Jack - Episode 58 | Contempt

Episode Date: January 7, 2024

We are just days away from hearing arguments regarding Trump’s claim of “total presidential immunity”in the DC Circuit Court of Appeals; we’ll be discussing those briefs. Jack Smith has subpoenaed the firms Trump paid to investigate the 2020 election. Trump moves to hold DoJ in contempt for continuing to meet pre-trial filing deadlines while the DC case is stayed.In Florida, Trump files his opposition to DoJ’s motion to compel Trump to disclose whether he will be using an advice of counsel defense. Plus, we have some great listener questions.AMICI CURIAE to the District Court of DC https://democracy21.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/08/Attachment-Brief-of-Amici-Curiae-in-Support-of-Governments-Proposed-Trial-Date.pdfGood to know:Rule 403bhttps://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre/rule_40318 U.S. Code § 1512https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1512Brian Greer’s Quick Guide to CIPAhttps://www.justsecurity.org/87134/the-quick-guide-to-cipa-classified-information-procedures-act/ Prior RestraintPrior Restraint | Wex | US Law | LII / Legal Information InstituteBrady 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)Statutes:18 U.S.C. § 241 | Conspiracy Against Rights18 U.S.C. § 371 | Conspiracy to Defraud the United States | JM | Department of Justice18 U.S.C.  § 1512 | Tampering With Victims, Witnesses, Or Informants 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 AGFollow 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 Follow AGFollow 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 Podcasts

M. S. O. 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 heard? 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, January 7th, and this is our first show of 2024. And yesterday marks three years since the attack on the Capitol. The culmination of Donald Trump's efforts to disrupt the peaceful transfer of power and retain the office of the presidency. Three years later, we're just two days away from the DC Circuit Court of Appeals, hearing arguments on absolute immunity for the former president who's been criminally charged for his conduct and is desperately trying to delay his trial,

which is currently scheduled for March 4th and let this sink in. That is just eight weeks from now. Eight weeks? That's eight. Two Netflix bills. Come on. Come on. The four house of Dragon starts back up again. Come on. Eight weeks. That's eight. Two Netflix bills. Come on. Come on.

Before House of Dragon starts back up again. Come on. That's right around the corner. Okay. It is. And that trial date, Andy, as we know, and we've talked about pretty extensively here on this podcast, that trial date is tenuous at best as the interlocatory appeals play out. And today, we'll cover the Department of Justice's brief to the circuit court of appeals

in that matter, as well as Trump's very interesting response. Interesting. Interesting is one way to refer to it. It's a very nice way to put it. And remember the two research firms that Trump paid like a $1.5 million to find voter fraud after the election? I do. And neither of them found any and Trump kept those findings of secret.

Well, Jack Smith subpoenaed both of those reports and, you know, we talked, we've talked about that before on previous episodes. But this week, the CEO of one of those research firms penned an opinion piece for USA Today. So we'll go over that. And we have two additional filings to cover. First, Donald Trump is filed a motion to hold Jack Smith in contempt for continuing to meet pretrial filing deadlines while the DC proceeding is stayed. And finally, in the Mar-a-Lago documents case, Trump has filed his opposition

to Jack Smith's motion asking Judge Eileen Cannon to order Trump to disclose whether he'll be using an advice of council defense. So, Alison, where should we start? Well, since the arguments for immunity are in just two days, and I've shared a link, I think, and Andrew Weissman did as well, where you can actually listen to those arguments. I think we should start there.

But before we get into the meat of the briefs, the appellate court has filed a brief order telling the lawyers for both sides, both parties, to prepare to answer questions about the amicus briefs or those called amiki, right? It's the plural there. And as you know, last week we had Judge James Michael Ludig on this show to discuss his Amicus brief that he filed with 23 other officials spanning five Republican administrations. And his brief, as we, as you'll recall,

centered around the executive vesting clause of the Constitution. It's article two, section one clause one that says, a president serves a four-year term. But there are other amicus priests, including one from American oversight. And that one argues that Trump's motions aren't actually interlocatory, and so the decision about immunity should be left to judge Chuck and kick it down, kick it back to the district court, and that immunity won't be right for argument until after, if and when Trump is convicted. Now, it's an interesting argument, but Andy, I tend to side with University of Texas Law

Professor and recent guest on this show, Steve Vladik, on this point. And I've found it's always kind of good to side with that guy. He's right. He's right. I'm a lot of people while. Yeah. While there may be a question as to whether absolute presidential immunity qualifies as an interlocatory appeal, I'm pretty sure double jeopardy does. And even though his double jeopardy argument is ridiculous and frivolous, I still think he gets to make it before the trial. Yeah. I mean, I'm with you and Steve on that one.

I mean, generally in a toss up, and I'm not sure this one is a toss up, courts usually err on the side of caution in an effort to protect the defendant's rights or to avoid another violation, you know, a separate violation of that defendant's right. So here, clearly the cautious path is handling this motion as interlocutory because doing the opposite would run the risk of creating the double jeopardy issue after the fact, which

would obviously obliterate the conviction. So yeah, I think that's pretty clear why they're handling it in a in a lockatory way. Yeah, and that doesn't mean that the Supreme Court won't deny cert once the appellate court, you know, makes their decision, makes their ruling. That's right. They may grant it, they may deny it. You know, you know what I'm hoping for.

I'm hoping they deny cert altogether. And I think that's why they denied cert to leapfrog over the appellate court in the first place. But that might not be why. We don't know why they don't tell us why. They never tell us why. It's all going to come down to how complete and convincing the appellate court's ruling is. If it's a really solid, well articulated, you know, leaves no stone unturned sort of piece of work. I think it's possible he gets denied an on-bomb hearing if he requests one and also denied cert. But we'll see. If it's a divided initial appellate decision, that leaves some room for both

of the other potential alternatives. So we're just going to have to wait and see. Yeah, and we have to remember Henderson is on this panel. And she's weird. She actually didn't want to grant expedited consideration. She was outvoted. She's HW Bush appointee, I believe. And I honestly can't see any reason why anyone would descend. And I think it'll be unanimous.

But if anyone does, it would be her. And like you said, that could lead the Supreme Court to be more in favor of granting cert to hear this or even perhaps on bonk. Other amicus briefs that both parties need to be prepared to answer questions about from the circuit judges include one supporting Trump that says Jack Smith's appointment is unconstitutional. That'll fail, but they need to be prepared to answer questions about that Amicus brief that was filed in support of Donald Trump. Then there's an Amicus brief from conservative lawyer George Conway, along with Olivia Troy and several others that echo the Department of Justice's arguments.

