0:00

Introducing Carvana Value Tracker,

0:02

where you can track your car's value over time and

0:04

learn what's driving it. It might make you excited.

0:06

Whoa, didn't know my car was valued this high.

0:09

It might make you nervous.

0:10

Uh-oh, market's flooded. My car's value just

0:12

dipped 2.3%. It might make you

0:14

optimistic. Our low mileage is paying off. Our

0:16

value's up. And it might make you realistic.

0:19

Hmm, car prices haven't gone up in a couple weeks.

0:21

Maybe it's time to sell. But it will definitely make

0:23

you an expert on your car's value. Carvana

0:26

Value Tracker. Visit carvana.com to

0:28

start tracking your car's value today.

0:31

That's

0:55

code welcome at bluenile.com for $50

0:58

off. Bluenile.com.

1:02

MSW Media.

1:08

I signed an order appointing Jack Smith.

1:11

And nobody knows you. And those who say Jack

1:13

is a fanatic. Mr. Smith is a veteran

1:15

career prosecutor.

1:17

Wait, what law have I broken? The

1:18

events leading up to and on January

1:21

6th. Classified documents and other presidential

1:23

records. You understand what prison is? Send

1:25

me to jail.

1:35

Hey, everybody. Welcome to Episode 44 of

1:38

Jack, the podcast about all things Special

1:40

Counsel. It is Sunday, October

1:42

1st. And I'm Alison Gill.

1:45

And I'm Andy McCabe. Hey, Alison. It

1:47

is October and it's spooky

1:50

season, not just because Halloween is

1:53

on its way, but also because Trump's court

1:55

calendar is getting scary. Yes.

1:58

Woo.

1:59

It's piling

2:02

up and it's looking worse by the minute. We

2:05

have a lot of news to get through today, including

2:08

Judge Eileen Cannon granting, in part,

2:11

Jack Smith's motions for conflict

2:13

of interest hearings. We have some

2:15

briefings regarding Walt Nada getting

2:18

access to classified materials and

2:20

Jack Smith opposing a three-month

2:23

SIPA delay requested

2:26

by, you know who, Donald

2:28

Trump. We knew

2:30

it was coming.

2:31

We have all kinds of filings

2:34

and responses and hearings and rulings

2:37

in the DC espionage and obstruction

2:39

case with Judge Chutkin, including

2:42

her well-reasoned denial

2:43

of Trump's motion to recuse.

2:46

We were waiting for this.

2:48

We have a date set for a

2:50

hearing about the narrowly tailored

2:52

order restricting Trump's extrajudicial

2:54

statements. Some people call it a gag order. No,

2:57

don't call it a gag order. Don't call

2:59

it a gag order. The half gag.

3:02

And Trump asking for

3:04

SIPA and pretrial motion

3:06

delays in the DC case.

3:09

He's asking for SIPA delays in

3:11

the DC case, not the

3:12

actual classified

3:15

documents case.

3:16

Yeah, I think it's a matter of time before

3:18

he requests SIPA delays in the Fulton

3:20

County case as well. Why not? Just

3:23

throw it out there. He's going to be up at the New York Attorney

3:25

General's office Monday like, SIPA, it's too fast.

3:30

Yeah, that's his, again,

3:32

his only defense is delay.

3:35

Then we have a

3:37

couple stories about

3:39

Trump's legal team, the applicability

3:41

of 1512, like Title 18,

3:43

Section 1512 obstructing an official proceeding.

3:46

Then we will feel like a listener question

3:49

or two. So I'm excited

3:49

about that. And if you have any questions that

3:52

come up during the show, there

3:54

will be a link in the show

3:55

notes for you to submit that question. All

3:57

right, Andrew, where should

3:59

we start?

3:59

today. All right, let's go to

4:02

DC where our

4:04

folks will remember of course that a

4:07

few weeks ago Trump's team filed

4:09

a motion requesting that Judge Chutkin

4:11

recuse herself from the trial and

4:14

basically the reasoning was that she had made

4:16

statements in

4:18

other January 6th defendants cases

4:21

and those statements kind of yeah vaguely

4:24

referred to Trump and the fact that he had not

4:26

been charged yet and they said that

4:28

based on those statements there's no way the public

4:31

could possibly have confidence

4:34

in her being unbiased

4:37

in her treatment of Trump.

4:39

Now of course Judge Chutkin rejected

4:42

that request officially this week

4:44

and she issued an order in doing so and of

4:47

course in that order she says that her statements

4:50

were not influenced by extrajudicial

4:53

considerations like you know

4:55

things she'd seen in the news and stuff like that.

4:58

Because that was this whole thing right like you

5:00

watch the news you clearly hate Donald

5:03

you have to recuse yourself and she's like these

5:06

statements which you and I

5:08

discussed pretty clearly were

5:11

responses to sentencing

5:15

you know

5:16

memoranda from

5:19

two just two out of the 300 million

5:22

people who've been sentenced for January 6th

5:24

you know these were statements

5:27

they made in their sentencing

5:29

memos that she had to address

5:31

because that's her job right?

5:33

That's exactly right. So those

5:35

defendants when they were putting

5:37

their package together kind of requesting

5:40

you know as much leniency as they could get in their sentence

5:42

one of the things they pointed out was well it's

5:45

not fair that I've been convicted for this offense

5:47

and the guy who I was doing it on behalf of Donald

5:50

Trump hasn't even been charged. So

5:52

she was really obligated to address

5:54

those arguments in her

5:57

order of what sentence

6:00

that defendant would receive. And so anything

6:03

done in the course of that proceeding

6:06

isn't really ever considered

6:09

on recusal, in

6:11

consideration of a recusal request,

6:13

because the judge is obligated to talk about those

6:16

things and indicate their opinion. That's their

6:18

job, right? They listen to what you, they

6:20

know what you've been convicted of, they listen to how you,

6:23

you know, you make an argument as to how you feel you

6:25

should be sentenced, and then they have to make

6:28

an opinion and ultimately a ruling. They

6:30

have to do that, right? Like if I'm

6:33

being sentenced

6:33

for whatever, and

6:35

I put in my sentencing

6:38

memorandum, like,

6:40

you know what, I'm blonde,

6:42

I'm five foot eight,

6:44

I don't deserve to be in jail. Right.

6:46

She has to be like, hey, you're blonde

6:48

and five foot eight, and this is your

6:51

reasoning for not being in

6:53

jail. Here's why that doesn't work. It's

6:56

not my job to determine that you're five eight,

6:58

it's not my job to determine that you're blonde.

7:00

Here's why that's not relevant. Looking

7:03

at you, we can see that, but yeah,

7:05

it's not relevant, and then for me to come

7:07

back and say, look, she put me in jail,

7:10

because I'm blonde and five foot eight is not

7:12

an argument. It's even worse

7:14

than that. It would be like the next defendant

7:16

in a totally different case saying

7:18

you should recuse, because I am also

7:21

blonde and five foot eight, and clearly you don't

7:23

like five foot eight blonde. This isn't even my appeal. Somebody

7:26

else's appeal who hasn't

7:28

even gone to jail. Okay, you're totally right.

7:30

Yeah, now I'm actually, I

7:33

thought it was ridiculous now, it's like extra.

7:35

Turbo ridiculous. Yeah, so that's basically-

7:38

Turbo, extrajudicial, ridiculous. Right, that's basically

7:40

what she said. No, I'm

7:43

not going anywhere. So let's

7:45

look at this holistically, the whole

7:47

motion to recuse massive

7:49

swing and a miss. And

7:52

in addition to not getting it, they

7:54

still have her as their judge, and now she's probably

7:57

not real happy with them, because

7:59

they've accused- are on the record of being biased

8:03

and essentially incompetent

8:05

to, or not

8:07

properly seeing these proceedings

8:10

through. So not the best footing

8:13

to start on. Yeah, I feel like they're just like

8:15

poking her like,

8:16

hey, we should execute the ex-joint

8:20

chief's staff and we should shut

8:23

down the whole media and treason

8:26

and hang everyone. And oh, I'm

8:28

sorry, do we want to have a hearing about my extrajudicial

8:31

statements trying to influence the

8:33

jury? Okay, cool. Like

8:35

it just seems like at this point, and you and

8:37

I have talked about this, like why would he do

8:39

this? Why would anybody

8:41

be such

8:43

a horrible person to the judge

8:46

presiding over the case that you're about

8:49

to go to trial for? Yeah.

8:50

The only thing I can think of is

8:52

just to

8:54

prod her into

8:57

maybe issuing a partial gag order or

9:00

narrowly tailoring his

9:02

extrajudicial statements so

9:04

that he has something

9:05

more to cry about. Yeah,

9:07

I think that's right. I think any normal

9:10

litigant in a criminal or civil

9:12

matter would never do this. You would come up

9:14

with strategies and

9:16

you'd raise issues you thought were legitimate, but

9:18

you would also raise them in a way

9:21

that didn't prejudice the judge against

9:23

you, didn't insult them, didn't

9:25

call them biased, because you know

9:27

that they're going to have to make decisions that will impact you.

9:30

This is like a slash and burn litigation

9:32

style. It's almost like they've already

9:35

decided

9:36

there's no way they can win on the merits.

9:38

There's no legitimate defense here. So

9:41

what they're going to do is one

9:43

Hail Mary pass after another at

9:45

trying to create an issue

9:48

they could file an appeal on after conviction.

9:51

In the course of doing that, file all

9:53

these motions and then appeal all the

9:55

results of these motions and delay, delay,

9:57

delay. That's it. It's like burn.

10:00

it down and if you can't burn it

10:02

down make it last longer. That's

10:04

their whole strategy. Scored truth, right?

10:07

Also, Trump

10:10

didn't hear his other defense delay,

10:12

right? That's his only

10:14

other defense and he's doing this in

10:19

the DC case. He's filing a

10:22

motion to delay for SIPA

10:24

considerations in the DC case.

