Jack - Episode 8 - Motive and Intent

Episode Date: January 22, 2023

Allison and Andy discuss new information about people who have testified to a grand jury in investigations under Jack Smith’s purview - including people with knowledge of Trump’s efforts to declassify documents related to the Russia investigation; Trump and Alina Habba get hit with big sanctions; listener questions; and more.Do you have questions? Click here: https://formfaca.de/sm/PTk_BSogJFollow the Podcast on Apple Podcasts:https://apple.co/3BoVRhNCheck out other MSW Media podcastshttps://mswmedia.com/shows/Follow AG on Twitter:Dr. Allison Gill https://twitter.com/allisongillhttps://twitter.com/MuellerSheWrotehttps://twitter.com/dailybeanspodAndrew McCabe isn’t on Twitter, but you can buy his book The Threathttps://www.amazon.com/Threat-Protects-America-Terror-Trump-ebook/dp/B07HFMYQPGWe would like to know more about our listeners. Please participate in this brief surveyhttp://survey.podtrac.com/start-survey.aspx?pubid=BffJOlI7qQcF&ver=shortThis Show is Available Ad-Free And Early For Patreon and Supercast Supporters at the Justice Enforcers level and above:https://dailybeans.supercast.techOrhttps://patreon.com/thedailybeans

They might be giants that have been on the road for too long. Too long. And they might be giants aren't even sorry. Not even sorry. And audiences like the shows too much. Too much. And now they might be giants that are playing their breakthrough album, all of it.

And they still have time for other songs. They're fooling around. Who can stop? They might be giants and their liberal rocket gender. Who? No one. This happens to pay for forward somebody else's money. I signed an order appointing Jack Smith.

And nobody knows you. And those who say Jack is a finesse. Mr. Smith is a veteran career prosecutor. Wait, what law have I grew? The events leading up to an on January 6. Classified documents and other presidential records. You understand what prison is. Send me to jail.

Hey everybody, welcome to episode eight of Jack, the podcast about all things special counsel. It is Sunday, January 22nd, 2023, and I'm Allison Gill. And I'm Andy McCabe. And without fail, we have a lot of special counsel news to cover this week, including new information about people who have testified before a grand jury in the investigations under Jack Smith's purview, including people who knew about Donald Trump's efforts to declassify documents connected

to the Russia investigation and a siding of John McAdity entering the federal court house in DC to testify before the grand jury. Yes, and Andy, we're going to discuss how the recent sanctions imposed on Donald Trump and Alina Haba and her law firm for their vexatious lawsuit against Hillary Clinton and 30 other defendants, including you. Yeah, including me. How that could be tied to the most recent round of subpoenas that we covered on last week's episode of Jack.

But first, let's kick off the show with our new segment here, Listener Questions. Excellent. I can't wait to do it. We got a lot of good questions this week. Some of them kind of pointing in similar directions. I'm actually going to cover two this week. So first question comes from Rochelle. And Rochelle writes, if it is true that the Trump team is not only paying the legal bills

of January 6th witnesses and insurrectionists, but also supplying them with defense lawyers. In all likelihood, those lawyers are coordinating behind the scenes, sharing all the prosecutors evidence and strategies with each other. Is that a crime? Would it give them an unfair advantage? Could you discuss how coordination on a large scale of the Trump lawyers across all the different prongs with DOJ investigations could undermine the prosecution? Great question.

It's on a topic that I think a lot of people are curious about. So let me start off by saying that as a general matter, someone who's not involved in the case for the investigation, someone will refer to as a third party, a third party paying for someone's attorney or actually providing attorney and attorney, there's technically no difference between the two of those. And doing that is neither illegal nor unethical on its face.

But here's the standard. Even if your attorney is being paid for by someone else, that attorney is required to represent you and only you in your best interest. They can't be advising you to do things to protect that third party. So when a lawyer steps over that line and starts trying to influence you to make decisions and take positions in your investigation or your prosecution, really that are in the best interest not of you, but in the third party who's paying the bill, that is an ethical violation that can cost an attorney their law

license. So here, the best example of that issue coming up was in the testimony of Cassidy Hutchinson. So you'll remember she testified to the January 6th committee that she had a hard time finding a lawyer, and that ultimately she turned to what she called Trump World to help get her a lawyer and help her pay for that lawyer. And the lawyer she started with was a guy named Stefan Pasantino. What raises some questions about his representation from hers, and they're very first meeting together, she asked him how his bill was being paid, who was paying for her representation, and he refused to tell her. She then asked him about a

retention letter or a retention agreement, which is a very standard thing that lawyers provide to a new client, it outlines the responsibilities of each party, kind of what the terms of the representation will be, and he wouldn't give her one of those either. So it doesn't necessarily mean he did something illegal or responsibilities of each party, kind of what the terms of the representation will be, and he wouldn't give her one of those either. So it doesn't necessarily mean he did something illegal or unethical, but it is a strange thing for him to do under those circumstances and raises some good questions. Yeah. And also in that last huge giant sweeping subpoena from Jack Smith that we talked about on

the last episode, he was looking for retention agreements between attorneys and people who are witnesses that were part of the subpoena. And also, I wanted to address something else you brought up, how, you know, is it morally right or ethically right or legally okay, for all of those attorneys to coordinate and sort of, you know of work together and give each other information.

And that, you know, there are things called joint defense agreements. In fact, back in the Mollershi wrote days, one of the ways that I was able to predict somebody was about to get indicted or start cooperating was when they withdrew from the larger joint defense agreement. That was, you know, everybody was like, oh, CNN was tipped off that Roger Stone was going to be arrested. I knew he was going to be arrested because he pulled out of his joint defense agreement and there's no way he was going to cooperate. So, you know, it's not, it wasn't like a, some sort of inside

deep state, you know, DOJ working with CNN to, you know, it was like, this is just obvious to me. And I might not have, you know, said all the reasons CNN to, you know, it was like, this is just obvious to me. And I might not have, you know, said all the reasons that I knew that he was gonna be arrested, so I could look super cool for being able to predict it. But that is one of the things that sort of indicates that somebody's about to either cooperate or get indicted.

