Jack - Episode 15 - Delay and Obstruct 101

Episode Date: March 12, 2023

This week: Allison and Andy are joined by Asha Rangappa to discuss executive battles the special counsel is taking on; encrypted messaging apps and the FBI; a little bit about the other special counsel; plus listener questions.Follow Asha Rangappa:Twitter:https://twitter.com/AshaRangappa_Podcast: It’s Complicated https://link.chtbl.com/its-complicatedYouTube:https://www.youtube.com/@Its.ComplicatedDo you have questions about the cases and investigations? Click here: https://formfaca.de/sm/PTk_BSogJFollow the Podcast on Apple Podcasts:https://apple.co/3BoVRhN Check out other MSW Media podcastshttps://mswmedia.com/shows/ Follow AG on Twitter:Dr. Allison Gill https://twitter.com/allisongillhttps://twitter.com/MuellerSheWrotehttps://twitter.com/dailybeanspod Andrew McCabe isn’t on Twitter, but you can buy his book The Threathttps://www.amazon.com/Threat-Protects-America-Terror-Trump-ebook/dp/B07HFMYQPG We would like to know more about our listeners. Please participate in this brief surveyhttp://survey.podtrac.com/start-survey.aspx?pubid=BffJOlI7qQcF&ver=short This 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

I signed in order appointing Jack Smith. And those who say Jack is a finesse. Mr. Smith is a veteran career prosecutor. Wait, what law have I grew? The events leading up to and on January 6th. Classified documents and other presidential records. You understand what prison is? Send me to jail.

Hello and welcome to episode 15 of Jack. I am your host, Alison Gill. And I'm Andy McCabe. Today we're going to discuss the executive privilege battles that Jack Smith has taken over from Attorney General Merritt Garland, along with some brief from Mark's about the special counsel from the AG. Yes, and we will discuss how the use of encrypted messaging apps could complicate the investigation into January 6th. We'll talk about how we just found out that it is obstruction of justice that is causing Jack Smith to try to pierce

the attorney client privilege with Evan Corcoran using the crime fraud exception. And we're going to talk about imminent indictments coming from the Manhattan District Attorney of all places. I think I had him in third place. I don't know. It's only he's the he's absolutely like the dark horse surging, you know, from the back of the pack and all of a sudden now he's upfront. But to be fair, the reason I had him in third places, I thought he was gonna do the whole business valuation, inflation of assets and deflation of assets and the fraud and all that stuff,

which is a much more complex case. But I guess the reason that he's being able to surge ahead now is he's revived the Stormy Daniels hush money payment case, which is a simpler, smaller case. So we're going to talk about that. And there may be a connection, Andy, between Jack Smith's probe and Jim Jordan's quote-unquote weaponization committee.

And we have an amazing guest today, former FBI agent, editor at Just Security, legal and security analyst, steam mop influencer is her best title, Asha Rangapa. She's the host of the It's Complicated podcast with Renato Marriotti. And then we'll end the show answering some listener questions. Yeah, so let's get started right off the top. Talking about some news that came out this week from a group known as citizens for responsible ethics in Washington. You are probably more familiar with there the way we refer to them, typically as crew. And this week they said in a message, and I quote, the reason the government is missing text messages for Trump's acting Homeland Security Secretary Chad Wolf and acting Deputy

Secretary Ken Kuchinelli from the period around the January 6th attack on the capital could be due to their use of encrypted messaging app signal, as well as Kuchinelli's use of a personal phone for government business, according to declarations made by federal officials in a case brought by crew. Yeah, so this information comes from that declaration signed by the Department of Homeland Security under penalty of perjury that claims a data breach that happened in December of 2020, month before the insurrection, led to Wolf and Kuchinelli being given temporary phones, and that they were instructed to use signal to communicate in December of 2020 and January of 2021. Who instructed them to use Signal in December and January?

And this reminds me of the Secret Service phones that mysteriously went through a, well, we need to do a software update in January of 2021. And, you know, and then all of a sudden all their text messages got wiped. Andy, talk a little bit about one of the things that I found really fascinating in the Crossfire Hurricane investigation, the subsequent Mueller investigation and some of the indictments and the speaking indictments were that even though a lot of these defendants will call them, we're using WhatsApp and Signal. I don't know if Signal was around at the time,

but encrypted messaging apps. Even though a lot of them were using a cryptid messaging apps, the investigators were still able to get a hold of those messages. Now, we don't know how, because all that's redacted for sources and methods and things like that. We don't want to give away how the FBI can get their hands on some of these secret things. But are these text messages, do you think the ones that are missing from the secret service, the ones that are missing from Wolf and Kuchinelli and the DHS? Are they gone forever?

Well, they could be. As most people know, the way the encrypted applications work encrypted applications work is that the communications are encrypted at each end. So they're, they are encrypted on the phones, if you're two people are talking, you know, text messages between phones, they are encrypted as they are broadcast between the two phones. So typically the way you would go to get content on messages, you'd serve a legal process on the provider. In this case, it would be WhatsApp or Signal or any other app. And when you do that, on these end-to-end encrypted communications, what the provider gives you is the content in an encrypted form, which you cannot decrypt. So the normal way that you would get the content

is not available to you when it's end-to-end encryption is involved. So the only way you can get it is to actually get your hands on one of the two devices. And if the device you get, if assuming you come into legal custody of that device, you're able to unlock that device and go to the encrypted app. If the user of that device has not deleted

the messages from their own phone, then they'll still be there, just like they would be on any other texting function. But in order to get the content of the messages, you have to get to one of the two ends of the communication. So when we got all of the text messages, like from Maniford on his WhatsApp thing, that's just because he didn't delete his messages? Yeah, so as you know, most of these most of these apps, you can set the app to automatically delete the content of the messages after

five minutes or an hour a day or whatever whatever you want. If you don't do that and you get caught climbing and are served with a search warrant, have to turn your phone over, if you don't do that and you get caught crime and are served with a search warrant, have to turn your phone over. If the government gets into phone, they can see those messages that you have so carefully encrypted, but not very carefully retained in their readable format. I just feel like Trump came in and said, all right, guys, look, for the next two months, use these burner phones, use signal, turn your disappearing messaging on, secret service, everybody turn your thing off because we know a lot of people who had testified

before the January 6th committee were like, well, I have my phone set to erase all my text messages every 30 days. But there would be no proof that if that actually happened, if it's not in writing or nobody testifies to it and they're all covering up for each other, that we're just not ever going to get those messages, but it sure seems fishy that the Secret Service had a software update that caused everybody's text messages to go

missing in January of 2021 and that the DHS had a data breach that caused the heads of DHS working with Trump to suddenly have to use temporary burner phones that they were instructed by whom. They're the fucking director of that whole agency. I mean, who directed them? That they, from now on, please use signal and turn on your disappearing messages. That never, I look, I worked for the government

for a long time, you worked for the government for a long time. Nobody ever came in and said, here's a temporary phone, only use a third party app for business and turn on your disappearing messages. Like that, it's ridiculous. And I did this under penalty of perjury, by the way. That's right.