10:26

Now we know the DC

10:29

case has about 300 pages, maybe

10:32

like,

10:32

I don't know,

10:35

10 documents

10:36

that are classified. These

10:39

documents are not going to be used in their case-in-chief

10:42

which is the case-in-chief is the

10:44

case that the prosecution puts on.

10:47

They may be using defense, they may be Jenks

10:49

material, they may be

10:51

Brady material,

10:53

right?

10:54

They might be something that the defense

10:57

needs to have by

11:00

the law. So

11:02

there's very little classified

11:04

documents, not like Mar-a-Lago

11:07

at least,

11:08

where there's about 3,500 pages, about 300 documents.

11:11

Now he filed a motion to delay

11:14

SIPA considerations in Judge Chutkin's

11:16

court and

11:19

this is right after she ruled that she's not

11:21

recusing herself. Bam, bam, we get these

11:23

two motions, the SIPA motion for delay

11:25

and he needs more time to file

11:27

his pretrial motions like his

11:31

motion to dismiss the whole case based

11:33

on whatever. But he wants

11:36

like a lot more time to file these things.

11:39

That's not going to jive with the

11:42

court schedule and Judge Chutkin

11:44

has put out a minute

11:46

order, what's called a minute order on the docket where

11:48

she says, okay, Department of Justice, I

11:50

need you to respond to these requests

11:53

for delay and I need you to do that by

11:55

October 3rd, right, which is a couple days

11:57

from now. So next time.

11:59

time you and I

12:01

get together, we will have the Department of Justice's

12:03

response to his motions for delaying

12:05

the DC trial for these considerations.

12:08

That's right. And

12:10

this is yet another hand grenade

12:12

of delay. He's going to keep tossing these

12:15

into the proceeding to try to

12:17

create nonsense. The

12:19

pretrial motions that he's required

12:22

to file and now apparently needs more time

12:24

to handle, this

12:26

is a normal stuff that kind of, you

12:29

know, administer of getting

12:31

ready to go to trial in

12:34

a criminal case. Motion to

12:36

dismiss. You might make a motion to like

12:38

protect a certain witness or person

12:40

from having to testify or you might bring a privilege

12:43

issue or something like that. Try an

12:45

effort to keep some testimony out. I think

12:47

he wants to file a

12:48

motion to dismiss based

12:51

on selective prosecution.

12:53

Right. Right. Which

12:56

means you're only doing this not fair. Donald. Right.

12:59

It's political prosecution. Prosecution. Right.

13:03

He does

13:03

this.

13:05

And the thing is, is that I guarantee

13:08

you Jack Smith has his response

13:10

like ready. It's already. Right. It's

13:13

based on the fact that he's actually the, I

13:15

don't know, one thousandth person charged

13:18

with offenses related to January

13:21

6th. So I'm not sure how that selective.

13:23

I can't wait for that argument.

13:26

We have one thousand one

13:28

hundred and twelve people that we've

13:31

tried and

13:32

convicted. You're one thousand one hundred

13:34

and thirteen and we've got about right

13:37

now two hundred and eighty six

13:39

behind you and more to come.

13:42

Like

13:42

sorry, not to

13:45

be like, I know this is going to make you

13:47

sad, but you're

13:48

really just one in a few thousand people.

13:52

But I'm the leading candidate for the Republican

13:54

Party for president. That will be his argument.

13:57

He'll say, oh, it's all political. It's Joe Biden.

14:00

to me, but in any case, we'll

14:02

tear through that when it comes out. Right

14:05

now, we're trying to

14:07

sort through the latest motions for

14:10

delay, and as you said, the judge has scheduled

14:12

a hearing on October

14:16

16th to have

14:18

a hearing on the government's prior

14:21

request to issue the don't

14:23

call it a gag order on Trump over

14:26

his extrajudicial statements. I

14:28

want to interesting, because we got some reporting

14:31

really in the last day, I guess, that

14:34

in an additional filing on

14:36

Friday, the government is now

14:38

rolling into their request for this

14:41

gag order, Trump's recent

14:43

postings, those things that he posted in

14:45

the last week or so, specifically referencing

14:47

the postings regarding now

14:50

retired general Mark Milley,

14:52

who was the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, who

14:55

most of the speech,

14:56

by the way, is like

14:57

retirement speech. Wow. He

15:00

was

15:00

like, I take an oath to a constitution, not

15:02

to...

15:03

He's like, not to a king, not to a queen.

15:06

I take an oath to not to a person. And

15:08

then he goes, not to a dictator, not

15:11

to

15:11

a wannabe dictator. Like

15:14

he... I wonder who we meet with that. He

15:16

was totally just talking about Biden, right? Like,

15:21

wow. He was very pointed

15:23

and he's very mad. And I'm wondering

15:26

if now that the uniform is off, if

15:28

the gloves also don't come off. Yeah. He

15:31

poked the wrong bear because this one has

15:33

got a bite. Of

15:36

course, Trump had tweeted earlier in the week,

15:38

made some crazy accusation

15:40

against Milley and

15:43

said he had committed treason

15:45

and, I don't know, should be put

15:47

to death or acknowledged that the penalty for

15:49

that would be death. Now, the reason

15:51

this is relevant to us, even though it's

15:54

just normal, disgusting behavior by

15:56

the former president, but what makes it relevant

15:59

to this show is... is as the

16:01

Jack Smith team pointed out, he is

16:03

basically threatening and

16:06

identified potential witness.

16:08

In this case, Milly is potentially

16:11

a witness. The government has already indicated that to

16:13

the defense. And now you have

16:15

Trump both

16:18

making a comment that could threaten the witness

16:21

to try to, you know, force the witness not

16:23

to testify, but also could prejudice

16:26

the jury pool against that witness.

16:28

Going out and telling however million people

16:31

heard him that

16:33

Milly, you know, accusing him of treason,

16:36

that's certainly something that could make. Yeah,

16:38

and it could make witness or

16:41

jurors could prejudice

16:43

their perception of Milly if

16:45

in fact he testifies.

16:47

Yeah, and you know, Milly on 60

16:50

Minutes was like, yep, I've got security,

16:53

my family has security.

16:55

He doesn't seem afraid

16:57

of this particular person's,

17:03

Donald Trump's, you know, screeds

17:05

about

17:06

go get him. I mean, basically he's like,

17:09

Mark Milly is a traitor, get him, right? Like,

17:12

I mean, that's what he's saying. So it's really,

17:15

it's scary and dangerous, but also he's like,

17:17

I'm ready, bring it, I'm

17:18

Mark Milly. So it's crazy,

17:20

right? You think about why does Trump do this? Well, it's

17:23

just his normal, vindictive, small-minded,

17:26

moronic comments. Certainly not

17:28

even the first time he said this, he said it about Comey

17:30

and I a couple years ago that we're guilty

17:33

of treason and should be put to death. So

17:36

maybe it's just that. But here's

17:38

my proposal is, it's

17:40

actually more than that. I think this is again part

17:42

of his warped litigation

17:45

strategy. He's gonna keep, you

17:47

draw a line in the sand, he's gonna step over

17:49

it. Draw another one, he'll step over that one. The

17:51

reason he's trying to push the judge

17:54

into actually instigating,

17:56

or I'm not, I shouldn't say instigating, to,

17:59

to, Placing a gag order in

18:02

some respect on him in this case

18:04

and thereby creating a massive

18:07

First Amendment issue that

18:10

could potentially make its way to the Supreme

18:12

Court. This is a provocative

18:15

effort

18:16

to create an issue he can take

18:18

to the Supreme Court. Yeah.

18:21

And I wonder, like, how many days

18:23

away are we from him saying, how

18:25

terrible would it be for one juror

18:28

who loves Donald Trump

18:30

to show up and lie on

18:34

the jury questionnaire? That would be awful.

18:37

It would mean that we're going in a wrong direction,

18:39

but how terrible would it be for someone to show up and

18:41

lie on their application so that they

18:44

could be a juror to save Donald Trump?

18:46

How terrible? That would be bad. Yeah. We're

18:49

days away from that kind of thing. Like recruiting the

18:52

candidate. I think you're

18:54

absolutely right. So the Jack Smith team

18:56

is in a really tight spot here.

18:58

They have to kind of calculate. So is the

19:00

judge, right? What's worse?

19:02

Do nothing and

19:05

let the kind of level

19:08

of offense that is taking place

19:10

right now through his public communications

19:13

continue to escalate. How bad does that get?

19:16

Or do you take the risk of putting, requesting

19:18

the gag order or on the judges part, putting

19:20

it in place and creating an issue

19:23

that could, A, really slow down

19:25

this trial and B, push something

19:28

to the Supreme Court in the event that

19:30

the conviction does not go Trump's way. So

19:33

they're once again having

19:35

to make some really careful tactical

19:37

decisions, both principled

19:40

decisions, but also not

19:42

without tactical implications.

19:44

Yeah. And his whole, by the way, another

19:47

response that Donald Trump

19:49

submitted or his lawyer submitted on his behalf

19:52

in opposition to a narrowly

19:55

tailored restriction on

19:58

his pretrial extra duty. statements

20:00

every time I have to say it. It's like so many words.

20:02

You know, he filed

20:06

a... he put another filing in, President

20:08

Trump, that's what

20:09

he refers to himself, President Trump respectfully

20:12

submits this response in opposition to the prosecution's

20:15

motion to impose

20:16

unconstitutional prior restraints

20:19

on

20:19

President Trump's political speech.

20:22

Like twice they put President Trump

20:24

in a sentence

20:25

and then the motion they put and

20:28

so he just goes off this whole thing. We've

20:30

read 25

20:31

pages. We've read a million

20:33

of these now and I'm not gonna go into this

20:35

again, but it's the same filing.