So, you're giving away the tricks of the trade here. You need to hold onto some of these little gems, but you're absolutely right. The joint defense agreement, look, there's nothing improper about it on its face. The attorneys of defendants in the same case or in different cases that are kind of based on the same facts, they will enter into these agreements for that purpose so they can share information with each other without violating their obligation of attorney client privilege to their own client. So they go to the client, they ask them,

is it okay if we agree to a joint defense agreement with so-and-so? And it's a very, very advantageous thing for defense attorneys to do because they get a better look at what the prosecutors are doing across the whole range of defendants. But as you said, it is frequently abused in ways to benefit some defendants. So in mob cases, we would see this a lot, right? If you would go out and arrest, like let's say you arrested six people in the same case, in an organized crime case, it was very common for one of the attorneys for usually one of the higher ranked defendants, to immediately call a meeting of the joint defense group.

And by doing so, they know that if you're cooperating with the government, you can't attend that meeting. And so the attorneys would use those meetings as a way of fleshing out, not just finding out who the cooperators were, because that's very important to them, but also it was a way of putting pressure on people in that case to not cooperate, because you know if you're cooperating, your lawyer can't go, then it's revealed to your co-defendants that you're cooperating, and then you could be in great danger. So it was always very intense in those first few days after an arrest to make sure that anyone who, you know, right off the bat indicated they wanted to cooperate.

We had to try to help them find independent counsel and then have them move, usually, to a different prison or a different facility so they wouldn't be retaliated against. So that's pretty much the information on joint defense agreements. I don't think it's surprising at all that we're seeing them. In these cases where there's lots of witnesses, lots of people gonna be brought in before the grand jury. And you know, witnesses can talk

about what happens in the grand jury. Unlike prosecutors in the government are bound by grand jury secrecy rule 6e, prohibits them from disclosing anything that happens with the grand jury. But if you're called as a witness, you can walk out of that several hour session, tell your attorney everything they asked you, and then your attorney can share that with someone who's in the defense group, and that gives the defense lawyers a real insider's look at

what the prosecutors are doing. Yeah. And most of the sources on a lot of the reporting that you're getting on this podcast defense lawyers, uh, a real insider's look at what the prosecutors are doing. Yeah. And most of the sources on a lot of the reporting that you're getting on this podcast come from those people who testified to the grand jury and not from the department of justice. So when you hear, uh, retaliatory agitating statements from the Trump world side saying that the DOJ is leaking and they're doing all this leaking. It's not the DOJ.

It's their own attorneys and or people who who testified or agreed to speak to the press about what was asked of them in the grand jury because yeah, it's not illegal for you to tell. They say, hey, kindly don't tell anyone about this subpoena or whatever. It might could jeopardize our case, but that doesn't stop, you know, and also recalcitrant witnesses do it. Like, Bannon and Navarro will just put it out on the internet and say, look at this subpoena I got from these bastards, you know, and so it's, so it's kind of, it could be a recalcitrant witness, it could be somebody who wants to get.

And a lot of times I've seen Andrew, a good witness, good is subjective. A very relative. Yeah, I'm not subjective in this case. But like a Pat Filman or a Pat Sepolone whose lawyers will want to tell the press what has happened so that they can get out ahead of the news that could break later so that they can sort of, not really control the narrative

but have a better grasp on it than somebody who doesn't say anything at all. So that happens a lot too. First rule in crisis communications, get out in front. Be the person that reveals the news or the scoop or whatever, rather than be the person that's being talked about. So I think you're seeing that here, and witnesses have been in front of the grandeur or who have been subject to subpoena. They are perfectly free to go out and do that as much as they want. Okay, so second question comes from Max.

This is one that a bunch of people asked about this week. Max says that from what we say in the podcast, the investigation is going at a high tempo. However, looking at the sheer size of it, the number of people involved, the ramifications, is it reasonable to think that a final verdict can be reached in a time frame compatible with the next general election? If not, what happens in a post-2024 world in the case of a GOP president? So that's a great question. It drives right at this issue that, uh, fans of Mueller, she wrote and folks who suffered through the Mueller report and its ramifications will remember well. There is a department of justice policy that is founded on a memo from the office of legal counsel, which is that

office of legal counsel, which is that super smart, big headed brain shed within the Department of Justice that weighs in and tells the Attorney General what's lawful and what's not. There is this memo that says that you cannot indict a sitting president. And basically, the reason behind that, and I am to say paraphrasing, is really putting it mildly. The basic theme behind the memo is, it's not fair to indict a sitting president because by doing so, you are burdening the president with mounting a defense to a criminal matter, which is such a huge distraction. And we'll take up so much of the president's time that you're actually depriving the voters and the citizens of this country.

You're depriving them of the full attention and the honest services of the person that they have elected president. And there is of course no one else who can do that very important job while there is a sitting president. And so it's just not a good thing and it's not fair to the people who've elected that person. So think about it in the rob her case. I think if special counsel rob her concludes his investigation quickly and determines that he thinks that a crime has been committed by President Biden, I fully expect that he would indicate that in his report to the attorney general, but that he would not seek an indictment.

I think that he would essentially abide by this DOJ policy, not law, but policy. And even if he didn't, you know, Merritt Garland has the final decision on that, and certainly Merritt Garland is not the kind of guy who's going to simply brush aside that sort of a significant policy. Yeah, and he might not even say her if there was a crime found. By the way, I don't think there will be. But if he found a crime, he probably, like Mueller did in his report, wouldn't even say he feels that a crime was committed because that also could violate the constitutional right of Joe Biden. He would not be able to face his accuser in court because he cannot be indicted.

And that was something that we had to explain a lot of when the Mueller report came out. I mean, I personally would, I'm sort of a more aggressive type person and I would be like, well, challenge that stupid memo. I think it's unconstitutional. But that's sort of where we landed on that. And, you know, talking about 2024, if a GOP, if a Republican wins that election,

that person will just pardon everybody, probably. So there is a timetable, but there's also not. And so because, you know, and that's why Maddo said Um, and, and so because, you know, and that's why Maddo said, uh, on MSNBC, look, there's no magic bullet here. The DOJ can't save us all. The voters alone can't save us all. The courts alone can't save us all. The, you know, the executive branch alone can't save us all. This, the legislature can't alone save us all.