So the fact that we have this coming up in twice in a significant, high profile investigations where communications of DHS employees, these are official communications, are no longer available to the investigators because of some quote unquote fluke where they were simply complying with directions from DHS or Secret Service in that case, which is of course a part of DHS. It's just, it strains credulity to think that this could happen twice in two different scenarios in what amounts to essentially the same investigation.

It really provokes some questions as to like, where are these directions coming from? Like, I know from my own experience in the Bureau, all FBI agents' communications are recorded. The text messages are preserved in perpetuity in the same way that official emails and everything else are. So like the fact that you would just be handed some burner and said, yeah, go ahead and use signal for your official comms. Just, I can't even imagine that happening. Yeah, and even with the Secret Service, when the DOJ came in and said, preserve your communications,

they came in and told them to preserve their communications before the stuff was wiped. So it's extra like what? And I mean, like I said, and that line right there, where they were instructed to use signal Cucinelli and wolf were instructed who instructs Cucinelli and wolf. I mean they aren't they that you know who and who's above them at the deputy director and acting director level

all of your official Communications our government records all of your official communications are government records. All of that stuff is supposed to be saved and sent to the national archives after you're done and everything else. So, the idea that someone in the organization would say, here's a burner, use signal. It's okay if you just delete all your communications. It just flies in the face of government records, retention, practices, and policies.

And, of course, cuts against institutions like crew that that's basically, this is their bread and butter. They serve FOIA requests on government agencies to get to the communications behind important issues. And, you know, when they don't get the disclosure, they feel they're entitled to through FOIA requests. They go to court and litigate those requests in a highly professional and effective manner.

So when you have officials doing things like communicating via signal over burner phones, it just feels a lot like a deliberate effort to avoid that sort of accountability. I can't say that that's what happened here, but boy, it sure does feel like that. I can, I'll say it. Um.

I'm just, it's just all like, oh, just in December and January, oh, interesting. And then when you're told to preserve the records, you had a software update, which caused everything to be wiped out. That's never happened to me either. I've had plenty of software, gone through plenty of software updates, device exchanges, upgrades, everything is preserved in the cloud.

It's just, it's absolutely bizarre. And, you know, I'm wondering if it would probably be very difficult to prove some kind of intent to destroy government records. I mean, we have laws against that. And the policies, the agency policies are pretty weak. They don't really have any teeth. Like the records retention policy and stuff like that. Like if I accidentally didn't keep someone's medical record

for the full 75 years, or if I on purpose said, I'm gonna erase this medical record, it's kind of hard to do. You might get the IG 75 years, or if I on purpose said, I'm going to erase this medical record, it's kind of hard to do. You might get the IG coming in, but criminal prosecutions are pretty rare in those instances when you're trying to uphold an agency policy. But I don't know, destruction, those are, I mean, they're director and deputy director, acting director and deputy director. He should have actually even been there.

He wasn't even authorized, federal judges said he wasn't authorized to be the acting director of that agency. Yet here we are, and we can't get his communications. It's just really fishy, and I don't know. And again, this is like so many possible crimes to investigate that there just aren't enough people and time and resources to do it, which is why I'm glad we have folks like crew who and some of these independent journalists who go in and and shed some sunlight on these things and see if we can at least hold them accountable in the court of public opinion. So there you go. There you go. Yeah, we'll see. We'll see what goes on

but you know, we know we knew that you know when pomerance was going around over, you know, the Manhattan DA guy was going around on his media tour about his book saying, look, we wanted to do Rico on just the Trump organization, the Trump foundation, the Trump school, the Trump, you know, whatever that school was that he had. A Trump university. A Trump university. A university is a, that word's doing a lot of work. It's a PhD in crime. Yep, that totally obstruction 101. You know, when he's talking about that,

he's like, look, we just didn't have enough people and enough time to go after that big of an investigation. And that's what, you know, you and I have talked about this years ago when we were doing the Mueller Sheerot episode about how money shifted from white collar crime investigations over to counterterrorism after post 9-11. And how can we get back to a place where we have enough resources to investigate? Because right now we're like, well, that guy's got one man walking crime spree,

we just don't have the resources to get, and to get our hands around a case. Yeah, it's, I mean, to be fair, it's rare that the FBI will walk away from an investigation, because it's gonna require a lot of people or knowledge or resources. That's kind of their, that's what they do,

better than anybody else. But at some point, the system is really stretched to a crisis. I think the best example that right now is the IRS basically have admitted that it's, they don't even consider auditing and investigating people at the highest, highest levels of, you know, income earners, because those cases are massively expensive and hard to do, and they don't have enough agents to begin with,

and, you know, high income earners hire a lot of lawyers. They had enough to come after you. That's because I'm just me. You know, that's different. For some's because I'm just me. You know, that's, that's, that's different. For some reason, I'm you and Komi, my former boss, who by the way now is grusly Adams. Have you seen, have you seen his latest Instagram photo? He's all bearded out and stuff. You're still clean cut, though. You haven't gone full forest. No, I'm still me. I'm, I'm always just me. But yeah, Jim is looking like, you know, like he's living on a remote Pacific Island or something, but it looks good on him. I'm gonna totally go that.

I don't think I could pull that off, but it looks good on him. I don't know. We could we could we could do a mckay beard for for November this year. Raise a little money. Who knows? I don't know. Well, I grew a beard once when I was working at headquarters and one of my colleagues in the department of justice said to me, you look so terrible, you look like foster brooks. Now, I know that's an old comedy reference, so maybe some of our listeners aren't going to get it, but man, when you're told you look like foster brooks, it's time to shave the beard. So that's exactly what I did. And now we've got Jack Smith with the full beard.

There you go. So that's where he keeps all the secrets. All right, we have the coolest guest, friend of mine. She came on live and Philly with me when the Mueller She Wrote was on tour. She's a former FBI agent. I love her diagrams. They're pretty, they're pretty incredible. She actually helped me keep my email inbox down to under five new emails at a time.

