Jack - Episode 47 - Come On, Aileen

Episode Date: October 22, 2023

This week in Judge Aileen Cannon’s court, Walt Nauta waives his attorney’s possible conflict of interest; Jack Smith files the government’s opposition to Trump’s request to delay the trial.In DC, Judge Tanya Chutkan issues a partial gag order; and DoJ responds to Trump’s absolute immunity claim in his motion to dismiss.Sidney Powell and Kenneth Cheseboro plead guilty in the Fulton County Rico case.Jack Smith withdraws the subpoena of the Save America PAC.DoJ plans to appeal the Proud Boys’ sentences.Plus, a couple of listener questions. A couple of terms to remember:Brady Rule | US Law |Cornell Law School | Legal Information Institutehttps://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/brady_rule#:~:text=Brady%20material%2C%20or%20the%20evidence,infer%20against%20the%20defendant's%20guiltJencks Material | Thomson Reuters Practical Law Glossaryhttps://content.next.westlaw.com/Glossary/PracticalLaw/I87bcf994d05a11e598dc8b09b4f043e0?transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default)Brian Greer on CIPAThe Quick Guide to CIPA (Classified Information Procedures Act)https://www.justsecurity.org/87134/the-quick-guide-to-cipa-classified-information-procedures-act/Questions for the pod -Submit questions for the pod here https://formfacade.com/sm/PTk_BSogJCheck out other MSW Media podcastshttps://mswmedia.com/shows/Follow 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.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. 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. It is Sunday, October 22nd. I'm Allison Gill. And I'm Andy McCabe. Oh my gosh, we have so much news to get to in this episode. So much, including how Sydney Powell and Kenneth Cheesebro plea deals. Yes, that's right. Plead deals will impact Jack Smith's ongoing investigation into Trump's unindicted co-conspirators in DC. And and Judge Chutkin has granted in part the DOJ's motion investigation into Trump's unindicted co-conspirators in DC. And Judge Chutkin has granted in part the DOJ's motion for a partial, don't call it a gag

order in a DC case, along with Jack Smith's response to Donald's motion to dismiss that case on the grounds that he enjoys absolute monarchy. No, I'm sorry, immunity, but kind of the same thing. And several media outlets have filed a motion now, AG to try to get the Trump DC trial televised. And of course, DOJ has opposed that. Yeah, and that's not all. Okay, that's just a little bit of the show.

We also have some court filings and decisions that will impact Jack Smith's DC case, including Merrick Garland has filed a notice to appeal the Proud Boys sentences. We have a decision from the DC Circuit Court of Appeals that affirms the Department of Justice's broad definition of the word corruptly in the Title 18151212, C2 statute. And down in Florida, we have Walt Naughtus, rescheduled conflict of interest hearing for his lawyer, Stanley Woodward, who has conceded, by the way,

that he should be precluded from cross-examining you see El Tveris. And we also have Jack Smith's motion, opposing Trump's request to delay the proceedings in Florida. And Jack Smith has filed to withdraw his subpoena of Trump's super PAC. And Andy, we've been talking about that potential fraud for a really long time. So I'm, I'm, you know, we'll talk about that more, but I was a little bit surprised by that. And I don't know how we're all going to get to all of this today, but we're going to try.

So let's start with the plea deals in Fulton County and how that will impact Jack's Mitz investigation. You got it. So, okay. Yesterday we learned that Sydney Powell had pled guilty in Fulton County. And so before we get into the details of that, let me just back up a little bit and let's remember what she was actually charged with because you have to understand that to appreciate the absolute majesty of this agreement for

her personally. Okay, so she was charged in the Fulton County Rico case with, of course, Count 1 Rico. So she's charged in that count. She is mentioned in, by my count, 12 separate acts of or criminal acts under that RICO charge. So she's all over it. And she's charged in six other counts, so six other individual crimes, including conspiracy to commit election fraud, computer theft, computer invasion, and conspiracy to defraud the state. Now most of those crimes had to do with her activity, basically directing and coordinating

the whole effort to steal information out of the voting machines in coffee county, Georgia. So she was facing some very serious felony charges that could of course have carried a significant risk of a lot of time in jail. Now she's pled to six misdemeanor counts of conspiracy to commit intentional interference with performance of election duties. Those would be if, I mean, she's not going to go to trial, she's pled guilty. None of those counts would carry a sentence of longer than a year because they're all misdemeanors. She's the first time offender, no priors.

So she's looking at a very, basically a walk on this entire thing. And what she has to do in response is, first she's gotta be extensively preferred by the prosecutors in Fulton County, which when I was watching the plea yesterday, it sounds like she's already done that or at least has done the first part of that.

That's basically sitting down the prosecutors and telling them everything you did. And they're not gonna just ask about coffee county. They're gonna wanna know every single time she ever met with Donald Trump, everything he ever said, every crazy scheme, every suggestion, the whole shebang. She's got to go over all that stuff. And she was at that really contentious

December 18th, Oval Office writing that ended up in the residence. Yeah, that's actually one of the charges, one of the Rico acts that's referred to in the indictment. So they're really going to acts that's referred to in the indictment. So they're really going to pick her clean of every piece of information she has about that stuff. Then she has to testify and quote all future proceedings. So that's the whatever, how, when, whatever form at this case goes to trial, if there are spinoffs, if other people are charged, if there's a superceiving indictment, she has to agree to be a witness for the prosecution in any of those. So it's a pretty, she's really got to step up and be a legitimate cooperator. She can't go in and plead the fifth. So in other words, if she is put on the stand to testify for the prosecution, they ask her a question. She can't claim Fifth Amendment privilege against, her question, she can't claim Fifth Amendment privilege against, you know, inculpating herself because she's not actually facing any jeopardy, right? To sustain a clean invocation of your Fifth

Amendment privilege, you have to actually be facing jeopardy. She's not because the prosecutors have already said they're not going to prosecute her beyond these misdemeanors. So she can't do that. And the big thing for me is how this impacts Jack Smith. Okay, so as a preliminary matter, the state court in Georgia cannot require her to cooperate in federal court. That's a difference of jurisdiction. But as a practical matter, she kind of has no other way out. We'll all remember, we think she's referred to as one of the unindicted co-conspirators and Trump's DC January 6 case. If they were looking to charge her

in that case, they can certainly do it now. She will have on record in Fulton County through her guilty plea. She's basically admitted to participating in the conduct that she would likely be indicted for. So she can't. She just essentially has no alternative but to cooperate with federal prosecutors if she's charged. And that's how I think that will go. Yeah, let me ask you a question because you know, she had her in Fulton County.

She had a felonies reduced to misdemeanors. My understanding is after talking to a couple of former US attorneys and some folks from the used to work for the DOJ, the feds generally don't reduce charges like that. And so if she even had time to call up Jack Smith and try to be like, I'm pleading guilty down here. Can we work a deal out up there? I don't think he would give her less than a felony. You know what I mean?