20:38

It's like you're trying to trample

20:40

on

20:41

First Amendment, free speech, America,

20:44

what the hell. You know, I mean it's just the same

20:46

dumb argument over and over again. Yes,

20:49

like a grievance argument. Like I'm the only one between

20:51

you and the government removing you. Wrapped in a

20:53

campaign statement. Right? Yeah.

20:55

If they do it to me, they'll do it to every

20:57

human. Yeah, it's the

20:59

same filing that we've seen a million times.

21:03

Absolutely not the first time someone has

21:05

been admonished by a judge

21:07

to not engage in witness

21:09

tampering. I mean, come on, that's basically

21:11

what we're talking about. Presidential candidate though.

21:13

Right, yeah, okay, so what, right?

21:16

I know, I know, I'm just throwing that

21:18

in there. And I mean, witnessed, I think, you

21:21

know, you're gonna see some in

21:23

her, ultimately whatever she rules, reference

21:26

the fact that witness tampering is

21:28

not protected speech. It's

21:30

kind of like defamation or something. You can't

21:32

call for the death of witnesses

21:34

in this case. No, no. Like, Fredo,

21:37

like, hi. Like, what? I

21:39

can't,

21:39

the fact that this is even

21:42

a thing, it

21:43

really is kind of

21:46

pushing the bounds of

21:47

the judicial system to a place that's never been before.

21:50

And that's his deal, right? He puts

21:53

pressure on things to break them,

21:55

whether it's DOJ or

21:57

the FBI or the judicial system.

22:00

or just something that he sees as an obstruction

22:03

or to what he wants to accomplish. So

22:05

that's what he's trying to do now. He knows his best.

22:07

His only way out of this is to literally break

22:10

the system and that's what he's trying

22:12

to do.

22:13

You have some personal experience with that?

22:14

Just a little.

22:17

Just a little.

22:18

Man oh man. All right.

22:21

So, Judge Chukin has scheduled

22:23

the October 16th hearing

22:26

for his

22:28

extrajudicial pretrial statements

22:31

order.

22:32

That's man, that's like

22:34

a couple weeks away. So we'll report on

22:36

that for you.

22:37

I think we might have some friends in the courtroom

22:40

who can actually maybe come on the show. Let's

22:42

see if we can give them a call. That'd be

22:44

great. I would love to know what it's like in that

22:46

courtroom when that hearing happens. His

22:48

appearance by the way, Donald Trump's appearance is waived.

22:51

She does this for every single thing so that he

22:53

can't delay it. I have 17

22:55

other trials that day.

22:56

I need more time. I'm

22:59

getting my hair cut that day. I can't be there.

23:01

No, you're not. So she's just waving every,

23:04

she's like, you don't have to be there. Okay, Stella,

23:06

just send your lawyers. And it's also,

23:09

I'm sure she's thinking like, I'm going to wave it every

23:11

time I can. So he can't come in

23:13

later and file some crazy motion

23:15

saying it's not fair. You're impeding my

23:17

campaign because we'll

23:19

have had a record of basically

23:22

conceding to his choice of

23:24

convenience. That's right. Yeah, up

23:26

to you, buddy. You come

23:28

or not. That's exactly what I would

23:30

be doing as well. So I appreciate

23:32

that. All right. We have a lot

23:34

more

23:35

to get to, but we have

23:38

to take a quick break. So everybody stick around.

23:40

We'll be right back.

23:46

Well, well, well, shopping for a car. Yeah.

23:49

Carvana made financing a car as smooth as can be. Oh

23:51

yeah. I got pre-qualified instantly and

23:53

had real terms personalized just for me. It

23:55

doesn't get much smoother than that.

23:57

Well, I got to browse thousands of car options

23:59

on Carvana.

23:59

all within my budget. Doesn't get

24:02

much

24:02

smoother than that. It does! I actually

24:04

wanted a car that seemed out of my range, but I was able

24:06

to add a cosigner and found my dream car. It

24:08

doesn't get much... Oh, it gets smoother.

24:11

It's getting delivered tomorrow. Visit carvana.com

24:13

or download the app to get pre-qualified today.

24:17

Expressing your love can look many different

24:19

ways. And with the right jewelry gift from

24:21

Blue Nile, it can truly sparkle.

24:24

Blue Nile's collection of classic diamond jewelry

24:26

makes for the kind of gift that speaks volumes

24:29

without saying a single word. Or, switch

24:31

things up with a sapphire piece sure

24:33

to spark conversation. Either way,

24:36

Blue Nile's diamond guarantee ensures

24:38

you get the highest quality at the best

24:40

price. Express yourself with Blue Nile,

24:42

the original online jeweler. At BlueNile.com,

24:45

that's BlueNile.com.

24:48

Holland, America's Best Deal of the Year is

24:50

ending soon for your vacation next summer to

24:52

Alaska, Europe and beyond. This

24:54

incredible offer is your last chance to enjoy 60%

24:56

off top amenities. Plan

24:59

your cruise today and receive specialty

25:01

dining, shore excursions, a low-price

25:03

guarantee and free prepaid crew

25:05

appreciation. Plus, get free

25:07

upgrades to premium Wi-Fi and the elite

25:10

beverage package included in your fare when you

25:12

book by September 30th. Visit HollandAmerica.com

25:15

for more details or to plan your

25:18

next trip.

25:24

Welcome back. Okay, let's head

25:27

down to Florida where

25:29

Judge Cannon finally grants

25:32

the DOJ motion for Garcia

25:34

hearings. So these are, of course, we've

25:36

talked about these a couple times. These are the conflict

25:39

of interest hearings that

25:42

the government requested the judge

25:44

engage in, having pointed out

25:46

the seemingly obvious

25:49

conflicts of interest presented by

25:52

Attorney John Irving. First of all,

25:54

John Irving who represents Carlos de

25:56

Oliveira and some other witnesses. And

25:59

also... Stanley Woodward who used

26:01

to represent UCL Tavares

26:04

and still represents, well, Nada,

26:06

so you have some very clear.

26:09

And everyone else, like that guy

26:11

Woodward, like he puts on his

26:13

running shoes every time he goes to court because

26:16

he's back and forth like three different

26:18

courtrooms representing January 6 defendants

26:21

representing Trump defendants. He's,

26:23

he's all over the place. So there's a minefield

26:25

of potential conflicts, but at least one

26:28

comes into clear focus on each of

26:31

them. Dale Vera

26:35

and Nada

26:37

now stand to be basically

26:40

accused by people like

26:42

Tavares and others. And

26:46

the prior representations are a problem

26:48

because, you know, Stan

26:51

Woodward can't accurately

26:53

represent Nada if

26:56

Tavares takes the stand against Nada,

26:58

things like that. So,

27:00

But if Tavares waves his

27:02

conflict of interest and says, you know what, I'm not

27:05

worried about being cross-examined

27:08

by my former attorney who told

27:11

me to lie.

27:13

By the way, that's just

27:14

the told me to lie part. That's me speculating. Right.

27:17

I just want to, he might've said

27:20

like, say you don't recall

27:22

like Passantino did with Cassidy Hutchinson,

27:24

but

27:25

that seems to be the go to,

27:27

hey, you don't recall stuff that you actually recall,

27:29

but we don't have proof of that.

27:31

But, you know, he might wave his, it's

27:34

possible, but both of them have

27:36

to wave it. Right. Because each of

27:38

them has a potential problem

27:41

with Stan Woodward having represented

27:44

the other one. And that's

27:46

why,

27:46

that's what Jack Smith wanted

27:49

alternate counsel at

27:51

this hearing to advise everybody.

27:54

Right. So that a lawyer,

27:56

an alternate lawyer, like they had

27:59

up in Judge Bowden.

27:59

Boseberg's court,

28:01

when they appointed a

28:04

public

28:05

defender to Tavares,

28:08

they wanted some alternates down

28:11

here so they could say, hey, by the way,

28:13

Nauda de

28:14

Oliveira, here's the problem

28:17

for

28:17

you if

28:20

Woodward is still your lawyer or if John Irving

28:23

is still your lawyer.

28:25

But the judge denied that.

28:26

So it would

28:28

be a practical and complete

28:31

thing to do, to have those alternate councils

28:33

there to advise these guys to explain

28:35

to them exactly what the potential

28:38

conflict is and the impact of it. You

28:40

don't want Woodward explaining that because he's the

28:43

guy that's conflicted. No, I'm

28:45

great. So trust me. You trust

28:47

me. Yeah. There's a clear judicial

28:51

economy, reason for having them there. But also,

28:54

let's be perfectly fair.

28:56

It's just a little bit of a tactical move by

28:59

the prosecution, right? Because they

29:01

know that if you get an actually

29:04

independent kind of neutral counsel

29:06

to advise these guys, it's possible

29:08

you might split one or two of them off as cooperators,

29:11

as happened with you feel Tavares. That's

29:13

right. So everybody's working

29:16

it here. Of course, Cannon's

29:19

decision went really against

29:21

both logic and what might have been helpful

29:23

for the prosecution. So

29:25

she's going to have the hearing. Again,

29:28

here she is splitting the baby in an illogical

29:30

way. I'm going to have the hearing, but I'm not

29:32

going to have the lawyers there who could actually

29:35

make sure that it's done completely in a voluntary

29:39

and intelligent way. Or

29:41

witnesses. She's like, I don't want to hear your

29:43

evidence. Let's have a hearing, but I don't want to hear

29:45

your evidence. Basically, what do you do? No, no,

29:47

no. I don't need any facts for

29:49

this. Just let's talk about it. Just

29:51

get in front of me. Yeah. She's going

29:54

to rule from the bench too. You know the

29:56

result of this hearing is going to be, okay, let me think

29:58

about it in another few months or two hours. Yeah.

