Jack - Episode 44 - Scary Court Season

Episode Date: September 30, 2023

This week in the DC case: Judge Chutkan denies Donald’s motion to recuse, Trump files motions to delay CIPA actions, and opposition to the don’t-call-it-a gag order. In Florida, Judge Cannon grants, in part, Jack Smith's motion for conflict of interest hearings; Trump asks for a delay on section 4 of CIPA; and Judge Cannon will receive briefs from both sides on whether to allow Nauta to view classified evidence, and more; plus a listener question.A couple of terms to remember:Brady Rule | US Law |Cornell Law School | Legal Information InstituteJencks Material | Thomson Reuters Practical Law GlossaryQuestions for the pod -Submit questions for the pod here 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 ThreatThe Threat: How the FBI Protects America in the Age of Terror and TrumpWe would like to know more about our listeners. Please participate in this brief surveyListener Survey and CommentsThis Show is Available Ad-Free And Early For Patreon and Supercast Supporters at the Justice Enforcers level and above:https://dailybeans.supercast.techOrhttps://patreon.com/thedailybeansOr when you subscribe on Apple Podcastshttps://apple.co/3YNpW3P

M.S.O.W. Media. I signed in order appointing Jack Smith. And those who say Jack is a finesse. Mr. Smith is a veteran career prosecutor. 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. day October 1st and I'm Allison Gill. And I'm Andy McCabe. Hey, Allison, it is October and it's spooky season, not just because Halloween is on its way, but also because Trump's court calendar is getting scary. Yes. It's piling up and it's looking worse by the minute. Now, we have a lot of news to get through today, including Judge Eileen Cannon granting, in part, Jack Smith's motions for conflict of interest hearings. We have some briefings regarding, well, not a getting access to classified materials. And Jack Smith opposing a three-month, sepa delay requested by, you know who, Donald Trump. We knew it was coming. Yeah. And we have all kinds of filings and responses and hearings and

rulings in the DC espionage and obstruction case with Judge Chuck, including her well-reason denial of Trump's motion to recuse. We were waiting for this. That's right. We have a date set for a hearing about the narrowly tailored order restricting Trump's extrajudicial statements. Some people call it a gag order. No, don't call it a gag order.

Dude, call it a gag order. The half gag. And Trump asking for SEPA and pretrial motion delays. In the DC case, he's asking for SEPA and pretrial motion delays in the DC case. He's asking for SEPA delays in the DC case, not the actual like classified documents case. Yeah, I think it's a matter of time before he requests SEPA delays in the Fulton County case as well. Why not just throw it out there? He's going to be up at the New York Attorney General's office Monday like see if it's too fast to stop it. It's yeah, that's that's his again his only defense is delay. That's right.

Then we have a couple stories about Trump's legal team at the applicability of 1512 like title 18 section 1512 obstructing an official proceeding. 1512, like title 18, section 1512, obstructing an official proceeding, then we will feel like a listener question or two. So I'm excited about that. And if you have any questions that come up during the show, there'll be a link in the show notes for you to submit that question. All right. Andrew, where should we start today?

All right. Let's go to DC where our folks will remember, of course, that a few weeks ago, Trump's team filed a motion requesting that Judge Chuck can recuse herself from the trial. And basically, the reasoning was that she had made statements in other January 6th defendants cases. And those statements kind of, yeah, vaguely referred to Trump and the fact that he had not been charged yet. And they said that based on those statements, there, yeah, vaguely referred to Trump and the fact that he had not been charged yet. And they said that based on those statements, there's no way the public could possibly have confidence in her being unbiased and her treatment of Trump.

Now, of course, Judge Chuck in rejected that request officially this week, and she issued an order in doing so. And of course, in that order, she says that her statements were not influenced by extra judicial considerations, like, you know, things she'd seen in the news and stuff like that. Instead, because that was this whole thing, right? Like, you watch the news, you clearly hate Donald. Yes. You have to recuse yourself.

And she's like, hmm, these statements, which you and I discussed pretty clearly, were responses to sentencing, you know, Memoranda, from two, just two, out of the 300 million people who've been sentenced for January 6th. You know, these were statements they made in their sentencing memos that she had to address because that's her job, right? That's exactly right. So those defendants, when they were putting their package together,

kind of requesting as much leniency as they could get in their sentence, one of the things they pointed out was, well, it's not fair that I've been convicted for this offense. And the guy who I was doing at on behalf of, Donald Trump hasn't even been charged. So she was really obligated to address those arguments in her order of what sentence that defendant would receive. And so anything done in the course of that proceeding isn't really ever considered on recusal in the in consideration of a recusal request because the judges obligated to talk about those things and indicate their opinion. That's their job, right? They listen to what you know, they know what you've been convicted of. They listen to how you, you know, you make an argument as to how you how you should be sentenced and then they have to make an opinion and ultimately a ruling.

They have to do that, right? Like if I'm being sentenced for whatever and I put in my sent my sentencing memorandum, like, you know what? I'm blonde, I'm five foot eight. I don't deserve to be in jail. Right. She has to be like, hey, you're blonde and five foot eight. I don't deserve to be in jail. Right. She has to be like, hey, you're blonde and five foot eight. And this is your reasoning for not being in jail. Here's

why that doesn't work. It's not my job to determine that you're five eight. It's not my job to determine that you're blonde. Here's why that's not relevant. Looking at you, we can see that, but yeah, it's not relevant. And then for me to come back and say, look, she put me in jail because I'm blonde at five foot eight is not an argument. It's even worse than that. It would be like the next defendant in a totally different case saying, right, should recuse because I am also blonde in five foot eight. And, Clue, you don't like this. This isn't even my appeal. If somebody else is a appeal. Who hasn't even gone to jail.

Okay, you're totally right. Yeah, now I'm actually, I thought it was ridiculous. Now it's like extra. Turbo ridiculous. Yeah, so that's basically what. Extrude judicial ridiculous. Right, that's basically what she said. No, I'm not going anywhere.

So let's look at this holistically, the whole motion to recuse massive swing in a miss. And in addition to not getting it, they still have her as their judge. And now she's probably not real happy with them because they've accused her on the record of being biased and essentially incompetent to, or, you know, not properly seeing these proceedings through. So not the best footing to start on. Yeah, I feel like they're just like, pokener, like, hey, we should execute the ex joint chiefs of staff and we should shut down the whole media and treason and hang everyone. And oh, I'm sorry, did we want to have a hearing

about my extra judicial statements trying to influence the jury? Okay, cool. I like, it just seems like at this point, and you and I have talked about this, like why would he do this? Why would anybody be such a horrible person to the judge presiding over the case that you're about to go to trial for. Yeah. And the only thing I can think of is just to prod her into maybe issuing a partial gag order

or narrowly tailoring his extrajudicial statements so that he has something more to cry about. Yeah, I think that's right. I think any normal litigant in a criminal or civil matter would never do this. You would come up with strategies and you'd raise issues, you thought were legitimate, but you would also raise them in a way that didn't prejudice the judge against you, didn't insult them, didn't call them biased, you know, because you know that they're going to have to make decisions that will impact you. This is like a slash and burn litigation style. It's like, it's almost like they've already decided,

there's no way they can win on the merits. There's no legitimate defense here. So what they're going to do is one Hail Mary pass after another at trying to create an issue they could file an appeal on after conviction. And in the course of doing that, file all these motions and then appeal all the results of these motions and delay, delay, delay. That's it. It's like, burn it down. And if you can't burn it down, make it last longer, as their whole strategy. Yeah, score. Sure. Yeah. Also, here's, Trump did, and here's his other defense, delay, right? That's his only other defense.