Yeah, that's a really good point. I thought it was a little bit odd to maybe this is more of the practice in Georgia. It's not how it's done on the federal level. Typically, in a federal case, you charge with a bunch of felonies. If you want to cooperate, you typically end up having to plead guilty to one of those felonies you've already been charged with, the other ones go away. And then the rest of the cooperation deal falls into place. In a rare case, they might dismiss all of the charges, the felonies that they had charged you with, and then re-endite you on a different felony, a slightly

less damaging felony. But you're going to walk away with a felony plea. And the reason for that is if you don't successfully cooperate. So if you don't tell the prosecutors everything, you've done, if you lied to them, if you conceal some element of your past criminality, if you get on the witness stand and don't tell the truth, whatever, all kinds of ways you can tank your cooperation. Like, Manifor it, Flynn. Exactly. They can turn around and charge you with felonies.

The deal collapses. It's no longer the prosecutors are no longer bound by it, and they can pursue you on the original crimes and add new ones in as well. So there's great incentive. If you're not gonna come on board completely, willingly, enthusiastically, and do everything you can to cooperate successfully,

it's a really bad idea to cooperate at all. Done correctly, you get a massive advantage for cooperating. Done incorrectly, you hose yourself for good. Yeah. And honestly, if I'm Jack Smith and I get the call from Sydney Powell's attorneys, I'm going to go out of my way and say she's not the best witness. Oh my God. She's terrible.

I mean, I might almost say no. Like, but you know, I guess you would, I would bring her in to see what she's got because maybe she's got evidence that I can corroborate with a more reliable witness. Like, dun dun dun, Kenneth Chesbro, who planned kill today. There you go, what a segue, you must be professional. So, yeah, so Chesbro today,

today's news, he pled today, like literally, I guess, minutes before the trial was gonna start or something. As the potential jurors are lined up outside the courthouse, getting ready to come in and fill out their jury questionnaire. That's right. So he pleads to kind of a similar arrangement, although they did make him eat a felony. Oh, I'm sorry, plead to a felony.

So he has got that hanging over his head. Same thing, he's got to cooperate in all future trials. And in Georgia, he has to proper, he has to provide good and truthful testimony. While all the same things apply and the same kind of implications for, we also thought he is an unadided co-conspirator in the DC case. So the same rules apply for him.

It's terms of witness value, like she's got so many problems. She has said so many just bat, you know what? Crazy things in public, she's made. She just was out there lying repeatedly about the election, about election fraud, making all kinds of lunatic accusations against whoever Hugo Chavez diminuting, you know, line them up. So generally tough witness to use on the stand because you get a lot of impeachable material there. She lost 60 plus cases by lying in her pleadings

and being sanctioned in Michigan. So yeah, no, she's soft. But like you said, look, every, yeah, every cooperator has some damage because look, they were charged with a crime. That's something you gotta address head on. Good prosecutors know how to rehabilitate witnesses, how to bring that stuff out on direct examination, and how to let the jury know, like, hey, there's

a cooperation deal in place here that penalizes the witness if they lie or do something wrong. So there's all kinds of ways to rehabilitate them. She beyond rehabilitation, maybe. You know, there is a limit. Chesbro way less known was way less public has far fewer, I think, statements on the record. I don't remember him making a lot of public statements. Of course, now his emails and communications about the stuff they were doing have become public. So he would have to face a little bit of reckoning with those, but he would be a very good witness. And the thing that really amazes me about this, everybody's

now talking about who's going to flip next. There will be more people who flip and become cooperators and government witnesses to figure this, to figure out the real implications of this. What you have to do is look at the people who have flipped and then try to think, who do they have the most information, likely have the most information about? When you think about cheese bro, the guy who comes to mind is John Eastman. Yeah.

Cheese bro and Eastman were like, linked at that hip on the false fake electors scheme. Chesbro kind of dreamed it up. You know, Eastman gave him the thumbs up. Let's do it. Let's do it. All kinds of communications there. So, cheesebro's flip has got to have ruined Eastman's day today.

His calculation of how he's going to defend himself in the federal case or the Georgia case is very different today than it was yesterday. Yeah, and not not only because of this, you know, obvious reasons, but now that there's not going to be any speedy trial, that's right. Eastman's not going to get to see what the prosecution has. Nobody, none of the remaining co-defendants, of which there are 16, will get to see what the prosecution puts on as their case, because that was one of the benefits of having some

people go first, was Trump and Eastman and everybody else could sit back and see what the prosecution had, what they had up their sleeve, and then prepare, they would have more ability or a better preparation for their defense, right? If you know exactly what the prosecution's going to be. Absolutely, right. This is, you know, when you're thinking like winners, losers, winners today, Powell and cheese, bro, I call them winners because they got good deals and are probably not going to jail. They got a lot of work to do, but they got good deals.

Fulton County prosecutors, big winners here, And you know, you gotta give them some credit. They knew this was gonna happen all along. When they only got two requests for speedy trial, in their minds, they were thinking those two will flip. We'll give the cases away to those two, and then we're done with the speedy trial nonsense. We still keep our case to only having to put it on one time. And you know, the sooner you go, the better off you are,

and I can't help but think that Sidney Powell getting her felonies reduced to misdemeanors, whereas cheese bro had to eat a felony. Yep. It might be because he wasn't for the first to flip. And the next person is not going to get as good of a deal as cheese bro. That's probably the best way that works. And in the losers column, it's basically every other defendant, right? They're all, it just turned up the pressure on all of them.

If you're misty, Hampton, misty Hampton, misty Hampton, you're thinking, Oh, no. I'm caffeine late though. Yeah. All the, all the people involved in that, the shenanigan and coffee county, they're going to have a witness who, the witness who was middle of the whole thing, Sydney Powell can now sit, sit on the stand and just explain all the bad things they did. So in Fountain County, I would say that while Sydney Powell and Kenneth Chesbro won today in Fountain County, I think they also lost in DC because this is bad for them.

This has bad implications for them. Indeed, they aren't going to get as good a deal in the federal case. They've backed their way into a position now where they really don't, they can't put on a credible defense if they're charged in DC. And maybe they get a deal, maybe they don't, but it's... They're kind of forced into it and they're not going to get the best deal because they kind of have to do it. And a cooperator, you know, a witness is bad as power. You're not gonna get the best deal. Because they kinda have to do it. And a cooperator, you know, a witness is bad as Powell. You're not gonna offer them a great deal.

You're gonna offer them a deal that has a lot of pain in it because you wanna be able to- That's what I said, it up. She called me up, I'd be like, nah, I'm good. Well, the only way you can rehabilitate her is to be able to say to the jury, she's not getting a walk. She's going to jail for X number of years, you know? So yeah, it's tough. It's a brutal process. And

when worked effectively by prosecutors, you can really establish some very strong incentives to get people to cooperate. And a lot of those folks, they just got a much bigger incentive today, as a result of this. And I also think this helps Jack Smith out in the fact that again, because there's no speedy trial, all of that stuff isn't gonna call that evidence

that probably a lot of it overlaps. Oh yeah. With Jack Smith's charges against Trump is not going to come out so they won't have the benefit of seeing the case presented ahead of of trial. And speaking of the trial date, which is March 4th, Judge Judge Chattkin has granted in part Jack Smith's motion for narrowly limiting his extradudicial pretrial statements. Don't call it a gag order. So I'll just, let me just read you what the official order says. It says all interested parties, all interested parties in this matter, including the parties and their council are prohibited from making any public statements or directing others to make

any public statements, which has to be hard to police, but still, that target won the special counsel prosecuting this case or his staff to defense counsel or their staff, three, any of this courts, staff, or other supporting personnel, or four, any reasonably foreseeable witness, or the substance of their testimony. So some of the hypotheticals that came up in this hearing were pretty great. The judge Chuck and was like, all right, so hypothetical. What if you wanted to call Bill Barr a slimy liar? Would you be able, do you think that's appropriate?

