivery

38:17

through DoorDash. Get groceries and anything

38:20

else you could need from your neighborhood. With DoorDash.

38:22

Place your first order now at DoorDash.com

38:24

or the app and get a zero dollar delivery fee.

38:27

Terms apply.

38:33

Hey,

38:33

everybody, welcome back. All right. From

38:35

MSNBC contributor Lisa Rubin

38:38

on Twitter. And yes, I still call it Twitter.

38:40

I'm glad you do. She says, how

38:42

desperate is Donald Trump to slow

38:45

the federal election interference case down?

38:47

Desperate enough to oppose the government's

38:50

motion to seal an unspecified

38:52

filing simply because he didn't have

38:54

an opportunity to oppose the sealing request.

38:57

Not the motion itself, just the request.

39:00

But in a rapid response, the DOJ, Jack

39:03

Smith's office says it not only followed the

39:05

procedure laid out in the protective order,

39:07

but also suggests its underlying motion

39:10

is about Trump's daily extra

39:12

judicial statements that threaten

39:14

to prejudice the jury pool in this case.

39:17

Now, despite all that, Shutkin granted Trump's

39:20

motion, vacating her decision to let the government

39:22

file its motion under seal.

39:24

Instead, she ordered a briefing on the sealing

39:26

request that will last through 913

39:30

and implies that that going forward,

39:32

there will be a briefing on any motions

39:34

for leave to seal. That's

39:37

interesting. She the way

39:39

that I read it was that she was going

39:41

to have this one

39:44

briefing to resolve

39:46

any future issues with

39:48

motions for leave. But

39:51

Lisa Rubin is saying it seems that she's

39:53

indicating that there will be hearings on

39:55

motions for leave to file under

39:57

seal, not not for the actual filing itself.

40:00

And that to me could

40:02

be just her

40:04

crossing the T's and dotting the I's, taking away

40:06

something that could be

40:08

appealable, though not successfully,

40:10

but a reason to appeal,

40:12

any decision that comes down.

40:15

And I don't know how

40:17

or if this would necessarily delay

40:19

things. If every

40:22

time the government wants to file something under seal

40:24

because of a protective order, they have to have a hearing about

40:26

it.

40:27

Because that could slow

40:29

things down. It could,

40:31

but it also, I think what she's

40:33

doing here is really

40:36

acknowledging the

40:38

current

40:39

antagonistic state between these

40:41

sides. What she doesn't want

40:43

is for the government to just request that

40:45

everything be sealed and

40:48

then have to sit around and wait to see which

40:51

requests the Trump team is going to decide

40:53

to drop anchor on and

40:55

oppose and then demand briefing. She's

40:58

just setting up a rate, assuming they're going to

41:00

be on the opposite side of every issue. She's

41:03

setting up a regular process

41:04

that will do two things.

41:07

One, it'll cause the government to think twice before

41:09

they request that things are sealed.

41:11

And that might cut down on the overall volume

41:14

of that stuff, which in the long run could

41:16

make things a little quicker. And

41:18

two,

41:19

it means as soon as they file the

41:21

motion to seal, they'll file it with a briefing

41:24

schedule request and you just immediately

41:26

start that process. So you're not like coming back into

41:28

court, constantly yelling at each other, pointing

41:30

the finger, they did the wrong thing, they did the wrong thing.

41:33

You have a process in place now that

41:35

governs this going forward.

41:37

Yeah, okay. So I see how that could definitely

41:41

keep things moving as opposed to slow

41:43

them down by setting up that process now

41:46

so that anytime the government wants to

41:48

file something under seal,

41:50

there's an immediate hearing and they get

41:52

it done. Yeah, that's what it's going to take. Now, to be

41:54

clear, in most cases, this kind of penny

41:56

ante stuff doesn't happen. Like the government requests

41:59

to seal something and you

41:59

usually the other side will agree. It's

42:02

typically like information that could like

42:04

expose a witness's identity or something

42:06

like that.

42:07

Yeah, and there's a protective order here too, over

42:09

discovery. But you're not gonna get in

42:11

standard,

42:13

you're not gonna get standard agreement

42:16

to anything in this case. Cause they're gonna

42:18

fight, cause they're gonna

42:20

fight everything and the

42:22

fight alone is worth the fight because

42:25

it delays. Yep, yep.

42:28

Well, we'll see what happens. I'm

42:30

interested to know what happens in that hearing. Next

42:32

up, what do we have about Scott Perry?

42:34

Yeah, so this is the infamous Scott Perry

42:37

phone saga. Now, everyone

42:39

will remember that a long time

42:41

ago, Tom Windham wanted

42:44

to see his representative, Scott Perry's phone,

42:46

cause he had probable cause to believe there was evidence

42:49

of a crime on the device.

42:50

But as we've later learned,

42:53

the FBI at the Washington field office

42:56

refused to sign off on it. So they

42:58

basically said, no, we're not gonna do it. We're not

43:00

gonna execute that warrant. So

43:02

Windham then sent the inspector general to

43:04

seize the phone.

