0:00

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

0:02

When you really felt just so

0:04

overwhelmed, then this is your sign to reach out

0:06

to the 988 lifeline for 24

0:08

seven free confidential support. You don't

0:10

have to hide how you feel,

0:13

text, call or chat anytime. Hi,

0:17

I'm Liz Winston. I'm Moji Elawade El.

0:19

And we're the hosts of Feminist Buzzkills,

0:21

the only weekly podcast that helps

0:23

you navigate the post row hellscape. We

0:25

dissect all the news from that sketchy

0:28

intersection of abortion and misogyny with our

0:30

guests, the abortion providers and activists working

0:32

on the ground. Plus, we have amazing

0:34

comedians to help us laugh through the

0:37

rage. Feminist Buzzkills drops Fridays wherever you

0:39

get your pod fixed. Listen and subscribe

0:41

because when BS is popping, we pop

0:44

off. MSW

0:47

media. I

0:51

signed an order appointing Jack Smith. And

0:54

those who say Jack is a

0:57

fan. Mr. Smith is a veteran

0:59

career prosecutor. Events

1:02

leading up to and on January

1:04

6 classified documents and other presidential

1:06

records. You understand what prison is.

1:08

Send me to jail. Hey,

1:18

everybody. Welcome to episode 65 of

1:20

the Jack podcast. This is a show

1:23

about all things special counsel. It's Sunday,

1:25

February 25th, 2024. I'm Alison Gill. And

1:27

I'm Andy McCabe. My gosh,

1:29

we have a lot to cover today again. And as

1:32

we record this episode, we still have

1:34

not gotten the SCOTUS ruling on Trump's

1:36

application for stay of the

1:38

DC Circuit Court's mandate in the immunity

1:40

case. And we are going

1:42

to go over what this little

1:44

delay could mean. Yeah. And Trump

1:47

has filed a deluge of

1:49

motions, a plethora. Would you say a

1:51

plethora, Andy? Do we have a plethora

1:53

of motions? I might say that,

1:55

but not publicly. To dismiss charges in

1:58

the Mar-a-Lago case, which were due February 22nd,

2:01

and Carlos de la Vera has filed a motion to

2:03

dismiss as well. We'll go over those motions in detail,

2:05

but I have to tell you, his arguments

2:07

are a lot weaker than I anticipated. I

2:09

feel like I could have come up with

2:11

better arguments. But before we do that, let's

2:13

talk about the status of the immunity motion

2:15

in the DC case and joining us to

2:18

discuss this and perhaps the little bit of

2:20

delay we're experiencing from the Supreme Court of

2:22

Law professor at University of Texas and

2:24

author of the one first

2:27

sub-stack newsletter where I get all

2:29

of my information. Please welcome Steve Vladek. Thanks

2:31

guys, great to be with you. Great to

2:33

have you back. I'm so

2:35

glad you're here and thank you for coming in

2:38

last minute to help us sort

2:40

through this. There was a

2:42

pretty important thread that you put up

2:44

on Twitter and also everybody needs to

2:47

check out your newsletter one first

2:49

because a lot of that information is in there too. But

2:52

the first thing that I learned from you

2:54

today was that this is

2:56

an order from the Supreme Court that

2:58

could come at any time. There's no

3:01

real time limit or, you know, because normally I

3:03

get up and I look for, you know,

3:05

rulings at a certain time in the morning.

3:08

But tell us a little bit about that. Yeah. So,

3:10

you know, the Supreme Court, when it

3:13

hands down decisions and cases in which

3:15

it heard oral argument like the Colorado

3:17

ballot disqualification case, you know, that's really

3:19

carefully choreographed. We've got a

3:21

heads up that there's going to be an

3:23

opinion day. We know that the opinions get

3:25

handed down from the bench starting at 10

3:28

a.m. We don't know

3:30

which opinions ever, but at least we're ready

3:32

for the possibility. And we know that when

3:34

they're done, they're done. Right. They

3:36

tell you this is the last one or whatever.

3:39

And so, you know, we knew, for example,

3:41

that there weren't going to be any opinions

3:43

today. Orders

3:46

are totally different, right? Orders, you know,

3:48

there's one set of orders the Supreme Court

3:50

hands down like clockwork. Those are the orders

3:52

that come out of their sort of regular

3:54

process. Most of those

3:56

orders are either denials of review of

3:59

Pending appeal. The old or house keep

4:01

him related a dependent appeals. The problem

4:03

is that when you have. An

4:06

file and like former President Trump's

4:08

application which is an emergency application.

4:11

Those. Come Down is what the

4:13

court cause completely on helpfully. Miscellaneous

4:15

orders and miscellaneous orders can show

4:18

up just about whenever a just

4:20

just admit this point. Like really

4:22

really? Frightening. League Sort of

4:24

clear. There were a bunch of

4:26

cool vid related miscellaneous orders and

4:29

early twenty twenty one that came

4:31

down at like ten forty six

4:33

Pm on a Friday night. There

4:35

was one of him down the

4:37

Wednesday night before Thanksgiving in Twenty

4:39

twenty at Eleven Fifty seven Pm.

4:41

So you know I don't visit.

4:43

and I'm not suggesting that. Etti

4:45

One edgy including you write: stay

4:47

up until midnight tonight, hitting refresh.

4:50

I as if the reality is it's probably going

4:52

to be. And during business hours or

4:55

not at all. But. No

4:57

one can be sure, and that's part

4:59

of the. As if

5:01

exasperating nature of anyone who watches

5:03

the court this closely in any

5:05

other case. I, I think

5:07

you have just inadvertently released Agee's

5:09

obsessive frenzy now to check and

5:12

snow to get totally untrue. I

5:14

went to be up until midnight

5:16

or ssssss for another is evident.

5:18

But so so I mean that

5:20

you're just to try to tamp

5:22

down everyone's paranoia right? the court,

5:24

you know. hands down late night

5:26

orders every once in awhile, but

5:28

those are usually when there is

5:30

a ticking clock. Right

5:33

there is about to be an execution right

5:35

or a was going to go into effect.

5:37

The Twelve A wanna? Yep. And

5:40

for as urgent and sensitive

5:42

and high profile is this

5:44

case is. At. The moment?

5:46

There's no ticking clock, because there's the

5:48

there's already a stay in place, right?

5:50

All right. The question is just whether

5:53

the Supreme Court should. Extend

5:55

this day. And that's not the

5:57

kind of. Emergency.

6:00

That word in the past ever

6:02

have produced in outside of business

6:04

hours really? matter? So you

6:06

you say in your a thread here that there are

6:08

two likely scenarios that may be causing this to take

6:11

a while? Can you go over those two scenarios? Yeah,

6:13

so on. Let's

6:16

I mean imagine how to start or

6:18

help us up earlier, which is it

6:20

hasn't been a while. Own graves it's

6:22

been. it's been a week since all

6:24

the briefing was complete and you know

6:27

I rises in this day and age.

6:29

A week feel like an eternity of

6:31

but by the supreme court's ah tortoise

6:33

like pace of doing anything on a

6:35

week is still pretty best. On

6:38

that said right, What? I

6:40

think is the most likely explanation for

6:42

why it's taken a week as opposed

6:44

to a day. Is. That

6:46

something is being written. And

6:49

if that's true, that gives us at least

6:51

a little bit of tea leaves to read.

6:54

So. One. Possibility

6:56

is that the court has

6:58

voted to deny Trump's Day.

7:01

To. Let the jerry's had prosecution go forward.

7:03

And someone is to sent him and writing

7:06

an opinion about why they're descended. On

7:08

the oh. There. Are some obvious

7:10

likely candidates from such an order? But

7:14

that would not be unusual in the context

7:16

of how the Supreme Court operates. For the

7:18

court to vote on day one, that they're

7:20

denying an application and for a justice to

7:22

take a week to ten days right to

7:24

set, no one would sort of pocket that

7:26

inside the court. On. Pasta

7:29

number two is that the court

7:31

actually is gonna grab the bull

7:33

by the horns and just decide

7:35

the whole case. Now. Through. Something

7:37

called a Summary of Ferments. That

7:39

would be basically a very short

7:41

opinion by the courts that says

7:43

within the Dc Circuit right. And.

7:45

So we're actually gonna jump all the

7:47

way over the question of whether to

7:50

stay the January Six prosecution. And

7:52

just say conclusively that for president,

7:54

Trump has no immunity. Go.

7:56

Back to the discordant. keep going. Can I

7:58

ask you a question about. Something like that.

8:01

Yeah. Because I've been looking at the Trump

8:03

v. Benny Thompson ruling for the Supreme

8:05

Court, where Trump argued he

8:07

had executive privilege over the NARA documents.

8:09

They couldn't be handed over to the January 6th committee. The

8:12

D.C. Circuit Court ruled that you

8:14

could have been the sitting president and had authority

8:17

to grant yourself or to have

8:19

executive privilege. But that doesn't matter.

8:21

It's not dicta because it's

8:23

more important for the January 6th committee to get

8:26

these documents. That countervails your argument

8:28

of executive privilege. Whether you're the incumbent president

8:30

and have executive privilege or not. And

8:32

so D.C. Circuit came back and said, your motion

8:34

for stay, or excuse me, SCOTUS

8:37

came back and said, your application for stay

8:39

is denied because we don't

8:41

have this dicta here, right? And

8:44

then they said Clarence Thomas would have granted.

8:46

And then Kavanaugh came in and said,

8:49

yeah, I agree with the decision here,

8:51

but I have feelings. And he

8:53

wrote a couple of pages on his feelings. Is that

8:55

jumping over and going to the meat of

8:57

this case? No, so that would

8:59

be akin to denying the stay here. So

9:03

in Trump versus Thompson, which was a

9:06

very similar posture, that

9:09

order, which AG took

9:12

a week or two for the court to get out, that

9:15

order was denying emergency relief. And

9:18

President Trump could still have appealed the D.C.

