Jack - Episode 108 | New Jack City

Episode Date: December 29, 2024

A DC Police Officer has been found guilty of leaking information to Proud Boy Enrique Tarrio before the January 6th attack; Jack Smith’s team is lawyering up in preparation for Trump’s promised retribution tour; the House Ethics Report on Matt Gaetz goes public; plus listener questions. Follow AG Substack|MuellershewroteBlueSky|@muellershewroteAndrew 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 Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

M-S-W Media. I signed an order appointing Jack Smith. And nobody knows you. And those who say Jack is a finetic. Mr. Smith is a veteran career prosecutor. Wait, what law have I moved? 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 108 of Jack. We're back. Jack is back, the podcast about all things special counsel. It is Sunday, December 29th, 2024. I'm Alison Gill. And I'm Andy McCabe.

All right, we have a few things to cover this week, including a D.C. police officer has been found guilty of leaking information to Proud Boy Enrique Tarrio ahead of the January 6th attack on the Capitol. Yeah, oops. It didn't go well in court either, and we'll talk about that. We also have several members of Jack Smith's team, lawyering up ahead of Trump's inauguration, how they're preparing for the, the backlash on the retribution tour that is sure to begin shortly. Plus, Judge Meta, emet meta, speaking from the bench about possible pardons, particularly for Oathkeeper's Leader Stuart Rhodes,

who, as we know, is in prison for seditious conspiracy. But first, we're going to bring back good week, bad week, but only because it's in honor of Matt Gates. So it's back and better than ever. I really think. Good week, bad week. It's a very tight. good week, bad week. It's only one person. Oh, my, my, it was a bad week for that boy. Bad boy, Matt Gates, bad week. It's such a remarkable thing. I think that the committee even put this thing out because it's not common. It's not prohibited. They can do it, contrary to what you're hearing from a lot of people on television. They did it in 2006, for example. It's rare, but it's been done before. It's not super common.

But you know, you read the report, which I highly recommend. It's hilarious, frightening. It's a roller coaster ride of emotions. I laughed. I cried. I didn't know when to stop. Yeah. And, Andy, I did do an audio version of this.

It's in two parts. And those episodes are free to the public in the Daily Bean's feed. So if you would rather listen to the Matt Gates report from the House Ethics Committee, it is available in audio format. Yes. So take advantage of that. It is a wondrous thing. But I really think that part of the committee's motivation here was a fit of peak.

They're pissed. They're pissed that DOJ stood them up. The DOJ did not respond to most of their requests for information and witness statements and things like that. And they're very pissed at Matt Gates for totally blowing them off, including ignoring a subpoena from the committee. So, yeah, I think when they stacked all that up together, they spent a lot of work on this, a lot of time on it. It's pretty impressive. There's a lot of undeniable facts cited in here. Text messages, phone calls, timing of exchanges between people.

You definitely have some witnesses who cooperated with the committee. You know, some of them have serious credibility problems like it's Joel Greenberg. So some issues there. But also you have some victim witnesses who said things that were, you know, kind of against their own interests and not particularly flattering about the themselves and what they were up to. So, yeah, call it as you see it, but boy, any way you look at a bad day for Matt Gates. Yeah, and I have to wonder if Trump hadn't won the election, if there might be a criminal referral in here for obstruction of justice.

Because that's the thing, right? Like, if I'm talking about why DOJ didn't bring charges against Matt Gates, that's in the report. You know, they said they couldn't establish any evidence that he actually sexed traffic to minor, which is the federal criminal charge. But there were state criminal law violations. And, you know, if we wonder why Florida State and their Republican Attorney General, who's probably friends with Matt Gates' dad, didn't bring charges.

You know, I think the answer is pretty clear there. Yeah. Why Pam Bondi didn't open investigations into statutory rape. Because in a federal law, you can actually weasel your way out of a statutory rape charge by saying, didn't know how old the person was. Not if you sex trafficked them, but if you just have, you know, if you just statutorily raped them. And there's apparently not enough evidence to show that he sex trafficked the minor. But in Florida, it doesn't matter. If you're over 24, the state law says if you have sex with somebody who's 16, 16 or 17, that is statutory

rape and it doesn't matter whether or not you know the person was under 18. And in fact, even if the person lied to you and said she was or he was 21, that is still not grounds for a defense. You're still guilty of statutory rape. So that came out in the report. I didn't know that. I thought that was interesting. Yeah. Statutory rape at the state level is what's referred to as a strict liability crime. There's not a lot of strict liability crimes, but that is one. And what the strict liability references is the fact that there is essentially no requirement to prove a mental state, right? We talk about this all the time. A crime is an actus rea or the act, the thing that you did, and the mens rea, the thing you were thinking when you committed that act. On a strict liability crime, it's just an actus reus. It's what you did. You had sex with someone who was under whatever the statutory age is. That's it. No defense to it. But he did obstruct justice. He obstructed Congress.

right? There's a lot of evidence that he violated Title 18 U.S. Code 1505. So my question is, did this committee just simply not tell the Department of Justice? There's no criminal referral here. They didn't make any interim criminal referrals for obstruction of justice. So how could the Department of Justice have known he was obstructing Congress if they weren't informed of that? And would this committee have made a criminal referral to the Department of Justice had Trump not won the election? Those are just things we'll never know. Good questions. I don't. I don't know. I don't know the answer to them, but my guess would be the kind of negative footing between the committee and DOJ probably didn't help, right? So they may have just said, well, we're not going to send a referral to this DOJ, the Merritt Garland DOJ, because they're not going to do anything for us. They didn't even give us any documents or ever respond to half of our requests. But isn't that normal? Doesn't the DOJ usually not give stuff to Congress because they leak like a sieve and they're, you know, they're very protective of their work product? I'm not excused. using it because I think DOJ should have cooperated more robustly in this particular investigation