43:06

The IG investigators image

43:08

the phone, which is the way you do this. You have

43:10

a warrant to seize the device,

43:13

you take it and you make a copy of it. And

43:15

then the prosecutors have to go back to get a search

43:18

warrant to exploit it, to get the information

43:21

off of it.

43:22

So they image the phone, and then sought

43:24

a second search warrant to get the contents

43:27

and Perry then sued to block

43:29

them under the speech and debate clause

43:32

that protects Congress from having to turn

43:34

over information like this in certain

43:36

circumstances.

43:38

Okay, so since then, that lawsuit

43:40

by Perry, all the filings and rulings have been under

43:42

seal.

43:43

We do know that barrel Howell, judge

43:46

barrel Howell granted DOJ access

43:48

to the phone.

43:49

And then Perry very quickly appealed

43:51

that decision. And

43:54

the issue has basically been sitting with

43:56

the DC circuit court of appeals ever since.

43:59

So this,

43:59

we learned the DC Circuit Court has made

44:02

a decision. Unfortunately, the full

44:04

ruling is under seal. So we

44:06

can only go off the information in the minute order

44:09

that we can see on the docket. And

44:11

what we know is that the appeals court declined

44:14

to issue a broad order blocking

44:16

Jack Smith from accessing the phone data,

44:19

but they also didn't endorse Judge Howell's

44:22

ruling. And they've remanded the case

44:24

back to the district court to reconsider

44:26

its decision about quote, individuals

44:29

outside the federal government, communications

44:31

with members of the executive branch,

44:34

and communications with other members of Congress

44:36

regarding alleged election fraud. So you

44:39

will recall, I'm sure, AG, that

44:41

those were the groups

44:43

of information

44:45

that Barrow Howell said the prosecutors

44:47

could access, right? So

44:49

she tried to respect

44:52

some privilege of the speech and debate

44:54

clause, which basically says

44:56

conversations with other legislators about

44:58

legislative business

45:00

cannot be reached by the federal

45:03

government under subpoena.

45:04

But she carved out of that.

45:07

Well, his conversations with individuals

45:09

outside the federal government would not constitute

45:11

legislative business. Communications

45:13

with members of the executive branch would not constitute

45:16

legislative business, nor would

45:18

communications with other members of Congress

45:21

regarding alleged election fraud.

45:23

So that's what the government

45:25

was thinking they were going to get. And

45:27

now it seems that

45:29

it's being sent back to the district court

45:32

to kind of rethink Barrow

45:35

Howell's

45:36

somewhat broad decision

45:40

favoring the government. Yeah. And there was

45:42

a big hint in the minute order that CNN

45:45

had left out of this reporting, or excuse me, Politico

45:47

had left out of this reporting.

45:49

At the end of that, the communications with

45:51

members of Congress, executive branch, et cetera, it

45:53

says before or prior

45:56

to the voting on HB1,

45:58

House Bill 1.

46:00

and the certification

46:03

of the votes on January 6th.

46:05

And what that says to me at least,

46:07

is that

46:09

this panel on the DC Circuit Court

46:11

of Appeals, which is made up of Henderson, Kotzus

46:13

and Rao by the way, Reagan and two Trumps.

46:16

And

46:18

what they're saying is that, it seems

46:20

like they have determined, and this is just

46:22

a guess based on that language,

46:24

that his communications with those three groups

46:26

of people

46:28

are protected by the

46:30

speech or debate clause because he was preparing to vote

46:32

on House Bill 1,

46:34

and also preparing to deciding

46:36

whether or not to certify the

46:37

election on January 6th. This is the same

46:40

argument Lindsey Graham used to

46:42

try to get out of testifying in Fulton County.

46:44

He failed in that argument, but he was

46:46

also not indicted.

46:48

So, and again, we don't know why,

46:51

but it might be because she just wanted to

46:53

avoid the whole speech or debate clause mess. It's a very

46:55

powerful privilege, and it's very broad.

46:58

But honestly, I think that if this

47:01

gets appealed en banc to the full panel

47:03

of the DC Circuit Court of Appeals, I

47:06

think it would be overturned, and

47:08

Judge Beryl Howes ruling allowed to

47:10

stand. I don't know what would happen at

47:12

the Supreme Court level, but I imagine this will

47:14

go all the way up

47:15

from one party or another. There's

47:17

no question. I mean, if

47:20

the government wins on an en banc

47:22

re-hearing,

47:23

Scott Perry knows he's close to winning it, right?

47:26

Because he almost won it. He basically is

47:28

in the winner's chair today. And

47:31

so he's got every incentive in the world to

47:33

then, if he suffers

47:36

at the en banc re-hearing, then

47:38

he would definitely push it to the Supreme Court. It's

47:40

also a significant national

47:42

issue. It's a separation of powers

47:45

issue. It goes right

47:47

to the heart of what is probably the strongest

47:50

legal privilege that members of Congress

47:53

enjoy. So yeah, there's no question.

47:55

There's gonna be a ton of interest in the

47:57

way this thing plays out.

47:59

from people who aren't normally as interested

48:02

in this case, but fastened,

48:04

you know, really zoned in on these separation

48:07

of powers type issues.