Everything has to be firing on all cylinders for us to be able to preserve democracy. There's like 10 different guardrails that have to hold. And so, you know, what people are worried about, you know, the timing here. And if a Republican wins office in 2024, that's where the voters come in. We have to make sure Republican doesn't win office in 2024. So there's, you know, a lot of different things to think about. I do think that accountability and indictment is essential for deterring these kinds of things from happening in the future, but that alone will not stop it from happening. The voters, the courts, everything has to work together to preserve democracy. If that makes sense, I just sort of wanted to put that out there. Yeah, it totally makes sense. And I think you're right. And I think she was as well. And that's why

we live and function in a system that has many layers and fortunately not one single point of failure. And lots of those safety guardrails have to kind of come into play together or at the same time or in a particular sequence to really have their full effect. I think it's also interesting to contemplate that even in the case of let's say Donald Trump and the Mar-a-Lago documents case, let's say Jack Smith reaches the conclusion that Trump should be indicted. If he's indicted while he's a candidate running for office, and then he wins in 2024, I think that presents kind of an interesting opportunity for someone, like you, A.G., who leads on the more aggressive side

towards looking at these prosecutions, to make the argument internally at DOJ that, hey, the reasoning behind the OLC memo doesn't apply exactly the same way on these facts simply because if Donald Trump wins election after he's been indicted, the voters elected him with full knowledge and understanding of the fact that the guy that they've elected could end up having to defend himself in court against a criminal charge. So I'm not saying that that argument would win the day, but if I were sitting at the, you know, the deputy attorney general's table arguing with my DOJ colleagues, which is a position I've been in many, many times in the past, I might just throw it out there.

Because, you know, I like you. I've been known to throw out some pretty aggressive positions at times. I appreciate that you were there as a voice for us aggressively arguing those points at the table. My friend. All right. We're going to take a we're going to take a quick break. We have time to take a break here. We're going to come back and we're going to talk about some new information from Murray was and more news that has dropped. So everybody stick around, we'll be right back. Bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum culminating their story in ways not seen before. This podcast has deep story tellers to get to radical new ideas and insights that transform our understanding of their story. We've always known the Beatles story was exciting and epic,

but there isn't even bigger, better, sexier, and more beautiful story that's been hiding in plain sight. And that's what I want to share with you. The story and say that it takes about 50 years to tell the story of an event properly. And so here we are, a little over 50 years later, and have I got a great story to tell. So I hope you'll join us at Once We Dream Podcast, where we explore the dream that was and is The Beatles. Episodes will be released every Tuesday and Friday.

So please subscribe to One Sweet Dream, wherever you listen to podcasts. podcast. That's the name of the podcast remember? Oh will you still be exploring topics that help us understand the week's news? You bet, but we'll have a new name because we're going to be working together to explore complicated issues that are done in the news. Working together? Yeah, you're hosting it with me remember? Oh right. Wait, does that mean our podcast is going to have a steam op segment? Let's not get carried away. But we'll discuss hot new legal topics, so check out our new episode coming soon to everywhere you get podcasts as well as YouTube. Everybody, welcome back. All right, let's discuss Andrews and breaking news this week from Murray Was in an exclusive

report he sent to us entitled Special Counsel has questioned several officials about Donald Trump's handling of Russia probe papers. And the lead says Trump's conduct in that regard will likely play a role in any decision by prosecutors to charge Trump. And that's according to people close to the investigation. And this is interesting to me because we know that our friend Zoe Tillman had gotten some information that Jack Smith was getting set to make some critical charging decisions within the coming weeks.

So this could lend to that. It might be a totally separate string. We don't know. That's all speculation. But basically what Murray says in this is some of the things we already knew. We knew for example that on January 19th, the day before Joe Biden was inaugurated, Donald Trump, I guess, because he likes to do stuff last minute, sent a memo to the attorney general and the ODNI and the CIA directing them to declassify a huge stack of thousands of classified documents

pertaining to crossfire hurricane, you know, the Mueller Trump-Russia situation. Oh, I'm familiar. Mark, you know, have you heard of that? I've heard of it. Now, I'm so glad you could go ahead to the show, man. Now, Mark Meadows, the next day, January 20th, my birthday, by the way, and this was a inauguration day for Joe Biden. He only had a couple hours left in office.

And Mark Meadows wrote a memo saying Donald had already declassified some of the rush of stuff, but noted some of the agencies were objecting to declassifying the bulk of it because of privacy concerns. Meadows also said the White House would adhere to the Privacy Act, saying, accordingly, I'm returning the bulk of the declassified documents to the DOJ, including all that appear to have a potential to raise privacy concerns, with the instruction that the department must expeditiously conduct a privacy act review under the standards that the Department of Justice

would normally apply, redact material appropriately and release the remaining material with redactions applied. So he's like, hey, you guys got a couple hours. Can you do a quick privacy review on a couple thousand documents?

Have you ever known an attorney to do anything quickly? Okay, I don't grasp. Go ahead. No, right. Yeah, the frick, man. I used to sit there, try to get an OLC memo through just the department

of veterans affairs. It would take two years. That's right. Now, this upset Trump, he went into a rage according to sources, that the documents would never see the light of day. And by tomorrow, it'll be too late, he says, to declassify these documents. So that's a little bit of an interesting admission. And sources close to Jack Smith's investigations say that at least three people have been questioned before a grand jury, or one of them before a grand jury,

three people have been questioned by prosecutors about whether Trump's anger could be considered a motive to just steal the documents. They're looking at this as intent, right? So, and I'm wondering, Andrew, could that type of rage and anger that they'll never get done in time, they'll never see the light of day, could that go toward motive for his unauthorized removal of these particular documents? It certainly could, but, oh well, I shouldn't say, but here's the beautiful thing about motive. Motiv is not actually required to prove a case against anyone. Motiv is not an element of the offense,

but here, as we know, criminal intent is, of course, an element of every criminal offense. What motive does for you is it gets you closer to proving intent. It puts the question of intent in a context that it allows the jury to kind of think through whether or not they believe that they've seen and heard enough information to attribute the acts of the defendant to some sort of criminal intent. So I think it's potentially very powerful evidence. And particularly when you combine it with what else we know about that last day in office, which is that none of the packing or preparation, well, I should say a lot of it was not done in advance in the same way

that it's done, that it's been done for prior administrations. Apparently, people were so afraid of approaching Trump with any of the preparations to leave office that they basically left it to the last possible second. So you can imagine that, and I don't know this for a fact, but I'm speculated here, you can imagine that a lot of the grabbing of documents and packing of stuff in and around the residents and who knows likely even the other office took place on that day. So this information about what he was thinking about on that day, the fact that he might have been mad about the failure to disclose all these documents, it's as I think takes on greater relevance when you know that that's all happening at the same time

that people are literally scooping stuff up, dropping in into boxes and packing it up for, I think, Virginia's where it went first. Yeah. And this also sort of gives a little insight into the fact that he was trying to declassify at least some of these documents before he left. And, you know, there is a potential defense there. I was the president on the morning of January 20th. I wrote a memo on January 19th asking these things to be declassified. Therefore, because I'm president, they're automatically declassified. I don't care what the agencies object to.

