0:00

This is a big year.

0:02

The Ohio Lottery's golden anniversary.

0:05

50 years of excitement, of

0:07

growing jackpots and crossed fingers.

0:10

50 years of funding for schools,

0:12

of changed lives and brightened days.

0:15

50 years of fun, and that

0:17

is worth celebrating. So

0:19

watch for can't-miss promotions, huge events,

0:21

and new games that will make

0:23

the Ohio Lottery's 50th year its

0:25

biggest one yet. Learn

0:27

more at funturns50.com. And

0:57

if you miss it, they'll be on auto trader. Just you

0:59

wait. Auto trader. MSW

1:05

Media I

1:09

signed an order appointing Jack Smith. And

1:11

nobody knows you. And those who say

1:13

Jack is a fanatic. Mr. Smith is

1:16

a veteran career prosecutor. Wait, what

1:18

law have I broken? The events leading up

1:20

to and on January 6th. Classified

1:22

documents and other presidential records. You

1:24

understand what prison is? Take

1:26

me to jail. Welcome

1:35

to episode 59 of

1:38

Jack, the podcast about all things special

1:40

counsel. It is Sunday, January 14th,

1:42

2024. And I'm Andy McCabe. And

1:46

I'm Allison Gill. We had a

1:48

big week in the DC

1:51

case against Donald Trump this week with

1:53

oral arguments in the DC Circuit Court

1:55

of Appeals for Trump's absolute immunity bid,

1:57

his monarchy bid, and his... quote

2:00

unquote, double jeopardy claims, which is interesting

2:02

now because that's even been thrown into question.

2:04

Plus we have a Jack Smith

2:06

filing in response to Trump's motion to

2:09

have the court order the government to

2:11

show cause why Jack Smith shouldn't be

2:13

held in contempt for continuing

2:15

to file on the docket and

2:18

produce discovery while the DC trial

2:20

is in abeyance. It has stayed

2:22

right now because of this immunity

2:24

appeal. That's right. And okay,

2:26

Alison, I'm going to, I'm going to take a

2:28

side turn here. And I want

2:31

to, I want to point to something that,

2:34

uh, a request we got from Tony from

2:36

Albuquerque who asked us. He

2:39

he's a big fan of the show, but he's not

2:41

a lawyer. And so sometimes he gets a

2:43

little lost in the legal ease. And he

2:45

said, sometimes he has a hard time explaining to his

2:47

friends what he learned on the show each week. So

2:50

he asked us to give him basically

2:52

a top line kind of summary and

2:54

how I'm thinking about it is like

2:57

good week, bad week designation for

2:59

Trump, just to keep it simple. I love

3:01

it. Yeah. So my spin on

3:03

this week is bad week in

3:05

DC based on the circuit court

3:07

arguments and yet

3:09

another predictable good week in

3:12

Florida based on how little

3:14

was accomplished down there this week. Yeah.

3:17

I love this. I love this bad week, good week.

3:19

It's like in or out, right? The whole thing that

3:21

we saw at the end of a 2023 in the

3:25

government out Donald Trump. I

3:27

think I'm

3:29

going to go with it was a straight up

3:31

bad week for Donald Trump. And by the

3:33

way, these weeks aren't going to get any

3:35

better for him for into modernity,

3:38

first of all, the DC circuit court hearing

3:40

devastating to his case. He

3:43

was ordered to pay just $360,000 to the New York times and legal fees

3:47

for a frivolous lawsuit. His

3:49

motion to strike the expert that helped Ruby Freeman and

3:51

Shaye Moss get $150 million out of Rudy Giuliani. His

3:57

motion in the aging Carol case to remove that

3:59

same witness did. denied, and the

4:01

judge in that case granted all

4:03

of E-Gene's motion in lemonade,

4:05

all of it. Like, he can't argue

4:07

anything, basically. You just sit there and we'll tell you

4:10

what you owe. Admitting

4:12

that he screwed up the square footage of

4:14

his triplex apartment in an unhinged court rant

4:16

in the New York Attorney General, in

4:19

the New York Attorney General civil fraud trial. It

4:22

was just a bad week all around

4:24

for Donald Trump. As

4:27

far as campaigning goes, I don't know.

4:29

But legally, I got to say, bad

4:31

week. As

4:34

usual, your analysis is way more factually

4:36

deep than mine. I

4:39

can't argue with you on any of

4:41

those. Plus, you have to walk around

4:43

being Donald Trump. Yeah, that's not ideal

4:46

these days when basically getting out from

4:48

under four criminal cases depends on winning

4:50

the presidency. It's really a long shot

4:53

strategy for anyone. Hey, he's managed to

4:55

pull it together so far. Okay,

4:58

so we also have some new filings in the

5:00

Florida documents case. And

5:02

we've got reporting, new reporting from ABC on

5:04

what a witness may have told the government

5:07

in the DC case, along

5:09

with some swatting attempts on Judge

5:11

Chutkin and Jack Smith. So

5:14

okay, let's start with the immunity

5:16

and double jeopardy hearing in the

5:18

DC Circuit Court of Appeals this

5:20

past Tuesday. It was the Thrilla

5:23

and Manila version DC style. People

5:25

were really ramped up for this. Need a

5:27

picture of Judge Child standing over in a

5:29

boxing ring with that. Yeah,

5:32

there's people were outside like in the middle of

5:34

the night waiting online to get in and hear

5:37

the arguments and things. So

5:39

as we know, Trump filed multiple motions

5:41

to dismiss the charges that Jack Smith

5:44

brought in DC on multiple grounds. And

5:47

two of them are potential interlocutory appeals.

5:49

So they're being handled as interlocutory appeals

5:51

now. One

5:54

is the absolute presidential immunity motion, which

5:56

of course we have dubbed the monarchy

5:58

motion. And the

6:01

impeachment judgment clause double

6:03

jeopardy combo motion.

6:06

Now it's important to note that this

6:10

reference to double jeopardy is a

6:12

slightly different spin on the Fifth

6:14

Amendment double jeopardy protection that you

6:16

typically think about for criminal defendants.

6:19

Here Trump is arguing that he

6:21

can't be criminally indicted unless he's

6:23

been impeached and convicted by the

6:26

Senate first. So he

6:28

goes on to argue that putting him on trial

6:30

after he was impeached by the House and acquitted

6:32

by the Senate, which is what happened to him

6:34

twice, is a sort of double

6:37

jeopardy. And that argument was basically

6:39

his undoing in the D.C. Circuit Court this

6:41

week. And of course we'll get to that

6:43

in a minute. But first let's

6:45

talk about the series of questions the judges

6:47

asked both parties during the hearing, which lasted

6:50

75 minutes. And

6:52

we'll go over them in the order that they

6:54

happened during the oral arguments before the three-judge panel.

6:57

And of course that panel was Judge

6:59

Childs and Judge Pan, both of whom

7:02

are Biden appointees, and Judge

7:04

Henderson, who is a

7:07

G.W. Bush appointee. Okay,

7:09

so Alison, the first one – and this

7:12

was a little bit of a surprise to many

7:14

people, including me, and

7:16

it was I think based mostly on

7:18

this amicus petition, but it was about

7:21

jurisdiction. The judges asked

7:23

questions, again, based

7:25

on the American Oversight Amicus

7:27

Brief, which argued that

7:29

neither of the claims in

7:32

Trump's motions qualify

7:34

as interlocutory. So

7:36

meaning neither has to

7:38

be decided before the trial begins. And if

7:41

that's the decision, then the court doesn't

7:43

even have jurisdiction to weigh

7:46

in on the substance of the

7:48

motion, and the whole thing would go

7:50

back to the trial court. So

7:53

as a means of background, interlocutory

7:55

appeals are strongly disfavored by

7:58

the Supreme Court. Their

8:01

preference is that a criminal

8:03

defendant should make

8:05

their motions, go to trial, be

8:07

either convicted or acquitted, and then

8:09

raise all issues that they have

8:11

on appeal after the trial. Now,

8:16

the American oversight argued that

8:18

the immunity claim is precluded

8:20

from interlocutory appeal based on

8:22

a Supreme Court precedent in

8:24

a case called Midland Asphalt

8:26

v. U.S., which is a

8:29

unanimous opinion in 1989 written by Antonin Scalia. Since

8:34

the Midland Asphalt opinion, the court

8:36

has identified only three categories of

8:38

motions that may be considered before

8:41

trial in a criminal case. So

8:44

those would be interlocutory motions.

8:46

And these are motions to reduce bail, motions

8:49

concerning the Double Jeopardy Clause in

8:52

the Constitution's Fifth Amendment, and

8:54

motions concerning the Speech or Debate Clause.

8:58

The judges were concerned that this Double

9:00

Jeopardy claim in Trump's motion isn't

9:02

the Fifth Amendment claim, but

9:04

it's really actually an impeachment

9:06

judgment clause claim. So what

9:10

he's claiming is not just a

9:12

straight-up, hey, I've been subjected to

9:14

Double Jeopardy here. He's

9:17

really saying the impeachment judgment

9:19

clause precludes me from being

9:22

indicted here, and he's winding

9:24

in this convoluted Double

9:27

Jeopardy argument to try to support that.

9:29

He's inventing a new Double Jeopardy for

9:31

presidents. Yeah, exactly. And I

9:33

mean his lawyers argue that this

9:35

is a novel or new issue, and it

9:37

should be basically a new

9:40

fourth type of appeal that has to

9:42

be decided before trial. I

9:44

mean, honestly, I think his Double Jeopardy

9:46

angle to this – again, he's saying

9:49

because he was impeached and then

9:52

acquitted, if you try

9:54

him for the same conduct, you're essentially trying

9:56

him a second time for the same thing,

9:58

and that qualifies as Double Jeopardy. Now,

10:00

all of you keeping score

10:03

at home and, you know,

10:05

reaching for your Black's Law

10:07

Dictionary or whatever, whatever other

10:09

piece of legal authority

10:11

you're referring to, I think,

10:13

now, wait a second. I thought we heard

10:15

a thousand times during each of these impeachment

10:18

trials that impeachment is a political process. And

10:20

you are correct. It is

10:22

a political process. It's not a criminal

10:24

process. And if

10:26

you look at the other side of this, Jeopardy,

10:29

there's a question in most cases that

10:32

involve double jeopardy. And

10:34

the question becomes, when and

10:36

if jeopardy attaches

10:40

to your criminal process? And

10:43

the prevailing opinion is that you

10:45

are not actually in jeopardy, i.e.,

10:47

that's the point at which jeopardy

10:49

attaches to you until

10:51

the jury is impaneled in your

10:53

criminal trial. That's the point. If

10:57

you're investigated and indicted in the

10:59

night before trial, the government dismisses

11:01

the charges against you, no

11:04

jeopardy, meaning you could be indicted

11:06

and tried for that same conduct later.