or any other congressional investigation. But I think you and I have had discussions about like, look, DOJ rarely hands their stuff over to state prosecutors, to congressional committees, to, you know, whatever. And so, you know, not excusing it because it's the norm, but I think that that, you know, that that's just something that DOJ generally doesn't do. I'm, I'm, I'm not not sure you have a better, you would have a better perspective on that than me. It's definitely true that DOJ is loath to share anything from an ongoing criminal investigation with Congress or anyone else. There are some very limited times when if Congress is pursuing hearings on an obviously criminal matter at the same time DOJ is doing an investigation, they may

not share evidence, but they will coordinate on some level on things like access to witnesses. like DOJ will want to interview them first and want their things to resolve before the committee interviews the same witness, that sort of stuff. They don't always get their way. Those are those are, those can be pretty contentious fights. In this case, you have the added oddity that DOJ essentially declined this case at some point. So after that, would they share, you know, there's other barriers to sharing. Like they're not, they may not, if the, if the reason they declined the cases was because the,

victims didn't want to testify and were uncomfortable having their information made public, then maybe they wouldn't share that stuff for those reasons. So there's, it's complicated, um, but just not even responding to these requests for like a year at a time. Right. It took him four months to even say no. That's pretty bad. Yeah, that is really bad. Um, and yeah, this wasn't an ongoing investigation. The investigation was closed and they declined to prosecute. It was actually Trump's U.S. attorney that did. He would that, that, that U.S. attorney was there for quite a long time and Biden's guy didn't get there. I looked it up, Andy. Biden's guy got there the week that the previous U.S. attorney declined to prosecute.

And so it smells to me like they made Greenberg the fall guy to protect Gates because that's what Trump and his buddies do. They did it with Michael Cohen to protect Donald Trump in the Southern District of New York. They did it with Lev Parnas to protect Rudy Giuliani, make turn him into indicted, you know, not credible witnesses. Of course, Alvin Bragg took his chances and won and got 34 felony, a 34 felony count conviction with Cohen as a witness. But I would be remiss if I didn't say we were a little worried about a Cohen testifying in that case. But that's, you know, it's hard once a prosecutor declines to charge to

rebring those charges. Very much so. Yeah, very much so. But the why, the answer around why DOJ decline, we'll never have it, but I feel like it's a legitimate issue for congressional oversight. I think so too. Totally fair. And they did say it was because they didn't have credible witnesses. Yeah, yeah. And they should have to explain that. Or I don't say they should have to, because they technically don't have to, but they should explain it to the Judiciary Committee or to the ethics committee as to why their decision was so, so 180 degrees different from the committee's conclusions. But I'll never hear that. No, probably never hear it. You are correct. And even the reporting that it was because they didn't have credible witnesses was on background. It was on sourcing.

It wasn't on. It wasn't what the U.S. attorney put out as this in a statement. They just said they were declining to bring charges. Right. All right. Let's start with a Christmas Day article from Soibsang and Perez, Rolling Stone, who's killing it lately, especially with headlines. This is about Jack Smith's team, what they're doing to prepare for Trump's retribution against those who investigated and indicted Donald Trump before the Supreme Court let him off the hook. It says Donald Trump was elected to a second term on a promise to exact his retribution. So it's no wonder that federal investigators and others who worked with special counsel Jack Smith's office are taking the president-elect at his word, according to two sources with

knowledge of the matter and a former Justice Department official, several attorneys and staffers who were on special counsel Jack Smith's team or had done work for its criminal investigation into Donald Trump, have already sought legal counsel or retained personal lawyers in case the former and now future president and his incoming administration follow through on his desire to investigate or prosecute his enemies. In less than a month, Trump, will be inaugurated for his second term. He plans to mold much of the Department of Justice and FBI into a subsidiary of his own interests and has suggested using these instruments to retaliate against those investigating him. That's right. And the article continues to say, the precedent on doing what

they did with the weaponization using the DOJ and the FBI to go after their political opponents. That is so bad, Trump said earlier this year. Quote, that means that I can do it too, he added. Pandora's box is open and that means I can do it too. Trump repeatedly pledged to be voters' retribution. When President Joe Biden said during a debate that Trump would go after his political opponents, he did not deny that, instead offering, I said my retribution is going to be success. One of the sources with knowledge of the situation tells Rolling Stone

that multiple people who worked with Smith and his core team have preemptively reviewed their private and professional communications to make sure they hadn't written anything that could be subpoenaed, publicly revealed, and used against them to paint a narrative of alleged misconduct or anti-Trump bias. And that's interesting because we know several Republicans have called on Jack Smith's team to preserve all their stuff, right? And I think Ken Paxton even sued him saying he saw a shredding truck out front of them. They think you print out the emails and shred them, they disappear? I don't know.

But anyway. Pexton's on the D.C. shredding truck surveillance team. Yeah. Driving around the Capitol. That lawsuit was summarily dismissed for being stupid. Some federal investigators, including more junior staff, have talked to attorneys and legal groups about possible ways a rejuvenated Trump Justice Department could try to make their lives hell, what precautionary measures they should take, and even how to avoid going bankrupt

if the revenge probes come in full force, right? This is a money thing at this point. at least one such investigator is privately inquired if there are steps, even extreme ones they can take to protect their spouse's assets in the event of harmful criminal charges. So, quote, they want to make sure they are protected if worse comes to worst. That's one of the sources. The three sources refuse to publicly reveal who on Team Smith was seeking legal counsel or exploring preemptive measures. However, Trump land is determined to work up a list of potential targets. Indeed, Trump and his circle have been working on just that to some degree or another for years.