Again, it's important to note, Andrew, that the three criminal statutes listed on the affidavit Andrew that the three criminal statutes listed on the affidavit for the search of Mara Lago. None of those statutes, 18 US code 2071, 793 and 1519, if memory serves. None of them require any of the documents to be classified. That's right. It's more along the lines of, hey, declassified or not, those are presidential records. And you lied about having them and didn't produce them pursuant to a subpoena. And so therefore, that is 1519, for example. Yeah. You know, but you know, we don't, a lot of that affidavit was, you know, redacted. And we don't know a lot of the information that's in it or where this is going. But I think it's very interesting, at least, to know that Jack Smith is trying to get at the declassification process. And so, or, you know, the attempt, at

least. And here's some more information from this article, right wing columnist, John Solomon, who we've known from back from the muller days, and Kosh Patel claimed to have read all these documents, the Russia ones. Did they have clearance? You know, we know Donald was trying to install Kosh Patel at the CIA before he left. And Gina Haspel and the other IC principles threatened to mass resignation, a suicide pact, quote, unquote, if he had done that. And Patel was granted access to the Russia papers. And that was confirmed in a June 19th, 2022 letter, 2022, a year and a half after he left

office that Trump sent to the archivist, Deborah Stidal wall, to designate, Cosh Patel and John Solomon, as representatives for access to presidential records of my administration right there He's admitting their presidential records, but whatever Persuant to the presidential records act. So how was Donald Andrew a private citizen at the time in 2022 able to grant Cosh Patel another private citizen and John Solomon another private citizen access to these documents Well the short answer is he wasn't. He can't do that as a private citizen. That's just not how that works.

Now, I don't have any personal knowledge of either of these gentlemen's possible access to classified information, but it's likely that Coshbitt Tell had security clearance when he was working for the government. He started, he was a kind of a key aid to Devon Nyez on the House Intelligence Committee, so he likely had to have access for that role. And then, of course, towards the end of his run there, and Femis as it was, he was in a high-ranking position that the Department of Defense,

he probably needed at least the T.S. clearance for that. So it's possible he had one when he was in government, but he would have had to have been read out of that clearance when he left with the administration. John Solomon, I can't even imagine that John Solomon ever had a clearance. Certainly not while he was working as a journalist, which is I think what he was before he started basically working for Trump. Um, so. But I imagine that's what the grand jury was asking Cosh Patel when he pled the fifth or

when he, you know, the eventually gave him limited use immunity. It was did Donald tell you that you could read these documents because he had declassified them, you know, did, what, you know, did he truly believe that his memo on January 19th meant that those documents were declassified? Now again, that wouldn't have any impact on the crimes that were found, but I mean, it goes toward other possible crimes that weren't listed on that affidavit. And it punches through this nonsensical, I declassified everything, defense, which I should

point out he hasn't even mounted in any court proceeding so far, probably because he can't find a lawyer to do it for him, because everyone knows that it's false. But that's where evidence of his anger on January 20th over the fact that the declassification wasn't completed would really poke a hole in that kind of defense. If you were ranting and raving and screaming at people about how mad you were that the declassification hadn't taken place, you can't later say, I thought they were all declassified. Yeah, that's, again, that's toward intent. And also, if you know, you're really mad and you say to, well, I'm just going to take

them, you know, then you know that you're doing something wrong. And so that's why the testimony of all these aids is very important. I wonder if Solomon's been brought in. We haven't heard any news that he has or hasn't, but we know Patel was. So I imagine, you know, if you're going to go for Patel, you should go for Solomon too. Now I want, Andrew, talk a little bit about what Paul Pelleteer said because it strikes me as interesting in that with regard to a conversation you and I had earlier today about previous news that had come out about almost a quid pro quo with the National Archives and

Donald Trump, right? That's right. So, according to Murray Wies, Paul Peltier, former acting chief of the Justice Department's criminal fraud section, said that the new information in this story that prosecutors appear to be focusing on the intent and purpose of Trump removing the documents from the White House to take to Mar-Lago, and that Trump may have been engaging in extraction of what he calls Russia Hokes documents. Appears, appears to indicate that prosecutors are likely moving closer to making charging

decisions regarding Trump and others. This was interesting to me, AG, because it reminded me of some reporting that we had seen as early as last October in a couple of different outlets, but I'll cite to the business insider who reported that that time that former president Donald Trump late last year floated the idea of swapping the files that he took from the White House to Marlago in exchange for, quote, sensitive documents about the FBI investigation of his 2016 campaigns ties to Russia according to the New York Times. Do you want to say that it sounds to me like, you know, sorry, it's not in a rep, but it sounds to me like when Meadows wrote that memo saying I'm sending the bulk

of these papers back to the DOJ that he didn't get to take a lot of those with him. They because they weren't declassified and was trying to make some sort of a deal, I mean, of course, that speculation, but I mean, wow. Yeah, I mean, like this kind of closes off that narrative, right? It gives us kind of what could be the end of the story here. So, as a National Archives presses Trump to return scores of documents being sort of Mar-a-Lago, The former president, still angry about the Russia probe, was, according to Business Insider,

was frustrated by the government agency's refusal to disclose documents that he felt would back up his claims as per the time. So, again, it gets you to this idea of intent. It may be explains why he was taking all these things and holding them hostage because his efforts to disclose all the Russia documents failed. And so literally, maybe you're taking presidential records and national defense information and some classified documents as a bargaining trip. You know, the great deal maker. It's not impossible to imagine that he was thinking this through kind of, you know, a few steps

down the road, clearly a few steps ahead of himself, that giving, you know, taking advantage of the leverage he had with these presidential records in order to get something back that he wanted, which in this case would have been the revelation of whatever he thinks are in these Russia documents. Yeah. And that's what makes me laugh. What does he think is in there that would exonerate him? I mean, honestly, what it is is, I mean, they'll take anything and cherry picket to make

it fit their narrative. And so if he has those actual documents, he can pick and pull and choose and, you know, cite it, having been in an FBI document and make it seem like it's supporting his story. And that's how he kind of operates. Of course, of course. So we're gonna, and then we'll talk about this. At the end of the show, we talk about the Smackdown.

