Jack - Episode 101 | The Ferris Bueller Motion

Episode Date: November 3, 2024

This week, we have Trump's response to the 11th Circuit appeal made by Jack Smith to reinstate the Florida case; along with another Trump motion to further delay his response to the immunity brief in DC; Judge Cannon says she will not recuse from the Routh case; and NBC want to televise the immunity arguments (if they happen) in Judge Chutkan’s court.   Plus listener questions. Questions for the pod Submit questions for the pod here https://formfacade.com/sm/PTk_BSogJ AMICI CURIAE to the District Court of DC https://democracy21.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/08/Attachment-Brief-of-Amici-Curiae-in-Support-of-Governments-Proposed-Trial-Date.pdfGood to knowRule 403bhttps://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre/rule_40318 U.S. Code § 1512https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1512 Prior RestraintPrior Restraint | Wex | US Law | LII / Legal Information InstituteBrady MaterialBrady Rule | US Law |Cornell Law School | Legal Information Institutehttps://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/brady_rule#:~:text=Brady%20material%2C%20or%20the%20evidence,infer%20against%20the%20defendant's%20guiltJenksJencks Material | Thomson Reuters Practical Law Glossaryhttps://content.next.westlaw.com/Glossary/PracticalLaw/I87bcf994d05a11e598dc8b09b4f043e0?transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default)Gigliohttps://definitions.uslegal.com/g/giglio-information/Statutes:18 U.S.C. § 241 | Conspiracy Against Rights18 U.S.C. § 371 | Conspiracy to Defraud the United States | JM | Department of Justice18 U.S.C.  § 1512 | Tampering With Victims, Witnesses, Or Informants Questions for the pod Submit questions for the pod here https://formfacade.com/sm/PTk_BSogJCheck out other MSW Media podcastshttps://mswmedia.com/shows/Follow AGFollow Mueller, She Wrote on Posthttps://twitter.com/allisongillhttps://twitter.com/MuellerSheWrotehttps://twitter.com/dailybeanspodAndrew McCabe isn’t on social media, but you can buy his book The ThreatThe Threat: How the FBI Protects America in the Age of Terror and TrumpWe would like to know more about our listeners. Please participate in this brief surveyListener Survey and CommentsThis Show is Available Ad-Free And Early For Patreon and Supercast Supporters at the Justice Enforcers level and above:https://dailybeans.supercast.techOrhttps://patreon.com/thedailybeansOr when you subscribe on Apple Podcastshttps://apple.co/3YNpW3P

MSW Media I signed an order appointing Jack Smith. And those who say Jack is a fanatic. Mr. Smith is a veteran career prosecutor. Wait, what law have I broken? The events leading up to and on January 6th. Classified documents and other presidential records. You understand what prison is?

Send me to jail. Welcome to episode 101 of Jack. It's Jack 101, the podcast about all things special counsel. It's Sunday, November 3rd, 2024. I'm Alison Gill. And I'm Andy McCabe and Alison, welcome to the second century of Jack podcasts, right? We're rolling right into 101 here. Super excited about that. Today, we now have Trump's response to the 11th circuit appeal made by Jack Smith to reinstate the Florida case, along with another Trump motion to further delay

his response to the immunity brief in DC. Yeah. 101. I mean, we imagined, I know that when I brought you in on this project, you were like, oh, yeah, this will all be done by the election. Total bait and switch. I'm going to go on record. Six months.

What could this take? Eight months tops. Come on. We'll be talking about sentencing 10 months from now. You're stuck with me pal. Also today we have Jack Smith's response to Trump's motion to dismiss the DC case for the same reason the Florida case was dismissed by Judge Cannon, that Jack Smith was appointed and funded inappropriately. Plus, the Department of Justice has opposed Ryan Routh's motion to recuse Judge Cannon. And that has been granted, right? They're not going to recuse the court. Well, Judge Cannon says she won't recuse. We'll talk about that. And we have a motion from the media, NBC universal, to televised or audio

stream any immunity hearings that Judge Chuckin might schedule after the immunity briefs are done, which have been now postponed twice by Donald Trump, even though he's complaining that he doesn't get to say, I don't get to talk before the election. It's first amendment, but I don't want to talk before the election, please. So there's a lot going on. But first, just two days from the election, it's time for another installment of Good Week, Bad Week. I'm almost afraid to do this. I mean, I feel like I'm afraid of how weird or great doing this is going to be next week. So let's put that aside for a minute. But this has been a weird week. I think we always, we typically start by talking about Donald Trump and there were certainly many

things that I think a lot of folks would have would qualify as objectively horrible about his last week, whether it was the meeting of the fourth right at Madison Square Garden all the way to last night's threats about Liz Cheney. But driving around in circles in a garbage truck in a parking lot that you couldn't open the door to. His Mike Decaucus moment stumbling for the handle of the door to a garbage truck while wearing an orange vest. But despite all that, he's living his long dream of being in the village people, I think. Yes. But despite all that, he's still in the hunt.

And I don't understand that exactly. But, you know, so a lot of bad things happened to him over the course of the week. And yet this is still a super, super tight race that most people are unwilling to even make a prediction on. It's so close. So I don't know. He's managed to salvage some silver lining out of all these

clouds. So I don't know. I think he comes away with kind of an even week. Does that sound right? Even, Steven. Yeah. Now I happen to think, and this, I have a little inside information here because we can look at the polls and a lot of these polls are done by political people who are paid by PACs to do polls. The polls are weighted based on past elections and we don't have a past post-Roe election. This is the first one. Women are up by 10%. There's a huge gender gap in early voting. But I spoke to, on the Daily Beans this past week, I spoke to Daria Dawson, who's in charge

of America Votes, which is a coalition of all Dawson, who's in charge of America Votes, which is a coalition of all sorts of, it's a coalition of coalitions. And their goal was to knock on 30 million doors in battleground states in the last, you know, since, since Harris took the top of the ticket. And so I checked in with her this week, they've knocked on 36 million doors in battleground states, 45 million doors across the country. And I've had nearly 13 million conversations and that will go up in the next couple of days here before the election. And so I asked her what the vibes are on the ground, because I'm going to take the word

over somebody who's had, in charge of a coalition that's had 13 million conversations over a poll that has talked to 356 likely voters. And she said the vibes are good. They're overwhelming and impressive. And she's really excited and confident. And I've also noticed a little bit of a change in the language from that we're hearing from Vice President Harris when she's on the stump. It was, you'll remember, we are the underdogs, don't forget. And now we are going to win. And so I feel like there's a, I think the momentum at least is on the side of the Democrats, but we will see where we end up. And that's all this week. And I'm sure we'll all be tuned into our televisions watching intently as folks like Steve Kornacki

spill the beans for us. All right. That's right. What do we have? What do we have this week? We have so many stories and filings. As usual, we have a full basket of stuff to cover. So let's start with another request for delay from

Donald Trump. Okay. So he wants even more time to file his response to Jack Smith's immunity brief. You'll recall he previously asked for five more weeks and then Judge Chutkin granted him a three week delay. And now he wants two more. Now he... Can I have a cookie? It's the delay two step. No, you can have a grape. Okay. Takes the grape. Now can I have a cookie? It's the delay two step. No, you can have a grape. Okay, takes the grape. Now can I have a cookie?