30:01

That's what she's doing and this seems

30:03

to be her MO so

30:05

far like not making any overt

30:09

horrible

30:10

rulings

30:11

that could be overturned by the 11th Circuit

30:13

but just taking a long time, took her three months

30:16

to get that protective order

30:18

for classified information out

30:20

like that like dude

30:22

it just it seems really obvious to me she's

30:25

nickel and diming delay on

30:27

this but not much you can do about that

30:29

and we already sort of suspected

30:31

that this trial wasn't going

30:33

to take place in May it's going to be well after

30:35

the next election

30:36

so she granted those motions in part granted

30:38

the hearings those hearings both of

30:40

them are on the same day for

30:43

Irving and Woodward

30:45

you know De La Vera

30:48

and the other witnesses that

30:50

is October

30:51

12th one is like I

30:55

think it'll like 11 in the morning ones that one in

30:57

the afternoon and

30:58

she's like so yeah split the baby

31:00

like you said no witnesses I don't want any evidence

31:03

no standby lawyers I'm not

31:05

judge Boseberg yeah you

31:06

definitely aren't

31:08

yeah Boseberg you know

31:10

she's a conundrum I mean you kind of walk

31:13

away from each of these decisions trying

31:15

to draw the line is this an actual

31:17

effort to delay things and help

31:20

out the defendant or is just

31:22

she's like doesn't really appreciate

31:25

the importance of moving

31:27

this forward quickly does

31:30

she not appreciate the significance

31:32

of having alternative counsel there to do what

31:35

we just talked about so that old

31:37

that old kind of bias or

31:40

incompetence balance is you

31:42

never quite get it resolved with her

31:45

nope that's very true

31:47

also September 25th the Department

31:50

of Justice and lawyers for Walt Nada

31:52

filed about 30

31:53

pages of supplemental

31:55

briefs because while not is like hey

31:57

I mean I was in the Navy I should be able to look at classifieds

32:00

and the DOJ is like, no bro,

32:03

you're not being charged

32:04

with espionage. I've seen all the Mission Impossible

32:07

movies. I think I should be able to see classified now.

32:09

I'm friends with Andy McCabe. So I definitely.

32:13

You're not getting access to classifieds. I stood

32:15

with five feet of the former director of

32:18

the FBI one time. So I should totally get,

32:20

I should be able to see everything.

32:22

So the DOJ and

32:24

lawyers for now, about 30 pages of supplemental

32:26

briefs. Judge Cannon asked for these briefs

32:29

after a close hearing, a sealed

32:31

hearing on September 12th. It

32:33

is now September 30th. So here's the filings

32:35

two weeks later. Now DOJ

32:38

has produced classified documents

32:40

to Naoto's lawyer, but has

32:42

opposed Naoto seeing

32:43

them. Like he's not, he doesn't need

32:45

any of this. Okay, he can see the one

32:47

document that he saw

32:50

in that room of spilled boxes when we, the

32:53

photos that we got and the indictment of the spilled

32:55

boxes that somebody took. Okay,

32:58

he can see that one. But the other ones he

33:00

doesn't need to see.

33:00

He's not charged with

33:02

retention of

33:04

national defense information. He's charged with obstructing

33:07

moving boxes. That's the, he doesn't need to see

33:09

any of what's in the boxes. And

33:12

this is common,

33:13

by the way, in SIPA cases for somebody

33:15

to want to see and then be,

33:17

you know, have that objected

33:19

by the government. But as Roger Parloff

33:21

points out,

33:22

there's no 11th circuit precedent here.

33:25

Cause most SIPA cases happen in Virginia and

33:27

DC and New York, right? Like

33:29

where the CIA headquarters is in Virginia, DC, because

33:33

that's where all the classified information kind of

33:35

lives. Now the Department of Justice

33:37

argued Naoto

33:38

doesn't need to see them, like I said, because

33:40

he's not charged under Espionage Act, but it

33:42

appears Cannon finds this a very difficult

33:44

issue

33:46

to rule on. So both sides

33:48

have submitted briefs two weeks after

33:50

a hearing, a

33:52

sealed hearing.

33:53

But yeah, which again,

33:55

seems like this is all slow roll.

33:57

And then Jack Smith has filed his.

33:59

opposition to Trump's motion

34:01

to delay CIPA Section 4.

34:05

And Trump has said, I need three extra months

34:08

for this.

34:09

And Jack Smith is like, no, you absolutely

34:11

don't. That will throw the whole

34:14

schedule into chaos. Quote, in light of

34:17

brief delays in

34:18

the entry of CIPA Section 3 protective

34:20

orders, which is the protective order we just got

34:22

after months,

34:24

and defense counsel read ins

34:25

to certain compartments, the court invited

34:28

the defendants to file a motion to extend

34:30

deadlines related to CIPA Section 4.

34:34

Hey, it took me three months, right, to

34:36

decide on Section 3. So you

34:39

get an extra couple, you get a little bit more time in Section 4.

34:41

Instead, defendant Trump joined by his

34:43

co-defendants filed a motion that threatens to upend

34:45

the entire schedule established by the court, and

34:48

it amounts to a motion to continue the May 20th, 2024

34:50

trial date.

34:52

Defendants argue for a schedule that would delay

34:54

even the initiation

34:56

of CIPA Section 4 proceedings by over

34:59

three months.

35:01

And here's the problem, by doing

35:03

that, Trump,

35:04

number one, misstates what's necessary

35:06

to file an ex parte submission,

35:08

setting forth general defense theories,

35:10

general defense theories, which he should have had

35:13

since

35:14

two years ago.

35:15

Number two, falsely accused the government

35:18

of delaying discovery. He did that in this

35:20

filing. You delayed discovery.

35:21

No, CIPA Section 3

35:24

took a minute to- Who is this CIPA

35:27

that you keep talking about? I don't know.

35:29

I don't like her

35:30

hair. He doesn't even know what he's talking about. I think

35:32

CIPA is biased against me.

35:34

CIPA's totally biased. I

35:36

don't like

35:37

her. Number three, unnecessarily

35:39

proposing overhauling the CIPA schedule, including

35:41

by implementing responsive, non-ex

35:44

parte Section 4 briefings,

35:47

even though that approach is foreclosed by

35:49

the 11th Circuit's decision. And I love how

35:52

every time, every time Jack Smith

35:54

gets a chance to throw the 11th Circuit

35:56

precedent

35:56

in here, like, hey, everybody,

35:59

I mean, that is

36:02

one of the few things he can do to get this judge's

36:04

attention. Okay, your

36:07

overseers in your backyard

36:09

have already weighed in on this, this

36:12

novel concept of precedent.

36:15

Okay, we're gonna point it out to you. Yeah,

36:17

and then also make arguments about prudential searches

36:20

and discovery obligations that are not relevant

36:23

to deciding this motion. He did that, overstating

36:26

the complexity

36:27

of pretrial discovery litigation and

36:30

meritless, all of this

36:32

is meritless in any

36:33

event, the DOJ says. Current

36:35

SIPA schedule should proceed apace. And

36:37

for the forgoing reasons in his conclusion,

36:39

if the court's inclined to grant an

36:41

extension, he says, for the defendant's

36:44

ex parte filing because of the three

36:46

months

36:46

that she took to decide SIPA

36:48

section three, because remember we talked

36:50

to Brian Greer who said you have to decide

36:53

section three before you do section four, and section four

36:55

before section five, it's like a funnel, it has to go in

36:57

order.

36:58

And so he's like, look, if you

37:00

need to grant some time

37:03

because section three took so long

37:05

for no good reason,

37:06

you know, go

37:08

ahead. He says it should be no

37:10

longer than about a week. He actually puts in

37:12

a filing about a week. This

37:15

is the DOJ. And the other dates in the

37:17

court's schedule order should be maintained. So

37:20

he's like three months, no, you can delay it

37:22

like a week, that's all you need.

37:24

So again, here's another case, really

37:27

all we're litigating is delay. And

37:31

the judge here, you know, she

37:33

makes your head wanna explode. This whole idea

37:35

of like, you have an issue, you've got a motion,

37:37

you do the hearing, and then later after

37:40

the hearing, you request briefing, which

37:42

then takes more time. Compare

37:44

that to how it's done in DC. Judge

37:47

Chutkin gets a motion. She very

37:50

quickly says, okay, fine,

37:52

government, I need your response by this day.

37:56

October 3rd. Yeah, and

37:58

then we'll have a hearing the next day. I give

38:00

you my I give you my ruling the day after that like that's

38:02

how you move things along It's

38:05

typically considered beneficial to have

38:07

the briefings the papers Before

38:10

you get together in court to discuss something

38:13

just for that reason it makes it quicker But

38:15

yeah, there's no sense of urgency here

38:18

Andy shit judge Chukin

38:21

Correct me if I'm wrong is probably way busier

38:24

than judge cannon I

38:26

It would I'm so I mean judge cannon

38:29

is the only judge in her courthouse,

38:31

right? So I guess

38:34

maybe she's probably got some

38:36

other stuff to do because there's no one else there to

38:38

do it But the fact that she's the only judge

38:40

in that court Tells you there's not

38:42

a ton of stuff to do there You

38:46

know, she's kind of in a satellite from

38:48

and she's not the only judge

38:49

in the district. I mean, no, no She's

38:52

just one in that courthouse. It's like

38:54

right. It's like I think of it as like a satellite office

38:57

From the from the main the center

38:59

of that district is in Miami, of course

39:03

Whereas what I don't even remember

39:05

how many judges are on the district court

39:08

bench in DC But the simple

39:10

fact that they've already handled almost a

39:12

thousand cases there They've got almost

39:14

a thousand January six cases, right?

39:16

So yeah, there's

39:19

a pretty pretty active practice

39:21

And judge Chutkin's chambers

39:23

that kind of sad out of all those cases

39:26

that

39:26

Donald Trump could only find two that

39:28

he found objective like statements that he objected

39:30

to For

39:33

for his motion to have her recuse herself.