9:20

Circuit decision. He actually still did. But

9:23

because the Supreme Court had denied emergency relief,

9:25

the writing was on the wall. The court,

9:27

like two months later, denied the appeal and

9:29

no one noticed. Right.

9:32

That's the scenario that that was my sort of

9:34

scenario number one that might be happening that we're

9:36

going to get a denial of the stay and

9:39

justices have feelings that they have to put on paper.

9:43

Just to put this into context, the reason

9:45

why the third option

9:47

that got a lot of discussion when

9:49

he filed and let me

9:51

just say what that option is, right, that

9:53

the possibility of the court would treat the

9:55

stay application as a cert petition

9:57

and use this as a foil take

10:00

up the whole case, but have

10:02

full briefing and have oral argument on

10:04

an expedited basis like the Colorado case.

10:07

The reason why I think that

10:09

possibility decreases as

10:11

time goes on is because no

10:13

one would have needed to write anything to

10:17

bring that possibility to fruition. That would

10:19

have been just in order with no

10:21

separate statements. And there's no logical

10:24

reason why that would take now

10:26

eight days. So

10:28

that's why to me, the most likely possibilities

10:30

are those two. The fourth possibility that a

10:32

lot of folks are worried about that the

10:34

court is going to slow walk this for

10:36

Trump, basically by

10:38

granting them the stay but not hustling

10:41

the case up to the Supreme Court.

10:44

I do think there are justices who would

10:46

be dissenting if that's what the court was

10:48

doing. But guys, those justices would

10:50

be dissenting in a hurry. They

10:53

would have every reason if that's what the vote had

10:55

been to get a dissent out in a

10:57

day or two, as opposed to

10:59

a Trump losing scenario where

11:02

the dissenters – they're not

11:04

going to sit on this for weeks or months because eventually

11:06

the court's just going to publish, but where

11:08

the dissenters would not be in quite so much hurry. That's

11:10

why I think the longer this goes on, the

11:13

worse it is for former President Trump. So,

11:17

Steve, let me ask you one question on your

11:19

– if in fact your number one scenario is

11:22

correct and the stay is

11:24

not extended. When

11:26

Trump is back in the same position of

11:28

now deciding whether or not he wants to

11:31

ask for an en banc hearing or skipping

11:33

that and just sending in his request for

11:35

cert? I mean, he

11:37

can do either of those. And Andy,

11:39

as you know, the cert clock is

11:42

running right now but would reset if

11:44

he files a timely petition for a

11:46

rehearing en banc. It's

11:49

worth noting he's running out of time to do that. All

11:55

that could happen, but if the court denies

11:57

a stay – That's where I'm going. denied

12:00

the stay, that's a pretty clear

12:02

message to him that there's

12:05

no soup for you here, right? Either

12:07

your request for cert could be denied, which

12:10

is, I think, the likely outcome

12:12

in that follow-on scenario, or

12:14

maybe granted and then, you know, they hear it

12:16

and deny it. But clearly, they don't have a

12:18

lot of faith in his arguments if they're not

12:21

letting the stay continue, if that's the exact way

12:23

it goes. That's where we end up. I agree

12:25

with that. And at that point, and if you're

12:27

Trump at that point, what's the point of appealing?

12:29

Like it buys you nothing. It buys you no

12:31

time. It doesn't buy you any delay. It doesn't

12:33

buy you any satisfaction. All it buys you is

12:35

the headline when the court rules against you again.

12:39

So, you know, the last sort

12:41

of, and so that's why my

12:43

sort of not necessarily

12:45

correct, but predictive view

12:48

is that at least to this point, the

12:50

longer this takes, the worse it is for

12:52

Trump. The one other

12:54

possibility, although it's really just a variation on

12:56

the previous ones, is that the

12:59

court is sitting there waiting to

13:01

sort of do this double-barreled, where

13:03

they hand down whatever they're doing on

13:06

the immunity case alongside whatever

13:08

they're doing on Colorado. To

13:11

counterbalance them? A lot of production

13:13

value there. Well, you

13:15

know, I mean, if you're thinking about

13:17

the optics, as opposed to the law

13:19

from the court's perspective, right, having one

13:22

massive headline being Supreme Court splits

13:24

the difference, is

13:27

like John Roberts Super Bowl. But

13:30

then we would need to wait for the

13:32

calendar to say that there's going to be

13:35

an order on 14th Amendment or

13:37

ruling. I mean, at the very least, AG,

13:39

we'd need some guidance that there's an opinion

13:41

day coming, and then the opinion would

13:43

have to be that one. The other thing is, it

13:45

would be a breach of the court's protocol. The

13:48

court does not usually hand down,

13:50

it doesn't cross the streams

13:53

to use a Ghostbusters analogy,

13:55

right? You don't usually get orders with opinions.

13:57

I mean, I can think of one

14:00

time where they handed down a

14:02

ruling on an application alongside some

14:04

R-view cases, and that was with

14:06

regard to the first travel

14:08

ban decision in 2017. That's

14:12

it. So, is it possible? Sure.

14:14

Do I think that's what's happening? No.

14:17

Because the court gets that headline even if those

14:19

two rulings are 10 days or two weeks or

14:22

three weeks apart. Sure. Yeah, now

14:24

I agree with you there. Got it. One

14:26

last question for you. A lot of people

14:28

on social media are concerned that now that

14:30

Trump has filed his absolute

14:32

presidential immunity in Mar-a-Lago, that that will

14:34

somehow trip up this case. But I'm

14:36

pretty sure, and correct me if I'm

14:38

wrong, the DC Circuit ruled

14:41

specifically on the case in front of

14:43

them, the DC case with

14:45

this particular indictment with regard to President

14:47

Trump and his immunity and whether or not

14:49

it attaches to someone who tried to subvert the

14:51

election, which also I think makes it easier

14:53

for them to deny a stay at SCOTUS like

14:56

they did in Trump v. Thompson. But

14:58

am I right in assuming that the Mar-a-Lago

15:00

immunity has nothing to do with what the

15:03

Supreme Court is deciding here? Almost

15:06

nothing. Yeah. I

15:08

mean, they're related, AG, only in the

15:10

sense of the broadest arguments

15:12

against former President Trump would also

15:14

cover the Mar-a-Lago case. That's

15:16

what I'm thinking. If they come in

15:18

out and do a little writing and

15:21

say immunity doesn't attach for

15:23

all official acts, it's not absolute,

15:26

you're misquoting Marbury, and no double

15:28

jeopardy with the impeachment, double impeachment clause, but

15:30

that would also apply. But it's worth stressing.

15:32

I mean, the January 6th prosecution is so

15:35

much ... I hate to

15:37

use the word stronger in this context, but

15:39

it's so much stronger of an argument from

15:41

Trump's perspective for immunity because at least

15:43

he was president. When

15:46

the charged offenses took place, in

15:49

the Mar-a-Lago case, none of

15:51

the criminal offenses

15:53

that are charged in the indictment in

15:56

the Mar-a-Lago case were completed or could

15:59

legally have been completed

16:01

until he was no longer president. And

16:03

so even in a world in which the DC circuit

16:06

is wrong about the immunity of

16:08

a sit-in president, Trump wasn't a

16:10

sit-in president at the relevant times in the moral of

16:12

it. Now, you know, everyone's a

16:14

conspiracy theorist these days, I get it. They're

16:17

worried that Judge Cannon will find some,

16:19

you know, novel way to do this.

16:22

But the relevant issue for me is not what

16:24

Judge Cannon does, it's what the 11th circuit would

16:26

do. Right. And they've already

16:28

decided these aren't personal records. And

16:30

one, they've already decided that too, I

16:33

really do think that, you know, long before we

16:35

would get the kind of circuit split that would

16:38

make this issue more worthy of Supreme

16:40

Court review, the 11th circuit would slap down Judge

16:42

Cannon. Because again, whatever

16:44

they think of the DC circuit's

16:46

decision, the Mar-a-Lago case is a

16:48

singularly poor one for

16:50

arguments about a novel immunity doctrine

16:53

tied to official acts of a

16:55

president. Right. And

16:57

so, you know, I understand why everyone's sort

16:59

of, sorry, just back up half a second.

17:02

If Team Trump thought otherwise,

17:05

they would have filed that motion much earlier.

17:08

Right. Because by, you know,

17:10

the Supreme Court has voted by now, like whatever

17:12

they're doing in the January 6th immunity case, they

17:15

voted on it. If you wanted

17:17

that in the stew, if you wanted that in

17:19

the justices sort of consciousness as they're writing all

17:21

of this stuff, you would have filed it

17:23

two weeks ago. And

17:25

interestingly, maybe this is almost kind of one of

17:28

those, the inverse is also true. Right. So

17:30

if the immunity decision comes out before Cannon

17:33

has to make a decision on the

17:36

immunity appeal in Florida, it almost paves

17:38

the way for her. It gives her

17:40

such a clear, it's not, okay, it's

17:42

a different circuit. I get it, but

17:44

it's, it

17:47

tees her up to dispense with that at

17:49

the trial court level in a quick way.

17:53

I mean, whether or not she takes advantage of the opportunity

17:55

to do anything quickly is a totally different question, but it

17:58

did. And this goes back to the different. between

18:00

the two scenarios we sketched out, right? A

18:02

denial of a stay that has no explanation,

18:05

you know, maybe doesn't have quite that much

18:07

of an effect versus a

18:09

short procurium for the court,

18:12

majority opinion that says, you

18:14

know, we agree with the DC circuit,

18:16

right? That latter disposition, it would be

18:19

impossible even for Judge Cannon to ignore.

