0:11

Learn more at asuonline.asu.edu.

0:15

Time for a quick break to talk

0:17

about McDonald's. Know how we make our

0:19

sausage McMuffin with egg? It starts with

0:21

a fresh cracked egg, cooked to perfection.

0:23

Then we add a savory grilled sausage

0:25

patty, American cheese. MSW

0:44

Media. I

0:48

signed an order appointing Jack Smith. And

0:50

nobody knows you. And those who say

0:52

Jack is a fanatic. Mr. Smith is

0:55

a veteran career prosecutor. Wait, what law

0:57

have I broken? The events

0:59

leading up to and on January 6th.

1:01

Classified documents and other presidential records. You

1:03

understand what prison is? Send me to jail.

1:14

Hey everybody, welcome to Jack,

1:16

the podcast about all things

1:18

special counsel. Or should we

1:21

say today special counsels? It

1:23

is Sunday, Sunday, December 10th, 2023.

1:27

I'm Alison Gill. And I'm Andy McCabe.

1:29

Nice teaser there. We're getting very professional

1:31

with this. We

1:33

have a lot to cover as always, including

1:36

Jack Smith's motion to admit evidence

1:38

from before and after the DC

1:40

conspiracy under rule of evidence 404B.

1:44

And Trump's opposed effort to

1:46

stay the entire proceeding, including

1:49

the entire pretrial schedule. Yeah,

1:52

sure, buddy. And well,

1:54

I mean, he might get some temporary administrative

1:56

stays while he appeals, but we also have

1:58

jury notices going out. the District of

2:00

Columbia. My friend John Allen over at

2:02

NBC had somebody in the district show

2:05

him something he got in

2:08

the mail and all the dates line up with

2:10

what's going on in DC in the Trump case

2:12

and so they're pretty sure that it's that. So

2:14

they are now testing the jury

2:19

pool and we also have a ruling

2:21

from the DC Circuit Court of Appeals

2:23

that's the court above Judge Chutkin on

2:26

the don't call it a gag order and we'll talk about

2:28

that. We've got a couple of SIPA

2:31

filings and I think

2:33

it's reaching an inflection point down in Florida

2:36

with the classified documents case because

2:39

now Donald Trump doesn't want

2:42

what normally happens which is SIPA Section 4 to

2:44

be ex parte between Jack Smith and

2:46

Judge Cannon. He wants to be all

2:49

up in that program with his tiny

2:51

little hands so he's filed a motion

2:53

and we'll talk about that to unseal

2:55

the SIPA filings for Section 4. Like

2:57

I said, it's an inflection

3:00

point down there. This is probably the first

3:02

decision Judge Cannon will make that

3:04

isn't just a nickel and dime delay

3:06

decision. This is a big one. Yeah,

3:08

it shows us it's delay relevant for

3:11

sure but it's like is she going

3:13

to completely depart from well-established precedent, law

3:15

and practice and that's really what's at

3:18

stake here. If the answer to that

3:20

is yes, man, we

3:22

are in for a strange, a mighty

3:24

strange trip. Yeah, it is

3:27

appealable and already a stranger trip

3:29

than we're in like Jane

3:31

get me off this crazy thing. That's

3:33

right. Also, we'll be throwing a party

3:35

for patrons of MSW media shows, patrons

3:38

of this program, patrons of the Daily Beans, Cleanup

3:40

on All 45. It's going to be April 20th

3:43

in DC. So if you've been on the fence

3:45

about supporting our shows, now would be a good

3:47

time so you can get an invite. We'll

3:49

be picking up the tab for dinner and

3:51

drinks. We'll have some great guests speaking including

3:54

me, Andy McCabe, Pete Strzok. That's you Andy

3:56

by the way. Oh, that's me. I better

3:58

start working on something. Glenca,

4:00

start preparing your remarks. Glen

4:02

Kirshner will be there, Capitol Police

4:04

Officers Harry Dunn and Danny Hodges, Olivia Troy

4:07

will be there. There'll be more guests added.

4:10

And we will send out notices for RSVPs

4:12

probably in January, maybe the first week of

4:14

February. There's limited space. So it'll be a

4:16

first come first serve basis. And

4:19

we won't have plus ones because that'll cut

4:21

our guest list in half for

4:23

patrons. So if you want to bring somebody, they will

4:25

need to sign up to become a patron too. That's

4:27

the fairest way we could come up with this. Any

4:31

level patron gets an invite. You don't have to be

4:33

like $100 a minute. It's

4:35

you know, which we have tons of those. But

4:38

any level, any level, and

4:41

that's patreon.com/Mueller. She wrote supporting

4:43

independent media is supporting democracy. All right.

4:46

I really want to start with

4:48

I know that the don't call it a gag

4:50

order thing is big news, but Jack Smith's 404B

4:53

filing in the DC case. I want to

4:55

start there because it gives us a more

4:58

of a look at his case in chief and

5:00

some of the evidence he intends to introduce at

5:02

trial. But Andy, first, let's talk about what

5:04

rule 404B is. Yeah,

5:06

this is super important. It's one that

5:08

I think defense attorneys generally loathe because

5:11

they see it as kind of the

5:13

prosecutors like backdoor to getting evidence in

5:16

front of the jury that they otherwise

5:18

wouldn't be able to. So

5:20

basically, rule of evidence 404B

5:23

generally prohibits the prosecution from

5:25

introducing evidence of prior crimes

5:27

and wrongdoings, right? It

5:30

provides that act

5:32

evidence is not admissible to prove

5:34

the character of a person in

5:36

order to show action and conformity

5:38

therewith. And that basically means like,

5:41

A.G., if you're on trial for, you

5:44

know, dealing narcotics, you

5:47

used to, you know, in years

5:50

earlier, you had another conviction for

5:52

stealing cars. They can't enter the

5:54

evidence of the car theft as

5:57

simply to show the jury, look, she's a bad

5:59

person. She did this once.

6:01

She did committed a crime once

6:04

before. Therefore, it's more likely that she committed a

6:06

crime here. Evidence

6:08

of prior bad acts cannot be invented

6:10

in a trial to show that the

6:12

defendant's propensity to commit crimes similar to

6:14

the offense in question. So in other

6:16

words, 404 prevents

6:18

or 404B bars

6:21

character evidence, right? Juries are not likely

6:23

to afford the presumption of innocence to

6:25

a known criminal. Nonetheless,

6:29

there are many exceptions to

6:31

404B, and that's usually where

6:33

the fighting starts. Right.

6:35

I get it. So that's why the defense objected, I

6:38

remember, during George Floyd's trial when

6:41

the prosecutors tried to question witnesses

6:43

about Floyd's prior criminal history. That's

6:46

exactly right. Exactly right. And like

6:48

many rules of evidence, they

6:51

begin with the ban, right? Think

6:54

about hearsay. You cannot enter testimony

6:56

– if you're going to enter

6:58

testimony, you have to have the person who was

7:01

there. You can't testify about something

7:04

I said to someone else, right?

7:06

And you can't offer testimony like that to prove

7:09

the truth of the matter asserted. Or

7:11

like the emails, like the Eastman emails.

7:13

A lot of times, emails are considered

7:15

hearsay, and so you start with what's

7:17

banned, but then they have lists of

7:19

exceptions, right? And

7:22

then you have a million exceptions, and that's how a 404B works.

7:26

Exceptions to the 404B, the 404

7:28

ban on this sort of evidence

7:31

are motives, evidence

7:34

that would prove opportunity,

7:37

evidence that would prove intent, evidence

7:40

that proves preparation or planning,

7:43

evidence that proves knowledge, identity,

7:47

or absence of mistake or accident.

7:52

And that's why Jack Smith filed this notice. Yeah,

7:54

it's a lot of big categories there. So there's a

7:56

lot of room for prosecutors to squeak things in through

7:59

one of those exceptions. Yeah

8:01

and this is an emotion asking for

8:03

leave of court. He's not asking for

8:05

permission to introduce this as evidence. It's

8:07

a heads up. He's saying I

8:09

am giving you notice. Here's how

8:12

he opens. He says the government will provide

8:14

the defendant and court extensive advance notice of the

8:16

intrinsic evidence that plans to introduce at trial

8:19

including through its exhibit and witness

8:21

lists, motions in limonade and

8:23

detailed trial brief setting forth the

8:25

government's planned trial presentation in

8:28

an abundance of caution. The government

8:30

below notices evidence that although intrinsic

8:32

to the charged crimes pre

8:35

or post dates the charged criminal conspiracies.

8:37

If the court were to find that

8:39

any part of the noticed evidence below

8:41

is extrinsic the evidence is also admissible

8:44

under federal rule 404B because the

8:46

government will offer it not to show

8:48

the defendant's criminal propensity meaning

8:50

this is an evidence to show that

8:53

he you know he's likely

8:55

to commit these crimes again because he did

8:57

it in the past but to establish

8:59

his motive intent preparation knowledge absence

9:01

of mistake and common plan. That's

9:04

exactly right. He's saying here here's all my

9:06

evidence and I want you to know about

9:08

it ahead of time. Again this is a

9:10

matter of judicial economy. He's trying to tee

9:12

up the fights over these pieces of evidence

9:14

early in the process so it doesn't slow

9:16

down the trial but he's

9:18

also saying if by some chance

9:20

the court finds this evidence extrinsic

9:23

which means outside the scope of

9:25

the charge conduct well then it

9:27

also qualifies under 404B so he's

9:29

kind of covering both bases. Yep,

9:32

yep and he outlines six categories of this

9:34

type of evidence that

9:36

they plan to introduce at trial and it's

9:38

really fascinating because we know from

9:41

his past filing opposing

9:43

Trump's motion to strike January

9:45

6th riot language from the indictment. Remember Trump

9:47

wanted all that taken out saying it was

9:49

prejudicial and incendiary and I didn't do

9:51

it you didn't charge me with insurrection. He

9:54

noted Jack Smith noted in that

9:56

in his opposition to that that

9:59

he intends to prove Donald Trump was responsible for

10:01

the attack on the Capitol. So

10:03

this is really, I think, intrinsic evidence,

10:06

but like you said, if

10:08

the court finds it's extrinsic

10:10

and isn't part of the criminal

10:12

conspiracies, then it can still get in under

10:14

404B because it shows intent

10:17

and knowledge and all those other things. That's

10:19

right. That's right. And it is

10:21

cool because when we saw that opposition to

10:23

Trump's motion that you referenced, that

10:25

was the first hint of like, oh, he's

10:27

going down. He

10:29

is shooting at the big target with

10:31

this thing. He's going right at responsible

10:33

for the insurrection. Well, this motion really

10:35

lays out the receipts, right? You get

10:38

the details of kind of how he's

10:40

going to do that. It's the first

10:42

kind of semi roadmap that we've gotten.