They just got in the civil case, but like don't ever let the facts get in the way of an effective narrative. That's a basic Trump tactic we've seen at time and time again. It is crazy in light of the expansive revelations That's a basic Trump tactic we've seen at time and time again. It is crazy in light of the expansive revelations in the Mueller report and so much reporting and testimony. People like me, I've tested by probably six or seven times on this stuff.

It's all out there. It's almost impossible for me to imagine like what they think they're going to find in that stuff. Also, the fact that it's CIA documents that we're talking about here, which further confuses like, I can't even imagine if one thing is in there, but they're not gonna let it go. I almost think it's more valuable to Trump and his crew

not getting this stuff, because it could continue to hold it up there as the holy grail, then it continues to fuel people's grievances and anger about, oh, the terrible Russia hoax. Yeah, no, I agree. Something very cool happened on my birthday on Friday, a story broke about, and this is somebody,

this is about somebody, Andrew, that I've been following since he took over at the presidential personnel office, and I read a story that he was hiding bottles of schmiernauff ice in the office. And if you found it, you had to chug it. This little punk ass guy. And when his testimony came out

from the January 6th transcript, his testimony, that was the first one I went to when they released all of their stuff because I'm like this guy knows he was like the second president during January 6th. Talk a little bit about this breaking news. It was a great birthday present. Sure. So of course we're talking about Johnny McIntee. So this broke on CNN on Friday that Johnny McIntee was spotted entering the federal courthouse in DC. So we know we don't know what that walk means. If you enter the federal courthouse and then you're allowed to leave, it means you were probably there to testify in front

of the grand jury. Is you enter and then are not seen from again until, you know, your first court appearance, it's a different resolution. But in any case, the CNN reports that he testified before the grand jury that, of course, he had been subpoenaed, which makes sense. We think it's possible that he might have been caught up in the subpoena we discussed last week that among two dozen other things, those subpoenas were seeking information about anyone who had provided legal analysis of the feasibility of the fraudulent, Elector scheme. Now, according to Macinty's Testimony to the January 6th Committee, days before January

6th, Macinty texted the Pence team and absurd memo about Thomas Jefferson. Just the idea that anyone who was relying on legal analysis, really any kind of analysis from, what was the 22 year old Johnny McAdity? I don't know, maybe he was a year too old. I think he was 25 when he got his job there. Okay, 25 is just so, it's funny, it's absurd, but it's also sad that someone like that

was that close to the president of the United States and in a position of influence. But anyway, I digress. So this infamous and esteemed legal analysis was apparently a bullet list memo, which was filled with misleading statements about Thomas Jefferson in 1801 when he was the sitting vice president and oversaw the electoral electoral certification of his own victory over incumbent president John Adams. And quoting from the memo, says, this proves that the VP has at a minimum

a substantial discretion to address issues with the electoral process. I can only imagine what Adam Maximum would have been, but okay, no, that's... And what's interesting is there's nothing in the memo about how it is at a minimum that this addresses issues with the electoral process. It doesn't even explain. No, it's just Thomas Jefferson was this

and then therefore this. And it's just, there's no connective tissue, which is we see a lot of that, by the way, in court pleadings and court filings from Trump world. Yeah. You know, they're just like, well, you know, it's Tuesday, so therefore the sky is green.

Yeah. And you're just, there's nothing that explains any of it. I'm dying to see a case law that he cites in his memo or, you know, the legal analysis or maybe it's just like a glancing reference to Wikipedia. Who knows? I don't have the memo if I did. I'd read it live on the air.

Obviously, Jefferson accepted the votes from Georgia, a state he clearly won and did not discard votes from any state, which is of course what Trump was pushing, Pence to do, Jefferson not being Trump didn't perpetuate any sort of fraud over the certification electors and that's history. So fascinating, fascinating story. I'm sure that Johnny is probably spending a lot of time being interviewed by all kinds of investigators these days. Yeah. And that was just one aspect of the things that stood out to me from his January 6th select

committee testimony. There could be dozens of other questions. They're asking him about Trump's frame of mind. He was very close to the president. The day he's leading up to January 6th, why he left, why he went home, where did he go, why did he leave the Capitol? I mean, there's all sorts of different things, but I think that this mostly has to do with the fraud, the investigation into the fraudulent elector scheme because specifically that

subpoena asked for those analyses. And he gave one. So I know for a fact that that had to be in there. It would be, I mean, as an investigator, he'd be a fascinating interview subject. And you can get this from just reading his testimony to the January 6th committee. I thought he was, I'm going to say surprisingly, maybe interestingly open and responsive to questions. He was even confident in answering things that I wouldn't have expected him to answer. And the impression I had was that, you know, part of that was because he really didn't have a grasp on the legal significance

of the answers he was giving. So that's actually a great interview if you're an investor. You've got a guy who likes to talk. He doesn't mind answering questions. I do think to give him credit. I think he was being forthcoming. I think he was, you know, he was, he was relying on his memory. Um, there were some places where he seemed to get a little KG and, and that sort of thing.

That's not uncommon. But I think if you sit down with them and put in the time, build a little bit of rapport, you're probably gonna walk away with some interesting things that you didn't know before. Yeah, and his sort of nonchalance, almost cockiness, I think illustrative of his absolute lack of knowledge of why this is bad.