18:21

Sure. It's a validation that speaks for

18:23

itself. There's, she couldn't ignore it. So,

18:26

you know, all which is to say like,

18:29

is, can I guarantee anything at this point?

18:31

No. Welcome to being

18:33

a Supreme Court watcher, right? You know, the

18:35

only thing I can

18:37

guarantee is that there are people on the internet

18:39

who don't know what they're talking about. Right? But

18:41

you know, if you actually process this logically, if

18:44

you think about this from the perspective of how

18:46

the justices tend to behave in these cases, right,

18:49

the delay, while frustrating really does

18:51

seem to be nudging us toward

18:53

a subset of the options that

18:55

were on the table when Trump

18:57

initially filed. Yeah. That pleases me

18:59

because that's part of my dream scenario, which

19:01

started with the Supreme Court denying

19:04

Jack Smith's leapfrog motion. So, the

19:07

dream lives on. All right.

19:10

So we do a thing every week

19:12

where we have good week, bad week.

19:14

And we would love

19:16

your impressions on who in

19:19

the Trump Jack Smith cases is having a good

19:21

week and who's having a bad week. Who's

19:25

having a good week? Well, the

19:27

bad week is easy. I think former President Trump is

19:29

having a bad week. And I

19:31

think the sort of the longer that

19:33

this goes on like this, the

19:36

badder the week is, right,

19:38

for former President Trump. Who's

19:40

having a good week? I mean, I

19:42

will just say, whatever folks think about

19:45

the individual decisions and the analyses that

19:47

we get from the court or lack

19:49

thereof, a world

19:51

in which the Supreme Court can come out

19:53

of these two incredibly fraught cases with

19:56

general sort of non-public

19:58

outreach. outrage, for

20:01

this court is probably a good week. So I

20:04

think it's too soon to tell for sure, but

20:06

I suspect we will look back and say that

20:09

the Supreme Court had a good week and Trump had a

20:11

bad week. Yeah, and I'm going

20:13

to add to Trump's bad week, the fact that he

20:15

launched the ugliest pair of sneakers I've ever seen in

20:18

my life. Did he not

20:20

get the week off to a good start

20:22

despite his best intentions? That's just my opinion.

20:24

Yeah, and I'm also going to add to that bad week

20:26

when Judge Angoran denied

20:29

his stay in the

20:32

New York Attorney General's civil fraud trial. I

20:34

don't know if he doesn't have the money or he just wanted

20:36

more time to think about it, but either way he's going to

20:38

have to make that bond pretty soon. Yep,

20:41

yes indeed. Alright, thank

20:43

you. Professor Steve Vladek, and tell

20:45

everybody where they can find your

20:48

very important, very informative newsletter. And

20:50

honestly, it is the clearest non-legal,

20:54

jargony writing that I

20:56

can find. It's

20:59

so easy to understand. You explain it so

21:02

clearly. Tell everybody where they can find that

21:04

newsletter. Yes, it is called One First, which

21:06

is a really not so clever play on

21:08

the Supreme Court's physical mail-in address. And

21:11

it's on the internet at

21:13

SteveVladek, so S-T-E-V-E, V-L-A-D-E-C-K.substack.com. And

21:15

I really appreciate your kind

21:18

words. The newsletter exists entirely

21:20

to translate this kind of

21:23

crazy technical Kremlinology into ordinary people

21:25

language. So if you feel that

21:27

way, that means it's doing

21:30

what it's meant to do. Well there's nobody better to

21:32

do it than you, my friend. And thank you so

21:34

much for coming on. It's a

21:36

great thing for us and for our listeners, so

21:38

really appreciate your time. Thank you guys for

21:40

having me. Yep, everybody. We have

21:42

a lot more to get to. We're going to go over these emotions, but we

21:44

have to take a quick break, so stick around. We'll be right back. Come

21:47

on! So,

21:51

forget searching for a magic pill in

21:54

weight management. What you need is a

21:56

solid, scientifically validated approach, and that's exactly

21:58

what Noom delivers! Noom isn't just

22:00

another weight loss tool, it's a revolutionary approach

22:02

to understanding the science that drives our dietary

22:05

choices and cravings. With user-friendly courses

22:07

tailored to your unique needs, Noom instills

22:09

confidence and equips you with practical tools

22:11

from day one. By merging knowledge with

22:13

wisdom, they guide you toward more informed choices

22:15

when it comes to eating. This forward-thinking approach

22:17

is reshaping the way the world perceives weight

22:20

loss, and Noom is leading the way. We'd

22:22

like to thank Noom for their support. Sign

22:24

up for your trial today at noom.com, and

22:27

check out Noom's first-ever cookbook, The Noom

22:30

Kitchen, for 100 healthy and delicious recipes

22:32

to promote better living, available to buy

22:34

now wherever books are sold. Noom's approach

22:37

is grounded in science. They've published more

22:39

than 30 peer-reviewed scientific articles describing their

22:41

methods and effectiveness, so they're experts

22:43

in the field. Plus, Noom has helped 5.2

22:45

million people so far, with

22:48

more added every day. Noom has done so

22:51

much for me. Their program helped me understand the science

22:53

behind my eating choices, the psychology behind it, why

22:55

I have the cravings that I have. I

22:57

really appreciate how Noom is designed to

23:00

help me understand my body's needs and my lifestyle.

23:03

It's been more sustainable and far less restrictive than

23:05

traditional weight loss programs that mostly tell

23:07

you to just cut stuff out. If it works for me, I'm

23:10

sure Noom will work for you too. Stay

23:12

focused on what's important to you with Noom's

23:14

psychology and biology-based approach. Sign

23:17

up for your trial today at noom.com, that's

23:19

n-o-o-m.com, and check out Noom's first-ever cookbook,

23:23

The Noom Kitchen, for 100 healthy and

23:25

delicious recipes to promote better living, anytime.

24:05

Welcome back! Okay, let's head down

24:07

to Florida to take a look

24:09

at Trump's a veritable cornucopia of

24:12

motions to dismiss first trumpet, ask

24:14

for more time to file these.

24:16

And. That was denied by judge Can M.

24:19

G preserved the original February twenty second

24:21

of filing due date or though she

24:23

did add that Trump could file after

24:25

that due date is he can provide

24:27

a compelling reason to do so. Yeah,

24:30

and I think he got them. I think

24:32

he got most of his motion to dismiss

24:34

out here. And there's a there's a lot

24:36

and these are the most. And there's a

24:39

motion to dismiss Counts One, Three, Thirty Two.

24:41

Based. On Presidential Immunity one, three Thirty

24:43

Two, or the Seven Ninety Three He

24:45

charges the Arab and as actors. The.

24:49

Next, a motion to dismiss the superseding indictment.

24:51

And that means the whole indictment. Based

24:53

on selective in vindictive prosecution. Motion.

24:56

To dismiss the indictment and in

24:58

the alternative to suppress the sistine

25:01

boxes. Based. On prosecutorial

25:03

misconduct resulting. In due Process

25:05

violations, impermissible pre indictment delay and

25:08

grand. Jury abuses, He

25:10

does that for everything sure all of his crimes.

25:13

Motion To Dismiss counts One, three, thirty Two

25:15

based on the vagueness doctrine and in addition

25:17

because he's basically saying that the death be

25:19

a not act as big. Guy

25:22

And in addition to dismiss Health Nineteen

25:24

on the base that president basis that

25:26

President Trump possessed a valid security clearance

25:28

at the time. Alleged in

25:31

the superseding indictment and talk about

25:33

that separately Motion To dismiss the

25:35

superseding indictment because the Special counsel's

25:37

appointment and operations violate the. Appointments

25:39

clause and the uproar appropriations clause of

25:42

the constitution. We're not gonna even cover

25:44

that because it's just that it's silliness.

25:47

Silliness. A motion to

25:49

dismiss the and I met pursuant to the Presidential

25:51

Records Act. Justice and we're going

25:53

to go into though and yeah, that one in

25:55

the community one were going to cover pretty. Extensively

25:57

and motion to suppress.

26:00

Evidence Seized. During the raid, he

26:02

calls it a raid at Mara Lago not

26:04

and execute a search warrant. And

26:06

obtained in violation of President

26:09

Trump's attorney client privilege. And

26:11

be. Dismissed. As superseding

26:14

indictment based on prejudice from

26:16

this. Privilege violation. Now we all

26:18

know that there was no privilege

26:20

that attaches. To or sexist. the search

26:22

warrant Aca signed off by a judge

26:24

The yeah, I mean if it's. Well.

26:27

I'm if it's the. Attorney. Client

26:29

privilege piercing during the grand Jury

26:32

before I mean as all been

26:34

litigated and and he were dead

26:36

assaulted him they yeah they did

26:39

the whole thing or a to.

26:42

A lot of these arguments we've discussed in

26:44

the past so as as he said, I

26:46

think we should focus on the Presidential Records

26:49

Act and Immunity act motions. We've

26:51

been waiting for a while now to

26:53

see how Trump was going to justify

26:56

taking classified documents and willfully retaining them.

26:58

And in the pure emotion, the Presidential

27:00

Records Act motion, We now have it

27:02

so. Eg, here's

27:05

Trump's logic is he does get there is

27:07

running over logic in the sense that it's

27:09

as I said that and I had to

27:11

like taken a lot of oxygen to process

27:13

the thought and this and the Senate's but

27:15

see the here we go go with me

27:17

Now. Beginning with George

27:19

Washington, President's. Treated their

27:21

presidential records as personal property.

27:25

Well. Yeah. Bites.