Rolling Stone continues. In May 2023, Rolling Stone reported on how for months Trump had personally grilled close advisors, including at least one of his personal lawyers, whether, quote, we know the name of every member of the DOJ staff and senior FBI personnel who had been detailed to the federal criminal investigations into Trump and his associates. At the time, Trump had privately discussed with his confidence that if he returned to the White House in 2025, he'd want his new attorney general to purge his second Justice Department and FBI of the agents and staff involved in investigating him, and that at least some of them may, in his mind, deserve some retaliatory

probes themselves. On the campaign trail, Trump vowed that if he won the 2024 presidential contest, he and his government would move swiftly to shut down the criminal cases regarding his efforts to overturn the 2020 election results, as well as his hoarding of classified documents in his post-presidency. Following Trump's defeat of Vice President Kamala Harris last month, Smith and the Justice Department have been shuddering the cases preemptively, citing the longstanding DOJ policy of not prosecuting sitting American presidents. Yep, my article goes on to say since at least last year, as Rolling Stone previously reported, some of Trump's closest political allies had met with him, including at his private club in Florida,

to brief him on their work compiling a list of DOJ and FBI personnel involved with the Trump-focused investigations so that he and his inner circle would have a ready-made roster of targets if he won. Two years ago, we know Judicial Watch, the right-wing nonprofit, fronted by Trump ally and informal advisor Tom Fitton, the one who told him not to comply with the subpoena for the classified documents, filed a FOIA request. That went well. Yeah, right. Good advice.

A Freedom of Information Act request. Well, ultimately it did, right? The Supreme Court. Yeah, but he got indicted structure. along the way, but okay. So Tom Fitton filed a FOIA, seeking information on all employees hired by or detailed to the office of special counsel, Jack Smith. Remember that? Fitton later told Rolling Stone that the Justice Department was stonewalling judicial watch on the names and related details, adding,

I don't understand why it is that the names of prosecutors involved in a criminal investigation are a secret. We don't want social security numbers or we don't want personal phone numbers, but certainly senior leaders and others who are pushing this needs to be disclosed or whatever. He wanted the names of everybody. Fittin and other Trump boosters didn't get what they wanted out of the Biden era DOJ, but in a few short weeks, it will once again be the Trump DOJ. So we'll have access to all of that. And we're going to cover all this and we're going to watch all of this on the, you know, the whatever, the rebranded podcast that we're going to do. New Jack City. I'm writing that down.

Yes, this is going to be part of it, right? This is the part of personnel and internal machinations. What's happening at DOJ? Is the revenge thing? Was that just a campaign bluff? Or is it actually gaining steam? And who's behind it and who are they going after? So, yeah, I think there's going to be a lot to talk about.

It is kind of crazy to think that all of the information that they've been kind of shooting at and clawing for, filing foias for and lawsuits and things like that. And just a few ticks of the clock is all going to be in their hands, do whatever they want with it. So we'll see. It just amazes me that people are still debating whether he's actually going to do this or his sycophants and supporters are going to do these things. I just don't understand why people are still debating.

that. Like there's absolutely no reason to think they won't. So, but we'll see. Only time will tell for sure. Yeah, for real. And we'll tell you all about it on whatever the new iteration of this podcast will be. I like New Jack City, but I think we'll run into some copyright problems. For sure we will. All right, everybody, we have to take a quick break. But when we come back, we're going to talk about a former DC police lieutenant who was found guilty. I believe in a bench trial. We'll talk about it after this break. Stick around. We'll be right back. Welcome back. Okay, our next story comes from Spencer Sue, Rachel Weiner, and Tom Jackman at the Washington Post.

A former D.C. police lieutenant was found guilty in federal court on Monday on charges that he improperly warned Proud Boy's leader Henry Enrique Tario of his pending arrest two days before January 6, 2021. Then lied to investigators. Shane Lamond, a 24-year department veteran, withheld from colleagues that Tario had confessed to burning a Black Lives Matter banner that was stolen from a historic African-American church during a pro-Trump rally weeks earlier and leaked word to Tario that a warrant had been signed for his arrest

U.S. District Judge Amy Berman Jackson found. Wow. That's a lot. It is a lot. It is a lot. It's a little bit confusing how they, how they strung that whole sentence together. But essentially, Tario, so there was that December 15th rally, the pre-rally rally, right? The rehearsal. That was the one I think that really caught everyone's attention that like this could work. The stop the steel rally. Yeah. Right. This whole group of extremists converge on D.C. and they have this rally and there's like fights breaking out all over the place. And in one of these scuffles, Tario, I guess we can say, we don't have to say allegedly anymore, steals a Black Lives banner, Black Lives Matter banner off of this historic African American church and he sets it on fire. So that's investigated as a hate crime. And in the days before January 6th, this, uh, former lieutenant, Shane Lamond, Tario confessed to him that he had done this. And then he then told Tarrio that an arrest warrant

had been issued for him. That is like really, really serious. Yeah, a 24-year veteran. Yeah. Yeah. And Judge Jackson said, whatever the relationship had been before, after the banner burning, the defendant was not using Terrio as a source. It was the other way around. That's what she said. And also said, He knew then, and he knows now that it was wrong.

And I've said it before, and I'll say it again, do not mess with Judge Amy Berman Jackson. Do not. Do not. I've long said, Amy Berman, Judge Jackson, if you're nasty. The article continues, she found Lamont guilty of obstructing justice and subsequently making three false statements

in an interview with two U.S. Attorney's Office investigators to hide his involvement. Lamont denied tipping off Tario to the investigation or the arrest warrant and claimed their communications were mostly one-sided from Tario, the proud boys leader. The week-long trial spotlighted DC police interactions with extremist groups, when liberal groups

accused police of appearing to favor right-leaning organizers, Lamond, who's 48 of Stafford, Virginia, headed DC police's intelligence unit at the time. So I take it this was a bench trial. It doesn't mention there was a jury. I think that Judge Jackson made this determination. Yeah, I think that's right. I think that's right. So testifying in his own defense, Lamond acknowledged that he shared inside information with Tarrio about the flag-burning investigation, but maintained that he acted within the bounds of his job and didn't support the proud boys. He vehemently objected to prosecutors' characterization of him as a, quote, sympathizer or double agent, insisting that he was doing his job by cultivating a source in a group that had a history of violent behavior.

