Jack - Episode 38 - Musk Capes for Donald

Episode Date: August 20, 2023

This week: Allison and Andy discuss the conspiracy against rights case; charges have been brought against a woman for threatening to kill Judge Chutkan; Trump files his motion for a trial date as Judge Luttig files an amicus brief in support of the DoJ’s recommendation of January 2nd; images show Kenneth Chesebro was with Alex Jones at the Capitol on January 6th; transcripts of the hearing over Trump's Twitter account have been unsealed; grumblings in Cannonland; plus a couple of listener questions and more!Check out other MSW Media podcastshttps://mswmedia.com/shows/Follow AG:Follow Mueller, She Wrote on Posthttps://twitter.com/allisongillhttps://twitter.com/MuellerSheWrotehttps://twitter.com/dailybeanspodAndrew McCabe isn’t on social media, but you can buy his book The Threathttps://www.amazon.com/Threat-Protects-America-Terror-Trump-ebook/dp/B07HFMYQPGWe would like to know more about our listeners. Please participate in this brief surveyhttp://survey.podtrac.com/start-survey.aspx?pubid=BffJOlI7qQcF&ver=shortThis 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

M.S.W. Media. I signed in order appointing Jack Smith. And nobody knows you. 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. Hey Andy, I'm Allison Gill. We have a lot, a lot to cover today. In the conspiracy against rights case, brought against Trump by the special counsel, charges have been brought against a woman for threatening to kill Judge Chutkin. Trump has filed a motion for a trial date, as Judge Ludig files an amicus brief with some others in support of the Department of Justice's recommendation of a January 2nd trial date. And images show that Kenneth Cheesebro was with Alex Jones at the Capitol on January 6th. And of course, we have the transcripts of the hearing over Trump's Twitter account having been unsealed, which is interesting.

Definitely. And down in Florida, in the Marlago retention of classified documents and obstruction case, the government has filed for a conflict of interest hearing for Dale Lavera, who has finally been arraigned and a shock of all shocks, pled not guilty. Also, the Trump team has asked Judge Cannon to, quote, take appropriate action against Jack Smith you quote, take appropriate action against Jack Smith for having the to Merit to schedule a jury selection for the election interference case in DC on the same day as one of judge cannons pretrial hearings in Miami. So Allison, let's start in DC.

Shall we go to DC for the beginning here? Yeah, let's do that. A court filing Thursday is about Trump's attorneys recommending starting the trial in April of 2026. Now, just yesterday, I said, you know, that briefing is due from Trump. He's probably going to ask for it in like 2025. Haha. Haha.

You thought you were going so far out. I thought I was being ridiculous and unreasonable. But boy, howdy, have they outdone themselves with this April 2026 timeline. You know, I get it. Nobody goes into an negotiation and asks for exactly what they want. You know, you asked for more and then you try to, you know, fit your land someplace acceptable. But this is really ridiculous.

I mean, this is not the trial of the century. It is a one defendant case in DC. So yeah, Jan, April 26 seems a little bit ridiculous. Yeah. Here's some quotes from that filing from Trump's attorneys. This is an unprecedented case in American history. The incumbent administration has targeted its primary political opponent,

just throwing that in there, and leading candidate in the upcoming presidential election with criminal prosecution. The government's objective is clear to deny President Trump and his counsel a fair ability to prepare for trial. The court should deny the government's request for the January 2nd, 2024 start date.

And the reasons, these are great. They want to avoid scheduling conflicts with other pending matters. There's so many crimes and trials on the books for 2024. We should just move this out to 2026. Right. They want to provide sufficient time to address the production of discovery

under the Classified Information Procedures Act where Jack Smith has said, you'll have it all by August 28th. And there's very little to deal with here, but whatever. Marginal. And and and the DOJ argued that those seat beherings can be done in parallel with the rest of, you know, the schedule they've proposed. They want to preserve President Trump's right to seek discovery from third parties, while also addressing significant gaps in the government's productions. What significant gaps? Okay, the gaps that you left out of the tapes that you handed over. It's the classic.

They've given us too much. Oh, wait, they didn't give us enough argument. Right. They indicate they have to read each page of the 11 million documents that have been produced, one at a time, which they said would be like reading a copy of Warren piece 72 times a day or something, something ridiculous. And then they show a graph that if you stacked it all up, it would be taller than the Washington monument.

It's just ridiculous. And that's the case. We know Trump doesn't read any of this stuff anyway. So why is it going to take so long? He's not actually going to read the discovery, but anyway. Yeah, but that's not how we do discovery anymore, is it Andy? No, it is not. This is the digital age.

And this idea that it's 11 million documents or pages, I don't know how they're referring to it, it's 11 million files, electronic files. And many of them are duplicates. Some of them are just like email headers or you'll have a string of emails between, you know, back and forth between two people and every time someone adds another response that comes in as a new file. So you can really cut through a lot of this stuff much more quickly than sitting down and reading more in P72 times a day or however they that, you know,

and alligize that. So, yeah, there's all kinds of ways. Trials are laden with massive amounts of electronic files every single day in our federal court system and competent attorneys at big law firms have figured out ways to course through that stuff very quickly. Yeah, and not only that, but not every single word on every single page is relevant. And the DOJ has outlined how it has gone to great lengths to ensure that they are pointing defense counsel exactly to the relevant stuff that's in all of this discovery. They even went out of their way.

I remember down in the documents case, before they even had discovery, when they, you know, before they even filed the charges and arraignment was set to go, they had the timestamps on the surveillance footage. Already these are the relevant timestamps to this case. You don't have to watch all of the hours of surveillance footage. And they went through great lengths and great expense and got a lot of work and and person hours to to simplify this discovery for the defense, which usually doesn't take place. Usually you just hand everything over and say, here, good luck. Right. But they've gone through to great pains to make this fast. Now, it's to be fair, if you're doing a capable job as as Trump's attorney, you're going

to want someone to look at that video. You'll have some paralegal in your firm looking at hours and hours of video that's not been pointed out to you as being particularly relevant just to be sure that there's not something there that could be good for your client. But the lion's share of the work is going to be on those things that the government has already said, this is the evidence we're going to use at trial. This is what we think is significant. This is where you need to start looking. Yeah. And they also argued Trump's team that the median time for commencement to termination for a jury-tried charge of 371, which is the defrauding the United States charge. The median time for that commencement, from commencement

determination for that trial is 29.4 months, many times longer than the government's proposed schedule. Perseidings under SEPA are complicated, they say, and often lengthen the ordinary trajectory from indictment to trial, but again, that's been addressed in the Department of Justice's filing. And finally, the government proposal presents numerous conflicts with other pending matters, including New York Attorney General Civil Trial in October 2nd of 2023, E. Jean Carroll defamation trial January 15th, 2024. By the way, a judge in that case just denied Trump's motion to delay that. The Alvin Bragg case March 25th, 2024, criminal Manhattan DA case. Georgia, the Fannie Willis, criminal Rico charge, March 4th, 2024. And then the classified documents case, May 20th, 2024.