27:27

Of course we didn't have a

27:30

presidential records act were are around

27:32

George Washington's time and of course

27:34

presidential records are not the same

27:36

thing is classified or and national

27:39

security documents. She.

27:41

Goes on to save The

27:43

Presidential Records Act as not

27:45

confer and a mandatory or

27:47

even discretionary authority on the

27:49

archivist to classify records as

27:51

presidential records or personal records.

27:54

Responsibility. Is last So

27:56

we to the president. So.

28:00

Okay, there's a lot to unpack

28:02

here. So let's first, let's remember

28:04

that the Presidential Records Act defines

28:07

presidential records as materials created

28:10

or received by the president, the

28:12

president's immediate staff, or a unit

28:14

or individual of the executive office

28:16

of the president whose function

28:19

is to advise or assist the president

28:21

in the course of conducting activities which

28:23

relate to or have an

28:25

effect upon the carrying out

28:27

of constitutional, statutory, or other

28:29

ceremonial duties of the president.

28:31

So that is what the

28:33

Presidential Records Act actually covers

28:35

and how it defines presidential

28:38

records. Now, what Trump is

28:40

doing here in this motion is

28:42

he's basing this claim basically

28:45

on the citation that he

28:47

received from Tom Fitten's judicial

28:49

watch commenting on how

28:51

NARA handled the Clinton tapes.

28:54

This is like a interwoven

28:56

web of contradictory and

28:58

at the end of the day, I don't

29:01

think will be legally effective arguments.

29:03

But in any case, the Presidential

29:05

Records Act also excludes personal records,

29:08

which it defines as materials of

29:10

a purely private or non-public character

29:12

which do not relate to or

29:15

have any effect upon the carrying

29:17

out of the constitutional, statutory, or

29:19

other official ceremonial duties of the

29:21

president. So I don't

29:25

know, I think he's kind of pretty far off here.

29:27

What's your thoughts? Yeah, I mean, we'll

29:30

get to the summary of his argument, but

29:35

what he's teeing up here is

29:37

that these were personal records. Right, yeah. Okay,

29:42

so he goes on to say,

29:44

"'President Trump's possession of the documents

29:46

charged in Counts 1-32 was not,

29:48

quote, unauthorized under 18

29:50

U.S.C. 793,' which is the Espionage Act,

29:52

because President Trump exercised virtually

29:55

unreviewable Article II executive authority

29:57

to designate the records records

30:00

as personal when, as alleged

30:02

in the indictment, he, quote,

30:04

caused the materials to be

30:07

transported out of the White House while

30:09

he was still in office. So there's

30:11

the nugget that you were just pointing

30:13

at. He's basically saying, with

30:16

my magical Article II

30:19

Commander-in-Chief Executive Authority, I

30:21

waved that wand over

30:23

all this stuff, classified

30:25

national security documents, national

30:27

defense information, and turned

30:29

it all into personal

30:31

records because my decision

30:33

doing so is unreviewable. He

30:37

then claims that since Rob Herr's report

30:40

says that personal records remain the

30:42

property of the president and since

30:45

Trump deemed the classified documents personal

30:47

before he left office, they're

30:49

clearly his personal records. He

30:53

cites Judge Cannon's previous ruling. Of course, this

30:55

is the one that was vacated by the

30:57

11th Circuit that documents were

30:59

personal records. Remember, she decided that and,

31:01

of course, the 11th Circuit

31:03

threw it back in her face. He

31:06

even compares his taking and subsequent

31:08

retention of classified documents to Ronald

31:11

Reagan's diaries and

31:13

Bill Clinton's interview tapes.

31:16

He argues that the PRA's

31:18

recovery mechanism is exclusive and

31:21

does not permit referrals used

31:23

to predicate criminal investigation. Here

31:25

he's saying the PRA has

31:27

no authority to see what

31:29

they believe might be a criminal violation

31:31

or violation of criminal law and

31:33

refer it to the appropriate investigative

31:35

agency as they did here ultimately

31:37

to DOJ. Yeah, except

31:39

the National Archives has cops. Yeah,

31:42

and they have an IG that oversees

31:44

what they do and they actually, at

31:47

DOJ's insistence, referred it to their

31:49

own IG who then sent it to the

31:52

Department of Justice. And Jack Smith already pointed

31:54

that out. Yeah, I

31:56

mean, yes. So

31:59

He says... in response to a

32:02

narrow request a National Archives request

32:04

the Attorney General may pursue recovery

32:07

via Rip Levin. Tellingly.

32:09

That is precisely what Deity did in

32:11

response to the portion of the February

32:13

Night Twenty Twenty Two Sham referral from

32:16

Naira to a I G that did

32:18

not relate to President Trump use of

32:20

course, talking about borrow. In

32:23

an effort to recover those records,

32:25

D O J initiated a reply

32:27

in action rather than a criminal

32:29

investigation. graders subpoenas and search box

32:31

is basically saying they didn't go

32:33

after Navarro criminally. That.

32:35

Means they can't go after me criminally. Of

32:37

course it doesn't mean that, but that's what

32:39

he's arguing here. Yeah wow.

32:42

Or. A So A He's not arguing and

32:44

all that he declassified these know By the

32:47

way, his argument is that while he was

32:49

an office on the morning of January twentieth,

32:51

He. Waved a want deemed these classified documents

32:53

everything in the boxes as personal records even

32:55

though he has no evidence of this. And.

32:58

They're specifically have written. this

33:00

is written somewhere. And

33:02

since they were magically then personal records, it was not

33:05

a crime to take them and keep them. Ah,

33:08

And and move them around and oh

33:10

and then try to delete the video.

33:12

That's what's gonna make this hard to

33:14

argue he gave they when they subpoenaed

33:16

him he gave back thirty eight document

33:18

and a double take bread weld envelope.

33:21

If they if they were personal records,

33:23

I mean. That. Makes no sense. Then

33:25

he kept the rest and he moved them

33:27

around. Then he tried to delete the video. Of

33:30

him moving them around. So.

33:32

It's it's I don't and I mean

33:34

there's I know he doesn't have a

33:36

very good defense at all, but this

33:38

one seems extra not good. Yeah, there's

33:41

so many layers of. Contradictory.

33:44

Decisions that he made in real

33:46

time and as a contradictory meaning.

33:48

Those decisions contradict what he's currently

33:50

arguing now so is set up

33:52

a. of a series

33:54

of factual contradictions like like you

33:57

said he finally after being badgered

33:59

or. Earnest stuff he went through

34:01

it personally was involved in the review

34:03

that stuff and then census teen boxes

34:05

back. Which are. Which. Contain

34:07

a lot of classified stuff so

34:09

why would he sent fifteen boxes

34:11

back if you'd already in? there

34:13

is months earlier declared it personnel.

34:16

And then when confronted again with the

34:18

subpoena, they went through and sound more

34:20

really sensitive classified National Defense stuff and

34:22

then put that in the double read.

34:24

Weldon gave that back again. why give

34:26

it back if it's yours? is your

34:28

personal like golf shirts and. Of

34:31

me. You know, News. Clippings or whatever.

34:33

So it's just. Is.

34:35

A lot here I think for the special counsel

34:38

team to work with. Yeah. And

34:40

like a Professor Vladeck said it, you

34:42

know if and when this, well when

34:44

I should say the Supreme Court ruling

34:46

comes down, it's gonna make. A

34:49

Judge Cannons job A lot easier I think

34:51

on a lot of these situations. Now I

34:53

get not that she'll take full advantage of

34:55

it. But. I think that applies mortar

34:57

the immunity. And

35:00

motion which will get to. Shortly,

35:03

but something that's interesting. Brad Moss

35:05

raised a good point on Twitter. He

35:07

said this is a motion to dismiss.

35:09

You can't introduce facts. And.

35:12

That alone is fatal to this motion.

35:14

Trump is stuck with the facts of

35:16

the indictment. No. Matter how much

35:18

this motion pretend, otherwise. this motion he

35:21

says is such a letdown. I was

35:23

expecting a lengthy diatribe. About the pr,

35:25

his history, But. This is nothing

35:27

more than Tom Fitton legal fantasy.

35:29

It much true. And

35:32

nurses Such a bummer. Judiciousness

35:34

johansson my eyes. Yeah, it's

35:36

bad vibes. To Judicial Watch was

35:38

cited are like a zillion times in this

35:41

it's all Thompson. And

35:43

yeah, it's the whole Judicial Watch connection

35:45

is so so strange because all citizens

35:47

waving this Clinton Sox case right. It's

35:49

like that says his claim to fame

35:51

and I didn't realize this and I

35:53

sort of will you. The history that

35:55

case decays came about because he filed

35:57

this. House.

36:00

And he lost. So this was

36:02

Clinton had been carrying on conversations

36:05

with Taylor Branch, who's a well-known

36:07

historian, talking about his

36:09

time as president or what have you in

36:11

preparation for a book that they would presumably

36:13

do once he was out of office. And

36:15

he took the tapes of these personal

36:18

one-on-one conversations, and he supposedly kept them in

36:20

his sock drawer because he didn't want staffers

36:23

to find them and leak them or anything

36:25

like that. And so

36:27

after he leaves, Tom Fitten

36:30

filed a federal lawsuit trying

36:32

to force NARA to go recover

36:34

the tapes of these interviews from

36:37

Clinton claiming that they were presidential

36:39

records. And none other

36:42

than Judge Amy Berman Jackson

36:44

ultimately decided, no, they're not.