It's like, no, I gave you the grape. But anyway, okay. So now he writes, President Donald J. Trump respectfully requests that the court continue the deadlines to file his forthcoming one response and renewed motion to dismiss based on presidential immunity to motion to compel immunity related discovery and three reply in support of motion to file a motion to dismiss based on the appointments and appropriations clause and he wants to move all these things to continue these deadlines to November 21st,

2024. Right. They're currently due November 7th. That's right. So he goes on to say, on September 26th, 2024, the special counsel filed a 165 page immunity motion together with a nearly 2000 page appendix. Thereafter, on October 2nd, 2024, President Trump moved for leave to file an oversized brief and to extend the filing deadline for his response. That was the five week request, I think, if I'm judging these correctly.

The court granted President Trump's motion in part and denied in part, setting a new deadline of November 7th, 2024. That was the three week extension. part and denied in part, setting a new deadline of November 7th, 2024. That was the three-week extension. The following week, Hurricane Milton made landfall in Florida, displacing and severely disrupting Florida Defense Council from both undersigned firms. The requested extension will resolve these issues and allow Council reasonable time to

complete work on both filings. Additionally, an extension will enable counsel to more fully consider the court's discovery order as well as any additional discovery produced by the special counsel and incorporate such information into the filings as appropriate. For example, the special counsel made another classified discovery production today. As defense counsel must travel to review these materials and consider whether to incorporate any of them into the response and motion to compel, this presents a significant obstacle

to filing on the current schedule. Even though we've basically given you like a mobile skiff and we'll come to you and we've given you laptops and instructions and IT guys and all this other stuff. But, you know, they're saying Hurricane Milton has displaced and disrupted defense counsel here. He goes on to say, here, President Trump seeks brief continuances in his filing deadlines. Although counsel is working diligently to complete the response, that's the immunity

response and the motion to compel on the current schedule, the disruptions caused by Hurricane Milton have frustrated that goal. Specifically, the impacts of the hurricane, which remain ongoing for certain counsel, have substantially slowed the progress on the response, the immunity response. This in turn has limited counsel's ability to thoroughly consider the court's extensive classified and unclassified discovery order and prepare an appropriate motion to compel. That's the discovery motion. Because what he's talking about there is you don't remember, he asked for like everything ever from all the agencies, nine additional agencies and all the underlying documents and

any email that says he they like his hair or going back to 1944. Like he asked for everything. Sure. And the judge was like, you can have to 1944. Like he asked for everything. And the judge was like, you can have three things. You can have the DNI preparation materials. You can have the stuff from people who used to work at the office. You know, she had a very limited thing. And then Jack Smith said, okay, we confirm we've handed everything over. And we have just handed over a couple of additional documents, very limited number from people who used to work here. And we're done except with Jenks Act material, because we don't know who the full witness list is. And Jenks Act material has to do with stuff that could impeach our

witnesses. So extend that and then we're done. We've completed everything. And so Trump is now, well, I need to respond, right? And I need to talk about, because Judge Chuckin said, you can talk about your immunity stuff later, your immunity discovery later. You can ask for that. And Trump's like, well, we have it all now, the rest of the stuff from Jack Smith. And then we got to look at some classified discovery and we got to travel for that to a skiff. So we need some more time to respond appropriately to the motion to compel discovery,

which should be long since decided. But here we are. Finally, as President Trump's AA reply, that's the Appropriations and Appointment of Jack Smith Motion for Permission to File a Motion to Dismiss based on that, that's currently due the same day as his immunity response, November 7th. President Trump respectfully requests the court continue that deadline by the same amount to ensure the dates continue to match. Doing so will also ensure that defense counsel's limited resources are not unnecessarily diverted during the final stages of the immunity draft.

Accordingly, President Trump respectfully requests the court continue the filing deadlines for the immunity response, the motion to compel discovery stuff, and the appointments reply to Jack Smith. That's the permission to file a motion for dismissal on appointment and appropriations. That reply, all of it to November 21, 2024. Accounting for that extension, Trump further requests that the deadlines for the special counsel's combined immunity reply and opposition and Trump's combined reply and surreply be reset to December 5th and December 19th respectively. This is actually a well-written motion by the way. It's starting. I was just going to say that to you. Like this one stands out as being relevant and to the point, which none of the other ones are. I want to know which lawyer and his team wrote this one.

They should have the pen on all the rest. Yeah. Because it actually addresses the issue at hand. There's nothing in here like President Trump further requests that the deadlines for the vindictive and biased witch hunt of election interference. The direction of Joseph Biden and George Soros. Maybe they wrote it when he was at a rally or something like, let's just get this out. So he's asking for two more weeks to file everything.

His response to Jack Smith's immunity brief, his response to Jack Smith's opposition of dismissing the case on appointment and funding grounds, which we'll cover in a bit. We have Jack Smith's opposition to that and his response to Judge Chuckin's discovery ruling and subsequent production from the government. You'll recall she ordered Jack Smith to produce, as I said, additional discovery, which he did. And now, again, like I said, Trump wants more time to respond. Now, keep in mind, he's asking for this extension, like I said, while arguing in a different motion how unfair it is that he doesn't get to file these things before the election. The Jack Smith didn't oppose this additional two week extension.

Again, Trump wanted five weeks, she gave him three, and now he wants two more, but it's because of Hurricane Milton. And generally when something like a hurricane happens or a death in a family or some sort of family emergency, the court always grants those extensions. I mean, I've never seen them deny anything like that before. That is true. But I don't know. Although I do give them credit for actually writing a motion that sounds like a reasonable

motion. If I were the judge, I'd be like, okay, conference call, talk to me about this displacement. Yeah, she might have. What is this? What is this? Here's the address you have on your filings. Is that address still open? Do you have power and water and you can get in? Has something been destroyed? You're looking for, you know, like, there's no question in my mind that they would take advantage of this situation to get more time because their goal, number one goal from day one has always been more time. Oh, I'm not saying any full of it. I'm just saying the court usually grants these. Totally. They usually give people the benefit of the doubt. And she did. And she did

actually. Yeah. And she did in this case. She said, the government didn't oppose, right? The defendants unopposed motion to continue is granted. The court's order and 10-3-24 minute order are modified as follows. Defendants combined response and renewed motion to dismiss based on presidential immunity is now due November 21st, which is what Trump wanted. The government reply is due December 5th, which is what he wanted. And defendants combined reply and surreply is due December 19th. In addition, the deadlines for the defendant's motion to compel immunity related discovery and reply in support of the motion for leave to file a motion to dismiss based on appointments

and appropriations clause. Those are also extended to November 21st. So he got everything he wanted. He did. Yeah. And it's not surprising. I mean, I'm just being a jerk, but I would have wanted some proof. Send me some pictures of your office. Especially since he asked for five weeks and she gave him three.