I don't know how much you're helping your client out by saying, look, we got so much crimes that we just don't have the times. Like, yeah. And it is a bit of a shell game as well, because they're going to go into each one of these other courtrooms and say, oh, we can't come here because we have, uh, you know, we have the cases, uh, the other cases now. We have the January 6 case and we have the Mar-Lago documents case. So you are constantly using the ones that you're not in in that moment to be the reason why you can't move forward quickly in the case you're talking about.

And he's been caught playing judges against each other to delay multiple trials. And Robbie Kaplan, who wasn't part of either of those trials, called it out to the judge where he was trying to delay both cases. It's like, you know, you go to your mom and ask for something and she says, no, so you go to your dad and at, you know, it's like that. And say mom said it was okay. Yeah. Yeah.

Yeah. He's been caught doing that. And I'll tell you, I really think that Judge Chutkin is not going to give, and not even a whistle of significance to the political arguments, right? Oh, it's unprecedented in there. The current administration is targeting the best and brightest candidate ever against them. None of that stuff is going to mean anything. She is going to consider things like, do they have enough time to adequately prepare? How much time do they not in the BS way that's

been asserted here? But in reality, how much time do they actually need to go through the discovery? How much time do we need for emotions practice? How many motions are we going to have? What's that schedule look like? And then she's going to look at some of these other court cases. He can't be physically on trial in two different cases at the same time. She's not going to force that. But the political stuff, I think, is just going to blow through like a ill wind. Yeah, I agree.

All right. Also, a judge eludic who testified at the January 6th hearings, very conservative judge, plus 10 other former high level DOJ officials have filed an amicus brief in support of the January 2nd trial date. They say the Constitution and laws of the United States protect both the American public and the former president's right to a speedy trial. It's not just his right, it's the American publics. Both the former president and the nation's interest overwhelmingly favor the expeditious resolution of this criminal prosecution pursuant to the government's proposed trial date

and schedule. Quote for the first time in American history, a former president of the United States stands charged with grave crimes against the United States of America that he allegedly committed while president. As the eyes of democracies around the world look to America as the continuing proof of democracy's promise, it is important that this prosecution and the trial of the former president be resolved expeditiously consistent with constitution and the rule of law. viciously consistent with constitution and the rule of law. And finally, the constitution and laws of the United States contemplate and provide for nothing less in recognition of the rights belonging to both the former president and the people of the United States of America. So pretty strong, uh, amicus brief.

Yeah, absolutely. And he, you know, his voice carries a lot of weight in conservative circles. So, uh, kudos to him for having the, having the gumption to put this thing together and really send it out there. I love the fact that he's balancing the rights of the country, the rights of the public to have this matter heard before they go back into the ballot box to make decisions at the end of next year. With the rights of the defendant to have a speedy trial, but also to have the ability to prepare and be ready for that trial when it comes up.

I think it's very even handed. The one thing though that I'll say, and we've kind of touched on this before, you've definitely mentioned it, AG. The thing that is amazing to me is if you were an innocent person who felt you were wrongfully charged in a case in which you were accused of trying to overturn the last election.

And now you're running again. Wouldn't you want the world to know that you hadn't done that? Wouldn't you, wouldn't you want the case to go forward? When you want the opportunity to be there and court every day, making it clear to the world that you hadn't done the things that the government has accused you of doing and that you would never undermine democracy and quite the opposite. You're trying to become president again because you believe so strongly in democracy.

It just seems like that's a very logical way to think about getting this trial done quickly, but that does not seem to be in the mind of our former president or any of his legal representatives. Yeah, no. And his legal team, they aren't hiding the fact that he wants to become president to end these investigations. Yeah, exactly. It's just, well, it's Bizarre world that we live in now. But nevertheless, there is an argument

that any defendant who claims to be wrongfully charged, they would want to have a speedy trial under even normal circumstances. They want to have this cloud removed from their reputation, right? But in this case, you would think it would be even more important to get that done before the election and convinced people before they're going into those ballot boxes that you hadn't done the terrible things that have been said about you but yeah, not the case here. Yeah, if I were running for office and I've been wrongfully accused of something and I have time to get to trial and exonerate myself before that happens, that exoneration would

you know, carry me into the into the nomination. I would think. That's right. I, you know, and that's why Susman in the Durham charges was like, take me to trial now. Do it now. Absolutely. Yeah. You're charged stupid. Yeah.

I'm going to get acquitted. Let's go. Let's do this fast. No, I'd rather, you'd rather spend, you know, hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal bills for months and months and months and months and months. No, let's drag this out. Yeah, no, you don't do that when you know you're going to be acquitted or you believe

that you're innocent. Yeah, that's absolutely right. And apparently he was right, too. Yeah, and like I said, they know they're going to lose, particularly in this case, and that's why they're setting up the whole of the Electoral Account Act as ambiguous and vague. You know, all of their defenses are going to come on appeal, so they know. Right.

They don't want this done quickly. No chance. No. No. All right, we have a lot more to get to. Still going to be hanging out in DC, but we have to take a quick break. Everybody stick around. We'll be right back.