So she's and she's got she's great with steam mobs if you have any steam mob questions. But her forte is legal and security analysis and she's over at Yale. She's a lawyer. She's absolutely brilliant. Asha Rangapo, we're going to talk to her right after the break. Stick around. Welcome back. Okay, ABC News reported this week that Donald Trump is seeking to prevent Jack Smith from

using testimony already given by Eric Hirschman and the two Pats, that's of course former White House councils Pat Filman and Pat Sipelone. Joining us to discuss the SEAL privilege battles is former FBI agent, lawyer and host of the It's Complicated Podcast. Please welcome Asha Rangaba. Asha, thanks so much for joining us today. Thank you for having me. Does this fun?

Yes. It's so great to see you. I feel like I don't get to see you as much anymore. So this is awesome. It's a little bit of background. Earlier last year, in the end of summer, early fall, they got the Pat's in, Pat Felbon and Pat Sepoloni in to do some testimony in front of the grand jury.

And at some points, you know, with regard to discussions with that they had with the president about installing Jeffrey Clark or the, you know, the certification on January 6th, they claimed they invoked executive privilege saying we need to figure that battle out first before we're comfortable testifying So that DOJ took that to court judge barrel howl who is the chief judge of the DC circuit The DC circuit court. She's in charge of grand juries until March 16th actually. She said there's no privilege here So go ahead and testify at that point Donald Trump didn't file for a stay or to appeal that testimony. The Pats came in along with Eric Hirschman, who they'd been trying to get in, who didn't

want to testify until the privileged stuff was settled, came in and gave the testimony. And then a month after that, all of a sudden Trump wants to appeal now. He wants to appeal Judge Howell's ruling that they could testify. And so that's a new thing. Usually Trump asks for a stay and it goes up to the, you know, the appellate court and a supreme court if they take it and they decide which they have on multiple occasions that there's no privilege here. Let's talk a little bit about what this privilege is that he keeps trying to invoke over

and over again. It keeps losing. Yeah, this is, you know, Trump's one trick pony that he trots out for everything. And that's really interesting that he did not take the opportunity to appeal back then. And I wonder if it was the Mar-a-Lago stuff might have been happening right then. We also know that the quality of his legal counsel has

dwindled over time as he refuses to pay lawyers. So maybe they were not necessarily on the ball either. But yes, let's just understand what executive privilege is because I feel like at this point, it has lost all meaning. Like my mom has executive privilege. Like my cat has executive privilege. You know what I mean?

It's just so dumb. My cat's name is executive privilege. My cat has executive privilege. My executive. Executive privilege is a separation of powers principle. It is intended to protect the core functions of the executive branch, core article two functions from intrusion by the other branches. That is what it is intended to do. And so, I thought about making a diagram,

because I like these, my having my diagrams, have like a flow chart of to understand executive privilege. And I have been thinking about, what's the first question? The first question is, does this involve, or the president's, well, first of all, is this the current president? Yeah. Yeah, right? Like a, like a, or are you the current president?

Like an older of our citizens, right? Yeah. Right. Because the person asserting the privilege actually the president. Actually, the president. And because the privilege is held by the sitting president. Now, I, you know, I think there is some intimation that there may be residual executive privilege that former

presidents have and that hasn't been delineated, but I would assume that that is quite limited. And I just want to point out that this idea of a former president being able to assert the privilege really goes against this conservative legal theory of the executive branch known as the unitary executive, which is there is one president and he holds of the executive branch known as the unitary executive, which is there is one president and he holds all the executive power. Well, if there's a bunch of former presidents floating around who've also hold some of that presidential power, it's no longer that unitary, you know? So that's kind of attention there. So first, are you the current president? No. Then are you talking about close advisors to the president, right?

And this is why people like Steve Bannon, a starting executive privilege, was just silly. I mean, he was not at least an official or close advisor. I arguably these lawyers are. Next, are they providing advice on, you know, core executive branch functions? Is this about national security? Is this a deliberations about policy? You know, things like that.

And I think here is where, in addition to not being the current president, Trump's issues with people testifying related to January 6th falls fall to part because this was a campaign issue. Like he was acting in his capacity as a candidate. He was not acting as the president. You know, he could arguably have more claims with regard to say that you cringed Quid Pro Quo, right? Where he could argue, I was deciding for in policy or something.

No, like January 6th was just about him and his candidacy for office. And then you get into crime fraud exceptions. And so even when you get down to it and somebody might be able to assert it, if you're trying to shield evidence of a crime, that's not going to fly. And that goes back to Nixon. And so I just feel like at all of these layers, and again, you are dealing with his lawyers here,

but I think with the other stuff, with regard to the matters that they were advising him on, and again, this was all to perpetuate the commission of a crime. I just, and the precedent that we have with Nixon, it's just not going to fly. And yet he keeps putting it out there. It's so dumb. I'm so sick of talking about executive privilege.

Yeah, and I mean, in this situation, on just the purely mechanical side, the witness has to go in, the president invokes the privilege, and then the witness, it's kind of left up to the witness to kind of execute that question by question. It's not this sort of thing that prohibits your witness going in.

Exactly, you have to go in and essentially say, no, I've been informed the president and asserted presidential or executive privilege over this subject so I can't answer this question. That seems to kind of have happened here. They went in, they appeared, they asserted the privilege and then battle gets fought on kind of the appellate level outside the four corners of the grand jury.

That seems to have happened here. And of course, the judge ruled that they had to return and answer the questions through presumably some parameters. So, after going through your flow chart and realizing that there's no, that privilege doesn't apply. And you know, real quick, you know, you brought up campaigning. And even if they're not campaigning, and I know this has happened in the Mo Brooks certification filing, and this also happened in a recent DOJ amicus brief in the civil suits against Donald Trump, where he was claiming blanket immunity.

They said, even if you're not campaigning, and they said, we can't really say that you were campaigning here, but like we could with mo Brooks, because we can't separate that out from a first term president. They're always campaigning. But regardless, overthrowing the government can't be part of a privileged part of your job. Right. Yeah.

That's such an important point. That's where an important point. That's where I started with. This is a separation of powers, principle, to protect the structure and functioning of the government. So, it becomes nonsensical if you're using the privilege to shield against an inquiry and evidence into an attempt to destroy that very government, right? Like, that makes no sense.

They did that with the speech or debate clause with Rep Perry, where Barrel Howe was like, look, the whole idea of the speech or debate clause is so that a seditious king can't come in and fuck with the legislature. And here you are on the phone with the executive branch trying to come in and fuck with the legislature. Over through the government.