39:35

It's just so ridiculous All right,

39:38

everybody we have more to get to but we have to take

39:40

another quick break stick around. We'll be right back

39:46

Well, well well shopping for a car. Yep.

39:49

Carvana made financing a car as smooth

39:51

as can be. Oh, yeah I got pre-qualified

39:53

instantly and had real terms personalized

39:55

just for me. It doesn't get much smoother than that

39:57

Well, I got to browse thousands of car options

40:00

on Carvana, all within my budget. It doesn't

40:02

get much smoother than that. It does. I

40:04

actually wanted a car that seemed out of my range, but I was

40:06

able to add a cosigner and found my dream car. It

40:09

doesn't get much... Oh, it gets smoother.

40:11

It's getting delivered tomorrow. Visit Carvana.com

40:14

or download the app to get pre-qualified today.

40:17

Ready to pop the question? The jewelers

40:20

at BlueNile.com have got sparkle

40:22

down to a science, with beautiful

40:24

lab-grown diamonds worthy of your most brilliant

40:27

moments. Their lab-grown diamonds

40:29

are independently graded and guaranteed

40:31

identical to natural diamonds, and

40:33

they're ready to ship to your door. Go to

40:36

BlueNile.com and use promo code WELCOME

40:38

to get $50 off your purchase of $500 or more. That's

40:42

code WELCOME at BlueNile.com for $50

40:44

off. BlueNile.com.

40:46

Love.

40:48

Exciting and new. Come aboard.

40:50

We're expecting you. Princess

40:53

Cruises, the original love boat,

40:55

is making another run to amazing destinations

40:58

around the world. Aboard Princess, you'll

41:00

love our world-class dining spectacular

41:02

production shows, curated excursions,

41:05

and so much more. Book early

41:07

and save up to 50%. Call

41:09

1-800-PRINCESS, visit Princess.com, or

41:11

contact your travel advisor today. Offer

41:14

on 1031-23,

41:15

terms and conditions apply. Chips are Bermuda and British

41:17

Registry.

41:23

Hey, everybody. Welcome back. For

41:26

a while now, the question about the applicability

41:29

of Title 18 U.S. Code Section 1512,

41:31

which

41:32

you know, a long time we've

41:34

talked about this,

41:35

that's obstructing an official proceeding,

41:37

has been winding its way

41:39

through

41:40

the courts. The applicability of this law

41:42

has been winding its way through a court. Several

41:45

rioters from January 6th

41:47

have filed motions kind

41:49

of contesting

41:50

what the law means.

41:52

They've contested what

41:54

intent means, or they've said that since

41:56

they had nothing of value to gain from

41:58

obstructing the electoral system, they've been certification that

42:00

they shouldn't be charged with this.

42:03

And now for the second time the Department of Justice

42:05

has asked for an extension

42:07

to file their briefing

42:10

their thoughts

42:11

on this matter. Currently their response

42:14

is due on October 2nd

42:16

but they would now like until October

42:18

30th saying that the

42:20

Department of Justice attorneys responsible for

42:22

this briefing quote have been heavily

42:25

engaged with the press of previously

42:26

assigned matters with proximate due

42:28

dates. Like we've got a lot going on

42:31

in this court.

42:32

Now the 1512 charge has been used over 300

42:35

times,

42:36

I think 317 to be exact

42:38

at least as of this recording in

42:41

January 6th riot cases

42:44

and two times in

42:46

the Trump coup indictment in

42:48

DC right 1512 K and 1512 C2

42:51

which is conspiracy

42:54

to obstruct an official proceeding and obstructing

42:56

an

42:57

official proceeding and we knew that this was coming.

42:59

I mean well you know we've talked about it since

43:01

forever.

43:02

So they're relying on this particular

43:05

charge. Now we'll keep you posted but you and

43:07

I Andy have talked in previous episodes I

43:09

don't think this actually impacts Trump's

43:12

charge

43:13

of 1512 because he actually does

43:15

have something of value to

43:17

lose. That's right it

43:20

all comes down to that issue of

43:23

the statute said I don't have it right in front

43:25

of me but the statute basically says

43:29

if you corruptly

43:31

perform the following acts and it's that

43:34

so

43:35

that word corruptly kind of defines

43:38

what sort of intent you have to have

43:40

and many of these litigants these

43:42

are like lower level people

43:45

who were in the Capitol you

43:47

know involved in the mayhem what

43:49

have you they're saying well well

43:52

we didn't do anything corruptly because we

43:54

didn't get anything out of it we didn't we

43:56

didn't receive any like pecuniary

43:59

benefit

43:59

from doing right no money

44:01

nothing of value

44:02

we didn't we weren't doing it to get

44:04

a job or to make money or to

44:07

enrich ourselves or any that stuff we did

44:09

it because Trump told us to that's right we love that

44:11

guy there's a there is an issue there

44:14

you know it's it's a place that I think

44:16

could benefit from some appellate

44:19

court you know

44:21

specification on exactly what corruptly

44:24

requires but in the Trump

44:26

case he very clearly did

44:28

what he did for corrupt purposes he was

44:30

trying to win the election that

44:32

he had just lost trying to steal fundraising

44:35

off of it I mean yeah I'm about pecuniary

44:38

benefits like right so in a hundred

44:40

million dollars right so unless a court comes

44:42

in and basically completely rewrites the

44:44

statute in some significant way which could

44:47

happen but I think is highly unlikely I don't

44:50

think this has will

44:52

have a huge impact on his

44:54

charges I

44:55

mean SCOTUS could come in and

44:58

like they did with the bribery and corruption

45:00

law

45:01

yeah

45:02

and say you know what you have to

45:05

actually walk up to somebody with a bag of money and

45:07

say this is

45:07

for this act and the other

45:09

person

45:09

has to say thank you for giving me this money

45:12

too so that I can vote on this legislation you know

45:15

they might rewrite 1512

45:17

c2 but again like you said

45:20

even if they do it doesn't really impact

45:22

Trump's charges I don't

45:24

think so that's right it just wouldn't unless

45:26

they completely take it off the books

45:28

yeah they could come in and say create

45:31

a very high bar like they did in the McDonald

45:33

case saying basically okay all you trespassers

45:36

on the Capitol in order to

45:38

be convicted the government

45:40

has to prove a quid pro quo that you received

45:43

something of benefit in order to

45:45

do your trespassing I think

45:47

that's really unlikely I think it's more likely

45:49

the court will come in and say no you were

45:51

there clearly in support of Donald Trump you

45:54

did that's your chosen candidate your

45:56

chosen party whatever what you did

45:58

was in conformance with conferring a benefit

46:00

to your chosen candidate and therefore

46:03

that satisfies the corruptly. Those

46:05

conflicting reasonings would represent

46:08

kind of the two boundaries of

46:10

where the court could fall out on it or

46:13

really anywhere in the middle. So

46:15

I think that's what we're likely to get, but it's unlikely to affect

46:17

the charge in Trump's case.

46:19

Yeah, no, I agree. And I

46:22

think he has

46:22

some new lawyers, doesn't he? Donald

46:24

Trump's has hired a couple of people.

46:27

And wow, like, I'm

46:29

kind of proud of him. Like good job. He

46:31

found

46:31

some lawyers. Maybe they can start doing things on time

46:33

by now. Oh no, that's not part

46:35

of the plan. So we learned from Politico

46:38

that Trump has added at least two veteran

46:40

attorneys to help him defend these

46:43

many cases. The

46:45

first, I'm going to say Emil

46:47

Bove. I don't know

46:49

how to pronounce his name. Could be Emil, could

46:51

be Bove for last name. But

46:53

in any case, I'm going to call him Emil Bove,

46:56

former federal prosecutor who was co-chief

46:59

of the National Security Unit at the Southern

47:01

District of New York or the Manhattan

47:04

U.S. Attorney's Office. And also

47:06

Kendra Wharton, a seasoned white

47:08

collar defense lawyer with some

47:10

ties to Capitol Hill. Both of them

47:12

have signed on to the legal team that's been organized

47:15

by Trump attorney Todd Blanche.

47:18

In recent days,

47:19

Bove actually joined Blanche's

47:22

firm, which you'll recall Blanche started

47:25

to conduct the representation of Trump.

47:28

He was with a different firm that he left

47:30

in order to become Trump's lawyer. And

47:32

so he started his own little shop. So

47:34

Bove has joined that team. Wharton

47:37

has actually launched her own firm

47:39

and that firm is expected to

47:41

partner with Blanche. Yeah, if you're going

47:43

to represent Trump, you have to just start your own

47:45

firm. None

47:48

of your prior lawyer friends want to do

47:51

it with you. So you have to kind of go out on your

47:53

own. Sir, this is a Wendy's. We

47:55

don't have lawyers for you. Yeah,

47:57

he's there's no firm.

48:00

This is gonna touch you so you have to

48:02

either join blanches new

48:04

firm that he created just to do this or

48:07

make your own which is what warden did that

48:09

cracks me up you imagine that when you're

48:12

you're the lawyer and you. You receive the call

48:14

from i don't know boris f steam

48:16

or something and you go running into your

48:19

you know the guy who has the office next to you running

48:21

there hey the trump wants to hire me to

48:23

be a lawyer come on let's go do it. Your

48:26

your your neighbor is like hey dude i

48:28

love you but no man i'm

48:31

going down that road. No

48:33

i'm starting your own firm cool bro

48:36

good luck with that yeah okay

48:38

so both and warden are expected to work on trumps

48:40

criminal cases including the new

48:42

york criminal case brought by

48:44

manhattan district attorney alvin bragg and

48:47

the federal cases filed by special

48:49

counsel jack smith. Trump is also

48:51

facing a fourth criminal case in Fulton

48:53

county Georgia and has hired separate lawyers

48:56

a separate team for that matter. Yeah

48:59

although Rudy's Fulton

49:01

county attorney just quit him

49:03

which is kind of fun and suit him. Oh

49:07

no that's a different one costello suit him

49:09

costello his hit one

49:11

of his remaining lawyers was like i'm out peace

49:13

out he's just he's so

49:15

asked. She's that's tough

49:17

times for Rudy i was shocked

49:20

that i shouldn't be surprised at all that costello.