Okay, let's stay in DC for Minute AG and talk about the growing calls for violence coming from, of course, defendant Trump on his social media platform. We found out this week that a Texas woman has been arrested on charges that she threatened to kill Judge Tanya Chutkin, who's of course presiding over the DC case. Abigail Joe Shry, 43 years old of Alvin, Texas, left an August 5 voicemail at Chutkin's chambers in which she called Chutkin a racial slur and threatened her, saying, quote, if Trump doesn't get elected in 2024, we're coming to kill you. So tread lightly, bitch. Now she left the voicemail two days after Trump was

arraigned on charges of election interference. And the day after Trump posted his infamous, if you come after me, I'm coming after you post on his platform. Now, Shry was denied bail in order to be held for 30 days after detention hearing in federal district court in Houston. She has been criminally charged four times in the last year for a similar conduct and was convicted twice according to documents from the hearing. This is clearly right. The deterrence isn't working. Yeah, that is. She's not been reformed yet by the criminal justice system.

One of our more recent charges in July was for allegedly, quote, causing fear of imminent serious bodily injury. And she was out on bond in that case at the time of the voicemail. I will tell you from my experience, the court generally looks, well, the court generally frowns upon defendants who are committing crimes while out on bail

from another crime. It's seen as a bad sign of your ability to come to terms with what you've done. Shri's father has defended his daughter as being a nonviolent alcoholic who largely stays at home and will become quote agitated by the news while quote, drinking too many beers. I mean, like, all right, there's a lot of people that can probably identify with that, but nonetheless, you still can't call judges and leave life threatening messages.

Yeah, I don't know, man, I have a few beers. I'm a happy person. I don't call and threaten people. Like, let's remove those two things from one another, shall we? But the purpose of the beers, right? Like puts you in that place where you're not ranting and raving about the news all night. Apparently not this one, but the rest of us.

Abigail, Abbie Joe, try weed. Okay. So there's also been some other posts. He put up a photo of Judge Chuckkin and said, you know, she said she was just attacking her. Now Judge Chuckkin has said, hey, the more inflammatory statements you make, the faster this is going to go.

Now she still has to leave time for appropriate discovery. She still has to follow the rules. But if she was inclined to give it till June of next year, she may be more inclined to give it till March of next year or now. Or you know, I, of course, we have this amicus, Curie, this amicus brief that says January 2nd is appropriate. But you know, she may come back and you know know kick this off to March or something like that It just like you said you come in jack's gonna come in real low Trump's gonna come in real high and that's gonna be somewhere in between. It's not gonna be anywhere near 2026 or 2025

But I think she may be like all right There is quite a bit of discovery here. This is an unprecedented trial But we do have to treat you like every other criminal defendant. So we're not going to give you all this leeway. I could see her either granting the January second date with knowing that it might be delayed by some filings and motions down the road or given a march and really trying to stick to a schedule.

We'll see what she does, but she's very fair. She's a fair jurist. She's no nonsense. And so, you know, I think the trial date that she sets will be fair for all sides. I totally agree. I think she's probably not gonna come back in quite as quick as Jack has requested.

That's pretty typical. But I think she's gonna come in with an aggressive date. It's also important to keep in mind that the trial date is super important because it basically sets the tone and the schedule for the pretrial process. So they pick the date and then they start stacking up in the time remaining when you'll have hearings on, you know, pretrial motions and when discovery deadlines will be set, that sort of stuff. So it's super important. But cases rarely actually go to trial on the originally selected date.

It's very common that that date will need to be moved back by a week, two weeks, a month, who knows, depending on how the litigation goes. Like, If there's a major, you know, if there's a major motion that's heard and the defendant loses and then wants to appeal, that sets things back. And then if that appeal doesn't go their way, and they want to try to take it to the Supreme Court, they can always, you know, that process is lengthy as well, even to be, even to be told that the court is not going to take the case, that takes weeks and sometimes months. So yeah, I think you'll see, you got to be ready to see things, be a little bit fluid, especially towards the end.

But the initial date we get will be important because it'll set the table as to how the pre-trial process will go. Yeah. And I think we might hear something to the effect of, yeah, the average time for a Title 18 US code section 371 trial is 29 and a half months, but that's not when they set the date. They set the date earlier and things get pushed back because of appeal and that's what takes so long. So no, I'm not going to just forego that entire process and give you the median date, you know,

the median timeframe for this kind of completion of a trial for that charge. So, you know, we don't start with that. We, that's where it ends, not where it starts. And this hearing that she's gonna set the trial date is gonna take place on August 28th. And I'm kind of hoping she says, I don't think she'll put a gag order or anything And this hearing that she's going to set the trial date is going to take place on August 28th. And I'm kind of hoping she says,

I don't think she'll put a gag order or anything or a remand Donald for some of the posts that he's making. But I would like to see her set out for clarity's sake. If you make this type of post and give an example, then these will be the consequences that you will face. Just to set a baseline of understanding for these inflammatory posts that he makes, because people are getting death threats,

people are trying to kill people. Like, it's, and it's, you know, I'm not so much worried about mob violence anymore. I think the deterrence on January 6th from the Department of Justice has done a good job with that. But we still have these one-off, like, lone wolf people who will, you know, who knows what could possibly happen with just one person with a semi-automatic weapon.

So I think I would like to see one of the judges in any of these four cases, like lay that out for him and be like, do you understand? Yeah, I think that's, that would be important. I think it's also likely, you know, you can draw a line in the sand for him or lay it out and then be, and then guarantee that he'll push it across that line,

because that's just who he is. It's ultimately, doesn't help him in the long run because a big part of any trial, whether it's civil or criminal, is not pissing off the judge. No lawyer wants to have to represent a client, uh, who, who is angering the judge and provoking the discipline and the, and, you know, the kind of evil thoughts from the judge, it is bad for your case. When you then have to go in front of that judge for a pretrial motion on something,

they're going to be less inclined to rule in your favor. They're gonna be less inclined to give you the benefit of the doubt. They're gonna be less inclined to believe the things that you say in court because of the nonsense, the noise that you're generating and other channels that's creating a negative impression. So the more he does this stuff, it's actually going to hurt him as the litigation goes forward.