11:09

So when you look at that analysis, I

11:12

agree with you, yes,

11:14

here claiming a

11:16

presidential impeachment and some sort of,

11:18

you know, conviction or acquittal

11:20

by the Senate attaches

11:23

jeopardy, I think is an absurd argument. But

11:25

that's essentially the one that he's making there.

11:29

So the judges

11:31

asked DOJ the same question

11:33

about whether they even

11:35

have jurisdiction to hear the motions before trial.

11:38

But DOJ was not in agreement with

11:40

American oversight. DOJ basically said they want

11:43

a ruling on the merits of this

11:45

motion now. And

11:47

the judges, of course, are saying, you know,

11:49

but if you win on the jurisdiction issue,

11:51

we dismiss, and this goes back to trial.

11:56

But Pierce, who was arguing for DOJ, replied, we are not in

11:59

agreement. are here to do

12:01

justice, and that means getting the law right.

12:04

So I think DOJ's

12:06

concern is that if the motion

12:08

is thrown out on jurisdiction now, it'll

12:11

send the case back to Chutkin,

12:13

but could actually cause more delays

12:16

because it could give rise to other motions. And

12:18

we get locked in this cycle of

12:21

kind of motion after motion, rather than just, you

12:23

know, they feel very confident that this motion is

12:26

going to fail. They want to get that answer

12:28

now, and then want to get back to the

12:30

trial. Yeah, and then it can't come up

12:32

again later if they give

12:34

that answer now, which is why the DOJ

12:36

was also kind of not really keen on

12:38

the idea of a hypothetical merits

12:41

ruling, which can happen when

12:43

you, you know, when

12:46

you have these kinds of situations, right? They'll be

12:48

like, all right, we don't have jurisdiction, but

12:50

if we did, here's how we would rule,

12:53

I think that still leaves the

12:55

door open for him to come back later

12:57

and make another immunity appeal post-conviction. And

12:59

DOJ is like, let's just put it to bed now.

13:01

We're here. We've stayed.

13:04

The trial is in obeyance. Let's

13:06

just get it done now while

13:08

we're here. And that's sort of,

13:10

but they did spend quite a bit of

13:12

time on the

13:15

jurisdiction question, especially

13:17

Henderson, right? The GW Bush

13:19

appointee. She had a lot of questions

13:21

about jurisdictions. Why are we even here?

13:24

The immunity is precluded

13:26

from asphalt. That case you

13:28

were just talking about, Andy, and your double jeopardy

13:30

thing is stupid. I'm paraphrasing by what she said.

13:34

She got the gist of it. That's fine. She

13:36

was basically like, I could be at home

13:39

right now with a cup of tea and

13:41

my cats. What are we doing? Now

13:43

this is cool, Andy. You know, we had

13:46

Judge Lude gone to talk about his amicus

13:50

brief and that was brought up in

13:52

these arguments. And rightfully so.

13:54

In fact, the panel,

13:56

the DC Circuit Court told the parties,

13:58

be prepared to answer questions about

14:01

these amicus briefs. So they launched right

14:03

in with jurisdiction. And that's usually the order

14:05

of operations, right? Like, let's figure out if we even need to

14:07

be here first, and then we'll have arguments

14:09

on the merits. So they moved on to the

14:11

merits and they brought up the Executive Vesting Clause,

14:14

as argued by Judge Lutig

14:16

et al in their amicus brief, the one

14:18

that was filed with 23 other

14:21

Republican officials over five Republican administrations.

14:24

And so they did bring that up. They're like, you're going

14:27

right at the heart of Article 2. And of

14:30

course, if you listened to these

14:32

proceedings, and I don't know if

14:34

you heard them, Andrew, but if you

14:36

had been, I knew you were pulling the rest of

14:38

your hair out because you were like, look,

14:42

he just kept quoting Marbury v.

14:44

Madison. One particular cherry

14:47

picked the line in Marbury v. Madison, which

14:49

is, presidents shall never be questioned by the

14:51

courts or whatever. But

14:53

he fails to finish that statement, which

14:56

is, but they can be criminal. It's

15:00

an absolute misrepresentation

15:02

of Marbury. And I

15:05

know that you had brought up your frustration with that in

15:07

the previous show. And then after

15:10

that, after they had their Article

15:12

2 discussion, which didn't go well for

15:14

Trump, the judges asked Sauer,

15:16

who was the lawyer arguing for Trump,

15:18

a series of hypotheticals, just

15:20

like the hypotheticals Jack Smith raised in both

15:22

of his briefings, the one to Judge Chuck

15:25

Ken back in October, and the one on

15:27

December 30th to this panel of judges. And

15:31

that's when Judge Pan kind

15:33

of painted Trump's lawyer into a corner

15:36

by asking whether a president could

15:38

order SEAL Team 6 to assassinate

15:41

a political rival and not be

15:43

held criminally liable. And

15:45

after back and forth, back and forth, well,

15:47

yes, condition. My answer is a

15:49

conditioned yes or an ex, you

15:51

know, and he was just kind

15:54

of putting out this sort

15:56

of word salad because he really didn't want to

15:58

say no because he realizes how ridiculous that

16:00

sounds. But

16:04

it went back, finally, Sauer said, only

16:08

if he is impeached and convicted by

16:10

the Senate for the same behavior,

16:12

right, the same crime. And

16:15

that led Judge Pan to say, so

16:18

if a president can be

16:20

criminally liable if he's impeached and

16:23

convicted, then he

16:25

doesn't have absolute immunity, correct?

16:27

That's right. And that

16:30

was the whole ballgame right

16:32

there, Andy. That was the

16:34

pivotal moment because she pointed out that

16:37

if the president does not have absolute

16:40

immunity, as he misquotes Marbury

16:42

to a third, then

16:45

all of his other arguments, including separation

16:47

of powers, at all falls away, and

16:50

all that's left is whether

16:52

a president must be impeached and convicted to

16:54

be held criminally liable. And that

16:57

had to be conceded by

16:59

Trump's lawyers. Yeah, unbelievably

17:01

effective line of questioning. And it

17:04

was, you know, she really showed

17:06

her former prosecutor chops. It felt

17:09

much more like a cross examination than

17:11

an appellate argument.

17:14

But, you know,

17:16

she didn't – and I'm sure everybody's heard the

17:20

tape of this by now because the news

17:22

is playing it constantly, but she would not

17:24

let him off the hook. She

17:26

pushed him and pushed him. And

17:28

this theory of argument is something

17:30

that prosecutors refer to or lawyers

17:32

refer to as the parade of

17:35

horribles, right? You come up with

17:37

hypotheticals that take the basic

17:40

principle that somebody is

17:42

arguing for, and

17:44

you put them into a set of

17:46

circumstances that shows that it

17:50

could lead to terrible things, right?

17:52

And that's really where she was

17:54

going. A president with

17:56

absolute immunity. Could they then use

17:58

the instruments of power? the

18:01

US military to assassinate a political

18:03

rival. Like the idea of that

18:05

is just so antithetical to who

18:07

we are as a

18:09

nation. But if the

18:11

court accepts Trump's arguments, then the answer

18:14

is yes, they can. And they're not

18:16

subjected to any sort of liability for

18:18

it. So in the first instance, she's

18:21

using that kind of parade of horribles

18:23

approach to show in

18:25

extremis how ridiculous this principle

18:27

is that they're arguing for.

18:30

And then she hooked that curve

18:32

right around him when he finally

18:34

agreed, well, yes, he would

18:37

be criminally liable, but only after having

18:39

been impeached and convicted by the Senate.

18:41

Well, if you've admitted to some

18:43

form of criminal liability after

18:46

some torturous process, then

18:49

the idea of immunity is gone.

18:53

And you are now admitting that

18:55

there is a circumstances under which

18:57

the president is not immune from

19:01

criminal liability. So all those other things

19:03

that you cited earlier are just gone,

19:06

insignificant. Yeah. And

19:09

then if we look at all

19:11

that's remaining, which is your

19:13

opinion that the impeachment judgment

19:16

clause precludes somebody from

19:18

being criminally indicted or

19:21

prosecuted if they aren't first impeached and

19:23

convicted in the Senate, and

19:25

we need to call that a

19:27

new fourth interlocutory appeal or type

19:31

of appeal that can be considered interlocutory

19:34

and create this new rule

19:37

and basically redefine what double

19:39

jeopardy means. It's

19:42

obnoxious and silly. And also we

19:45

have in asphalt that SCOTUS

19:48

has said, look, it's

19:50

specifically double jeopardy attached to the

19:52

fifth amendment of the

19:55

constitution. So this to

19:57

me, and I told you earlier, I'm

19:59

not going to do that. talk to a

20:04

couple of experts about this,

20:07

actually lowers the chance, I

20:10

think, of the Supreme Court granting

20:12

cert in this case. After of

20:14

course, he goes, tries to go on bond for

20:16

a re-hearing or whatever. But

20:18

ultimately, if there's no longer a question

20:20

of immunity, because now Trump's side has

20:23

admitted that there is no absolute immunity,

20:26

and we're talking about a double

20:29

jeopardy and creating a new –

20:31

SCOTUS is loathe to create a

20:33

new standard. Totally. Right?