36:46

These were personal records, and it

36:48

was Clinton's – as president, he

36:50

had the authority to kind of make that

36:52

determination. So this

36:54

is like Tom Fitten's opportunity to come

36:56

back and wave the flag and use

36:58

his failed lawsuit from

37:01

however many decades ago to

37:04

the benefit of Donald Trump, but I

37:06

don't think it's going to go that way. Well, he

37:09

cites the failed Judge

37:11

Cannon determination that these are

37:13

personal records, totally

37:15

vacated by the 11th Circuit. He

37:18

cites the failed lawsuit by Tom

37:20

Fitten, and he misquotes

37:22

– we'll get to back in the immunity

37:24

thing, and I know you're really excited about

37:26

this. He misquotes Marbury. He picks out

37:28

what he wants and leaves the part

37:31

of Marbury that actually holds him responsible

37:33

criminally for what he does. So

37:36

it's his way, I

37:38

guess, the sword and the

37:40

shield type situation, and it's not going to work.

37:42

It's just not going to work. Now,

37:45

how long it takes to not work, that's

37:47

up – That's the wild

37:49

card right here. Yeah. And that's

37:51

the strategy here, right? This deluge,

37:54

this cornucopia, this plethora of motions

37:56

all on one shot, this

37:59

is like – Hoping to overwhelm the

38:01

judge and her staff and you

38:03

know stretch out Briefing and

38:05

argument schedules on this thing, you know

38:08

for the next two or three years

38:11

So and look they're in the courtroom

38:13

of Judge Cannon. So who knows how

38:16

that would say? Would you say I have

38:18

a plethora of motions to dismiss? Well,

38:25

all right We still have that immunity motion to

38:27

get to and I also want to talk about

38:29

that the count 19 motion and the de Oliveira

38:31

Motion, but we do need to take a quick

38:33

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

38:41

Forget searching for a magic pill in

38:43

weight management What you need is a

38:45

solid scientifically validated approach and that's exactly

38:48

what Noom delivers Noom isn't just

38:50

another weight loss tool It's a revolutionary approach

38:52

to understanding the science that drives our dietary

38:54

choices and cravings With user-friendly courses

38:56

tailored to your unique needs Noom

38:59

instills confidence and equips you with practical tools from

39:01

day one by merging knowledge with wisdom

39:03

They guide you toward more informed choices when it

39:05

comes to eating This forward-thinking approach

39:07

is reshaping the way the world perceives weight

39:09

loss and Noom is leading the way We'd

39:11

like to thank Noom for their support sign

39:13

up for your trial today at Noom .com

39:16

and check out Noom's first ever cookbook

39:18

the Noom kitchen for 100 healthy and

39:20

delicious recipes to promote better living Available

39:23

to buy now wherever books are

39:25

sold Noom's approach is grounded in

39:27

science They've published more than 30

39:29

peer-reviewed scientific articles describing their methods

39:31

and effectiveness So they're experts

39:33

in the field plus Noom has

39:35

helped 5.2 million people so far

39:37

with more added every day Noom

39:40

has done so much for me Their program helped me

39:42

understand the science behind my eating choices the psychology behind

39:44

it why I have the cravings that I have I

39:47

really appreciate how Noom is designed for my

39:49

exact needs in my lifestyle It's been more

39:51

sustainable and far less restrictive than traditional weight

39:53

loss programs that mostly tell you to just

39:55

cut stuff out So it works for me.

39:57

I'm sure Noom will work for you, too. Stay focused

40:00

focused on what's important to you

40:02

with Noom's psychology and biology-based approach.

40:04

Sign up for your trial today at noom.com. That's

40:07

n-o-o-m.com. And check

40:10

out Noom's first ever cookbook, The Noom Kitchen,

40:12

for 100 healthy and delicious recipes to promote

40:14

better living. Available to buy now

40:16

wherever books are sold. Hey

40:24

everybody, welcome back. Alright, let's take a

40:26

look at Trump's immunity motion, which

40:29

is the one that Professor Vladek was alluding

40:32

to in the A-block

40:34

there, talking about

40:36

immunity for stuff you did after you left

40:38

office. But now that Trump has

40:40

argued that he can't be prosecuted for taking and keeping

40:42

personal papers and since

40:45

he deemed these classified documents personal

40:47

while he was still president, that

40:50

means that his claim of presidential immunity

40:52

applies here. Because deeming

40:54

the classified records personal was an official

40:56

act as president while he was president.

40:59

And of course, he can't be criminally prosecuted

41:01

for stuff he does while he's president. Unless

41:04

of course, he's impeached and

41:06

convicted first. Unless he's

41:08

been held accountable for it, then he can be

41:10

held accountable again. Yes, and he

41:12

makes that same argument. President Donald J. Trump

41:14

respectfully submits this motion seeking dismissal of counts

41:16

1-32 on the

41:19

basis of presidential immunity as these charges stem

41:21

directly from official acts by President Trump while

41:23

in office. Specifically, President Trump is

41:25

immune from prosecution on counts 1-32 because the charges

41:29

turn on his alleged decision to designate

41:31

records as personal under the

41:34

Presidential Records Act and to cause

41:36

the records to be moved from the White House

41:38

to Mar-a-Lago. As alleged in the

41:40

indictment, President Trump made this decision while he

41:42

was still in office. The alleged

41:44

decision was an official act and is

41:46

as such subject to presidential immunity. Now

41:49

he goes on to make the same also

41:52

ridiculous argument for immunity

41:54

that he did in the DC case by

41:57

misrepresenting Marbury v. Madison. of

42:00

quoting, the president's official acts can

42:02

never be examinable by the courts. And of course

42:04

that goes on to say, unless you commit

42:07

a crime and then we can prosecute you. Right,

42:09

right. He just takes that first

42:11

part of the sentence. He's real good

42:13

at taking first parts of sentences

42:15

and leaving the rest off. They did that with the Mueller

42:18

report quite a bit, I remember. For sure.

42:21

It also jumps out to me in this kind

42:23

of intro paragraph

42:26

is where he says, because the

42:28

charges turn on his alleged decision

42:30

to designate records as personal under

42:33

the Presidential Records Act. The

42:35

charges don't turn on that. The charges are

42:37

not based on that. Nowhere in the indictment

42:39

do they say we are charging him with

42:41

the Espionage Act because

42:43

while still president, he

42:46

decided to redesignate things personal.

42:50

He just says things in these

42:52

motions that don't exist, that never happened.

42:54

They're not true. They're not

42:57

legally binding. To

43:00

be clear, those charges 1 through 32

43:02

are not predicated on some redesignation

43:06

imaginary style. They're

43:08

predicated on the fact that he had

43:11

national defense information in his toilet room

43:13

in Mar-a-Lago. That's what they're predicated on.

43:15

The stuff was there. It's not allowed

43:17

to be there. Case

43:19

dismissed. And as Brian Greer said,

43:21

he's like, all right, let's pretend you did

43:23

dub them personal and take them with you.

43:25

That's a bigger story. We should be talking

43:27

about why you did that. For

43:30

what? As many

43:32

people have said, since the beginning of

43:34

this case,

43:37

they don't have to be classified, et

43:43

cetera, et cetera. It wasn't necessarily under the PRA,

43:45

but let's say he had declassified them with his

43:47

mind. Why did you declassify these documents

43:49

and take them with you? That's

43:51

what we really would like to know. You

43:55

showed them to a lot of people. Right. His

43:57

response to that would be, I can. It

44:00

goes back to this this You

44:03

know motion for complete monarchial power

44:05

I can do whatever I want

44:07

because I was president once and

44:09

you cannot possibly second-guess

44:11

or judge or You

44:14

know cast any criticism at me about those things

44:16

because I'm the king. I mean president. I mean

44:18

used to be yes and Marlboro

44:20

I mean the Marlboro man Marbury

44:22

Marbury says I can I can take these in their mind

44:26

You can't examine what I do And

44:29

he also makes the same weird double jeopardy argument that

44:31

we have in the DC case presidential

44:33

immunity from criminal prosecution for official acts

44:35

draws support directly from the text of

44:37

the Constitution as the impeachment judgment clause

44:39

states that a president cannot be criminally

44:41

prosecuted unless he is First impeached and

44:44

convicted by the US Senate, so he's

44:46

making that argument again It'll

44:48

be again This is where I would what I

44:50

was talking about when we get a ruling from the

44:52

Supreme Court on here Will they mention that will

44:54

they go as Steve Laddick said in option

44:56

two? Straight to the meat and

44:58

say no the impeachment judgment

45:01

clause does not say this that

45:03

gives then judge cannon the

45:06

runway to say Supreme

45:08

Court said no, you know I

45:10

gotta say no and I think

45:13

it even even his option one gets you

45:15

some of that same benefit right if they

45:17

just come out and say we Agree

45:20

with the DC circuit in

45:22

all respects and here's our our opinion

45:26

It's not quite as explicit but it carries

45:29

the same weight Like you can't then take

45:31

a argument that you regurgitate it out of

45:33

the DC circuit, which they they

45:35

clearly shut down There's

45:38

no reason it should be any more successful anywhere else. I

45:41

concur So the

45:43

rest of the motions are kind of

45:45

self-explanatory But I think we

45:47

should talk quickly about the motion to

45:50

dismiss count 19 on the basis that

45:52

President Trump possessed a valid security Clarence

45:54

at the time alleged in the superseding

45:56

indictment count 19 is for

45:58

retention of a document

46:00

regarding nuclear weaponry of the United States,

46:03

which was classified secret FRD. And

46:07

remind me what FRD is. FRD

46:09

stands for Formally Restricted Data. So

46:11

it's hard to say exactly what

46:13

it was in this case, although

46:15

we can guess that because the

46:18

information involved nuclear weaponry.