I agree with you. I think the gag is nobody wants to go near that. There's so many first amendment crazy claims in these cases anyway. That's just kind of giving them a platform and an issue to try to kind of run up the flagpole. But she also impresses me as somebody who's not going to take a lot of shit. I think at some point he's going to see the sharp end of the stick if he keeps this up. Where that point is, let's hope we find out in this hearing. Yeah, I have a feeling that she'll give additional chances because of the unprecedented nature of the case because he's running for office because of the

first amendment argument rights, which have no bearing on this case either, either of the cases. But you know, that sort of due diligence where I feel like, like you've, you ever tried to serve somebody, right? Right. So you go and you try and then you try again, and then you try, then you stake them out and you try again, you've, you ever tried to serve somebody, right? So you go and you try and then you try again and you try, then you stake them out. You try again, you can't serve them. And then you, okay, well, we tried this. Can we do by email? All right, try by email.

A co-publication. Can we serve by publication? And they exhaust every single avenue to, to, basically, guarantee the rights of, of a criminal defendant. And, and so I see her making those same kind of concessions here so that if something does go sideways, it can be said, if there's an appeal, hey, we've been to backwards. Right. We did everything we could. And there's a she's going to want to establish that course of dealing. Like here's what happened. He did this. I told him not to. He did it again. I told him not to twice. He did it again three times. So yeah, you're right. You're going to have to build

towards some sort of significant limitation on his speech. Other defendants get that too. Other defendants get that concession as well. It's not just him. It's not just because of, you know, he's running for president or he's Donald Trump. I've seen these kinds of concessions happen to other defendants as well, where it's like, we have to exhaust every single remedy before we take action. And I know it's frustrating, believe me. I know it's very frustrating, particularly when it can put people in danger. And this judge, trust me, knows that.

This judge is probably one of the people in the most danger along with her family. So she now has a security detail. All right, we have some more interesting stuff about the January 6th. We can stay in DC still. There's just so much going on with this case. We haven't gotten down to Florida yet, but we do have to take another quick break. So everybody stick around. we'll be right back. Hey everybody, welcome back.

Andy, from your colleagues over at CNN, videos and photographs reviewed by the network show Kenneth Cheesebro following Alex Jones around filming him as he marched to a restricted area of the capital where rioters would eventually break in on January 6th. Now, there's no indication that Cheesebro entered the capital building or was violent, but remember, Department of Justice just recommended a 33 year sentence for Proudboy and Rique Tario, who wasn't even in town on January, since he was in Baltimore.

These sentencing recommendations, by the way, if you get a chance to read them, they're very strong, they're stronger than the Oathkeepers, as they should be. Proudboys were a tip of the spear, but Alex Jones was hanging out with the Proudboys that day, and it appears that Kenneth Cheesebroe was helping get bodies in the right place."

Quote unquote. This appears to me, Andy, to we've been looking for this first direct link between the architects of the fraudulent electroskeam and Penn's pressure campaign and the violence at the Capitol. And I think that this is one of those moments we were waiting for it during the January 6th hearings, like, how do you connect Trump to the Willard War Room? How do you connect this fraudulent electroskeam, the soft coup with the hard coup? And this is the first obvious direct link. He is co-conspirator in this indictment of Donald Trump for conspiracy against rights and defrauding the United States, obstructing an official proceeding in conspiracy to abstract. So this I think is a very, very big deal, especially given the sentencing recommendations

coming down for the proud boys and the fact that Marik Garland has still sort of put a pin in wanting to appeal the sentences for the oath keepers. It is a big deal. So obviously we all remember cheese bros, the guy who is basically the architect of the fake electors scam with the several memos, the Wisconsin memo, and the December 12th memo or something like that. He is right in the middle of the planning and the plotting and the conspiracy that led up to January 6th. So having him on the grounds of the Capitol is really, it's a significant thing. It's also really just a horrible look for Trump and the rest of the co-conspirators. And I think it directly undermines one of Trump's defenses in the January 6 case, which we've

heard his folks already previewing in the media, is essentially a advice of council defense. I was just doing what my lawyers told me to do. Well, in order for that to be effective, you know, you have to have been following the the advice of a reasonable attorney who either made a mistake and gave you wrong advice or something like that. This makes cheesebro look not like a reasonable attorney who is giving good advice who a client would reasonably have relied upon, but rather as an extremist, right, as somebody who is kind of a, you know, he's down for the whole thing, not just the memo about Wisconsin and how to send fake electors, but actually going to the Capitol, he's with, I think it really undermines his ability to kind of

be the source of any sort of an advice to council defense. And it's just a terrible look for, for that whole group of co-conspirators. Yeah. And hey, Andy, where might you find evidence of Trump communicating with co-conspirators about potentially about the violence at the Capitol? Well, one place you could look, A.G. If you know, if you're a target with someone who like to, I don't know, use social media, use Twitter or X, whatever we're calling it this week, you might just go to that company and serve them with

a court order that required them to turn over things like, oh, I don't know, direct messages that person might have sent to his co-conspirators and confederates in some sort of criminal activity. So yeah, that's right, DMs. In newly unsealed transcripts, we learned this week that we can now see what exactly Jack Smith was able to access after the executive privilege battles over Trump's Twitter account. So if you remember, last week we were wondering if Jack Smith was going after Trump's Twitter account. So if you remember, last week we were wondering, if Jack Smith was going after Trump's Twitter account, because, you know, was he looking just for the messages? Did he want geolocational data?

Did he want IP data, metadata, or something else? Turns out, it was everything, and it was under a 27.03 D order. So... I picked that, I called that. I was like, oh, look in the discovery, look in the discovery, 2703d discovery stuff, communications. Oh, that's very interesting because I've been talking about that 2703 thing for a long time now. It is one of the tools that the Department of Justice has that the January 6th select committee did not have. And so it's a very, very good tool for prosecutors to be able to get communications and information from third party vendors without informing

the target that you're doing it. Yeah. So let's remind people what we're talking about here. Like a regular, grandery subpoena, you send it to a phone company or to an internet service provider, it gets you basic subscriber information, just who owns the account, that sort of thing. Under the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, law enforcement must get a court order under 18 USC 2703D to get more detailed information from a service provider. So this

could get you all kinds of things like account information, activity logs, IP addresses, twos and froms, who was coming into the account, who messages going out to, buddy lists. And if it's a phone, you could also get a cell site information. So that could help you geolocate where the device was when it was being used. So that's what they used here. information so that could help you geolocate where the device was when it was being used. So that's what they used here, but in addition to the 2703D, and this is a fairly common

thing to do, the government also included a non-disclosure order, which prohibits the recipient of the 2703D, in this case, Twitter, from informing the target of the order that the company has actually complied with the order and turned over their customer's information to the government. So that's what became an issue apparently in this fight with Twitter. Yeah. And, you know, the documents that were just unsealed show that Twitter mounted a really unprecedented effort to impede the search warrant by notifying Trump.