10:45

So the first category

10:47

is historical evidence of

10:49

the defendant's consistent plan of

10:52

baselessly claiming election fraud.

10:55

And this is one of those situations where

10:57

the DOJ plans to use Trump's own words

10:59

against him. And even though

11:01

he made the statements before the conspiracy, these

11:04

statements would therefore be admissible under

11:07

404B because they demonstrate the defendant's

11:09

common plan of falsely blaming fraud

11:11

for the election results he does

11:14

not like. And

11:16

his motive and intent and plan

11:18

to obstruct the certification of the

11:20

2020 election results and illegitimately retain

11:23

power. And so Jack

11:25

Smith then gives some examples of these statements.

11:28

So for example, as early

11:30

as November 2012, the

11:32

defendant issued a public tweet

11:34

making baseless claims that voting

11:36

machines had switched votes from

11:39

then candidate Romney to then

11:41

candidate Obama. During

11:43

the 2016 presidential campaign, the

11:46

defendant claimed repeatedly with no

11:48

basis that there was widespread

11:50

voter fraud, including through public statements

11:52

and tweets. For instance, on October

11:54

17, 2016, tweeting,

11:57

of course there is large scale

11:59

fraud happening on and before election

12:01

day. Why do Republican leaders deny

12:03

what's going on? So naive. Yeah.

12:07

And he won that election.

12:12

And even that, I remember that in the

12:14

Mueller investigation. I remember that. You

12:18

remember? Yeah. I remember

12:20

in the Mueller investigation,

12:22

there was some,

12:24

I think, Facebook messages between Don

12:26

Trump Jr. and Julian Assange. And

12:29

Julian Assange is like, I think it's interesting

12:31

not conceding that you lost the election. If

12:33

your father loses, he should say he didn't

12:35

lose. And then he can blame the media

12:37

and call it rigged. Like, it's been

12:39

their plan for forever. Yeah,

12:42

for sure. I mean, you know, and in

12:44

2020, he had others doing it for him

12:46

as well. I remember that that appearance that

12:48

Bill Barr made on Wolf Blitzer's show, where

12:51

he basically ranted and raved about, oh, no,

12:53

you know, what is it,

12:55

the mail-in ballots are rife with fraud. Everybody knows that.

12:57

And Wolf pressed him on it like, okay, give me

12:59

an example. And he's like, well, everybody knows. And then

13:02

of course, a couple of months later, he's like, yeah,

13:04

no evidence of fraud. Sorry about that. Yeah.

13:06

And that might come up in trial too. He's only

13:09

given a couple of examples here just to, you

13:11

know, give examples of the kinds of evidence he

13:14

wants to introduce. But because that kind of stuff

13:16

happened during the conspiracy, I don't think it would

13:18

necessarily need to come in under 404B.

13:21

But the next category is historical evidence of

13:24

the defendant's common plan, his plan to

13:26

refuse to commit to a peaceful transition of

13:28

power. And remember, a common

13:31

plan is admissible under 404B exceptions,

13:33

even though these statements happened before

13:35

the conspiracy. And

13:37

Jack Smith says, quote, the government will

13:39

offer proof of this refusal as intrinsic

13:42

evidence, intrinsic evidence of the defendant's criminal

13:44

conspiracies because it shows his plan to remain

13:46

in power at any cost, even in

13:48

the face of potential violence. And

13:50

he gives some examples here as well. September 2020,

13:52

a news conference, I think it was Brian Karam

13:55

asked him in the press room, are

13:58

you going to commit to a peaceful transition? transfer of power

14:00

and he refused. And

14:02

then he obfuscated, well, the ballots,

14:05

he didn't answer the question. And

14:09

in the presidential debate in 2016

14:11

with Hillary, he was asked whether

14:13

he would accept the results to which he responded, oh,

14:15

look at it at the time. And

14:18

the debate moderator said, yeah, but there's a tradition

14:20

in this country, one of the prides of this

14:23

country, the peaceful transfer of power, that

14:25

no matter how hard fought a campaign is, at the

14:27

end, you concede and that

14:29

the country comes together in part for the good of the country.

14:32

Are you saying you are prepared now to commit

14:34

or you're not prepared to commit to that principle?

14:37

And Trump said, what I'm saying is, I will tell you

14:39

at the time, I'll keep you in suspense, okay?

14:42

That's what he said. I'll keep you in suspense.

14:46

And what's interesting too is, you

14:48

know, we've got Flynn testifying to the January

14:50

6th committee. Liz Cheney asking him,

14:52

do you believe in the peaceful transfer

14:54

of power? And he took the fifth. And

14:59

then what's interesting too is in

15:02

Judge Chutkin's ruling against total

15:04

presidential immunity, the monarchy motion as we

15:06

called it, she brought up Washington's

15:08

speech, his farewell speech.

15:12

And so, you know, that's, it's all

15:14

tied kind of together there. Jack Smith

15:16

concludes this category by saying, the defendant's

15:18

consistent refusal to commit to the peaceful transition

15:20

of power dating back to the 2016 campaign

15:23

is admissible evidence of his

15:26

plan, his plan to

15:28

undermine the integrity of the presidential transition

15:30

process in faced with the

15:32

possibility of an election result that he would

15:34

not like, as well as his motive intent

15:36

and plan to interfere with the implementation of

15:39

an election result with which he

15:41

is not satisfied. Other things that

15:43

could come in during the conspiracy, GSA,

15:46

Emily refusing to sign off on the

15:48

transition, refusing to give transition offices to

15:51

President Biden. Like that's all

15:53

his plan. Like he was planning

15:55

this premeditated planning to not,

15:58

you know. participate

16:00

in the peaceful transition of

16:03

power. Absolutely. Absolutely. It's

16:05

going to be very powerful evidence in telling a complete

16:07

story to the jury, and it's clear why the special

16:09

counsel wants to get this stuff in. Yeah,

16:12

it really goes toward intent and motive and

16:14

all that stuff. And so when we read

16:16

that filing about striking the language and the

16:19

opposition to it, and Jack Smith saying, I'm

16:21

going to prove you wanted that riot to

16:23

happen and you caused it, this

16:25

all goes to that. So, all

16:28

right, everybody, we need to take a quick break. We have, I

16:30

think, three, four, five, six, four more categories of

16:32

evidence we want to discuss, and then we'll talk about the gag

16:35

order. We'll talk about the SEPA stuff. We have a lot to

16:37

get to today, but we have to take this break. Stick

16:39

around. We'll be right back. So,

16:45

you started Ohio's 529 plan for

16:47

your kids' education? Yeah, I did.

16:50

Because it's tax free? Maybe. And

16:52

your kids can use the savings at all kinds

16:54

of schools, not just colleges? They can. And

16:57

you get an annual tax deduction? I can. Why

17:00

did you start? Because I love my kids and want

17:02

to help them any way I can. That is a

17:04

very good reason. But that other stuff sounds really great,

17:06

too. Ohio's 529 plan. It's

17:09

simple to learn, plan, and start at

17:11

collegeadvantage.com. And you still have time to get

17:13

this year's Ohio tax deduction. Ready

17:17

for a new and exciting career

17:20

challenge? At DHL Supply Chain, you're

17:22

part of a team committed to

17:24

creating innovative solutions for some of

17:26

the biggest brands in the world.

17:28

We're recognized as a best place

17:31

to work, where people are valued,

17:33

supported, and respected. DHL Supply Chain

17:35

is hiring for a wide range

17:37

of salaried operational and functional roles.

17:39

Previous experience in logistics is welcome,

17:42

but not required. All opportunities, no

17:44

boundaries. DHL Supply Chain. Apply today

17:46

at joindhl.com. Time for a

17:48

quick break to talk about McDonald's. Know how

17:50

we make our sausage McMuffin with egg? It

17:52

starts with a fresh cracked egg, cooked to

17:54

perfection. Then we add

17:56

a savory grilled sausage patty, American cheese, and

17:58

a freshly toasted English muffin. Know what

18:01

makes our sausage McMuffin with egg even

18:03

better? When you add a caramel mocha

18:05

or refreshing caramel mocha iced coffee to

18:07

it. So make your morning better by

18:09

starting with breakfast at McDonald's at participating

18:11

McDonald's. Okay

18:18

we're back and here comes category

18:21

three. It's evidence of the defendant

18:23

and co-conspirator's knowledge of the unfavorable

18:25

election results and motive and intent

18:27

to subvert them. Yeah

18:30

so here Jack Smith says the government

18:33

also plans to introduce evidence of an

18:35

effort undertaken by an agent and

18:38

unindicted co-conspirator of the

18:40

defendant who worked for his campaign

18:42

and that person is

18:44

then referred to as the campaign employee

18:47

to immediately following the election obstruct

18:49

the vote count. On

18:51

November 4th 2020 the campaign employee

18:54

exchanged a series of text messages

18:56

with an attorney supporting the campaign's

18:58

election day operations at the TCF

19:00

Center in Detroit where votes

19:03

were being counted. In the

19:05

messages the campaign employee encouraged rioting and

19:07

other methods of obstruction when he learned

19:09

that the vote count was trending in

19:11

favor of the defendant's opponent. The

19:14

paper goes on to read then there are

19:16

several redacted lines and it

19:18

continues. The government will also

19:20

show that around the time of these messages

19:23

an election official at the TCF Center observed

19:25

that as Biden began to take the lead

19:27

a large number of untrained

19:29

individuals flooded the TCF Center and

19:32

began making illegitimate and aggressive challenges

19:34

to the vote count. Thereafter

19:37

Trump made repeated false claims regarding

19:39

election activities at the TCF Center

19:41

when in truth his agent was

19:43

seeking to cause a riot to

19:46

disrupt the count. Quote

19:48

this evidence is admissible to demonstrate that

19:50

the defendant his co-conspirators and agents had

19:52

knowledge that the defendant had lost the

19:55

election as well as their intent and

19:57

motive to obstruct and overturn the vote.