Now, we also got a ruling that Trump has 20 minutes to argue his side. DOJ has 20 minutes. And Trump will be there, by the way. He's not arguing, obviously, his lawyers were arguing on his behalf. Sadly, I mean, what a huge piece of entertainment it would be if Trump himself argued it. But he's going to be there leering, you know, as he does.

I mean, I can imagine him jumping up judge. That's not a big question. You're trying to answer things himself or huffing and puffing and heckling the other side. Look at what he's wearing. Or when his eyes and that guy looks like a mess, you know. And now keep in mind, none of the judges on this panel are Trump appointees. So it's not like how we had Alina Habba on Fox News last night saying that, you know, when talking about the 14th Amendment, the Kavanaugh better rule in favor.

Yeah. You know, of on the Supreme Court, because Trump went through hell to get Kavanaugh appointed, that was a weird quid pro quo kind of moment. She might have just, just as well well said paybacks of bitch. Yeah pony up It's time. It's time. I still want to know who paid off Kavanaugh's debts So they may come a time when your godfather asks you for a favor That may be my worst impression so far.

The thing is, is that I'm pretty sure I could refuse an offer by Alina Habba. Yeah. So, anywhere. Or a donut for that matter. Whatever, whenever it's come, no thank you. I'm good. I'll set. I'll set.

I'll set. But he's got 20 minutes, DOJ has 20 minutes, then Trump gets 10 minutes to rebut. But just an FYI, the last time each side got 20 minutes at the DC Circuit Court of Appeals, the hearing took three hours. But we will go over it in detail next on next week's show. With that in mind, let's go over what the Department of Justice handed into the court on December 30th. Because a lot of the language, because we had just on Friday, December 29th, is when we recorded the interview with Judge

Ludwig. And then on the very next day, the Department of Justice handed in their brief to the appeals court. And boy, did it include language from Judge Ludwig's amicus brief. It ended up in that filing. And, you know, because when we spoke to the judge, he was like, the DOJ hasn't made these arguments before. Well, they have now.

They certainly have, yeah. So it's, it was really interesting after talking to him to see a lot of the concepts that we had talked about last week really came through in a strong way. So here's how DOJ opens their 82 page brief to the circuit court. For the first time in our nation's history, a grand jury has charged a former president with committing crimes while in office to overturn an election that he lost. In response,

the defendant claims that to protect the institution of the presidency, he must be cloaked with absolute immunity from criminal prosecution unless the House impeached and the Senate convicted him for the same conduct. He is wrong. Separation of powers, principles, constitutional text, history, and precedent all may clear that a former president may be prosecuted for criminal acts he committed while in office, including most critically here, illegal acts to remain in power despite losing an election. They go on to say rather than vindicating our constitutional framework, the defendant's

sweeping immunity claim threatens to license presidents to commit crimes to remain in office. The defendant asserts that this prosecution, quote, threatens to shatter the very bedrock of our republic. To the contrary, it is the defendant's claim that he cannot be held to answer for the charges that he engaged in an unprecedented effort to retain power through criminal means, despite having lost the election, that threatens the democratic and constitutional foundation of our Republic. And man, almost word for word, what Judge Liddig told us about the 14th Amendment.

Yeah. Right? He said, keeping him off the ballot is not anti-democratic. It's the actions that gave rise to the use of the 14th Amendment that are anti-democratic. And the DOJ says the same thing here, but about immunity. It's very interesting after speaking with the judge, after reading all these filings, how closely the arguments match

for removing him from the ballot and for not granting him immunity. I mean, they really do kind of line up. Well, it's because they both cut at fundamental core principles of our Constitution to, you know, different principles, but still, um, uh, constitutional, yeah, fundamental in the same way. So the DOJ continues writing, no historical materials support the defendant's broad immunity claim and the post presidency pardon that president Nixon accepted reflects the consensus view that a former president is subject to prosecution after leaving office.

I love that argument. Why do we have a part in Nixon? If there's if you have absolute presidential immunity, Ford wouldn't have needed to pardon Nixon. Exactly. Exactly. And here's where some of Judge Luthex arguments come in. They say, quote, but even assuming the court wish to reserve the possibility of some narrower constitutional protection for former presidents, from prosecution for conduct essential to their

constitutionally assigned functions, such a doctrine would have no application to the defendant, who's alleged to have conspired with private individuals and government officials to use fraudulent means to thwart the transfer of power and remain in office. And even if a former president could claim immunity from criminal prosecution commensurate with his immunity from civil damages liability for official conduct, dismissal would be unwarranted because the indictment contains substantial allegations

of a plot to overturn the election results that fall well outside the perimeter of official presidential responsibilities. I love that. It's rare that you get a double even if paragraph from the deodorant, like even if and then even if if. The hilly aren't writing these things with our readings in mind because those double ifs really start to drain your lungs a little bit, but nevertheless very effective and legal writing.

Yeah. Yeah. And it's packs in so much in basically the most succinct way that you can put it, even if, and, and, you know, as you said, judge a little bit mention this, even if there is some sort of presidential immunity from Chrono prosecution, you can't have it here. Yeah. In this situation. Yeah, I definitely agree with one of Weissmann's tweets in the last week where he was basically giving a shout out to Michael Dribin, who is kind of the biggest brain in the Justice Department, the guy of go-to guy for appellate arguments and Supreme Court arguments, unbelievably brilliant lawyer and writer. And of course, we now know that he is on this team.

And so you can really see a little bit of echoes of Driban's influence on some of these briefs. Yeah, for sure. So another argument made for the first time by DOJ that was also raised in Judge Ludwig's Amicus brief was quote, immunity from criminal prosecution would be particularly dangerous. Where as here, the former president is alleged to have engaged in criminal conduct aimed at overturning the results of a presidential election to remain in office beyond the allotted term. And Allison, that's the direct shout out to his argument about the vesting clause. Like if you, if it's okay, if you can

commit crimes to stay in office, then it's perfectly fine for you to violate the vesting clauses limitation on a four year term for every duly elected president. You can just blow it off doesn't matter, which means that Joe Biden could do that. He could like not even run. He'd just stay and say, forget it, I'm staying. He could announce today we're canceling the 2024 election and I'm going to stay in office.

Exactly. Exactly. So clearly an absurd result and not one that the Constitution ever intended or thought about. Nope. And then comes the section that got a lot of attention in the media. And that says, quote, that approach would grant immunity from criminal prosecution to a president who accepts a bribe in exchange for directing a lucrative government contract to the payer. Sounds kind of like giving government contracts to your pals who build the wall at Mexico. A president who instructs the FBI director to plant incriminating evidence on a political

enemy. Sounds familiar. A president who orders the National Guard to murder his most prominent critics. Black Lives Matter. St. John's Episcopal. Sounds familiar. Or a president who sells nuclear secrets to a foreign adversary. Anything like that happening?