So he's just worried about running into a bottle of smear, not vice and having to chug it, not so much about providing legal analysis for why the vice president should overthrow the government of the United States. Exactly. Oh, yeah, that's, that's kind of the feeling I got from it too. But yeah, those, those types of people can be like a font of knowledge and information for prosecutors. So, all right, we're going to take a quick break. And when we get back, we're going to talk about the very bad, no good week, maybe year

that Alina Haba is having, and that civil case that you might or might not know something about it. I think you might have been named as a defendant. I'm all over it. And I have to say it's one of the most delicious bits of shot and Freud. I've seen in a while. So we'll talk about that when we come back, stick around. All right, we are back.

And now, A.G., we're to the point of the show that I've been like looking forward to all afternoon. We are gonna discuss an unexpected court ruling in the Southern District of Florida that left us with one of the most extreme judicial smackdowns I think I've ever seen. And this one comes in the civil case of Donald Trump versus the world.

Otherwise known as Trump v V Clinton at all. Okay. So full disclosure, I am one of the at all. So I was a defendant in this absurd lawsuit, and I'll explain how that all worked out for me and my former colleagues as we go along. So the basic facts here, EGR, on March 24th, 2022. Donald Trump filed a civil lawsuit against Hillary Clinton and 30 others, including me, Jim Comey, Pete Strock, Lisa Page, Kevin Klein-Smith, Christopher Steele, who you will remember from the infamous dossier, Charles Dolein, a whole bunch of other folks. And what even alleged was a vast

conspiracy, essentially like a civil rico action, a massive conspiracy that was aimed at destroying his life and his career. Yeah, and it was nonsense. I mean, it was absolutely full of, like I said, when we were talking a little bit earlier about Macinty's memo, there was no judicial sinew to tie the muscles of the complaint together. That's right. And what's going to, it's going to be fascinating when we talk about some of the quotes from Judge Middlebrook's in this case. But basically Clinton, Hillary Clinton responded with a motion to dismiss. She did.

She files a motion to dismiss right off the bat. And then in response to that, the her motion exposes all these flaws and this nonsense of the suit. And so Trump files an amended complaint. So that's like a new complaint. And the purpose of that is to try to fix the problems in the original complaint. Well, it didn't actually do that, but it added 80 more pages of irrelevant allegations that did nothing to salvage the legal sufficiency of the claim. So with the amended complaint, the fact complaint was 193 pages,

it was 819 paragraphs alleging 14 counts against 31 defendants. Now in July of 2022, the United States government and the form, of course, of the of the Department of Justice stepped in and replaced all of the former government employee defendants. So this is a little bit down in the weeds, but essentially as a government employee in the working in the course of your duties, you cannot be sued for general negligence by private citizens. There's something called the Federal Port Claims Act that basically says you have to sue the United States government, not the individuals acting in their professional capacity. There are a few things that you can get sued for personally.

It's constitutional violations, essentially. And this complaint did not allege any constitutional violations, which is one, the first clue as to the lack of understanding of the law of the lawyers who filed it, but I'll get more to that later. So in July, Jim Comey, myself, Kevin Klein Smith, Lisa Page, Pete Struck, we all get essentially removed from the case as defendants in the United States government takes our place. So fast forward to September, the judge, middle Brooks,

and the Southern District of Florida, he dismisses the complaint with prejudice, meaning you cannot bring it again. And he says, you know, according Judge Mel Brooks here, he says, I found that the amended complaint was a quintessential shotgun pleading that its claims were foreclosed by existing precedent. And its factual allegations were underlined and contradicted by the public reports and filings upon which it reported to rely. I reserved jurisdiction to

adjudicate issues pertaining to sanctions. So after that one defendant requested sanctions, they got a they risked they got an award of about $50,000, maybe $60,000 from you at everything up. And eventually 18 other defendants moved for sanctions against Trump and Alina Habba. And this order that came out yesterday is the result of that motion. And then I'll get to the last line first. The judge ruled strongly in the move in favor, but warding, well, I should say finding Trump and Habba to be jointly and severly liable for a sanctions bill of $937,989.39. And 39 cents.

So 39 cents. Don't forget the 39 cents. Massive smacked out. Of course, in a footnote on the last page, he says, you know, basically, if you don't have the ability to pay, you have 10 days after the filing of this order, at which time you can submit a verified statement of your net worth, which includes all assets and my abilities.

Something tells me that's not gonna happen in this case. Dude, that was the best bit of shade of this whole thing. Hey, Trump, if you can't afford a million dollars, just file it under seal. Let me know what your net worth is. That is a ketchup on the wall causing footnote right there. You know that the burger hit the wall yesterday at Mar-a-Logue. That's well done.

All right, so I'm totally like, I'm just loving this, obviously. But let me read a couple of quotes that I think are amazing. So the order opens with the following paragraphs. This case should never have been brought, period. It's inadequacy as a legal claim was evident from the start, period. No reasonable lawyer would have filed it intended for a political purpose, none of the counts of the amended complaint

state-diagnizable legal claim. Thirty-one individuals and entities were needlessly harmed in order to dishonestly advance a political narrative. A continuing pattern of misuse of the courts by Mr. Trump and his lawyers undermines the rule of law, portrays judges as partisans, and diverts resources from those who have suffered actual legal harm. Wow. I mean, that is all you need to know about this issue, but he goes on for another 46 pages. Yeah, it's like that for the entire thing too. It's amazing.

He parses through it. There's a whole section that talks about different theories in the complaint. One of which was that Jim Comey and Hillary Clinton conspired together to destroy Donald Trump by having him prosecuted. He walks through all of the crazy allegations that come up in the course of, you know, 20, 30 paragraphs in the complaint that, like, are supposedly building to this grand conspiracy. And he dismisses them all because they're just preposterous on their face. He even points out the fact that the idea that Comey and Clinton would ever work together on anything was just like cats and dogs living together, right? It just doesn't happen. So he said, so in a footnote at the end of that section, he says, this provocative allegation stirred my curiosity. So he's referring to the fact that Trump refers to this letter

that Vendee and I Ratcliffe sent to the Hill kind of, you know, as it's presented in the complaint, Trump is trying to suggest that rat cliff's letter proves this conspiracy between Comuneclent. So he says this provocative allegations stirred my curiosity. So I looked up the rat cliff letter. The allegation in the amended complaint fails to mention that the information in the letter came from a Russian intelligence analysis. The allegation in the amended complaint fails to mention that the information in the letter came from a Russian intelligence analysis, and that Mr. Ratcliffe commented, quote,

the intelligence community does not know the accuracy of this allegation or the extent to which the Russian intelligence analysis may reflect exaggeration or fabrication. The Trump, the judge goes on to say Mr. Trump's lawyers saw no professional impediment or irony in relying upon Russian intelligence as a good-faced faith basis for their arguments. I mean the nerve to cite Russian intelligence to prove that there was a fake Russian conspiracy out to get you. I just if bar was a mine it really does Wow, yeah Another great quote here the amended complaint is a hodgepodge of

Disconnected often immaterial events followed by an implausible conclusion This is a deliberate attempt to harass to tell a story without regard to facts. And then he goes on to say, the plaintiff consistently misrepresented and cherry picked portions of public reports. This goes back to what I was talking about, why he wanted those Russia documents. This plaintiff consistently misrepresented and cherry picked portions of public reports and filings to support a false factual narrative. Often, the report or filing actually contradicted his allegations.