You can't, that is not covered in the speech or debate privilege. It's certainly not covered in executive privilege. So that's sort of where that going. And the privileges for the office, not the person, right? Correct. And it's all, I just think that, you know, it's just been a successful delay tactic for him.

Totally. And we've seen this. Remember, he asserted executive privilege in Mar-a-Lago and he succeeded in having this whole, you know, his little lackey What's her name? I lean cannon. I lean cannon. You know, we went down this whole dumb rabbit hole of us What is a special master who was gonna find like these executive it made no?

Effing sense and that was great that the DOJ argued because they were arguing in front of the very conservative 11th Circuit, they're like, hey, unitary executive, walk a walka, you know, they were like, right, right in that alley, you know, and it went up to scotuses, go to this is like, yeah, GTFO, we can't, no, we're not gonna do that.

Okay, but it didn't work legally, but it did work strategically because he files these motions, knowing they have a little to no chance of victory, but they will cause great delay. And it delayed the investigators from reviewing the Marlago materials for definitely weeks, maybe months. I don't remember exactly how the calendar played out there, but it was like September to November or December, right? Yep, yep, yep. So and that's exactly what you see happening here.

It's like they missed their shot at arguing their case in front of Barrel Howell when at the initial invocation of the privilege and now they're going back to basically try to unring the bell. Essentially, they, the testimony was taken. It is in the hands of the prosecutors, and they're trying to prevent them from using it. If they really want to exclude this stuff as evidence, wouldn't it be, I guess, more?

Don't you do a motion to the press or something like that? Yeah, a file in motion to spread after you've been indicted and are being prosecuted. But that was the same issue in Mar-a-Lago. That's right. Yeah, they were like, this is weird. You want to do a motion in limine before you're indago. That's right. Yeah, there were like, you know, this is weird.

You want to do a motion in limine before you're indicted. It's stupid. So he filed that one as a separate lawsuit in a different court. That was wacky. Yeah, that was cool. And I bet that's why he waited until, I think that's maybe why we're seeing it play out this way

that he didn't appeal right after he was rejected. He waited until the testimony was given and until the DOJ was right about to use that testimony to come in and try to file an appeal because he is successfully dragged it out another month or two because if he had filed back then, as has happened the last six times he's done this, it would have gone straight up to Scotus and straight back down and he would have been out. I think maybe this is a delay. And that's the key for him, right? All he needs to do is buy time because he's already said that even if he's indicted, he's

going to run. And I hope your listeners, I'm sure you've informed them that there's nothing that prevents him from running for office. If he's indicted, there's nothing that prevents him from running for office, if he's excited, there's nothing that prevents him from running for office if he is in prison. And, you know, I don't know what we do as a country if someone who is in-dited and even convicted and in prison becomes president. But listen, I never say never with Trump anymore.

I mean, I think that is a real possibility that we need to consider. And Putin now has a real interest in having him be president again, because he came out last night, Trump did, and said, hey, what I would do is I would make a deal. I would carve up Ukraine and hand part of it over to Russia and put Yanukovych back in charge.

Like, that's his plan and that's Putin's goal. So now Putin has an extra super great interest. It's not just sanctions that he wants to get rid of now. He wants to take Ukraine and Trump would give it to him. So we know that there will be Russian interference in this particular election cycle as well. But yeah, I've been saying this, you know, people who are screaming,

you should have indicted him and died him. I was like, we could have indicted him six months. He'd still be out, he'd still be running, he'd still be spewing his hate he'd still be stoking violence and he probably would have he probably will get a little bit of a boost from his base when he is indicted he'll be able to fundraise off of it now I'm not saying that's a reason to not indict him he should definitely be indicted but you know I think people are a little bit misguided if they think that simply indicted Donald Trump will somehow save democracy without

we won't have to vote anymore and everything will be great. And what would he do the first day that he's president if he has been convicted? Apart. Apart. Yeah. So let's look at let's think about the broader kind of calendar here. And realistically the special counsel has basically a year to work with, right? It's going to be next spring or summer that they're going to start thinking, now we're starting to bump up against DOJ policy against over and public moves in an investigation during an election.

So that would at least throw a damper on things as they get towards the end of the electoral cycle. And then of course, if he runs and wins in November of 2024, now you're back to square one with this issue of, can you proceed if you want to proceed with an indictment? Can you do that against the sitting president? I think the issue is a little bit different in this context because the investigation has been going

for so long predates on many levels, predates the existence of his current electoral run. But I think that's the sort of broader calendar that we're looking at. Yeah, I think that's why we're all sort of like it needs to happen this spring. Any kind of charges looking, you know, maybe with a cutoff date in the summer in order to get this trial done before we bump up against those DOJ, unwritten policies about. But you know, I think that if you're already indicted and you're on trial, I'm not sure that those apply anymore.

Yeah, I think that's true, particularly with respect to the kind of don't do anything public in the last, let's say, 60 days before the election. Once you've been indicted, that's it. That moves forward on its own schedule in the courthouse and you just deal with that. I think there's another aspect to the whole idea of not inditing the sitting president because you essentially don't want to cheat the voters out of the honest services of the person they elected. I get all that, but if the person you elected was already indicted before the election, you have less of a grounds to stand on to complain that, you know, the guy you elected is now being distracted by a criminal prosecution because like he was under indictment when you voted for him.

To your point, Andrew, remember that the policy against inditing a sitting president is a DOJ policy. In other words, it's within the executive branch. And as you said, once a person's indicted, it's now the wheels are turning in a separate branch. So I don't know that at that point, DOJ can be like, well, we're, I mean, I guess I suppose they can dismiss the charges. I don't think they would do that once they have

brought it. But at that point, it's really the judicial branch that has an interest in seeing that case proceed through the system. And so there's a, I think a separation of powers issue where in many ways DOJ loses control over the progression of that case. But it does bring into relief.

And I don't wanna move ahead too far why the Georgia and New York cases, I think are important, because they aren't necessarily constrained by these policies or partners. Or partners. And so they are in many ways potentially a bigger threat

To Trump and let's talk about that because I was for sure I had my money on Fanny Willis and Diting first of of between the DOJ Georgia and New York and now here comes Alvin Bragg all of a sudden I was like oh no you did I have this 20 million year old case That's probably a misdemeanor and I'm gonna do it for even though I had them all dead to rights with Tax fraud Talk a little bit about Andy and Asha I really because I need a legal and investigative perspective on this but

Isn't it a misdemeanor and what makes it a felony the Stormy Daniels hush money payment and why be first to indict a former president with, I mean, this small of a thing. And they called the zombie case, right, because it died and came back to life so many times. Now, we know that we know that co-inserved 30 months, but that was a federal prosecution. That was a little bit different, right? So what? Could we talk about that? Because I'm a little confused because it doesn't have to be a second crime.