And he's doing this in the DC case. He's filing a motion to delay for SEPA considerations in the DC case. Now we know the DC case has about 300 pages, maybe like, I don't know, 10 documents that are classified. These documents are not going to be used in their case in chief, which is the case in chief is the case that the prosecution puts on. They may be using defense, they may be Janks material, they may be Brady material, right? They might be something that the defense needs to have, you know, by the law.

So there's very little classified documents, not like Mar-a-Lago at least, where there's about 3,500 pages, about 300 documents. Now, he filed a motion to delay SEPA considerations in Judge Chuckens Court. And this is right after she ruled that she's not recusing herself. Bam, bam, we get these two motions, the SEPA motion for delay. And he needs more time to file his pretrial motions, like, like his motion to dismiss the whole case based on whatever. But he wants like a lot more time to file these things. That's not going to jive with the, with the court schedule and Judge Chuck can has put out a minute order, what's called a

minute order on the docket where she says, okay, Department of Justice, I need you to respond to these requests for delay. And I need you to do that by October 3rd, right, which is a couple days from now. So next time you and I get together, we will have the Department of Justice's response to his motions for delaying the DC trial for these considerations. That's right. This is yet another hand grenade of delay. You're just gonna keep tossing these into the proceeding to try to create nonsense. The pretrial motions that he's required to to file and now apparently needs more time to handle.

to file and now apparently needs more time to handle. This is a normal stuff that kind of, you know, administrative of getting ready to go to trial in a criminal case, motion to dismiss. You might make a motion to like protect a certain witness or person from having to testify or you might bring a privileged issue or something like that, try an effort to keep some testimony out.

I think he wants to file a motion to dismiss based on selective prosecution, right? Which means you're only doing this, but it's fair. Donald, right, it's political prosecution, prosecution. He does this. And the thing is, is that I guarantee you, Jack Smith has his response like ready. It's a reality. It's based on the fact that he's actually the, I don't know, 1000th person charged with offenses related to January 6. So I'm not sure how that selective, selectivity of the person. I can't wait for that argument. We have 1,112 people that we've tried and convicted.

You're 1,113. And we've got about right now 286 behind you and more to come, like, sorry, not to be like, I know this is going to make you sad, but you're really just one and a few thousand people. But it's not, but I'm the leading candidate for the Republican Party for president. That will be his argument. He'll say, oh, it's all political.

It's Joe Biden. He's doing this to me. But in any case, we'll tear through that when it comes out. Right now, we're trying to, we're trying to sort through the latest motions. For delay, and as you said, the judge has scheduled hearing on October 16th to have a hearing on the government's prior request to issue the don't call it a gag order on Trump over his extrajud judicial statements. This is kind of interesting because we got some reporting really in the last day, I guess,

that in an additional filing on Friday, the government is now rolling into their request for this gag order. Trump's recent postings, those things that he posted in the last week or so, specifically referencing the postings regarding now retired general Mark Milley, who was the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, who most of... His speech, by the way, his retirement speech. Wow. He was like, I take a note to a constitution, not to... He's like, not to a king, not to a queen.

I take a note to, not to a person. And then he goes, not to a dictator, not to a wannabe dictator. Like he like, I want to do him with that. He was totally just talking about, you know, Biden, right? Like, no. Wow, I like, he was very pointed and he's very mad. And I'm wondering if now that the uniform is off if the gloves also don't come off Yeah, he poked the wrong bear because this one is got a bite

You know, of course Trump had tweeted earlier in the week made some crazy accusation against Millie and and said he would he had committed treason and you know I don't know should be put to death or acknowledge that the penalty for that would be death now The reason this is relevant to us even though you know, it's just normal Disgusting behavior by the former president, but what makes it relevant to this show is As the Jack Smith team pointed out he is basically threatening and Jack Smith team pointed out he is basically threatening and identified potential witness. In this case, Millie is potentially a witness. The government has already indicated that to the defense.

And now you have Trump both making a comment that could threaten the witness to try to force the witness not to testify, but also could prejudice the jury pool against that witness, going out and telling however million people heard him that this, that Millie, accusing him of treason, that's certainly something that could make. Yeah, and it could make witnesses, our jurors could prejudice their perception of Millie, if in fact he testifies.

Yeah, and, and you know, Millie on 60 minutes was like, yeah, I've got security. My family has security. He doesn't seem afraid of this particular person's, Donald Trump's, you know, the screeds about go get him. I mean, basically he's like, Mark Millie is a traitor. Get him, right? Like, I mean, that's what he's saying. So it's really, it's scary and dangerous. But also he's like, I'm ready. Bring it.

I'm Mark Millie. So it's, it's crazy, right? You think about why does Trump do this? Well, it's this is normal, vindictive, small-minded, moronic comments. Certainly not even the first time he do this. Well, it's this is normal, vindictive, small-minded, moronic comments. Certainly not even the first time he said this, he said it about Kome and I a couple of years ago that we would go to a guilty of treason and should be put to death. So maybe it's just that. But here's my proposal is it's actually more than that. I think this

is again part of his warped litigation strategy. He's going to keep, you draw a line in the sand, he's going to step over it. Draw another one, he'll step over that one. And the reason he's trying to push the judge into actually instigating, or I'm not, I shouldn't say instigating, to placing a gag order in some respect on him in this case, and thereby creating a massive first amendment issue that could potentially make its way to the Supreme Court. This is a provocative effort to create an issue he can take to the Supreme Court. Yeah, and I wonder like how many days away are we from him saying how terrible would it be for one juror who loves Donald Trump to show up and lie to the yeah on the jury questionnaire.