20:37

Yeah. Yeah, it just – it reduces the odds

20:40

that they'll see a legitimate issue left

20:42

on the table that they need to

20:44

resolve. Right. You know, it

20:46

raises the specter that the circuit

20:48

court is going to hit this

20:51

thing definitively based on solid

20:53

grounds, and that's what they're

20:55

looking for. They don't want to do this. They

20:57

don't want to weigh in again on this whole

20:59

Trump running for president thing. They've already have –

21:01

they've got that on their hands with the 14th

21:04

Amendment problem. You know, and

21:06

before we move on for this, the other thing that

21:08

drives me crazy about this stupid double jeopardy argument, which

21:10

as you've pointed out, it's not

21:12

really a traditional double jeopardy argument.

21:15

But what he's saying is

21:17

like, if I were

21:20

impeached and convicted, then you could put

21:23

me on trial. Well, that

21:25

would be double jeopardy too. Right.

21:27

How is that not double – If jeopardy

21:29

attaches in the first half, the

21:31

first process, then it's still there

21:34

if you're convicted. Like, it's

21:36

the same – He's almost

21:38

arguing undoubled jeopardy. Like, yeah.

21:41

The whole thing just makes no sense because his

21:44

argument is – I hope I said

21:46

clearly before – jeopardy

21:48

attached during the political process, and

21:50

therefore I can't be tried twice

21:52

for this. But you're in

21:55

your own admission. You're saying if you were convicted,

21:57

then you could be tried a second time, criminally.

22:00

And that's the only time you can be tried. Yeah,

22:02

it's absurd. And

22:04

in that discussion, and this was for me,

22:06

I mean, I know that the Judge Pan

22:09

awesomeness and getting him to admit that thing

22:11

was probably, was the whole ball of wax.

22:14

But I think my favorite part was

22:16

when the judges brought up the fact

22:19

that Donald Trump argued during impeachment

22:21

that you don't need to impeach

22:23

him because you could criminally indict

22:25

him. And

22:29

the Judge brought that up and Sauer

22:31

was like, well, it wasn't me. I didn't argue

22:33

that personally. And

22:36

it's like, yeah, but you did. That's

22:38

like the legal version of it was like

22:40

that when I got here. I mean, that

22:42

does not fly. And

22:45

the Judge was like, look, your,

22:47

you know, Caster, I think it was, was

22:50

saying this idea of January

22:52

immunity or whatever, amnesty, January amnesty, where

22:54

the President can do whatever he wants

22:57

and just walk away scot-free because we

22:59

aren't going to impeach him after he

23:01

leaves office is BS because

23:03

the Department of Justice knows what to do

23:05

with those kinds of people and those kinds

23:07

of things. That was their argument. And

23:10

the Judge pointed out there were probably a

23:12

lot of senators that voted to acquit based

23:14

on that argument. Sure. And that

23:16

totally blew a hole in the- Mitch

23:18

McConnell's probably one of them. And

23:21

all said, he said, you know, McConnell

23:23

said, hey, we don't have

23:26

to impeach here because, you

23:28

know, we can convict him. Right.

23:30

The Department of Justice can handle

23:32

it. I don't do a

23:34

very good Mitch McConnell impersonation.

23:36

That's okay. We knew

23:38

who it was. But

23:40

you know, just to say it's in

23:42

the congressional record and all Sauer could

23:44

do was be like, I doubt the

23:47

court knows why any particular senator voted

23:49

to acquit and blah, blah. And it

23:51

wasn't me, your honor. And it just

23:53

didn't really have anything to say about

23:55

that. So that is their

23:58

one remaining argument. Their one remaining argument. Argument

24:00

has been. I guess have

24:02

precluded from being argued by Trump's own legal

24:05

team in his second impeach my hair. Yes,

24:07

through so many moments I got there is

24:09

there was a point when she first asking

24:11

the question about the using Seal Team Six

24:13

assassinate arrival he said well I'm sure that

24:16

the President would be. A. Very.

24:18

Quickly impeached and convicted if he

24:20

did that. As. You

24:22

the wait a minute and. For.

24:24

Small. How many patrons have we heard? As a

24:26

nation. For. right?

24:29

How many convictions? None,

24:31

not one. It's never happen, and

24:33

there's air. There's many, many scenarios

24:36

in which you might not get

24:38

a conviction simply on political grounds.

24:40

Made my leg in. Leno, your

24:42

Africans argument. He's like, well, what if he shot

24:44

the six. Senators. That we're gonna vote

24:46

to. Rid

24:48

of it says he added a convict then

24:50

you then you get out of jail free

24:52

just have to kill a few more people.

24:55

yeah I mean sour I you know I

24:57

think he did the best he could with

24:59

a really leaky bag of of you know

25:01

what it's assistant he didn't have he do

25:03

he didn't have a lot to work with

25:05

I think he's a smart guy. I think

25:07

he he he tried to be is a

25:09

forceful as he could be with their just

25:11

was not a lot of runway to get

25:13

this thing off the ground. And I think didn't

25:15

you know? like. I

25:17

think that day every commentator you here

25:19

and the news is like they're gonna

25:22

was. De. Santos and

25:24

Nikki Haley in the debate.

25:26

Will. I get the ridiculous our do you think you

25:28

should be I'm You know, that's that. Know that's ridiculous.

25:31

Even. Them: Ah and Yoon of Cbs.

25:33

As a new Cbs pull, sixty four

25:35

percent of Americans think Trump should not

25:37

have criminal immunity That includes eighty. Six

25:40

percent of Democrats sixty eight percent

25:42

of independents. And thirty one percent

25:44

of republicans. A third of republicans think he

25:46

shouldn't. Have immunity. And.

25:49

Of course at the end, you know, Sour.

25:52

Said please don't affirmed the lower

25:54

court. Please let it please. We.

25:56

Want to win and if we don't when we

25:58

would like to full ninety. Days to

26:01

appeal. And. A D O

26:03

J said are, we would also like to

26:05

win, but we would like you to issue

26:07

the mandate very quickly so we can limit

26:09

the amount of time that and that does.

26:12

Trump would have to. Go To. On.

26:15

Bunker, the supreme court or both. So. We'll.

26:18

See what ends up happening And you and I made a bet

26:20

my friend. We bet we did. That.

26:23

I thought that this decision would come down by

26:25

the end of the week. It's it's Friday. I

26:27

still have a day and a half. So.

26:30

I think if there is a decision

26:32

and I win the bet, we'll put

26:34

it right here. Okay,

26:36

welcome back. If you didn't hear anything, that means I

26:39

lost the bad for. Us

26:41

so much as we had so

26:43

many people wait and and the

26:46

question of. My. Question Booth

26:48

or know we're calling it does.

26:50

And we got what should be

26:52

the wager because we didn't resolve

26:54

that last week. Oh yeah, so

26:56

I'm. Mud. See

26:58

ah. So.

27:01

Oh one per person who identify

27:03

themselves as yours yours their name

27:05

I came for the jakob date

27:07

but stayed for and his godfather

27:10

Impressionists. That

27:12

person says the loser has to phone

27:14

bank in a red state for one

27:16

weekend And I'm just saying right now,

27:18

not a chance. There's no way I

27:20

would ever bet anything that that hung

27:22

in the balance for Oh no, I

27:24

think they mean sewn bank for a

27:26

democrat and a Red States. Ah,

27:28

okay or right. Well, it's not

27:30

easy. It's not easy to see

27:33

gentle can you imagine? hi? This

27:35

is Andy Mccabe. A

27:37

sudden under way or I would be

27:39

like sizes Peter struck have. Already

27:43

said that he did don't use will not

27:45

be surprised how so that was One other

27:47

Catherine suggested triathlons of I when you have

27:49

to do one by the end of the

27:52

year a few when I have to do

27:54

to by the end of the or much

27:56

aware get penalized for the next for but

27:58

a problem because you do. More

28:00

than I do. But.

28:03

Molly. Suggested and I think we

28:05

talked about the saucers. some classic somebody

28:07

has to wear a mega had to

28:09

cosco see lose and. Although.

28:12

After point out another person. Pointed

28:15

out that. Mega

28:17

is actually are initials backwards.

28:20

House and Gil Andrew Mccabe. Oh

28:22

well, that makes sense. Because we're the opposite

28:25

of or she goes so maybe an egg.

28:27

I'm had a Glasgow and no one would

28:29

know would have made it. It's about balancing

28:31

kill Any Rick A of the opposite of

28:33

Maga Go I love it or it everybody.

28:35

we have a lot more to get to.

28:37

Holy cow that a block was almost a

28:39

half an hour of this is kinda see

28:42

one of those shows we have to take

28:44

a quick break everybody stick around. will be

28:46

right back to. Make.

28:52

An Impression and boost your brand

28:54

and sequels. Business advantage.com Now you

28:57

can manage your print and marketing

28:59

materials all in one place with

29:02

are easy online experience design, save

29:04

share and printing business cards, flyers,

29:06

brochures and more. All backfire Print

29:09

guarantee and delivered. Freeze up all

29:11

your location no minimum required. Sign

29:14

up today and save twenty percent.

29:16

Conditions apply these labels disadvantage.com for

29:18

details. Luxury

29:23

is meant to be a livable discover.

29:25

The new leather collects in that Ashley

29:27

with premium quality leather sofa his recliner

29:30

is and more are built to last.

29:32

No matter how many spells that sir

29:34

pet related mess have come, it's way

29:36

to leather collection and Ashley is made

29:39

with a durability you need for the

29:41

whole family. Sap the new leather collection

29:43

and Ashley and find shares starting. As

29:45

for Ninety Nine Ninety Nine and so

29:48

is it. Side: Ninety Nine Ninety Nine

29:50

Actually, for the love of home. Hi.

29:54

I'm Live Winstead I Modi Alimony L

29:56

A Word As a feminist, By skills

29:58

the only weekly. Podcast. dedicated to

30:00

keeping you informed while making you

30:02

laugh, as we all navigate this

30:05

post-Rovy Wade hellscape. The Supreme Court

30:07

has declared that all of our uteri

30:09

are just Airbnbs for the seat of the

30:11

patriarchy. So every week we break down all

30:14

the garbage news from that sketchy intersection of

30:16

abortion and misogyny with the abortion

30:18

providers and activists we need to

30:20

be hearing from right now. Plus

30:23

we talk to your favorite comedians. Cause face

30:25

it, if your revolution doesn't have laughter, you're

30:27

doing it wrong. Feminist buzz kills

30:29

drops Fridays, wherever you get your

30:32

podcasts. Listen, subscribe, join up on

30:34

Patreon because when BS is popping,

30:36

we pop off. Hey

30:47

everybody, welcome back. Let's stay with

30:49

the DC case and some new, I

30:51

think pretty bombshell reporting from Catherine

30:53

Faulders et al at ABC.