And then he's like, I need two more. And you know, it's like, but you know what? All right. There is a factor here of if you'd stop filing so many requests for more time, you'd actually have more time to work on the things that are due. There's that. And then there's also that nobody brought up the fact that he's arguing in a different motion, that he's very mad that he has not been, he won't be able to, you know, air his grievances in a response to the immunity brief before the election.

That was his argument, I think, to extend it five weeks in the first place. And as for the government's non-objection to this, I think part of that is you're right, historically, these are the circumstances under which attorneys get additional time. But also, it kind of puts the government in a weird position. They're saying, oh, we were displaced by an act of God, the hurricane, and you're going to come out and oppose that and say, hell no. Like it kind of makes the government look petty and overly aggressive. And they are very sensitive about those sorts of appearances, especially when they're in front of a judge who they think they have some

momentum with. They don't want to piss off the judge and be kind of cast in the same category as the defense as just like manipulative or whatever. So I'm not surprised by it, but anyway, here we are more delay. Yeah. I'm going to call this the Ferris Bueller motion because you remember in Ferris Bueller's day off, some of the movie 1985, that the excuse to get Sloan out of class was that her grandmother died. And of course that was not true. And Ed Rooney, the principal, had a feeling it wasn't true. And he said, why don't you produce her body and I'll dig up your daughter. Just roll her old bones on out here and I'll dig up your daughter. And then of course, Cameron Fry gets on the phone pretending

to be Sloan's dad. And he's like, oh, I'm so sorry, sir. But in this particular case, you always let a kid out of class when they have a death in the family, unless of course it's Ferris Bueller. You always grant an extension for Hurricane Milton, unless of course it's Donald Trump. So I'm going to call this the Ferris Bueller motion. That was a brilliant weave right there. You went sideways into the Ferris Bueller and brought it all the way back. I'm going to say bravo. I can do the weave. I call it the weave. I call it the weave Andy. It's how I talk. You do the weave, but actually reconnected in a circle. I'm like just weaving.

These are the things, by the way, that go on in my brain constantly. And I only express maybe about 2% of them. So there was a window. Amazing and also frightening. Into my brain. Thank you. Thank you very much. All right. We have more to get to, including Donald Trump's brief to the 11th circuit. Remember Jack Smith took it to the 11th circuit after Cannon dismissed the espionage and obstruction of justice known as the classified documents case down in Florida. And we'll cover Trump's response right after this break. Stick around. We'll be right back. Welcome back. Okay. Last week, we were waiting with bated breath for Donald Trump's brief to the 11th

Circuit. Now you'll recall that Judge Cannon dismissed the Florida case on the grounds that Jack Smith was appointed and funded inappropriately. Jack Smith appealed to the 11th Circuit. Trump asked for an additional 30 days to respond and that request was granted. And on October 25th, close to the midnight deadline, of course, he filed his response. Also recall that up in DC, Donald Trump filed for permission to file the same motion to dismiss for the same reasons. And we noticed that it was much more than a motion for leave to file or permission to

file. He actually made all of his arguments as to why Jack Smith was appointed and funded inappropriately. And he even asked for relief in the form of an injunction, essentially defunding the special counsel. And that was in the DC case like a week or so ago. OK, so his brief to the 11th Circuit for the Florida case

is basically the same as his motion for leave to file the same motion in DC. So there's really not much new to go over here. That's right. It would just sound like we were repeating the episode in which we went over his weird DC permission to file. It would cast us back into this hole of making the same complaints about that ridiculous motion for another half an hour. Right.

Everybody would be like, deja vu. It would be deja vu all over again. So we went over this motion to dismiss the DC case on the same grounds in detail. And now his brief for the 11th Circuit makes the exact same arguments. We don't need to rehash them. But briefly, Trump believes that Title 28, Section 509, 510, 513, and 533, as cited in Merrick Garland's appointment memo of Jack Smith, that those don't give Merrick Garland the power to appoint a special counsel, even though they have for every other special counsel ever.

But beyond that, Trump inappropriately argues to the 11th Circuit that there was vindictive and selective prosecution Oh, of course special counsel is funded improperly even though that wasn't a consideration for cannons dismissal It was just derivative of her appointments dismissal And he's asking the 11th circuit to consider new evidence not found in lower court briefings Which is I don't think I'm not a lawyer, but I don't think you can bring new stuff up to the appellate court. I think you got to, I think you got to go on what's already in the briefings. Yes. Yeah. So here's the way it's supposed to work. And here's his opening paragraph to the 11th circuit. I want you to listen closely Andy for any argument that Jack Smith was appointed inappropriately. Okay. He says there is not and has never been a basis for Jack Smith's unlawful crusade against

President Trump. For almost two years, Smith has operated unlawfully, backed by a largely unscrutinized blank check drawn on taxpayer dollars. More than $36 million has been spent unjustly targeting the leading candidate in the 2024 presidential election, President Trump, through unprecedented encroachments on executive power, with President Biden wrongly and inappropriately urging to lock him up only days before the filing of this brief as part of the election interference strategy. So right off the bat, zero arguments about inappropriate appointment of

special counsel. That's his debt. And by the way, that is the one thing the 11th circuit will be deciding. That's right. Instead, he goes off on vindictive prosecution, funding of the special counsel, which I said is derivative from the appointments dismissal, and the Biden lock him up thing, which is new stuff, even says it happened two days before this filing was due. And it's also irrelevant because it's, it's tied to selective prosecution claims, which aren't at issue here at all. He also manages to squeeze in some immunity issue language with his unprecedented encroachments on executive power sentence. So basically he's opening with everything but the appointment

of Jack Smith and why he doesn't think it's legal. Probably because it's such an asinine argument. He buries it later in the filing. Bury the lead, bury the lead. Yeah. And in his final argument, in addition to his assertion that sections 509, 510, 515, and 533 are not real laws that cover the special counsel, Trump argues, as he did in his same brief to Judge Chutkin, that quote, Nixon is dicta. So remember that Judge Berger wrote for the Supreme Court in 1973 in the seminal and ruling case on this issue of US v. Nixon. He wrote, Congress has vested in the Attorney General the power to conduct the criminal litigation of the United States government.