48:08

Yeah, and if SCOTUS takes up the case, it

48:10

could take forever to

48:13

argue and get a ruling there. But

48:15

my feeling is that

48:18

the Supreme Court will not want to make a determination

48:20

on the speech or debate clause or answer the separation

48:23

of powers issue at this time and might

48:25

just

48:26

let an en banc

48:29

decision stand if they go en

48:31

banc or this decision stand if they go

48:34

straight to the Supreme Court, which

48:36

is why I think Jack Smith will probably

48:39

file en banc or maybe

48:41

to the Supreme Court, but I don't

48:43

see the Supreme Court stepping in here personally.

48:46

But if they do, it'll delay the hell

48:48

out of this and they'll never, you know, we'd be looking

48:50

for it another year and a half or two if they

48:53

win to get access to Scott

48:55

Perry's communications.

48:56

So I think Jack Smith has to decide how important

48:59

it is to him to

49:00

have those communications.

49:02

Yeah, for sure. For sure.

49:04

And, you know, not for nothing, as we discussed

49:06

in a couple of episodes

49:09

ago, DOJ

49:10

keeps a very close eye on these

49:12

things because they're thinking like

49:15

what does a, you know, what

49:17

will the long term effects on our investigations

49:19

and political corruption

49:22

cases and other cases involved that could involve

49:25

members of Congress. Do we need to

49:27

preserve

49:29

a specific legal position

49:31

here for presidential reasons? So yeah, there's

49:33

a lot

49:35

swirling around on this

49:38

one. I think we certainly haven't heard the end of this story.

49:40

But we'll see,

49:43

could take a little time to get to the end.

49:45

Yeah. And another option might be that,

49:48

you know, we might not see an appeal

49:50

at all from the Department of Justice because perhaps

49:52

they have all these communications from the other

49:55

parties who Scott Perry was communicating

49:57

with

49:58

that they don't have to deal with speech or debates. stuff

50:00

with. And so maybe they don't

50:02

want that decision at

50:03

all. I tend to doubt

50:06

it. I don't think it would have gotten this far if there wasn't

50:08

something on that phone that they needed specifically

50:10

that they might not be able to get elsewhere.

50:13

But, you know, who knows?

50:16

If an appeal

50:17

happens, it'll happen, I think, relatively

50:19

soon, and we'll be able to see whether

50:22

or not Jack Smith wants to continue to try

50:24

to get at what is in this particular

50:27

electronic device. Yeah, we'll

50:29

see. We'll see one way or the other. All

50:31

right. We're going to head down to Florida and then take listener

50:34

questions, but we need to take a quick break first.

50:36

So everybody stick around. We'll be right back.

50:43

Get 30% stronger in just eight weeks

50:45

with GNC Amp Weybolic from America's

50:48

number one protein powder brand for building

50:50

strength. Weybolic increases strength

50:52

and stamina with half the sets in the gym

50:54

and delivers clinically proven results with 40

50:57

grams of ultra pure protein per serving.

51:00

Before a workout, after a workout, even

51:02

on days off, amplify your results

51:04

and enjoy amazing flavors. Grab

51:07

GNC Amp Weybolic today at GNC.com

51:09

or visit a GNC store near you.

51:13

When you're craving a vegan meatball sub

51:15

from the sandwich shop down the road, get fast

51:17

delivery through DoorDash. And when you need stain

51:19

remover because you use your t-shirt as a napkin,

51:22

get fast delivery through DoorDash. Then

51:24

later when you're marathoning cooking shows and

51:26

start to think making lemongrass ginger

51:28

macaroons from scratch can't be that

51:30

hard, you can still get fast delivery

51:33

through DoorDash. Get groceries and anything

51:35

else you could need from your neighborhood with DoorDash.

51:38

Place your first order now at DoorDash.com

51:40

or the app and get a $0 delivery fee.

51:42

Terms apply.

51:44

Here at Ford, we don't know any

51:46

first responders who only give 90% or farmers,

51:48

workers who build

51:52

our towns, roads, infrastructure.

51:55

They don't stop at halfway. And

51:57

good luck finding a small business owner

51:59

who's halfway.

51:59

with an 80% effort. That's

52:02

why they use Ford trucks. Ford

52:04

F-Series 100% assembled in

52:07

America because we're all in

52:09

on America. Built Ford

52:11

proud of foreign and domestic parts.

52:20

Welcome back. Okay from Hannah

52:22

Rabinowitz at CNN,

52:24

Mar-a-Lago IT worker UCL

52:27

Tavares has struck a cooperation

52:29

agreement with the Special Counsel's office

52:31

in the federal case over President Donald Trump's

52:34

handling of classified documents and

52:36

this is according to Tavares's former

52:39

defense attorney

52:40

Stanley Woodward. Now Woodward included

52:43

this in a new court

52:44

filing. Andy I saw

52:46

something on Twitter somebody somebody

52:48

said you picked a fine time to leave

52:51

me UCL. Pardon

52:53

my horrible singing

52:54

voice but I thought that

52:56

was now

53:00

I have that in my head every time I see his name. I

53:02

can't believe I didn't think of that.