And that prompt an incredulous judge, Barrel Howell, to wonder if Elon Musk was trying to cozy up to him. The answer is yes, Judge. Prosecutors repeatedly described Trump learning about their search warrant for his Twitter data as a serious threat to the investigation and to witnesses. So, that's the standard for the non-disclosure water. is Twitter data is a serious threat to the investigation and to witnesses. So that's the standard for the non-disclosure order. You have to go in, as the government, you have to go in and say,

a judge, we want to prohibit the recipient from disclosing this, because if they do, it'll put the kibosh on our investigation and could put people at risk. Those orders only last for a limited period of time, maybe 90 days, 180 days, depending on the case, when it expires, you can either then let the company disclose or you can go back in front of the judge and argue it needs to be renewed. Um-hmm. And, you know, in this case, um, DOJ knows that there's, you know, Trump has a little bit of a

history of witness intimidation, which is a little, little bit of obstruction, little bit of witness problems. Tiny bit. So you could see if Trump has, you know, finds out back in January when this order was issued, if Trump found out that they now have all of his Twitter DMs, he could contact everybody of import

that he contacted on that day through his Twitter DMs and tell them, here's what to say, don't testify, meet me on signal, whatever. And that's what they're trying to avoid here. And it's another reason we do search warrants at people's homes, no knock, you know, or you just show up because that's why Jeffery Clarkson on the drive in the driveway and his underwear.

You don't want to tell him you're coming because if they know, they can destroy evidence and perhaps intimidate witnesses. So the Twitter pleaded to inform Donald about the search warrant. This is incredible. This is incredible. I've never, I've been around a thousand of these things have never seen one like this.

I've never seen a company, I mean, okay, executive privilege, pretty rare thing to raise, but companies don't like the non-disclosure. They like to be more transparent with their customers, but they know, they understand the law and they do what they have to do, but apparently not here. Yeah, they really, really pushed back hard in a way that it apparently has never done in its 17 year existence with any other user. And it did so. Twitter pushed back despite having no knowledge of the basis for the warrant or non-disclosure

order. So that's weird. Twitter's basis for this was the prospect that some of the DMs could be covered by executive privilege. Now judge how and the prosecutors were incredulous that Trump would be DMing close senior advisors to do official business. The judge kept returning to the theme of the company under Musk, seeming to want to ingratiate itself to Donald Trump. She said many users with valid privilege claims,

marital religious, et cetera, don't get this kind of treatment. So why here? And one thing the prosecutors appeared to pursue is who currently has the keys to the at real Donald Trump Twitter account. And apparently, at least as a February, the list included his representatives to the national archives, which are Mark Meadows, Pat Cipolloni, John Eisenberg, Pat Filben, Scott Gast, Michael Purpura, and Stephen Engel exclamation point. He's caught up in the whole Matt Gaetz-Jole Greenberg sitch down there. And I believe he was part of putting the crosshairs on the judge barrel, how Roger Stone Instagram

post. The chief judge, Bozberg, who took over Grand Jerry Matters from hell in March, like you said, lifted the non-disclosure order in June. That was when it was due to expire. And that authorized Twitter to inform Trump about the search warrant. Now, we don't know if they did, but recently Trump was like, I just found out. So I guess he they're trying to convince us that Elon didn't tell Trump either back in January wasn't what he wasn't supposed to or in June when

he could, but only just now through the news. That I am not buying that at all. And in in one of the unsealed filings, Twitter acknowledged that given his aversion to text messages and emails, Trump's direct messages may be, quote, the only such electronic communications written by the former president himself. Twitter acknowledged that. Yeah, they could be, depending on what's in them, right? If there's nothing in there, then it's not, it's all for not. But if you, this could be a remarkable insight into his intent. If he's DMing people, that's what I was gonna say.

That's what I was gonna say. If I'm DMing people like, yeah, you're right, we gotta stop this, this violence is terrible, they should be peaceful. There could be a sculpted Tories shit in there, but Twitter's like, no, you can't have it, and I wanna tell them immediately without even knowing what's in there.

Come on. Yeah, and Twitter is invoking executive privilege. I mean, like, it doesn't work that way. The owner of the privilege has to invoke it. But never the law. I digress. Yeah. I think these, these DMs could, if there's substantive info in there, they could really go to direct personal, private, timely communications. If you've got DMs, if he's DMing people in Congress and in the Senate on January 6th, man, from the prosecutor, I would like to see what's in those messages. And so far in the indictment, all we have are the tweets and that he tweeted them.

We don't have anything else so far, but this investigation is still ongoing, particularly on the fraudulent elector front. A new raft of subpoenas went out last week. We told you about. And so, and then the investigation into the co-conspirators is ongoing and probably others as well. And so that might come in in a later charge or in a superseding indictment or, you know, something to that effect. But it's currently none of that sort of, ooh, what's juicy in there has popped up in this current indictment.

Doesn't mean it's not part of a grand jury material. Doesn't mean it won't be brought up in trial to prove intent, but it wasn't mentioned at least in this current iteration of the indictment. That's true. Interesting things, Andy, just for fun, Z's. Interesting things going on around the same time this Twitter fight was happening. First of all, the search warrant for this was issued in January of this year, 2023. Month before Elon met with the Saudis and Kushner

at the World Cup, that was interesting. Elon tweeted about making DMs impossible to read in January of 2023. A few years. That's remarkable. Elon track, yeah. Yeah, there's more, but you want to talk about that one? Well, I mean, good luck trying to convince anyone that that was the coincidence.

Right? I mean, come on. There's, I mean, all of a sudden, okay, show me the internal Twitter document that they've been talking about doing that to DMs for eight months or something. And it was just on the production schedule and he decided to start tweeting about it. Okay, fine. If that exists, then fine.