And it has also vested in him the power to appoint subordinate officers to assist him in the discharge of his duties. Now the Nixon court cited 28 USC 509 510 515 and 533 and it added in footnote 8 that acting Attorney General Robert Bork issued the regulation establishing the office of Watergate Special Prosecution Force, quote, pursuant to his statutory authority. Now, Judge Cannon and Trump say that this was all dicta, meaning just a comment or a suggestion or observation made by a judge in an opinion that is not necessary to resolve the case. And as such, it's not legally binding on other courts, although it may still be cited as

persuasive authority in future litigation. So that's a calling something dicta is a way of dismissing it as like not really traditionally controlling law. Okay, so and since Nixon didn't oppose Bork's appointment of Jaworski, that statement, they would argue, is not binding. But the reason Nixon didn't oppose it is because the special counsel appointments used to be considered unopposable. They were considered sacrosanct, beyond legal challenge. Plus, the DC Circuit has already ruled that this

specific Nixon statement is binding on lower courts in the DC Circuit. But of course, the 11th Circuit isn't the DC Circuit, so here we are. Yeah. Yeah, that whole DICTA thing is interesting. I mean, the entire immunity argument should have been dismissed on dicta anyway, because they weren't tasked with setting a rule for the ages. They were tasked with deciding on what the DC circuit decided. Right. And certainly the easier example is the infamous Clarence Thomas statements in his concurring opinion that he wrote in US v Trump, or is it Trump versus US?

Trump versus US? I think anyway. We just call it Trump. We just call it Trump. He wrote those, made those comments about the appropriateness of the special counsel appointment, even though it wasn't anywhere near involved in the issue that they were deciding. That was like just a total

side swipe with no legal authority. He's the only one that wrote that. It was in his sole concurring opinion. So no other judge signed it. That's Uber dicta. Yeah, yeah. It wasn't briefed. It wasn't part of the question that the court issued to the parties in terms of what they would hear. Nope, but they're relying on it as their entire basis for this argument. Yeah. Now, I don't think the 11th Circuit is going to buy this.

I think they will probably likely reinstate the case. We don't know yet when oral arguments will be or which three judge panel will be assigned to this case because you don't get an assignment or an oral argument scheduled until everything is briefed. That's right. And as always, we'll keep you posted. So it's, everything's kind of running up right together and it's all gonna be like between election day and inauguration day.

The crazy thing about this case is everything that seems obvious doesn't always go the obvious way. The perfect example is the immunity decision from the Supreme Court. This is kind of falling into that same pattern. Every lawyer I talk to about this, and I've talked to a couple of them, particularly recently, other really well-known attorneys who do commentary on television and stuff. Everyone thinks the court's going to reinstate the case, everyone that I've spoken to. But we all thought that the immunity decision would come out very differently too.

So the 11th circuit, yeah, but the Supreme Court, and you and I talked about this last week, that's where I run into issues. Because if the 11th circuit agrees with the DC circuit, then there's no conflict between circuits. And that usually is what gives the Supreme Court a reason to take up a case. But again, they like to take up cases now, even if there's no conflict and they just want to make a new rule. So for the ages. Yeah, I think that's right.

And to be fair, give them credit, the 11th Circuit has already rendered a handful of very logical, very predictable rulings in this case or on the corollary civil suit that was filed by Trump at the beginning of the documents case. So I think there are good reasons to think that they'll handle this in a similar way, which is based on the law and just dispense with that 93 page opinion that Kenan wrote. But you know, in this world, you always have to hold on to the- Well, yeah, dude. When we heard the immunity thing, we were like, no way, this whole country

was founded on this principle. The historic president, the constitution says that is the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard. And bam, here we are with presidential immunity. So while we sit here and say, duh, every single special counsel ever, it's not dicta. It's obvious. It was unopposable back then. It would have been ridiculous for Nixon to oppose the appointment of Jaworski. None of that. I mean, I feel like I'm making the same arguments against immunity.

That's just ridiculous. And this Supreme Court, I don't know. I don't know, man. But let's take it one step at a time and see what the 11th circuit does first. I agree. I agree. Also, just real quick, you know, last week we talked about the Department of Justice opposing Judge Cannon's recusal in the Trump assassination attempt case, right?

Against Ralph. And we talked about how they opposed it, but barely. But Judge Cannon has denied her recusal. She says the fact that Trump appointed her doesn't create the appearance of impropriety. I agree there. She says, I've never spoken to or met former president Trump except in connection with his required presence at official judicial proceedings through counsel. I have no relationship with the alleged victim in any reasonable sense of the phrase. Now reasonable could be doing a lot of heavy lifting there.

She calls the fact that Trump could promote her if he wins, you know, to the Supreme Court or to the DC Circuit or to Attorney General. She calls that highly tenuous speculation, even though she's on the list. And her rulings in the documents case, she said, generally don't serve as a basis for recusal. And I do agree with that one. And finally, defendant- So the rulings in the documents case don't serve as a basis for recusal in this case.

Right. Right. In the Ralph attempted assassination case. Now finally, she says, defendant identifies as an additional matter that I went to high school in the 90s with one of the prosecutors assigned to the Ralph case and attended his wedding nine years ago. I maintain no ongoing personal relationship with the prosecutor, nor have I communicated

with him in years. In short, my personal friendship years ago with the prosecutor has no bearing or influence whatsoever on my impartial handling of this case or any other case in which he may appear as counsel of record." And that's her final argument there. So she has said no. We'll see. I know that this will go up to the 11th Circuit for recusal in the Routh case.

I imagine they will also say no. But again, as we discussed last week, I don't think this will have an impact on whether the 11th circuit Sue Esponte reassigns her based on the two amicus briefs filed in the dismissal of the Florida documents case. The odds are long, but I don't think they've changed based on this. I don't think it changes them either. And I agree with your perspective on her, that first collection of statements. The one thing I would point out though, is that last one, that having a personal relationship with the prosecutor. Now, to be fair, it is, this is an entirely subjective decision by the judge in question. That's the way the system works, right? You

can make a request like this, but it's up to the judge to determine if they have a conflict or if there is a reasonable appearance of conflict. I don't think she has the best judgment. Well, no. And as an example, I had a case, a civil case in federal court here in DC a couple of years ago in which I was pursuing the restoration of my employment benefits, we've talked about that before, we went through a couple of judges because they too had to recuse for one reason or another, you know, this random assignment and then the judges take a look at whether or not they have a conflict. One of them actually recused for a very similar reason.