30:57

And she reports that special counsel Jack

30:59

Smith team has uncovered previously undisclosed details

31:02

about former president Trump's refusal

31:05

to help stop the violent attack on the Capitol

31:07

three years ago while he sat and watched TV

31:10

at the dining room off the Oval Office.

31:12

And that's according to sources familiar with

31:14

what Smith's team has learned. So

31:16

whoever the sources knows what these

31:19

folks told Jack Smith. Right, right.

31:22

Many of the exclusive details come from the questioning

31:24

of Dan Scavino. Jack

31:27

Scavino wouldn't speak with the House Select Committee

31:29

that conducted its own probe. But after the

31:31

judge overruled claims of executive privilege last year,

31:34

he did have to speak with Jack Smith's team.

31:36

That's one of the tools that the DOJ has

31:38

that the January 6th committee does not have. That's

31:40

right. And key portions of

31:42

what he said were described to ABC

31:44

News. New details also come from

31:47

Smith's team's interviews with other White

31:49

House advisors and top lawyers who

31:51

despite being deposed in congressional probes,

31:54

previously declined to answer questions about

31:56

Trump's own statements and demeanor on

31:58

January 6th. according

32:00

to publicly released transcripts of

32:02

the January 6th interviews. Andy,

32:08

this is the Ochinostra. Yes, it

32:10

is. This ABC reporting is

32:13

about what we dubbed the Ochinostra. They're

32:15

back. And the importance of those

32:17

eight witnesses who refused to answer

32:19

questions on privilege went all the

32:21

way up and down the court system and

32:23

were told you have to go in and

32:25

testify. That's how important the testimony

32:27

of these eight were. Sources say

32:30

Scavino told Smith's investigators that as

32:32

the violence began to escalate, Trump

32:34

was just not interested in stopping

32:36

it. Sources also said

32:39

former Trump aide Nick Luna, another

32:41

one of the Ochinostra, told federal

32:43

investigators that when Trump was informed

32:45

that Pence had to be rushed to a secure

32:48

location – remember who was escorted down to the

32:50

– whisked

32:52

away, spirited away down to the loading dock.

32:55

Trump said, so what? And

32:58

along with Scavino and Luna, that small

33:00

group, as we know, we talked about

33:02

the Ochinostra a lot, included Mark

33:04

Meadows, Pat, the Pats, Cipollone

33:06

and Philbin among

33:08

others. Of course, McEntee was in there. He's not

33:10

mentioned here. I wonder if he's cooperating. After

33:14

unsuccessfully trying for up to 20 minutes

33:16

to persuade Donald Trump to release some sort

33:18

of calming statement like go home or chill

33:20

out or be peaceful, Scavino and

33:23

a bunch of other people just walked out of the

33:25

dining room, left him there by himself. That

33:27

is when, according to sources, Trump

33:30

posted a message on Twitter saying

33:32

that Pence didn't have the courage to

33:34

do what should have been done. And

33:37

that's a big tweet. Yeah,

33:40

this is really fascinating for

33:44

a couple of reasons. One of course, this is

33:46

probably the sort of evidence or

33:49

could be the evidence that Jack Smith's team

33:51

got from Trump's Twitter data, which

33:54

you'll remember the order to

33:56

Twitter called for information about

33:58

who was tweeting at what

34:01

time, from which account, on which device,

34:04

and where those devices may have been

34:06

located at the time. So

34:08

that could be an additional fact that they

34:10

know from that

34:12

data call. So sort of like

34:15

corroborating evidence, if you get Scavino

34:17

on the stand to say, Trump tweeted

34:19

that, then you have this sort of backup evidence

34:22

to corroborate what his

34:24

testimony is? Sure. So

34:27

you're going to ask Scavino these questions. He's going to

34:29

lay out this story, and he'll say, Trump tweeted it.

34:31

And then you say, how do you know Trump tweeted

34:33

it? And then he's going to say, well, the

34:36

only people who had access to the account were me

34:38

and Trump. And I had left the room, and I

34:40

didn't tweet it. And then they'll go to the expert,

34:43

the technical expert, who interprets the

34:46

electronic data. And they'll say, yeah, this time- And

34:48

we talked about that emotion, right? The three experts

34:50

that are going to come in are experts in

34:52

those areas. That's right. They

34:54

say, this device was in this location,

34:56

this device at this time, and this

34:58

device was responsible for the following tweet.

35:01

So we conclude Donald Trump tweeted

35:03

this package. Exactly. Wow. So

35:05

this is so important because they are

35:08

going to tell this story in as much

35:10

gory detail as they can. And

35:13

having these insiders in the White

35:15

House who were there and saw

35:17

it and can provide these little

35:19

tiny corroborative details

35:21

like what room he was in,

35:23

who else was there, what

35:25

was he doing, what was he eating while he was

35:28

talking to you or watching

35:30

television or whatever, they'll

35:32

be able to say in

35:34

ways that are consistent across

35:36

witnesses exactly what he was doing, what

35:38

he was saying, where he was located. And

35:41

it's all going to paint a picture, a

35:43

very detailed, rich picture that makes it

35:46

more believable to the jury. It's

35:49

easier to kind of fully invest in

35:51

the prosecutor's theory of the case if

35:54

they can paint a picture that you can literally see

35:56

in your head as they're talking about it. Yeah.

35:59

And it says here that CIPA and another White House

36:01

attorney, when that Pence tweet popped up,

36:06

it was as bad as we think it is

36:08

because even the people around Trump were like, oh

36:10

my God, holy crap. And they

36:13

ran around and found Scavino

36:16

and demanded to know why he would post

36:18

that. Why would you

36:20

tweet this? Scavino was like, I don't know what

36:22

you're talking about. It was

36:24

not me. Yeah, I mean,

36:27

it's brutal. Some

36:30

of Trump's aides then returned to the dining

36:32

room to explain to Trump that a public

36:34

attack on Pence was, quote, not what we

36:36

need, as Scavino put it to Smith's team,

36:39

quote, but it's true. Trump

36:41

responded. Sources told

36:43

ABC News. So Trump has

36:46

publicly echoed these statements since

36:48

then. So again, it's not

36:50

hard to believe. It will

36:52

not be hard for jurors to

36:54

accept this testimony at face value

36:57

because he's got other statements that

36:59

are consistent with

37:01

it. Yeah, because before it just seemed like he

37:03

was sitting there with his arms folded like, meh.

37:06

And everyone's like, come on, man, tell him

37:08

to go home. He's like, oh, fine. And

37:11

then told him to go home, and then they're like,

37:13

come on, make a video. And Ivanka's all, come on,

37:15

dad, make a video. And Jared's all, come on, dad,

37:17

make a video. And Trump Jr.'s like, you got to

37:19

knock this off. And finally, he's like, all right, I'll

37:21

make a video. And that's kind of how we had

37:23

it in our head. But

37:26

when you get to the rest of what you're about to

37:28

tell us, including what we've just learned, and

37:30

you mix that with the Twitter data, what happened was,

37:33

is Trump didn't do anything. Yeah.

37:36

He didn't concede to anything. No, he actually did things that made it

37:38

worse. Right. And it was him that

37:40

made it worse. You remember

37:42

how shocked we all were when the committee

37:45

testimony revealed this whole episode

37:48

last summer? Well, it's going to be that

37:50

times 10 because it's going to be way

37:52

more detailed and way richer. So

37:55

about the same time Trump's aides

37:57

were pushing him to do more, A

38:00

White House security official heard reports

38:02

over police radio that indicated Pence's

38:05

security detail believed, quote, this was

38:07

about to get very, very ugly,

38:10

according to the House committee's report. So

38:13

as Trump aide Nick Luna recalled, according to

38:15

sources, Trump didn't seem to care that Pence

38:17

had to be moved to a secure location.

38:20

Trump showed he was, quote, capable

38:22

of allowing harm to come to one

38:24

of his closest allies, close quote, at

38:26

the time Luna told

38:28

investigators. That's really

38:31

damning testimony from one of

38:33

Trump's closest kind

38:36

of staffers, right? So

38:38

with the chaos inside the Capitol continuing, Trump's

38:41

aides believe Trump still needed to do more. Sources

38:44

said Cipollone recalled telling Trump that he

38:46

needed to explicitly instruct rioters to leave

38:49

the Capitol. Covino

38:51

printed out proposed messages to post

38:53

on Twitter, hoping that Trump would

38:55

approve them despite his reluctance to

38:57

write such posts themselves. Sources said

39:00

the congressional probe found that even

39:02

Trump's daughter Ivanka quote, rushed down

39:04

to the Oval office dining room

39:06

to convince her father that issuing a

39:09

public message could discourage violence as the

39:11

congressional report put it and

39:14

more than a half hour after Trump was first

39:16

pressed to take some sort of action, Trump

39:18

finally let's Covino post a message on

39:20

Trump's Twitter account, telling supporters

39:22

to support law enforcement and quote,

39:25

stay peaceful. It was 2.38 PM. So

39:28

Covino wrote that tweet. Trump

39:32

did the Pence tweets, Covino did the stay

39:34

peaceful tweet and, and Jack Smith will be

39:37

able to prove all that, not just with

39:39

this testimony from the Ochinostra, but

39:42

from data and experts from

39:44

the Twitter search warrant. Right.

39:47

So he goes along for it a little

39:49

while, but he swings it back in the

39:51

other direction later, right? Cause

39:53

you know, it's for Trump after the video

39:55

telling the mob to go home was released, he

39:57

returned to watching TV coverage of the day.

40:00

with Philbin and others according to sources. And

40:02

when clips of the riot were splashed across the

40:05

screen, Trump declared something to the

40:07

effect of, quote, this is what happens when

40:09

they try to steal an election. Philbin

40:12

recalled to investigators. That's

40:15

so much intent and motive. Yeah,

40:17

and it's very consistent to what

40:19

happens next, right? So

40:21

according to the sources, Philbin said

40:23

he responded, Mr. President, it doesn't

40:25

justify this. So again, here's

40:28

the aid pushing back, right, pushing back.