Lamont's defense... Don't you have to get permission to go undercover with the proud boys before you start doing it? I mean, yeah. Yeah, sure, I was caught with a bunch of cocaine and ecstasy and paid women for sex. But I was going undercover, you guys. I was going undercover to bust this ring. And, you know, here, he doesn't even say that. So in developing and cultivating sources and working sources, oh, wow, I guess the best way

set this up is day one of FBI Academy, Quantico, Virginia. They say there's three things that will get you jammed up in this organization. Money, cars, and sources. Not necessarily in that order. These are the areas where so many agents like stumble into making dubious decisions and things go horribly wrong. For sources, when you are trying to develop, cultivate a relationship with a source of information, one of the things that you have to be the most careful about is not sending information the wrong way. You can't be giving the source information because many of these sources are people who are criminals and involved in criminal activity. Of course, you admonish them. You say you're not allowed to engage in any criminal activity on our behalf. And if we find out you've committed a crime, we'll arrest you.

But they go about conducting their criminal lives anyway. Right. So you don't want to be helping them in their criminal activities by giving them information about what the police are up to. On the other hand, like people, you know, guys who are working sources very often go to great lengths to like build a friendship or relationship of trust around that exchange. And that's where things start to, the blacks and whites start to turn to gray at that point. And people make mistakes. So I don't think that this guy probably thought that he was doing some sort of undercover work. But it does sound like he went way over the line and shared things with this guy in order to, with Tario, in order to keep his allegiance and his loyalty and productivity.

He shared things that he never should have. And that's, yeah, it's really, really very serious stuff. Well, this happened with what, Jonathan Buma, right? He got his source Chuck Johnson all involved and then eventually got his security clearance yanked and got put on probation for doing it wrong. So, I mean, yeah, top three things on day one of the academy. It makes sense that that's one of them. Yeah.

But anyway, yeah. So Lamont's defense attorney said after the verdict, quote, it's unbelievably disappointing to see every single thing that Lieutenant Lamont did viewed through a lens to make it all appear something other than. than it was. There's nothing disloyal about him at all. Jackson said it was, quote, not part of this case to determine whether Lamond was a double agent, corrupt, or sympathetic to the proud boys. She said there was no evidence he sought to profit from a relationship with the group. She described the lieutenant as, quote, chummy with Tarrio, possibly sharing his views on the 2020 election and the

Black Lives Matter movement. But she called those opinions far short of the far right white supremacist. views with which the proud boys have also been associated. What mattered, she said, was that Lamon shared sensitive information with Tario and lied about it. The rest was icing on the cake. Yeah, just like you said, Lamon's lawyers, this cop's lawyer, said his contacts with Tario were simply part of how police run sources and gather intelligence and that Lamond was instrumental in Tario's arrest. The officer used Tario as a contact to get information about where the proud boys were demonstrating to help law enforcement. That's what Shemelan fellow defense attorney on a Jara argued. And I hope I'm pronouncing that right. But yeah, so that kind of goes toward, you know,

what you were saying about like you can't, as Judge Jackson said, you can't give him information. The information can't go the other way. And then you can't lie about that. Like, yeah, that's it. That's what all this case was about. It's, um, they can be errors of judgment. or simply mistakes when in an effort to get more information out of a source, a detective or a police officer, whatever, an agent, shares some things, things that they know about other people in the community, things that they know about other crimes, you send information in the wrong direction.

It's never good, but that can happen. It's almost impossible, though, to think of a scenario in which telling your source, tipping them off to the fact that there's been an arrest warrant issued for them. Like, you have an obligation to arrest that person. Right. If you're the cop and you know there's an assenting warrant. Right. So why else would you, A, not arrest him and then B, tell him about the warrant unless you

were trying to help him evade getting arrested? Exactly. It's just, I don't know, maybe he has an answer to that question. I can't imagine what it would be. Yeah. Well, Jackson commented on it, right? Yeah, yeah, yeah, she did. She said that the defense attorney's arguments were, quote,

self-serving justifications, saying Lamond was giving out a lot more information than he was taking in. Tario received real-time updates on the investigation into the banner burning, she said, but Lamond learned little of the proud boys' January 6 plans, quote, at a pretty critical time for the country. Though the evidence was circumstantial, Jackson said she was convinced. convinced that Tario confessed his role in the flag burning to Lamond at a bar and that Lamond withheld that information from his colleagues while telling Tarrio his arrest was imminent. Lamon ultimately told officers investigating the incident that Tarrio was responsible, but only after the Proud Boys leader declared his guilt on social media. And the, and the judge pointed

out, Lamon got no help from Tario in identifying anyone else involved in the crime. Yeah, according to prosecutors, the pair exchanged 676 text messages, encrypted chats, or voice messages over 18 months from July 2019 to January 2021, and more than 100 were deleted or unrecoverable. It was Lamont, not Tario, Jackson noted, who suggested they switch from I message to the encrypted telegram service on the day the news networks reported that Joe Biden defeated Trump in the 2020 election. So this police officer is the one who suggested we go to encrypted apps. Quote, need to switch to encrypted. Alerts are being sent out to law enforcement about the Proud Boys post-election mobilization efforts. That's what LeMond wrote. And it was LeMond, the judge said, who later chose to have their messages self-destruct immediately.

And Andy, we've talked about how encrypted messaging apps hamstring the FBI, how odd it was that the FBI recently suggested we all switched to using encrypted messaging gaps, but it was LeMond who suggested that we go to encrypted, and it was the day Trump lost the election, and it was LeMond who said, I'm going to have my message is self-destruct. Yeah, again, like, if you were starting a relationship with a source, might you suggest to the source that you communicate in encrypted channels so that the sources, communications aren't discovered and then put him in jeopardy with his criminal associates. Right, to make him trust you more or whatever. Yeah, or just to avoid getting him killed. I mean, like, if you've got a, you know,

a counterintelligence source that's reporting to you on FSP. And you don't, you don't have your messages self-destruct. Right, but it's, that's exactly right. It's the circumstances here and the timing that makes this look incriminating for the former lieutenant. So the article continues, in December 2020, after the proud boys had marched through the district in support of Trump in protests that turned violent and destructive, Lamond at least twice alerted Tario to developments in the investigation of the Black Lives Matter banner set on fire. Transcripts of their chats on telegram showed. Police want to talk to you about the banner, Lamon told Tario on December 20th. Then on December 25th, Lamon wrote, just a heads up. CID, that's a criminal investigative division.

had me ID you from a photo you posted on a social media platform, kneeling down next to the BLM banner, so they may be submitting an arrest warrant to the U.S. Attorney's Office. So that was his message, Tartario. Just a heads up. Criminal Investigative Division had me ID you from a photo you posted, kneeling down next to the BLM banner, so they may be submitting an arrest warrant to the U.S. attorney's office.