That would be awful. It would mean that, you know, we're going in a wrong direction, but how terrible would it be for someone to show up and lie on their application so that they could be a juror to save Donald Trump? How terrible. That would be bad. You know, like I'm, I'm, I'm, I'm, I'm, I'm, I'm, I'm, I'm, I'm, I'm, I'm, I'm, I'm, I'm, I'm, I'm, I'm, I'm, I'm, I'm, I'm, I'm, I'm, I'm, I'm, I'm, I'm, I'm, I'm, I'm, I'm, I'm, I'm, I'm, I'm, I'm, I'm, I'm, I'm, I'm, I'm, I'm, I'm, I'm, I'm, I'm, I'm, I'm, I'm, I'm, I'm, I'm, I'm, I'm, I'm, I'm, I'm, I'm, I'm, I'm, I'm, I'm, I'm, I'm, I'm, I'm, I'm, I'm, I'm, I'm, I'm, I'm, I'm, I'm, I'm, I'm, I'm, I'm, I'm, I'm, I'm, I'm, I'm, I'm, I'm, I'm, I'm, I'm, I'm, I'm, I'm, I'm, I'm, I'm, I'm, I'm, I'm, I'm, I'm, I'm, I'm, I'm, I'm, I'm, I'm, I'm, I'm, I'm, I'm, I'm, I'm, I'm, I'm, I'm, I'm, I'm, I'm, I'm, I'm, I'm, I'm, I'm, I'm, I'm, I'm, I'm, I'm, I'm, I'm, I'm, I'm, I'm, I'm, I'm, I'm, I do nothing and and let the kind of level of offense that is taking place right now through his public communications continue to escalate. How bad does that get? Or do you take the risk of putting requesting the gag order or on the judges part putting it in place and creating an issue that could

a really slow down this trial and B, push something to the Supreme Court in the event that, you know, the conviction does not go Trump's way. So, there, once again, having to make some really careful tactical decisions, both principled decisions, but also, not without tactical implications. Yeah. And his whole, by the way, another response that he that Donald Trump submitted or his lawyer submitted on his behalf in opposition to a narrowly tailored restriction on his pretrial extradudicial statements every time I have to say it is like so many words. Um, you know, he, he he he filed a he put another following a president Trump. That's what he refers to himself.

President Trump respectfully submits this response and opposition to the prosecution's motion to impose unconstitutional prior restraints on president Trump's political speech. Like twice they put president Trump, you know, sentence. and then the motion they put. And so he just goes off this whole thing. We've read, it's 25 pages. We've read a million of these now, and I'm not going to go into this again,

but it's the same filing. It's like, you're trying to trample on first amendment, free speech America, what the hell, you know, I mean, it's just the same dumb. Yeah. So you could grievance over and over again. So you could grievance argument. I got the only one between you and the government removing the right of the campaign statement.

Right. Yeah. If they do it to me, they'll do it to every, yeah, it's the same, same filing that we've seen a million times. So, right. Absolutely not the first time someone has been, uh, admonished by a judge to not engage in witness tampering. I mean come on. That's basically where you're talking about presidential candidate, though Yeah, okay, so what right? I know I know I know I'm just throwing that in there And I mean witness

I think you know you're gonna see some in her ultimately whatever she rules Reference the fact that witness tampering is not protected speech. It's kind of like defamation or something. You can't call for the death of witnesses in this case. No. Like, Frado, like, hi. Like, what? I can't.

Yeah. The fact that this is even a thing, it really is kind of pushing the bounds of the judicial system to a business question before. And that's his deal, right? He puts pressure on things to break them, whether it's DOJ or the FBI or the judicial system, or just something that he sees as an obstruction or to what he wants to accomplish. So that's what he's trying to do now. He knows his best, his only way out of this is to literally break the system and that's

what he's trying to do. Yes, some personal experience with that. Oh, just a little. Just a little. Man, oh man. All right. So Judge Chuck in his scheduled the October 16th hearing for his extra judicial pre-trial statements order.

That's, man, that's a couple of weeks away. So we'll report on that for you. I think we might have some friends in the courtroom who can actually maybe come on the show. Let's see if we can give him a call. That'd be great. I would love to know what it's like in that courtroom when that hearing happens. His appearance, by the way, Donald Trump's appearance is waived. She does this for every single thing so that he can't delay it.

Like, I have 17 other trials that day. I need more time. I'm getting my hair cut that day. I can't be there. No, you're not. So she's just waving every through. She's like, you don't have to be there. Okay, Fella, just send your lawyers. Yeah. And it's's also I'm sure she's thinking like, I'm going to wave

it every time I can. So he can't come in later and file some crazy motion saying, it's not fair, you're, you're impeding my campaign because she's had, we'll have had a record of basically conceding to his choice of convenience. That's right. Yeah, up to you, buddy. That's right. You come or not. Right. That's exactly what I would be doing as well. So I appreciate that. All right, we have a lot more to get to, but we have, we have to take a quick break. So everybody stick around. We'll be right back. Bum, bum, bum, bum, bum, bum, bum, bum, bum, bum, bum, bum, bum, bum, bum, bum, bum, bum, bum, bum, bum, bum, bum, bum, bum, bum, bum, bum, bum, bum, bum, bum, bum, bum, bum, bum, bum, bum, bum, bum, bum, bum, bum, bum, bum, bum, bum, bum, bum, bum, bum, bum, bum, bum, bum, bum, bum, bum, bum, bum, bum, bum, bum, bum, bum, bum, bum, bum, bum, bum, bum, bum, bum, bum, bum, bum, bum, bum, bum, bum, bum, bum, bum, bum, bum, bum, bum, bum, bum, bum, bum, bum, bum, bum, bum, bum, bum, bum, bum, bum, bum, bum, bum, bum, bum, bum, bum, bum, bum, bum, bum, bum, bum, bum, bum, bum, bum, bum, bum, bum, bum, bum, bum, bum, bum, bum, bum, bum, bum, bum, bum, bum, bum, bum, bum, bum, bum, bum, bum, bum, bum, bum, bum, bum, bum, bum, bum, bum, bum, bum, bum, bum, bum, bum, bum, bum, bum, bum, bum, bum, bum, bum, bum, bum, bum, bum, bum, bum, bum, bum, bum, bum, bum, bum, bum, bum, bum, bum, bum, bum, bum, bum, bum, bum, bum, bum, bum, bum, bum, bum, bum, bum, bum, bum, bum, bum, bum, bum, bum, bum, bum, bum, bum, bum, bum, bum, bum, bum, bum, bum, bum, bum, bum, bum, bum, bum, bum, bum, bum, bum, bum, bum Of course, we've talked about these a couple times. These are the conflict of interest hearings that the government requested the judge engage in, having pointed out the seemingly obvious conflicts of interest presented by attorney John Irving,

first of all, John Irving, who represents Carlos de la Vera and some other witnesses, and also Stanley Woodward, who used to represent you seal Tavares and still represents Walt Nauta. So you have some very clear. And everyone else, like that guy. Woodward, yeah. Like he puts on his running shoes every time

he goes to court because he's back and forth to like three different courtrooms representing January. Six defendants representing Trump defendants. He's, he's all and forth to like three different courtrooms representing January, six defendants, representing Trump defendants. He's, he's all over the place. So there's a minefield of potential conflicts, but at least one comes into clear focus on each of them. Dale Vera and Noda now stand to be Nauta now stand to be basically accused by people like Tavaris and others. And the prior representations are a problem because Stan Woodward can't accurately represent Nauta if Tavaris takes the stand against, no, other things like that. So, but if Tavaris waves his conflictive interest and says, you know, I'm not worried about being cross-examined by my former attorney who told me to lie. By the way, that's just, the told me to lie