46:22

And at its point where he had it, it

46:24

was only classified as secret. It

46:26

may have been something that was

46:28

originally statutorily classified as top

46:30

secret, but then had been downgraded for

46:33

one reason or another to secret. So

46:36

hard to say, but that's just one guess. All

46:39

right. He goes on to

46:41

say, as explained in the defendant's

46:43

motions to compel discovery, after the

46:45

superseding indictment was filed, the special

46:48

counsel's office disclosed energy department records

46:50

indicating that President Trump maintained the

46:52

cue clearance that is relevant to

46:54

the document charged in count 19

46:56

during the time period alleged in

46:59

that count. The

47:01

problem with this argument is that the fact

47:03

that he maintained his cue clearance is

47:05

likely a clerical error. And even if it

47:07

wasn't, having your clearance doesn't give

47:10

you the ability to store classified documents

47:12

in your bathroom. Well,

47:17

you know, they kind of made a similar argument

47:19

for Nauta to be able to see

47:21

classified discovery. Well, he had a

47:23

clearance once. You know, it's like,

47:25

I'm sorry. It'll be interesting

47:28

to me to see how

47:30

strongly the special counsel argues

47:33

on the ground that technically the president

47:36

doesn't have a security clearance. So

47:39

the president doesn't have to go through the

47:41

normal background check or the clearance process. He

47:43

doesn't have a – to have a clearance,

47:45

a clearance has to be issued to you

47:48

from the agency that you're affiliated with. He

47:50

doesn't have to go through any of that

47:52

because he is the president. And

47:54

in his role as president, he

47:56

has the authority to classify

47:59

and declassify every everything to

48:01

delegate that capability

48:03

to other agency heads and

48:06

to handle classified material as he

48:08

wishes. So technically, the guy doesn't

48:10

actually ever have a clearance. Yeah,

48:13

that's very interesting. And Jack Smith

48:16

addressed the queue clearance in

48:18

previous briefings and said,

48:20

yeah, we saw you were on there and then

48:22

we had you taken off with a clear clear. So

48:25

let's move on. Let's talk about Dale Lavera's

48:27

motion to dismiss. This is from Hugo Lowell

48:29

at The Guardian. In a

48:31

19 page court filing on Thursday, lawyers for

48:33

Dale Lavera argued that

48:35

the specific obstruction counts he was

48:37

charged with should be tossed because

48:40

Dale Lavera was not aware that

48:42

a grand jury subpoena had been issued for the

48:44

footage or of

48:46

the compliance obligations the subpoena required.

48:50

The filing also asked the judge to

48:52

force special counsel prosecutors to produce a

48:54

more detailed breakdown of the nature of

48:56

the obstruction charges against him ahead

48:59

of a potential trial in the event the

49:01

motion to dismiss is denied and to

49:03

schedule a hearing on that matter. They always like

49:05

hearings. Oh, yeah. Dale Lavera's

49:07

lawyers are likely to face an uphill struggle,

49:09

Hugo says, to toss these charges in large

49:12

part because the filing raised arguments about facts

49:14

in the case, which

49:16

is left up to the jury as opposed

49:18

to issues of law where the

49:20

judge has discretion to decide legal standards. It

49:23

isn't ripe for a motion to dismiss, basically.

49:26

The request might also not be

49:28

immediately resolved. The presiding US

49:30

District Judge Eileen Cannon could take the

49:32

filing quote under advisement and only

49:34

make a decision when a jury is seated. Were

49:37

she to dismiss the charges then, it

49:39

could prevent prosecutors from challenging such a

49:42

ruling, right? Now, the

49:44

motion to dismiss for Dale Lavera broadly rests

49:46

on two arguments that he could not have

49:48

obstructed justice because he didn't know about the

49:50

subpoena for the tapes and

49:52

its compliance obligations and that

49:54

his denial to the FBI about

49:56

moving boxes in that interview was

49:59

misconstrued. understood me. On

50:02

the allegations about the boss wanting

50:04

the tapes deleted, de Oliveira's

50:06

lawyers wrote, that interaction fails to

50:08

support the allegations of obstruction, that Mr.

50:10

de Oliveira knew that a subpoena had

50:12

been issued and that the data requested

50:15

was responsive to the subpoena. And

50:18

on the allegation about lying to the FBI,

50:21

de Oliveira's lawyers contend de Oliveira was not

50:23

sure what exactly prosecutors were asking about. And

50:26

he told agents he didn't know about the

50:28

boxes being moved into Mar-a-Lago. Oh,

50:30

those boxes? I was thinking about the boxes

50:33

of old shoes. I thought that's what you

50:35

were asking about. Could have been any boxes.

50:37

Could have been any boxes. There's boxes all

50:39

over that joint. Yeah, come on. I

50:42

actually think, I

50:45

think he's got an argument here. I don't think as

50:48

Hugo proposes, I don't

50:50

think it's really going to be successful as a

50:53

motion to dismiss, but I think what we're looking

50:55

at here is going to be really the core

50:57

of de Oliveira's defense at trial. He's

50:59

going to say, you cannot

51:02

prove that

51:04

de Oliveira knew about the existence

51:06

of the subpoena. You can't

51:08

prove that Trump told him there was a subpoena

51:10

or neither lawyers did or anything like that, and

51:13

therefore he can't be guilty

51:15

of obstruction. We'll see what

51:17

kind of facts that Jack

51:20

Smith and his team will enter

51:22

into evidence to counteract that defense.

51:24

But I remember thinking even when

51:26

the superseding indictment came out, I

51:28

thought, geez, you know, I think

51:31

this guy probably has a

51:33

leg to stand on it, arguing that he

51:35

may not have known. Like

51:37

prove it. Prove that I knew about the existence of the

51:39

subpoena. My boss telling me, go

51:41

delete some tapes. Even

51:44

the absence of knowledge of the subpoena is just my

51:46

boss telling me to do a job and I do

51:48

what the boss says. Yeah. So

51:51

we'll see. We'll see what

51:53

happens. Also, I just went to check the

51:56

docket because it's Friday, February 23rd.

51:58

We were waiting for a Trump response.

52:02

Do you remember he, Trump filed that

52:04

big old motion to compel discovery and he

52:06

attached a couple of sealed filings and

52:10

Jack Smith was like, and he wanted to unseal

52:12

them. He's like, you can't unseal those. Those

52:14

are witness names and testimony. And here, let me

52:16

file ex parte and under seal some evidence

52:18

as to why you can't do that. And

52:21

Judge Cannon said, sure, you can file it ex

52:23

parte and under seal. And he did. And then

52:25

she said, I've decided it's not ex parte anymore.

52:28

And Jack Smith gave that over to the Trump

52:30

team, but it's not public. But

52:32

we were still waiting to hear her decision because

52:34

Jack Smith came back and said, if you unseal

52:37

these, that's a clear error of the law. And

52:39

it would be unjust.

52:43

Basically, it would, you know,

52:45

you can't do this, please reconsider a

52:47

motion to reconsider. And

52:49

so Judge Cannon kept it under seal

52:51

those witness lists and testimony and said,

52:53

Trump, you have until the 23rd to

52:56

file your response

52:59

to Jack Smith saying I made

53:01

a clear legal error. And so

53:04

he was that was due today. So I just checked

53:06

the docket to see if that

53:10

was there. And what I found is

53:13

a government's supplemental response to

53:15

a standing discovery order. And so

53:19

I think this is just separate the government

53:22

response to the specific items identified in the

53:24

standing discovery order as set forth below. And

53:26

we will I

53:28

don't think this has anything to do with

53:31

what I was just talking about. I think it

53:33

has more to

53:35

do with the standing discovery order. And

53:37

we'll talk about it on

53:39

the next on the next episode when we get

53:41

into that because I don't think we're going

53:43

to get this Trump response

53:46

to the motion for

53:48

reconsideration on her unsealing order by

53:50

the time we finish recording this. So we'll group it

53:52

all together next week. Sounds good.

53:54

All right. We still have a little bit more

53:56

to get to, but we have to take another break.

53:59

Everybody stick around. back. Hey

54:10

everybody, welcome back. We have one more quick

54:12

story before we get to listener questions, and we

54:14

love your questions. If you have questions for us, there's a

54:16

link in the show notes that will take

54:18

you to the place where you can submit your questions to us. This

54:21

is from your colleague at CNN,

54:23

Piper Hudspeth Blackburn. She

54:25

says, Georgia Republican, Governor Brian Kemp,

54:28

who resisted intense pressure from former

54:30

President Donald Trump to overturn the 2020 election

54:32

results in his state, revealed

54:34

Tuesday that he has been interviewed

54:36

by special counsel Jack Smith's office. I

54:40

basically told him the same thing I told the special

54:42

grand juries, that I follow the law

54:44

in the constitution and answered all their questions

54:46

truthfully. That's what Kemp told CNN's

54:48

Caitlin Collins on the source, noting

54:51

the conversation took place months ago and

54:53

really didn't last that long. A

54:57

spokesman for the governor told CNN

54:59

in July that Smith's team had

55:01

contacted him, but until just

55:03

a day ago, it was not known that

55:05

he actually sat for the interview. So he

55:07

has confirmed that he did sit

55:10

for that interview and talk to special counsel

55:12

Jackson's office. Yeah, and

55:14

I think that's pretty predictable. Kemp

55:16

is an interesting cat. He's been one of the

55:20

few people to kind of go his own way,

55:22

kind of not, he doesn't seem to

55:24

be afraid to distance himself from Trump because he's

55:26

got so much support in Georgia, it almost doesn't

55:28

matter to him. And

55:31

yeah, so he's got nothing to

55:33

lose. He took that risk a long time ago.

55:35

So it doesn't surprise me that he cooperated with

55:37

the special counsel. Yeah, no,

55:39

me neither. All right. What

55:41

do we have for listener questions today? All right.