53:05

I know I punched myself

53:07

in the face when I saw that I was like why didn't I think of that?

53:09

That's amazing that's amazing. Now of course we thought

53:12

that this is what was going on for the last couple weeks

53:14

so I wasn't super surprised about

53:16

it. Right

53:17

we kind of the writing was on

53:19

the wall but now we have confirmation right. Especially

53:22

through the entire you know

53:24

conflict process but in any case

53:27

we know that Tavares struck the deal of prosecutors

53:29

after he was threatened with prosecution according

53:32

to Stanley Woodward who included

53:35

that in his filing as well. So

53:37

according to the terms of the deal explained in the filing

53:39

Tavares agreed to testify in the classified

53:42

documents case and in exchange will

53:44

not be prosecuted. Hmm

53:48

well you know this this

53:50

filing marks the first public

53:52

acknowledgment

53:54

that Jack Smith has won the cooperation

53:56

of a key witness like we said we kind of had a feeling

53:59

this whole time. But, you know,

54:01

this is now it's being,

54:03

it's being telecast,

54:06

it's being broadcasted by Stanley

54:08

Woodward.

54:09

And what's interesting is that Stanley Woodward is

54:11

trying to, he's trying to say in these

54:14

conflict of interest hearings and his opposition to have

54:16

a Garcia hearing about a conflict of interest for

54:18

him representing

54:19

two of these key witnesses, but not anymore.

54:21

He's not representing Tavares anymore. He's

54:23

saying, well, just don't have Tavares testify

54:25

and we don't have to have this conflict of interest. We

54:28

don't have to cross examine him or on the stand

54:30

or

54:31

my second lawyer can do it or

54:33

whatever. He's just saying Tavares shouldn't testify.

54:36

But

54:37

he is also saying that he won

54:39

immunity. He was part of this cooperation

54:42

agreement. He's not going to be indicted because he's giving

54:44

testimony. Yeah,

54:45

that's how it works. Which,

54:48

you know, yeah, if he wasn't giving his testimony,

54:50

he would be charged. So

54:52

I'm not real sure where Stanley

54:55

Woodward is trying to

54:56

come from here. It's kind

54:59

of amazing to me too on the, from the perspective

55:01

of like, look how quickly this

55:04

guy Woodward who was Tavares,

55:06

his lawyer has cut and run

55:08

on him now.

55:10

Yeah. Right. He's, he's

55:12

exposing all this stuff in his court filings for

55:14

his own purposes to serve his other

55:16

client,

55:17

which is, I've never seen anything

55:19

like this before. And I cooperated a lot

55:21

of people during my years as an agent and

55:23

of course oversaw a lot of cases with cooperators,

55:27

you know, later in my career. And

55:29

typically,

55:31

you know, the, the lawyer

55:33

that gets dropped

55:35

just kind of walks away because lawyers are,

55:37

they generally try to be careful about observing

55:40

the ethical rules and not doing something

55:43

or saying something or going on the record with some sort

55:45

of statement that's that could really be against

55:47

the interests of your former client. That's

55:49

pretty much, you know, baseline

55:52

thou shalt not sort of conduct,

55:54

not, not Woodward man. He

55:57

is just like cutting Tavares off at the neck.

55:59

Yeah, it seems like if you are a

56:02

Trump paid

56:03

super PAC lawyer,

56:05

if somebody flips, they're dead to you.

56:07

They're dead to you, that's right. And

56:10

that's it. And I mean, that's just further evidence,

56:13

aside from the fact that the very

56:15

second to the Tavares talk to a public defender,

56:17

he was like, nope, okay, I wanna confess,

56:20

oh, this is gonna be good, okay,

56:21

I'm gonna tell the whole truth, I'm not gonna get indicted

56:24

and I fire that guy. You know, like

56:27

all of that. We'd love to have been a fly on the wall in that

56:29

meeting where Tavares is like, wait a minute, you mean

56:31

if I testify, I might not get

56:33

charged? Because

56:35

Stanley didn't ever tell me that

56:38

me going to jail was a possibility

56:40

here. Yeah, and we have this elector, this fraudulent

56:43

elector lawyer, not telling her clients

56:45

about potential immunity deals. We

56:47

have Cassidy Hutchinson's lawyer,

56:49

Passantino, telling

56:52

her to say, I don't recall even when you do.

56:54

Like,

56:55

I have to believe

56:57

that Jack Smith is doing a full-throated investigation

57:00

into obstruction of justice on behalf of some

57:02

of these Trump-backed lawyers. We already know he's been

57:04

asking questions and bringing it up

57:07

specifically in filings

57:09

that first of all, he wanted to file under seal,

57:11

but the judge, Eileen Cannon, denied him that, you

57:14

know, to say, oh, by the way, not

57:17

only was his lawyer paid for by a Trump PAC,

57:19

but he was recommended by a Trump lawyer.

57:22

Like, he specifically brought that up.