20:00

the legitimate results. Yeah,

20:03

and those redaction bars could be

20:06

from context I take them to be that

20:10

unindicted co-conspirator who doesn't have a number and we'll get

20:12

to that in a second encouraging

20:15

a riot or talking to somebody about starting

20:17

a riot because that's what's Jack

20:20

Smith says he's going to be able to prove here and

20:23

then also perhaps the connection that Trump knew

20:25

about it or somehow participated in it and

20:29

You know as I said this co-conspirator

20:31

doesn't have a number this newly named

20:33

unindicted co-conspirator He

20:36

he does he's not Referred to

20:38

as co-conspirator three or co-conspirator six. He

20:40

doesn't have a number that tells me he is not

20:43

One of the unindicted co-conspirators. We already know

20:46

about this is somebody new And

20:48

the reason I think that is because later in the filing

20:50

Jack Smith names co-conspirator one And

20:53

we know who that is. So it's like

20:55

kind of like how when

20:58

we were reading the indictment and we

21:00

were trying to figure out who the six unindicted co-conspirators

21:02

were and Mark Meadows was named

21:04

later in the indictment and that led us to

21:06

believe he's not one through six or he would

21:08

have been named Or he would

21:10

have been called a one unindicted co-conspirator and given

21:12

a number and so based

21:15

on past testimony and Evidence

21:17

from the January 6th committee on the attack

21:19

on the Capitol I think it's

21:21

Mike Roman because he was texting about

21:23

the TCF Center with campaign

21:25

lawyer the last name of hit and

21:29

To me I thought that

21:31

makes it clear to me that this is Mike

21:34

Roman Which

21:36

means we we had a little but we

21:38

still had a little bit of a not knowing

21:40

his pool on who number six was There

21:46

were only two possible people it could

21:48

be which was Boris Epstein and Mike

21:50

Roman so that means by Congratulations Boris

21:52

come on down you are an indicted

21:54

co-conspirator. You can take what's behind now

21:57

door number three or what's in the box?

22:00

That's right. Oh my gosh. Yeah.

22:03

So that's kind of what I think is going

22:05

on there. But that was a sort of a

22:07

thing that kind of flew under the radar that

22:09

this is a new, this is a seventh person.

22:11

Now, whether he's cooperating, which it

22:13

sounds like he might be if

22:16

Jack has all this evidence unless Jack just got

22:18

it from his phone and maybe he hasn't charged this guy

22:20

yet. But we know as of August

22:22

1st, 2023, the DC investigation continues. So

22:25

we don't know if he's going to be indicted in a mop-up

22:27

case or if he's cooperating. We really just

22:29

don't have any idea. Yeah. Referring

22:31

to him as an unindicted co-conspirator, I think

22:33

it's unlikely they would have done that if

22:35

he was a straight-up cooperator. So

22:38

he may, his status may still be kind

22:40

of in the wind, as we say. But

22:42

yeah. Well, because whenever he was like trying

22:46

to cut a deal with the Fulton County

22:48

and then said no, he turned down her deal

22:50

and there isn't a cooperation deal between Mike

22:52

Roman and Sonny Willis at this point. So

22:55

I think it's probably up in the air with the feds

22:57

too. Yeah. That's my guess.

22:59

And Andy, one more question. This happened on November 4th.

23:03

Why is this in the 404B notice? Because

23:08

that seems like it's during the

23:10

conspiracy or is it so on the edge

23:12

that maybe the court might think it's extrinsic

23:14

and so they explain it. Yeah.

23:16

So I think it is on

23:18

the edge and it's pretty close

23:21

to the edge. It might be

23:23

on the edge because they may

23:25

not have a super strong link between Mike

23:28

Roman, on the one hand, him texting

23:30

the dude at the voting center is

23:33

solid, but how do you tie that

23:35

back to Trump? Like they

23:38

may not have great evidence

23:40

indicating that Mike Roman did

23:42

that at Trump's direction or something like that. So

23:44

assuming that it's close to the line, I think

23:48

that this highlights what we talked about before that Smith

23:51

is including it here basically to cover his

23:53

bases. So he has that line earlier in

23:55

the motion where he says if the court were to find

23:58

that any part of the notice evidence is evidence. extrinsic,

24:01

meaning outside the scope of the charge

24:03

conduct, the evidence is also

24:05

admissible under federal rule of evidence 404B. So

24:09

he's kind of erring on the side of caution. He

24:11

may try to get all this, like,

24:13

presume Mike Roman stuff in as

24:17

just standard trial evidence, but if he

24:19

gets, if he incurs flack with that,

24:21

he's now put them on notice that

24:23

it's 404B qualified. Yeah,

24:27

or it might also be like, this

24:29

is such a big, huge piece of

24:31

evidence. Maybe it's like, hey,

24:35

Trump, if you, you

24:37

know, so, in case you want to file a

24:39

motion in limine to keep this out, I'm

24:41

letting you know about it. We plan on using it.

24:44

I'm kind of a way to smoke out the big pieces

24:47

of evidence he wants to put in so that Trump later

24:49

can't go, it wasn't flagged

24:51

in discovery. I didn't get it. I didn't

24:53

know about it. I would have

24:55

filed a motion in limine, but so now I'm

24:57

going to appeal and have it over, you know, whatever his

24:59

weird arguments would be. It just kind of be like, here it

25:01

is in black and white. We told you. We

25:04

told you well before motions in limine were

25:06

due. And I think that basic approach is

25:08

really interesting because we're going to talk about

25:10

this in a little bit in our comparison

25:12

of special counsels, but this is

25:14

Jack Smith's way, right? He does everything

25:16

ahead of time. He's not playing

25:19

hide the monkey with anything. He's putting this stuff

25:21

out there, basically saying, hey, if you want to

25:23

fight over this evidence, let's do it now. So

25:25

then we get to trial. Everything

25:27

is smooth. You're not going to see

25:29

any like revelations that trial.

25:31

Oh, we just found a new

25:33

witness. We didn't know about, I

25:35

mean, he's, he's going overboard to

25:38

be as scrupulous and upfront and transparent

25:40

as you can possibly be as a

25:42

prosecutor. And I think that's

25:44

absolutely the right way to do it here.

25:47

There's no room for like heroics and playing

25:49

games. He has got to, he's got to

25:51

toe the line on every detail. And

25:54

I think that's what you see here. Yeah.

25:56

I just hear Marissa Tomei in my

25:58

cousin Vinny. It's called this. close you,

26:00

you dickhead. He's not allowed any

26:02

surprises. I

26:05

love that movie so much. I watched that like a

26:07

year and a half ago and just loved it all

26:10

over again. I think it was in a hotel or

26:12

something. It was nothing else. I was like, wow, this

26:14

is masterful. It's wonderful. I'm so

26:16

glad she got the Academy Award for that. Okay.

26:19

On to category four, pre and

26:21

post conspiracy evidence, stuff that happened before

26:23

and after the conspiracy, that

26:25

the defendant and his co-conspirators suppressed proof that

26:28

their fraud claims were false, not

26:30

just ignored suppressed proof

26:32

their fraud claims were false and

26:34

retaliated against officials who undermined their criminal

26:36

plans. I'm thinking of firing Chris Krebs.

26:38

I'm thinking of, you know,

26:42

ignoring the not publishing the

26:44

two research firm reports he got that

26:46

said there were no,

26:48

there was no voter fraud, disallowing, not

26:51

telling Pat Cipollone

26:53

and Pat Philbin about some meetings he was having at

26:55

the White House with Rudy and Sidney, you know, like

26:57

that kind of stuff, right? He

27:00

said this indictment provides

27:02

evidence that the defendant repeatedly

27:04

sidelined advisors and officials who told him or

27:07

the public that truth about the election results

27:09

and who pushed back on his false claims. The

27:12

defendant and his co-conspirators and

27:14

agents aggression in stifling dissents

27:16

against election fraud claims before, during,

27:18

and after the charge conspiracies is

27:20

admissible to demonstrate the defendant and

27:22

his co-conspirators knowledge that their fraud

27:24

claims were false. So

27:27

that's important, right? Like just

27:31

silencing dissenting

27:33

voices saying there was no

27:35

fraud. Yeah, the jury then

27:37

can infer that he was

27:39

new, knew there was no fraud and

27:41

was, you know, that the claims were false. It

27:44

definitely goes to kind of a guilty knowledge. When

27:46

you're doing things to cover or something up, you

27:48

know that that thing, if it's discovered is bad.

27:52

So that's what's happening here. And I

27:54

do believe like this thing, basically, as

27:56

I read this paragraph, you

27:58

hear in your mind judge

28:01

the prosecution calls

28:03

Chris Krebs to the stand.

28:06

That's gonna have such a perfect

28:08

fit for what they're describing here.

28:11

Yeah and Johnny Mcintee's memos

28:13

to fire these people

28:15

who wouldn't go along with his plans

28:17

including Esper, the Secretary of Defense, Krebs,

28:21

you know, disinviting like I said the

28:23

Pats, Philbin and Cipollone

28:25

to any of these meetings. That and Hirschman,

28:29

that shows so because we were

28:31

always talking about like well he's only surrounding himself

28:33

with idiots who agree with his stupid theories.

28:35

That's actually evidence that you know

28:38

that what you're doing is BS and

28:40

that's why he wants to bring it in. All

28:42

right category five is pre and

28:44

post conspiracy evidence of the defendants

28:47

public attacks on individuals encouragement

28:49

of violence and knowledge of

28:51

the foreseeable consequences. The

28:54

defendant has established a pattern of

28:56

using public statements and social media

28:58

posts to subject his perceived adversaries

29:01

to threats and harassment and to that I

29:03

can only say oh yeah he do. You

29:07

have a little experience with that? Just a little.

29:09

I hate to make it all about me all the

29:11

time but you know it's about me. So anyway. File

29:13

an amicus brief. I can't confirm.