But out of the blue, that comes up at the same time he's holding on this, you know, he's got this flaming court order in his hands and he's trying to figure out what to do with it. I'm not buying it. No, but get, check out this coincidence. Elon traveled to DC in January of 2023 to meet with House Republicans, who very shortly after that month of the next month and March held hearings about Twitter colluding with the government to censor conservative voices. So that's, that's fun too, because we know that there's been public reports that Trump has been corroborating with Jim Jordan and Comer and the House Republicans to defend

me here. And if there's communications with Jim Jordan and Comer on January 6th in Twitter DMs and Elon's traveling up to DC to tell him about it, well, we better have hearings that say that the Democrats are doing that. I mean, it's just astounding. It is amazing. And, and, you know, as a reminder, this comes at a period where, where Musk is really reaching out to conservatives in a very aggressive way. He was the driving force behind the infamous Twitter files releases, right? He's releasing all that material to its selected journalists who are writing stories about

the prior Twitter administration being too cozy to the Democrats. Um, and that was all in January of this year. In February, it was the hearings with Taiybi and the other guy. So this, you know, they had tight, they had those hearings. Normally, you would think Musk would not want that. But in this case, no, that's actually exactly what he wanted. He was trying to drum up more publicity on how, you know, how friendly Twitter, I guess, is going to be now to conservatives and publish more stories about Hunter Biden or whatever. Very strange, very strange chronology there. Yeah. Oh, you want Trump's Twitter account? Well, we need to have hearings about the Twitter files that have been cherry picked to show that

the Democrats are in charge of social media. There's a deep state and they're weaponizing social media companies and, yeah, and oh, and Hunter Biden, we got to throw 100 Biden all over in there because that's our antidote to all things Trump crime related. So very interesting timing. And I hope, although, I mean, this is just sort of an ancillary thing. I hope somebody gets to the bottom of and we find out about, but I mean, I don't think it's central to these proceedings, but man, I would love to know what was said in those meetings and what...

Oh, yeah. Absolutely. All right, we have... It's finally time to go to Florida. Everybody, we're going to Florida, but we have to take a quick break. So get your raincoats, we'll be right back. Welcome back. Okay, let's head down to Florida. All right, we know that DOJ has filed a motion for conflict of interest hearing or, as they call it, a Garcia hearing with regard to Stanley Woodward and his representation of eight potential witnesses,

including, of course, Tavarice and Nauta. Well, now the DOJ has filed for a Garcia hearing with regard to John Irving, who is representing Carlos de Oliveira. The government has requested that the court hold a hearing to conduct an inquiry regarding potential conflicts of interest that may arise from Irving's concurrent representation of defendant Carlos de Oliveira and three individuals the government may call

to testify as witnesses of trial. So before we go into who these witnesses are, let me just remind folks, the Garcia hearing is basically when the government perceives that there could be a conflict of interest between the defendant and another defendant or between the defendant and some witnesses,

it's really in their interest to bring it to the attention of the court. And the reason is the process is such that the court will then hold a hearing in which the judge gets to explain to the defendant the nature of the potential conflicts. If it's really extreme, the judge will order that the defendant seek new counsel or maybe even disqualify current counsel. That doesn't happen very often.

What happens most of the time is that the judge brings the conflicts to the defendant's attention and then gives the defendant an opportunity to waive them. So if the defendant waives them, if they then lose a trial, they can't turn around and file an appeal based on insufficiency of counsel because they've waived the conflict early on in the proceeding after having been made fully aware of it by the court, a neutral party. So that's the Garcia hearing. So who are the three witnesses that the government is worried might be in conflict with Daila Vera and who also share the same attorney as Dale Rivera. Well, there's three of them. And one of them is the individual identified as Trump employee three in the superseding indictment, who worked as a personal aid for Donald Trump. Second to Walton, out of Trump employee three has apparently information

about a conversation with Trump regarding now to on June 24th of 2022. That's the day I believe when they got the surveillance video, Sapina. I think that's right. And then another another person here that John Irving is representing witness one was a maintenance worker at Marlago who served as head of maintenance before Delivera took over that position in January of 2022. Interesting timing. A witness witness one has information demonstrating the falsity of statements Dayola Vera has made to the government. In addition to the false statements, Dayola Vera made to the FBI that are the basis for the false statement charge. He also made false statements

in April of 2023 in an interview with the FBI and members of the special counsel's office in DC. In particular, when confronted with video footage, showing him photographing surveillance cameras in the tunnel at Mar-a-Lago near the storage room, where the FBI recovered some classified documents, Dale Rivera claimed he was, quote, looking for a shut-off valve because a water pipe had ruptured on the grounds

of Mar-a-Lago, lie, and two, documenting a broken door below one of the cameras. Witness one has information about when the pipe broke and the door needed repairs that is inconsistent with Dale Lavera's statements, and Witness one also has information about Dale Lavera's loyalty to Trump. So there's a cooperator.

This is really fascinating because the conflict between witness one and Dale Lavera couldn't be any more direct. Like witness one is gonna get up there and provide the proof that Dale Lavera is a liar, right? And Dale Lavera has been charged with lying. So it's gonna provide essential evidence that goes directly to proving the charge against De La Vera

and they have the same lawyer. So De La Vera's lawyer and witness one's lawyer, same guy, John Irving, is gonna have to cross examine witness one and destroy him or her. I mean, that's the most fundamental and significant conflict of interest because, you know, witness one has shared all sorts of personal and private information with their attorney, John Irving, which John Irving will then either use to undermine their credibility and

attack them and cross examination, which would be not fair, or choose not to use those things and go too easy on witness one and therefore not live up to their duty to Deo Lavera. It's incomprehensible to me that the judge would think that this is okay. This is an okay conflict situation and it's minimal enough that you could have both parties, both the defendant and the witness here wave the potential conflict. But we're talking about Judge Eileen Cannon. So we all have to wait and see what happens.

Yeah. And witness three, by the way, the third person is witness three. And they worked as a receptionist and assistant for Trump during and after his presidency. And witness three has information about the movement of boxes from the White House to Mar-a-Lago, and their eventual placement in the storage room. Witness Three also identified Dale Lavera and Mar-a-Lago security footage of NADA

and Dale Lavera moving boxes. Again, another critical witness that you simply can't have the same attorney for. And frankly, I have to say that some of these folks who have decided to cooperate here with the government and give true information about what Nauta and Dale Lavera were doing, that they still have these lawyers paid by Trump, is fascinating to me.