Tell me, talk to me. Yeah, so let me see if I can go through this and then I'll have my yell lawyer correct me where I've gotten it entirely wrong. But I'm fascinated by this double crime thing here that Alvin Bragg is allegedly driving at it. double crime thing here that Alvin Bragg is allegedly driving at. We know this mostly because of the New York Times article that came out on Thursday, but essentially, it all surrounds the payments to Stormy Daniels, which everyone will remember. Michael Cohen paid Stormy Daniels $130,000 to basically keep her mouth closed during the election. And then Cohen is then paid back by Trump once he's in office.

The group of them all later misrepresent those payments to Cohen as being for legal services and state that there is a retainer agreement between Cohen and Trump to that effect. Cohen is then investigated for this activity on the federal side. He later admits that it wasn't, in fact, for legal services. There was no retainer agreement. So here's crime number one in the current New York case. It's essentially a falsification of business records, falsely representing that those payments

were for legal services when they were actually for essentially a hush money payment. That is a misdemeanor. It only becomes a felony if the falsification of the business records is done in conjunction with another crime. So to make this a felony charge, Bragg will have to tie it to another crime. In this case, what they're using is New York State election law. It's basically like campaign financing laws, that the allegation would be these payments to Stormy Daniels were a violation of New York state campaign finance laws because they were never properly attributed as campaign expenditures. So that's a mouthful and a lot for

the prosecutors to have to prove. Yeah, though, I think that even though it seems convoluted in many ways, it addresses the harm, right? Because the reason that the Stormy Daniels payment is a problem is that it essentially concealed a material fact that would have been important for voters to know. I mean, if we had known that, that could have possibly changed, you know, the trajectory. And I think because it fits in with his pattern of criminality. So first investigation, Russia was, you know, into whether he was coordinating with Russia, and then the obstruction of justice to conceal, you know, crimes related to the election, you know, then we have the

stormy Daniels. Then you, Crane, the first impeachment, what was he trying to do? He was trying to perpetuate a fraud against the American people in an advance of an election to make people believe that Biden was being investigated January 6th. Another election crime trying to perpetuate a fraud that he didn't really win and this election was rigged. So it's the guy commits election crimes. And then he's a serial election climber and then he tries to obstruct it. And so I feel like election crimes and obstruction of justice are his two go-to things. And I think it's entirely appropriate to create a legal theory that addresses that.

I would rather see them go after that than, you know, a tax thing, because it really gets to the harm to our democracy and to the American people as a whole, I think. It does, and like, really bold by Alvin Bragg to basically pull the plug on that long-term investigation that was about to go to the grand jury and was reportedly based on falsification of property values and like allegations of insurance fraud and tax fraud.

And then give that three-heart deal to Weiselberg for nothing. I mean, honestly, it exchange for nothing. Zero. And now, what you have is this very tangible, fundamental payoff to keep someone quiet about an illicit relationship. Everybody can understand that. The character is involved in this thing from Stormy Daniels and Michael Cohen to Trump are all well known.

So I think he starts from a strong basis. It remains to be seen if the appellate courts where this would likely end up if it actually goes forward, we'll approve of his approach, but I agree with you, it's certainly an appropriate attack to take. Yeah, and I mean, if the Jim Jordan weaponization committee is arguing that Hunter Biden's laptop story, if it had come out 18 hours earlier, would have gotten Trump 10 million more votes, then certainly we can talk about a stormy Daniels affair. And by the way, I think that Hunter Biden's laptop thing is grade ABS.

You brought up obstruction. This is his thing, crimes and obstruction. And there was a brand new reporting from the Guardian that we didn't know about that just came out yesterday last night. And that is that, and we're gonna go over the documents case really quick, because I just want your input on this Asha before we before we let you go that the crime fraud exception pierced that they're trying to do with Evan Corcoran

We have found out is about obstruction of justice that that Corcoran's Advice to Trump Led Trump to obstruct justice under tidal 18 U.S. Code 15, 19. That carries a 20-year maximum sentence. That is a big, it's the biggest crime that was on that affidavit for the search warrant for Mar-a-Lago. You know, a longer sentence than even espionage in 793. And that obstruction, we now know, we were figuring that that's what it was, but now we

have confirmation that it is obstruction of justice that they are trying to pierce the attorney client privilege using crime fraud exception, which I've never seen done in the courts, have you? I haven't seen, well, let me check that. So I am familiar with the use of the crime fraud exception in organized crime cases. And it has come up, it was notorious

in a Philadelphia organized crime case years ago. I can't even put a year on this thing. It was so long ago, like, I wanna say like early 90s. There was an attorney in Philadelphia who basically allowed his mobster client to conduct all sorts of meetings in the attorney's office. And they used the crime fraud exception to pierce the attorney client privilege in that case.

And they actually were able to install Title III monitoring bugs, essentially in the attorney's office to record conversations between the client, the attorney, and these other criminal associates. So, it's a real thing, and it can basically dispense of the privilege and lead to the admission of all kinds of very, very damaging evidence. Yeah, and I've seen it in investigations and in the emails for Eastman stuff like that. But during a testimony and then to go to Barrel Hall, because we've seen it with executive privilege, but I haven't seen it with the crime fraud.

It's pretty clear. Yeah, every part. I think a pretty bold finding by the judge to say that, yeah, there's a possible, it's almost like in a weird way, it's kind of like prejudging the merits of the case in a very kind of isolated way, but what do you think, Rasha?

I mean, I don't disagree with anything you said. I think the mob example is sort of the paradigmatic case, right, that you can tell your lawyer, you know, that you killed someone, but, you know, you can't ask your lawyer to help you bear the body. And, you know, that's not privileged. And so I think that, you know, trying to pierce this and get to those communications where, you know, presumably the theory is that the lawyer was helping Trump conceal this crime is a big deal. And I think that more generally, again, obstruction is the appropriate charge in the Mar-a-Log case.

I would rule. I think that it fits the Espinage Act, but I think that has been so muddied now with classified documents showing up in, you know, everybody's house, you know, on Jimmy Carter has them, whatever. I have some right here. Exactly. That is like executive privilege, right? We all have classified documents too. And he's like, I have none.