29:15

Andy McCabe can't confirm. It would

29:17

be a short brief. I'm like

29:20

yeah yep props to the special

29:22

counsel for real. Same. Okay. Same

29:24

thing. Goes on. So

29:27

this includes Trump's September 2020 pronouncement

29:30

to the Proud Boys to stand back

29:32

and stand by and his

29:34

attacks after the conspiracy against Ruby Freeman

29:36

and Shay Moss. The

29:39

government will introduce such evidence to

29:41

further establish the defendant and his

29:43

co-conspirators plan of silencing and intent

29:45

to silence those who spoke out

29:48

against the defendants false election fraud

29:50

claims. It also constitutes

29:52

after the fact corroboration of the

29:55

defendant's intent because even

29:57

after it was incontrovertibly clear that

30:00

public false claims targeting individuals

30:02

caused them harassment and threats,

30:04

the defendant persisted, meaning

30:07

that the jury may properly infer

30:09

that he intended the results." That's

30:12

cool to me. I didn't realize that

30:14

that was a thing. So if he

30:16

puts out a tweet and Judge

30:18

Engaron gets 237 single-space-type pages

30:20

of threats, and then he

30:23

does it again, that's his

30:25

intent to cause it. Yeah, you

30:27

have a much harder time saying I didn't intend to cause him

30:29

any threats or any problems. Because otherwise,

30:31

you stop, right? You stop doing it.

30:33

Yeah, and it's kind of an interesting

30:35

bank shot here. There's

30:38

like – you can see

30:40

referenced in these details. There's

30:42

multiple exceptions of 404b

30:45

kind of touched upon in each

30:47

of these recitations. So he's

30:49

not putting all of his eggs in one basket for

30:52

any of this evidence. He's kind of covering

30:54

it with a bunch of different –

30:56

it's indicative of

30:58

planning, but it also goes

31:01

to intelligence. Yeah, exactly. And

31:03

he doesn't even have to prove motive, but here he is. All

31:06

right, category six, and this one I think

31:08

is one of the most important ones because

31:10

it really puts the Proud Boys, the

31:13

Oath Keepers, and Donald

31:15

Trump as conspirators together. Post-conspiracy

31:19

evidence, the defendants' steadfast support

31:21

and endorsement of rioters, okay?

31:25

Now, Jack Smith will cite examples of

31:27

Trump's verbal and financial support, financial like

31:29

how he pays the January 6th choir

31:31

to sing the national anthem at his

31:33

rallies, his verbal support.

31:37

He's going to show that because of

31:39

that support and because he's made statements

31:41

saying they're really being treated terribly, that

31:45

shows that those

31:47

rioters did what he intended them to

31:49

do, right?

31:52

Because otherwise he'd be like, that's

31:54

terrible what happened that day. I didn't intend for

31:56

that to happen. He's like, they were great. They're wonderful. I

31:58

love you. You guys shouldn't have. done that. Any

32:02

normal person would be like, whoa, whoa, whoa,

32:04

hey, I didn't say attack the Capitol. But

32:07

he's, no, he embraces them and their

32:10

actions. It reminds me of like what that mob

32:12

case I think I was talking to you about where

32:14

the guy sent him out to put

32:17

a guy in a hospital and the guy jumped out and

32:19

shot him. And you know, the

32:21

mob was like, bro, come on, man, I didn't

32:23

tell you to shoot him.

32:26

Sometimes that shit gets out of hand. I

32:28

mean, and that got him off the hook

32:30

for murder, you

32:32

know, because he said that he actually

32:34

ended up either whacking

32:37

or punishing that guy, which shows he didn't intend

32:39

to kill the other guy. Anyway, that's

32:41

kind of a good, you know, what are you going to do? It's

32:44

very complicated evidence of the defendant's

32:46

post conspiracy embrace of particularly violent

32:49

and notorious rioters is admissible to

32:51

establish the defendant's motive and intent

32:53

on January 6th that he sent

32:55

supporters, including groups like the Proud

32:58

Boys, whom he knew were angry

33:01

and whom he now calls patriots

33:04

to the Capitol to achieve the criminal

33:06

objective of obstructing the congressional certification. And

33:08

this goes to the heart of

33:11

what he said in that opposition to strike the

33:13

language from the indictment. You did

33:15

this. You caused this riot.

33:17

Yep. And that's so big.

33:20

And finally, evidence of the defendant's

33:22

statements regarding possible pardons for the

33:24

January 6th defenders is admissible to

33:26

help the jury assess the credibility

33:28

and motives of trial witnesses, because

33:32

through such statements, the defendant

33:34

is publicly signaling that the law does not

33:36

apply to those who act at his urging,

33:39

regardless of the legality of their actions. And we

33:41

had a lot of that pardon dangling in the

33:43

Mueller report too. For sure. For sure.

33:46

You know, you, this is all going back to

33:48

that, especially that shout out

33:50

to the Proud Boys, people he

33:52

knew would be angry. It's

33:55

the Will Be Wild tweet. Right?

33:57

I mean, it's like, I don't know. how

34:00

he's gonna deal with, he's gonna try to keep this stuff

34:02

out for sure but. And

34:04

then listening to the rally the night

34:06

before. Right. The ellipse rally. Ooh,

34:08

they're angry, they seem mad, they're riled up. You

34:11

know, you could hear it through the window of the White House.

34:14

All right, we still

34:17

have a lot more to get to. I

34:20

woke up today, I was like kind of a slow

34:22

week and then bam, bam, bam, we get some breaking

34:24

news and we're gonna talk about that breaking news right after

34:26

this break. Stick around. So,

34:33

you started Ohio's 529 plan for

34:35

your kids' education? Yeah, I did.

34:37

Because it's tax-free? Maybe. And

34:39

your kids can use the savings at all kinds

34:42

of schools? Not just colleges? They can. And

34:44

you get an annual tax deduction? I can. Why

34:46

did you start? Because I love my kids and want to

34:48

help them any way I can. That

34:50

is a very good reason. But that

34:53

other stuff sounds really great too. Ohio's

34:55

529 plan, it's simple to learn, plan

34:57

and start at collegeadvantage.com. And

34:59

you still have time to get this year's Ohio tax deduction.

35:03

Time for a quick break to talk about

35:05

McDonald's. Know how we make our sausage McMuffin

35:07

with egg? It starts with a fresh cracked

35:09

egg cooked to perfection. Then we

35:12

add a savory grilled sausage patty,

35:14

American cheese and a freshly toasted

35:16

English muffin. Know what makes

35:18

our sausage McMuffin with egg even better? When

35:20

you add a caramel mocha or refreshing caramel

35:22

mocha iced coffee to it. So make your

35:25

morning better by starting with breakfast at McDonald's

35:27

at participating McDonald's. Have

35:30

you ever told a friend? Oh, I'm fine.

35:33

When you really felt just

35:35

so overwhelmed or sent a

35:37

text can't sleep. Are

35:40

you awake? When you couldn't find

35:42

the words to say, I'm scared

35:44

to be alone with my thoughts right now.

35:46

And this is your sign to reach out to the 988 lifeline

35:50

for 24 seven free confidential

35:52

support. You don't have to hide

35:54

how you feel text, call,

35:56

or chat anytime. Welcome

36:05

back. Okay, we have some breaking news

36:07

about the don't call it a gag

36:09

order appeal. As you

36:11

know, Judge Chutkin issued the order preventing

36:13

Trump from talking about witnesses, prosecutors, court

36:16

staff, and their families. But

36:18

it did not prevent him from going after

36:20

the judge, Joe Biden, the residents of D.C.

36:23

Why do you want to do that? I don't know. And

36:25

also the case in general. Trump

36:28

appealed and Judge Chutkin denied the appeal,

36:30

so Trump then appealed to the D.C.

36:32

Circuit Court of Appeals. There was

36:34

an expedited briefing schedule, and the

36:37

three-judge panel has now come back

36:39

with a decision upholding most of

36:41

the original order. The

36:43

only difference is that Jack Smith himself

36:45

is now not protected by the order,

36:47

so Trump is free to talk about

36:49

him. And he probably will a

36:52

lot. Like, that's the only guy he's allowed to go

36:54

after. It's being nonstop, Jack Bashing. He's

36:56

going to violate this thing immediately. You

36:59

think? Yeah, we can talk

37:01

about that in a minute. But anyways, so

37:04

from the ruling, it says specifically, we

37:06

affirm the order to the extent it

37:08

prohibits all parties and their counsel from

37:10

making or directing others

37:12

to make public statements about

37:14

known or reasonably foreseeable witnesses

37:17

concerning their potential participation in

37:19

the investigation or in this

37:21

criminal proceeding. The order is

37:23

also affirmed to the extent it prohibits

37:25

all parties and their counsel from making

37:27

or directing others to make public statements

37:29

about, one, counsel

37:31

in the case other than the special

37:33

counsel, two, members of

37:35

the court staff and the counsel staffs,

37:38

or three, family members of

37:40

any counsel or staff member, if

37:43

those statements are made with the

37:45

intent to materially interfere with or

37:47

to cause others to materially interfere

37:49

with, counsels or staffs work

37:51

in this criminal case or

37:54

with the knowledge that such interference is

37:56

highly likely to result. We

37:58

vacate the order to the extent it-

38:00

covers speech beyond those specified categories. See

38:03

28 U.S.C. 2106. The

38:06

administrative stay issued by this court on November 3,

38:08

2023 is hereby dissolved. Mr.

38:11

Trump is free to make statements criticizing

38:13

the current administration, the Department of Justice,

38:16

the special counsel, as well as statements

38:18

that this prosecution is politically motivated or

38:20

that he is innocent of the charges

38:22

against him. We do not

38:24

allow such an order lightly. Mr.