I remember this. Yeah. That judge had had a social relationship with one of the lawyers on the case and had attended social events at that lawyer's house. And so voluntarily, in an effort to avoid even the possibility of the perception of bias, that judge decided to recuse. So I bring this up only to emphasize that even on the circumstances that she relates here, there are a lot of other judges who would recuse on that basis. Now she doesn't have to, she's not obligated to, but I think it does speak to her very, very narrow perspective on what constitutes not only a conflict but a potential conflict. Yeah and it also makes me wonder if any of her fellow judges and senior judges in her district gave her a call and said maybe you should get away

from any case that has to do with Trump for a while. But you know we don't know if that happened. We do know that it happened in the documents case though. And oddly didn't show up in either of the amici briefs for why she should But, you know, we don't know if that happened. We do know that it happened in the documents case though. And oddly didn't show up in either of the amici briefs for why she should recuse to the 11th circuit. I would have put that in there that her senior judges felt that there was an appearance of impropriety. And if they do, then any reasonable person does because certainly judges are reasonable.

I don't know why they didn't put it in there. It could be because they weren't clear on the sourcing. They're not going to just say, well, it was reported in the newspaper that a senior judge unidentified said XYZ. If the judge actually spoke to them about it, they probably would. Why not? Trump cites Ellie Hoenig's opinions. Well, I mean, that's not most lawyers' standard. All right, fair enough. All right, so we're going to talk about my favorite filing of the week, Jack Smith's opposition to Trump's motion to dismiss the January 6th case for the inappropriate appointment

and funding. Jack Smith's opposition- Well, Trump's request to file a motion. His request for permission to file a motion, I should say. But we have to take a quick break. So stick around. We'll be right back. Hey everybody.

Welcome back. All right. Like I said, before the break, it's time for my favorite filing of the week. I think we should have like a segment. The filing of the week. Maybe a song for that. Yeah. Jack Smith's opposition to Trump's motion for leave to file a motion to dismiss the January 6th case for the same reason Judge Cannon dismissed the documents case that Jack

Smith was appointed and funded inappropriately. But remember, Trump was actually supposed to just be asking for permission, like I said, to file the motion. But remember, Trump was actually supposed to just be asking for permission, like I said, to file the motion. But as we covered last week, he actually filed the whole dang motion and asked Judge Chuckkin also to defund special counsel to enjoin any further appropriations. Andy, you and I discussed this and thought she might grant it, right? Even though he's filing it way late. Grant him leave to file. Leave to file.

Right. To file a motion that would essentially be the same exact thing again. Yeah. But not grant the motion itself. No, of course not. The merits are ridiculous. But go ahead. We were like, maybe she'll be like, go ahead for this. But Trump argued he should get to file it late because of the superseding indictment that Jack Smith got. And that should reset the proceedings. He knew he had to file for permission because the DC Circuit precedent says that Jack Smith is appointed and funded properly and because the deadline to file pretrial motions was like a year ago. So he knows he has to ask

for permission. And even if he gets permission to file his arguments, to file this motion, that everything he's saying, like you said, the merits, they fall short. So that's what you and I discussed, right? So check out Jack Smith's opening paragraph. It's the coolest. He says, the defendant's proposed motion to dismiss and for injunctive relief based on the appointments and appropriations clauses, is untimely and without merit. In a separate case against the defendant in the Southern District of Florida, he timely filed the very challenge that he belatedly advances here, a year after the deadline for such a motion in this case. And in this case, although the defendant timely filed more than 100 pages urging dismissal

of the indictment, he chose not to raise the issue he's now trying to put before the court. Because the defendant cannot demonstrate good cause for his failure to file a timely non-jurisdictional claim under the appointments or appropriation clauses, the court should not consider it. If the court nonetheless reaches the merits, so even if you decide that he can, you give him permission to file this and you reach the merits, the court should reject the defendant's arguments that the special counsel is not lawfully appointed or funded. The DC Circuit's decision in grand jury investigation, which is a case. In right grand jury investigation, which is a case. In right grand jury investigation.

Squarely forecloses, it forbids the defendant's appointments clause argument. And the defendant's appropriations clause, that's the funding challenge, fails because it is entirely derivative of his faulty appointments clause claim. And because the special counsel is plainly an independent counsel, as that term is used in the relevant appropriation.

The court should deny the defendant's untimely motion for dismissal and his meritless claim for injunctive relief. So, wow. Succinctly written, he's saying you should deny Trump permission to file his motion because he's a year late. And if you do grant him permission, DC Circuit precedent is clear on special counsel appointments being legal. And his funding argument is derivative. All the exact same things we talked about last week in response to Trump's motion. Yeah, that's right. So then he goes on to give us a little background here.

He says, in November 2022, it was known publicly that the defendant was the subject of two ongoing federal criminal investigations. On November 15, 2022, while both investigations were pending, the defendant declared his candidacy for the presidency in 2024. Faced with this sensitive situation, the attorney general followed the well-established department practice of appointing a special counsel to dispel any notion that political motives played a role in the investigations. Although that step was not legally required, the attorney general followed a well-worn path established by his predecessors of employing special counsels in similarly sensitive cases.

He then goes on to cite pretty much every single special counsel and the fact that they were all funded using the same funding vehicle that supports Jack Smith. He mentions Robert Herr, John Durham, Robert Mueller, Pat Fitzgerald, who had the Valerie Plame leak case, Jack Danforth, who investigated the raid on the Branch Davidian compound in Waco, Texas. Robert Fisk, who investigated the Clinton Whitewater case. And all of those special counsels used the permanent indefinite appropriation that funds Jack Smith. Yeah, all of them. And that, by the way, that's like two pages of citations. There's quotes and case law and everything. And then Jack Smith addresses