part. That's me speculating. Right. Right. I just went to, he might have said, like say, you don't recall like Pasantino did with Cassidy Hutchinson, but that seems to be the go-to. Hey, you don't recall stuff that you actually recall, but we don't have proof of that. But, you know, he might wave his, it's comfortable, but both of them have to wave it, right? Because each of them has a potential problem with Stan Woodward having represented the other one. They each stand for one. And that's why that's why Jacksonuth wanted alternate counsel at this hearing to advise everybody. Right. So that that a lawyer, an alternate lawyer, like they had up in Judge Bozberg's court when they appointed a public defender to Tveras, they wanted some alternates down here so they

could say, hey, by the way, Nauta, Deole Vera, here's the problem for you, right, if woodward is still your lawyer or if John Irving is still your lawyer. But the judge denied that. Right. So it would be a practical and complete thing to do to have those alternate councils there to advise these guys to explain to them exactly what the potential conflict is and the impact of it. You don't want woodward explaining that because he's the guy that's conflicted. No, I'm great. So trust me, trust me. Yeah. There's a clear judicial economy reason for having them there, but also let's be perfectly

fair. It's a little bit of a tactical move by the prosecution, right? Because they know that if you get an actually independent kind of neutral counsel to advise these guys, it's possible you might split one or two of them office cooperators as happy as you deal to virus. That's right. So everybody's working it here. Of course, Canon's decision went really against both logic and what might have been helpful for the prosecution. So she's going to have the hearing. You know, again, here she is splitting the baby in an illogical way. I'm going to have the hearing, but I'm not going to have the lawyers there who can actually make sure that it's done completely

in a voluntary and intelligent way. So or witnesses. Is she's like, I don't want to hear your evidence. Let's have a hearing, but I don't want to hear your evidence is basically what she's in. I don't need any facts for this. Just let's talk about it. Just getting front of me. Yeah. I doubt she's going to rule from the bench too.

Like, you know, the result of this hearing is going to be, okay, let me think about it in another few months or two out. Yeah. That's what she's doing. You know the result of this hearing is going to be, okay, let me think about it another few months or two out. Yeah. That's what she's doing. And this seems to be her MO so far, like not making any overt, horrible rulings that could be overturned by the 11th circuit,

but just taking a long time, took her three months right to get that protective order for classified information out, like that, like, dude, it just, it seems really obvious to me. She's nickel and diming delay on this, but it's not what you can do about that. And we already sort of suspected that this what, this trial wasn't going to take place in May. It's going to be well after the next election.

So she granted those motions in part, granted the hearings, those hearings both of them are on the same day for Irving and Woodward, you know, Dale of Era, and the other witnesses. That is October 12th. One is like, I think, 11 in the morning ones at one in the afternoon. And she's like, so, yes, split the baby. Like you said, no witnesses. I don't want any evidence. No stand by lawyers. I'm not Judge Bozberg.

Yeah, you definitely aren't Judge Bozberg. You know, she's a conundrum. Maybe you kind of walk away from each of these decisions, trying to draw the line. Is this an actual effort to delay things and help out the defendant or is just, she's like, doesn't really appreciate the importance of moving this forward quickly. Does she not appreciate the significance of having alternative counsel there to do what we just

talked about? So that old, that old kind of bias or incompetence balance is, you never quite get it resolved with her. Nope. That's very true. Also, September 25th, the Department of Justice and lawyers for WALTNOTA filed about 30 pages of supplemental briefs because WALTNOTA is like, hey, I mean, I was in the Navy. I should be able to look at classified stuff. Sure. And the DOJ is like, no, bro, you're not being charged with espionage.

I've seen all the mission of possible movies. I think I should be able to see classified now. Because I'm out of it. I'm friends with Andy McCabe. So I still need to get access to classified for all of them. I stood with at five feet of the former director, the FBI one time. So I should totally get, I should be able to see everything.

So the DOJ and lawyers for not about 30 pages of supplemental briefs, judge canon asked for these briefs after a closed hearing, a sealed hearing on September 12th, it is now September 30th. So here's the filings two weeks later. Now, DOJ has produced classified documents to Nauta's lawyer, but has opposed Nauta's seeing them. He doesn't need any of this. He can see the one document that he saw in that room of spilled boxes when we, you know, the photos that we got in the indictment of

the spilled boxes that somebody took. He can see that one. But the other ones he doesn't need to see. He's not charged with retention of national defense information. He's charged with obstructing moving boxes. That's he doesn't need to see any of what's in the boxes. And this is common, by the way, in SIPA cases, for somebody to want to see and then be, you know, have that objected by the government. But his router parloff points out, there's no 11th Circuit precedent here because most CPC cases happen in Virginia and DC in New York, right? Like we're like where the CIA headquarters is in Virginia. That's right. DC because that's where all the classified information kind of lives.

Now, the Department of Justice has argued NADA doesn't need to see them like I said because he's not charged on the SBP. and I should act. But it appears canon finds this a very difficult issue to rule on. So both sides have submitted briefs two weeks after a hearing, a sealed hearing, but yeah, which again, seems like this is all slow roll. And then Jack Smith has filed his opposition to Trump's motion to delay CEPA section four. And Trump has said, I need three extra months for this. And Jack Smith is like, no, you absolutely don't.

That will throw the whole schedule into chaos. Quote, in light of brief delays in the entry of CEPA section 3 protective orders, which is the protective order we just got after months, and defense council read ins to certain compartments. The court invited the defendants to file a motion to extend deadlines related to CPIS 4. Hey, it took me three months, right, to decide on section 3. So, right, you get an extra couple, we get a little bit more time in section four. Instead, defendant Trump joined by his co-defendants filed a motion that

threatens to upend the entire schedule established by the court, and then amounts to a motion to continue the May 20th, 2024 trial date. Defendants argue for a schedule that would delay even the initiation of seep a section for proceedings by over three months. And here's the problem. By doing that, Trump, number one,

mistakes what necessary to file an exparte submission setting forth general defense theories, general defense theories, which he should have had since two years ago. Mm-hmm. Number two, falsely accused the government of delaying discovery. He did that in this filing. You delayed discovery.

No. SEPA section three took a minute to just who is this SEPA that you keep talking about? I don't know. I don't like her hair. He doesn't even know what he's talking about. I think SEPA is biased against me. SEPA is totally biased. I don't like her.

Number three, unnecessarily proposing overhauling the seepist schedule, including by implementing responsive non-exparte section four briefings, even though that approach is foreclosed by the 11th circus decision. And I love how every time, every time Jack Smith gets a chance to throw the 11th circuit precedent in here, like, hey, everybody, I mean, that is one of the few things he can do to get this judge's attention. Okay, the your overseers in your backyard have already weighed in on this, this novel concept of precedent. Okay, we're going to point it out to you.