40:31

According to sources, shortly before 6 p.m.

40:33

on January 6th, Trump showed Luna a

40:35

draft of a Twitter message he was

40:38

thinking about posting. Quote, these

40:40

are the things and events that happen

40:42

when a sacred landslide election victory

40:44

is so unceremoniously and viciously

40:47

stripped away from great patriots.

40:49

Remember this day forever, it read. The

40:52

message echoed what Trump had allegedly been saying

40:54

privately all day. Sources

40:56

said Luna told Trump that it made

40:59

him sound culpable for the violence, perhaps

41:01

even as if he had somehow been

41:03

involved in directing it, sources say. Still,

41:06

at 6.01 p.m., Trump

41:09

posted the message anyway. Does

41:12

being told that it makes you sound

41:14

culpable and like you directed it and

41:16

then posting it anyway help kind

41:19

of go toward showing the jury that that's

41:21

what he wanted? You

41:24

know, I don't think it's direct evidence

41:26

of intent, but

41:28

it's pretty good circumstantial evidence. And

41:31

you could look at that and

41:33

it's – you could infer from

41:35

that, which is the difference

41:38

basically, right, between direct evidence and circumstantial

41:40

evidence. You could certainly infer, well, that's

41:42

what he must have been doing since

41:45

he said, I'm going to do this. And

41:48

he said if you do that, it'll look like X. And then you go do it,

41:51

you could infer that that person wanted to look

41:53

like X, right? Right,

41:55

or at least wasn't trying to not look

41:57

like X. Yeah. of

42:00

thumb never look like X. It's dumb. Go

42:03

the other way. Okay,

42:06

so after that, but before Congress reconvened

42:08

to finish its vote certifying the 2020

42:10

election, Cipollone

42:12

called Trump relaying what a horrible day

42:14

it had been and urging Trump to

42:16

tell Republican allies in Congress that they

42:19

should withdraw any objections to the certification

42:21

so the country could move on, sources

42:23

said. Instead, Trump again declined

42:25

to act, telling Cipollone, I don't want

42:27

to do that. Cipollone

42:30

recalled to investigators according to sources.

42:33

Really a series of very

42:36

damaging statements from very

42:38

credible people, all of whom

42:40

are Republican, all of whom

42:42

are on Trump's staff, right? Around

42:45

him, supporters, political people, lawyers,

42:47

what have you. They've

42:51

testified under oath to the prosecutors already.

42:56

And so you can only imagine that they have their

42:58

pick. They can use any or all of these people

43:00

at trial and they

43:04

are going to provide some very powerful

43:06

evidence of what exactly Trump

43:09

did and didn't do that day.

43:11

Yeah, that's the ochinostra for you. And

43:17

how important was that privilege battle to get

43:19

these eight folks? And again, there's a couple

43:21

of names that aren't on here that I'm

43:24

very curious about. And you know, I'm always

43:26

like, I'm on Johnny

43:28

McEntee, like white on right, like where, what's

43:31

he doing? What's he? Because, you

43:33

know, I had had some exclusive reporting way

43:35

back in the day from

43:38

very credible sources that

43:41

Pence's badges and his team's badges stopped

43:43

working. And

43:45

it would have been Johnny McEntee at

43:47

the presidential personnel office

43:49

that would have been

43:51

in charge of or could have

43:54

access to activate and deactivate badges. And

43:58

this source told me that that's why they ended up. app-loading

44:00

them because they

44:02

couldn't get back into the VP's emphasis.

44:08

But of course, that is just my one source there. It

44:12

was corroborated by another source who was with Pence's

44:15

team that day. But also, everybody's

44:17

badges could have been deactivated. I don't know. Who

44:19

knows? I don't know the real story there, but I'm just

44:21

trying to paint this picture of like, I want to know

44:23

what's going on with Johnny McEntee. And he doesn't

44:26

come up too often. So I'm very

44:28

interested to see how he is utilized

44:30

and how his testimony is

44:33

utilized in this particular

44:35

investigation. We will learn that as

44:37

soon as the trial is out of abeyance, once the DC

44:39

Circuit Court of Appeals throws out the

44:41

immunity claim. And I think

44:43

I'm really hammering this point about like, imagine

44:45

how the significance of these witnesses is a

44:47

trial. You've got to remember that a lot

44:50

of these people are still pretty tight in

44:52

Trump world. I mean, obviously not the Pats

44:54

or Scavino maybe, but guys like

44:56

McEntee. I mean, certainly Ivanka

44:58

is still involved

45:00

to some level. This

45:03

is like, all right, I'm

45:06

thinking like death scene

45:08

from Julius Caesar, right? They've

45:10

been trying to convince people all

45:12

week to take Caesar out,

45:15

Casca strikes first, and then everybody

45:17

stabs him. And that could

45:20

be what we witness in this

45:22

trial, right? One

45:24

witness goes on there and

45:27

testifies. Even

45:29

these people who are still kind of

45:31

playing their card in Trump

45:33

world right now, ignoring the

45:36

fact, not talking about this stuff with

45:38

the boss, just kind of trying to

45:40

live this thing,

45:43

whatever it is, this life they're in, as

45:45

long as they can. But

45:48

they're not going to be able to kind

45:50

of get out of telling the truth about

45:52

what they know about him in a very

45:55

damaging way. And when one of them does

45:57

it, that's going to give permission to all

45:59

the people. the rest of them to get up and

46:02

go into the gory detail. They have to do

46:04

it anyway. They got to tell the truth under

46:06

oath. And I think it's going to be a

46:10

really incredible thing to witness. Yeah,

46:13

it will be. And that's

46:15

why I'm actually refreshing Pacer right now

46:17

to see. You were

46:19

getting breaking news. Right,

46:25

because don't forget. Oh, wait,

46:27

here's a US. Oh, that's a Mar-a-Lago

46:29

documents case. Mar-a-Lago documents.

46:31

Bummer. OK. He's trying to win. I

46:33

get it. I am. I'm just trying to

46:35

win. I respect it. Thank you. But

46:37

yeah, we can't really do anything

46:40

in this with moving this trial

46:42

forward until that

46:44

immunity hearing decision comes in. And

46:46

we exhaust it through on bonk

46:48

and SCOTUS. Still, fingers

46:51

crossed, they deny CERT. And now it looks

46:53

like the chances are even better since the

46:55

entire argument about immunity is just blown to

46:57

bits. Deflated. Yeah, for sure. Deflated,

47:00

Belichick style. No Belichick jokes this week.

47:02

All right, everybody, we have

47:04

to take another quick break. But we have more

47:06

to get to. Stick around. We'll be right back.

47:08

Bum, bum, bum, bum, bum, bum,

47:10

bum, bum, bum, bum, bum, bum. Bum,

47:16

bum, bum, bum, bum, bum, bum, bum, bum. Welcome

47:18

back. OK, we're staying in DC because

47:20

you'll remember that Jack Smith had

47:23

produced some discovery and a purported exhibit list.

47:25

I'm not sure why it's a purported list.

47:27

It seems like it's just a list, but

47:30

whatever. And he

47:32

filed a motion in lemonade, even though the proceedings

47:34

are stayed. And after

47:36

DOJ produced discovery, Trump's lawyers

47:38

wrote a letter telling DOJ that they would ignore

47:40

the production. They were going to leave it out

47:42

on the stoop in the rain. But

47:45

as of last week's episode, after DOJ filed

47:47

a motion in lemonade on the docket, we

47:50

hadn't gotten another letter. We were wondering

47:52

what was happening. So instead

47:54

of writing him another letter, we got

47:56

a motion from Trump to compel the court

47:58

to order Jack Smith. to show cause

48:01

why he shouldn't be held in

48:03

contempt for, quote, violating the stay

48:05

order. Well, this week we got

48:07

a response from the DOJ. That's

48:09

lovely. Yes. And

48:12

as you might imagine, they do not agree

48:14

with the Trump team's position. This is not

48:16

a, this is not a consent agreement or

48:20

voluntary submission to sanctions. Instead,

48:22

Jack Smith team says the

48:25

defendant claims that the government intentionally

48:28

violated the court's stay order and

48:30

promoted a political agenda by

48:33

fulfilling its continuing discovery

48:35

obligations and voluntarily complying

48:37

with otherwise suspended deadlines.

48:40

That is false. The government

48:42

has not violated and never

48:44

intentionally would violate in order

48:46

of the court and the

48:48

defendants recycled allegations of partisanship

48:51

and prosecutorial misconduct remain baseless.

48:53

The defendant's motion for an order to show

48:55

cause should be denied. I love

48:58

that. That's a great, first of all, I love

49:00

how every single one of Jack Smith's filings is

49:02

like the defendant says this and this and this

49:04

and this. That is wrong or that is

49:06

false or he is wrong or that's not,

49:08

that's right. He gives you like one

49:11

line, very tight line of here's

49:13

why and then deny the motion.

49:16

And you could basically just do it on that. You

49:18

don't even have to read the rest of the filing.

49:20

I also love the word economy instead

49:22

of saying here's where he made a

49:24

previous baseless allegations

49:27

of partisanship. Here's where he

49:29

made prosecutorial misconduct, baseless prosecutorial

49:31

misconduct claim. Here is where

49:34

he just says an order of

49:36

the court and the defendant's recycled

49:38

allegations of partisanship and prosecutorial

49:40

misconduct remain baseless like the

49:42

same old tired arguments. It's a very beautifully

49:44

crafted sentence. Anyway, go for it. All

49:46

right. So they go on to say, on December 13th, 2023, the court issued

49:49

an order

49:51

explaining that the defendant's pending

49:53

interlocutory appeal, quote, automatically stays

49:55

any further proceedings that would

49:57

move this case towards trial.

50:00

or impose additional burdens of litigation

50:02

on defendant. And

50:04

for clarity, stay the deadlines

50:06

and proceedings scheduled by its

50:09

pretrial order as amended. The

50:12

government does not understand that order to

50:14

prohibit either party from voluntarily

50:16

complying with the pretrial order

50:19

or to counterman the government's, quote,

50:21

continuing duty to disclose discovery under

50:24

federal rule of criminal procedure 16c.