38:26

Trump is a former president and a current

38:28

candidate for the presidency, and there is a

38:31

strong public interest in what he has to

38:33

say. But Mr. Trump is

38:35

also an indicted criminal defendant, and he

38:37

must stand trial in a courtroom under

38:40

the same procedures that govern all other

38:42

criminal defendants. That is what

38:44

the rule of law means. Oh,

38:47

that's gonna be cited in so many things in

38:49

the future. Yeah, for real. That's that statement

38:51

right there. So,

38:54

you know, I think this is, I

38:57

totally figured this is where they'd come out. I thought they'd

38:59

narrow it a little bit, but keep it in place. I

39:03

think the way that they really go

39:05

deep on the requisite intent will

39:08

create a real hornet's nest for

39:12

Chutkin to deal with if she decides to try

39:14

to enforce this against him in some way. Or

39:17

if Jack Smith tries to file a motion to

39:19

enforce it. Fries to force

39:21

it, yeah, exactly. And the

39:23

court left to open the possibility for Jack

39:25

Smith to file

39:28

a motion for a limited

39:30

gag order for him going after

39:33

the jury pool. They say in

39:35

a footnote, since the district court

39:37

did not rely on the interest

39:39

in protecting jury impartiality and independence,

39:41

we do not consider whether that interest might

39:43

support different restrictions from those we

39:46

hold are justified

39:48

to protect witnesses, counsel, court staff, et

39:50

cetera. As a result, nothing in this

39:52

opinion speaks to the district court's authority

39:54

to consider additional measures to protect the

39:56

jury pool and the jury should such

39:58

protection prove necessary going forward. So that's

40:00

like if he goes off on the

40:02

– keeps trying to taint the jury pool, feel free

40:04

to file, we'll listen to it because we didn't consider

40:07

that in this particular order.

40:11

And then the other thing that happened is the court addressed Trump,

40:13

said, well, you know, you can – we

40:15

can just forget, you know, we don't

40:17

have to deal with the gag order thing if you just have the

40:19

trial after the election. And

40:22

– And I'll trade you one delayed

40:24

trial for a gag order. Yeah. And

40:27

the court here addressed that. They

40:29

rejected that premise saying delays

40:32

entail serious costs and

40:34

frustrate the public's interest

40:37

in the swift resolution of

40:39

criminal charges. And that's big

40:42

because that's going to come

40:44

in handy in this whole

40:46

immunity interlocutory appeal fight that

40:49

the court that's – you know, we're going to

40:51

talk about this in a minute. He just

40:53

appealed to the – to the DC Circuit Court of Appeals for

40:56

his immunity, you know, that beautiful order

40:59

that Judge Chukken wrote last week saying you aren't a king.

41:03

You know, we're concerned about

41:06

the speed with which that gets resolved

41:08

because it's an interlocutory appeal. It's constitutional issues.

41:10

It has to be decided before the

41:12

trial starts. And here

41:14

is the same court that's going to make that decision

41:16

saying we – there are

41:18

huge costs to delaying

41:20

this trial. Yeah. So acknowledging

41:22

it on the record in this case

41:25

already is helpful. It's

41:27

a good thing that prosecutors I'm sure will

41:30

cite to. But it also lays down a

41:32

little bit of a marker for the DC

41:34

court. Like it'd be strange for another panel

41:36

to come back and just kind of ignore

41:38

that. Not that they're bound

41:40

to it, but it would be awkward. So

41:43

yeah. Awkward. Yeah, especially if he goes on

41:45

bonk to the full panel, if he like

41:47

pulls great and gets three Trump judges or

41:49

something, you know. Yeah. I

41:51

don't know who that panel is yet. Let's talk

41:54

about that. Because last week, like I said, Judge

41:56

Chuck can deny Trump's motion to dismiss the entire

41:58

case based on absolute immunity. We

42:00

called it the monarchy motion in

42:03

her outstanding, amazing, well-written,

42:05

I mean, this is going to be historical, this

42:07

is going to be studied forever because it's so

42:09

good. Trump has filed his

42:12

notice of appeal to the DC Circuit Court of Appeals

42:14

and then filed a motion for a stay with Judge

42:16

Chutkin saying, you're no longer in charge of any of

42:18

this, but can you give me a stay? Which

42:22

was weird. He's like, I filed my notice. You're

42:24

not the boss of me, but I'd like to take a day off. I'm

42:27

like, all right. Yeah,

42:30

so he filed notice and then he comes

42:32

back to Chutkin and said, I filed

42:34

notice with the DC Circuit Court of Appeals, so

42:36

you're not important anymore, but I want to stay.

42:41

And he didn't just file to stay

42:43

the trial pending

42:45

the appeal because remember, again,

42:47

this is a constitutional issue, it would have to

42:50

be decided before the trial starts, but he has

42:52

to stay all proceedings in this matter, which

42:54

at this point would include her rulings

42:56

on his other motions to dismiss

42:58

statutory and vindictive and selective prosecution,

43:02

the SEPA proceedings because

43:05

there are a few classified documents

43:07

in this case that

43:09

would be on hold. The jury selections

43:11

begins February 9th. Those notices went out

43:13

to the DC jury pool. That would

43:15

stop. All

43:17

of everything, everything would stop. And he

43:20

added a little dictator language to this

43:22

motion to stay everything. Quote,

43:24

President Trump will proceed based on the

43:27

understanding and the authority set

43:29

forth herein absent further

43:31

order of the court. We will assume

43:33

that this stay is included. We're going to act like

43:36

that there's a stay. So I

43:38

would assume I'm right unless I hear from you

43:40

that I'm wrong. Even though you

43:43

don't have any more say anymore, which I just

43:45

said, but you do. It's

43:47

just the most ridiculous thing.

43:50

And Trump asked Chutkin to rule on

43:52

the stay within seven days. So

43:54

you don't have any, you have no power here, but please

43:56

tell me in seven days. And

43:58

Judge Chutkin has asked. replied with

44:00

a minute or asking for a very

44:03

quick briefing schedule. DOJ has till today,

44:05

Sunday at 5 p.m., to file their

44:07

opposition to the stay, and Trump

44:09

has until Tuesday at 5 to respond, and

44:11

I'm assuming she'll make a decision pretty quickly

44:13

after that. Now, keep in mind,

44:16

nothing is stayed in this trial at the moment. And

44:19

today, the D.C. Circuit Court of

44:21

Appeals, which is the court above Judge Chetkin,

44:24

acknowledged the receipt of Trump's notice

44:26

to appeal. Now, a

44:28

panel has not been assigned at the time

44:30

of this recording, and a briefing

44:33

schedule has not yet been ordered. But

44:35

like I said, in that decision on the limited

44:37

gag order, they, this same

44:40

court was like, this needs to go fast. We need

44:42

to, in the interest of just the public,

44:44

has an interest in a speedy trial here. It

44:47

seems like this court wants this

44:49

trial to go before the election, which

44:52

is good. But the panel hasn't been assigned.

44:54

We'll let you know when it is. But they

44:56

did say that the docketing statement form,

44:58

an entry of appearance form, and a

45:01

transcript status report are due December 26.

45:04

That's kind of a boilerplate time and things

45:06

that are due. And once

45:08

the panel is assigned, I assume Jack Smith will

45:10

ask for an expedited briefing schedule, and

45:13

the panel will then schedule it. So it could

45:15

be before December 26, might be in January. We

45:17

don't know when they're going to assign it, but

45:19

it seems, it also depends on the judges that

45:21

are assigned to the panel. But this court seems

45:24

to understand the urgency. Yeah,

45:26

I think that's clear. And

45:29

of course, as you mentioned, the

45:31

significance of what he's asked for, it

45:33

would essentially stop the clock on the

45:35

trial from now until the absolute resolution

45:38

of this interlocutory appeal on the constitutional

45:40

issue. And that could take God

45:42

knows how long, right? I think, I think as you

45:44

just laid it out, the district court is, or I'm

45:46

sorry, the DC Court

45:49

of Appeals is likely to get through it as quickly

45:51

as they can, couple of weeks here and there. But

45:54

then if he loses and he goes to the Supremes,

45:56

who knows what they choose to do. That could take

45:58

forever. They can keep

46:00

getting work done while this constitutional

46:02

issue is sorting itself out through

46:05

the appeals process. They can keep

46:07

having motions

46:09

on evidence, lemonade motions,

46:12

SIPA stuff, and I

46:14

don't see really any

46:17

chance that Chudkin's going to go along

46:19

with his request for stay. He'll

46:22

probably then turn around and appeal the decision on

46:24

the stay. Well, yeah. In the DC

46:26

circuit, it might give them a temporary administrative stay

46:28

while they consider a more robust

46:30

stay, but with what

46:32

I think will be a very quick

46:35

briefing schedule on the appeal, I

46:37

think it might be moot anyway because

46:40

there's really nothing happening. The only thing we're kind

46:42

of waiting for right now in

46:44

the next couple weeks is those decisions on

46:48

his motions to dismiss on statutory and

46:50

selective and vindictive prosecution grounds except

46:52

maybe the SIPA hearings, which I

46:55

think will also go very quickly. I don't think

46:57

we're looking at any kind of delay, significant

46:59

delay, if these courts

47:03

adjudicate this appeal post-haste.

47:05

Yeah. But we'll see. We'll

47:07

see. All right. So

47:09

in the exciting news bucket for the

47:12

week, the jury notices have gone out.

47:14

Release the hounds. Right? Okay.

47:18

In an exclusive from NBC, the

47:21

US District Court for the District of Columbia

47:23

has sent prospective jurors

47:25

a, quote, pre-screening form asking

47:27

about their availability to appear

47:29

in person on February

47:31

9th to fill out a written questionnaire

47:34

for use in the jury selection process

47:36

for a March 4 trial. And

47:39

they don't tell you which one, but we

47:42

know what it is. Yes. We

47:44

know which one it is. We're going

47:46

to have to, I mean, I can't even imagine the

47:48

size of the pool. It's going to be huge, way

47:51

bigger than a normal jury pool for a

47:53

trial because I'm sure they're anticipating. It's going

47:56

to be a long trial with high profile.

47:58

That is always harder to see to judge.

48:00

And of course, you

48:02

know, this is what it is. So the service

48:04

will continue. And these notices went out before

48:06

any kind of a stay has been awarded,

48:09

even one is awarded, even if it's in a temporary

48:12

administrative one. So they went out. They're out,

48:14

which is good. Yeah. This happens.

48:16

And, you know, again, it's another

48:18

sign. That didn't get delayed. Right. Chutkin's office is

48:21

moving this thing forward in every way they can

48:23

every day. So

48:26

a resident in Washington, D.C. who received one

48:28

of the forms in the mail Monday shared

48:30

an image of it with NBC News. And

48:33

of course, those dates line up with the

48:35

February 9th and March 4th dates assigned by

48:37

Judge Chutkin. So here we go. Let's –

48:40

that's a rare

48:42

positive, fusive news for our listeners.