I do. What if she was calling? I'm saying yes, put me down as a guest. Yeah. And so, and then, you know, so Trump cannot call, continue to call Jack Smith a thug or deranged or on crack or anything else that he said. He can't tell his kids to do it. Again, I don't know how you police that.

He can't tell anybody to do it. He can't go after court staff. I'm not sure if that includes the judge herself, but he can't go after the court staff. He can't go after the families of prosecutors, lawyers, court staff, can't go after witnesses like calling Barra, Slimey, Liar, or calling for the execution of Mark Millie or going after Pence. I think she very intentionally left herself out of the order. I think so too.

She doesn't want it. I think she didn't want it to seem self-protective. And she probably feels like I'm a judge, I can handle myself. So yeah, I think that, I think it doesn't cover her and that was her intent. Yeah, I would tend to agree with that. Now he can call the president, Cricut Joe Biden.

He can do that. No restrictions, he's not a party to this case is, you know, what they said. And no restrictions really after going the, after the people of DC, you know, calling it a cesspool, crime, written, whatever, trying to taint the jury pool by, you know, and what was funny was his argument is like, but I'm saying terrible stuff about them. How would that help me? All right, fair enough. Far enough. What is right, you can't. She said she, she'll be making the decisions

on sanctions to a sponte if he violates the gag order, the limited, not a gag order, which means it's up to her. Yeah, she can just impose sanctions. It's basically a court's ability to act without either party making a motion, right? She just do it. Now, Donald Trump, of course, has filed his notice that he's going to appeal this order. And today, he asked for a stay pending the appeal. He wants to continue to call Jack Smith a thug and called Bill Barra slimy liar while the while the appeal is pending, I'm not sure he's going to get that, but he has asked the

DC court and then he said to the DC court, and if you don't give me a stay, I'm going to go to the DC Circuit Court of Appeals. So that's his, that's what he's doing. I don't think any of that's going to work very well for him, but you know, they haven't really, they've pretty much thrown out the theory of catch more flies with honey, right? They're just not very nice to the judges or the courts that they're making constant requests to, which is bizarre. But yeah, I don't think he'll get the stay, but we'll see.

We'll see how that goes. All right. We have a lot more to get to, but we have to take a quick break. So everybody, stick around. We'll be right back. Ba-da-da-da-da-da-da-da-da-da-da-da-da-da-da-da-da-da-da-da-da-da-da-da-da-da-da-da-da-da-da-da-da-da-da-da-da-da-da-da-da-da-da-da-da-da-da-da-da-da-da-da-da-da-da-da-da-da-da-da-da-da-da-da-da-da-da-da-da-da-da-da-da-da-da-da-da-da-da-da-da-da-da-da-da-da-da-da-da-da-da-da-da-da-da-da-da-da-da-da-da-da-da-da-da-da-da-da-da-da-da-da-da-da-da-da-da-da-da-da-da-da-da-da-da-da-da-da-da-da-da-da-da-da-da-da-da-da-da-da-da-da-da-da-da-da-da-da-da-da-da-da-da-da-da-da-da-da-da-da-da-da-da-da-da-da-da-da-da-da-da-da-da-da-da-da-da-da-da-da-da-da-da-da-da-da-da-da-da-da-da-da-da-da-da-da-da-da-da-da-da-da-da-da-da-da-da-da-da-da-da-da-da-da-da-da- immunity for things that he did while president. So that's not absolute immunity, meaning not just civil side immunity, but from criminal liability. So this motion could result in an interlocutory appeal. And as we discussed last week, that would mean that it would have to be decided before the trial begins. So depending on the resolution of this, if Trump loses, he can appeal

and that might cause some delay as that appeal makes its way up the system. So during the limited gag order hearing, Judge Chuck can unequivocally stated that she would not move the trial date from March 4th. So I guess the question is, if Trump filed an interlocutor appeal, would that be enough? Is there enough time, A.G. between now and March 4th, to resolve this motion for dismissal based on immunity, plus any appeals that follow? What do you think? Yeah, I think probably. I think I'm assuming Department of Justice can ask for an expedited appeal schedule. I think he might be granted that, but whether the Supreme Court decides to take it up or not

is the question. And based on this filing, I am leaning toward the Supreme Court not taking up, not granting cert on this because it seems like settled law. I mean, they cited a million cases going back to Burr in the 1800s. So let's talk a little bit about this because it is such a strong piece of legal work that it makes me think that the Supreme Court might not be interested. Yeah, I tend to agree. So let's get right into the meat of it.

So DOJ this week filed their opposition to his motion to dismiss. And here's some of the notable points they make. They point out that defendant Donald Trump moves to dismiss the indictment, asking the court to afford him absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for what he expansively claims was official conduct during his presidency. They go on to say that novel approach to immunity would contravene the fundamental principle that quote, no man in this country is so high that he is above the law. And that's they take from US versus Lee in 1882. So pretty well settled

law there. Yeah. And I noticed too, they say the novel approach to immunity. And you'll notice they kind of repeat that idea. Like, this is brand, this is novel. You would be creating law here by a massive and significant piece of law that goes right at the heart of separation of powers, the power of the presidency. I mean, this is no trifling matter. So they go on to say, the defendant is not above the law. He is subject to the federal criminal laws

like more than 330 million other Americans, including members of Congress, federal judges, and everyday citizens. None of the sources that the defendant points to in his motion, the Constitution's text, structure, history and tradition, or Supreme Court precedent, supports the absolute immunity he asks the court to create for him.

Again, there's your, they're really pounding that theme of you're creating new law here. And staking his claim, he purports to draw parallel between his fraudulent efforts to overturn the results of an election that he lost and the likes of Abraham Lincoln's Gettysburg address and George Washington's farewell address. This next sentence is my favorite.