That is hard to see any way other than the way Amy Berman Jackson saw it. Yeah. The two also had conversations that were not recovered, including right before Tario told close associates the warrant for his arrest had been signed. But Jackson said that based on the pattern of their communications, prosecutors proved that Lamond was Terrio's source. Yep. And meanwhile, when Lamont asked Terrio about rumblings of an election protest on January 6th, and if the proud boys would be there, court records showed Tario replied, if we do, it'll be extremely small and not in colors.

No night march. In truth, hundreds of proud boys and affiliates showed up in colors and marched on the Capitol on January 6th. They were at the front of the mob of supporters of then President Trump that overwhelmed police

and smashed their way into the building. Tario chose to turn himself in on January 4th. Jackson concluded so that he could be free on January 6th. Although he was barred from D.C., Tario monitored the Capitol riot

from Baltimore in a hotel room and celebrated in chats with proud boys leaders. And on January 8th, Lamont texted Tario, quote, of course, I can't say it officially, but personally, I support you all and don't want to see your group's name and reputation dragged through the mud, unquote. Tario was convicted alongside other proud boys leaders for seditious conspiracy. And he was actually sentenced to 22 years in prison. Yeah. How is the proud boys group reputation not? in the mud ever.

Yeah, well. Oh my gosh. That is something, though, that maybe if you have a source, you want to say to him to make you trust him. Yeah, yeah, yeah. Well, I guess. Okay. It was a concoction and laughable, Jackson said, for someone with years of experience as an

MPD officer to claim these interactions were appropriate. Tario testified in Lamon's defense, claiming he figured out his arrest was coming on own and just pretended to have a source in the D.C. police. Jackson called that testimony, quote, illogical and incredible. That's not a good review of your testimony. Tario, she said, was one of the worst witnesses she had seen in 13 years on the bench. Flippant, grandiose, and obnoxious. She suggested he only testified to help, quote, his opportunity to receive a pardon when Trump returns to office. Jackson set Lamont's sentencing for April 3rd. The district obstruction charge is punishable by up to 30 years in prison upon conviction. And the federal false

statement counts are each punishable by up to five years. But first time offenders rarely receive the maximum sentence. He's not going to get the maximum sentence. He'll get like three years or five years or something probably. Maybe a little bit more. But it's possibly it's none. Trump could pardon him. He could get sentenced to no time. He could get probation. I mean, The fact that he's, what, 24 years on the job is in his favor? And presumably has no other criminal convictions, certainly none for violence. There's no violence here. Yeah, he wouldn't still have that job if he were a previous offender, I think.

No. So anyway, will he get pardoned? Depends? Might. He might. Tario might. Yeah. I don't know.

Trump has waffled on this. He said he was going to pardon all of them. Then he said he would only pardon people who were their... not fighting police officers. And, you know, many of the proud boys and oathkeepers have police assault charges and convictions in addition to seditious conspiracy. He could commute sentences. We'll see.

We'll see what happens. And again, we'll cover it on New Jack City. No, I don't know. I think it's started something. So I think you're absolutely right. And the interesting thing for me is like, wherever, if he decides to draw, a line here, which he's got to at some point, wherever he draws it is going to create a lot of problems for him. If you decide to leave the violent people in, they're going to be a very,

some very loud voices there. Well, that's all that's left in, really. I mean, everybody else either got off on a misdemeanor or probation or served a couple months or a couple years, and they're out, right? So if you could... Very small number of people still left. And they're really all assaulters, the people who are still in jail. So, yeah. A public cop, you know, know, people who beat cops. So we'll see. We'll see what happens. All right, speaking of pardons for insurrectionists, we have another story about what Judge Meda thinks about pardons, particularly about Stewart Rhodes potentially receiving one. But we have to take another quick break. So everybody stick around. We'll be right back.

Hey, everybody, welcome back. So before the break, we were talking about pardons for those involved in the insurrection. Our next story comes from Michael Kundselman at the Associated Press. the federal judge who presided over the seditious conspiracy case against the oathkeepers members said Wednesday that it would be, quote, frightening if the anti-government group's founder, Stuart Rhodes, is pardoned for orchestrating a violent plot to keep Donald Trump in the White House after he lost the election in 2020. President-elect Donald Trump repeatedly is vowed to pardon rioters who stormed the Capitol nearly four years ago. Rhodes is serving an 18-year prison sentence after a jury convicted him and other oathkeepers of seditious conspiracy, the most serious charge stemming from the January 6th, the 10th. attack on the Capitol. So, I mean, 18 years, Tario's got 22, seditious conspiracy carries a heavy charge. And when we went over this, Merrick Garland actually, or the Department of Justice, I should say, whatever, actually asked for a terrorism enhancement to the sentences and got it, which is unusual, but he got it. So that added a lot of time to their sentences too. It certainly did. Those sentences are no joke.

Didn't Merrick Garland actually file that he wanted to appeal those sentences, that they should have been longer a lot of them? That never went anywhere. I think so. Yeah, I think so. But as you were talking about the terrorism enhancement, I'm thinking like, whatever happened to that effort to extend them even further? But I haven't heard much on that. U.S. District Judge Amit Mehta alluded to the prospect of Rhodes of receiving a presidential pardon as he sentenced William Todd Wilson, a former oathkeeper's member from North Carolina, who put up. pleaded guilty to seditious conspiracy.

Quote, the notion that Stuart Rhodes could be absolved of his actions is frightening and ought to be frightening to anyone who cares about democracy in this country, Mata said. Mata isn't the first judge at the federal courthouse in Washington, D.C., to criticize the possibility that Trump could pardon hundreds of capital rioters when he returns to the White House next month. U.S. District Court judged Carl Nichols, a Trump nominee, said during a hearing last month, that it would be beyond frustrating and disappointing if the Republican president-elect issues blanket pardons

to capital rioters. Yep, but as we all know, on the campaign trail this year, Trump repeatedly referred to the rioters as hostages and patriots, and he has the January 6th hostages choir sing the national anthem at his rallies. And he said he would absolutely pardon rioters who assaulted police. If they're innocent, is what he said.