Yeah. And then also make arguments about prudential searches and discovery obligations that are not relevant to this, to deciding this motion. He did that. Overstating the complexity of pre-trial discovery litigation and meritless, they, all of this is meritless in any event.

The DOJ says, currently the schedule should proceed a pace. And, you know, for the foregoing reasons in his conclusion, if the courts inclined to grant an extension, he says, for the defendant's ex-parté filing, because of the three months that she took to decide Cepa Section 3, because remember, we talked to Brian Greer who said, you have to decide Section 3 before you've section 4 and Section 4 before Section 5. It's like a funnel. It has to go in order. And so he's like, look, if you need to grant some time because section three took so long for no good reason, you know, give him a couple of things.

He says it should be no longer than about a week. He actually puts in a filing about a week. This is the DOJ. And the other dates in the court schedule order should be maintained. So he's like three months, no, you can delay it like a week. That's all you need. So again, most here's another case. Really, all we're litigating is delay.

And the judge here, you know, she makes your head want to explode. This whole idea of like, you have an issue, you've got emotion, you do the hearing and then later, after the hearing, you request the hearing and then later after the hearing, you request briefing, which then takes more time. Compare that to how it's done in DC. Judge Chutkin gets a motion, she's very quickly says, okay, fine, government, I need your response by this day. On October 3rd.

Yeah, and then we'll have a hearing the next day and then I give you my ruling the day after that. Like, that's how you move things along. It's typically considered beneficial to have the briefings, the papers. Before you get together in court to discuss something, just for that reason, it makes it quicker. But yeah, there's no sense of urgency here.

And Andy, Judge Chuck, and correct me if I'm wrong, is probably way busier than Judge Cannon. It would seem so. I mean, Judge Cannon is the only judge in her courthouse, right? So I guess maybe she's probably got some other stuff to do because there's no one else there to do it. But the fact that she's the only judge in that courthouse tells you there's not a ton of stuff to do there. You know, she's kind of in a satellite from...

And she's not the only judge in the district. No, no, no. She's just only one of that courthouse. It's like a little... I thought I think of it as like a satellite office from the main... The center of that district is in Miami, of course. Whereas what I don't even remember, how many judges are on the district court bench in DC, but the simple fact that they've already handled almost a thousand cases, they've got almost a

thousand January six cases, right? So yeah, there's a pretty, a pretty active practice in Judge Chuck and Chambers. I kind of sad out of all those cases that Donald Trump could only find two that he found objective, like, statements that he objected to for his motion to have her recuse herself. I'm sure. Just so ridiculous. All right, everybody, we have more to get to, but we have to take another quick break. Stick around. We'll be right back. Hey, everybody, welcome back.

So for a while now, the question about the applicability of Title 18, US code section 1512, which you know long time we've talked about this, that's obstructing an official proceeding, has been winding its way through the courts. The applicability of this law has been winding its way through a court. Several rioters from January 6th

have filed motions kind of contesting what the law means. They've contested what intent means or they've said that since they had nothing have filed motions kind of contesting what the law means. They've contested what intent means, or they've said that since they had nothing of value to gain from obstructing the electoral certification that they shouldn't be charged with this. And now for the second time, the Department of Justice has asked for an extension to file their briefing, their thoughts on this matter. Currently, their responses do on October 2nd, but they would now like until October 30th, saying that the Department of Justice

Attorney's responsible for this briefing, quote, have been heavily engaged with the press of previously assigned matters with proximate due dates. Like, we've got a lot going on in this court. with proximate due dates. Like, we've got a lot going on in this court. Now, the 1512 charge has been used over 300 times, through I think 317, to be exact, at least as of this recording, in January 6th riot cases, and two times in the Trump coup indictment in DC, right?

1512K and 1512C2, which is conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding and obstructing an official proceeding. And we knew that this was coming. I mean, well, you know, we've talked about it since forever. So they're relying on this particular charge. Now we'll keep you posted, but you and I, Andy, have talked in previous episodes. I don't think this actually impacts Trump's charge of 1512 because he actually does have something of value to lose. That's right. It all comes down to that issue of the statutes that I don't have it right in front of me, but the statute basically says if you corruptly perform the following acts.

And it's that, so that word corruptly kind of defines what sort of intent you have to have. And many of these litigants, these are like lower level people who are in the capital, you know, involved in the mayhem, what have you. They're saying, well, we didn't do anything corruptly because we didn't get anything out of it. We didn't receive any like pecuniary benefit from doing this. Right. No money, nothing of value. We didn't, we weren't doing

it to get a job or to make money or to enrich ourselves or any of that stuff. We did it because Trump told us to. That's right. We love that guy. So there is an issue there. You know, it's a place that I think could benefit from some appellate court, you know, specification on exactly what corruptly requires. But in the Trump case, he very clearly did what he did for corrupt purposes. He was trying to win the election that he had just lost. He's trying to steal.

He was fundraising off of it. I mean, talk about the cunyary benefits. Like, right. So in a couple hundred million dollars. Right. So unless a court comes in and basically completely rewrites the statute in some significant way, which could happen, but I think it's highly unlikely.

I don't think this has, we'll have a huge impact on his charges. Right, because I mean, Scotus could come in and like they did with the bribery and corruption law. Yeah. And say, you know what, you have to actually walk up to somebody with a bag of money and say, this is for this act.

And the other person has to say, thank you for giving me this money to so that I can vote on this legislation. Right. You know, they might rewrite 1512c2, but again, like you said, even if they do, it doesn't really impact Trump's charges. I don't think so. That's right.

It just wouldn't unless they completely take it off the books. Yeah, they could come in and say, create a very high high bar like they did in the McDonald's case, saying basically, okay, all you trespassers on the capital in order to be convicted, the government has to prove a quid pro quo that you received something of benefit in order to do your trespassing. I think that's really unlikely.

I think it's more likely the accord will come in and say, no, you were there clearly in support of Donald Trump. You did, that's your chosen candidate, your chosen party, whatever. What you did was in conformance with conferring a benefit to your chosen candidate, and therefore that satisfies the corrupt. Those are, those conflicting

reasonings would represent kind of the two boundaries of where the court could fall out on it, or really anywhere in the middle. So I think that's what we're likely to get, but it's unlikely to affect the charge in Trump's case. Yeah, no, I agree. And I think he has some new lawyers, doesn't he? He's done Trump to say a couple of people, and wow, like, I'm kind of proud of him. Like, good job. We found some lawyers. Maybe they can start doing things on time by now.

Oh no, that's not part of the plan. So we learned from Politico that Trump has added at least two veteran attorneys to help him defend these many cases. The first, I'm going to say, Emil Bove. I don't know how to pronounce his name. Could be Emil. Could be Bove for the last name, but in any case, I'm going to call him email bove.