50:27

I thought that was a great

50:29

point because they're saying, hey,

50:31

you can stay whatever you want. The other

50:34

guy doesn't have to respond, but we have

50:36

an independent obligation under the federal rules of

50:38

court as the

50:40

prosecutors to keep providing discovery

50:43

as we go. Yeah. Yep,

50:45

great. And again, so succinct. And

50:47

here's the key part of this filing,

50:50

right? He goes on to say,

50:52

before the stay was issued,

50:54

before Judge Chutkin put

50:57

the stay in place, we

51:00

in a pleading, acknowledging that

51:02

the defendant's interlocutory appeal automatically stayed aspects

51:04

of the case. We conceded that and

51:06

we put it in a briefing. We

51:09

in that briefing informed the court and

51:11

the defendant that during

51:13

the appeal's pendency, while this thing

51:16

was stayed, we would

51:18

voluntarily comply with the adjourned deadlines

51:20

to help ensure trial proceeds promptly

51:23

if the court's order is affirmed. We

51:25

said before the stay came out, we were going

51:27

to keep filing stuff. And

51:31

because the court's subsequent stay order

51:33

did not forbid this, the

51:35

government did what it said it would do. That's

51:38

brilliant. And that's why it was

51:40

put in there. We're going to keep filing stuff. Now

51:42

had in the stay order, if Judge

51:44

Chutkin came back and said, I'm staying this, and by

51:46

the way, government, you said you would keep filing stuff?

51:49

Don't. That's a different story. She didn't put that

51:52

in there. Nope. So the government did what

51:54

it said it would do. Nothing here. What reasonable

51:56

person would have put that in there? Right. The

51:58

government is simply saying, we're going to give you what you're entitled

52:01

to now, you don't have to look at it.

52:03

You're not under any obligation. Why

52:06

not? Yeah, and they said we're going to do

52:08

that before she issued the stay. And if she

52:10

didn't want that, she'd have said so in the

52:12

stay. And nothing here

52:14

requires any action by the defendant. He

52:17

fails to explain how the mere receipt

52:19

of discovery materials that he is not

52:21

obligated to review or the

52:23

early filing of government pleadings to which he

52:25

does not yet need to respond possibly burdens

52:28

him. He doesn't explain how

52:30

this could possibly be a burden. The

52:32

defendant falsely paints the government's voluntary

52:35

compliance with the motion and lemonade deadline

52:37

as an effort to quote, spread political

52:39

talking points. Not so.

52:42

The defendant's misconduct allegation

52:45

to which the government has responded in

52:47

its opposition to the defendant's selective and

52:49

vindictive prosecution motion, that thing is

52:51

faceless and merits no further response.

52:55

We don't have to talk about this anymore. And

52:57

the motion and lemonade itself addresses topics

53:00

that the defendant has explicitly and implicitly

53:02

indicated through public statements and filings he

53:04

is likely to raise at trial. So

53:06

it's no secret. So

53:09

your argument that we're trying to, you

53:12

know, Trump's

53:14

argument that we're somehow trying to try him

53:17

in absentia through our filings that he's not

53:19

allowed to respond to is BS.

53:22

Right. It's BS. Yeah. Yeah.

53:24

You know, he objects to receiving things

53:26

he doesn't have to respond to, but

53:29

then responds by filing a motion on

53:32

the docket, which then has to be

53:34

briefed. Okay.

53:38

Anyway, this week, we also learned

53:40

that both Judge Chutkin and Jack

53:42

Smith were victims of swatting very

53:44

recently. Jack Smith was

53:47

swatted on Christmas Day and Judge

53:49

Chutkin was swatted this past week.

53:52

And I think also

53:54

I heard Judge Engaron in New York

53:56

was swatted on Thursday. So. Definitely

54:01

the swatting is back with a vengeance. And,

54:05

you know, I think a lot of people

54:08

know, have heard of swatting before, maybe some

54:10

don't understand exactly what it involves. It's

54:13

basically when someone wants to

54:15

harass someone else, like let's

54:17

say hypothetically, me, they

54:20

will call in, either make a

54:23

call directly to law enforcement, or

54:25

sometimes they call something, they'll call

54:27

a place like a suicide hotline. And

54:30

pretend to be the person they want to harass.

54:33

And they'll say,

54:35

you know, as happened

54:38

to me a couple months

54:41

ago, that I've killed

54:43

my wife and children, and I'm

54:46

going to go shoot up a school next. And

54:49

then, of course, the suicide hotline

54:51

has to immediately call, make

54:54

the appropriate law enforcement notification,

54:56

and law enforcement responds

54:59

sometimes with a SWAT team, and

55:01

emergently thinking something's going on at

55:03

the house. If they

55:05

respond like really quickly with a

55:07

tactical team, it can be

55:09

a very dangerous incident for the people who

55:12

are the targets of this sort of harassment. So

55:15

it's also very unsettling on your family.

55:17

I can tell

55:19

you that from personal experience. Oh, yeah?

55:24

Yeah, so – but it's just

55:26

out-and-out harassment. People are trying

55:29

to intimidate you. They're

55:31

just trying to cause tension and fear

55:33

and terror in your family. So you've

55:35

been swatted? Yes, a couple months ago.

55:37

Would you be willing to

55:39

talk about it? Yeah,

55:42

sure. I'm probably being a little too cagey with

55:44

my example, but that's exactly what happened to me.

55:48

Somebody was a Sunday, and I was actually

55:50

not at home. My wife

55:52

was home. And a couple

55:56

of law enforcement officers where I

55:58

live. I

56:00

called the house and my wife answered the

56:02

phone and they asked her a bunch of

56:04

very kind of pointed questions. And

56:07

she had no idea what was going

56:09

on. It said she was fine. Everything was okay. And

56:11

then they asked her to come outside and meet her

56:13

on the front porch if everything was actually okay. She

56:17

did that. And that's when they explained to her

56:19

what had happened, that somebody had called a suicide

56:21

hotline pretending to be me and

56:23

confessing that I had killed my whole family

56:25

and saying that I

56:27

planned to go shoot up a school the next day. They

56:31

expected it. I guess they've

56:33

got experience dealing with these things here.

56:37

So they responded, I thought, very incredibly

56:40

professionally. They came out first before

56:42

they made any contact. They

56:45

didn't come thundering onto the street with

56:47

10 SWAT trucks and

56:50

everything else. They sent two officers out. They

56:52

took a good look at the house

56:54

to see if they could tell if there was anything that

56:56

seemed out of the ordinary or

56:58

anything that might be going on. And

57:00

then once they felt like they

57:03

didn't see any kind of signs of anything, rather

57:05

than calling out the troops, they made the phone

57:07

call into the house and

57:10

then eventually approached. So they resolved it without

57:13

creating more danger, which was great. Totally

57:16

appreciate that. I would give

57:18

them a shout out, but I don't really want

57:20

to encourage this so they

57:23

know who they are if they're listening. I

57:27

mean, I don't see

57:31

swatting attempts on like Judge

57:35

Cannon or Rick Grinnell. It

57:38

seems to be everybody that

57:40

has been painted as a quote, deep

57:43

state operative that's

57:45

taken the brunt of this. It seems to

57:47

be pretty one-sided, but I don't know. I

57:50

honestly don't know. I think that's kind

57:52

of an understandable way to look at

57:54

it. There's

57:57

definitely a connection between the high

57:59

profile people we're seeing. recently, Jack

58:01

Smith, Judge Chutkin, no question. There

58:05

seems to be kind of a likely

58:08

similar motivations there, but Marjorie

58:10

Taylor Greene got swatted on

58:12

Christmas as well. Well, she

58:14

says. She says. A bunch

58:17

of Georgia state legislators, got Republicans, got,

58:19

have been swatted. I saw them on

58:22

TV talking about it last night. So

58:24

I do think that it's

58:26

become a garden variety tactic that people

58:28

use. It happens very often to people

58:31

in the Jewish community, to

58:33

Jewish community centers, synagogues. We

58:36

had the bomb threat SWAT against

58:38

Judge Angoron this

58:40

week, which was a SWAT, considered

58:42

a swatting incident. Man.

58:45

There happened, there was a guy in Kansas, a

58:47

while, maybe it was a couple of years ago

58:49

now who got killed by the SWAT team that

58:51

responded to his house. So

58:53

it's dangerous. You also, if

58:55

your law enforcement, local law enforcement

58:57

responds, truly believing that there's something

58:59

going on, I mean, they go,

59:01

you know, lights and sirens to

59:04

your house. Just the process of doing

59:07

that is dangerous to them, right? You're

59:10

taking on all kinds of risk by

59:13

responding quickly. So it's super

59:15

irresponsible and damaging.

59:17

It's just also really, really annoying, but

59:21

there's not a whole lot. So

59:23

that, the IRS, deep

59:26

audit, the, I mean, the

59:29

firing an hour before you were set to

59:32

retire, which was actually, you were already retired,

59:34

but whatever. Man. It's

59:39

quite a road, but that's

59:41

all right. We're good. We're marching

59:43

on. I got a great podcast

59:45

now. I used to go on

59:47

CNN. I only lost my VA

59:49

career. And so

59:51

that's like not really that big of a

59:54

deal in comparison. I had a little bit of a

59:56

hit piece out of me this summer, but you know,

59:58

whatever. You know what? We all as a normal. Norman

1:00:00

Mailer said everybody gets their own bloody noses.

1:00:02

That's true. That's very true. We all have

1:00:04

things to deal with and you just got

1:00:06

to kind of keep looking forward and

1:00:08

moving on. You

1:00:11

only take fire when you're over the target.