Trump's argument that he can file his motion late because Justice Thomas said he could. Right? Jack Smith says, the defendant implies that he had no basis to challenge the special counsel's authority to prosecute the case until Justice Thomas authored a concurring opinion addressing the issue in Trump v. United States. There's your answers, Trump v. United States. And until Judge Cannon dismissed the Florida indictment after accepting his arguments. But neither that solo concurring opinion on a question that the parties did not brief or argue to the Supreme Court, nor the unpersuasive out-of-circuit district

court opinion binds this court. And in any event, quote, defendants need not and often do not await a Supreme Court precedent directly in point before raising a constitutional challenge. That's why you can't file it a year late, bro. You didn't file this. He didn't file this motion back in the day when this case was alive before it went to the Supreme Court. Yeah. And as the special counsel points out, he filed over a hundred pages of motions seeking to dismiss the indictment. None of those included a dismissal on this grounds. And in response to Trump's argument about, well, this is really, you

know, the superseding indictment resets the clock. Jack Smith's point is not really because there's nothing different in the superseding indictment. It's not like he was indicted on new charges that now make this more relevant. No, or even, even then, even if he was brought up on new charges, it doesn't change the fact that Jack Smith was appointed. Now, if the Supreme Court had decided to gut 509, 510, 533, and 515, okay, refile your motion, bro. Right. But that has not happened. So then the special counsel addresses Trump's argument that the new indictment means he can now file a motion to dismiss. Okay. So here it goes. Nothing in the superseding indictment provided any basis for his motion that did not exist before. The defendant's

appointments and appropriations clause claims thus differ from his statutory challenges, which the court permitted the defendant to supplement. The defendant timely raised statutory challenges to the original indictment that he sought merely to supplement, and the Supreme Court's intervening decision in Fisher v. United States constructed the scope of 18 U.S.C. 1512 C.2, which the defendant is charged with violating. The Supreme Court's majority opinion in this case expressly contemplated that this court would analyze whether the section 1512 C2 charges may proceed following its decision in Fisher. So that goes right to what you just said, right? Here he's saying, no, this appropriations issue would have been exactly the same in the original timeline of the case, it would have applied the same way to the original indictment. Unlike the statutory challenges,

like the one based on the Fisher decision, which just happened a couple months ago. So he couldn't have made that one in a timely fashion. The court had to give him leave to file it late because it's just now a legal precedent he can rely on. Yeah. So when Trump argues, look, you let me do a whole new motion on 1512 C2, it's like, yeah, because the Supreme Court changed the meaning of that law between now and then. There's nothing in the appropriations clause or the appointments clause or any of the laws that support it that has changed. Nothing. So no, you shouldn't give them permission. And so

I think that that's really interesting and it doesn't, I don't think it'll permit a late motion to dismiss. So I didn't take that argument into account when I thought last week that Judge Chuckin might just approve this, right? She now has, from what I read from Jack Smith, a very good reason to deny him permission to file it. Like nothing's changed in the laws that you're talking about here. And she really, she really could. I'm not 100% sure that she will. I think it's still a little bit of a ball in the air. She could still kind of err on the side of caution with his nonsensical emotions and say, okay, I'll grant you leave to file it and then just immediately deny it.

You know, I almost feel like that's the safest way to handle it. Right. Because it does give him a marker to be able to appeal. Yeah. Essentially, if you deny leave to file the motion, then you're creating yet another issue that he could try to appeal later. Oh, it's not fair. You should have let me file. Although to be clear, I mean, honestly, like those motions don't really go that far. The trial court has a lot of discretion to make determinations about what kind of motions go forward and which don't and what kind of schedule they go on and all that stuff. So I don't know. It's not entirely clear to me which way she's going to go. Last week, I

thought for sure she's going to give him leave to file, but Jack has made good arguments here and I think it could go the other way. Yeah. And this passage, I think, from Jack Smith is worth noting because this is the merits argument, right? He says, although in light of controlling precedent, this court need not consider the underlying merits of the defendant's claim that the attorney general lacked a statutory basis to appoint special counsel. The defendant's arguments, which rely extensively on the non-binding opinions noted above, that's Thomas and Cannon, his arguments are deeply flawed.

As this court observed at the status hearing on September 5, 2024, the defendant is relying on, quote, dicta in a concurrence written by Justice Thomas, and, quote, an opinion filed by another district judge in another circuit, which frankly, this court doesn't find particularly persuasive in the face of binding DC's circuit precedent on the issue. That is a quote from Judge Chutkin herself

during that status hearing on September 5th. Something else I forgot about when I was considering whether or not she might grant this. She's already said that Thomas is dicta. Yeah. Oh yeah. And that I don't kind of like, I don't give to, you know, whatever about what Judge Cannon says, that's not binding on me. Yeah. And frankly, I don't find it persuasive. Right. I think that's a clear signal as to how she will decide the underlying issue if she allows him to file it. 100%.

But the question is, does she allow him to file it? I forgot that she brought that up. That was the September 5th status hearing, basically setting forth the schedule on immunity briefs. Right. You know, when they were like, we should file it first. I know he wants to keep going back to the Supreme Court with interlocutory appeals on each issue. So let us file our whole thing.

Let him respond. Let us respond. And then we'll have a full immunity briefing. And we only have to go interlocutory back at the Supreme Court one time. It was during that argument when I think Trump's lawyer said, we want to file this motion too, about the appointment and funding of Jack Smith. Because Cannon just dismissed the case based on that. And Judge Thomas said we could, Clarence Thomas said we could. And that's when she replied with that. So very interesting, but you're right. I think that shows a lot about what she will say He goes to Jack Smith goes on to say contrary to the defendant's claims the Supreme Court's determination in Nixon

Okay, this is the Nixon dicta argument Yep That the Attorney General had the statutory authority under 509 510 515 and 533 to appoint the special prosecutor is binding statutory analysis confirms is binding. Statutory analysis confirms that that determination was correct. And the long history of special counsel appointments reflected the attorney general's authority to appoint a special counsel here. That's right. That's right. And lastly, Jack Smith addresses Trump's request for an injunction to stop the funding of the special counsel. He says, based on his flawed appointments

and appropriations clause arguments, the defendant seeks an injunction against any further spending under the permanent indefinite appropriation. But it is a quote, basic doctrine of equity jurisprudence that quote, courts should not exercise their equitable discretion to enjoin criminal proceedings as long as the defendant has an adequate legal remedy in the form of trial and direct appeal. Hmm. That's interesting because I thought for sure Jack Smith would say, why are you asking for

an injunction in a motion for permission to file a motion? But instead he goes right to the merits and he quotes case law saying courts don't stop criminal proceedings because the defendant has an adequate legal remedy. It's called your trial, sir. And we've been trying to get to it now. And you go to trial and you keep logging all the issues and decisions that you didn't like along the way. And then after the trial, if you've been convicted, then you raise them on appeal. Yeah. The problem with the other approach to just say,

you can't argue that in this request for leave, it's just basically kicking the can down the road. So he wants to throw out there at least, wants to put in the judge's mind what his position would be on the claim for equitable relief in the middle of a criminal proceeding. You basically never see that. You never see requests for equitable relief in the middle of a criminal proceeding because of the, you know, the trial is your destination. That stuff comes up in civil matters, but not particularly in criminal. That was what the

special master thing was. Yeah, exactly. She gave him, She awarded him equitable jurisdiction and the 11th Circuit said, no, no, there are no equitable resolutions to inequitable acts. I'm sorry. And I compared it to like that America's dumbest criminals thing I saw where a guy was selling some crack to a guy and the guy took the crack and ran away before he paid him. And then the guy goes, finds a cop and says, help me get my crack back. And the cops like, no, I can't, there's no legal remedy for illegal things. There's no equitable jurisdiction for inequitable behavior. And so that's, you know, an interesting little bow on this particular thing about jurisdiction. So, Jack Smith concludes, the court should decline to consider the defendant's proposed

motion to dismiss the indictment and for injunctive relief based on the Appointments and Appropriations Clause because the defendant has not shown good cause for his failure to timely file. If the court reaches the merits, it should deny the motion. Yep, and I'm actually leaning a little toward her denying the motion now, although I can see her saying, look, even though Justice Thomas's dicta, his completely non sequitur statement in a different matter, even though it's not binding on this court, I will out of an abundance of caution allow him to file this particular motion that he didn't file before.