Former federal prosecutor who was co-chief of the National Security Unit at the Southern District of New York, or the Manhattan U.S. Attorney's Office. And also Kendra Wharton, a seasoned white collar defense lawyer with some ties to Capitol Hill. Both of them have signed on to the legal team that's been organized by Trump attorney Todd Blanche. In recent days, Bove actually joined Blanche's firm, which you'll recall, Blanche started to conduct the representation of Trump. He was with a different firm that he left in order to become Trump's lawyer. And so he started his own little shop. So Bove has joined that team.

Wharton has actually launched her own firm, and that firm is expected to partner with Blanche. According to you. Yeah, if you're going to represent Trump, you have to just start your own firm. No firm. No, because none of your prior lawyer friends want to do it with you. So you have to kind of go out on your own. Sir, this is a Wendy's. We don't have lawyers for you. Yeah, he's, there's no firm. That's gonna touch you. So you have to either join Blanche's new firm

that he created just to do this or make your own, which is what Wharton did. That cracks me up. You imagine that when you're the lawyer and you've received a call from, I don't know, Boris Epstein or something, and you go running into your, you know, the guy who has the office next to you, you go running there. Hey, they Trump wants to hire me to be his lawyer. Come on. Let's go do it. And your neighbor is like, Hey, dude, I love you. But no, man, I'm not going down that road.

No, you're starting your own firm. Cool, bro. Good luck with that. Yeah. Okay. So Bovay and Wartner expected to work on Trump's criminal cases, including the New York criminal case brought by Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg and the federal cases filed by special counsel Jack Smith.

Trump is also facing a fourth criminal case in Fulton County, Georgia, and his hired separate lawyers, a separate team for that matter. Yeah. Although Rudy's Fulton County attorney just quit him, which is kind of fun. And suit him. Oh, no, that's a different one. Costello suit him. Costello.

His one of his remaining lawyers was like, I'm out piece out. So he's just he's so after. Geez, geez. That's tough times for Rudy. I was shocked, I shouldn't have been surprised at all, that Costello, it Rudy made some really disparaging comments about Costello when he found out that Costello was suing him for the unpaid bill. And they contacted Costello for a comment. He of course refused to comment until they told him what Rudy said and then he proceeded to rip Rudy on the record. So it's really like it's getting ugly up there on on team Rudy or former team Rudy.

Yeah, that sounds fight fight fight fight like they're just they're going to tear each other apart. It's a school year. Yeah, we don't have to do anything. We're all standing around him in a circle. Yeah, one fight fight fight. Okay. Okay. So Blanche, we know is also an alumnus of the Manhattan, US Attorney's Office, SDNY. And he seems to have emerged now as the architect of Trump's multi front legal battle.

So the new hires kind of further solidify his imprint on some of the most significant criminal cases, right? He appears to really be the quarterback over several of those cases. Now regarding the other two, people who know them have been commenting, here's one quote, Emil is an expert in white collar and seep a related litigation and his trial skills are among the best in the business. Todd Blanche said in a statement referencing the classified information procedures act, which of course we know is the federal

law governing the use of classified documents in criminal cases. Blanche continued, we are thrilled and lucky to have him on our team defending President Trump and all of our other clients. We're thrilled and lucky to have him on our team defending President Trump and all of our other clients. We're thrilled and lucky to have anybody on our team. I'm thrilled to have another breathing human being with a law degree to do some of this work because Todd Blanche probably hasn't seen his family in weeks. Probably not. Yeah, I think he also said what Kendra is a brilliant lawyer, clients have trusted her for years.

This is Wharton, Kendra Wharton, starting her own firm and she's providing the same excellent service to our team that's been her signature for many years. Okay. So, it's actually a particularly bland statement, but I don't know. Yeah, so sit down and get ready to have to say a bunch of shit that you don't want to say to a judge. You're welcome. Yeah. And good starting your own firm because you're gonna have to fold after this because you could never be seen in front of those judges again.

You just go take the bar exam in a different state after this. Cause you're never going to be able to like look judge Chuck in in the eye as a serious attorney in any case. We're going to require that you take positions in court that are not based on fact and likely to prejudice every judge against you. And Chris keys weighed in with and make sure you get a retainer up front. Yeah.

No, I made that up. I made that. Three million. Get it up front. Now, this also coincides. Jack Smith brought on a new person onto his team. Alex Whiting, we've talked about this as deputy at the Hague in the, the, the, the, the coast of a war crimes department, I guess.

So it appears now that the DC case may have Whiting as a trial lawyer because he's trial experienced, right? Right. Right. So I think he's, I, I don't have confirmation of this. Andy, but I think he specifically brought Alex Whiting on for the, the DC trial, just like he brought David Raskin on and he brought him on last year, but he hasn't really showed up on any pleadings until just now. But I think Raskin might be one of the head, if not the head trial lawyer down in, in Florida because he's really, really good at that. And we, and Brian Gre Brian Greer, who was on, as you know, last week was like, yeah, that guy,

sweet. Love David Raskin. He's, he would be an excellent trial lawyer. So I think we, we may now also see the DOJ as, you know, team, their prosecution team, sort of, jelling. Yeah. I think so. I don't know. whiting. I'm sure he's a great lawyer. I do know Raskin, Raskin's top drawer. On the list of probably top five national security lawyers in government, I mean, I don't care who's making it. Raskin makes anybody's top five list. He's been around for a long time.

He's had a bunch of big cases. The Trump team tried to really kind of smear him at the outset of this case with all those allegations of, I don't know, impropriety and conversations that happened around the beginning of the case. None of that seems to have gone anywhere, which is what we all expected. So I agree with you. I think Raskin's probably focused on that one. Top five, number one, head in number one with a bullet. There you go. Yeah, no, no, he's, yeah, I forgot Trump bad mouthed him at the onset. This was a, that they're probably in the winter, like right before the holidays of last year when Raskin was actually brought onto the team, but he hasn't appeared on too many filings.

So we'll say, and again, that's not Jamie Raskin. That's not the congressman. This is David Raskin. That's right. That's right. And back to the Trump lawyers, you know, both have pretty notable experience. Boewe, we know handled matters, including the investigation of Agua Wang Wei, who was a Steve Bannon ally. He's the guy that owned

the boat that Steve Bannon, I think, was arrested on the fraud case. By the host office cops. Yes. We build the wall guy, yeah. That's right. That's right. Gua was also indicted earlier this year on fraud charges involving an alleged billion dollar fraud scheme. So in addition to him, Bove also worked on the prosecution of Caesar Sayok, Jr. who you'll remember is, I think the dude who lived in a van and planned to send bombs through the mail to a whole list of people who he thought were being mean to. Yeah. Former president.

Right. Yeah. Yeah. He had all this stickers on his van. Like, yeah, I remember that time. He had seen, and I think some government folks and also media folks, and he took a huge hit on a guilty plea. And I think we'll be spending the rest of his life. And jail, if I remember that one correctly.