These things are not alike. It's such a nice way to put that. It's just like such stating the obvious but in a very effective way. Okay, so the more apt parallel the defendant identifies is to judges who, like a former president, enjoy absolute immunity from civil damages liability for certain conduct, but who are, quote, subject to criminal prosecutions as are other citizens. Mm hmm. Yeah. And they go on to say that no court has ever alluded to the existence of absolute criminal

immunity for former presidents and legal principles, historical evidence, and policy rationales demonstrate that once out of office, a former president is subject to federal criminal prosecution like other citizens. And that is the citation from us V Burr from 1807. The defendant's novel request for absolute immunity directly conflicts with the Constitution's impeachment judgment clause. That's a US Constitution article one section three clause seven, which expressly contemplates the criminal prosecution of a former president

for acts committed during and ultimately resulting in the president's removal from the presidency. The provision ensures, among other things, that an officer who has been removed through impeachment cannot seek refuge in the principles of double jeopardy to avoid what criminal prosecution. to avoid what criminal prosecution. I hadn't thought of this. I had not thought of the Constitution's impeachment clause, especially given what Donald Trump said about it during his impeachment. And we'll get to that in a second. The defendant, however, would turn the impeachment judgment clause on its head and have the court

read it as a sweeping grant of immunity that forbids criminal prosecution in the absence of a Senate conviction, which, among other things, would effectively preclude any form of accountability for a president who commits crimes at the end of his term of office. The defendant dismissed this very approach to the impeachment judgment clause as nonsense and complete canard during his second impeachment trial and the court should do the same here. Yeah, I mean, pow, I don't know how much more clear you can make it.

The impeachment clause says that double jeopardy doesn't apply to crimes of an impeached person committed while in office. You cannot say you are absolute immune from criminal prosecution because of this clause. And you yourself Trump said in your second impeachment that the impeachment clause that his the way, you know, he's using this during his impeachment was nonsense. And they're like, you court, you should agree with that. Yeah.

I couldn't believe that in the motion the first time I read it. I was like, hold on a second. Are they actually saying like, you can't possibly be prosecuted unless you've been convicted during impeachment? So therefore, the failure to convict in an impeachment gives you somehow immunity from later prosecution. It's like reading the Constitution in the exact opposite way that it was actually written. So I'm glad they went right out that. The other thing that really strikes me here,

when I first read the motion and we talked about it, I think two weeks ago, I got really caught up in the holy cow. Like this theory is antithetical to the actual reason that the founding fathers decided we're done with England, right? It cuts to the very heart of why we became a country at all. And I couldn't get past that big overarching theme that if he gets away with this, we've really forever altered what our democracy looks like.

And then after the fact I thought, I really got to cut up in that. I should have thought more about the comparison, civil liability, criminal liability, the recent cases that point in the opposite direction, not perfectly on point, but I was kind of glad that this filing by DOJ really starts out by hammering that message, that the reason we are here as a country

is because we didn't want a king. We don't want a monarchy. And having one person be completely immune from civil and criminal law, that's what you get. That's a monarchy, essentially. That's why they cite USV Lee 1882, USV Burr 1807, and here in the next paragraph, they cite the Federalist papers, Federalist 65, writing as Publius in support of the Constitution's adoption, Alexander Hamilton explained that an impeachment would not terminate the chastisement

of the offender, because quote, after having been sentenced to a perpetual ostracism from the esteem and confidence after being impeached and honors an emoluments of his country, he will still be liable to prosecution and punishment in the ordinary course of law. One of the founding principles of this country, That's right. They go on to say offering no more than a cursory footnote for the claim that the absolute civil immunity recognized in Fitzgerald. That's the civil immunity should grant Trump comparable immunity from criminal prosecution. The defendant contends that he is permanently immune from criminal liability for any conduct that falls within the outer perimeter of his official presidential duties

which he maintains should be assessed at a high level of abstraction. And they go on to say that the implications of the defendant's unbounded immunity theory are startling. It would grant absolute immunity from criminal prosecution to a president who accepts a bribe in exchange for a lucrative government contract for a family member. A president who instructs his FBI director to plant incriminating evidence on a political enemy. A president who orders the National Guard to murder his most prominent critics. Or, and I like this kicker at the end, a president who sells nuclear secrets to a foreign adversary. Hold that space. That's the next little twist. I mean, yeah. Yeah.

And then, and then they get to the even if, because you know the DOJ is like, even if you don't believe in the founding principles of our country. Even if a former president were entitled to immunity from criminal prosecution comparable to immunity from civil liability, dismissal is still not warranted here. Dismissal is at a minimum unwarranted because the defendant has no remotely viable claim

that all of the indictment's allegations involve acts within the outer perimeter of his official responsibility. So even if you throw away our entire constitution, you're being silly if you think that what he did falls within his job description. Yeah. I think there's a ray of daylight on a kind of technicality that would undermine the motion as well. And I think it's kind of hinted at here. The court is required basically on the motion to dismiss, to basically take the indictment at its face. And if you do that, if you just accept the facts that are alleged in the indictment for the purpose of determining the motion to dismiss, there's really no way that you can conclude

that what he did was within the outer perimeter of presidential duties. And so I think without even getting into some of the more basic and broad kind of thematic issues that we've been talking about, there's even, you know, there are some very kind of mechanical grounds that on appeal, you know, on a pelvic cord could say, not forget it. Nothing to see here. Yeah. I think it'll be denied. I'm sure the only question here is going to be how long it takes.

Yeah. Yeah. That's right. Right. Whether the Supreme Court hears it, whether they hear arguments, if they just shut it down, that's relating only question here is how long it'll take to get through the courts. One last little bit of news, by the way way from DC NBC has filed a 43-page motion seeking

to televised Trump's DC trial. They argue that in modern history there were two examples of a president testifying and criminal proceedings about his presidency and both ultimately were aired on television. Reagan during Iran contra prosecution and Clinton before the DC grand jury. NBC says USAV Trump is even more momentous than those. It joins earlier applications submitted by the press coalition, but comes at it from different angles. Both applications were filed per DC rules as related miscellaneous actions and then referred

to judge Chuck Khen. So she'll make that, make a ruling on that, but we don't have it yet. So I just wanted to bring that up. Good one. D-O-J opposes it. Yeah. I think that's pretty understandable.

I think, and I, my gut feeling here, I don't have anything to base this on is Chuck Khen, lean in this direction as well. I think they're trying to kind of make this as normal as they can. It's far from normal, really, but to kind of invite the courts in when that's not typically done, despite NBC's citing some precedent there, I think it's you're creating a horned it's nest of issues that Trump will use for on appeal and screaming and yelling about. I don't know.

I don't see this happening, but we'll see. Yeah. I mean, I want to televised because I want to watch it. Sure. Yeah, I'd love to watch it. I'm for transparency. I assume the arguments against it, at least some of them I've heard are, you know, as it goes on, the jury's going to have to be sequestered and not be able to see any

of that. And, you know, it could take the jury like all that typical arguments. Yeah. That you normally hear from department of justice about trying things in the court of public opinion and possibly jeopardizing the fairness of the case. But we'll see what ends up happening. Yeah, I don't really think any of those are good arguments. I think they should have been doing this for years.

But the fact that they're not doing it broadly and as a matter of practice, I think they're going to be hard pressed to want to change course in the middle of this case. But we'll see. Yeah, we'll keep an eye on it for you. All right, we're going to head down to Florida, but first we need to take a quick break. So everybody, stick around. We'll be welcome back.