Trump also has suggested he would consider pardoning former Proud Boys leader Enrique Tari. who, like we said, sentenced to 22 years in prison for a separate plot to stop the peaceful transfer of presidential power. Over 20 judges have presided over more than 1,500 cases against people charged in the January 6th attack on the Capitol. And many Capitol riot defendants have asked for post-election delays in their cases. But judges have largely denied their requests and forged ahead with sentencings and guilty pleas and other hearings, despite them saying, at Trump won, I'm going to be pardoned, so stop my case. and most judges are like, nah, bro, sorry.

Yeah. Yeah. So Wilson, age 48, of Newton Grove, North Carolina, was one of several oathkeepers who cooperated with the Justice Department's investigation of the far-right extremist group, one of the most consequential prosecutions arising from the January 6th siege,

made a sentence to Wilson to one year of home detention and three years of probation instead of prison. Prosecutors had recommended one year of incarceration for Wilson, a U.S. Army veteran and former firefighter. The judge praised Wilson's courage for acknowledging his guilt, while many of his co-conspirators have not. Quote, setting the history book straight came at a great price to you, made a told Wilson, who lost his military benefits

after his guilty plea in May of 2022. Yep, and Rhodes and his followers amassed weapons and set up a quick reaction force, as we know, in a Virginia hotel that could ferry guns to the capital if they were needed to support their plot. The guns stayed at the hotel, but META said, it is chilling to think that, quote, one order from a madman could have led to weapons deployed during the riot.

Quote, just to speak those words out loud, ought to be shocking to anyone, he said. Now, Wilson, the guy who got a really lenient sentence here for his really robust cooperation, did not testify at any of the trials for the Oathkeeper's Leaders, members, and Associates charged in the January 6th attack. prosecutor said he harmed his credibility by making contradictory statements to investigators about his criminal conduct.

Quote, what we want to hear from witnesses is the truth, unvarnished, and without an attempt to curry favor with the government. That's what Assistant U.S. Attorney Kathleen Rikosey said. Wilson expressed remorse and shame for his role in January 6th attack, something a lot of these rioters didn't do. Quote, I've lost a lot of things since then, he said. The mental burden that this has had on me has been almost unbearable. Also on Wednesday, prosecutors asked a different judge to reject a convicted capital rioter's request to attend Trump's January 20th inauguration ceremony in Washington while she's under the court's supervision. The rioter, New Hampshire resident Cindy Young, hi Cindy, was sentenced on November 21st to four months of prison and one year of supervised release. Prosecutors argued that Young poses a danger to the nation's capital.

That seems pretty logical to me. And to the police officers who defended the Capitol on January 6th, U.S. magistrate judge Michael Harvey gave Young until December 24th to respond to prosecutors' arguments. Yeah, and I've looked up the docket. I am unable to find that response yet, but as soon as we have that decision about Cindy Young being able to attend the inauguration of Donald Trump, after being sentenced to four months in prison for attacking the Capitol, we will let you more. What? I worked, I did a lot of work on some inaugurations, particularly President Obama's first in 2009. And the idea that someone who got, who was convicted for attacking the Capitol,

who would ask the judge if they could attend the inauguration, the next one. I mean, it's just. Yeah. The DOJ's opposition to this request is, is about like what you just said pretty much. Are you kidding? Excuse me? Is what it says. That's like you took a conviction for, you know,

selling heroin in a school zone. And then now you applied for a job as a janitor at a middle school. No. No, you can't have that job. That would be bad. That's not a good job for you. Yep, absolutely. All right, everybody, we're going to take some listener questions.

And if you have any questions for us, including what we're going to talk about on the upcoming new iteration of this podcast, particularly following what this department. of Justice does as far as retribution against the investigators goes, or perhaps they, you know, Donald Trump wanting to use this Department of Justice to, quote unquote, investigate the 2020 election and perhaps declare a rebellion or whatever, anything, any questions at all that you have for us as we await the Jack Smith report, which I don't think is done yet. And we'll see how fast

in weather or what happens when Merrick Garland gets it. If he releases it, what happens. We'll keep you posted on that. Those will be our last episodes of this podcast before we start the new one. But send your questions to us. There's going to be a link in the show notes for you to click on so you can submit your queries to Andy and me. I think it's Andy and me, not Andy and I. I always get that wrong. I'm terrible at that. I'm very bad at that because it was like got my knuckles beat by nuns who said it's always and I. And it's just. they were wrong. Anyway, thanks, none's, but we'll be right back with your listener questions. Thanks, none. That's going to be my new thing to people. Thanks, none. None thanks for you.

Everybody stick around. We'll be right back. Welcome back. We are at the listener question section of the show. I'm sure you're all waiting on the edges of your seats. All right. So let's dive right in. This first one comes to us from Chris. And Chris says, hey, AG, and Andy, I have two questions which are kind of unrelated to each other. First, I see an argument that people are saying that the 10-year FBI director term was put into place to guard the president from the FBI, not the FBI from the president. I know that you all say all the time that it is to guard the FBI from politics. I was just hoping you could address this semi-legitimate counter-argument. All right.

So I'll keep reading his second question. I'll go back to the first one. Second, I've heard Andy and Pete on cleanup say that Russians just want chaos. Do you guys think that the Russians are fueling the theory that Trump stole the election from the Democrats? Thank you guys for all you do. Please stay safe in the coming administration. All right. Thank you, Chris.

Those are too good. And yes, totally unrelated questions. For the first one, the 10-year term had two purposes. The first was to protect the FBI from the politics around the presidency. There's no protecting the FBI from the president because, like, you know, the president is kind of, you know. Well, except for now. Yeah, the president can kind of deal with the FBI director if you choose to do so. But what it was supposed to do is give the FBI director a little insulation from the typical cycle of presidential politics.