49:23

Rudy made some really disparaging

49:25

comments about costello when he found out that costello

49:28

was suing him for the unpaid bill.

49:31

And they contacted costello for a comment

49:33

he of course refused to comment until

49:35

they told him what Rudy said that

49:37

he proceeded to rip Rudy on the

49:39

record so it's really getting

49:42

ugly up there on team Rudy

49:44

or former team Rudy yeah that sounds fight fight

49:47

fight fight like there's a they're going to tear each

49:49

other apart. It's a schoolyard yeah we're all we

49:51

don't have to do anything we're all standing around

49:53

him in a circle yelling fight fight fight

49:56

okay. Okay

49:58

so Blanche we.

49:59

know is also an alumnus

50:02

of the Manhattan US Attorney's Office,

50:04

SDNY, and he seems

50:06

to have emerged now as the architect of Trump's

50:09

multi-front legal battle. So the

50:11

new hires kind of further solidify his

50:14

imprint on some of the most significant criminal

50:16

cases, right? He appears

50:18

to really be the quarterback over several

50:21

of those cases. Now regarding

50:23

the other two, people who know them have been

50:26

commenting. Here's one quote,

50:28

Emile is an expert in white collar and CIPA-related

50:31

litigation and his trial skills

50:33

are among the best in the business, Todd

50:36

Blanche said in a statement referencing

50:38

the Classified Information Procedures Act,

50:40

which of course we know is the federal law governing the

50:42

use of classified documents in criminal cases.

50:45

Blanche continued, we are thrilled and

50:47

lucky to have him on our team defending

50:50

President Trump

50:51

and all of our other clients. We're

50:54

thrilled and lucky to have anybody on our team.

50:57

I'm thrilled to have another

50:59

breathing human being with a law degree

51:01

to do some of this work because Todd

51:03

Blanche probably hasn't seen his family in

51:05

weeks. Probably

51:07

not. Yeah I think he also

51:09

said what Kendra is a brilliant lawyer,

51:12

clients have trusted her for years, this is Wharton,

51:14

Kendra Wharton, starting

51:16

her own firm and she's providing the same

51:18

excellent service to our team that's been her

51:21

signature for many years. Okay so... It's

51:24

usually a particularly bland statement but

51:26

I don't know. Yeah so sit down and get ready to

51:28

have to say a bunch of shit that you don't want

51:30

to say to a judge.

51:32

You're welcome.

51:33

Yeah. And good starting

51:36

your own firm because you're gonna have to fold after this because you could

51:38

never be seen in front of those judges again. You just

51:40

go take the bar exam in a different state

51:43

after this because you're

51:45

never going to be able to like look

51:47

Judge Chutkin in the eye as

51:50

a serious attorney in any case.

51:53

We're going to require that you take positions

51:55

in court that are not based on fact

51:57

and likely to prejudice

51:59

every judge. against you and Chris

52:01

Keys weighed in with and

52:04

make sure you get a retainer upfront.

52:07

Yeah, no I made that up. Three

52:09

million get it up front.

52:11

Now this also coincides. Jack Smith

52:13

brought

52:13

on a new person onto his

52:15

team. Alex Whiting, we've talked about

52:17

this, his deputy at the Hague

52:20

in the Kosovo

52:22

War Crimes Department, I guess.

52:24

So it appears now

52:25

that the DC case may have Whiting

52:28

as a trial lawyer because he's trial experienced,

52:30

right? So I think he's, I don't

52:33

have confirmation of this Andy but I think he specifically

52:35

brought Alex Whiting on for the the DC

52:37

trial just like he brought David Raskin

52:40

on and he brought him on last year but he hasn't really

52:42

showed up on any pleadings until just now. But

52:45

I think Raskin might be one of the

52:47

head, if not the head trial lawyer down

52:50

in Florida because he's really really good at

52:52

that. And Brian Greer who was

52:54

on, as you know, last week was like,

52:56

yeah that guy, sweet. Love

52:59

David Raskin, he would be an excellent

53:01

trial lawyer. So I think we may now

53:03

also see

53:04

the DOJ's,

53:06

you know,

53:08

team, their prosecution team sort of gelling.

53:10

Yeah I think so. I don't know Whiting, I'm

53:13

sure he's a great lawyer. I do know Raskin.

53:15

Raskin's top drawer,

53:18

they're on the on the list of probably top

53:20

five national security lawyers in

53:23

government. I mean I don't care who's

53:25

making it, Raskin makes anybody's

53:27

top five list. He's been around for a long time,

53:29

had a bunch of big cases. The

53:31

Trump team tried to really kind of smear him at the

53:34

outset of this case with all those allegations

53:36

of,

53:38

I don't know, impropriety and conversations

53:41

that happened around the beginning

53:44

of the case. None of that seems to have gone anywhere,

53:46

which is what we all expected. So

53:49

I agree with you. I think Raskin's

53:51

probably focused on that one.

53:53

Top five, number one, headed to number

53:55

one with a bullet. There you go. Yeah, I forgot.

53:59

Trump bad-mouthed him at

54:02

the onset. This was

54:05

probably in the winter,

54:06

right before the holidays of last year

54:09

when Raskin was actually brought

54:10

onto the team,

54:11

but he hasn't appeared on too many filings.

54:13

So we'll see. And again, that's not Jamie Raskin.

54:16

That's not the Congressman. This is David

54:18

Raskin. That's right.

54:20

And back to the Trump lawyers, you

54:23

know, both have pretty notable experience.

54:26

Bove, we know, handled matters including

54:28

the investigation of Guo

54:30

Weng Wei, who was a Steve Bannon

54:32

ally. He's the guy that owned the boat that

54:34

Steve Bannon, I think was arrested on,

54:37

on the fraud case. By the post office

54:39

cops. Yes, yes. So

54:42

we built the wall guy. Yeah. That's right. That's

54:44

right. Guo was

54:46

also indicted earlier this year on fraud

54:49

charges involving an alleged

54:52

billion dollar fraud scheme. So in addition

54:55

to him, Bove also worked on the prosecution

54:57

of Cesar Sayoc Jr., who

54:59

you'll remember as I think the dude who

55:01

lived in a van and planned to send

55:04

bombs through the mail to a whole list of people

55:07

who he thought were being mean to former president

55:09

Trump. He had

55:11

all the stickers on his van. Like, yeah,

55:14

I remember that guy. He had CNN, I think some

55:16

government folks and also media folks. And

55:19

he took a huge hit on

55:22

a guilty plea and I think we'll be

55:24

spending the rest

55:24

of his life in jail if I remember that one correctly.

55:27

Bove was prosecutor on that case. That's

55:29

right. Oh, wow. Okay.

55:32

All right. So there you have it.

55:34

New legal talent for the

55:36

Trump team and they could sorely

55:38

use it. Yeah, I'm actually surprised because

55:41

honestly, this is going to be their last case.

55:44

I guess they're like, hey,

55:46

you know, give me, give me like, like keys

55:49

did, like you said, like, hey, give me five million.

55:51

This will be I'll create my own firm. This will be my last

55:54

case. But I'll do it for five. Like,

55:56

I

55:57

don't,

55:58

I don't get like the guy who.

55:59

prosecuted Caesar Sayoc is

56:03

willing to go out on this limb. Yeah, it

56:05

also doesn't mean they'll be around like five minutes

56:07

from now, right? Cause people come and

56:09

go and they say, Oh, he's the new lawyer. And

56:12

then they're gone. So it's, but

56:15

these are big names. They are, they are

56:17

talented people. So

56:19

that's good for him. But let's

56:21

see if he can keep him around.

56:23

Yeah. All right. We have to take a quick break, but I have a

56:25

question. I have some questions for you about Scott

56:27

Hall down in Georgia. I know that's a state

56:30

case and we don't cover that here on the Jack podcast, but

56:32

it might have implications in the federal

56:33

case. So

56:35

I want to talk to you about that. Cause I know that you,

56:37

you know,

56:37

you're an expert in these kinds of things, but we have

56:39

to take a quick break. So everybody stick around. We'll

56:41

be right back.

56:46

Well, well, well shopping for a car. Yep.

56:49

Carvana made financing a car as smooth

56:51

as can be. Oh yeah. I got pre-qualified

56:53

instantly and had real terms personalized

56:55

just for me. It doesn't get much smoother than that.

56:58

Well, I got to browse thousands of car options

57:00

on Carvana all within my budget. Doesn't

57:02

get much smoother than that. It does. I

57:04

actually wanted a car that seemed out of my range, but

57:06

I was able to add a co-signer and found my dream

57:08

car. It doesn't get much. Oh, it gets

57:11

smoother. It's getting delivered tomorrow. Visit

57:13

carvana.com or download the app to get

57:15

pre-qualified today.

57:17

Expressing your love can look many different

57:20

ways. And with the right jewelry gift from

57:22

blue Nile, it can truly sparkle.

57:24

Blue Nile's collection of classic diamond

57:26

jewelry makes for the kind of gift that speaks

57:29

volumes without saying a single word

57:31

or switch things up with a Sapphire piece.

57:33

Sure to spark conversation either

57:36

way, blue Nile's diamond guarantee ensures

57:38

you get the highest quality at the best price.

57:41

Express yourself with blue Nile, the original

57:43

online jeweler that blue Nile.com

57:46

that's blue Nile.com.