But it's also kind of a signal that Daila Vera himself could maybe at some point want to change his tune. Like, hey, my other, my lawyer's other clients aren't indicted. Yeah. But I am. You know, I don't, it's hard to say. I can't, I'm not, I can't look into Daila Vera's head.

But I think the thing that makes Dale Lever and these witnesses very similar is these people probably are not in a position to go out and hire big time expensive criminal defense lawyers to get them through this process, whether they're a witness or a defendant. And the fact that Trump has stepped forward and greased the skids and said, oh, I'll pay for your or lawyer and then provide it a lawyer. I'm sure that these people see that as a great benefit and something that's keeping them from becoming bankrupted by this process, which is always possible. So it's very hard to sever that tie. If you're not

thinking about it like legalistically and you're thinking about conflicts of interest and stuff, you're just thinking about, how am I going to pay the rent at the end of the month? I work at Mar-a-Lago. I don't make a ton of money, but I need that job, and I sure as hell don't have enough money sitting around to go hire a defense attorney. So they're really kind of stocked.

They're in a tough spot, and Trump has rushed in, and really satisfied that vulnerability. He is playing off their vulnerability to ensure that he's keeping everybody under the same tent, which is entirely for his benefit. Yeah. And Andy, this just in a little bit of breaking news, back to the Stanley Woodward issue. Yeah. The Stanley Woodward is filed a response.

And he's filed a motion to oppose the Department of Justice's request for a Garcia hearing. He says the way to remedy the conflict created by him representing eight witnesses in this case is to just simply exclude the testimony of the one who's cooperating. That's convenient. He did not exclude his testimony. He did quote, moreover, even where a conflict to arise from Trump employee for his anticipated testimony, the court should exercise its authority to preclude his testimony to avoid any conflict

of interest. That's the solution here. There's no conflict of interest if we don't let that witness his testimony in. That's his actual argument. All right. This is just delay. Okay. That's all this is about. We think you judge. We think you're government says we think you should have a Garcia hearing and he's like, I'm filing a motion to oppose the consideration of the hearing. Like, no, this is we're not even at the hearing arguing the substance of this yet no, this is, we're not even at the hearing, arguing the substance of this yet. So this is just all about stretching this stuff out

and dragging your feet as much as you possibly can. That's a ridiculous argument. I can't even imagine that would win in front of this judge, but again, you never know, we're in Canaanland, so I'll have to see what happens. Yeah, and talking about Canaanland, there was a weird filing, another weird motion from, actually just a notice, right?

What happened? Well, this week, we got a, quote, notice regarding filings in a separate case. Now, this was filed by Trump's lawyers in the Mar-a-Lago case. And they said in this notice, we believe it appropriate to alert the court that the special counsel's proposed schedule in the DC case is in direct conflict with the schedule ordered by your honor, that being canon, in this case,

a fact conveniently left out of the brief submitted by the special counsel to the DC court. And obviously significant hearing for the documents case, following a briefing in October in November 2023 is scheduled for December 11, 2023 at 9.30 a.m. Nevertheless, the special counsel's office argued in its filing in the DC case that jury selection in the DC case should commence on December 11, 2023, despite knowing full well that President Trump and his counsel are expected to be in the Southern District of Florida in your honor's courtroom on that date.

Then they go on to say, respectfully, the special counsel's conduct necessitates, quote, appropriate action by your honor. I don't know what that would be like. Maybe a ruler across the knuckles or something like that. Council's conduct necessitates quote appropriate action by your honor. I don't know what that would be like. Maybe a ruler across the knuckles or something like that. That's what I was wondering. Ooh, okay. Yeah, and this is just, again, making mountains out of mull hills, trying to throw mud at the

prosecutors, they're trying to say that they're trying to take this date conflict thing, which really isn't a huge conflict at the moment because all these dates are likely to shift as we get closer to the fall and certainly December. But they're trying to shape this thing to look like it was some sort of dishonest, misrepresentation of part of a government. Like, they're just, look how rude they are to you, judge canon, scheduling something somewhere else on a day where we're supposed to be here for your honor.

How dare them judge you should be offended and not like them. Right. Why didn't they file this in DC with judge Chuckkin and say, look, your honor. They have really stuck it to you by having a December 11th thing down in this other court. It's because they're friends with Canon. That's right. So that's why this is going to Florida. But yeah, that's very interesting. They even add, in addition to blatantly ignoring this court scheduled evidentiary hearing on December 11th, which they didn't want. The special counsel's actions appear to be intentionally motivated to prevent President Trump from meaningfully preparing for either trial and to simultaneously prevent him from

running a campaign for President of the United States, right? Just playing right into our hands. I imagine DOJ will pry file something quickly to say, oh, well, let's remedy this and we'll put this here and this here. We hereby inform Judge Chudkin that we've decided to move our proposed date for the beginning of jury selection to December 12th. Give me a day, give me a whole day. You know, I mean, it's, it's so ridiculous. That was the like proposed scheduling timeline that the prosecutor submitted in DC. And it's like I said, it's like way out. It's very aspirational. Those are not dates that have been decided upon by Judge Chutkin. That's just the prosecutor's suggestion. So those things will move

a lot. There's not actually a conflict on the December 11th at this point. Now, it'll be interesting to see what her appropriate action might be. All right, we've got time for a listener question. Yeah, what do we have this week? Yeah, so we have two. One, we'll just touch on very quickly because I think we covered most of this already, but I love the beginning of the question. And it's in keeping with my suggestion last week, that flattery will get your question read. So Karen writes in, one pod, two hosts,

so very smart and insightful and attractive. What are the odds? I'm saying Karen, look at you. You're right on the money with starting out with the flattery with your question. Her question goes on to say, 11 million documents is a lot to review if they were unfamiliar,

but why does Donald need so much time to review documents? He either created them or previously had the minutes possession. It's not like they're new. That's true, but really the review is being done by the attorneys. And the attorneys need to look through things to make sure there's not exculpatory information in there that would be good for him or additional information that would be bad for him. So there is a fair amount of work that has to go into reviewing those documents. However, unlike what you hear them saying in court, it's not like sitting down with a

stack of paper the size of the Empire State Building and going through it one page at a time. It's electronic discovery. There's all sorts of ways to filter it and to look for things that are particularly relevant. There's an entire industry around litigation that's just about documents, about storing them, about providing them when they're requested and demanded by the court, and how you review them quickly and effectively. Yeah, that's why Rudy got a $340,000 payment from Trump having to trust point, which is one of those industry vendors that does discovery.