Because I could see, I mean, I don't think it's a reasonable legal argument, but I could see, I didn't know I could file until Justice Thomas told me I could see, I mean, I don't think it's a reasonable legal argument, but I could see, I didn't know I could file until justice Thomas told me I could. Yeah. So, but... It's not a legal, it's not a reasonable legal argument, but I think it's, I agree with that, like I'm 51% sure that just to avoid the criticism that you didn't even give the guy a chance to file, even though he had It's not a good argument. He had some argument. I think she'll be like, okay, you can file. Here's the schedule and then

She just denies it on the paper. Yeah, we don't have a trial date yet. We'll see what happens. Yeah Alright. Well, we have one more quick story to get to and of course listener questions if you have a listener question there's a link in the show notes for you to click so you can submit your questions to Andy and me. And we're going to talk about that final story and take those questions right after this break. Stick around. We'll be welcome back. One more quick story. NBC Universal has asked Judge Chuckin, presiding over the DC January 6th case, for the right to televise US v Trump immunity determination hearings, if there are any, because they quote,

go to the structure of American democracy and quote, maybe among the most important arguments ever made before any US court unquote. They say, this is NBC writing, the American public has an extraordinary interest in seeing and hearing proceedings in this criminal action, which involves allegations that Mr. Trump, a former president and current nominee for reelection to the presidency, sought to destroy our nation's democracy for his personal benefit. This court has discretion to authorize video and audio

of these proceedings. The public should be permitted to see and hear the argument on motions that will determine who is subject to the law and to what extent. The NBC Universal trial application explained that powerful First Amendment values and the importance of these proceedings counsel strongly for this court to exercise its discretion to authorize the public dissemination of the audiovisual record of these proceedings.

There is even more reason to grant this application with respect to oral argument on the immunity motions, and there are even weaker arguments to the contrary because there will be no witnesses and no jurors at these oral arguments. And the decisions of the DC Circuit Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court regarding Mr. Trump's claim to immunity generated enormous public attention and debate, in part because those courts permit the public to access the oral arguments before them. So their argument is DC Circuit, we heard those. Right. The Supreme Court on immunity, we heard those. And they say for the foregoing reasons the court should one, provide a live feed of oral arguments and hearings in US v

Trump, including oral argument on the immunity motions, to NBC Universal News Group and other news outlets, and authorize them to disseminate that live feed to the public. If not, two, please permit us to create an audiovisual coverage of oral arguments and hearings in this proceeding and broadcast audiovisual coverage after the fact with a limited delay necessary for this court to assess whether compelling public interest justify withholding any portion of the

video or audio. And if not that, then three, at a minimum, please create an audio visual record of oral arguments and hearings in this proceeding for historical purposes that it releases to the media and the public with minimal delay. So either let us live stream it or let us live stream it with a delay so somebody could bleep it out, I guess, like a sensor. Or three, let us record it and put it out later. You decide.

Again, this similar requests have been made and summarily denied, but not for oral argument, for trial at the district court level, I should say. And while I disagree, I imagine the court will deny this one as well. I think this should be televised, but I think the whole trial should be. But I don't think the court's going to go for it. What do you think? I think they have a great argument. I think I agree with what they've said and it would be a benefit to the country as a

whole and I think there's almost zero chance it'll happen. No one wants to be the first court that does it. And surely in this case, no judge is going to want to do something that could maybe, you know, one out of a hundred create an appealable issue after conviction. Yeah. And actually, you know, if I'm a defendant in a case like this and the district court decides to televise that, I actually have a pretty good argument that you've tainted

a jury pool and that you've tried this in the court of public opinion. And until those binding precedents are somehow overturned or no longer an issue because the judicial conference has changed rule 53, which governs this, then I got to stick to the law. Because again, why give Donald Trump any little chance at tossing this out after he's convicted. Yeah. And even step, maybe one half step back from that legal consideration, there is like a public perception issue here. They are trying to move this case forward as slowly as it's going in a way that at the end of the day, at least the judge and the prosecutor can say, we treated him the same way we would have treated any other defendant.

Now I know that we are, this is a very different case and that's a hard argument to make, but televising his motions argument or the trial, I'm sure you'll see another request for this if and when this case ever goes to trial, would turn this trial into a case that was handled like no other criminal defendant in the federal system. So they're trying to avoid those sorts of criticisms and appearances. So yeah, I just think there's a lot of reasons it won't. They're not going to crack this issue on this case. Oddly, this would be the case to crack it on.

Of course. It's the most significant one. If there's ever a case in which you wanted to project to the entire country, this would be the case to crack it on. Of course. It's the most significant one. If there's ever a case in which you wanted to project to the entire country, this is exactly how the proceeding goes. This is how it's fair. This is how the rules are applied to everyone the same way. I mean, you'd want to do it here, but I don't think it's going to happen. Just to reiterate, no hearings have been set on immunity.

None have been scheduled. Right. They might no, there, there, no hearings have been set on immunity. None have been scheduled. Right. They might not even have hearings, but if they are, it won't be until after immunity is fully briefed, which because of Trump's two delay requests is now going to be fully briefed on December 19th. So we aren't going to get, if there are any hearings or arguments, they're not going to come until probably next year. That's right.

Yeah. All right. What do we got for questions this time, Andy? All right. Questions we have, we're going to start with a quick one. I think we can wrap this one up very quickly, but it was kind of interesting. Questions are kind of very diverse this week. I don't know why, but like people have been thinking about a lot of different things. So Ruth from Tennessee writes in, I love the podcast.