48:46

Off to the races. All right. Time to head down

48:48

to warmer climes and the SIPA battle that's heating

48:50

up. On the other criminal case

48:52

against Donald Trump, the retention of national defense

48:54

information and obstruction of justice case in Florida,

48:56

also known as the documents case or the

48:59

Mar-a-Lago case. And we've talked a

49:01

bit on past episodes with our SIPA

49:03

expert, Brian Greer, about SIPA Section 4.

49:06

And 99.9 – 99

49:08

times, like even maybe even more than that, like almost

49:11

all the time, it's usually an

49:13

ex parte exercise, meaning the DOJ

49:15

gets together with the judge behind closed doors and

49:17

they work out how they're going to summarize or

49:19

redact classified info before they hand it over in

49:22

discovery. But

49:25

– well, no, not even before, because most

49:27

of this has gone over in discovery, but I think how it's

49:29

going to be presented at trial. That's right. Yeah. And

49:31

then it's given to the defendants to say, this

49:34

is how we're going to be presenting at a

49:36

trial. And then they can argue. And

49:40

the ex parte nature is important because it

49:42

gives each side – it gives the prosecutors

49:44

anyway the privacy with the judge to talk

49:46

about things, to explain the

49:48

relevance or what might be damaged if

49:51

a particular line of a particular document

49:53

isn't redacted, what sort of damage that

49:55

could result to national security. That's all

49:57

stuff that's not a – even

50:00

relevant to the defendant's trial. It's

50:03

not discoverable and so there's no reason

50:05

the government should have to share that

50:08

with defense attorneys and the defendant and

50:10

then argue about it. It's just a

50:12

way of protecting secrets, important

50:14

national security stuff. And

50:16

that bit is usually non-adversarial, right?

50:19

Because once it's presented to the

50:21

defense, the defense can file objections

50:24

to how that's presented. They get a chance

50:26

to do that. It's not like the

50:29

judge and the government get together and say this is how it's

50:31

going to be done and then they give it to Trump

50:33

and say this is it, this is all, this is how it's done. He

50:36

gets a chance to object. But

50:39

now Trump has filed a motion

50:42

on December 6 to access the SIPA

50:44

Section 4 filings. Quote, a motion

50:46

pursuant to SIPA Section 4 is a critical juncture where

50:48

the government asked the court to endorse the withholding

50:50

of discoverable material by determining inter-ALIA

50:54

whether the material is relevant or helpful to

50:56

the defense. In effect, prosecutors filing a

50:58

motion pursuant to this provision are

51:00

seeking permission to withhold Brady material.

51:03

That is never true. That's

51:05

not what's happening but okay, fine.

51:08

It's like his I need the missing January

51:10

6 Brady material immediately.

51:13

There's none, bro. He just keeps

51:15

going after this Brady, Janks, Giglio

51:18

stuff. He's just thrown out the Brady

51:20

label because he's trying to characterize what

51:22

is actually a very standard practice, lawful

51:24

practice in national security cases. He's trying

51:26

to make it look like something bad.

51:28

Oh, prosecutors are violating my rights again.

51:31

They're withholding exculpatory information. Exactly.

51:34

See the show I'm innocent. They won't give it to me. He

51:37

goes on to say these motions require

51:39

the court to stand in a defendant's

51:41

shoes, predict defenses. The defendant has not

51:43

yet presented as an entitled to develop

51:45

and modify until the case is submitted

51:47

to the jury for deliberations and protect

51:49

important defense rights to exculpatory

51:52

information and impeachment material. Now,

51:54

Trump gives only three examples of times

51:56

when the courts have denied a CIPA Section 4

51:59

ex parte. that

52:01

it be ex parte and none of them really

52:04

are relevant into this case. He's

52:06

also asking that Walt Nauta gets access

52:09

to all the classified material. What

52:12

and then this boggles my mind.

52:18

He lists other proceedings that aren't

52:20

ex parte. He's like hey there's

52:22

FOIA cases and that

52:24

aren't ex parte. There's habeas

52:26

petitions, some size of proceedings

52:28

aren't ex parte. Like what?

52:31

Like hey Andy, my last lab results

52:33

at the VA weren't ex parte so

52:35

SIPA section 4 filing shouldn't be either.

52:39

It's just weird. He then

52:41

argues local rules against sealing

52:43

which also have nothing to

52:45

do with SIPA stuff. That's

52:47

irrelevant to SIPA proceedings. It

52:50

doesn't apply like most courts

52:52

are like I'm

52:54

thinking of the Judge Merrill Howell stuff and the

52:56

Judge Boseberg stuff up in DC. The courts, they're

52:59

loathe to keep things

53:01

sealed and as soon as they can

53:03

they like to unseal stuff. He's saying hey you

53:05

like to unseal stuff all the time courts. How

53:08

about these SIPA section 4 classified documents to my

53:10

Diet Coke valet. It's just not

53:12

relevant. Kind of ironic

53:14

coming from the guy who as president was

53:16

responsible for keeping the government secrets and who

53:19

notably got up and railed about going

53:22

after leakers and people who

53:24

misused classified and how

53:27

bad Hillary Clinton was for having classified

53:29

on her email server. Yeah

53:31

that's the same guy who's now arguing open

53:33

the doors Judge, let the sunlight on the

53:35

SIPA stuff. Well I'm not president anymore. I

53:37

don't care what gets out. For

53:39

the foregoing reasons, President Trump respectfully submits

53:41

that the court should order the special

53:44

counsel's office to provide his cleared counsel.

53:46

That means you know counsel that has the right

53:50

clearances. With attorneys

53:52

eyes only access to all SIPA

53:54

section 4 submissions and to file

53:56

redacted versions of those submissions on

53:58

the public docket. so that the

54:00

public and the press can access the

54:02

unclassified portions of the documents. Always

54:05

fighting for the rights of the press. And

54:08

this, yes. This

54:11

is kind of an inflection point in this case, isn't

54:13

it? Because as I said earlier in the show up

54:15

till now, it's been nickel and dime delay, right? Like

54:18

she's kind of showing her deference to Donald

54:20

Trump by waiting two and a half months

54:22

to issue a protective order over evidence.

54:24

And, you know, these delays, delay,

54:26

delay, the whole thing where she's pushing all

54:28

the SEPA back and then she wants to meet again on

54:30

March 1st to decide about whether a

54:33

trial date needs to be pushed back. It's

54:35

that kind of stuff. But this is

54:37

appealable stuff, I think, right? If

54:40

she grants this, I think that Jack Smith

54:42

can then have an immediate expedited,

54:44

triggered appeal under SEPA rules to go

54:46

to the 11th Circuit and

54:48

say, guys, remember me? He's

54:51

at it again. Yeah. Absolutely.

54:53

He has to do that. Not

54:55

just in a desperate effort to

54:57

keep this rambling wreck on

55:00

schedule, but also to protect, to

55:02

avoid starting to create some sort

55:04

of damaging precedent that could affect

55:07

other national security cases. DOJ

55:09

is not going to let this

55:11

case take a chink out of SEPA

55:14

for that. No. And the

55:16

11th Circuit is not going to let classified documents

55:18

go to people who aren't going to see them.

55:21

Just that, when they wouldn't allow them

55:23

to go to the special master in

55:25

the whole special master case that we

55:27

had that was over. Judge Cannon's ruling

55:30

was overturned by the 11th Circuit. I'm

55:32

hoping Judge Cannon knows if she rules

55:34

improperly in this case, the 11th Circuit

55:36

will overrule her again. Yes.

55:39

Yeah, I agree. All right. We

55:41

just have a little bit left to get to. A

55:44

new special counsel, an old special

55:46

counsel, actually. Older, far older. Not

55:49

in age on the earth, but as far as he's been

55:51

a special counsel. We have more news

55:53

about that and the Hunter Biden indictment that just came

55:55

down. And then, of course, we'll take listener questions, but

55:57

we're going to take a quick break. We'll

56:00

be right back. Yeah, I did. Because

56:02

it's tax-free? Maybe. And your kids

56:04

can use the savings at all kinds

56:06

of schools, not just colleges? They can. And you get an annual

56:08

tax deduction? I can. Why did you

56:10

start? Because I love my kids and

56:12

want to help them any way I can. That is a very

56:14

good reason. But that other stuff sounds really great too. Ohio's 529 plan.

56:16

It's simple to learn. It's a very simple reason. I'm going to give

56:18

you a chance to learn. I'm going to give you a chance to

56:20

learn. I'm going to give you a chance to learn. I'm going to

56:22

give you a chance to learn. I'm going to give you a chance

56:25

to learn. It's a very good reason. But that other stuff sounds really

56:27

great too. Ohio's 529 plan. It's

56:29

simple to learn, plan, and start at

56:31

collegeadvantage.com. And you still have time to

56:33

get this year's Ohio tax deduction. Time

56:37

for a quick break to talk about McDonald's.

56:39

Know how we make our sausage McMuffin with

56:41

egg? It starts with a fresh cracked egg

56:43

cooked to perfection. Then we add

56:45

a savory grilled sausage patty, American cheese,

56:47

and a freshly toasted English muffin. Know

56:50

what makes our sausage McMuffin with egg

56:52

even better? Then you add a caramel

56:54

mocha or refreshing caramel mocha iced coffee

56:56

to it. So make your morning better

56:58

by starting with breakfast at McDonald's. Add

57:00

participating McDonald's. Have

57:03

you ever told a friend? Oh, I'm fine.

57:06

When you really felt just

57:08

so overwhelmed or sent a

57:10

text, can't sleep. Are

57:13

you awake? When you couldn't find

57:15

the words to say, I'm scared to

57:17

be alone with my thoughts right now. This

57:20

is your sign to reach out to the 988 lifeline

57:23

for 24 seven free confidential

57:25

support. You don't have to hide

57:28

how you feel. Text, call,

57:30

or chat anytime. Okay,

57:39

welcome back. So let's jump

57:41

for a minute out of the pure Jack Smith

57:43

lane to cover a development that gives us what

57:45

I think is a good contrast between special councils.