55:44

So we picked two questions this week

55:46

that both kind of hit on the

55:48

same subject. We get a lot of

55:50

questions that are our borderline irate about

55:53

the constant delays in all

55:55

the cases. And I totally identify

55:58

with those folks. So. I'll

56:01

give you both of these first, and then we can kind

56:03

of talk about them together. First, we

56:05

have Mike, who says, do you expect

56:07

the volume of Trump's delay tactics to

56:09

decrease following the judgment in the Trump-org

56:12

fraud case? The

56:14

level of litigation in his cases

56:16

seems financially unsustainable. And

56:18

then Joe comes in, is there

56:21

a reason Stinky's relentless court filings

56:24

meant to delay delay

56:26

delay proceedings have not been mentioned

56:28

by the prosecution in the four

56:30

current Trump criminal cases? Is it

56:32

legally okay to BS your way

56:34

to indefinitely delay a trial? You

56:38

can see kind of the range

56:40

of listener interest in this topic

56:42

there. And taking that

56:44

second question first, Jack Smith has

56:46

mentioned the attempts

56:49

to delay this trial in

56:51

multiple briefings in both Florida

56:53

and D.C. It's

56:56

not illegal to delay, but he has brought it

56:58

up, and he has pointed it out to the

57:00

judges. And I think that

57:03

there are some judges that listen

57:06

to that and see it and understand it, and

57:08

there are other judges who don't. Judge Shuckin,

57:10

for example, knew that this

57:13

was going to be the case. It's probably

57:15

why she set the trial in March, and

57:17

it's probably why Jack Smith

57:20

wanted it in January. They both probably kind

57:22

of knew there'd be a three-month hold because

57:24

he was going to file interlocutory appeals. And

57:26

Jack Smith actually wanted to go to trial in March,

57:29

whereas Judge Shuckin said we give him three

57:31

more months for this, and the trial will

57:33

actually probably start closer to the

57:36

end of May or June once all of this

57:38

delay is done. She also made a phone

57:40

call to Judge Mershawn, who is

57:42

in Manhattan, District Court –

57:44

for the Manhattan DA attorney's

57:47

case in the Hush Money,

57:49

Stormy Daniels election interference case

57:51

that was set to go and is still set

57:53

to go March 25th, and

57:56

apparently had a discussion with him, and he

57:58

probably said, set your trial for one day. when you want

58:00

to set it and I'll defer if I need

58:02

to. And now that we're pushed

58:04

out to Mayor June, he's got time

58:07

to do the trial March 25th. And at

58:09

the beginning of that hearing, he just denied all

58:12

of Trump's motions and said, the trial still starts

58:14

on March 25th. But what do you want to

58:16

talk to me about? So I think

58:18

it's clear that the judges, Jack

58:20

Smith has raised these concerns. Dreeben, everybody

58:22

in the office has

58:25

raised these concerns in the special counsel's

58:27

office with both sides of government,

58:29

the judge of the court in several

58:31

briefings. And I

58:33

don't think Cannon cares as much

58:35

as Judge Chuck does, but I

58:37

see it can have an impact

58:40

making these complaints basically

58:42

on his trying

58:45

to delay this trial and delay

58:48

justice. Because one of the main

58:50

arguments to even the Supreme

58:52

Court to have this stay denied is that

58:59

the public has a right to

59:01

swift justice. And

59:03

that's like the basis for that argument. I

59:06

think you're right. I think he has raised

59:08

it. But I think he very intentionally, and

59:10

maybe to the frustration of some of our

59:13

loyal listeners, he raises it in

59:15

the context of this

59:18

trial needs to move on without

59:20

delay because the public has an

59:22

interest in seeing these issues resolved

59:25

quickly, i.e. before the

59:27

election. What he doesn't do

59:30

is raise it in the context of

59:32

pointing the finger and making accusations about

59:34

Trump. And I can see how that's

59:36

unsatisfying on some level. But that's the

59:38

way good lawyers act. You

59:40

can't really listen. One thing for us commentators

59:42

to sit here on the sideline and say,

59:44

clearly, what he's doing is his strategy

59:47

here is to create more opportunities for delay.

59:49

It's very different in a legal filing

59:51

to actually accuse someone of that. There's

59:54

not really any reason to do that. As

59:56

you said, you can delay. It's

59:58

a part of the process. But at the end

1:00:01

of the day, the responsibility comes back not on

1:00:03

Jack Smith to argue this up but for the

1:00:05

judge to run the case appropriately,

1:00:07

quickly, and efficiently.

1:00:11

And this is perfect contrast in styles. Like in

1:00:13

DC, you have a judge who's committed to that

1:00:15

and she's doing everything she can to get it

1:00:17

done. And in Florida, you don't. So

1:00:21

I say to people all the time, like there's

1:00:24

all kinds of judges, there's thousands of judges,

1:00:26

federal judges around the country. And

1:00:29

they're all very different. Some of

1:00:31

them are very good. Some of them

1:00:33

are really not. So you get not

1:00:36

great rulings from federal judges all the

1:00:38

time in criminal and civil cases around

1:00:40

the country. And I think we're seeing

1:00:43

a particularly clear

1:00:45

example of kind of the scope of

1:00:47

what's out there between these two cases.

1:00:50

As for Mike's question about suggesting

1:00:53

that like Trump won't be able

1:00:55

to financially continue the

1:00:57

strategy, I don't think that's probably

1:00:59

really a factor for him for

1:01:02

a couple reasons. One, his legal

1:01:04

expenses are being bankrolled by the

1:01:06

PACs and the political entities at this

1:01:08

point. And two, he doesn't seem to care,

1:01:10

right? He's not

1:01:13

a guy who curtails himself because he's

1:01:15

approaching the limits of his budget. He'd

1:01:17

just rather keep spending and then when

1:01:19

people show up to collect, he doesn't

1:01:22

pay them. As long as

1:01:24

there are lawyers around who feel like it's

1:01:26

advantageous for them and their practices and their

1:01:28

reputations to associate with him, he's

1:01:30

always going to have someone who's

1:01:33

willing to climb

1:01:35

on board and steer the boat

1:01:37

for a while, however long it

1:01:40

takes before they get heaved over the

1:01:42

side by him and replaced with someone

1:01:44

else. But I don't see – he

1:01:46

doesn't really experience the same sort of

1:01:48

financial limitations that a private litigant would

1:01:50

normally have. Yeah, nope,

1:01:53

I agree. And he does this everywhere

1:01:55

that he's being sued. Or

1:01:58

that he's now being created. criminally charged.

1:02:00

It's constantly about pushing

1:02:03

it back and delaying it past specifically

1:02:05

the election in hopes that he can

1:02:07

steal it, win it, take it, grab

1:02:09

it, and then make them all go

1:02:11

away. For sure. For sure. For sure.

1:02:14

All right. Thank you so much for your thoughtful questions. Any

1:02:16

more questions you have to us? Again, there's a link in

1:02:18

the show notes where you can submit

1:02:20

those and we will read them on the air and

1:02:22

answer them. Do you have

1:02:24

any final thought? Maybe we can spend a couple of

1:02:27

minutes. We've got a couple of minutes left here in

1:02:29

the hour to talk about Mr. Smirnov

1:02:32

because the breaking news today, and we aren't going to get

1:02:34

to this on the beans until

1:02:36

Monday, and we aren't going to get to it on cleanup

1:02:38

on aisle 45 until Wednesday, but

1:02:41

he's been re-arrested. Now, Smirnov, just

1:02:43

real quick background, I'm sure everybody who listens to

1:02:45

this program is aware that

1:02:47

the 1023 that the Republicans in

1:02:50

the House were using as their

1:02:52

core thing to impeach the president,

1:02:54

it basically said that Joe Biden

1:02:56

and Hunter Biden took $5 million

1:02:58

bribes from Barisma to make things

1:03:01

go away and help out the big guy or whatever

1:03:03

the hell. It turns out he was

1:03:05

lying and he falsified that 1023, so he's been

1:03:07

hit with a 1519 charge and

1:03:09

a 1001 charge, which is obstruction, 1519,

1:03:12

a document, and then

1:03:16

also falsifying a document, and then 1001 lying.

1:03:18

He was arrested and David Weiss

1:03:23

wanted him to be remanded because he was

1:03:25

afraid he was going to flee. He lied

1:03:27

to the probation

1:03:29

or the, what is it called? Pre-trial

1:03:33

services. Pre-trial services saying, I only have

1:03:35

$1,500, maybe five grand somewhere in

1:03:37

an account when it turns out he had access to $6

1:03:39

million. He's got an Israeli passport. Oh, yeah, that too.

1:03:41

$1,500 and $6 million. Sorry,

1:03:44

forgot the- Yeah, I know. It's close

1:03:47

enough, right? It's like Trump

1:03:49

valuing his properties. He

1:03:52

was arrested

1:03:56

for those two crimes. They wanted him in pre-trial

1:03:58

detention because he was going to flee. They

1:04:00

were certain of it. But the judge, the

1:04:02

magistrate judge in Nevada let him out with

1:04:05

a GPS monitor. David Weiss said, no,

1:04:07

no, no, no, no, no. You can't know. You can't

1:04:09

let him out. He's going to flee. And

1:04:12

so then a California judge said,

1:04:15

it's come to my attention that

1:04:17

perhaps Mr.

1:04:20

Smirnov's lawyers were trying

1:04:22

to assist him in absconding

1:04:24

the United States, fleeing the US.