57:24

And that, Jack Smith doesn't

57:26

strike me as the kind of guy who puts superfluous

57:29

words in a filing. No. And

57:31

so if he, and Mueller was the same way, or the

57:33

people who wrote the filings for Mueller, same whoever's

57:36

writing these filings for Jack Smith, or they're

57:38

signing off on them,

57:40

every word is deliberate, and every

57:42

thing in there is deliberate, especially if

57:44

you've tried to file it under seal and you told

57:47

you couldn't. Oh, this

57:49

is gonna be public? Great, let's bring up the fact

57:51

that Trump is paying for you and

57:53

was, you know,

57:54

and that he didn't find, he

57:56

didn't just run into you on a billboard and call

57:58

up and Google search you, he was. he was directed

58:00

to have you as an attorney.

58:03

That tells me at least, and

58:05

of course, this is just speculation, but that

58:07

Jack Smith is looking into whether

58:09

or not these lawyers, for people

58:11

like Hutchinson, Tavares, Nada,

58:14

they're

58:17

being untoward,

58:20

or perhaps even potentially

58:22

obstructing justice. So we will

58:24

see that in his final report,

58:26

because the special counsel

58:29

is required to tell Congress what he investigated

58:31

and where he declined to prosecute.

58:34

So if he did investigate these lawyers

58:36

and how they were getting paid, and if they were suborning

58:38

perjury of their very own clients,

58:41

that'll be in there.

58:43

Yeah, I mean, to be clear, he kind

58:45

of has to, right? Whether or not he has

58:47

any intention or opportunity

58:50

later to turn any of this into criminal

58:52

charges or allegations, you know, we don't

58:54

know. It's possible, but

58:56

it's hard to say. But

58:58

he has to go through these

59:01

math problems to

59:04

figure out how he's going

59:06

to access the witnesses that he

59:08

needs. A lot of these people are being

59:10

represented by this little consortium

59:12

of Trump PAC lawyers. And

59:15

he's got to figure, this is like

59:18

chess, right? You got to play multiple

59:20

moves out. And so he is, I

59:22

think, very strategically using these conflict

59:25

of interest, Garcia hearing requests

59:28

as a way of trying to split off some

59:31

potentially important witnesses or cooperators

59:35

from lawyers who are kind of

59:37

prohibiting them from cooperating.

59:40

It's not an unethical strategy that

59:42

he's pursuing because these people actually

59:44

have pretty significant potential

59:46

conflicts and their clients should be made aware

59:49

of it and should be given the opportunity to decide

59:51

whether or not they're going to waive it. And

59:53

of course that's the job for the judge to

59:55

make that call in the Garcia hearing.

59:57

And he's also kind of ringing an alarm bell. Like,

59:59

hey, while Nada and Deolavera.

1:00:03

That's right. Think about this.

1:00:05

Tavares has not been indicted

1:00:08

and you are facing 20 plus years. That's

1:00:11

the excruciating thing though. I mean, Tavares is

1:00:13

a good guy to have on your witness roster, but he's

1:00:16

no Nada,

1:00:18

right? And he's not even a Deolavera.

1:00:20

Like either of those two guys, if they cooperated,

1:00:25

could blow the lid

1:00:27

off of the obstruction side of this case.

1:00:30

And Nada, the obstruction

1:00:32

and espionage side of the case. So

1:00:36

yeah, it's kind of remarkable

1:00:38

that neither of them have kind of

1:00:41

leaned in that direction yet, but we don't know what's going

1:00:43

on behind the scenes either.

1:00:44

Have you ever dealt with a client

1:00:47

who was reticent to cooperate that had a

1:00:49

shitty lawyer and

1:00:51

do you kind of

1:00:53

go easy on them? Like, let's say

1:00:56

Nada turned around now and said, okay,

1:00:58

I want to cooperate.

1:00:59

Usually because you're the second

1:01:02

or third guy to cooperate, you don't

1:01:04

get as good a deal as the first guy, but

1:01:06

maybe because you know that you had

1:01:08

potentially a lawyer that was not

1:01:10

telling you the full story about the benefits

1:01:13

of cooperating

1:01:14

as they're supposed to,

1:01:16

that maybe you are a little easier

1:01:18

on them. Maybe you say, hey, yeah, come on over.

1:01:21

We won't charge you.

1:01:23

Because I think usually you

1:01:25

would still charge them. They would just plead to a lesser

1:01:27

charge or something and do much

1:01:30

shorter amounts of time. But maybe

1:01:32

in a case where the lawyer is

1:01:34

behaving badly, have you ever seen and worked

1:01:36

with any cooperators like that?

1:01:38

I've definitely worked with cooperators who

1:01:41

we were able to split off from their counsel, get

1:01:43

them other counsel, and then they

1:01:45

didn't start out cooperating, but then they

1:01:48

eventually came on to the government side

1:01:51

with new attorneys. It comes up

1:01:53

pretty frequently in organized crime cases

1:01:55

where the mobsters are very good

1:01:57

at joint defense agreements and using.