1:00:13

There you go. All right. On that note,

1:00:15

we've got some Florida stuff we need to

1:00:17

discuss. So always looking forward to

1:00:20

going down to Mar-a-Lago at Palm Beach,

1:00:22

West Palm Beach County. No right-o. Shake

1:00:25

it. Okay. We

1:00:29

have to take a quick break, everybody. Stick around. We'll

1:00:32

be right back. Hey,

1:00:41

everybody. Welcome back. Time to head

1:00:43

down to Florida, FloRida, where we have a

1:00:45

couple of filings on the docket. Let's start

1:00:47

with Jack Smith's second joint discovery report, file

1:00:49

January 9th. And as you

1:00:52

go through these trial

1:00:54

proceedings, you do these things called joint

1:00:56

discovery reports where you let the court

1:00:58

know what the discovery sitch is, how

1:01:00

much has been handed over, what's left

1:01:02

to go, any issues. Does

1:01:05

the other party agree with what you're handing over?

1:01:08

And so they wrote in accordance with the

1:01:10

court's order, United States of America files this

1:01:12

discovery report. That order contemplates

1:01:14

a joint discovery report being filed.

1:01:16

But as the defendants have yet

1:01:18

to produce any discovery, the government

1:01:22

has prepared our report. So

1:01:25

Trump hasn't handed over a piece of

1:01:27

discovery in Mar-a-Lago. Nothing. Nothing.

1:01:30

Counsel for the defendants have reviewed this

1:01:32

report and agree it's consistent with representations.

1:01:34

So Trump agrees he hasn't handed over any discovery.

1:01:38

The government has made three- We counted up

1:01:40

everything we turned over. It was a very

1:01:42

quick count. The number is zero. It was an

1:01:44

unbelievable count. It had tears in its eyes.

1:01:48

The government has made three productions of

1:01:50

unclassified discovery since the last joint discovery

1:01:52

report. We have production six, which is

1:01:54

about 1900 pages of documents, which

1:01:57

was provided to all defendants on October

1:01:59

6th. The production included

1:02:02

memorialization of recent witness statements,

1:02:05

recent witness statements, and

1:02:08

materials the government had recently obtained from

1:02:10

the National Archives. Recently?

1:02:13

Okay. Production 7 consisted

1:02:15

of about 138 pages of documents. That's

1:02:18

too many. I can't possibly read them all in

1:02:20

time. 138

1:02:22

pages, which was provided to all defendants October 16th. The

1:02:25

documents were produced in response to an

1:02:27

October 9th discovery letter from defendant Trump

1:02:30

notwithstanding the government's belief that the

1:02:33

production exceeded its current discovery obligations.

1:02:36

But we gave it to him anyway. Trump

1:02:38

asked for a bunch of BS, remember? They

1:02:40

gave him about 138 pages of the BS. That's

1:02:42

how we write. We're givers, okay? We give

1:02:44

and we give and we give. Yeah,

1:02:47

so they're overproducing. Production

1:02:49

8, about 2,000 pages, which was

1:02:52

provided to all defendants December 6th. This

1:02:55

production included material

1:02:58

previously produced in classified discovery

1:03:00

that is now unclassified or

1:03:03

for which the relevant equity holders have

1:03:05

determined the documents no longer need

1:03:07

to be protected through classification and

1:03:09

have declassified them. So the

1:03:12

relevant agencies, the

1:03:14

owners of these classified documents, about

1:03:17

2,000 pages worth, have said

1:03:19

these aren't classified anymore. You can go ahead and hand

1:03:21

them over to everybody, including Walt. And Carlos,

1:03:23

go ahead. And that's

1:03:26

not odd. You have to review

1:03:28

this stuff. The prosecutors are obligated

1:03:30

to go to the originators of

1:03:32

the information, whoever owns the stuff

1:03:34

and say, is this

1:03:36

still whatever, secret, top secret? And

1:03:39

if it's old, if it's kind of

1:03:41

outdated, if it doesn't reveal anything, they

1:03:44

may come back and say, you can

1:03:46

have it. It's no longer –

1:03:48

we'll declassify it and roll on.

1:03:51

Interesting to me is the fact that

1:03:54

that means that they've determined

1:03:57

the rest of it is still classified. So

1:04:00

Trump didn't declassify everything with his mind. Okay.

1:04:04

Deo Lavera's counsel has

1:04:06

raised periodically with

1:04:08

the government certain questions relating

1:04:10

to technical issues with viewing the

1:04:13

video footage. Remember the coverup of the coverup

1:04:15

of the coverup? The

1:04:17

government has promptly assisted with these problems,

1:04:19

including by providing a laptop for viewing

1:04:21

the footage. On January 5th,

1:04:24

just a week or so ago, Mr.

1:04:27

Deo Lavera's counsel raised with the government

1:04:29

additional issues with which the government will

1:04:31

endeavor to assist. So he's having issues

1:04:33

viewing these videos of him

1:04:36

obstructing justice. He wanted it on VHS

1:04:38

and the government was like, just here,

1:04:40

take a laptop. Okay. I

1:04:42

need it on a laser disc. I only use laser discs.

1:04:46

Beta. Do you have beta? Can

1:04:49

we listen to it on 8-track? Okay.

1:04:51

Then on January 11th, the DOJ filed a

1:04:54

supplemental response to the Standing Discovery

1:04:56

Order. And this is

1:04:58

interesting. The government has provided eight

1:05:00

prior productions of unclassified discovery to

1:05:02

Trump, Walt, and Carlos. Production

1:05:06

nine consists of six pages and

1:05:08

includes two items. Number one,

1:05:11

the curriculum vitae, which is a resume,

1:05:14

of an individual the government will notice it intends

1:05:16

to use as an expert witness in

1:05:18

its case in chief at trial. And

1:05:20

two, an email chain of which the

1:05:22

government has previously produced certain portions.

1:05:26

So six pages, we have this additional discovery on January 11th.

1:05:29

The government responds to the specific items

1:05:31

identified in the Standing Discovery Order as set

1:05:33

forth below. And

1:05:35

there's four items here and they're numbered B,

1:05:38

C, D, and J. So I don't know

1:05:40

what happened to E or

1:05:42

F and G and H and I.

1:05:44

I don't know what happened to those.

1:05:46

Maybe they're redacted or classified. But

1:05:49

B is a demand for

1:05:51

reciprocal discovery. The United States requests the disclosure

1:05:53

and production of those items described and listed

1:05:56

in paragraph B of the Standing Discovery Order

1:05:58

as provided by Federal Rule of Criminal procedure.

1:06:01

C, the government is providing information or material

1:06:03

known to the United States under Brady.

1:06:07

D, same thing we're doing under

1:06:09

Giglio. And

1:06:11

number J, the government's discovery

1:06:13

productions include the grand jury

1:06:15

testimony and recordings of witnesses who may

1:06:17

testify for the government at the trial.

1:06:20

So that's just some discovery

1:06:22

and production updates that were filed

1:06:24

in Florida. So those are

1:06:26

the only two things that we got this week

1:06:28

in the Florida case. Yeah, so

1:06:30

they went to a lot of detail

1:06:33

to produce this report and then just

1:06:35

threw it into the void. That is

1:06:37

the docket of this case. It

1:06:40

takes me back to my

1:06:42

reason for it's a good week for

1:06:44

Trump and Mar-a-Lago because it just feels

1:06:46

like this thing is going

1:06:49

nowhere. It's slogging. Did we

1:06:51

get any decisions on anything out of the

1:06:53

judge, out of the court this week? No,

1:06:56

we did not. And I just feel

1:06:59

like this is like the part-time

1:07:01

job she took in the summer

1:07:03

and then ignored. This is like the

1:07:05

intern, an unpaid internship that somebody told her

1:07:07

was good for a resume and she just

1:07:09

never showed up. It

1:07:13

boggles my mind how little gets accomplished

1:07:15

there. It's one of those Joel Greenberg

1:07:17

no-show jobs. Yeah, and it's,

1:07:19

you know, again, is it because of

1:07:21

bias? Is it because of incompetence? Who

1:07:23

knows? You can't, nobody's in the judge's

1:07:25

head here, but the end

1:07:27

result is continuously frustrating,

1:07:29

I think. But hey,

1:07:31

maybe I don't have perfect vision over it and

1:07:34

she's doing all kinds of things, but it's not

1:07:36

apparent from what we're seeing in

1:07:38

public. Yeah, and I do

1:07:40

want to say looking up

1:07:42

on the docket, it

1:07:45

seems that there are a couple of

1:07:47

notices filed on

1:07:49

the Mar-a-Lago docket, notice, notice,

1:07:52

but I am unable, Pacer is down, I'm

1:07:54

unable to see him, but we'll go over

1:07:56

whatever they are next week. All

1:08:00

right. What do we have for listener questions? So

1:08:02

listener questions there were tons of them this week

1:08:04

It was awesome reading them. Of course, we can

1:08:06

only do one or two. I'll give

1:08:08

you one here This one

1:08:10

comes to us from Gates who

1:08:13

says hello splendidly marvelous hosts whose

1:08:15

dulcet tones Grace our ears and

1:08:17

compatriots in the critical fight to

1:08:20

save democracy I've

1:08:22

listened to the pod every Sunday morning when I

1:08:24

go for a walk and I finally worked up

1:08:27

the courage to ask a question Which I hope

1:08:29

will be answered by by your Malefluis voices. Oh

1:08:31

really laying it on I know Okay

1:08:34

in discussions about the 14th Amendment the argument

1:08:36

has been made that the president is not

1:08:38

an officer of the United States But

1:08:41

the president is the commander-in-chief Does

1:08:44

that contradict the argument that he's not an

1:08:46

officer of the United States? Can the role

1:08:48

of commander-in-chief be used or pointed to in

1:08:50

any way in these 14th Amendment arguments? It's

1:08:52

a great question and we really didn't talk

1:08:54

much about the 14th Amendment stuff this week

1:08:56

So I picked it so I think

1:08:58

that you are you are thinking in the right

1:09:01

direction There is no

1:09:03

place in the Constitution where it says

1:09:05

the president is an officer of the

1:09:07

United States However, it refers

1:09:10

to the office of the presidency

1:09:13

At least 25 times and to be clear

1:09:15

It's not saying the office of the president

1:09:17

like the physical room He sits in is

1:09:20

referring to the office of the presidency

1:09:23

And so you certainly could draw the logical

1:09:25

conclusion that that makes him an officer I

1:09:28

think a lot of the the duties that

1:09:31

he has that are specifically given

1:09:33

to the president and the Constitution Add

1:09:36

to that interpretation commander-in-chief

1:09:38

role certainly but

1:09:43

The work it's a little bit cranky

1:09:46

and this is why it's a legit Supreme

1:09:48

Court Constitutional

1:09:50

text interpretation issue

1:09:53

Article 2 section 2 says

1:09:55

the president shall appoint all

1:09:58

other officers of the

1:10:00

United States. And

1:10:03

so to me, from the plain

1:10:05

text, that reads like all

1:10:08

other officers, that would

1:10:10

mean him and all

1:10:13

the others. Therefore, they're

1:10:15

all officers. So I feel like

1:10:18

the text supports this interpretation. And

1:10:20

then of course, there's the article of the absurdity,

1:10:23

right? The 14th

1:10:26

Amendment, as we know now, having talked

1:10:28

about it a lot, prohibits any

1:10:31

and every office, really

1:10:34

any office holder in the federal or

1:10:37

state government from being

1:10:39

filled by an insurrectionist. Any office

1:10:42

cannot be filled by an insurrectionist, right? That's the

1:10:44

qualitative result

1:10:47

of the 14th Amendment, whatever,

1:10:49

section three. So to

1:10:52

think that the presidency was excluded

1:10:54

from that, like it's, we can't

1:10:56

have an off a insurrectionist serve

1:10:59

as like Secretary of State of

1:11:01

Montana, but it's okay to have

1:11:03

one be President of the United

1:11:06

States. It's preposterous. It is. And

1:11:09

I just want to say two things on this one.