Man, I can't think of anything that he closely matches up to that. But we'll talk about Florida later in this very show. Now, because in each of these scenarios, the DOJ says the president could assert he was executing the laws or communicating with the DOJ or discharging his powers as commander-in-chief or engaging in foreign diplomacy. Now, if you're a listener of this show, that language is going to sound familiar to you. The media was like surprised. They were like, whoa, did you see these four things? They list these hypotheticals. But if you've been listening to Jack, this sounds familiar to you. It's because Jack Smith

used this in his brief to judge Chuckkin. That's right. Or why she shouldn't grant. Yeah, in its presidential immunity. I mean, obviously they're not like perfectly, fact for fact, recitations of things that we've seen happen, but they certainly allude to it. It's a bit of a drive-by for stuff that sounds, like, I don't know, maybe he did that too. So, yeah. He could have done these things.

He might have, and we don't know. But he did that too. So he could have done these things. He might have. And we don't know. But there's things that were he, he, at least, you know, stepped up to the line. Yeah. But yeah, on, I think as October 16th, he filed a brief with that exact list of hypothetical scenarios in it and gave it to Judge Chuckkin, who ultimately denied Trump's immunity based on that filing and the constitution. Now, as expected, Department of Justice raises the argument that everything Trump did related to January 6th was in his capacity as candidate for office, not as the sitting president. And as we know, electioneering can never be part of your job as president,

not even in the outer perimeter. They don't even go to the place that I thought they were going to go to. They didn't do an even if here, and I thought for sure they would, where they would say like, you were acting as candidate for president. But even if you were acting as president,

you know, the executive branch, you have no control or oversight over state's election administration. Yeah. I thought they'd go there, but they didn't, but they didn't really need to. I feel like keeping this last one pretty focused was a bit of an echo of the Meadows decision. Yeah. Which is going to be as helpful for them, I think. Yeah, it is.

It definitely is. And in the conclusion, this is interesting. Department of Justice, of course, asks the circuit court to affirm judge Chuck and denial of immunity and double jeopardy. But also says, quote, the government respectfully requests the court to issue the mandate five days after the entry of judgment. And Andy, what does that mean? Because usually it can take them a month or two to issue a mandate five days after the entry of judgment. And Andy, what does that mean? Because usually it can take them a month or two to issue a mandate.

Why so fast? You know, I don't know. It's a good question. My guess is that this is an effort to kind of keep things on schedule, right? To give some sort of, you know, less than normal time because we want to keep going. We've got to get, we have a trial to get back to and all kinds of motions pending, things like that. But also to give him a little bit of time to think about and his next move, right? Is he going to, is he going to, if he loses, is Trump

going to request an on-bomb rehearing, or is he going to go straight to the Supreme Court? So I think that that's probably what that time period reflects, but that's a good question. Yeah. And also, I think it's going to, like you said, it's going to force Trump to, to appeal to take the next steps faster, right? Yeah. Yeah. Especially if the appellate court lifts the stay on the DC trial. And that is in a bance right now. Yeah. Which we will talk a little bit about a little bit later. Yeah, I don't know why he would ever not request a re-hearing

because it's just a time killer. Right. I mean, they would probably vote on it and give him an answer. They could probably do that in a couple of days. They'd have to have some little schedule on briefing. But I don't know that there's briefing required to the good term, because this is a straight up vote.

I think in on-bunk in the second circuit, just denied Trump something without briefings. Yeah. So it wouldn't kill that much time, but every day counts when you're Trump. Yep. Absolutely. Especially when the trial is supposed to start on March 4th. Yeah. All right, we have a, you know, the quick briefing schedule for this circuit court of appeals hearing that's happening in two days was that DOJ had tilt December 30th.

Trump had till January 2nd to respond. And Trump did file his initial brief on December 23rd, but we have Trump's January 2nd response, but we need to take a quick break first. So everybody stick around. We'll be right back. Welcome back. Okay, we just covered the DOJ brief that was handled down on December 30th. And as you know, Trump's response was due January 2nd. We should preface this brief with the fact that Donald Trump posted a 22 page so-called

report on voter fraud on his truth social website. It was anonymously written and has no evidence. So it's just the same old debunked voter fraud claims he's been making for over three years. And I want to point to that report because Donald Trump actually cites it twice in his opposition brief to the appeals court. I mean,

Wow. So in a filing about immunity and double jeopardy, he argues that there was voter fraud and sites, evidence, an evidence-free anonymous report is what you're saying. Yeah, yeah, of course he does. And then sites in his legal brief, the report he made and published for the purpose of having something to cite in its legal brief, right? I mean, he's literally creating his own sites to support his unsupportable claims. He lost 60 something cases in the court.

So citing any of those, so we don't have cases. You don't have cases or reports like, I don't know, the one he paid a million and a half dollars for that actually support your contention. Just write a report that make it up and then cite to that. It basically undermines the entire purpose of citing authoritative cases or briefs analysis or whatever. Just make it up. There you go.

Sight away. I'd like to cite myself here when I said this. That's my site. He's basically taking, he's taking the Michael Cohen approach to appellate briefs like chat GBT. Please rate me a report on voter fraud. I mean, it's just, I mean, pretend there was and then, yeah, right, right. No, it's actually like, write me a report on voter fraud into style of Donald Trump. I don't know if chat GPT's just it enough Trump writing to do that.

Wow. You know what? Maybe they have. There's certainly a lot out there. Okay. So Kyle Cheney of from Politico, characterizes it like this. He says, Trump's lawyers stop short of saying the report has any true information. Of course, but many of these claims were also rejected prior to January 6 and a lot of the info is just Conclusory statements or allegations of vulnerabilities without evidence that they were actually exploited. So Trump opens his 41 page brief saying, exploited. So Trump opens his 41 page brief saying, the government concedes that this court has a pellet jurisdiction. Amicus American oversight, however, contends that there is supposedly

not, quote, an explicit constitutional guarantee that the trial will not occur. This is incorrect. The president's unique position in the constitutional scheme set forth in the executive vesting clause guarantees him immunity from trial. Wow. So he's citing the executive vesting clause, the same one that says that you only get a four year term. Yeah, but don't look at it that way. Only look at it this way. Yeah. Don't only look at that part. Right. Only look at the part we like. The crux of his argument is the same as it has been, right, that he'd been indicted for acts that fall within the outer perimeter of his duties as president, and that because he was tried in the