It happened too often to be accidental. Its purpose was political, not legal. Factual allegations were made without any evidentiary support in circumstances where falsity is evidence. So, I mean, just an absolute. It's incredible. And I love that first part that he read. I mean, this is a deliberate attempt to harass,

to tell a story without regards to the facts. Like, that is what we know about Donald Trump and his history in the presidency. And I look, I speak on this point with some distinct personal experience. I mean, this guy, that's what he does. He traffics and cherry pick misrepresented pseudo facts and uses them to harass and bully and malign people. That is not going to work in this current case. And so this is kind

of why I wanted to spend so much time talking about this in the podcast today. I think this is directly relevant to what we're watching in terms of Jack's myth's work. Yeah. And before before we get into the relevancy, I just wanted to just wanted to bring up my favorite quote from the from this entire absolute bench slap where Middlebrook says, oh, and by the way, when that first guy was awarded sanctions, $60 something, $60 something, $1000,

that same day Trump filed a lawsuit against Latisha James in the New York Attorney General, much the same kind of BS that was in this lawsuit. And I said, oh, you might want to, you know, drop that lawsuit. So interestingly, within 12 hours of hitting, being hit with the million dollar sanctions on this one, they dropped their lawsuit against his James. So I thought that was pretty great. Instance of good judgment. Yeah, mm-hmm. Yeah.

Uh, but here's my favorite quote. Uh, Middlebrook says, here we are confronted with a lawsuit that should never have been filed, which was completely frivolous, both factually and legally, and which was brought in bad faith for an improper purpose. Mr. Trump is a prolific and sophisticated, elitigant, who is repeatedly using the courts to seek revenge on political adversaries. He is the mastermind of the strategic abuse of the judicial process, and he cannot be seen as a litigant blindly following the advice

of a lawyer. He knew full well the impact of his actions. As such, I find that sanctions should be imposed on Mr. Trump and his lead council, Ms. Hava. That is brilliant. And, you know, don't think the story ends here because the judge pointedly held them both jointly and severly liable, which means that either one, that means you can recover the judgment essentially in its entirety against either one. So what this does, it opens up the door for a fight between the two of them. And if you think that Trump isn't going to look at her and say, I told you not to do this and you pay him, I'm not paying him.

I mean, I would be very surprised if that doesn't happen. But yeah, and I have advised Alina Haba on Twitter to file suit. Yeah, to be first. To seek after these two episodes. To seek after these two episodes. Be first. And this is where this could be connected to Jack Smith

because we know in that big giant subpoena we talked about last week that Jack Smith wanted to know about how some, actually all of the fundraising that happened after the election, the fundraising off the big lie, how that was spent and where it went. And I'm wondering if any of the perhaps documents he took or if any of the money he fraudulently raised went to pay for this or feed this lawsuit. And it would be interesting to see how

that plays out. And there's other connections too, right, Andrew? Absolutely. Absolutely. I mean, I think the most obvious one is it really puts a huge dent in the Trump legal team. So we know that Alina Habba represents Trump not just in this, representative, not just in this case. I mean, she was the lead lawyer on this thing. She filed its signer name on the complaint. But she also represents Trump in the New York AG case.

She represents him in the E. Jean Carroll case, which we saw some developments on this week. And we know from reporting that she's also been advising in some capacity on the Mar-A-Lago documents case. So New York Times reports that Ms. Habba has offered advice in the federal investigation into Mr. Trump's handling of classified documents according to people close to Mr. Trump, including arguing that he should hire someone to search as properties for any additional documents. Now, we already know that the result of that search from the private security company or lawyers whoever it was he hired has been controversial as DOJ is dogedly pursuing the

identities of those folks so they presumably so they can interview them about that work. And the Trump team is pushing back on having to reveal that. I'm sorry, but I just don't think Alina Haba is going to be any match for Jack Smith and his team of incredibly experienced federal prosecutors. So again, you know, raised as this issue of like, who is really advising him? Is it even possible to advise him effectively? And I don't think he's put himself on the best footing with that legal team.

Yeah, I know. Traffic ticket lawyer versus the Hague, you know, I'm, yeah, I mean, we'll see what my money is. I remember thinking through the issue of like being replaced by by the United States in this suit and talking to the lawyers who were are responsible for those motions, like, it seemed so obvious. Like you can't, you just, you can't bring a suit like this.

There's laws that prohibit it. Why wouldn't they have changed their complaint to include constitutional claims or just sued the right people? But that was a bad sign that they were about to head off the cliff. Yeah, for real. And then one last story.

I think it was Alina Habba that was the traffic court lawyer. One of them was, I apologize if that wasn't, you can send me a correction. All right, one last thing before we get out of here, there was some breaking news that just came across our desks here and we know that Jim Jordan has sent seven letters at least to the Department of Justice, demanding cooperation and documents.

And he, he, today he was seated Friday, he was seated as chair of the Judiciary Committee and House of Representatives, which is just a crime in and of itself. Um, the, the DOJ finally responded to, to Jim Jordan, because Jim Jordan was demanding all of the documents, because they're, you know, they set up this subcommittee to investigate the investigation of, of Donald Trump in January 6th and the documents and all that other, everything that Jack Smith is looking into. And a DOJ got back to him and said, oh, we will totally cooperate with Congress as, you know, as we do, as we always have, oh, but one thing, longstanding DOJ policy prevents us from confirming or

denying the existence of pending investigations in response to congressional requests or providing non-public information about our investigations. Okay. Happy new year, bubby. And so that is, you know, being seen by the right wing media as not cooperating with Congress and a violation of the separation of powers. But this is a long standing thing that actually is part of the separation of powers doctrine. You know, I mean, talk about that for a second.