Alright, let's head to Florida begrudgingly. I know you want to. Let's start with the conflict of interest hearings. We know last week Carlos Delevere, waved his conflict of interest in the judge, Judge Eileen Cannon, allowed him to keep John Irving as his lawyer. But in the Walt Now to Hearing, which happened the same day directly after the Day of Lovera Hearing, Judge Cannon got upset with the Department of Justice because apparently DOJ argued Stanley Woodward, now does lawyer, should not be able to do any

summations during trial. And DOJ had not made that argument in previous briefings. They had only briefed about cross examination, and Woodward said he was not prepared to argue anything, but cross examination. So she postponed and asked for additional briefings, and the Walt Nauta Garcia hearing took place just this past Friday on October 20th. Now in the meantime, DOJ filed a supplemental

to their motion for her Garcia hearing, and in it they say, defendant Waltee Nautos attorney Stanley Woodward In the meantime, DOJ filed a supplemental to their motion for her Garcia hearing. In it, they say, defendant Waltee Nautos' attorney Stanley Woodward cannot ethically cross-examine former client Trump employee for, that's UCL Tiberis, who will be a significant witness at trial. As the government stated in its initial motion for her Garcia hearing, filed more than two months ago, I love those little jabs. Aum, filed more than two months ago, an attorney's cross-examination of a current reformer

client presents a conflict of interest." Norkin, Mr. Woodward, otherwise seek to discredit UCL Tveris at trial, including enclosing arguments. The same ethical considerations similarly limit Mr. Woodward's ability to cross-examiner or otherwise discredit Witness One, a potential government witness. Woodward's ability to cross-examine or otherwise discredit Witness One, a potential government witness who Woodward continues to represent. After consistently denying the existence of conflicts and resisting these ethical limitations, Mr. Woodward today informed the government for the first time that neither he nor any member of his law firm will cross- UCL Tavaris or witness one

at trial on any subject and that any cross examination will instead be handled by co-counsel. Mr. Woodward also appears to recognize that he may face ethical limitations on his ability to discredit. It's amazing how that happens. It's kind of just called us up today, judge, that he may face ethical limitations on his ability to discredit UCL Tavaris or witness one outside of cross examination, including during those closing arguments, the whole argument we brought up during the last hearing that made all mad. Which any lawyer engaged in this case should have been able to understand that that was the point of referencing the closing argument, but let's, I digress.

Let's keep moving on. Yeah. And again, an experienced jurist would have been able to handle that. Yeah. Yeah. The court should so inform Nauta and determine whether Nauta knowingly and voluntarily waives his right to conflict free council despite these limitations on Mr. Woodward. Despite all those limitations now that has told the court he wants to keep Woodward who Trump is paying for and Judge Aileen Cannon let it happen. So she's allowing that to go forward I guess. I mean, I don't know where to begin on this. You know, we would love to have been a fly on the wall in the courtroom when the judge had reacted negatively to DOJ's reference to cross examinations when the thing was originally

argued because I got to imagine Woodward knew exactly what they were talking about. But it was likely teed up to him by the judge in the context of, what's this reference to closing arguments? I didn't hear anything about that. You didn't have it in your papers. Are you ready to, Mr. Woodward? Mr. Woodward, are you ready to talk to the question or the issue of closing arguments as well? I'm sure Woodward was like, no, judge.

No, you know what? You bring up a very good point, judge, can I? That's right. I'm not prepared. Hmm, what a bunch of jerks. I have no briefs on that. I have no briefs on at all. Please let us out of here.

So I think that's probably what happened there, because Woodward knows what he's doing and is taking advantage when it gets thrown to him in the middle of a hearing, which this is at least the second time that's happened now. He's taking advantage of every opportunity to drag things out. So it's, you know, we got a couple questions from listeners this week about about Dale Lavera and whether or not his waving the conflict, essentially. That's what you're doing. If you say I want to stay with my lawyer, you're waving the conflict. Could it possibly have been voluntary and intelligent? Did he have a translator in the courtroom?

Because he doesn't speak English as a first language, and could he even really have understood what was going on? Those are all good questions. I'm sure he probably had, or was at least offered translation services. That's very standard in federal court. But these guys are in a tough spot, not a, and Dale Lavera.

And I'm not surprised. No, it doesn't seem tough to me, man. I would be like, let me talk to another lawyer, and then I would weigh my chances, but I am not in their shoes. Yeah, but think about it. Like, it's not just a lawyer. It's the ability to pay for a lawyer.

It's the job you still have. You still work for Trump every day. Yeah, but it's like it's not just switching lawyers. If they decide to go with a different lawyer, they're basically walking away from Trump. So they're probably figuring that's it. I'm kicked out of the kingdom. I lose my job. I lose my income. I lose the support of this guy. You're right. And you'll get a CNN contract. Like, I don't know, maybe that's a kind of advice I would be giving them as a public defender. And maybe you're not wrong. I mean, that seems to be what's happened to Cassidy Hutchinson, right? Yeah.

I'm not in their shoes. I do not know what it's like to be them. But yeah, if I'm looking, I have an example in youL Tavares, and I'm seeing him not in jail. Yeah. Does he still work there? Do we know? Does he still work at Mar-a-Logel? I think he does still work there.

I'm not sure. Well, I don't know. I think there's a lot weighing on these guys in terms of how they think about this thing, and they're probably not thinking about it from the most sophisticated kind of legal experience background. So it's frustrating, but I'm not totally surprised at how this is playing out. Yeah, me neither. All right, so what's going on with the CEPA delay, though?

Well, okay, staying in Florida, you're going to recall that Trump filed a motion to delay CEPA proceedings, and then again, to delay the entire trial based on his fuzzy math that DOJ has been slow walking the discovery process. So DOJ filed their opposition to that and contended that Trump's issues with the C-beharrings were nothing more than pretext to upend the entire trial schedule. Now of course, Judge Kenn ended up, what did she do?

Stay the same, take care. Hold on. Hold on. Okay, stop. Everyone stop. Just stand in place. Don't move forward. Don't pass code. Don't do any work. Let me have a minute to catch up. Okay, sorry. She stayed the sleep of calendar while she contemplates the filings. Since then, DOJ has filed its opposition to extend the deadlines, which it filed on October 16th, and a supplemental response to the standing discovery order. All right. So from DOJ's opposition to extend the deadlines, they say facing an upcoming deadline for discovery requests and motions to compile on October 20th, 2023, defendants have filed another motion to stay the deadlines indefinitely. The government has complied and exceeded its

discovery obligations to date. The defense has demonstrated that they are fully equipped to file a motion to compel any unclassified discovery they seek, which is the right way to resolve that problem. And the government does not oppose a 10-day extension of the deadline to file a motion to compel classified discovery, given the complications surrounding the defense access to classified discovery that they have now resolved. They go on to say, the defense motion misrepresents the record regarding the production of classified and unclassified discovery, disregards their own demonstrated ability to formulate requests for

additional unclassified discovery, and fails to disclose the government's position during conferral on this motion in which the government agreed to a brief continuance of the deadline for any motions to compel classified discovery, the defendant's motion for an indefinite extension should be denied. Now, due to the unforeseen complications regarding the defense's access to some of the classified material, which have now been resolved, the government does not object