1:04:26

So I'm now taking this over and

1:04:28

I'm setting a hearing for Monday to

1:04:30

discuss this. He needs to put out a warrant

1:04:33

for his arrest. And he was arrested in

1:04:35

the law, in his lawyer's office. And

1:04:38

so I think this is all there. I mean, at the

1:04:40

heart of this, there's a million things we could talk

1:04:42

about with the corruption under Barr and why he wasn't

1:04:44

charged in 2020 for lying. But

1:04:47

this is very fascinating that he was

1:04:49

re-arrested and this judge is now accusing

1:04:51

his lawyers of potentially helping him flee.

1:04:54

Yeah, it's a crazy

1:04:56

series of events. It's,

1:04:59

I think, helpful to understand the mechanics to

1:05:01

kind of put it in context. So they

1:05:03

obviously were ready

1:05:05

to arrest this guy initially. And he

1:05:08

was overseas and he flew back into the country

1:05:10

and landed first in Las Vegas. And that's why

1:05:12

he was arrested there because they didn't want to

1:05:14

take a chance of losing him, right? They knew

1:05:16

where he was going to be when he came

1:05:18

in on that plane. So they arrested

1:05:20

him there. What happens in a federal case

1:05:22

is you have to get arraigned in the

1:05:24

district in which you were arrested. Well, in

1:05:27

this case, that's Nevada, but his actual

1:05:29

case is in California. So in these

1:05:31

circumstances, you would go be presented

1:05:33

to the judge, they get you

1:05:36

an attorney or your attorney makes an appearance, you're

1:05:38

told of the charges against you, and then

1:05:41

you get an opportunity to request

1:05:43

bond. If

1:05:45

they think you're a flight risk, which

1:05:47

the government did, the government says, no, you

1:05:49

should deny him bond because he's

1:05:52

been lying, he lied to pre-trial services

1:05:54

and we might charge him with perjury

1:05:56

for that. Yeah, post-arrest interview, he tells

1:05:59

the... He tells the agents supposedly

1:06:01

for the first time that the

1:06:03

false story about Hunter Biden

1:06:05

and Joe Biden was actually given

1:06:08

to him by Russian intelligence. And

1:06:11

they put that in the motion

1:06:13

to oppose bail. So they're not

1:06:15

saying flat out, this

1:06:17

is the truth. He was given this

1:06:19

story by Russian intelligence. They're simply saying,

1:06:22

this is what he's saying now. And

1:06:25

therefore, you cannot trust this

1:06:27

person. And if you can't trust him, then

1:06:29

you can't give him bail, because bail is

1:06:31

essentially – you're trusting this person to come

1:06:33

back to court on the day he's supposed

1:06:35

to be here. So that was

1:06:37

their argument. The magistrate judge

1:06:39

inexplicably said, oh, no, I think what

1:06:41

you're saying is only speculative, and therefore

1:06:43

I'll release him on an ankle bracelet.

1:06:46

So now he goes back to California where

1:06:48

he lives, and the case is actually centered

1:06:50

out of California. And DOJ

1:06:53

has an opportunity to basically

1:06:55

appeal that bail decision in

1:06:58

front of the real case judge in California.

1:07:00

They did that a day or so ago

1:07:02

and requested that he be re-arrested. And then

1:07:05

of course, as you said, he was arrested

1:07:07

ultimately in his attorney's office, which is remarkable.

1:07:10

Yet another twist in this tale that's

1:07:12

just like kind of

1:07:14

head shaking. Bottom

1:07:17

line is that in any other investigative

1:07:19

context, when you're a star witness, the

1:07:21

center of your entire case, all of

1:07:23

a sudden you uncover that that person's

1:07:26

made up the entire thing to such

1:07:28

a degree that you now are compelled

1:07:30

to arrest them and try to throw

1:07:33

them in jail for violating

1:07:36

1001, making a false statement. That

1:07:40

underlying investigation, that case disappears because it's blown

1:07:42

up. There's no way you can resurrect that

1:07:44

after the central witness has gone down to

1:07:47

the – No, Comer says no, no,

1:07:49

no. We don't really know that guy. He

1:07:51

wasn't central. Forget

1:07:53

everything that we said. So crazy. That

1:07:55

is so crazy. Yeah. And

1:07:57

by the way, the judge in Nevada, the magistrate judge, has made

1:07:59

a mistake. mooted everything says put in a minute

1:08:01

order. I no longer have jurisdiction. It's over to

1:08:04

California now. And also mooted

1:08:06

the order because he had asked the government

1:08:08

to respond to him as to

1:08:10

why they, why they re-arrested the

1:08:12

client and or

1:08:15

the defendant. And so he's like,

1:08:17

don't you don't have to tell me now everything's moot,

1:08:20

hands clean, doing the casino hands, right? Like, I like

1:08:22

it. I can hear you. I can hear you. I

1:08:24

can hear you. I don't want

1:08:26

anything to do with this anymore. Thanks. Bye.

1:08:28

And it's now over in California. Yeah. Central

1:08:31

district, I think. So we'll keep an eye on

1:08:33

that. Yeah, crazy. There's all kinds of really

1:08:35

interesting questions here about the timeline and when

1:08:38

the bureau decided that he was, you

1:08:41

know, telling, not telling the truth about this Hunter

1:08:43

and Joe Biden story. You know, then of course,

1:08:45

Congress in an effort to get them, get themselves

1:08:47

out of the grease is now pointing the finger

1:08:49

at the FBI. The guy had a, had a

1:08:54

long history of reporting. I

1:08:56

think over a decade, he'd

1:08:58

been reporting to the same agent and he apparently

1:09:01

had been provided information effectively

1:09:03

in other criminal cases. But, but,

1:09:05

you know, sometimes sources

1:09:07

are good, even good sources go bad.

1:09:09

I mean, this we all know. The

1:09:11

thing that rings out to me here

1:09:13

is in 2023, when Congress found out

1:09:17

about the existence of this infamous

1:09:19

1023, which is the internal report

1:09:22

that we put a source information

1:09:24

on, it's for raw, unverified, unvetted

1:09:27

information just to get it into the system.

1:09:30

When they found out about it, they demanded it and

1:09:32

the bureau pushed back and said, you know,

1:09:34

we've, we don't think there's anything credible there.

1:09:37

It's part of an ongoing investigation too. You

1:09:39

can't have it. And they pushed and they

1:09:41

pushed and they cajoled and then they threatened

1:09:43

and they threatened to hold director Ray in

1:09:46

contempt of Congress if he didn't turn over

1:09:48

the 1023. And ultimately Ray

1:09:51

caved handed over the 1023 and then

1:09:54

they were off to the races. So you have

1:09:56

another example of what happens

1:09:58

when Congress pressures the

1:10:00

investigators to turn over information that

1:10:02

should not be going to Congress.

1:10:06

So yeah, I don't think they can get their own

1:10:08

fingerprints off of this fast enough. No,

1:10:11

they were warned. This is Rudy

1:10:14

with the target of Russian disinformation. Gosh, it's almost like

1:10:16

there was Russian collusion, Andy. I don't know. Did

1:10:18

you guys look into that at all? I can't

1:10:20

even remember. Geez, that sounds awful. I

1:10:22

hope that doesn't happen before. Yeah,

1:10:25

it's been quite a week for the

1:10:27

Mueller-She-Wrote Twitter account. Let's say that. Lots

1:10:33

of fingernail filing, and I told you

1:10:36

so. But we'll see what ends

1:10:38

up happening. And it could unravel all sorts

1:10:40

of interesting things that I think should be

1:10:42

looked into, particularly the handling of this back

1:10:44

in 2020 by Barr and

1:10:47

Scott Brady, who was over in Pittsburgh, who

1:10:50

was the guy who Bill Barr put in charge of getting all

1:10:52

the Rudy stuff and

1:10:54

vetting it from Ukraine. He was

1:10:56

trapped in election. Well

1:10:59

done. I would

1:11:01

like the Senate Intelligence Committee to do an investigation

1:11:03

and call in Christopher Wray and ask him about

1:11:05

this, and Scott Brady and ask him about this.

1:11:08

And why aren't we doing any investigations in

1:11:10

the democratically held Senate?

1:11:13

It's driving me crazy. I don't know. I would tune

1:11:15

in and watch all those hearings for sure. I

1:11:17

certainly would as well. See you span and chill. All

1:11:20

right, my friend, it has been great to

1:11:22

do another episode of the Jack podcast

1:11:24

with you. We will be back

1:11:27

in your—by the way, when and if—I'm going

1:11:29

to check one more time to

1:11:31

see if the Supreme Court has

1:11:34

ruled. No, it

1:11:36

doesn't look like it. But

1:11:38

once that comes in, you may get a bonus episode

1:11:40

from us. We might need to put

1:11:42

that out, at least just to cover

1:11:44

it very briefly, because I don't know if it

1:11:46

comes out today or Monday. I

1:11:49

don't think we can wait until next weekend to talk about it. So thank

1:11:51

you all very much. We

1:11:53

appreciate you, and we'll see you next week. I've been Allison

1:11:55

Gill. And I'm Andy McCabe. It's

1:12:04

no surprise that newsmakers try to manipulate the audience.

1:12:07

They want you to believe that they are the one holding the

1:12:09

line and they'll use any trick they can to get you there.

1:12:12

But don't let them fool you. Get Unspun.

1:12:15

I'm Amanda Sturgill. I've

1:12:17

been a reporter and today I teach future reporters to

1:12:19

cut the spin and think critically about

1:12:22

what newsmakers say. My

1:12:24

podcast, Unspun, shows you how to know when

1:12:26

you're being manipulated by the news. Learn

1:12:29

to spot the tricks on how to make a clear all-night

1:12:31

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

1:12:33

of being fooled by the news, subscribe to Unspun

1:12:35

today. Unspun. Because

1:12:37

you deserve the truth.