1:02:00

the kind of in-house counsels they always use

1:02:03

to keep everybody's mouth shut. And

1:02:06

there's a process called ghost counsel

1:02:08

where if a defendant

1:02:11

who is represented, so therefore you can't talk

1:02:13

to them, right? Cause they have a lawyer. If they

1:02:15

somehow contact the government and say

1:02:17

that they feel like they are in danger,

1:02:20

like

1:02:21

I can't talk, I want

1:02:23

to talk to the government, but I can't because my lawyer

1:02:25

won't let me and I'll be killed if I

1:02:27

do, that sort of thing. You can actually

1:02:29

go in front of the judge and in camera,

1:02:32

so without the defense present,

1:02:36

and the judge can pull that defendant in

1:02:38

and question them to determine whether or not

1:02:40

it's a legitimate request and this is

1:02:42

something they really want and do they really want to get away

1:02:44

from their lawyer and is there safety

1:02:46

involved? And so you appoint

1:02:49

a ghost counsel to advise them.

1:02:51

I see, can you do it if

1:02:53

there's no threat of physical harm?

1:02:55

I, you know, I've not seen it done in that

1:02:57

situation. It doesn't mean you can't, this has just been

1:03:00

my experience. But in

1:03:02

any case, if we think about

1:03:04

it in terms of Nada and De Oliveira, you

1:03:07

know, they're very different than Tavares because they're

1:03:09

already charged. So there's- Well,

1:03:11

is that kind of what happened up in Judge Boseberg's court

1:03:14

when they did a Garcia hearing up there

1:03:16

and the judge was like, talk to this public

1:03:19

defender?

1:03:20

I mean, that's what happened for Tavares, right?

1:03:23

Yeah. But he wasn't

1:03:25

charged at

1:03:27

the time. So the fact

1:03:29

that Nada and De Oliveira are currently charged,

1:03:32

even if they wanted to get on the government's side

1:03:34

now, which there's probably still an

1:03:36

opportunity to do that, they're not going

1:03:38

to walk away Scott Free like Tavares because

1:03:40

they're already carrying a charge and you

1:03:43

also have credibility problems with them because they came

1:03:45

in and lied.

1:03:46

When you decide

1:03:49

to make someone a cooperator,

1:03:51

you have to, you understand

1:03:53

that there's a downside.

1:03:55

You're going to put them in front of the jury. They're going

1:03:57

to tell their story of the case or their

1:03:59

whatever.

1:03:59

evidence they have. And then on cross-examination,

1:04:03

the defense attorneys are going to point

1:04:05

out the fact that they got a benefit for

1:04:07

providing testimony.

1:04:09

They use that to undermine the credibility

1:04:12

of the witness in the eyes of the jury. So

1:04:14

you can't just give a cooperator like

1:04:17

the most unbelievable deal in

1:04:19

the world because you're actually contributing

1:04:22

to undermining

1:04:23

their

1:04:24

credibility like that. The way you, quote

1:04:26

unquote, rehabilitate a cooperator

1:04:29

is you make them plead to a significant

1:04:31

offense. They have to tell you the truth about everything

1:04:33

they did. And then they have to plead to something

1:04:36

it's less than they would have had to plead to

1:04:38

if they weren't cooperating, but it's still

1:04:40

a significant thing. And you

1:04:42

make it clear to the jury on direct examination

1:04:45

that

1:04:45

the

1:04:47

benefit from their cooperation

1:04:49

depends

1:04:50

upon them providing

1:04:52

truthful testimony in court. It

1:04:54

has to be frustrating to have

1:04:56

to explain that to a jury every time. Like, yes,

1:04:59

our cooperators are bad guys. Here's

1:05:01

why they're doing this. They're bad dudes

1:05:03

and they're doing this to get a benefit.

1:05:06

But the way the system is structured, they don't get

1:05:08

the benefit until after they've testified

1:05:10

in front of you. If we determine

1:05:12

that they didn't tell you the truth, they get no

1:05:14

benefit. So the incentive is

1:05:17

for them to tell the truth and provide

1:05:19

good testimony. And that in that way,

1:05:21

the jurors can rely on

1:05:23

what these bad guys who lie all

1:05:25

the time, you can rely

1:05:28

on what they say. Now I had a case where

1:05:30

we had a cooperator

1:05:32

who was just a horrible

1:05:34

human being.

1:05:35

And he took the stand and testified very

1:05:38

well, told a truthful and

1:05:40

accurate story. Um,

1:05:41

but the jury just hated him

1:05:44

because

1:05:44

he had done so many horrendously awful

1:05:46

things in his life.

1:05:48

And we got it. Was it Rick Gates? No,

1:05:53

I wish. The

1:05:55

jury hated that guy too. But the, but you

1:05:57

know, even the maga, the rural juror was like,

1:05:59

It's a documents case. Yeah, so

1:06:02

it's hard. Cooperators

1:06:05

are, you know, benefit of great

1:06:07

testimony, hopefully, but

1:06:10

they come with baggage that you have to kind

1:06:12

of,

1:06:13

you know, prepare the jury for. Yeah, and in this

1:06:15

particular case, he's gonna say, yeah, his

1:06:17

lawyer was a pile of shit. And

1:06:20

it was after he spoke to an actual public defender

1:06:22

that the lights came on, and

1:06:24

that's why he's cooperating. That is going

1:06:26

to really impact a jury

1:06:28

hugely, I think. It is,

1:06:31

and he's a good and decent witness. He doesn't

1:06:33

really do anything wrong here other

1:06:35

than lying to the government the first time he met with him. Well, we don't

1:06:37

know, because the story and the indictment ends

1:06:40

where he was asked to help delete. We don't know

1:06:42

if he actually did help delete.