I wanna say though, there is a lot of stuff they probably haven't seen. A lot of the transcripts of witness testimony. Trump doesn't know what they've got, as far as his DMs and his Twitter stuff. There's a lot of stuff that they might know exist, but it's also about letting the defense know what you got. That's right.

So, and these are important rights that every defendant has in a criminal process. And this is part of our system. And he's got to have not only notice of what information the government has, but the ability to actually prepare a defense based on it. So there's work that needs to be done there. Definitely.

All right, so the next, then last question this week comes to us from Thomas. Thomas, and I pulled this one because there was a bunch of questions this week about involving like jury selection. So this one kind of sums most of them up. Thomas says, will the jury voidier, that's the process by which jurors are questioned

in jury selection? Will the jury voidier in the January 6 case include a question of whom the jury believes won the 2020 presidential election? If not, isn't the perspective juror suffering from a delusion that should disqualify them from serving? I hope you can discuss it on the podcast. So I think what he's saying is, if a juror thinks that Trump actually was the true and rightful

winner in 2020, that that should exclude them because they're delusional. So here's what I think, and I'm anxious to hear how you see it. I think there are absolutely be questions like this of the jurors in this and all four of these cases. Not for the reason that Thomas suggests, though. This question of whether or not the jurors are delusional, that's not really, doesn't really come up in the examination of jurors. But what does come up is the parties want to know, both parties, quite frankly, what the personal preferences are of the jurors.

They want to know if someone is a very strong Trump supporter and voted for Trump and still believes that Trump won the election. These are things that the prosecution certainly would want to know. And the defense will want to know that as well. And the opposite is also true. If somebody's really a Trump hater doesn't like the guy, they're going to want to know that as well. And the opposite is also true. If somebody's really a Trump hater, doesn't like the guy, they're gonna want to know that. They can, ultimately, the standard is whether or not

despite your personal preferences and experiences, can you be neutral? Can you be objective? Can you be fair? So it's not, it can't get you excluded just to say you're a big Trump supporter. But you got to remember both sides also have a preemptory challenges that they can exclude jurors for no reason at all. They can use their challenges. They can, if they find out that someone still believes that the election was really one by Donald Trump, the prosecution, for example, could exclude that person with

one of their preemptory challenges. So yes, you're going to see questions like this, you're going to see decisions probably made by either side based on the answers they get to these sorts of questions, but not exactly for the reason that you're suggesting. Yeah, and prosecutors also want fairness. So if somebody's like, yeah, Trump, that guy's guilty AF, I hate that guy. Nobody's going to want a juror like that.

I mean, you might see on TV, the prosecutor's going, yep, fine by me, he can be on our jury, but you don't want that to come up later. Yeah, and honestly, if you came in wearing a MAGA hat and a Trump shirt and waving a Trump flag, and you went, you know, and honestly, if you if you came in wearing a MAGA hat and a Trump shirt and waving a Trump flag and you went, you got selected and you went through the voidier and you said, I don't know, I can be fair, I can be totally impartial. It's entirely possible the judge would just say, I don't think so. You said you thought these, you think you still think you won the 2020

election. You've made questionable clothing choices to be here in court today. And I'm going to thank you for your service and send you home So there is a fair amount of that that goes on But like you said AG you just want people who are gonna be able to listen understand the evidence and make decent fair Decisions based upon it Yeah, and we see questions like this too and like for the example to in the for our dear for the EG in Carol case They they were asked where do you get your news? And if somebody answers OANN, you don't disqualify them because they're delusional for liking

OANN, that's just something that you would want to know and maybe use your preemptive strike to disclude that particular juror, if you if you have one of, you know, if you have one left to strike. And so yeah, I agree with you, Andy, it's less about, but I mean, that's a good question though. Like it did, you know, did somebody win the election, but somebody I think could probably possibly have that belief and still be a fair and impartial juror. But like you said, the judge might decide not. They could use it to strike. I think you'd be hard pressed to, it'll be interesting when we see the jury selection in this case. It's going to be really interesting. I think it'd be hard to empanel someone in the January six case who thinks that Trump

won the election. Right. I find that to be inconsistent. But again, that's a question for the judge, and it's a holistic evaluation of that person. And it depends on how they answered other questions. Like, do you think you can be varied? Do you think you'd be impartial? That sort of thing. And ultimately, the judge makes the call. But yeah, it'll be like everything we're doing here. It's going to be fascinating to watch. You can't don't lay a bet down because you never know how this thing's going to turn out. Are they allowed to ask who somebody voted for? That's a really good question. I don't know.

We may have to ask consult with one of our legal experts and answer that one next week. We'll do that. All right. Thanks for your questions. If you have a question for us, you can send it into us at hello at mullersheret.com. Just put Jack in the subject line so we can separate it from all of our other emails and get to it. Thank you for sending in those questions. Those are really good questions.

Wow, we sort of did it. We made it in almost an hour for this particular episode. It's not going to slow down. We'll see what happens next week. Do you have any final thoughts before we get out of here, Andy? You know, we've seemed to open every episode with, oh my gosh, we have a lot to get through this week.

So you can count on that theme continuing because this stuff is only gonna keep eating it. We had a big week, obviously this week with Georgia and everything else. Yeah, but you and I didn't cover that. I know, and there's, we got, there'll be all sorts of nonsense involving this stuff. It's gonna be a steady drip, drip of issues

and we'll be here to cover them all for you. Awesome, well thanks so much again everybody for listening. Thanks Andy for doing the show with me. We'll be back next week. I've been Allison Gil. And I'm Andy McCabe. And this is Jack. M-S-W-M-D-A.

media.