to an extension until October 30 for the defense to file motions to compel classified discovery, but the defense informing the government by October 20th, if they have additional requests as the defense originally proposed to allow time for conferral. So what they're saying here is basically, we've given you everything. There was a couple of logistical issues around classified discovery. That's likely a reference to defense attorneys not having clearances and this argument over where's the skiff? Where's the location where this stuff is actually going to be provided

to them? Is it going to be in the courthouse? Is it going to be, you know, where is it going to be in Florida? That sort of stuff. They've resolved all of that. And DOJ is basically saying, if the defense has a specific problem with discovery, you don't come in and ask to delay the trial. You don't come in and try to throw the entire trial schedule out the window. You file a motion to compel the production of evidence. And those motions are heard quickly and resolved. And the judge can be the arbiter of yes government you have to do this and here's the date you have to get it done by or they can just deny

the motion. So again, you have to see this for what it is. This is really all just a blatant effort to create excuses for delay. Agreed. Yeah, they even go on to say we'd like to correct the record, you know, regarding the timing of classified discovery and its status. They say as the government informed the defense on October 6, the government produced two classified information security officer, that's the CSIO, about 2,400 pages of classified discovery. The government inquired of the

defense on the next day, October 7, when the defense was planning next to be in Florida to continue its review so that the government could ensure the discovery was available. Trump's council responded that day that they were unsure of their travel plans, but would keep you posted. We'll keep you posted. And then Trump's lawyers responded that same day. They said, we don't know what our travel plans are. So the next day, the DOJs is like, what are your travel plans?

They're like, oh, we're going to be there the October 16th. So the government immediately arranged for those documents to be available when they were going to be there on October 16th. And the CISO informed the government and the defense that the skiff and a second Florida location have been approved. That would resolve all the issues. And he didn't want to get there before October 16th anyway. So the government arranged for delivery of the remaining materials to the skip for review. And so for the foregoing reasons, we'll give you a 10-day extension to file your problems with classified discovery,

but you don't need to have this whole thing postponed until after the election to do that. And then get this. The very next day after they filed that very complete and what I consider to be clear, filing, Judge Cannon put a minute order on the dockets saying, quote, the parties are advised that the production of classified discovery is deemed timely upon the placement in an accredited facility in the Southern District of Florida, not another federal district. It's a responsibility of the Office of Special Counsel to make and carry out arrangements

to deposit such discovery to defense counsel in the district. No, it's not. It's the CISO's job. The OSC shall update or clarify any prior responses to the standard discovery order in accordance with this order. And then we get a filing a couple days later, which was on the October 19th, which is a basically, see my previous email. Like this is what this whole order is. Pursuant to this court's order, October 17th, that's the real snotty kind of minute order. You're supposed to do it in Florida. You should know, and it's your responsibility,

and it's not. She's wrong on that. But anyway, they go, the Department of Justice says, the government has provided four productions of classified discovery as described below and in our prior filing. First, as described in an unclassified discovery letter to the defense dated September 13th, 2023, this year, the date of the entry of the CPIS-3 Protective Order. The government on that date made available in the Defense SkiF 2 Defense Council with

the necessary security clearances its first classified discovery. Second, as described in a September 28, 2023 letter to the defense. On September 26, a second production of classified discovery was delivered to the defense skiff in the Southern District of Florida. Conund production two. Third, as described in Unclassified and Classified October 6, discovery letters to the defense,

a third production of classified discovery was prepared for the Defense Council and delivered to the classified information security officer in DC on that date in response to a defense request to make it available by then. As in all federal criminal cases involving classified discovery to ensure confidentiality for the defense, the government does not have access to the SKIF, your defense

SKIF. To deliver classified discovery to the defense SKIF requires the presence of either the CISO or appropriately cleared members of your team, the defense lawyers. On October 17th, after the defense informed the government, it would be in Florida to receive classified discovery. The government provided classified discovery production 3 in person to the defense council at the defense SKIF in the Southern District of Florida. Fourth, and in on Classified October 16th, Discovery led her to the Defense to government informed the defense it would provide to it the following day,

a fourth production of Classified Discovery consisting of materials. Although the Defense Skif is now approved for the review and discussion of all classified discovery. It is not yet approved for the storage of certain extremely sensitive materials, which the government refers to as special measures documents. Some of those materials in classified discovery production 1 and classified discovery production 3 included these documents. As the government previewed for the defense on its October 16th letter, the materials were made available yesterday October 18th for the defense's review on a read and return basis. So we told you on October 16th They would be available on the 18th and judge can and entered her order on the 17th. So

Every single thing That she was asking for had already been done. Right. I guess she just didn't read or understand, I'm not sure, but this is embarrassing to her, in my opinion, for the Department of Justice to have to come in and say, first of all, it's the CISO's responsibility, not the special counsel's office. Second of all, we did all this. Here's when we set it the first time.

Here's when we set it the second time. Here's when we set it the third time. Here's when it was in Florida. Here's when we told you it was going to be in Florida because you asked us for it to be in Florida on that day. Like it is embarrassing, in my opinion. Yeah, I agree. And it really shows you why.

It shows you the significance of having a case like this, where SEPA is really a factor, right? Not like the DC case, or there are some SEPA issues, but it's gonna be pretty cut and dry. SEPA's at the heart of this thing, we're talking about a classified documents case, right? We're a national defense information documents case. So to have it in a district where these cases don't normally go,

and in front of a judge who's never dealt with CEPA before, it doesn't really understand the rules around this stuff, is a real problem for the government because you're gonna keep running into this. The answer she doesn't know, she's never done this before, she's never had a case like this. She doesn't know about SISOs and you can't just show up at this defense gift, let yourself in,

drop some things on the table and walk away. It doesn't work that way. So it's gonna be a constant problem. But the DOJ's brought up like, hey, we know there's a lot of classified in this case, but our case in chief is gonna be presented and proven with the unclassified discovery. So could you chill?

Like, yeah. And then, you know, what part of we are bringing it per the defense request to a skiff in the Southern District of Florida, do you not understand? Right. Like, it's bad. Like, I mean, I get it if you don't understand some of the seeper, like some of the,

you know, the funnel that Brian Greer described to us as the order of operations for, for seepah hearings and seepah sections of that law. Okay, maybe, but like to, to come out in a minute order and say, you have to put this in the Southern District of Florida, not in some other jurisdiction, huh? And then to have the DOJ point out to you, the multiple times where they've said that every time it was supposed to be in the Southern District of Florida was. Even getting prickly over that, it's got to be in Florida and nowhere else.

It's kind of similar to her outrage over finding out that they were using a grand jury in DC. Like, that was totally normal. That stuff happens all the time. She just doesn't know, because she's very inexperienced. And he had to come out and explain it to her and be like, here's why, and here's why we did this.