Senate during his impeachment, double jeopardy applied, and therefore he can't be criminally indicted for the same behavior. So in support of the, that's the two basic arguments he has. And in support of those, he says article two, section one, vests the executive power exclusively in the president of the United States. No prosecutor judge or jury may sit in judgment over the president's official acts. A president's official acts can quote, never be examinable by the courts. And he cites Marbury for that. And I have to tell you this, it enrages me. It is the worst manipulation of Marbury versus

Madison. Everybody's first case that they study in constitutional law or any class having to do with the Constitution, the case that established the concept of judicial review, the first time the court comes in and says, no, we say what the Constitution requires, what the law says, we evaluate the laws, which are all by definition signed by the president. And this is the quote, the micro quote, they pull out and present out of context. But they shoot themselves in the foot because the term official acts appears twice in that quote. Oh yeah, of course, of course,

but the suggestion is, even in the landmark case of Marbury, you know, the court acknowledged that the president is above the law is above and sort of review and Clearly not, but anyway, they go on to say likewise just the story wrote that the president in his official acts quote is accountable only to his country and to his own conscience his decision in relation to these powers is subject to no control and his discretion when exercised is conclusive. Okay. I mean, we have, you know, centuries at this point of Supreme Court precedent, all of which weighs in on something that involves presidential decision-making and conduct. Not explicitly, maybe, right?

There's certainly areas within his commander-in-chief power where the president has like really, very, very strong, almost unchecked authority. How about the pardon power, right? The pardon power is a great example. That's what I was thinking of really. So there are these these places where the president's authority is really acknowledged. But you know, I mean, it's just it's just crazy. It's a suggest that that pull out these these quotes out of context and say that this creates a

president beyond review of any type is ridiculous. Yeah, totally. Yeah. So all of his arguments rest on the contention that he was acting within the scope of his duties. But DOJ argues that's not the case since all of his actions were as a candidate for office and not as president. Yep.

He then addresses the government's list of hypotheticals, those ones we were talking about earlier, accepting bribes, ordering the FBI to plant evidence, sending a guard to kill his political enemies, selling nuclear secrets to foreign actors, all that stuff. Donald Trump contends that any president that did those things would be impeached and removed. So no criminal prosecution would be necessary. I mean, again, a complete manipulation of the impeachment process, which everyone acknowledges, everyone except him, I guess, and his lawyers is a political process. It is not a criminal prosecution. It is, you know, and its results are dependent on the political makeup of Congress, not so much exclusively on proof and facts and evidence. Yeah.

Yeah. And in, you know, in his filing, in the DOJ's filing that was handed in on December 30, before this, before Trump's filing, they bring that up. They're like, look, the president argues that, you know, if you're impeached, you know, well, a president's not going to be able to break all these laws because he can be impeached. And the DOJ is like, yeah, but you can also kind of exploit the difficulty of impeachment to commit these crimes and then, you know, say, well, just knowing that if you aren't convicted by the Senate in an impeachment trial, you'll be fine. So they do touch on that. The DOJ does. Yeah. Now, here's one place where he

cites his weird anonymous election fraud report. He says, next, the government argues that President Trump's public statements and communications were supposedly, quote, knowingly false, unquote. The government's empty assertion is utterly false. President Trump was carrying out his duties as chief executive to investigate the overwhelming reports of widespread election fraud, citation, see summary of election fraud. Trust. Trust. The official citation for the anonymous summary of election fraud, which has no evidence. Trouble is Andy.

Elections are not the job of the president, and that's per a lot of Supreme Court precedent. And I'm also surprised that he would cite a report full of debunked lies. The Kraken lawyers got in a lot of trouble for this, submitting unvetted BS to the court, having their, you know, affidavits, sworn affidavits, signed like, I was walking down the street one day and I saw a truck drive by and I'm pretty sure there were a bunch of ballots in there. Oh, it's a side for sure. Yeah.

And these lawyers didn't vet that. And they were charged with sanctions in Michigan. Many of them were told you have to actually go back to school now and learn how to plead, how to file pleadings in a case, because you clearly don't understand that it's your responsibility as the lawyer to vet and make sure that what you're putting in these pleatings is true and accurate. And so I'm kind of hoping Jack Smith files a sanctions motion here for for citing this anonymous no one's going to put their name on it completely full of lies report. It feels like this was their backdoor way of sneaking in, quote unquote, evidence

of voter fraud into a court filing by not having anyone sign it, having no evidence attached to it, and citing to it second hand from inside a court filing so that they might be, you know, because if if Jack Smith files for sanctioned, they'd be like, look, we didn't say it was a true, you know, we didn't put the lies in the pleading. I think, I mean, I think this whole thing is absolutely shoe-horning the message that they want to keep getting out into this filing. It's not even really relevant. And it's nonsensical, and it's, you know, sites to evidence they created for the purpose of having a site. But they are incredibly good at message discipline. And there it's very obvious that he they're going to keep coming back to this knowingly false as being some sort of a weakness in the government's case. The problem, of course, is like here in this context

on an interlocutory appeal, every allegation in the indictment is accepted at face value for the purpose of the appeal. So claiming that like, oh, the allegation is no good, the allegation is good, at least for the purpose of this appeal. They have to assume it. Yeah, the court has to be required to. So yeah, the whole thing is just. We know it was going to be all weak sauce, because again, this is a placeholder for appeal later, right? Yeah. And delay tactic.

That's, there's nothing. There's, this is not a serious legal argument. It is a delay tactic. I mean, find a lawyer who's publicly saying this appeal is going to win other than someone on currently on his legal team or a former member of the legal team. I don't think they're thinking. I've read reports where they're worried that the supreme. Oh wait, no, that's the 14th Amendment. They're worried that the the supreme court

is going to take him off the ballot or keep him off the ballot. This one is a straight up loser. And I think everyone has called it that way. From the beginning before we read any of the briefs, it's just preposterous. Even I saw Ty Cobb on television the other night talking about like he wouldn't even talk about this. He's like, no, no, that's not going anywhere. It's going to be decided quickly and he's going to lose. So he was on George Conway's an Olivia Trois Amicus brief and supporter of the Department

of Justice. Yeah. So this one is so they're left with this these nonsensical arguments because that's really all they have. Yeah. And they just put a little political bent on them. And now they're like you said, shoe horning in this more election fraud lies. But I would be very shocked if during the hearing on Tuesday, or in any subsequent filings, that we see Jack Smith or Driban or somebody on the Department of Justice in special counsel's office mentioned that he's using the courts to continue to push his knowingly false allegations of election fraud.