Bové was prosecuted on that case. That's right. That's right. Oh, wow, okay. All right, so there you have it. New legal talent for the Trump team and they could sorely use it. Yeah, I'm actually surprised because honestly, this is going to be their last case. I guess they're like, hey, you know, give me, give me like, like, keys did, like you said, like, hey hey give me five million. This will be I'll create my own firm. This will be my last case, but I'll do it for five. Like I don't I don't

get like the guy who prosecuted Caesar Sayok is willing to go out on this limb. Yeah. It also doesn't mean they'll be around like five minutes from now, right? Because people come and go and they say, oh, he's the new lawyer, and then they're gone. Um, so it's, but these are big names. They are, they are talented people. Um, so that's good for him. But let's see if you can keep them around. Yeah. All right. We have to take a quick break. But I have a question. I have some questions for you about Scott Hall down in Georgia. I know that's a state case. And we don't cover that here on the Jack podcast, but it might have implications in the federal case. So I wanna talk to you about that

because I know that you're an expert in these kinds of things, but we have to take a quick break. So everybody, stick around. We'll be right back. Ba, ba, ba, ba, ba, ba, ba, ba, ba, ba, ba, ba, ba, ba, ba, ba, ba, ba, ba, ba, ba, ba, ba, ba, ba, ba, ba, ba, ba, ba, ba, ba, ba, ba, ba, ba, ba, ba, ba, ba, ba, ba, ba, ba, ba, ba, ba, ba, ba, ba, ba, ba, ba, ba, ba, ba, ba, ba, ba, ba, ba, ba, ba, ba, ba, ba, ba, ba, ba, ba, ba, ba, ba, ba, ba, ba, ba, ba, ba, ba, ba, ba, ba, ba, ba, ba, ba, ba, ba, ba, ba, ba, ba, ba, ba, ba, ba, ba, ba, ba, ba, ba, ba, ba, ba, ba, ba, ba, ba, ba, ba, ba, ba, ba, ba, ba, ba, ba, ba, ba, ba, ba, ba, ba, ba, ba, ba, ba, ba, ba, ba, ba, ba, ba, ba, ba, ba, ba, ba, ba, ba, ba, ba, ba, ba, ba, ba, ba, ba, ba, ba, ba, ba, ba, ba, ba, ba, ba, ba, ba, ba, ba, ba, ba, ba, ba, ba, ba, ba, ba, everybody, welcome back. So the big news yesterday, I mean, first of all, there were a million different filings. Everybody on Trump team Maga lost all of their filings, like all of their bids in court

in Georgia. It was a really kind of a hard day to follow all the legal filings that went on this past Friday. But the big story, Scott Hall, who was a bail bondsman, who worked with Sidney Powell to steal some, or breach some voting machines in coffee county, very conservative coffee county, he is flipped and he's cooperating with Fannie Willis. And while that's a huge story in Georgia, in the state case, which of course we're gonna go over, you know, Pete Strucken,

I'll talk about that on cleanup on Al 45 because that's where we cover Fulton County. But this could have implications in the federal cases. Couldn't it? I mean, if you've got a cooperating witness, I imagine that anything he says, and he has to under his agreement testify truthfully to everything, which includes a 63 minute phone call to Jeffrey Clark.

And you know, includes, I mean, he's got kind of his hands on a lot of stuff that happened in the national federal case, not just Georgia in coffee county, but he, if you are going to testify, and I think he's going to be a witness for the state, that can be used in federal court. Can't it? I mean, you've seen these kinds of cases before, right, where you have somebody who's in a state court and also in a federal in the federal court system, can you use those statements?

Absolutely. You can use them all day long. So statements made under oath in a judicial proceeding, which these would be, if he takes the stand and testifies, are universally admissible in another criminal proceeding or another civil proceeding. It's actually a specific exception to the hearsay rule. It would normally be hearsay, but oh, the hearsay rule basically prohibits testimony

that's not direct, right? Testimony that's offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted, but that keeps things out like you couldn't take the stand and say, Andrew told me he bought the drugs in my narcotics trial because that would be hearsay. Well, even like emails and stuff, but there's, but because of exceptions, right? There's many exceptions to hearsay, and one of them explicitly says this, that testimony in judicial proceedings that was given under oath, essentially,

that can get admitted. So, as a, I assume his, he made a recorded statement as well. We don't, we haven't heard the statement. So, he made a recorded statement to the state. I am assuming that because that's part of the proceeding,

that's also admissible. Yeah, anything, any statements that he made to investigators or to prosecutors in the course of their investigation, now that he's gonna be a witness for them, they have to turn all those statements over to the defense in the Fulton County case, because now that's discoverable,

so that the defense can use those other statements, prior statements to cross examine him, try to make him look like he's telling different stories. So that's there. How would it affect Jack Smith? Well, number one in the way we just mentioned, whatever comments he makes on the record in the judicial proceeding under oath can be entered in the federal case. But also oftentimes when someone when someone cooperates they enter into and well every time they enter into a cooperation agreement with the prosecutors right they say okay I will agree to be your witness and I'll be

truthful about everything and in return you're going to drop some of the charges against me or charge me with lesser things and, you know, charges that would be. Right. In this case, he pled guilty to all five counts, but they became misdemeanors. Five misdemeanors. Yeah, that was a good deal for him. It's a really good deal. It gets five years of probation. He doesn't have to go to jail at all.

And I mean, I suspect all the other people are like, dang. Five years probation, 200 hours of community service, all pretty good deal when you were facing a rico conviction. And let's remember the case against him probably pretty strong because it's got, there's videotape evidence, there's audio evidence of these folks that were involved in the coffee county thing.

So he gets a good deal. Probably a part of that deal, well, I shouldn't say probably, maybe a part of that deal, well, I shouldn't say probably, maybe a part of that deal is requires him to also cooperate or testify truthfully in other jurisdictions that bring prosecutions based on the same conduct. That is frequently added into a cooperator's deal. When you know that there are other jurisdictions that might want to use them as well.

So we don't know that yet. I haven't heard that reported, but when they say like all proceedings, that could include that. I mean, we got sort of a general idea, you know, a general idea where they say you have to cooperate in all proceedings related to these crimes, that could mean in other jurisdictions. They could actually identify it specifically. They could say you must, if requested, you must also cooperate with the prosecutors in the DC circuit or whatever, or state prosecutors in Michigan, whatever, whatever it might be.

I don't, I'm just guessing. Right. Because he also, Patrick Burn, right? When we, when you and I have talked about this national sort of push to breach voting machines, it happened in Antrim County and Michigan, it happened like, it happened all over the, all over the country. And we're like, well, I figure, I, like, it seems like that's something that Jack Smith should prosecute, right? Because it's on the national, it's on the federal level, that could be included in that. But it also like you, like you have said,

it might be a mop-up case. It might be something that he adds later after Trump is done. So it's not to even take a possibility of slowing that case down. Yeah. And the final consideration is, even if it's not explicitly written into his agreement, the fact that he has an agreement

and then takes the stand in the Fulton County case and testifies. If he is later called to testify by the government in Trump's case or a follow-up case or whatever that might be, he's got a much harder time defending that, right? It's going to be harder to come in and say, plea to theft. I'm not going to testify because I'm afraid of being prosecuted when he's already got a cooperation agreement and really the only other jurisdiction that could possibly prosecute him. So all in all, it makes it much more likely that he could, and maybe they don't want him or need him, but he could be a witness in one of the federal cases.