Because you're there for 10 years. You are by definition going to outlast the president you were working for. and therefore it would make you a little more independent. That was one purpose. But the other purpose was to protect the country from an FBI director that had been in position too long. Because that's what we had under Hoover, who was director for almost.

Yeah, almost 40 years or something. He was in some other jobs in DOJ before that. So he was around for a long time. And his term became really abusive to the country and to a lot of our citizens. And the way that he directed the FBI and used its resources for a political intelligence and persecute enemies of the president,

things like that. So those are the two purposes. I don't believe it's a semi-legitimate counter argument to say that... They would guard the president from the FBI? There's no... That's not really a thing. Um,

it was mostly because of Hoover, you know? Yeah, it was mostly because of Hoover. Like, it was to keep the president out from using and abusing the FBI to go after his own interest, Democrat or Republican. That's right. There's really nothing the FBI can do to the president.

I mean, if the president senses that the FBI is pursuing some sort of illegitimate agenda against him, he can fire the director. Yeah. He can still fire the director. So, yeah, I don't think that's a, it's an interesting. argument, but I don't think there's much to it. All right. What about the Russians wanting chaos and do I think that Russians are fueling the theory that Trump stole the election from Democrats? Honestly, I think that there are a ton of

Democrats, my friends included, who were very confused about the outcome of this election, given the momentum and the joy and the, so there was this incredible whiplash that we didn't necessarily experience in 2016 because we were like, WTF is happening. Oh, he's He won what? Like it was just, this was different because everybody knows Trump. He's a convicted felon.

There was a billion dollars spent on the Democratic campaign. There was tons of humongous rallies. And if you know, if you listen to Trump, the size of your rallies determines whether or not you win an election. But he's shut up about that

since this particular election cycle. But I think what Russia does is they take issues that are already in existence in our political discourse, and they exploit them. So it wouldn't surprise me if they are currently or about to or trying to exploit the fact that there are a lot of Democrats who think Trump stole this election.

But I don't necessarily think they invented it, right? Like the Russians amplified some of the stuff around the clashes between Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton. But Bernie Sanders wasn't invented by the Russians, right? Yeah, nor did they really care if Bernie Sanders won in that conflict, right? They weren't. No, they were just trying to secure a victory for Bernie Sanders because they've been supporters of his for so long.

No, they did it because what they want chaos here. They want Americans pitted against other Americans. They want to divide us because they, They are, we are weaker when we're divided. We are less politically capable, which means we're less militarily capable, or less diplomatically capable. And that's what they want. They seek to make their enemies weaker. And creating chaos and political and social and cultural divisions are one way that they do that.

They've been doing it for decades. It's just easier now and way more productive that you can do it on social media. So Black Lives Matter. one. They were all over Black Lives Matter in 2016. They were messed creating false groups on both sides of the issue, fanning the flames, trying to stoke anger and division. Gaza, they're doing with Gaza. There's evidence of that. And again, it's not to discredit anyone's belief that about the war in Gaza or what Israel is doing. It's to create division and so chaos. It's to take our already existing disagreements or are already politically charged movements, things that make us emotional

and exploiting those issues. And so that, I think, I don't think that Russia started it, but they might exploit it and they might already be exploiting it, I think. Yeah. Yeah. I mean, and it doesn't, that doesn't speak to the accuracy of that theory at all. They don't, I don't care. I don't if it's accurate, if there's anything to it. They just... No, they don't care. If it's out there floating around and they think there's some advantage to them

by fanning the flames, then that's what they can. And it makes people mad? Yeah. Especially if it makes people mad. Yeah. Exactly. All right.

Next question from Emily. Hello, Allison and Andy. I hope you had both, both had a nice Christmas. I did. Thank you. Yes, same. I've been a loyal listener

of your show for a year plus. And from the start, have appreciated your rational and thorough insight on all angles of the special counsel's investigation, all while delivered in a molyfluo

tone. Thank you. Shout out to you, especially in this regard, Andy. They do love your voice. And so, so crazy to me, but thank you very much. While there are substantial protections for congressional members regarding their legislative duties like the speech or debate clause, that would beggar any of the resulting actions of their work ever seeing a courtroom, is it truly an ironclad guarantee? When Trump sends medicine tweets at 3 a.m., it sure does seem so, even if the aforesaid laws should provide ample refuge for Liz Cheney at all, given that Trump desires to break down anything related to the law, can she conceivably be prosecuted under any laws,

i.e., can he or the DOJ disregard the speech or debate clause? I think that going after these folks, particularly members of Congress like Liz Cheney, will be unsuccessful, but that doesn't make them less expensive and non-intrusive. Yeah, yeah, that's, I mean, the process is the punishment, right, to some degree. It's interesting your focus on the speech and debate clause, and I presume it's because you're thinking that if prosecuted, Liz Cheney could say, well, hey, because this, there's there are allegations about, and I don't give any credit to these allegations, but just to kind

of pin the discussion down, there's been allegations that, oh, she did something improper with her preparation of witnesses who then testified in front of the committee. And so I think what Emily is suggesting here is that, well, what she did in preparing witnesses and questioning witnesses was covered by the speech and debate clause, or doesn't that give her some level of protection? I guess theoretically it could, where speech and debate really becomes relevant is when you try to prosecute a member of Congress and you try to use as evidence something they said, right? that's where speech and debate clause comes in to to eliminate. Or something they did. Or something they did. Yeah.

That has to do with their official duties. We know Pence even got speech or debate protection for a couple of things he did as president of the Senate on January 6th, right? There were two things that weren't allowed into evidence in Jack Smith's investigation, namely a memo that his, that Mike Pence's counsel wrote about what he couldn't say. on January 6th and information and testimony about a meeting he had with the parliamentarian about an announcement he was going to make on January 6th. Those things couldn't be brought into evidence because the judge found. Yeah, the judge found he was acting in his role as a legislator

that day and you can't review that. And I think this will offer at least to folks on the January 6th committee, a lot of protection because this especially goes toward when you're investigating stuff. because that's how Marjorie Taylor Green tried to weasel out of the insurrection, section three of the 14th Amendment thing. She's like, speech or debate? I was investigating fraud in the election. Fundamentally, it works as an exclusionary rule, right?