So we'll see. We'll see what happens. There's no more briefing do. So it's not like Department of Justice is going to respond again. We're just going to hear the arguments. Yeah, and they, you know, at the end of the day, they just want to push past this thing and get the trial back. So you will see. All right, speaking of that, we're going to be right back with Trump's motion to hold Jack Smith in contempt of court. So you don't want to miss this. Stick around. we'll be right back. Hey everybody, welcome back. Next up, Trump has filed a motion to hold Jack Smith and everybody in his office in contempt, but in a weird way, get this Andy, it's actually a motion asking Judge Chuckkin to order Jack Smith's team to show why he shouldn't be held in contempt. And Andy, this whole thing is just funny to me. I tweeted about it. I said, Trump wants Judge Chuckkin to hold Jack Smith in contempt for filing stuff on the docket while the DC proceedings are stayed. Trump is making this request by filing a motion on the docket while the proceedings are stayed.

Um, that's a really good point. Thank you. Right. Yeah. You shouldn't be like, I, what I hope is that he's got this motion in his hand to hold Jack Smith and contempt for filing shit on the docket. And he's ready to file it on the docket. He's like, wait a second. for filing shit on the docket. And he's ready to file it on the docket. And he's like, wait a second. I'm, can I file this on the docket? He says, okay.

So also I am in contempt, but it's just a little contempt because I had to do it because of what his contempt did. Yes, yes, I've done the same thing he did. I've accused him of, I've done it now, but only because he did it first. So I'm surprised that's not as argument. He should be held in contempt for forcing me to be in contempt. So he goes in contempt first. He'd like contempt is a timeout. You must stand in the corner. Oh my gosh. Get this. Here's some of what Trump is

arguing in this thing. The stay order is clear, straightforward and unambiguous, all substantive proceedings in this court are halted. Despite this clarity, the prosecutors began violating the stay almost immediately. First, within five days of the court entering the stay order, the prosecutors served thousands of pages of additional discovery together with a purported draft exhibit list. Through counsel, President Trump advised that he rejected the prosecutors unlawful productions that their actions violated the state order and that he would seek relief if their malicious conduct continued malicious conduct. That's me. Ignore. Yeah. That's definitely should be not

just held in contempt, but in remand for this violent act. Um, he goes on to say ignoring this warning, the prosecutors filed an expansive motion in limine less than 10 days later. This document teams with partisan rhetoric. Wow. That's poetic. Yeah, including false claims that President Trump propagates irrelevant disinformation both within the courtroom and outside of it. irrelevant disinformation both within the courtroom and outside of it. Moreover, why would you want to repeat that? Absolutely. Devastating below. How is that rhetoric partisan?

I don't get it. Where's the politics there? It's just a straight up fact. Like they're saying he lies a lot. And I mean, honestly, there's lots of there's lots of evidence to prove that. It's not based on a report that they wrote saying he lies a lot period and then cited it. Well, he gets to that, right? Trump says moreover the motion in the Mene mirrors the Biden administration's dishonest talking points.

See, asserting again, falsely, the president Trump was responsible for the events on January 6th, when in truth, he called for a peaceful and patriotic assembly and protest. In this manner, the prosecutors seek to weaponize the stay to spread political propaganda, knowing that President Trump would not fully respond because the court relieved him of the burdens of litigation during the stay. And Andy, this makes me think that Trump's lawyers are listening to our show. Hi guys, if you're listening.

Hey. Because did you, hey, what's up? Didn't you say when we covered the motion in lemonade that, hey, this is Jack Smith's ability to speak publicly about what's going on? The DOJ doesn't do press conferences. They don't answer questions about ongoing investigations. They speak through their filings and indictments.

And we've heard those words come out of attorney general, Merrick Garland's mouth and Jack Smith's mouth. We don't answer. I'm not taking questions. We speak through our indictments and our filings. And you were like, well, this is kind of, we talked about this, right? Like we're taking advantage of this stay here

by making these filings, during this, while the trial is in a bans, it gives Jack Smith a kind of an opportunity. But also, he's just keeping his schedule, the one that's, you know, that he's responsible for. I don't remember, it's been a while since I read the stay, but I don't remember it saying you are hereby prohibited from filing anything on the docket during the period of the stay.

I mean, that would be kind of silly. That's the docket is how the court runs, you know, the proceeding and they're still a proceeding. It's just not moving forward at the moment. They've unilaterally decided that they're gonna continue, even though they don't have to abide by the priestess deadlines, they're gonna do it anyway. And that doesn't include...

Trub doesn't have to. And Trub doesn't have to respond. Any obligation on Trump, he doesn't have to do anything. He can choose to ignore all the things they sent him and do no work on it and not continue to incur legal fees. Oh, that's his choice, but they are, they're going to just keep plugging along. I don't think they're going to get, they're certainly not going to get sanctions. The worst they're going to get is a kind of knock it off order, but I don't even think they're going to get that.

I honestly think that it's just, it's just nonsense. I think it'll be just ignored. Honestly, maybe she'll do a, hey, you, I think that there's maybe one thing that Jack Smith could get in trouble for here. And I'll, not trouble, but you know, maybe might earn a, hey, don't do that. And that's because he failed to confer, do a meet and confer and do a certification of a conference with Trump in the motion in lemonade. And I looked, I went back and looked at it. And there is, in fact, nothing in there that says, we discuss this with Trump and Trump opposes this, which is part of the rules, so local rules of the court. So maybe you might get a, it's a little, it's a little like kind of procedural microfile, so, you know, maybe. But I do think you're right in calling this out as an example of the special counsel team, you know, firing a couple of shots publicly that they

norm that they don't do in any venue outside of official filings. He can say whatever he wants and does say whatever he want all the time, and he mischaracterizes what's going on here and accuses them of all sorts of horrible things. So every once in a while, you're going to hear them at least get their comment, their perspective on those things on the record. And this is how they do it. And I think it's, it's pretty effective because they don't speak very often. So we pay more attention to the things they do say in filings. Yeah. And, and regardless of how Trump feels about it, those shot, these two shots have

been fired, the, you know, the, the putting well, the only public thing here really was the motion in limine. The everything else was discovery, which is under protective order and an exhibit list, which is also we're not going to see. So we didn't get to see any of that, but we did get to read this motion in limine. And, you know, Trump's not going to be expected to immediately respond to it once the trials back on. He'll be given some time. But yeah, she might come back and say, look, you know, Trump's not going to be expected to immediately respond to it once the trials back on. He'll be given some time. But yeah, she might come back and say, look, you're supposed to meet and confer. Tell you what, refrain from filing additional things, or, you know, meet and confer and get permission from opposing counsel to file something on

the docket next time, or something, you know, you know, is what you might just ignore it. Anytime you're going to file something that would normally require meet and confer, don't do it. But if you want to serve discovery, fine. If you want to file something that's like you have a deadline, like let's say it's a discovery deadline and you want to file it. That's not, that doesn't require meet and confer. That's just you living up to your individual obligation. So yeah, we'll see. Because I think emotional eliminate would require, I think, a meat and confer.