1:06:44

I think he did contact one

1:06:46

of the Calamaris to see what he could do, so

1:06:48

he may have actually done some

1:06:50

bad stuff. I mean, he pushed back a little. He

1:06:53

pushed back a little, he said, I don't have the rights to do it, I

1:06:55

don't have the power. Well, the administrative rights, yeah. Yeah. But

1:06:59

he was only facing, I think, a perjure,

1:07:01

a lying, a false statements

1:07:03

charge. He wasn't facing a destruction

1:07:06

of evidence charge or anything like

1:07:08

that.

1:07:09

But that, again, might have just been to get him

1:07:12

to cooperate. We don't know, but we will find out.

1:07:14

Compare him to Nada, right? Nada was

1:07:16

like moving boxes around and

1:07:20

taking secret flights to Florida to destroy

1:07:22

evidence. I mean, like he's in the thick of it. Like

1:07:24

Nada does not, and then he came in and lied

1:07:27

to the government. Now he's facing a 1,001

1:07:29

charge. So he does not become a cooperator

1:07:32

without pleading guilty to some significant

1:07:34

hits, which he could lower

1:07:37

his sentencing exposure on if he cooperated

1:07:40

effectively and truthfully. There's still an incentive

1:07:42

to do it, but it's a longer road.

1:07:44

Significantly, and I think another news

1:07:46

story came out to show that. We

1:07:49

found out that there was a plea agreement

1:07:51

offered to the Proud Boys

1:07:53

in their seditious conspiracy case.

1:07:55

And he was facing, Enrique

1:07:57

Tarria was facing 33 years.

1:07:59

He got 22, but that deal granted

1:08:02

him nine years

1:08:04

and he turned it down.

1:08:06

One

1:08:08

was offered six years, he got 18. Another

1:08:11

six years, he got 17. Another four

1:08:14

years was offered four years, he got 12. Another

1:08:16

one was six years, he got 15. And those

1:08:18

are still significantly under

1:08:20

the sentencing guidelines.

1:08:22

We may see Merrick Garland also file

1:08:25

his intent to appeal these sentences for being

1:08:27

so far below

1:08:28

the sentencing guidelines, but

1:08:30

we now have all this public information. First

1:08:32

of all, from this filing from Jack Smith that hey, if you cooperate,

1:08:35

you don't get indicted. And we

1:08:37

also have this new deal out here,

1:08:40

the Proud Boys deal. Well, whoa,

1:08:42

I might not get

1:08:44

off scot-free, but I would

1:08:46

be facing less than half the

1:08:48

time if I work

1:08:50

with the government here.

1:08:51

And I think that these

1:08:54

stories

1:08:55

are significant and I'm glad they're being told.

1:08:57

So let's

1:08:59

move on to questions because I know we are

1:09:01

just about out of time, but we have some

1:09:04

really great listener questions that

1:09:06

have been sent in. What do we have this week?

1:09:07

We do, okay, the first one comes

1:09:09

to us from Jane. And Jane says,

1:09:12

what is the statute of limitations for bringing

1:09:14

indictments against other people

1:09:16

in either of Jack's current cases?

1:09:19

And what would the statute of limitations be on any

1:09:21

new cases he might bring? And then

1:09:23

she says, never miss a Sunday update,

1:09:25

thank you. Thank you, Jane. And I

1:09:27

appreciate the question. And I think it's

1:09:30

good with a lot of what we've covered today talking

1:09:32

about the possibility of other people

1:09:34

getting indicted in the Trump January

1:09:37

6th federal case, or I should say

1:09:39

the aftermath of that, because I think it wouldn't happen

1:09:41

until after that case is pretty much

1:09:44

done. So

1:09:46

generally, federal

1:09:48

criminal statutes have a five-year

1:09:52

statute of limitations. And that's under 18

1:09:54

USC 3282. And

1:09:58

that means you have to indict.

1:09:59

the person

1:10:01

within five years after the crime was

1:10:03

committed. So in a case

1:10:05

like a conspiracy case, like a 371 case,

1:10:09

which we know we're, we have a few of those we've been talking

1:10:11

about, that would be five years from the

1:10:13

last overt act. So if

1:10:15

the conspiracy started, you know, months before

1:10:18

the election in 2020, but it

1:10:20

continued into January of 2021, the

1:10:24

last overt act takes place. That's

1:10:27

when the five year clock starts ticking. Now

1:10:30

some,

1:10:32

okay, so that's the general rule for federal

1:10:35

criminal offenses, but there are exceptions of course.