I just want you to have none. Your case is done. Your settled. You got your stuff. You're good. You don't have to worry about it. As the person on this podcast most likely to be searched, I'm saying right now, I've heard new documents.

But I think that the obstruction is what clearly distinguishes Trump's, the facts of Trump's case, his behavior, his conduct from that of Biden, of Pence, of Jimmy Carter. I don't really know if he, I don't know if that was a joke or he actually had any classified documents. No, Jimmy Carter actually, because he's so old, that whole law wasn't. They had this in class, a fuck.

Yeah, that whole law wasn't even in place at the time. So he didn't, they didn't have to have his house searched. Oh my God. Is that cute Jimmy? I know. I know. I know. I know.

But I think that that is, I'm glad to hear that they are going after that. And I can only say, like, I think it was a really missed opportunity for Merit Garland to not do anything about the obstruction from, you know, the throwback, you know, the OG obstruction. The original instructor, yeah, for sure, for sure. But, you know what, bygones, they get a lot to work with now, and it looks like they're charging for it so we can see it. And don't get me in started on Bill Barr, and how he made that almost impossible with his memos.

All right, then the paydag and all those guys. Well, thank you so much. Everybody has to check out the It's Complicated podcast. What kind of cool stuff do you have coming up on? It's complicated. Um What kind of cool stuff do you have coming up on It's complicated? Um, not sure yet. I'm sure we'll talk about Bragg and I know Renato has had some threads lately, so just stay tuned.

Awesome. My look forward to it. Awesome. Thanks so much. Great to see you and say hi to Renato for us. I will. Take care. All right, bye-bye.

Stick around. We'll be right back. Hey everybody, welcome back. So we got a little bit of a, I don't know, like a little potluck for you here at the end of the show. First up, there was an interview with Merrick Garland about his trip to Ukraine recently because you know they're doing the whole kleptotask force and and seizing a bunch of stuff. We got the seizure of Setson's plane, right, who's the Ross Neft guy, which is really cool. And you know, we've seen a lot of stuff from Derapasca get seized.

And what they're doing now as part of this task force is they're taking those assets and they're giving the money to help Ukraine. And I think that's absolutely fantastic because I feel like I'm finally seeing retribution for all of these interfering oligarchs in the 2016 election across Fire Hurricane, getting something has happening to them, right? It comes around sooner or later.

And it's absolutely fantastic to see these things get seized and to use them to benefit global democracy. But during that NPR interview about his trip to Ukraine, an interview with Merrick Arlin, they did have a couple of questions about the special counsel investigation. And the first question was about how often he meets Merrick Garland, how often do you meet with the special counsel investigating Trump and the special counsel investigating Joe Biden for his documents, that's Robert Herr.

Sometimes we forget there is a second special counsel investigation going on. And what Merrick Garland replies, he says, so there is no daily supervision by anyone in the Justice Department of the special counsels. But special counsel regulations do provide for reports from time to time and those have taken place, but not on a daily or weekly basis,

not on a daily or weekly basis. not on a daily or weekly basis. So that is the response to that. And we already know, even though we had that discussion with Chuck Rosenberg, who wanted to, her, her, her, her, her, her, her, her, her, her, her, her, her, her, her, her, her, her, her, her, her, her, her, her, her, her, her, her, her, her, her, her, her, her, her, her, her, her, her, her, her, her, her, her, her, her, her, her, her, her, her, her her, her, her, her, her, her, her, her, her, her, her, her, her, her, her, her, her, her, her, her, her, her, her, her, her, her, her, her, her, her, her, her, her, her, her, her,

her, her, her, her, her, her, her, her, her, her, her, her, her, her, her, her, her, her, her, her, her, her, her, her, her, her, her, her, her, her, her, her, her, her, her, her, her, her, her, her, her, her, her, her, her, her, her, her, her, her, her, her, her, her, her, her, her, her, her, her, her, her, her, her, her, her, her, her, her, her, her, her, her, her, her, her, her, her, her, her, her, her, her, her, her, her, her, her, her, her, her, her, her, her, her, her, her, Marik Garland is treating the Jack Smith investigation that way. That Jack Smith is going to make all the calls and he's not going to oppose anything. He's going to accept whatever Jack Smith brings him. So I know a lot of folks are like, well, he has the ultimate say. He kind of, I mean, technically, but he's sort of relinquished that in in in this particular

case. So he has the what the authority that he has really comes into play at the end. So when Jack Smith comes forward and says, uh, here's the result of my investigation and I am, I'm going to I want to pursue indictments x, y and z at that point Garland can say no. He can disallow a proposed action, but he can't say, well, I think you should indict PD and Q also or something like that. So it's really very much a final, final guard rail. So it doesn't surprise me that Garland is

hewing pretty closely to those regs and not providing day-to-day supervision. And he has said that he's not even gonna be using that guard rail. I mean, he is. That's right. He is. Whatever he's deciding. And client take the recommendation. That's right. And he has said he's not even going to be using that guard rail. I mean, he, he said he is whatever he's deciding to take the recommendation. That's right. Whatever he decides. I mean, he did that with the Inspector General, the Department of Justice, when he was, when Horowitz was investigating the Department of Justice with regard to the

Jeffrey Clark stuff. And, and, and with, you know, the trying to seize voting machines and what the DOJ did and didn't do in response to January 6th, he testified that I'm just going to take whatever recommendations they have. And it seems as though he has. We don't know if those reports and those investigations are finished and if there were recommendations and if he took them or what, but it seems like he did because now, you know, we see what's going on with the investigation with regard to Jeffrey Clark and all that stuff. So, yeah, that's kind of the thing. What was, what are your, I mean, you kind of agree with that sort of position too, yeah?

I definitely agree with his, what he's saying here. I think that's the appropriate way to do it. It does raise some interesting questions though, and for me, first is about my leastest favorite special counsel, which is of course John Durham. I guess we can take from these comments that Garland and Durham are not having frequent scotch-sipping sessions after work, as Durham maybe was doing with the prior AG, which that's a good sign as well. But we'll see, right? The same kind of rules and approach that Garland takes to her and Jack Smith, we can assume that he'll take that same approach to John Durham. We don't know what kind of report or recommendations he'll turn in, but that all remains to be seen.