57:49

So I'm talking, uh, AG of course,

57:51

about David Weiss, who is the special

57:53

council investigating Hunter Biden and

57:56

who revealed yesterday that Hunter will be charged

57:58

with nine counts of tax charges. So

58:00

three felonies and six misdemeanors

58:03

in a new indictment in California. And

58:06

I think this raises a bunch of really good

58:08

questions. But also when you just

58:11

look at how we got here to this place

58:13

in the case, I think you

58:15

see some pretty stark contrast

58:17

to the way that we've seen Jack

58:19

Smith approach his work. So

58:22

let's just review. The

58:24

typical route is investigate,

58:26

indict, cooperate. That's

58:28

how it usually works. Investigators do their work.

58:30

Prosecutors get an indictment when they think they're

58:33

ready to. And only after

58:35

the indictment does the defendant make an effort

58:38

to come in and cooperate and plea bargain. If

58:41

the defendant pleads guilty, obviously the prosecutors

58:43

usually drop a few charges, and then

58:45

they agree that the investigation is over,

58:48

meaning we say in

58:50

the biz we call it coverage. The defendant

58:53

gets coverage. He is not going to be

58:55

charged or face any more charges for that

58:57

conduct that he's already pled guilty to. So

58:59

things that happened around the same time were

59:02

generally considered part of the same activity.

59:05

And the first advantage of doing that is

59:09

that very clearly establishes on

59:11

the public record what the

59:14

universe of possible offenses is. The

59:16

indictment shows us what the prosecutors think they

59:18

can prove. At the end of their investigation,

59:21

here's what we can prove. Here's what we

59:23

think we can convict this guy on. The

59:26

second advantage is the

59:28

world knows the entirety of what the prosecutors

59:30

had and how much they were

59:33

willing to give away. So after

59:35

the plea comes out, it's

59:37

publicly known, oh, they started with

59:39

whatever, nine charges. And

59:42

now, yeah. And the

59:44

defendant agreed to plead guilty. They dropped six, and now

59:46

he pleads to three, whatever. So

59:49

in this case, very

59:51

different path. In this case, you had a

59:53

five-year investigation within

59:56

which the target, as we've heard in the

59:58

reporting, cooperated to some degree. He was

1:00:00

interviewed, I believe, and he also provided

1:00:02

some documents. Then the

1:00:04

two sides agree on a plea agreement

1:00:07

before an indictment. That

1:00:10

is weird. It's just that piece

1:00:12

alone, a plea agreement without

1:00:15

a preceding underlying indictment. In

1:00:18

my mind, that's what creates and

1:00:20

leaves open the possibility for people

1:00:23

to question and really

1:00:25

project their own paranoia,

1:00:28

frustration, whatever on

1:00:31

the investigation. It

1:00:33

looks like no one did it in

1:00:35

this case. The

1:00:37

judge was like, all right, so

1:00:39

we got coverage then?

1:00:42

No more charges? He reveals the

1:00:44

next piece, which is they do

1:00:46

this silly thing about entering or coming

1:00:49

up with a plea agreement before anyone knows

1:00:51

what the investigation actually revealed, which leaves open

1:00:53

the door for people to think like, oh,

1:00:55

he's getting a sweetheart deal or whatever. But

1:01:00

fearing the political fallout,

1:01:03

prosecutors include in the indictment

1:01:06

wording to the effect of you get

1:01:08

no coverage. We're going

1:01:10

to continue investigating. In the indictment

1:01:12

or in the plea deal? In the plea deal. Right.

1:01:15

That's the thing that blows up the plea. So the judge

1:01:18

is like, hold on a second. I've

1:01:20

never seen this. Do

1:01:22

you know, Mr. Defendant, Biden,

1:01:25

you could get charged again. Yeah.

1:01:27

Yeah. At that point,

1:01:29

his attorneys were like, hold on a

1:01:31

second. We didn't realize that. They

1:01:34

have the meeting, they stopped the hearing, they

1:01:36

go have this meeting, they can't come to

1:01:38

an agreement. She gives them a couple of

1:01:40

weeks. And of course, the

1:01:42

end result is they can't come to an agreement

1:01:44

because now, by virtue of how

1:01:46

David Weiss has structured this thing, it

1:01:48

leaves both sides pissed off. And her

1:01:51

body's like, no, why would I plead

1:01:53

knowing that I could probably get charged

1:01:55

again for the same sort of stuff

1:01:57

or similar related stuff? else

1:02:00

is like, oh, this is a terrible thing. So

1:02:02

I just think

1:02:04

it's an interesting case study of...

1:02:07

It's sloppy. It's kind of sloppy. It seems

1:02:10

to be directly related to the special

1:02:13

counsel likely trying to insulate himself

1:02:15

or protect himself from political pressure,

1:02:17

which he's receiving a lot of,

1:02:20

and so doing some really unconventional things. On

1:02:23

the other hand, look at Jack

1:02:25

Smith, we talked about earlier. This guy

1:02:27

is like, got the book out and

1:02:29

is following every rule, aggressively

1:02:32

pushing the deadlines,

1:02:35

asking for speedier resolutions to things,

1:02:37

but he's been very transparent. They've

1:02:40

turned over a lot of discovery.

1:02:42

He's trying to avoid... He's

1:02:45

trying to deny Trump the ability to plant any

1:02:47

kind of landmines in the case that could slow

1:02:49

it down later. So all special

1:02:52

counsels not created equally, apparently. No, and

1:02:54

all discovery that's gone to Trump is

1:02:56

like filed and numbered, and we gave

1:02:58

you this in an annotated January 6th

1:03:01

transcript, and Trump's like, look

1:03:03

at all this stuff. And he's like, well, a lot

1:03:06

of it's repeats because you asked us to include

1:03:08

that stuff. And

1:03:10

so that continues to go on. And another thing

1:03:12

too is that I personally think

1:03:15

that Abilul

1:03:20

and Hunter Biden have a pretty good

1:03:22

case for vindictive and selective prosecution. First

1:03:26

of all, they had all this back

1:03:28

in the plea deal, and now it's

1:03:30

felonies? That's weird. And

1:03:33

then, I mean, you want to

1:03:35

talk about Trump projecting.

1:03:38

Every accusation

1:03:40

is an admission when Trump

1:03:42

says, this Jack Smith thing is election interference.

1:03:44

Jack Smith's been there for a little over

1:03:46

a year. David Weiss has

1:03:49

been there for five years, and now

1:03:51

we're getting an indictment? That's election interference.

1:03:53

Okay. Yeah, and I think Abilul's comments

1:03:55

yesterday were really revealing. He said, like,

1:03:58

here we are. getting

1:04:00

charged whatever, nine counts on

1:04:04

the same evidence that a month ago was

1:04:06

a plea deal for two misdemeanors.

1:04:10

Let's remember that all of

1:04:12

this is based on tax

1:04:14

finagling or whatever, tax malfeasance

1:04:16

let's say that happened before

1:04:18

2018 and which

1:04:20

he allegedly paid the

1:04:22

government for in 2018. So if

1:04:26

he takes them to the hoop on this

1:04:28

nine count case, I

1:04:31

think there's a fair chance that he beats it

1:04:33

to be perfectly honest. I think so too

1:04:35

if it makes it to trial especially

1:04:38

since all the public hearings and the IRS

1:04:40

whistle blowers quote unquote I mean that's really

1:04:42

damaging for

1:04:45

the prosecution but you know I

1:04:47

mean it's just we

1:04:49

have so many there's and

1:04:51

we do have a filing from

1:04:53

Hunter Biden to get information

1:04:55

for rule 17b subpoenas that

1:04:58

look like it could reveal

1:05:01

some maybe vindictive and selective

1:05:03

prosecution. But then you know

1:05:05

then of course David Weiss responded

1:05:07

like he was filing a motion

1:05:10

for vindictive and selective prosecution and gave

1:05:12

him his whole defense of that argument and

1:05:14

so now when he files the motion he'll

1:05:16

know exactly what David Weiss is going to

1:05:18

object to. I thought that was pretty smart

1:05:21

on behalf of Abby Lowell but

1:05:24

you know if they do vindictive and selective prosecutors it's

1:05:26

going to be hard to prove though because Merrick Garland

1:05:28

is the Attorney General even though David Weiss was appointed

1:05:30

by Barr and Trump and all that five years

1:05:32

ago Merrick Garland is the Attorney General right now

1:05:35

and he hasn't wanted to interfere in that he hasn't wanted

1:05:37

to interfere in this and that could make it look

1:05:39

like it's not vindictive or selective prosecution because Merrick

1:05:42

Garland is allowing it to go forward. But

1:05:45

also this indictment is a speaking indictment.

1:05:47

There's a bunch of stuff in here

1:05:49

it reads like the Durham indictment right

1:05:52

like all this Russia blah blah blah blah blah

1:05:54

and then with the Durham indictment and then in

1:05:56

this indictment it's just he didn't pay

1:05:58

taxes for a few he eventually ended

1:06:00

paying him, but he goes off on China

1:06:03

and Barisma and all this kind of almost-

1:06:06

Right. He bought exotic cars

1:06:08

and clothes and hookers and

1:06:10

pretty much anything except paid

1:06:12

his taxes. There's like these

1:06:14

smarmy kind of references in there.

1:06:17

And I get the exotic lifestyle

1:06:19

thing because that showed up in

1:06:21

Manafort's indictment as well. But

1:06:24

all the China and Barisma stuff, which is

1:06:26

just conspiracy theories, right? Yeah. And

1:06:28

I don't recall what the GOP Congress

1:06:31

is trying to indict Biden on,

1:06:33

which they have absolutely zero evidence of.

1:06:35

So this reads to me like a

1:06:37

Durham conspiracy theory-laden indictment. Yeah. But

1:06:40

yeah, I'm with you in the comparison

1:06:42

with Jack Smith. I mean, on a scale

1:06:44

like the special counsel spectrum, on a scale

1:06:46

from Durham to Jack Smith, I

1:06:49

put David Weiss down on the Durham end. I

1:06:51

really do. Yeah. Smith

1:06:53

is a 10 and Durham's a zero. This

1:06:56

is how I would rate both of

1:06:58

them. I mean,

1:07:00

I can't give Weiss anything better than

1:07:02

a five at this point. Well, I'd

1:07:04

give Mueller like a seven and a half,

1:07:06

and then I would give her like a

1:07:08

four, and I would give Weiss like a

1:07:10

two. I mean, that's not bad.