57:48

Holland America's best deal of the year is

57:51

ending soon for your vacation next summer to

57:53

Alaska, Europe, and beyond. This

57:55

incredible offer is your last chance to enjoy 60%

57:58

off top amenities. your cruise

58:00

today and receive specialty dining, shore

58:02

excursions, a low-price guarantee, and

58:05

free prepaid crew appreciation. Plus,

58:08

get free upgrades to premium Wi-Fi and

58:10

the elite beverage package included in your fare

58:12

when you book by September 30th. Visit

58:15

HollandAmerica.com for more details or

58:17

to plan your next trip.

58:25

All right, everybody, welcome back. So the big news

58:28

yesterday,

58:28

I mean, first of all, there were a million

58:30

different filings. Everybody on

58:33

Trump team MAGA lost all

58:35

of their bids in

58:37

court in Georgia.

58:39

It was a really kind of a hard day

58:41

to follow all the legal filings that went on

58:43

this past Friday. But the big

58:46

story, Scott Hall, who is

58:48

a bail bondsman, who

58:50

worked with Sidney Powell to steal

58:53

some or breach some

58:55

voting machines in Coffee County, very conservative

58:58

Coffee County,

58:59

he has flipped and he's cooperating

59:01

with Fannie Willis. And

59:03

while that's a huge

59:04

story in Georgia, in the

59:06

state case, which of course, we're going to go over,

59:08

you know, Pete Strzok and I'll talk about that on Cleanup

59:10

on Aisle 45, because that's where we cover Fulton County.

59:13

But this could have implications in

59:16

the federal cases, couldn't it? I mean, if you've

59:18

got a cooperating witness,

59:21

I imagine that anything he says, he

59:23

has to under his agreement,

59:26

testify truthfully to everything,

59:28

which includes a 63 minute phone

59:30

call to Jeffrey Clark.

59:33

And, you know, includes, I mean, he's

59:35

got kind of his hands

59:36

on a lot of

59:39

stuff that happened in the in the national

59:42

federal case, not just

59:44

Georgia in Coffee County. But

59:47

if you are going

59:49

to

59:50

testify, and I think

59:52

he's going to be a witness for the state, that

59:55

can be used in in federal court,

59:57

can't it? I mean, you've you've seen these kinds

59:59

of cases. before, right, where you have somebody

1:00:02

who's in a state court and also

1:00:04

in the federal court system,

1:00:07

can you use those statements?

1:00:09

Absolutely. You can use them all day long.

1:00:13

So statements made under oath

1:00:15

in the judicial proceeding, which

1:00:18

these would be if he takes the stand and testifies,

1:00:20

are universally

1:00:24

admissible in another criminal proceeding

1:00:26

or another civil proceeding. It's actually a specific

1:00:29

exception to the hearsay rule. It would normally

1:00:31

be hearsay, but the

1:00:34

hearsay rule basically prohibits testimony

1:00:36

that's not direct, right, testimony

1:00:39

that's offered to prove the truth

1:00:41

of the matter asserted, but

1:00:43

that keeps things out

1:00:45

like you couldn't take the

1:00:48

stand and say, Andrew told me he bought

1:00:50

the drugs in my narcotics trial

1:00:53

because that would be hearsay.

1:00:55

Well, even like emails and stuff, but

1:00:58

because of exceptions, right? There's many exceptions

1:01:00

to hearsay, and one of them explicitly

1:01:03

says this, that testimony

1:01:06

in judicial proceedings that was given under oath

1:01:08

essentially that can get admitted. So

1:01:10

as a – And I assume he

1:01:13

made a recorded statement as well.

1:01:15

We haven't heard the statement. Yeah.

1:01:17

So he made a recorded

1:01:20

statement to the state. I am assuming that because

1:01:22

that's part of the proceeding, that's also admissible.

1:01:25

Yeah. Anything – any statements

1:01:28

that he made to investigators or to

1:01:30

prosecutors in the course of their investigation,

1:01:32

now that he's going to be a witness

1:01:35

for them, they have to turn all those statements

1:01:37

over to the defense in the Fulton County

1:01:39

case because now that's discoverable,

1:01:44

so that the defense can use those other

1:01:46

statements, prior statements, to

1:01:48

cross-examine him, try to make him look like he's

1:01:51

telling different stories. So that's

1:01:53

there. How it affects Jack Smith –

1:01:56

well, number one in the way we just mentioned,

1:01:58

whatever comments he makes – on the record

1:02:00

in the judicial proceeding under oath

1:02:03

can be entered in the federal

1:02:05

case. But also,

1:02:08

oftentimes when someone cooperates,

1:02:11

they enter into a cooperation agreement with the

1:02:17

prosecutors. They say, okay, I will agree to

1:02:19

be your witness and I'll be truthful about everything

1:02:21

and in return you're going to drop some of

1:02:23

the charges against me or charge me with

1:02:25

lesser things and charges that wouldn't

1:02:28

be— Right, because in this case he pled

1:02:30

guilty to all five counts but they became misdemeanors.

1:02:33

Five misdemeanors, yeah. That was a good deal for

1:02:35

him. It's a really good deal. It's five

1:02:37

years of probation. He doesn't have to go to jail at

1:02:39

all. And I mean, I suspect all

1:02:41

the other people are like, dang.

1:02:44

Five years probation, 200 hours of

1:02:46

community service, all pretty

1:02:48

good deal when you were facing a RICO conviction.

1:02:51

And let's remember, the case against him is probably pretty strong

1:02:53

because it's got—there's videotape evidence,

1:02:55

there's audio evidence of these folks

1:02:58

that were involved in the coffee county thing. So

1:03:00

he gets a good deal. Probably

1:03:02

a part of that deal—well, I shouldn't

1:03:04

say probably—maybe a part of that deal

1:03:06

requires him

1:03:10

to also cooperate or testify

1:03:12

truthfully in other jurisdictions

1:03:16

that bring prosecutions based on the same

1:03:18

conduct. That is frequently added

1:03:20

into a cooperator's deal. And

1:03:24

you know that there are other

1:03:26

jurisdictions that might want to use him as well.

1:03:29

So we don't know that yet. I haven't heard

1:03:31

that reported but it could be something. But when they say like

1:03:33

all proceedings, that

1:03:36

could include that. I mean, we've got sort of a

1:03:39

general idea where they say you have to cooperate

1:03:41

in all proceedings related to these crimes. That

1:03:43

could mean in other jurisdictions? They could actually

1:03:46

identify it specifically. They could say

1:03:48

you must, if requested, you must

1:03:50

also cooperate with the

1:03:52

prosecutors in the DC circuit or whatever.

1:03:56

Or state prosecutors in Michigan, whatever

1:03:58

it might be. I don't—I'm just—

1:03:59

Just guessing. Well, right, because he also was Patrick

1:04:02

Byrne, right? When you and I have talked about this

1:04:04

national sort of push

1:04:08

to breach voting machines,

1:04:10

it happened in Antrim County in Michigan, it

1:04:13

happened all over the country. And

1:04:15

we're like, well, I figure, it

1:04:18

seems like that's something that Jack Smith should prosecute.

1:04:21

Because it's on the national, it's on the federal level,

1:04:24

that could be included in that. But

1:04:26

it also, like you have said, it might be a mop-up

1:04:28

case. It might be something that he adds

1:04:30

later after Trump is done, so it's not

1:04:32

to even take a

1:04:34

possibility of slowing that case down.

1:04:36

Yeah, and the final consideration is, even

1:04:38

if it's not explicitly written into his agreement,

1:04:41

the fact that he has an agreement and then takes

1:04:43

the stand in the Fulton County case and testifies

1:04:46

if he is later called

1:04:49

to testify by the government in Trump's

1:04:52

case or a follow-up case, whatever that might be,

1:04:55

he's got a much harder time

1:04:57

defending that, right? It's gonna be harder

1:04:59

to come in and say, plead the fifth, I'm

1:05:01

not gonna testify, because I'm afraid of

1:05:03

being prosecuted when he's already got

1:05:06

a cooperation agreement in really the only

1:05:08

other jurisdiction that could possibly

1:05:10

prosecute him.

1:05:12

So, all

1:05:13

in all, it makes it much more likely

1:05:16

that he could, and maybe they don't want

1:05:18

him or need him, but he could be a witness

1:05:20

in one of the federal cases.

1:05:26

Yeah, and even if not a witness, just somebody

1:05:28

to give

1:05:28

him more leads on other cases, because

1:05:33

Sidney Powell's having a bad day.

1:05:34

And listen, dude

1:05:36

is on Team America now, right? So,

1:05:38

typically when people make that decision, they

1:05:40

take the deal, he pleads out, they

1:05:43

kind of take it

1:05:45

all the way. Especially, like this guy's not,

1:05:48

he's not a criminal outside of this context,

1:05:50

he's just some dude. He's a bail bondsman, right?

1:05:52

So, he's probably someone who's inclined

1:05:55

to cooperate anyway. And

1:05:59

I really don't think he's gonna be the... last person you see take

1:06:01

a plea in the Fulton case. No,

1:06:03

he flips first, flips best, right? That's

1:06:05

right. You get a good deal there. But

1:06:07

I wouldn't be surprised

1:06:09

if she's sitting around waiting to hand that deal

1:06:11

to other people too. Yeah.

1:06:13

All right, so do we have any listener questions?

1:06:16

Because if you have a question for

1:06:18

Andy or I or Brian Greer or

1:06:20

anybody else who we bring on the show,

1:06:22

you can submit that by clicking the link in the show notes.

1:06:24

Who do we have this week?

1:06:25

Okay, so this week we have Cosmo

1:06:28

and Cosmo writes in a

1:06:30

question that I think really touches on something

1:06:33

a lot of people have been thinking about lately. Cosmo

1:06:35

says, I always look forward to your new insights

1:06:37

every week. I have a question about the

1:06:40

argument that conspiracy defendants

1:06:42

who separate themselves into an earlier

1:06:44

trial help the defense of later

1:06:46

defendants. He says

1:06:48

he understands how it does give the

1:06:50

later defendants a kind of a sneak

1:06:52

peek look at the government's case. But

1:06:54

he says, I also wonder how any one defendant

1:06:57

in a conspiracy can stand trial alone.