1:10:38

Some have no statute of limitations

1:10:40

like the few ways that the

1:10:42

government, the federal government charges

1:10:44

murder. So that's like capital murder, genocide,

1:10:47

stuff like that. They don't have any statute of

1:10:49

limitations. And then

1:10:52

other crimes like male fraud and wire fraud,

1:10:54

which we were talking about today in

1:10:56

the context of the PACS fundraising,

1:10:59

those have a 10 year

1:11:01

statute of limitations. So bottom line, I don't think

1:11:03

the statute of limitations is a real problem

1:11:06

here since you probably could get most

1:11:09

of this stuff drifted into 2021, which

1:11:11

takes you to January 2026. And I, so, and again,

1:11:16

you don't have to have the case completed tried

1:11:19

sentence. It just means that the indictment

1:11:21

has to have been returned within

1:11:25

the statute. So I think we're probably on okay grounds

1:11:27

there.

1:11:28

Yeah. And you can even file indictments under

1:11:30

seal to, to stop that clock

1:11:33

from ticking. But yeah, generally,

1:11:36

generally, and I think this is probably true

1:11:38

for Jack Smith and most of the department of justice,

1:11:41

you indict when you're ready to indict.

1:11:43

You don't like, a lot of people

1:11:45

were thinking that Mueller had filed some stuff under

1:11:48

seal to get it on, you know, get it on the end under

1:11:50

the clock. And then like,

1:11:51

we'll, we'll bring it out when we win the presidency

1:11:53

back. You know, I was like, I don't really

1:11:56

see that as a, something that would be happening.

1:12:00

That happens in cases like

1:12:02

we indicted Osama bin Laden for

1:12:04

years but had no chance of actually getting

1:12:06

him and didn't want him to know he was indicted.

1:12:09

So that remained sealed for a while,

1:12:11

things like that. But it's

1:12:13

really dangerous to do that in a case

1:12:16

involving dangerous people because if

1:12:18

it comes out that you

1:12:20

had an indictment against someone and you

1:12:22

could have arrested them and placed them in custody

1:12:25

and then after that point they went out because

1:12:28

you didn't execute somebody else and killed someone

1:12:30

else and then it's like hey, you know, you should

1:12:32

have stopped that. So yeah, it's

1:12:34

typically we don't sit on those for

1:12:37

any old reason.

1:12:39

No, makes sense. Thanks for that question.

1:12:41

We have a form, a link to a form you can fill out to send

1:12:43

us a question. In the show notes,

1:12:45

we appreciate your questions. Keep sending

1:12:47

them in. We have so many good ones

1:12:49

and we appreciate like

1:12:52

the details, the amount of detail

1:12:54

in these questions is so awesome. I mean,

1:12:56

our... It's really remarkable and it helps me

1:12:59

even to just, obviously we can't

1:13:00

read all of them on the air, but it helps to

1:13:03

read them to see like what people

1:13:05

are thinking about and how the show is impacting

1:13:07

the way they see the issues and it helps

1:13:10

me in what I'm preparing for

1:13:12

these episodes and I kind

1:13:14

of keep it in the back of my mind is like things we

1:13:16

should bring up during the show. So it's super

1:13:19

helpful and I really appreciate it. Yeah,

1:13:21

absolutely. All right, we'll be back next

1:13:23

week. Who knows what's going to happen. Spin the wheel.

1:13:27

The special counsel wheel. What's going to

1:13:29

happen next week? You have to do

1:13:30

it in a Don Pardo voice. What

1:13:34

will we be talking about next week? It's

1:13:36

a brand new car. Yeah,

1:13:40

Jan Hooks. Who knows?

1:13:42

It could really be anything, but we look

1:13:45

forward to discussing it here

1:13:46

on the Jack podcast. Thank you so much

1:13:48

everybody for listening. I've been Alison Gill.

1:13:50

And I'm Andy McCabe. And we'll see you

1:13:52

next week.

1:13:57

Get 30% stronger in just eight weeks.

1:13:59

with GNC AMP Weybolic from America's

1:14:02

number one protein powder brand for building

1:14:05

strength. Weybolic increases strength

1:14:07

and stamina with half the sets in the gym

1:14:09

and delivers clinically proven results with 40

1:14:11

grams of ultra pure protein per serving.

1:14:14

Before a workout, after a workout, even

1:14:16

on days off, amplify your results

1:14:18

and enjoy amazing flavors. Grab

1:14:21

GNC AMP Weybolic today at GNC.com

1:14:24

or visit a GNC store near you.

1:14:27

There are people who say things aren't made

1:14:29

in this country anymore. Those

1:14:31

people should come to Michigan or Kentucky

1:14:34

or Missouri, where you'll find Ford

1:14:37

workers not just assembling vehicles,

1:14:39

but building the future of automotive

1:14:42

manufacturing. It's why Ford

1:14:44

employs the most hourly auto workers

1:14:46

in this country. Can't speak for

1:14:48

the other guys, but we're all

1:14:50

in on America. Built

1:14:53

Ford Proud. Based on 2022 year-end

1:14:56

hourly employment

1:14:56

data.