1:07:13

He hasn't done anything to indicate

1:07:15

like pre-decision or corruption or anything

1:07:18

like that. I think this is

1:07:20

more bumbling and like poor decisions

1:07:22

strategically. I

1:07:26

just think he ran for

1:07:28

the exit door with that

1:07:31

premature plea agreement, and that caused all kinds

1:07:33

of problems. Now he finds himself in this

1:07:35

kettle of fish, which is like almost undoable,

1:07:39

and he's got Abby Lowell staring at him, which

1:07:41

is how I made his life easier. That guy's

1:07:43

a wolf. And they want him

1:07:45

to testify to Congress, Hunter Biden. And if I'm

1:07:47

Hunter Biden, I'm like, I don't know if David

1:07:50

Weiss is done or not yet, so I got to plead the

1:07:52

fifth on everything. I'm

1:07:55

under open criminal investigation right now. If it's now,

1:07:57

it looks like now that's going to take place

1:07:59

in probably. private because of course Congress

1:08:01

doesn't want him testifying on TV, he's going to make

1:08:04

them look ridiculous. So if it's in private, I think he

1:08:06

just goes in there and says, I take a fifth to

1:08:09

everything and just like, you know, screw

1:08:11

you. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah.

1:08:14

Because I have to. Yeah.

1:08:17

Yeah. All right. Time for some

1:08:19

listener questions. What do we got? Yeah. Listener

1:08:22

questions. You're going to hit one topic this week that was kind of the focus

1:08:24

of a lot of people who wrote in. And

1:08:26

that topic is like kind

1:08:29

of what are the consequences

1:08:33

and effects of what people think

1:08:35

of as frivolous motions and like

1:08:37

nonsensical filings to the court, which

1:08:40

obviously a lot of our listeners are feeling

1:08:43

that way about some of Trump's motions and

1:08:45

stuff. So from Lynn, we

1:08:47

get, do Trump's lawyers come up with this stuff

1:08:49

or is it just, or is

1:08:51

Trump actually writing or directing these

1:08:53

strategies? Bob says, what

1:08:56

does it cost to file an appeal? How much

1:08:58

time and money is Trump wasting on lawyer fees,

1:09:01

court resources? And

1:09:03

then someone who's, I don't know if this is

1:09:05

a name or a

1:09:08

nickname, Pospori, P-O-S-P-O-E-R-R-I

1:09:10

says why is the

1:09:12

taxpayer burden by the

1:09:14

costs associated with frivolous

1:09:16

motions? So we

1:09:20

are because it's kind of

1:09:22

an essential piece of maintaining an equal

1:09:26

and fair justice system for everyone and

1:09:28

due process for everyone. And not everyone,

1:09:30

most, most, almost

1:09:34

litigants don't have the same access to

1:09:36

resources that Trump does. And

1:09:38

so the courts err very much on the side

1:09:40

of letting people have their

1:09:42

chance to say whatever it is they want to

1:09:45

say and file whatever motions they want to file.

1:09:48

There's really only two ways

1:09:50

that courts respond to this stuff.

1:09:52

One is of course sanctions. They

1:09:54

can impose a sanction on the

1:09:56

attorney or the litigant and

1:09:58

that's a monetary. fee, and

1:10:01

they're pretty reluctant to ever

1:10:03

do that unless it's like

1:10:05

obviously totally over the top

1:10:08

baseless claims, usually around the

1:10:10

initiation of the suit, not so much a

1:10:13

motion filing, or they

1:10:15

can actually dismiss a suit that they think

1:10:17

is frivolous. I actually had

1:10:19

one that a person filed against

1:10:22

me and some other people based

1:10:24

on my prior position and the

1:10:27

court dismissed it as frivolous. Of course, she's appealing

1:10:29

now, so it's still going on, but whatever. So

1:10:32

that's kind of the only arrows

1:10:35

they have in their quiver about

1:10:37

what to do about it. How

1:10:39

much does it cost? Well, it doesn't cost

1:10:41

them very much at all. There are some

1:10:44

minimal costs associated with filing fees, and certainly

1:10:46

Trump can handle those. It

1:10:48

depends on what your lawyer charges per hour. Yeah.

1:10:51

A good federal court's

1:10:54

appeal for a regular mid-level

1:10:56

lawyer can cost between $10,000 and

1:10:58

$20,000, all told. But

1:11:02

if your lawyer gets $15,000, $85,000 an hour, this expert witness

1:11:04

in the New York Attorney

1:11:07

General trial cost him $850,000. That's

1:11:11

why he was in court, I'm pretty sure, because he wanted to see how his

1:11:13

$850,000 investment

1:11:16

paid off. Totally. Yeah. Big

1:11:19

name partner at a big firm in Washington, D.C.

1:11:21

is getting north of $1,500 an hour, so it

1:11:24

doesn't take long to end up

1:11:26

with a huge bill. It's

1:11:29

discovery that costs an

1:11:31

arm and a leg, I've noticed. That

1:11:34

can run into the millions in these huge cases with

1:11:37

high-powered attorneys. Sure. And

1:11:39

even with- Then you have to sue

1:11:41

Rudy Giuliani because he didn't pay you. Exactly.

1:11:44

Even with the high-powered attorney costing you a lot,

1:11:46

behind every high-powered attorney is a

1:11:49

phalanx of associates and

1:11:51

paralegals and the technical guy who figures

1:11:53

out how to download all your emails

1:11:55

and put it up into some system

1:11:58

that's searchable by the attorneys. And

1:12:00

out of preservation people, it's crazy.

1:12:03

Trust, what are they called? I

1:12:06

don't know. There was some like $350,000 charge that

1:12:09

Rudy couldn't pay for just a

1:12:11

firm that just goes through the

1:12:13

discovery and searches for relevant stuff.

1:12:15

And maintains the data, basically, and

1:12:17

can respond to the other side's

1:12:19

discovery request. So it

1:12:21

is wildly expensive. And

1:12:24

I'm sure Trump is burning through tens

1:12:26

of millions keeping this going. Yeah,

1:12:29

and it's not all that's taxpayer money. The taxpayers

1:12:31

pay for the courts and the staff and stuff

1:12:33

like that. But all that stuff

1:12:35

is paid for by, in Trump's

1:12:37

case, probably mostly people

1:12:40

on Social Security who checked the box to give

1:12:43

or didn't uncheck the box that are now forced

1:12:45

to give monthly donations through

1:12:47

Redwin to the Save America pack. That's probably

1:12:49

where we're supposed to get it. And honestly, the cost of

1:12:51

us and the public, the

1:12:54

court is there anyway. And these are salaried

1:12:57

employees that are doing their jobs. So

1:12:59

that cost happens. But

1:13:02

the cost is that the more time everyone

1:13:04

has to spend on this nonsense, they're not

1:13:06

moving other cases along. So other people have

1:13:08

to wait. There's more delay overall. It slows

1:13:10

down the docket. So there is an effect.

1:13:12

But it is kind of one of the

1:13:14

costs of having a free

1:13:16

and pretty fair

1:13:18

system. So there you go. Yep.

1:13:22

And the taxpayer does pay for special counsel

1:13:24

through a permanent fund at the US Treasury,

1:13:28

which as we've said a million times, can't

1:13:30

be defunded by Marjorie Taylor Greene. That's right.

1:13:32

But that fund is always there also. Yep.

1:13:36

So it's not like additional appropriations to pay

1:13:38

for Jack Smith. So when Trump says,

1:13:40

this cost $30 million, the Mueller

1:13:42

investigation, it was already there

1:13:44

for this. For sure.

1:13:48

Anyway, that is our show for the week. We

1:13:51

got it a little bit shorter than last week. That's

1:13:54

still little. I had it under

1:13:56

an hour before that gag order, don't

1:13:58

call it a gag order. ruling came

1:14:00

out and of

1:14:03

course that 404B motion was

1:14:05

pretty amazing. So we'll see what

1:14:07

we have next week. I

1:14:11

expect we'll get a briefing

1:14:13

schedule for the

1:14:16

immunity appeal. I think

1:14:18

we'll have that by the end of next week. Mm-hmm.

1:14:20

Don't put it in the agency to sign a panel

1:14:22

and we'll see what they want to do. And

1:14:25

I think maybe Judge Chukkin might put

1:14:28

out her orders, her rulings on

1:14:31

the selective vindictive prosecution and statutory

1:14:34

considerations. I think she

1:14:36

might get those out while there's no

1:14:39

stay. Yeah. Like just get them out there.

1:14:41

Yeah. We'll be able to talk about that on the next

1:14:43

show. And thank you again patrons. We'll

1:14:45

see you on April 20th in DC. We'll

1:14:48

send that location information and RSVPs out in

1:14:50

the new year. Anything any final thoughts

1:14:52

before you get out of here my friend? No. I

1:14:55

think it's been another great week and look

1:14:57

forward to what we have next week. So

1:14:59

we'll see everybody in a few days. Yep.

1:15:02

We'll see you then. I've been Allison Gill. And

1:15:05

I'm Andy McCabe. Some people take the street path in life. But

1:15:10

at Arizona State

1:15:13

University, we respect your twists and

1:15:15

turns. They make our online

1:15:17

students more driven to excel in their

1:15:19

professional lives. That's why our

1:15:21

personalized suite of services empowers you, with

1:15:24

innovative resources and staff that sticks

1:15:26

with you. Make your next turn

1:15:28

with one of our 300-plus programs at ASU.

1:15:29

plus programs at ASU. Number one

1:15:32

in innovation for nine consecutive years.

1:15:35

Visit us at asuonline.asu.edu

1:15:37

to learn more. Time

1:15:40

for a quick break to talk about

1:15:42

McDonald's. Know how we make our sausage

1:15:44

McMuffin with egg? It starts with a

1:15:46

fresh cracked egg cooked to perfection. Then

1:15:48

we add a savory grilled sausage patty,

1:15:50

American cheese and a freshly toasted English

1:15:52

muffin. Know what makes our sausage

1:15:54

McMuffin with egg even better? When you add

1:15:56

a caramel mocha or refreshing caramel mocha iced

1:15:59

coffee to it. So make your

1:16:01

morning better by starting with breakfast at

1:16:03

McDonald's and participating McDonald's.