Yeah, and if Garland bats anything down from Durham, he has to tell Congress that he did that. That's right. That's right. My strong suspicion all along has been, Garland really wants nothing to do with Durham's investigation, so he probably has put no pressure on it whatsoever because he doesn't wanna be later accused as having ended it prematurely. Yeah, and that was a way to go, right, too, because Durham has just, I mean, it's frustrating

because I think on a lot of grounds, you can say, why not hold this guy's feet to the fire and bring this charade to a close, but politically, super smart for Garland to just keep his hands off it entirely, which is why I think, assume when Durham does finally turn in a close, but politically, super smart for Garland to just keep his hands off it entirely, which is why I think when Durham does finally turn in a report, I think Garland will do the standard review of it. They'll take out privacy information. They'll, they will redact stuff that sensitive or might impact investigations. And then I think it'll go to Congress and be released. So

someday we'll get to see where it's at. Yeah, and we do have our Senate judiciary, which is going to be looking into the malfeasance in the Durham investigation. And we'll get to see where it's at. Yeah, and we do have our Senate judiciary, which is going to be looking into the malfeasance in the German investigation, and we'll see what happens there. All right, next question on the investigations potentially clashing with the political calendar, which is what Asha was just talking about, and the first GOP debate scheduled for August.

Garland says the investigations are under the controls of special councils, and even if I knew their timetables, which I don't, the Justice Department policy would bar me from making any comment. So again, he's taking the conventional approach here. Those are obviously ongoing investigations and DOJ's policies not to comment on them. However, he is the AG. He can basically decide to part with that anytime he wants. He has made comments about certainly about the appointment of the special counsels and those investigations and things like that.

But this one doesn't surprise me either. The only notable point in there is he goes out of his way to say even if I knew there are timetables, which I don't. So again, kind of reinforcing that, like, I'm not looking over this guy's shoulder every day. I'm not, you know, being briefed on strategy and what they're doing next and where they help to bring it to a close. Yeah, I mean, it's almost like Jack Smith is acting as his own little attorney general.

Just do your thing, man. I'm not part of that. I'm over here doing this stuff and you do you do your thing and same with Robert Hurr. All right. So Andy, this is interesting. I you know I'm a connect the dots. I know that. We all know that about you. And I call this the six degrees of weaponization because here is what I've found through just reading separate headlines that tend not to get put together in the mainstream media. I found a little clue that could connect Trump AIDS involved in the weaponization committee

to the Jack Smith probe, to be honest with you. And so we know Jack Smith is investigating all four of Trump's packs and that election defense fund that doesn't exist. We know that he's looking very closely at that and all the payments to all the vendors of those packs. And we know that because of a December round of subpoenas that went out you and I talked about this. And you know, you had positive at the time.

And I think correctly, and I agree with you, totally with you, that Jack Smith might be very, looking very closely at a fraud case, a wire fraud, like defrauding donors, on the big lie. It came out in the January 6th select committee. And with this round of subpoenas, it seems like a really easy case to prosecute. Now, we're not really easy,

but easier than insurrection, for example. Sure, sure, sure. Now, in a report issued by the Democrats, the Democrats on Jim Jordan's weaponization subcommittee, in that report, 300 page report, we learned that Kush Patel, and by the way way the reason this report came out is Jim Jordan had said I've got dozens of whistleblowers from the FBI saying that the FBI is corrupt and I don't know I've been weaponized by the Democrats deep state stuff right and

And Daniel Goldman during one of the public hearings was like show me one during one of the public hearings was like show me one, bring them in. And so they brought in three, and they interviewed them, and they wrote this report on these three quote-unquote whistleblowers, and decided they weren't determined, not decided, determined. They aren't whistleblowers, and they're awful as shit. But what's interesting is in that report, we learned Kosh Patel paid money to and got jobs for these three whistleblowers that Jim Jordan claims to have. Now, Kosh Patel. Generally not seen as a very credible

or I don't know, decent thing to do with someone who you're asking to be a witness. You start heaving money at them and jobs and stuff like that. Usually seen as undermining the credibility of those witnesses But on anyway, go ahead Yeah, and this is right after the election in November of 2020 Cosh Patel started giving them checks for $5,000 and then he got a job for one of them one of them's name is friend And friend now works as a fellow at the Center for renewing America

That organization is run by a former Trump official named Russell Vott, and it's funded by the Conservative Partnership Institute. And that is the nonprofit run by Mark Meadows and Congressman or Senator DeMint. That nonprofit, as we know, from the January 6th hearings received a $1 million payment from the Save America Pack. And Jack Smith is investigating all vendor payments from Trump Pax. Cosh Patel doesn't have $5,000 to just hand out to people, you know, at $5,000 a pop.

So that's what I'm interested in. Where is Cosh Patel getting this money? And Jack Smith is going to know What I'm interested in. Where is Cospatel getting this money? And Jack Smith is going to know because he's looking at payments to all vendors from Trump packs. So that's right. If, in fact, Donald Trump's pack is funding Jim Jordan's weaponization committee in Congress, that's something that I think,

I don't know that it would be under his umbrella, but technically it is because he's investigating he's following the money from these packs. Yeah, that's right. So we've talked about this a lot. It's a really smart and kind of a all business way to take the investigation. So instead of spinning your wheels on trying to prove things like seditious conspiracy and those things, he's kind of rarely proven crimes that undeniably point towards potential defenses of political speech and first amendment, protect that activity and all that kind

of stuff. There's at least some of their effort, I'm not saying all, but some of it seems to be focused on proving a fundamental fraud. And that is number one, they knew that the stop the steel lie was in fact a lie. Trump knew it and everybody around him knew it. And now there's tons of evidence about that, including the recent affidavits filed by one of his lawyers in Colorado, Jenna Ellis, who's been disciplined by the bar in Colorado. And she basically admitted in this affidavit that the things that she was saying on Fox news about the election being subjected to fraud were entirely false and she knew it at the time.

So they have a lot of evidence of that. And then with that underlying fraud, they then went out and raised a ton of money from Americans who support Donald Trump. And a lot of that money ends up going in two places like the Save America Pack. And now with your dot connecting exercise here, where some of that money come out, get recycled into the Conservative Partnership Institute and now ending up in the pockets of these alleged FBI whistleblower. So the whole thing is just a kind of,

it's like the self-licking ice cream cone. It's the big circular money likely raised through fraud, going through the packs, coming back now to basically support witnesses who are going to help maintain this false narrative that the government and specifically the FBI has been weaponized against Donald Trump. That is absolute, an utter nonsense. And I think that's what we're seeing play out in the out in this committee's hearings now. Yeah, and I'm not sure that this rises to the level of criminality.

But again, what's cool about a special counsel is that this will all be explained in his report if he declines to prosecute will still know that it happened, right, like awful, but lawful kind of a situation. So I'm really interested in seeing the report's going to be, it's going to take a while. It's going to, it's not anytime soon. Indicaments are going to come far before the report does as they did in the, in the Mueller investigation. But we will know, because this is being looked at. And if that money has a trail, which, if I can put it together, I'm sure checks. Put it together.