It's like you can't use this speech or this legislative activity as evidence of any sort of a crime. And so it could provide some protection to them. I think there's other things that would probably cut off any prosecutorial effort. More broadly, there's a question of whether or not you could possibly even investigate a member of Congress,

like the executive branch cannot or shouldn't, there's a theory that the Constitution would prohibit the executive branch from investigating a member of Congress for something they did in the course of congressional oversight because it's like a separation of powers problem. Yep. So I don't, I just say that to suggest that I don't see these things going anywhere. No. And if she's subpoenaed. For sure. If she's subpoenaed for her stuff, she can sue. Right.

Saying no, no, no. She's privileged. She can evoke all these well-founded arguments to block it. It's not going anywhere. I don't think a member of Congress is going to be prosecuted for anything they did that was remotely related to their official duties. So I don't think you need to worry about that one. Yeah. All right. One more question. Yeah, sure. It's a bit of a double, but let's do it anyway. Here we go. This is from JD. Hi, my favorite podcast hosts, I have two questions.

Number one, if the president can't be prosecuted because dealing with court is a hindrance to his duties, how is he allowed to sue someone in a personal capacity as in the defamation cases? Wouldn't he have to be a part of the process even if his DOJ took the case over? That's a good question. And I don't have a really complete answer for that one. I think that if he initiates a suit while he's present, now this wouldn't apply to things that he started before he was inaugurated. So those cases that are going on now are a little bit different.

But I think to file civil suits as a sitting president, he would have to weigh, that would be considered a waiver of his civil immunity. so he would be vulnerable to countersuits on those same issues. That's my guess, but this is a totally unresolved kind of constitutional issue. Yeah, and there are some standing precedent that the sitting president doesn't have civil immunity, just criminal immunity, Jones v. Clinton, right? He can't be sued civilly while he's president for kind of the same reasons. And I can't remember the precedent of the Supreme Court case.

But there is some degree of civil immunity. And it's, again, it comes back to official duties and things of that nature. Doesn't mean he can't be deposed. That's Joseph v. Clinton. You will have to show up and be deposed. Right, which is what he's facing in these civil cases that have been allowed to go forward for January 6th, like Blasengen at all, for example. That's right.

All right. Okay, so number two, her second question, I know Jack Smith can't officially leak information about grand jury testimony or possibly even make his report public, but should he want to write a tell-all, how much would he be able to say in this kind of non-legal venue? I don't believe he would ever consider doing so, but hypothetically, what could he say there? Don't put the pre-order in yet. Don't you have to get permission from the Department of Justice? Yes, you do. You have to get what's called... And what if you don't, you'll get, you can actually be prosecuted. Yeah, it's called pre-publication review. When you get a

clearance, one of the things you agree to is that you will never write a book or give public speech or something like that without having the content of that communication reviewed by, in his case, it would be DOJ. For me, it was the FBI. So I submitted my book for pre-publication review, and we fought about it for months and months and months. No, you can't call it Crossfire Hurricane. Yes, I can. No, you can't. Shurks. What? Come on. But now you would be submitting it to Trump's FBI and Trump's DOJ. So yeah, yeah, no. Literally months later, Josh Campbell, who I love, wrote a book, put it through prepub,

and it was called The title was Crossfire Hurricane. I'm like, well, they changed their minds. Hold on a second. Anyway, so yeah, he would have to go through pre-pub review before he wrote any kind of book about that stuff. If he wants to write a book about triathlon training, I don't think that's covered. I think he could just put that one out. But yeah, he'd have to do that.

It would not make it out. It would be a very short book because it would be mostly redacted. Oh, they would just say no altogether. And if he didn't do it, he would put himself in the actual crosshairs of having done something wrong. You can get sued. They can force or seize all the money that you make from the book. And I guess maybe there's probably a way that could come after you criminally, but I'm not 100% sure. They've been a while since I looked at that agreement.

They would think of a way, I'm sure. And get an OLC memo whipped up by their new paid ag who says, yeah, you can criminally prosecute this and they would go forward with it. I don't know. I'm going to make it through court, but there you have it. So don't expect a tell-all book from Jack Smith. And if we somehow wrangle an interview after all this is done, I expect there to be no speaking on behalf of Jack Smith. We all be out. The whole interview would be like, what's the Hague like this time? Tell me about your triathlon because I do actually really want to know about it. And your favorite subway sandwich. Let's talk about that. What's a story

with that purple robe? Did you pick that color? Is that their color? Is that the Hague uniform? Yeah. It's a Hague purple. So the beard. Does your wife like it? You know, that would be about the extent of the questions that would be able to ask Jack Smith. Nothing

about the investigation outside of the four corners of a publicly released report would be able to be spoken about. Exactly. All right, everybody. Thank you for your questions again. There's a link in the show notes to submit your questions. We'll have another show next week.

Thank you very much for letting us have a week off. It was the first time we ever took a day off since the show began. It was our very first day off. And we figured since Jack Smith was probably taking the week off, we could too. Probably the first time he's also been able to enjoy a holiday since he was writing letters on Thanksgiving Day,

two days after he was appointed back in 2022. But click on the link in the show notes. Send in your questions. We will answer them next week as best we can. And thanks for listening. And also if you have a suggestion for the new show name, New Jack City is great, but again, copyright. Yes.

I think of something that hasn't been thought of before and send those suggestions in using that same link if you so desire. Do you have any final thoughts? No, I think we covered it. We're still on Report Watch. That never ends, it seems like. But this is a very slow week. You don't anticipate any big drops are going to be coming in between Christmas and New Year's.

No, and so far, your money was on. Santa won't have... Santa brings no report. Yeah, you win. You win that bet. No report on the sleigh. All right, everybody. Thanks so much.

We'll be back in your ears next week. I've been Allison Gill. And I'm Andy McCabe.