So Trump is asking, here's what he's asking for specifically in this filing, just so you know, to remedy this outrageous conduct, the court should issue an order to show cause why the prosecutors should not be one held in contempt, two required to immediately withdraw with draw their emotion and limine and improper productions of discovery and exhibit list. Three, forbidden from submitting any further filing or production absent the court's express permission while the stay order is in effect.

Okay, that's another thing. She might be like, ask me first. And for assessed monetary sanctions in the amount of President Trump's reasonable attorneys' fees and expenses incurred in responding to the prosecutor's improper productions and filings, including in litigation this motion. And this is mockers. Trump says, quote, the prosecutors did not respond to either the letter or the response member when they wrote a letter.

Hey, Molly. Hey, Molly and John. The prosecutors did, however, attempt to wrongfully exploit the stay order in seeking certiorari before judgment from the Supreme Court and, quote, unpersuaded, the Supreme Court denied the prosecutor's desperate ploy for early review, having failed above the prosecutors resumed their strategy of violating the stay order, filing the motion in limine on December 27th, aware that their submission was improper. This sounds like 20,000 leagues below. The prosecutors tellingly did not confer with President Trump before filing is required. Moreover, and unsurprisingly, the prosecutors suddenly forgot their

histrionics regarding the all-encompassing scope of the stay order. Instead, the prosecutors return to their twisted view that the stay order is merely a suggestion, meaning less than the paper it has written on. Wow, that is legal drama right there, created for no apparent reason here. So I want to know, like, if it was a violation of the stay to file a request to the Supreme Court, how could it also have been where he says here, they resumed their strategy of violating the stay order after the Supreme Court denied them. So if the filing with the court was violating the stay. How are you resuming violating the stay? You're still violating it. I guess. I don't know, but I thought it was really weird that

that that that Trump here contends that filing for petition for rid of surgery with a Supreme Court violates the stay. I mean, I guess maybe, and he doesn't say this here, but here, perhaps I can help his lawyers, maybe that the jurisdiction strictly lies with the Circuit Court of Appeals right now. And so filing with any court outside of the Circuit Court of Appeals while this trial is in a bance would be a violation of the stay order. That's the only thing I can think of and they don't say it here because it just doesn't otherwise make any sense to me. Yeah, I mean, I really the only person who could weigh in on

this is Judge Chutkin. Right. How many times have have these requests for immediate review by the court happened and we had a figure of like something like 19 times in the last however many years. It's 2019, yeah. Yeah, so it's not super common. One of the odds at any one of those 19 also happened during a stay. I mean, like so I don't think there's probably a really well understood record of how you

handle that if there's a stay in your case. So, you know, I think you could very confidently make an argument that no, this is an entirely different thing. It's not, we're not pushing the proceeding in the trial court forward. We are simply exercising our right to make a request to the Supreme Court and whether they granted or denied is up to them. Yeah, yeah, I think so too. And, you know, like I said, Jack's put in a footnote that he knows about the stay and he's just like, I'm just keeping my obligations. You don't got to do nothing. And he's entered that in his footnotes. But yeah, we'll see. I just think it'll be interesting to see if Judge Shuckin

has anything to say about the fact that maybe one little tiny rule here was broken, which didn't meet in confer. Yeah, well, she's pretty, I think she goes out of her way to be pretty even handed in these things. And that's important because you don't want to create the impression that you're like all in for one side or the other So I think she'll acknowledge it in some minimal way that seems to be the easiest way to do it

but I mean Her sanctions are so rare so rare now not for, because it seems like he gets them a lot and his lawyers do too, but that's not common. We would have reiterate. Before Trump, this was rare. Yeah, yeah, totally. Like, it's amazing. And, you know, his approach to this whole thing

to me reeks of like someone who is constantly getting sued and then countersilling in civil court. He's like, that's the mentality behind this language. It's like, oh yeah, you sue me, I'll sue you. Yeah. It's just kind of silly. You don't really ever see this stuff in criminal trials, but here we are.

My big picture thought is, like, there's a storybook and I'm gonna swear here for a second. It's called Go the Fuck to Sleep. And I just see Judge Chuckkin like entering the kids room where the two kids are jumping on the bed and playing around and then as soon as she opens the door, they jump under the covers and hide and she's like, all right, look guys, knock it off seriously for the last time.

Yeah. I just feel like she's probably her eyes are rolling so hard that she might have to go to the eye doctor tomorrow. But for sure. I mean, this just is so childish, this response. But, you know, and they didn't do a meet and confer. I don't know. I just feel like, she's probably like seriously guys. Yeah. Don't make me, don't make me file something on a docket in a trial that stayed, can we not? Right, right, right. All right, everybody, we got some Florida stuff going on and some listener questions plus another quick story.

Stick around though, we have to take a quick break, 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, everybody, welcome back. A couple quick stories. First, remember the two research firms? We talked about this at the top of the show, paid by Trump, like 1.5 million, to find voter fraud. And in like November, like right after the election, he went and hired these firms. And nobody found any.

And they filed reports and apparently gave them over. Well, Ken Block is the CEO of one of those firms. The firm is called Sympathico software systems. He has written an op-ed in the USA today, which I think is a weird choice, but okay. He says in November 2020, former President Trump asserted that voter fraud had altered the outcome of the presidential election. The day after the election, his campaign hired an expert in voter data to attempt to prove Trump's allegations and put him back in the White House.