And she's an embarrassment to judges. What really concerns me is, I think that, you know, she's probably very aware of the fact that, like, jerks like me are out and probably saying she's inexperienced and poses a danger to the trial. All that is making her probably pretty defensive. She's going to start holding that against the government because the government knows the stuff she doesn't know. It's like a, it's almost kind of a, you know, like a

insecurity. And the government is constantly raising problems that she has to deal with and exposing the fact that she doesn't really know what to do with them. And that frustration and insecurity on her part, I think could start to reflect very negatively on the government in terms of the, the rulings that she comes up with. So it's really, it's really a concern. When people ask me, which, you know, I'm sure you get the same questions from friends and stuff, like, what's the, what's the health of the case? What, what do you see happening? This case is an amazingly strong case on the evidence. It's like unbelievable, right? It never, ever would have gone this far were the defendant anyone else, but the wild card is, I mean, Canon. Yeah, and if you don't have the jurisprudence, the temperament, to not take out your weird,

I don't know, jurisdiction jealousy on the Department of Justice, you shouldn't be a judge. I'm sorry. see on the Department of Justice, you shouldn't be a judge. I'm sorry. But you know, she was approved by the... Yeah, that ship is sales. I'm gonna converse with the A7. She's in for life. She's in for life. All right, we have to take one more quick break, then we're gonna come back with a couple of random stories and some listener questions. So stick around, we'll be right back.

Okay, a few more things to cover, A.G. First up from the Washington Post, we've learned that special counsel Jack Smith has withdrawn. Yes, I said, withdrawn a subpoena seeking records about fundraising by the political action committee save America, which of course is a group that's controlled by former president Donald Trump and whose activities related to efforts to block the results of the 2020 presidential election. I don't get this. I don't get it at all. This is the pack that pays all the lawyers.

This is, I mean, I don't understand this at all. Yeah, I mean, it's a tough one to kind of wrap your head around, especially when, I don't know, you and I have thought from the beginning that this would provide a particularly fertile ground for investigative efforts, all kinds of opportunities to pursue fraud cases based on false statements that the PAC was using to raise money, misappropriation of funds, you know, you're taking donors, money, people who are donating to one thing and using it for something else. So, felt like there was a lot there, the fact that they had been subpoenaed, you know, these little signs that they were, in fact, the pack was, in fact, under investigation. So do we interpret this now as a sign that they're no longer under investigation, that that's not going anywhere?

I don't know, I guess we could, but it's also possible that maybe they just decided this subpoena wasn't worth the fight. That the information they were looking for, maybe they were able to get it through some other means, and they don't need the subpoena anymore. I'm just trying to think around the corner too little. The only thing I could think of is if Jack Smith himself is not investigating obstruction into his own investigation. I don't know why you would do that, but maybe he's handed that off to a different agency, the DC US Attorney's Office. Maybe he's having somebody else look at obstruction because, you know, if there, you know, if there was some sort of obstruction

of justice with the lawyers being paid or some sort of, you know, with the Cassidy Hutchinson or the Nauta Stanley Woodward situation that maybe he's like, he's hand that off, so I don't want to investigate obstruction into my own investigation. I don't know, I'm just throwing stuff against the wall right now because that seemed like a really strong, not necessarily the obstruction part, but the wire fraud part, defrauding donors seemed like a real strong argument. Unless again, he's so third rail about, you know, freedom of speech that he doesn't want to bring any charges against anything.

Yeah, but it seems like he would finish investigating it first, right? Right. Do we know the actual substance of the subpoena? We knew that they had received one, but I don't remember ever seeing reporting on the details of the subpoena. No, I was just documents related to fundraising. I mean, there's been a lot of public reporting, but, you know, of course, I don't think that anybody's actually been able to get a, see a copy of the subpoena.

So it's possible. It's possible that lawyers for the pack were pushing copy of the subpoena. So it's possible. It's possible that lawyers for the pack were pushing back on the subpoena and threatening to file a motion to quash it. Maybe there was something wrong with the subpoena. Maybe on its face, there was language that was problematic and they've pulled it back and will now refile a new one. So there's, I think it's a weird sign, but I don't want to prejudge the existence or non-existence of an investigation based only on this.

Yeah, that's true. I mean, it doesn't mean he's done with this investigation, doesn't mean he's handed it off. It could be a, we don't need this particular subpoena anymore. And we don't want to fight it. Right, rather than, yeah, rather than fighting with you over it, we're just going to pull it. We're going to withdraw it. We're going to come at you with different language that you can't fight over.

Who knows? We got the information from someone else and maybe they're trying to sue to block it. He just doesn't need the headache. You know, who knows? Who knows? All right. Remember the Robertson case. Yes. This was the last case challenging the department

of justice's use of Title 18 US code section 1512C to obstructing an official proceeding. This is a riot or January 6th, rioter, the DC circuit court of appeals has sided with the Department of Justice. This came down on Friday, October 20th, because Robertson was saying, I couldn't have acted corruptly here when I obstructed an official proceeding, because I don't get any pecuniary

benefit. Trump gets to stay president, be president, or I get to install Trump as president, what do I get? I don't get anything. you know. Right. So that was his argument. And here's here's the brief decision from the DC Circuit Court of Appeals. In this appeal, Robertson contends that the evidence was insufficient to show he acted corruptly as section 15c to RIC 1512 C2 requires. He also challenges his 87 month long sentence, making new arguments on appeal that the district court aired in applying to specific offense characteristics for obstruction of the administration of justice. So the sentencing recommendations based on the statute. Because the evidence was sufficient to establish that Robertson acted corruptly, and the district court did not plainly air in applying the specific offense characteristics, we affirm. And so they they they're going with the broad definition, the one that's always been there, the one we said,

they'll just leave it alone. They're going to leave this law alone and the way that it's been interpreted for a very long time is going to stand. And that's what they said. This was judge Pan writing for the two one majority. Judge Henderson was a Bush appointee, dissented, and Merrick Garland, by the way, has filed notice that he intends to appeal the proud boys sentences for being too short. As you know, they were convicted of seditious conspiracy, but also of 1512 C2.

So all of this clears the runway, I guess, for charging Trump with 1512C2. Depending on the, I can't wait to read the appeals from Merrick Garland on the oath keepers and proud boy sentences, because in order to make sentencing recommendations, Department of Justice has to keep in mind like similarly situated criminals. You can't put someone away for 10 years when you normally only put people away for five years for doing that same kind of crime. And so appealing the length of the oath keepers and proud boys sentences would, if successful, would allow the Department of Justice to ask for those longer sentences for somebody

like Donald Trump? Right. Right, it's essentially kind of raising the roof on what's the de facto roof on that sentence. Yeah. The roof is on fire, as you know, A.G. Well, yeah, the Republican House of Representatives, yeah. So that's really interesting.

I think the interpretation is the one we expected to see, but it's good to get it anyway. Corruptly doesn't mean what you did put money in your own pocket. There's all kinds of other motivations that can make something corrupt, and that's essentially what all the courts now have acknowledged. And like you said, yeah, it's smooth sailing or clear sailing at this point for. Conditions are clear.

To apply those to Trump. And we'll see what happens when that happens. Yeah, Judge Henderson's descent was ridiculous, by the way. Judge Henderson was saying, look, if you don't have to show that somebody was going to put money in their pocket, then any crime could be considered corrupt. And it's like, well, yeah, kind of. And it was just, it was a weird dissent. He's kind of the idea.