Don't worry. He's better at connecting those dots than either of us. Yes. Four reals, especially, you know, with all of his work and public corruption. And it should be a snap for him and his team. His a pretty amazing team that he's over now. So anyway, I thought that was fascinating. But before we end the show today,

do we have a listener question that we could, we could answer. We do, and as we are getting a little bit long in this show, I'm gonna go with one question today. It's a pretty short one, but I think it hits on some important points. This one comes to us from Dana or Dana. I'm not sure how you pronounce it, D-A-N-A.

And Dana writes in, why is inditing alone such a big deal? If we still consider, quote, innocent until proven guilty, shouldn't conviction be the big end goal with these criminals? And that's a great question. Dana, well, here's why inditing is a big deal in any case, okay? An indictment basically says that a grand jury of your peers, fellow citizens, sat and listened

to some portion of the government's evidence and determined that there is probable cause to believe that you committed a crime. And that's why you've been indicted. So that alone is a pretty significant finding. It doesn't mean you're guilty, but it does mean that your peers, your fellow citizens think that there's a good chance you might be. It's 100 times more significant in the cases that we're discussing, simply because what we're talking about is possibly inditing a former president, something that's never happened in the

history of this country. This crossroads of criminal investigations and the criminal justice system really impacting the life of a former president and the lives of the people around him is just a mixing of politics and criminality or alleged criminality in a way that we've never seen before here. So, and the second part of your question, I think, is also kind of fascinating. You say, shouldn't conviction be the big end goal with these criminals? Technically, conviction is not the goal of prosecutors. The goal and the obligation of prosecutors is to find the truth. And when they believe that the evidence that they have establishes, at least probably

will cause to believe that you've committed a crime, and they believe that they're prosecution. If they prosecute you, though, they'll be, they have enough evidence to win that prosecution and to sustain an appeal, then they have an obligation to take that case forward into the criminal justice system and let the criminal justice system determine guilt or innocence. So it isn't really like, hey, we're driving towards conviction here,

we have these people whose behavior we don't approve of, and so we wanna convict them. I think it's important to kind of not think of this that way. It's like the same reasons why all the chanting of lock her up about Hillary Clinton was so disturbing to so many of us because we don't just lock up people in this country who we disagree with or who maybe engaged in some things that we don't approve of.

It's super important that we follow the process, acknowledge the different points in that process, like an indictment, that is a significant and serious showing of proof by judgment by your fellow citizens, but we do still have a long way to go. Yep, agreed. And a lot of times I ask people who are demanding justice, how they define justice. Because I think it's different for, it can be different for a lot of

people, right? For me, it's always been an indictment. And the reason for me indictment and not conviction is what justice is in this, in these particular investigations is because it's the last thing that the Department of Justice has total control over. Once indicted, the DOJ can make their sentencing recommendations, they have to put on a good case, but it is ultimately up to a jury to convict and a judge to sentence. And I can see people saying,

well, don't wake me up when he's indicted't, you know, wake me up when he's indicted. And then, well, wake me up when he's convicted. And then, well, wake me up when he's sentenced. And well, wake me up when, you know, and it can go on and on. And so if you never have an end zone or a goal for what justice is, you'll never realize it. And so, you know, for me, it's the indictment

because that is the thing, and like you said, Andy, it's not, you don't just indict people, you have to, by the rulebook, be able to maintain and obtain a conviction and maintain it on appeal. So the conviction comes into it, but it's that last thing that the government has full control over. And I think it's the best of all of the part of the process.

It is the biggest deterrent because a future despot might say, well, I could do this, but it looks like the government will indict me. I'll take my, I have to take my chances with the jury and the judge, but the indict will indict me. I'll take my, I have to take my chances with the jury and the judge, but the indictment will happen. And that I think is what is the main deterrent for these things, not necessarily conviction.

And, you know, I wanna caution folks, Trump probably won't see the inside of a prison cell because he's a former president, and, you know, he'll probably be on home detention with 18 different ankle monitors and maybe some wrist monitors and a hair monitor. But he I you know I just don't they might make a deal with him where he just agrees not to run for president and stays on home arrest. I mean you know there's all sorts of deals that can be made. Yeah I mean he's I think that's absolutely. If he's indicted and if that prosecution is successful and if that, and if there's a conviction that's sustained on appeal, I agree with you.

Highly unlikely, he'll ever see any sort of incarceration. It's, he has no prior convictions. We're not talking about violent felonies here. We're talking about all of very nonviolent white color offenses. And look, he's the former president. And whether or not we could even secure any former president in a incarcerated population is a very challenging question. I think the answer to that is likely no. So there's all kinds of things in fact around. Yeah, and that's the reason I think, because, you know,

Manafort went to prison. And, you know, he wasn wasn't had didn't have any priors or anything like that I think that it's reasonable to expect that if he's could that if Trump is convicted of obstruction of justice He could face seven to ten years Maybe maybe four to eight something like that something in that ballpark just for that crime alone But again, yeah, try well hey, what I think we should do is build him his own little prison. But, just, does he have better ready? Isn't that Marlotte Williams?

Yeah, but there's an omelette bar, you know, just go in, yeah, go in a Marlotte go take out the omelette bar and the golden toilet. But, you know, I just- No, we allowed to play the back nine. I just want people to kind of be prepared that the the bureau prisons the department of justice Has never had to incarcerate a former president and so there might be some weird considerations there, but for me it's the indictment I'm I'm all about the end. Yeah, I agree. It's a threshold level of accountability

It's not the end of the game and it's not a definitive statement, you know of the of and it's not a definitive statement, you know, of the of guilt renaissance, but it is a threshold level of accountability. So stay tuned. See how it goes. Yeah, yeah. I think there will be, I think we are now in indictment season, March to June.

Awesome. Is the March madness? And yeah, beware the odds of March. I've been saying it for a while, but now it looks like he could actually be indicted on the odds of March. That's, you know, people've been sitting it for a while, but now it looks like he could actually be indicted on the I'dz of March. That's, you know, people have been saying that for a reason all these years, I guess.

This is it. Yep. Caesar and this. All right, anyway, thank you so much, Andrew. This has been a great show. Thanks to Asha Rangapa for joining us. Please check out the It's Complicated podcast if you get a chance.

I've been Allison Gil. And I'm Andy McCabe. We'll see you next week on Jack.