By the way, did you hear that? The day after the election, before Joe Biden was even announced as the winner. Well, while they were already announcing themselves the winners, they apparently were hiring people to find fraud. Yes. So he says, the day after the election, his campaign hired an expert because he wanted to prove his own allegations of voter fraud, I am the expert who was hired by the Trump campaign. The findings of my company's in-depth analysis are detailed in the depositions taken by the

select committee to investigate the January 6th attack on the Capitol. The transcripts show that the campaign found no evidence of voter fraud sufficient to change the outcome of any election. That message was communicated directly to White House chief of staff, Mark Meadows. Interesting. Yeah, really is. Why do you think he's coming out and saying this now? I think he's been maybe he's been doing like a cheese bro world tour kind of a thing, you know, I don't know, but I'm sure he's spoken to a grand jury or two. Yeah, and you know, maybe that he's just getting some static either legally through legally through process or just in the course

of his business. He's trying to get the black cloud of this thing off of his business. They are for all we know, this is a legitimate company that does software-based analysis. And he's maybe just coming out to say, hey, I got hired to do a job. I did the job. This is what we found or didn't find as the case may be. And we reported our results. That's it. Not. Well, my guess was always going to be this, that Donald Trump didn't pay them. Yeah, well, that's always possible. And so they're going to, I was like, watch, he's not going to pay them and they're going to release, release their reports and write op-eds and books and stuff. So maybe that's it. Maybe,

maybe they now are getting ready to sue Donald Trump for payment. Yeah, could be. Who knows? So we also have a filing in Florida and this is Donald J Trump's opposition to motion for notice and disclosures regarding advice of counsel defense So you'll recall that DOJ asked for Trump to declare his intention to use an advice of counsel defense in both the DC and the Florida cases Now the DOJ argued in both venues that Trump's advice of council defense is no surprise because as lawyers told everyone that they were going to use that and solve a TV. It's a very helpful way to know what the other side is thinking when they say what they're thinking on public television. So, Jack Smith said he needs to know ahead of the trial because if Trump is going to use the advice of council as a defense,

that means he would necessarily have to wave attorney client privilege. That would be Trump obviously waving his attorney client privilege with his counsel. Now, once that happens, Jack Smith is going to need to get all those previously privileged communications and then investigate them. And whatever he comes up with there, he'll have to turn back over to Trump in the form of discovery or evidence related to those communications. That's certainly if he's going to use that stuff a trial. He's not just going to sit around and let Trump make the defense and not prepare some

sort of response to it. And the preparation of that response, like, and that takes time, which gets us back to why the special counsel filed this motion to begin with. Now, Judge Chuck can grant the DOJ motion and order Trump to notify the court in January if he's going to use the defense. But of course, DC is stayed for now. So that was my favorite too, because he, Trump argued, you can't make me talk about my defense.

That's unconstitutional. You can't make me do it. But if I had to do it, I'd not by December 18th. So I could probably do it in January, but it's totally unconstitutional. And so Judge Tuckins, like you said, January, cool, January.

January it is. And it's not unconstitutional. And so Judge Tuckins, like you said, January, cool, January. January does. And it's not interlocutor. So you want to complain about it later? Have at it. Add it to the list. So of course, Trump is opposing the same request in Florida. And he's basically using the same arguments.

He says, the special counsel's office has repeatedly demanded deadlines in this case that are detached from reality and practice. and this motion is no different. The 60 days requested in the motion would give the office more time to, quote, investigate an advice of counsel defense, than the office proposed to give President Trump to review approximately 1.3 million pages of discovery and file rule 12b motions. That's so wrong. Yeah, it is. The court rejected the office's earlier unjust proposal

and the same result is appropriate here. The motion is not supported by any rule of criminal procedure and several courts have rejected prosecutorial requests for advance notice of a trial defense because it is inconsistent with the six amendment due process and the burden of proof. Now, you don't see any sites in that sentence. There's no cases where those, those rulings allegedly took place. And there's no recitation of the circumstances and those cases that gave rise to those rulings that allegedly support his

argument. So. No, and you went out and told everybody that that was going to be your defense. This isn't a secret, you know? Yes. Generally, you know, if he hadn't gone out and told everybody about it, he'd have a much stronger case. Of course. He'd have some ground to stand on that they were forcing him to make a decision or reveal something that

they have a right to kind of keep as, you know, privilege work product for the time being. But not when you've talked about on Fox News. The filing goes on to say, President Trump will demonstrate through further motions that the special counsel's office has already unlawfully invaded his attorney client privilege and compelled lawyers to testify before a grand jury in the district of Columbia. We sure did and we had to go all the way up to the chief judge of the circuit to get it. You invaded my privilege. I didn't know privilege was like an actual thing you could invade, but maybe. Yeah, excuse me. I said the circuit I met

the district, but you know what I'm saying. Yes. The unusually high volume of unclassified and classified discovery in this complex case, including nearly 1.3 million pages of unclassified materials and 5,500 pages of purportedly classified documents with the most recent production on December, sorry, December 6, 2023 requires that President Trump be afforded as much time as possible to develop potential trial defenses following pre-trial litigation which will conclude some time in

2028. I just added that part, but Yeah, so it just kind of more of the same. He digs in and fights tenaciously for his delay. I got to give him credit for that. He's very dramatic. Very poetic. And he's been very successful doing this in Florida so far. And so I expect that he's going to get much more out of this opposition in Florida than

he did in D.C. And part of the reason for that is it gets back to the core conundrum with Judge Cannon. I am willing to bet significant money that this is the first time she has ever had to rule on emotion like this. And so, you know, her first impression of the special counsel's request might very well have been, oh my gosh, are you allowed to even ask for that? You know, like, once again, we're back on the same kind of ground with her, which is you really seeing. She's not experienced, yeah. Yeah, this lack of experience and lack of kind of having a battle tested, you know, approach to trial, you know, moving trials along is part of what's hurting us down there.

I imagine she'll come back maybe with even just a paperless minute order and say, I've told you I'm not deciding anything until after March 1st. So, out of here with both of these requests, you know, like, So out of here with both of these requests, you know, like, she'll probably just be like, nope, la, la, la, la, la, I'm not listening. And and and send site her March 1st date that she likes to site when when people ask for stuff ahead of time. Yeah, although she did grant the jury questionnaire

to the DOJ. That's true. That's true. One, she did. Winds of wind. Hey, yeah, hey, I'll take the W anything down in Joe J. Lincoln's true. That's true. One. She did. Winds of wind. Hey, yeah. Hey, I'll take the W anything down in Joe J. Lincoln's court. All right. What do we have for listener questions this week? My friend, by the way, if you have a question, we will put a link to the forum

for you to fill out to ask us a question in the show notes. There you go. So send them in because we love them. I love reading them and we can only do a couple, but I have two for you today. All right, so the first one comes from Danny, who says, hi, and then in brackets, he puts, insert of sequiously gratuitous compliments about the hosts, God looks and intelligence. Now, I think he made good looks and God looks,

but you know, it's a little snarky, Danny. I'm just saying, I'm going out on a limb here with your question because it's a good one. If someone asks, if you're a God, you say yes. All right. So his question is, after the J6 indictment drop, the talking heads made much of the fact that Jack Smith would not need to prove that Trump's subjectively believed he had lost the election, the simplest analogy being that even if you generally believe the bank made an error against you, you still can't rob the bank.