1:11:11

First of all, talking about his role

1:11:13

as commander in chief, does that

1:11:15

make him an officer as in like

1:11:17

an officer of the military? And I

1:11:19

would say no, because it is specifically

1:11:22

important to recognize that the

1:11:24

president is the civilian head

1:11:26

of the military. That's a good

1:11:28

point. So I, because, and they did

1:11:30

that for very specific reasons, right? So it's

1:11:32

not just all military all the time, like

1:11:34

24 hour military, no, it's not

1:11:37

military. We have a civilian head commander in chief

1:11:39

of military. So I wouldn't consider him an officer

1:11:41

in that respect. However, and,

1:11:43

and the

1:11:47

lawyers for the plaintiffs in Colorado argued

1:11:49

this as well. Trump has

1:11:51

argued that he is an officer of the

1:11:53

United States in court in the

1:11:56

Eugene Carroll case, when he was

1:11:58

trying to get subbed by the DOJ

1:12:00

from Bill Barr under the

1:12:02

Westfall Act because if you're an officer

1:12:04

of the United States, the DOJ can represent you.

1:12:06

And if the DOJ represents you in a case,

1:12:08

it's pretty much over. It's pretty much game

1:12:11

over for whoever's suing you. Yeah.

1:12:13

It's bounced to federal court and then it's

1:12:15

subject to being thrown out entirely. And

1:12:18

so initially, Bill Barr said, yeah, he is an

1:12:20

officer of the United States. And Trump argued, I'm

1:12:22

an officer of the United States. I

1:12:25

can't, I have, you know, you can't, I need the

1:12:27

DOJ to represent me here. And

1:12:29

Bill Barr said, yep, you are, you're an officer of

1:12:31

the United States. And then of course, Merrick Garland came

1:12:34

in and said, yeah, but nothing that you said was

1:12:36

within that perimeter of your job. So

1:12:39

the Westfall Act didn't apply, but not because he

1:12:41

wasn't an officer of the United States. And

1:12:43

the fact that Trump has argued he was an officer, kind of

1:12:45

like what came up in the DC

1:12:48

immunity hearing when they were like, didn't

1:12:51

you argue that you were a candidate

1:12:53

for office when you intervened in the

1:12:55

Texas lawsuit to overturn the election

1:12:57

results in several swings in the United

1:13:00

States? Didn't you intervene as a candidate

1:13:02

for office? Because

1:13:04

the argument is he's a candidate for office,

1:13:06

not a sitting president. So it doesn't matter

1:13:08

if a sitting president has immunity or not.

1:13:10

He was a candidate. And

1:13:13

that has to do with Judge Lutig's Executive Vesting

1:13:15

Clause, right? You're a candidate. The office doesn't care

1:13:17

who occupies it. And

1:13:20

so he continually argues

1:13:24

different positions based on who he's talking to.

1:13:26

And this was one of them. So he's

1:13:28

argued he was an officer. It'll be interesting

1:13:30

to see what the Supreme Court does with

1:13:32

that. Yeah, I think, I mean, I feel

1:13:34

like the weight of the evidence is on the

1:13:37

side of, yes, of course, he's an officer. I

1:13:40

think you make a good point. It's definitely not, he's

1:13:43

definitely not a military officer. He's not

1:13:45

an officer in the military. But there

1:13:47

are many civilian military leaders who are

1:13:49

clearly officers of the United States, like

1:13:52

the Secretary of State, right? Or anybody

1:13:54

who works in the Secretary's office. They're

1:13:56

all appointed people. But

1:13:58

so I think it'll... I

1:14:01

think they'll go that way, but honestly this crew you never

1:14:03

know. Right. Yeah,

1:14:05

very good point. All

1:14:07

right. That is it. We

1:14:09

have more questions that we're going to have to

1:14:11

bump to next week because we're already a little

1:14:13

bit over our hour here. Yeah. But

1:14:16

you have so many incredible questions. We'll keep them all on

1:14:18

the hopper. Thank you for sending them in. If you

1:14:20

have one, we've had the link in the show notes there

1:14:22

for the forum that you can fill out to ask us

1:14:24

a question. We really, really appreciate these. They really make us

1:14:26

think. I

1:14:30

just have to say of the

1:14:32

listeners of this program, how absolutely

1:14:34

brilliant you all are for having

1:14:36

these incredibly well

1:14:38

thought out questions. I mean

1:14:40

they're really good. They're great. They're

1:14:43

great. They make me think differently about the

1:14:45

show and it shows us a little bit about what people are

1:14:47

really interested in and gives

1:14:49

us some insight as to what folks

1:14:51

are, how they're thinking about these issues and

1:14:53

that helps us in deciding how we talk

1:14:56

about them. So yeah. Put Anya

1:14:58

and keep them coming. For real. All

1:15:00

right. I'm going to check one

1:15:02

more time to see if I won the bet.

1:15:04

This is almost getting sad. I

1:15:07

am very sad. I'm very competitive. I

1:15:09

like to win. Hunter

1:15:12

Biden. Nope. Hunter Biden.

1:15:15

Don't care. No offense,

1:15:17

Hunter, but it's not in our

1:15:20

jurisdiction. Yeah. Nope. We

1:15:23

don't have anything. I still have a day. If

1:15:26

we do get a decision before

1:15:29

the end of the week, we'll pop it

1:15:31

in this recording. But as of now, nothing. As

1:15:33

of now, Andy is winning the bet. We

1:15:35

will see you all next

1:15:37

week. Do you have any last

1:15:39

thoughts before we get out here? No. I'm

1:15:42

just thinking about I'm trying to figure what's

1:15:44

the over-under on how quickly I'll get texted

1:15:46

by you if you win. I'm thinking it's

1:15:48

like a second and a third. Something like

1:15:50

that. It's going to be very fast. But

1:15:53

I'll know immediately if the tide has changed

1:15:55

on this bet. Yeah. I'll be like,

1:15:57

get your Pete Strzok voice ready because you about to

1:15:59

call. from red states. Oh

1:16:04

boy. I'm totally telling

1:16:06

you said that. All right

1:16:08

everybody, thank you so much for listening. Thank you to

1:16:10

our patrons. We are going to be having an amazing

1:16:13

get together. We're going to treat you to dinner and

1:16:15

cocktails and mocktails in DC on

1:16:18

April 20th and the RSVPs for that

1:16:21

go out on my birthday, January 20th

1:16:23

at noon Pacific 3

1:16:25

Eastern, my 50th birthday. We're going to send you those

1:16:27

RSVPs. It's first come, first served because obviously the fire

1:16:29

marshal has a max cap on how many people we

1:16:32

can have in the building. But

1:16:34

we urge you to sign up to

1:16:36

be a patron if you haven't already.

1:16:38

You'll get that invite. Plus you'll get

1:16:40

to support independent journalism and you get

1:16:42

these episodes early and ad free. You

1:16:45

just do all that over at patreon.com/Mueller. She

1:16:47

wrote. So thank you. We will see you

1:16:49

next week. I've been Alison Gill. And I'm Andy

1:16:51

McCabe. Hi,

1:16:58

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

1:17:00

And we're Frangelove. You know what you

1:17:03

need in your life? The

1:17:05

Final Word podcast. Yes, you do.

1:17:07

That's right. It is the final word on

1:17:09

all things political and pop cultural. Where we

1:17:11

make real news real funny. Where

1:17:13

we inspire you so you can

1:17:15

hashtag resist. Subscribe and

1:17:18

get a new episode of the Final Word

1:17:20

podcast each week. It's the news we think

1:17:22

you need to hear. That's right. We think

1:17:24

you need to hear it. Okay. Yeah, it's

1:17:26

what we say. So that's right. And because

1:17:28

all we do is give every Thursday, you

1:17:30

can listen to our hysterical podcast, Idiot of

1:17:32

the Week. We round up the stupid because

1:17:35

you know what? Somebody has to.

1:17:37

Okay. It's

1:17:49

no surprise that newsmakers try to manipulate the

1:17:51

audience. They want you to believe that they

1:17:53

are the one holding the line and they'll use any trick they

1:17:56

can to get you there. But don't let them

1:17:58

fool you. Get inspired. On

1:18:01

the Nandisturgil, I have been a reporter

1:18:03

and today I teach future reporters to cut

1:18:05

the spin and think critically about what newsmakers

1:18:07

say. My podcast, Unspun,

1:18:09

shows you how to know when you're

1:18:11

being manipulated by the news. Learn

1:18:14

to spot the tricks on how to make up your own

1:18:16

mind about what's true. So if you're

1:18:18

tired of being fooled by the news, subscribe to

1:18:20

Unspun today. Unspun. Because

1:18:22

you deserve the truth. Unspun.