But okay, yes. It was a weird dissent. It was a really weird dissent. But that's Judge Henderson for you. All right, so he can appeal this. Obviously, he can appeal it on-bomb. He can appeal it to the Supreme Court. I don't think that it's going to change the law, but we're one step closer to closing

this thing out. Roger that. All right, questions? Shall we get to questions? Yeah, do we have a good listener question this week? We have a couple. And so I'm proposing we do a couple but in speed round. All right, so this is going to be like short answers on a couple of good questions. We got so many

this week. I wanted to I wanted to hit up a few. Okay, so first we're going out to Yohan and Sweden and Yohan says, my question is short. Why is it called in-camera when a judge reviews something alone? in camera when a judge reviews something alone. Johan, here's the answer. In camera is Latin translated literally, it means in chambers, i.e. in the part of the court that is just for the judge, that the public cannot see, right? The courtroom is public, the jury's in there,

the public is in there watching the trial. The chambers are exclusive to the judge, so that's where the judge does private business. That's where we're like, talk to the council, sometimes they'll examine a witness in there. If they don't want the witness, it's testimony to be exposed to the jury, that sort of thing. So that's why they call it in caramel. It's business that gets conducted in the judges' chambers. Len. There you go. Always with theent. Always with the Latin.

Always with the Latin. Okay, so next one, do people who plead guilty always tell all they know to prosecutors? We don't have a name on this question. I'm sorry about that, but it's a good question. What if they plead ignorance on some issues when they might actually know the details? If the prosecutor doesn't already have that information, might the defendant get away with being less and forthcoming? Yes.

Yeah, yeah, next question. I mean, if you don't have evidence that they are not being fully forthcoming, you can't prove that they aren't. So, yeah, I imagine this happens a lot. You would have done it to me. It does. It does. Important to remember, though, that pleading guilty and cooperating are not always the same, right?

Some people just pleading guilty, never say a word, keep their mouths shut, take their secrets with them, and that's totally fine. Prosecutors off for a deal, guy takes it, you don't have to cooperate. Cooperation requires that you pleading guilty, and then also that you tell the truth. And there's incentive built into the system

so that if you do lie and you're caught, your deal gets blown up. And you're back at square one and you've now made all these admissions on the record. So it's a really bad thing. So yeah, and you don't know what the prosecutors don't know. That's right. So it happens all the time. It's a really important job of mostly falls on the heads of the agents involved or the cops that as you're telling them things in the proffer, they gotta be going out constantly and like vetting what you're telling, what the witness cooperator is telling them.

And as soon as they find out he's lying, it's a bad day for the cooperator. All right, final question. This one comes in, dear A, mix C and A.G. I have listened to your podcast religiously since its inception. I count myself indescribably fortunate to enjoy the

intelligent and insightful interpretation of each week's developments. Wait, it gets better. Delivered by two such fabulously appealing and silver-tone voices as yours. I'm sorry for anyone who goes anywhere else for their Jack news. You know, I'm reading their question. I mean, that is by far one of the kindest intros to listener questions we've ever had.

And I did that in my silk, my silky. That was you being full silver tone right there. All right. Thank you. And we don't have a name which kills me because I would love to give someone credit for this, but you know who you are and we thank you deeply. All right, the question is,

my question is about the stolen presidential records that the former guy has not returned. Does a special counsel have any mechanism to recover documents that are not related to national security and not part of the indictment? Short answer? No. It really doesn't. Their chance to get that stuff back was with a search warrant, which they did at Mar-a-Lago, but they did not do any play-sales in order to get a warrant. They'd have to prove to a federal judge that there's evidence of a crime in that location.

That would give them the right to go in and look around. And then in the course of that, they could pick that stuff up. But as long as it was described in the warrant, but odds of that happening, I think, are pretty slim at this point. Yeah. And there were quite a few missing boxes somewhere between 20 and 30. Not that they were filled to the brim with all classified information, but they had been gone through and moved to Bedvenster.

But yeah, by the time it got there, there was no, I guess there was no fresh evidence to go in and search and grab it back. Yeah, yeah, it's gotta be, which is interesting. It's gotta be fresh. You gotta have like very recent intel that says that the evidence is there,

which I assume that was part of the problem they had. I would be shocked if they hadn't gone through the motions of seeing if they had enough for a search warrant at Bedminster. I'm sure they did that and likely determined they did not. So they didn't pursue it. Yeah, it could have come down to, you know, we knew Walt now that moved boxes after, you know, trying to destroy videotapes and move boxes to Bedminster.

And they've probably asked Tveris and witness one. Did you see what was in the boxes? No, I didn't actually see what was in the boxes. And so that's it. I mean, that's enough to. And it's good for criminal defendants' rights and the rights of the people of the United States that you can't just go into somebody's house and search their stuff kind of without

that kind of direct evidence. So if you think about it from that point of view, I, maybe you'll feel a little better. Yeah, yeah, yeah, for sure. And let's remember, Marlago, they would do it to you. They can do it to you. No, no. They were there in Marlago, right? They had gone down for the infamous meeting. So they knew what was there They knew how many documents were there so they didn't have any of those same interactions in Bedminster

So very very different set of facts there. But yes, it's a high bar You know where it wasn't a high bar in England a high bar, you know where it wasn't a high bar in England. The King could just wear presidents or kings. That's right. The King could just send his troops out to your house and they could gumbust in and take whatever they wanted. That's why we came over here and we set this place up to have a president, not a king. And oh, by the way, the president comes under the scope of criminal law. Is that a cool thing? Yeah. I think it's one of the cool founding principles for sure. For sure.

For sure. Especially, especially this week. Thank you for those incredible questions. If you have a question you want to send to us, there's a link in the show notes for you to do that. And you could fill out a little question form. We would love to hear from you. That is it.

Wow, we made it through. It was kind of a long episode, but there was just so much information. We really wanted to get out to you. We didn't want to leave any of those juicy details out of those filings. And who knows what kind of news broke while we were sitting here recording this. I'll go have to find out. Oh, yes. But thank you all so much for listening. And we really appreciate you. And please tell a friend, tell a friend about this podcast if you get a chance. That is our best way to spread the word

about what special counsel is doing, and so people can get real, like, you know, truthful information about these investigations. So we would love it if you would spread the word. Absolutely, tell your smartest smartest friends because you know, you got to bring a little bit to the table here to be able to hang with all these court filings and stuff. So think about your smartest friend.

Tell them to go out, find Jack at all any place where you prefer to get your podcasts and we super appreciate it. Although the holiday season is upon us, Andy, and one of my favorite things to do is to tell everyone when you go to your house, and there's those MAGA relatives that we all know and love,

just get their phone and subscribe to Jack in their podcast app. And so they'll get, you know, get the notifications, turn on notifications. It's a free podcast. And then, you know, the next time Uncle Frank's at home, chilling, thinking about donating $5, $10 to Sydney Powell's Defense Fund, maybe he'll listen to the Jack podcast instead. Hey, you never know. Could happen. Could happen

with my holiday game. Bring him around. We bring him around. All right. All right. Thank you everybody. I've been Alison Gill and I'm Andy McCabe. You've been listening to the Jack podcast. And I'm Andy McCabe. You've been listening to The Jack Podcast.