However, in the indictment, and in all subsequent filings, and even in an opinion by Judge Chuck, and there is the implication that the case will actually turn on whether the government can prove that he knowingly spread lies about the election. So which is it? And why would Jack box himself in like this if you didn't need to? So a couple of things here. Yeah, it is a good question. First of all, Jack Smith, not going to be boxing himself into something unnecessarily. I think we got to give him credit for that at this point. What you've teed up here is the difference between,

it's really a very semantic kind of gray area, hair splitting thing, but there is a difference between what you've laid out here. No, you're correct generally that the government is not required to prove, it know, it's not a defense to a crime to say, well, I really belaw, I really thought, you know, I was acting under the misimpresenter, right? But I really thought X. And so therefore, I'm not guilty of what I did under that belief.

That is not a sufficient fence. But what the government does have to prove, particularly here when they have alleged fraud against the United States government, is that Trump intentionally engaged in a scheme to defraud. So he intentionally undertook acts and furtherance of that scheme. So for instance, he intentionally tried to hold up the certification on January 6th. If he comes in and says, well, I really believe the election was stolen from me doesn't matter because what the government has to prove is that he intentionally tried to hold up the certification.

Not that he did it thinking he was doing the right thing, not that he did it thinking he was doing the wrong thing. What he was thinking in that way is not relevant. What's relevant is his intent to hold up the certification. So that's what the knowingly standard applies to. And his internal belief about the fraud is not really relevant. Yeah, I agree. I don't think that Jack has said he's going to prove that Trump knew he lost the election. I think these are two kind of different things here. I think that it is, it can be true that Trump believes he won and that he knowingly lied. Those two things can happen at the same time, right?

I mean, I think he's going to enter a lot of evidence in that way. He's going to have all these witnesses come on and say, I told them there was no fraud. I told them that the election was going to be a million of those. And they're going, one of the reasons they're coming in is because this idea, he could say this, it's not like an effective legal defense, but it could be a way to split off one juror. Come in and say, I didn't, I really believe that was doing the right thing. I thought it was my job to make sure the election was true and fair. And I thought that there had been fraud. People told me there was fraud. So the government is kind of stuck with that.

And it's the kind of argument that again, doesn't legally knock out one of the elements of the defense, but it could be the kind of thing that like a juror might be, you know what, I don't really know. He doesn't seem like he knew what he was doing. But technically, the legal side, the only thing, the only intentional knowing element you have to prove is that you took the action that resulted in the fraud that you engaged in the scheme to defraud. And in this case, it would be pressuring Mike Pence to not certify the vote, organizing

the fake electors, you know, all that stuff. That's the evidence that will go to his knowingly defrauding. Yeah, agreed. That's yeah. Like, if I think about the 241 charge against that one guy who, you know, said you could text Hillary to text this number to, you can vote for Hillary by text, let's say he truly honestly believed you could vote by text in his heart of hearts, but no, you know, that's a knowing lie for sure. Yeah, so these are a little bit of a different thing. Yeah. One quick one here. This one comes from Jenny, and I put this in because like, this is, this is like, look at this, Danny. This is how you do

it. Okay. Jenny says, hello, wonderful pod presenters, battle scarred from your skirmishes with the Trump. That's the way to do it, right? It's short to the point, factually accurate and complimentary. Okay. She goes on to say, what might happen if Trump runs for president in 2024 and loses? Is there anything to prevent him from running yet again in 2028, 32 or any any other time? Prison. Yeah, I mean, the answer is no, there's no. Oh, well, actually, there's a caveat to that. Generally, no, there's no, there's nothing that might sell them, even if he goes to jail, he could run from jail or whatever,

but the one thing that could stop him, the one thing that could, section three of the 14th Amendment, that's why this thing is so important. If the Supreme Court, which I think they'll take the case, we've talked about that, if they go all the way in and they address all the issues, the substantive issues, the legal issues here, and issues some kind of ruling that upholds the Colorado Court's decision, then he's going to be prevented from holding office, any office, state or federal, anytime ever, essentially.

So that could, but barring that, I don't believe there's anything else out there that would stop him from engaging in politics at whatever level he wants to. I have a question. Isn't there a thing in the requirements to run for president that you have to have lived in the United States for a certain amount of time? 14 years. Consequently, but it doesn't matter which 14 years, right? Like, he's already lived in the US for 14 years

contiguously, so he makes that. I was thinking because he said he might leave the country. That's a good question. I've always assumed it was for the 14 years prior, but maybe it may not be. I'm not 100% sure on that one, but I mean, that seems hard to hold against him. He's lived here, what? How old is he 70?

What does he see? Yeah, I mean, I feel like somebody would be able to go and live overseas for a few years. Oh, yeah. Come back and run. Yeah. Yeah. And then I was thinking, what if people couldn't run more than twice?

Boy, that would change up the Republican debate stage, wouldn't it? Yeah. Well, there you go. That is episode 58, one more in the can and of course another chock full of information. So there you go. Yeah, I thought we were going to get in well under an hour because we didn't have so much stuff, but we didn't do that. So you get another hour, long plus episode of the Jack podcast this week and probably in the next two in the coming weeks, we were

going to be going over in detail. I'm really excited to hear this hearing on Tuesday. I imagine, Andy, I'm going to go ahead and make a little friendly wager. We'll get a decision before you and I record again. Wow. All right. We might have to come up with like, I don't know, a buck or something like that, because I think I'm going to go on the other way on that.

You think they'll take more than Wednesday, Thursday, Friday? I do. I do. Yeah, I do. We'll see. All right. We'll see. We'll come up with a friendly wager. Yeah. Well, something embarrassing that the other one had that the loser has to do, but not too embarrassing, but you know, just put some tea. Yeah. I'll think about it. I don't think we have opposing sports team rivalries. I don't think so. Maybe. Well, come on. They have to wear a mega hat. Throw them in your questions. There's some wager thoughts.

They have to go to Costco and a mega hat. Your questions. Oh, oh, oh, geez. I don't know. That might be too much for me. Yeah, no, that's terrible. I mean, I see it too much like a KKK hood myself. So that would be bad. I've already, I went to Costco like a KKK hood myself. So that would be bad.

I've already, I went to Costco like a week ago, and I got called out five seconds after I went through. Seriously. Yeah, so I don't know that. What they say, hey, you're a hero. Although I don't know, maybe be a good disguise. I could disguise. Yeah, if you don't want to be people to recognize you

as Andy McKay. That's right. All right, everybody, we will see you next week. Thank you so much for listening. I've been Allison Gil. And I'm Andy McKay. That's right. All right, everybody. We will see you next week. Thank you so much for listening. I've been Alessand Gil. I'm Andy McKibb.