1:06:59

I would think that the fact that it's a conspiracy

1:07:02

would require evidence to be introduced about the

1:07:04

actions of other conspirators, but

1:07:06

they won't be there to defend themselves. Good

1:07:09

question. And you're pretty much you're leaning

1:07:11

in the right direction on all this stuff.

1:07:14

So

1:07:15

let's talk about it a little bit in the in the context

1:07:17

of Fulton County, just because I think that's a

1:07:19

little bit easier. Obviously, the government

1:07:22

brings a case against 19 people. They want

1:07:24

to put that case on one time, so they want to keep

1:07:26

everyone together. But in Georgia,

1:07:28

you've got these really strict speedy

1:07:31

trial rules, laws

1:07:34

that enable a defendant to basically split

1:07:36

themselves off and go early,

1:07:38

like within a within two months or something

1:07:41

like that. And that's what's happening to the Chesbrough

1:07:43

and Powell. So that's

1:07:46

how a defendant splits themselves off. It's much

1:07:48

harder to do in the federal system, because even though you

1:07:50

have, of course, a federal speedy trial, right? It's

1:07:53

not defined as clearly

1:07:56

as it is in Georgia, and the government

1:07:58

can actually push back. on

1:08:00

your desire to split yourself off

1:08:02

and go early, and

1:08:05

the judge ultimately makes a decision between

1:08:07

the competing interests of speedy trial versus

1:08:10

the government's interest in putting on a

1:08:12

good case, judicial economy, that sort of

1:08:14

stuff. So it's a little more gray. But

1:08:17

nevertheless, in a conspiracy case, yes,

1:08:20

Cosmo, you're right. The government has

1:08:22

to prove the entirety of the conspiracy.

1:08:25

And so that requires putting on all

1:08:27

of the evidence, whether it's just for

1:08:29

two defendants in an early trial or

1:08:31

for the remaining 17 in the big case,

1:08:34

they still have to put all the evidence on. Now,

1:08:37

it doesn't matter that

1:08:39

in that early trial, the other defendants

1:08:42

aren't there to quote unquote defend themselves.

1:08:45

That's just not a factor. The

1:08:47

government has that evidence, the fact that

1:08:49

the evidence by putting it out there in the public

1:08:52

sphere could have a negative,

1:08:54

create negative impressions in the public

1:08:56

about these defendants who will

1:08:58

come later. That's just part

1:09:00

of what happens in a trial. There's

1:09:03

no specific rule or constitutional

1:09:05

principle that prohibits that. So

1:09:08

yeah, all the evidence would get put on

1:09:10

in both trials. The later

1:09:12

defendants have the benefit of getting

1:09:15

that sneak peek and seeing how the government puts on

1:09:17

their case. But they

1:09:19

also have the downside that you've pointed

1:09:21

out that people have now really heard

1:09:23

them, their names being dragged through

1:09:26

the mud.

1:09:27

Yeah, it kind of helps them set up.

1:09:29

I mean, that's why people have those joint

1:09:32

defense agreements, right? Because everybody can

1:09:34

hear and get information from

1:09:37

lawyers and hearings and stuff like that before

1:09:40

a trial even starts. But yeah, in

1:09:42

this one, and we just saw the hearing

1:09:46

about some pretrial stuff in Georgia

1:09:48

and

1:09:49

Judge McAfee, I mean, honestly,

1:09:51

so far seems like a

1:09:53

pretty decent jurist. Yeah, yeah,

1:09:56

doing a fine job down there,

1:09:57

I think. Yeah, he, by the way, denied

1:09:59

every.

1:09:59

single motion like

1:10:02

Jeff Clark's motion to remove

1:10:04

the electors motion

1:10:07

to remove denied people

1:10:10

trying to dismiss their cases on based on

1:10:12

being a bullshit like he's like no no no no no right

1:10:15

but he he agreed that this trial is

1:10:17

going to take four to five four to

1:10:19

five months just for

1:10:22

Sydney and the cheese right

1:10:24

Sydney Powell and Kenneth

1:10:27

cheese bro who

1:10:28

by the way I asked Anna Bauer

1:10:30

I guess it's pronounced chesbro no

1:10:33

come on I'm don't take my cheese away

1:10:35

yeah I know don't take my

1:10:37

nickname is the cheese

1:10:38

so

1:10:39

I'm good with that the cheese cheese

1:10:42

man

1:10:42

he's from Wisconsin so

1:10:45

the cheese but it

1:10:47

you know that just for the two of them is going to

1:10:49

take four or five months because again

1:10:51

like you said the prosecution

1:10:53

the state has to put on the entire

1:10:57

Rico case for just these two

1:10:59

or and there are still I think I think

1:11:01

I heard in the hearing six people who

1:11:04

haven't filed either to sever

1:11:06

or for speedy trial and by the way one

1:11:09

of my favorite new things apparently they call

1:11:11

these trials speedies down

1:11:14

in down in Georgia because he's like look yes

1:11:16

it's going to be in courtroom

1:11:18

5a I'm pretty sure

1:11:20

that will be done we have a couple other speedies that

1:11:22

we're doing

1:11:23

like he calls them speedies

1:11:24

which is just babies

1:11:27

yeah cracks me up

1:11:28

but yeah it's four or

1:11:30

five months for the entire thing to be put

1:11:32

on so for just two people

1:11:35

and that is probably about how

1:11:37

long the other trial for however

1:11:39

many people are left that don't flip

1:11:41

and plead yeah and

1:11:45

remember that one is the

1:11:47

state case it's gonna be on TV yeah

1:11:50

and Trump

1:11:51

has said Trump has decided

1:11:54

he's he said I'm not gonna

1:11:55

try to remove this to federal court

1:11:58

yeah I think that

1:11:59

was a

1:12:01

predictable, actually a good move on

1:12:03

their part. Don't waste time, you're not gonna

1:12:05

get it anyway. All those motions got

1:12:07

denied. He had a weaker case for that,

1:12:10

I think, that certainly then Meadows and maybe

1:12:12

even then Clark or others and wasn't

1:12:15

worth the danger of having to take

1:12:17

the stand and testify, expose himself

1:12:19

like that, so.

1:12:20

And it kind of makes me second guess my

1:12:22

wanting the federal

1:12:25

trials to be televised because if

1:12:27

Trump wants it, I'm like, I

1:12:30

don't know

1:12:30

if I want that. Like

1:12:32

I just, everything Trump

1:12:34

wants, if I want it to, it makes me question

1:12:36

myself.

1:12:37

But he, the cameras are there and

1:12:39

that might, to him, be a benefit

1:12:42

in his mind, I don't know. Yeah,

1:12:44

I think there would be some societal benefit to

1:12:46

having the federal cases televised,

1:12:49

but it's too late. Like you can't do this

1:12:51

one different than every other federal case. That

1:12:54

would just be creating so much

1:12:56

room for him to complain and the issue. Yeah,

1:12:58

reason to appeal. So they're

1:13:01

kind of stuck with where they are, I think.

1:13:03

Anyway, there

1:13:04

you go. That's our listener question

1:13:06

for the week and a good one, thanks, Cosmo.

1:13:08

Yep, there'll be a link in the show notes. If anybody

1:13:10

wants to submit a question, thank you so much, Cosmo,

1:13:12

that was a great question. And everybody,

1:13:15

thank you so much for listening to the Jack podcast.

1:13:17

We really appreciate, it seems

1:13:20

like the focus is down

1:13:22

in Georgia, but man, there is a

1:13:24

lot of important

1:13:25

stuff,

1:13:26

particularly coming up in October with

1:13:29

these hearings

1:13:30

in these federal cases. So I look forward to discussing

1:13:32

them with you, Andy. Yeah, absolutely. The

1:13:34

pace is only gonna pick up on that stuff. So if

1:13:36

you really want the deets,

1:13:39

the details that go deep on where

1:13:41

we are in these cases, this is

1:13:43

the right place to do it once a week. You get your fill

1:13:46

and then you're ready for next week's

1:13:48

craziness.

1:13:49

Yeah, yep, 100%. All right, I've been Alison

1:13:51

Gill.

1:13:52

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

1:13:54

on Jack. Bye.

1:13:59

exciting and new. Come

1:14:02

aboard! We're expecting you! Princess

1:14:04

Cruises, the original love boat, is making

1:14:07

another run to amazing destinations

1:14:09

around the world. Aboard Princess, you'll

1:14:11

love our world-class dining, spectacular

1:14:13

production shows, curated excursions, and

1:14:16

so much more. Book early and save

1:14:18

up to 50%. Call 1-800-PRINCESS,

1:14:21

visit princess.com, or contact your

1:14:23

travel advisor today. Offer

1:14:25

ends 1031-23. Terms and conditions apply. Ships of Bermuda

1:14:28

and British Registry. Hi,

1:14:30

I'm Frances Callier. And I'm Angela V.

1:14:32

Shelton. And we're Fran-gela. You

1:14:35

know what you need in your life? The

1:14:37

Final Word podcast. Yes, you do.

1:14:39

That's right.

1:14:40

It is the final word on all things political

1:14:42

and pop-cultural. Where we make real

1:14:44

news real funny. Where we inspire

1:14:46

you so you can hashtag

1:14:47

resist. Subscribe

1:14:49

and get a new episode of the Final Word

1:14:51

podcast each week. It's the news

1:14:53

we think you need to hear. That's

1:14:55

right, we think you need to hear it. Okay.

1:14:57

Yeah, it's what we say so. That's

1:15:00

right, and because all we do is give, every Thursday

1:15:02

you can listen to our hysterical podcast, Idiot

1:15:04

of the Week.