Yeah. a witness in one of the federal cases. Yeah, and even if not a witness, like just somebody took a few more leads, other cases because he, Sidney Powell's having a bad day. Yeah, and listen, dude is on team America now, right? So typically when people make that decision, they take the deal, he leads out, he's there, you know, they kind of take it all the way.

Especially like this guy's not, he's not, you know, they kind of take it all the way, especially like this guy's not. He's not a criminal outside of this context. He's just some do bail bondsman, right? Yeah, so he's probably someone who's inclined to cooperate anyway. And you I really don't think he's gonna be the last person you see take a plea in the fault in case. No, he flips first flips best, right? That's right. That's a good deal there. But I wouldn't be surprised if she's sitting around waiting to hand that deal to other people too. Yeah.

All right, so do we have any listener questions because if you have a question for Andy or I, or Brian Greer or anybody else who we bring on the show, you can submit that by clicking the link in the show notes. Who do we have this week? OK, so this week we have Cosmo. And Cosmo writes in a question that I think really touches on something a lot of people have been thinking about lately.

Cosmo says, I always look forward to your new insights every week. I have a question about the argument that conspiracy defendants who separate themselves into an earlier trial help the defense of later defendants who separate themselves into an earlier trial, help the defense of later defendants. He says he understands how it does give the later defendants a kind of a sneak peek. Look at the government's case. But he says, I also wonder how any one defendant in a conspiracy can stand trial alone. I would think that the fact that it's a conspiracy would require evidence to be introduced about the actions of other conspirators, but they won't be there to defend themselves. Good question, and you're pretty much, you're leaning in the right direction on all this stuff.

So let's talk about it a little bit in the context of Fulton County, just because I think that's a little bit easier. Obviously, the government brings a case against 19 people. They want to put that case on one time, so they want to keep everyone together. But in Georgia, you got these really strict, speedy trial rules, laws, that enable a defendant to basically split themselves off and go early, like within two months or something like that.

And that's what's happening to Chesbro and Powell. So that's how a defendant splits themselves off. It's much harder to do in the federal system because even though you have, of course, a federal speedy trial right, it's not defined as clearly as it is in Georgia. And the government can actually push back on your desire to split yourself off and go early. And the judge ultimately makes a decision between the competing interests of speedy trial

versus the government's interests and putting on a good case judicial economy, that sort of stuff. So it's a little more gray. But nevertheless, in a conspiracy case, yes, Cosmo, you're right. The government has to prove the entirety of the conspiracy. And so that requires putting on all of the evidence,

whether it's just for two defendants in an early trial or for the remaining 17 in a big case, they still have to put all the evidence on. Now, it doesn't matter that in that early trial, the other defendants aren't there to, quote unquote, defend themselves. That's just not a factor. The government has that evidence, the fact that the evidence by putting it out there in the public sphere could have a negative, create negative impressions in the public about

these defendants who will come later. That's just part of what happens in a trial. There's no specific rule or constitutional principle that prohibits that. So yeah, all the evidence would get put on in both trials. The later defendants get have the benefit of getting that sneak peak and seeing how the government puts on their case. But they also have the downside that you've pointed out that people have now really heard them their names being dragged through the mud. Yeah, it kind of helps them set up. I mean, that's why people like have those joint defense agreements, right? Because everybody can hear and get information from lawyers and hearings

and stuff like that before a trial even starts. But yeah, in this one, and we just saw the hearing about some pretrial stuff in Georgia and Judge McAfee, who, I mean, honestly, so far seems like a pretty decent jurist. Yeah, yeah, doing a fine job down there, I think. Yeah, he, by the way, denied every single, like, mostly like Jeff Clark's motion to remove the electors' motion to remove the electors motion to remove denied. People trying to dismiss their cases based on, you know, bullshit, like he's like, no, no, no, no, right. But he agreed that this trial is going to take four to five, four to five months just for

Sydney and the cheese, right? The Sydney pal and Kenneth Cheesebro. But who, by the way, I asked Anna Bauer, I guess it's pronounced Chazbro. No, come on. I'm, don't take my cheese away. It's my name. Yeah, I know. Don't take my cheese.

His nickname is the cheese. So, I'm good with that, the cheese, cheese man. He's from Wisconsin. So the cheese. But you know, that just for the two of them is going to take four or five months because again, like you said, the prosecution, the state,

has to put on the entire Rico case for just these two. Or, and there are still, I think, I think I heard in the hearing, six people who haven't filed either to sever or for speedy trial. And by the way, one of my favorite new things, apparently they call these trials speedies down in Georgia, because he's like, look, yes, it's going to be in courtroom 5A. I'm pretty sure that we'll be done.

We have a couple other speedies that we're doing. Like he calls them speedies, which is just. Speedies. Yeah, cracks me up. But yeah, four or five months for the entire thing to be put on. So for just two people, and that is probably about how long the other trial for however many people

are left that don't flip and plead. Yeah. And remember. And remember. That one is the state case. It's gonna be on TV. Yep. That's how I'm like and Trump has said,

Trump has decided he's, he said, I'm not gonna try to remove this to federal court. Yeah. I think that was a predictable, actually good move on their part. What, don't waste time. You're not gonna get it anyway. All those motions got denied.

He had a weaker case for that, I think, that certainly than meadows and maybe even than Clark, or others, and wasn't worth the danger of having to take the stand and testify, expose himself like that. So. And it kinda makes me second guess my wanting the federal trials to be televised because I've Trump

wants it. I don't, I'm like, I don't know if I want that. Like I just, everything Trump wants if I want it to, it makes me question myself. Right. But he, the cameras are there and that might, to him, be a benefit in his mind. I don't know. Yeah. I think, I think there would be some societal benefit to

having the federal cases televised, but it's too late. You can't do this one different than every other federal case. That would just be creating so much room for him to contain and issues. Yeah, reason to appeal. So they have, they're kind of stuck with where they are. I think. Anyway, there you go. That's our listener question for the week and a good one. Thanks, Cosmo. Yep. There'll be a link in the show notes. If anybody wants to submit a question, thank you so much, Cosmo.

That was a great question. And everybody, thank you so much for listening to the Jack podcast. We really appreciate it. It seems like the focus is down in Georgia, but man, there is a lot of important stuff, particularly coming up in October with these hearings in these federal cases. So I look forward to discussing them with you, Andy. Yeah, absolutely. The pace is only going to pick up on that stuff.

So if you really want the details that go deep on where we are in these cases, this is the right place to do it. Once a week, you get your fill, and then you're ready for next week's craziness. Yeah, yeah, 100%. All right, I've been Ellison Gil. And I'm Andy McCabe. And we'll see you next week on Jack.