You both have great voices and I enjoy the serious but lighthearted delivery of important legal happenings in Jack's ongoing effort to bring justice to the American people. My question is, given Trump's lawyers are being paid through PACs, et cetera, what happens if he loses the election and the campaign contributions dry up? Basically nothing. I mean, there's nothing to stop him from continuing to raise money to cover his legal expenses. He could do it through a more traditional means like a legal defense fund. And I fully expect that if he loses the election, he will continue to try to raise money for no other reason than to fund his

legal defense. And I'm sure he'll have plenty of people who line up to do that. Cause obviously the guy has a lot of very dedicated supporters. You see that one any different? No, I don't see it going any different. And honestly, I think some of these lawyers have already gotten their fees up front. Um, so, uh, I don't know that it'll necessarily have any impact now it might on his witnesses and his co-defendants and co-conspirators whose

legal fees the PAC is paying for because I could see it happening. Although I mean, he really needs to keep these guys in his good graces because I still can't believe Carlos de la Vera hasn't flipped on this guy. But I mean, the case is dismissed now, but after what happened with Tavares, right? Like in the case, I should just go. But yeah, I don't see there being much of a difference. He's going to be able to grift off of his cult for quite a while to come. Yeah.

It's been really interesting though, like now that you mentioned that. So let's say he, the 11th circuit hears Jack Smith's appeal and goes his way and reinstates the case and all that doesn't actually even end up happening until after the new year. So if Trump loses the election and all those things happen, and now the case is back on for real and we know with clarity that it is going to go to some sort of a trial determination, I think at that moment, the decision making for those two co-defendants becomes very different. Right. Like right up until right now they're on pause. They think the whole thing's gone. They're not thinking about it. But up until the point where the case was dismissed, they're calculating, oh, he's going to win. It's going to go away. He's going to help me. There's all kinds of

other of those little untangible factors that, that would likely supported their kind of bias. Right. All their little off ramps could go away. Exactly, now it's like, holy shit, it's 2025. He's not president, he's not gonna be president when this thing gets resolved. Yeesh, I don't know. So anyway, that's, thank you Ruth, that was a great question.

So this one comes to us from John, and it's a little bit broader, but it kind of raises some questions that we haven't really talked about much recently. John says, Andy, Allison, if Trump wins the 2024 election, it is widely expected that he will fire Jack Smith and direct his DOJ to dismiss the DC and Florida cases. To me, this just seems wrong. His criminal incitement of the January 6th insurrection and his stealing of classified documents will become just a minor footnote in American history. And so then John goes on to say, he just wants to understand how this could even happen. How is Trump his own judge and jury on these criminal matters?

And I think, John, I couldn't tell from the email where you're sending the question from, but this highlights the unique, one of the very unique qualities of our constitution. And where this basically comes from is the president's power of the executive branch and that the Department of Justice is part of the executive branch and the executive branch is run by the president of the United States, the duly elected president. And the president has the authority to basically tell the Department of Justice what to do. For the last 50 or so years, presidents have not done that. In the wake of Watergate and the Church Committee hearings and all the reforms of federal law enforcement and intelligence work and things like that,

we went to great lengths to establish what we call the White House contacts policy and basically this norm or DOJ policy that says the White House, even though they're in charge of the Justice Department and even though the president appoints the attorney general, it's a bad idea to have the president or other political people making decisions about individual prosecutions because it politicizes our system of justice. So they don't, they haven't done that. There's all kinds of rules set up to make sure that White House people don't talk to some people in DOJ and the FBI, things like that. And we know from Donald Trump, from what he's said, from the way he's campaigned, from the

way he conducts himself, from the way what his supporters have said, things like Project 2025 and others, he intends to completely do away with that separation, with that independence of the Department of Justice. So a DOJ completely under his sway will act very much like a massive private law firm. They will be bound by executing whatever directives he gives them, be they in an individual case, be they in a case about him, or be they in a case about any other American. A Trump presidency will see a return, not even a return, it'll be worse than it was before all those reforms I mentioned. The president of the United States will be individually deciding if he wants who gets prosecuted, who goes to trial, who, you know.

And that is a massive departure from where we've been for the last 50 years. That's one of the many things that's at stake right now. Yeah. Add on top of it that any of those discussions telling the Department of Justice what to do can't be used as evidence. Of anything. Can't be subject to judicial review. Right. It's immune now.

So if he did that and he ordered something that was blatantly illegal and the department carried out that order, even the people in the department who might be subject to criminal investigation and prosecution for violating the law, you would not be able to use the president's statements to them as evidence against those people because it's covered by the president's immunity as official acts. So we are on the precipice of entering an entirely new understanding and relationship to our criminal process in this country. And it's something that I think people haven't, you know, there's been talk about it, but

I'm not sure that most people have really gotten their head around that idea. No. And it's because most people aren't trying to exploit presidential criminal immunity. You know, like, it's hard to get inside the head of somebody like that and figure out what they're capable of doing. But yeah, it is wrong. But with Trump in charge and a Department of Justice at his beck and call, and it's not reviewable judicially, that's why this election is so important as

we know. Well thank you very much everybody for listening. Thank you for your questions. Again, if you have a question, there's a link in the show notes you can click on to submit a question to us and we'll do our best to answer it. Your questions are always very thoughtful and we really appreciate it. Also, your Patreon subscription should be back up. I'm sorry about that cluster. That was foobar. Boo Patreon. Turns out they said that they got it wrong. They misapplied the terms of service and shut us down without reason. So we're back.

And so thankfully, hopefully you'll be getting these episodes ad free and early like you do, like you're supposed to. And you know, we're going to see you next week. And Andy, by the time we talk, I imagine we'll have a new president of the United States elect. Yes. How's that for a... Some will be happy and some will be glum.

Yeah, boy, I feel like we have miles to go before we get to this point next week, but we'll see. Hang in there, everybody. You know what? Whatever happens, we're going to be here. You're going to be here. We're all going to keep marching forward. We're going to figure out how to deal with whatever comes out of the election. And we will, we will march on. We might go into a period that some people are really upset about and in either way, it resolves. Half the country will probably be upset, but let's hope that we take that disappointment in the good spirit that Americans almost all

the time have. And we just kind of commit ourselves to being good Americans and good to each other and moving forward and just figuring out a new way in the world. Yeah. Or trap your family in of group text and don't let them out until they tell you how they're going to vote. I did this. I talked about this last week.

I did it with my family in Ohio. They have all sent me their, you know, proof that they have voted. They voted blue up and down the ballot. Same. Everyone here, everyone all voted already in multiple states. I mean, one each, to be clear. Right, right, right. Don't vote early, but don't vote often.

I'm not throwing myself on that fire. Right, right. Yeah, for sure. Anyway, thank you so much. We'll see you next week and we'll talk about where we are then. Until then, my goodness, I've been Alison Gill. And I'm Andy McCabe.