Yeah, you don't get more separation of powers than this. It is a absolutely consistent precedent that the department does not share information from open, ongoing, criminal investigations with the Hill. Now, on matters of national security, DOJ or FBI representatives will go up to the Hill and brief Congress on national security threats, but they don't talk about like this case against this person, that sort of thing. And this is, Jim Jordan knows that everybody on the Hill knows this. This is just more performative outrage to back DOJ into a corner to build a record, a nonsensical record that they can cast as not cooperating. And to do who knows what with maybe they decide to pursue, you know, impeachment of

the of Merritt Garland or something along those lines. Who knows? I can't predict it. But this is absolutely the obvious was end to this issue. DOJ, not under this AG or any other AG, is never going to respond with case information to a letter like this from any chairman of the judiciary committee. And I knew they wouldn't under these circumstances. I've been saying on TV for the last week that they should not. I've been getting tart and feathered on some right-wing media outlets saying like, oh, my cab is advocating for dear Jada to stand up converse and not cooperate. That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying they should stand on precedent. They should conduct themselves in the same orderly and lawful way that they have for many, many

administrations. And I would also point out, did you, we be remiss if we didn't point out that maybe one acceptable way for DOJ to respond to these requests is to just completely ignore them and not respond at all. And then when the AG is subpoenaed to appear, maybe you just ignore the subpoena and don't show up on the day of your appearance because if you'll remember, that's what Jim Jordan did when subpoenaed by the January 6th committee. So apparently that's a perfectly, no response is an acceptable response according to, um, according to Chairman Jordan. Well, what I would do is I would have Doug let her come over to my house and say, all right,

we're going to sue, uh, the subcommittee of the judiciary investigating the investigators, uh, for unlawfully subpoenaing me and then just drag it out in court until the 119th Congress because that happened with a lot of people who were subpoena to the january six committee that just didn't feel like showing up but it's best to not you know it's it's best to respond a little do what meadows and scum at do what meadows and scovino did of course i'm obviously i'm i'm uh... exaggerating here for a comic effect, but I fully expect, DOJ is not going to comply with this request. They will likely get subpoenas as a result of not sending stuff voluntarily.

And I would expect they'll go into court and try to have the subpoenas quashed. And that's where the litigation begins. And if they suffer an adverse decision and the course of that litigation, I fully expect DOJ would appeal this all the way to the Supreme Court if necessary. That's a long process, as we know. Yeah, yep, it is. And you know, or like I said, do what Meta's and Scooby know, dude, which is show up, turn over some things, answer some questions.

And then, you know, then you can't be, you know, I suppose Jim Jordan could refer you criminally to the Department of Justice, but because they didn't indict Meadows and Scavino, people might actually be glad about that now. They cooperated a little bit. And so, therefore, the Department of Justice was like, I'm not going to get in a privileged battle over a misdemeanor. And now they have precedent saying, we didn't do it. These are similarly situated. of a list of the list of the list of the list of the list of the list of the list of the list of the list of the list of the list of the list of the list of the list of the list of the list of the list of the list of the list of the list of the list of the list of the list of the list of the list of the list of the list of the list of the list of the list of the list of the list of the list of the list of the list of the list of the list of the list of the list of the list of the list of the list of the list of the list of the list of the list of the list of the list of the list of the list of the list of the list of the list of the list of the list of the list of the list of the list of the list of the list of the list of the list of the list of the list of the list of the list of the list of the list of the list of the list of the list of the list of the list of the list of the list of the list of the list of the list of the list of the list of the list of the list of the list of the list of the list of the list of the list of the list of the list of the list of the list of the list of the list of the list of the list of the list of the list of the list of the list of the list of the list of the list of the list of the list of the list of the list of the list of the list of the list of the list of the list of the list of the list of the list of the list of the list of the list of the list of the list of the list of the list of the list of the list of the list of the list of the list of the list of the list of the list the list of the list of the list of the list of the list of the list of the list of the list of the list of the list of the list of the list of the list of the list of the list of the list of the list of the list of Justice is going to stick with its long standing precedent. Absolutely. Absolutely. As they should. All right. Well, it's been so great to talk to you. We had a lot of news this week. I imagine we're going to even have more next week as we inch closer to those final weeks where he might start making some critical charging decisions. And again, we don't know if that's Trump or like Walt Naughta, but we'll see what happens on the next episode of Jack. I've been Alison Gill and I'm Andy McKay. We'll see you next time

Hi, I'm Dan Dunn host of what we're're Drinking with Dan Dunn, the most wildly entertaining adult beverage-themed podcast in the history of the medium. That's right, the boozy best of the best, baby! And we have the cool celebrity promos to prove it. Check this out! Hi, I'm Allison Janney, and you're here with me on What We're Drinking with Dan Dunn. And that's my sexy voice. Boom.

Boom is right Academy Award winner, Alison Janney. As you can see, celebrities just love this show. How cool is that? Hey, this is Scottie Bippin, and you're listening to the Dan Dunn Show and wait, hold on. The name of the show is what? All right, sure. Scottie Pippin momentarily forgot the show's name,

but there's a first time for everything. Hey everyone, this is Scoot McNary. I'm here with Dan Dunn on What Are You Drinking? What's he calling it? Fine, twice. But famous people really do love this show. Hi, this is Will Forte and you're, for some reason, listening to What We're Drinking with Dan Dunn.

Now what do you mean for some reason, Will Forte? What's going on? Hi, this is Kurt Russell. Listen, I escaped from New York, but I couldn't get the hell out of Dan Dunn's happy hour. Please send help. Send help. Oh, come on Kurt Russell. Can somebody out there please help me?

I'm Deed of Antis and you're listening to what we're drinking with Dan Dunn. Let me try one more time. Come on. Is it right? It's amazing. Is it amazing? Is it right? Ah, that's better. So be like Dita Von Tees, friends, and listen to what we're drinking with Dan Dunn, available

wherever you get your podcasts. M-S-W Media.