Jack - Jack | Episode 56 | Show Me The Dicta

Episode Date: December 24, 2023

This week, Trump filed his opposition to Jack Smith’s SCOTUS petition in the immunity case, and the Supreme Court has denied that petition to grant certiorari before judgment.Meanwhile, the DC Circuit Court of Appeals has granted Jack Smith’s request for an expedited appeal. Also, Trump has asked for a hearing in front of the full DC Circuit court panel on his appeal of Judge Chutkan’s limited gag order. Even though the DC trial has been stayed, Jack Smith filed his exhibit list and discovery with Trump’s lawyers, who refused to accept it.There’s another perfect Trump call, this time with Michigan canvassers in November of 2020. A newly unsealed court filing shows Jack Smith was looking at obstruction and false statements charges for Jeffrey Clark and John Eastman. Another federal judge has ordered Rep. Scott Perry to hand over communications to Jack Smith.In Florida, we have Jack Smith’s motion and Trump’s opposition to a jury questionnaire and filings on whether CIPA Section 4 should be ex parte and whether classified documents should go to Nauta and de Oliviera.Plus, we have some great listener questions.Good 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 InformantsQuestions for the podSubmit questions for the pod herehttps://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 bookThe ThreatThe Threat: How the FBI Protects America in the Age of Terror and TrumpWe would like to know more about our listeners. Please participate in this brief surveyListener Survey and CommentsThis Show is Available Ad-Free And Early For Patreon and Supercast Supporters at the Justice Enforcers level and above:https://dailybeans.supercast.techOrhttps://patreon.com/thedailybeansOr when you subscribe on Apple Podcastshttps://apple.co/3YNpW3P

M. S. O. W. Media. I signed in order appointing Jack Smith. And 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. Hey, everybody. Welcome to episode 56 of Jack, the podcast about all things special council. And now apparently the Supreme Court. It is Sunday, December 24, 2023, Christmas Eve, the panel to make show of 2023. We still have one to go on the 31st. I'm Allison Gil. And I'm Andy McCabe. Oh my gosh, Allison, what a difference a week makes, right? Since our last episode, Trump filed his opposition to Jack Smith's go to

petition in the immunity case. And the Supreme Court has denied that petition for cert. Meanwhile, the DC Circuit Court of Appeals has granted Jack Smith's request for an expedited appeal. Additionally, Trump asked for an on-bong hearing. That's the full DC Circuit Court panel on his appeal of Judge Chutkin's limited gag order. And even though the DC trial has been stayed, Jack Smith

filed his exhibit list and discovery with Trump's lawyers who have refused to accept it. I wonder if they just like, we've left it on the front doorstep and we were refused to bring it inside. I think you can't do that. I'm not going to touch it. I'm not going to open it. I'm not going to look at it. But in another pleating, which we'll get to later, I'm going to complain about the fact that we don't get discovery fast enough. Exactly. Exactly. Now, on top of all that, we have another perfect Trump phone call this time with Michigan

canvassers in November of 2020. There's a new unsealed court filing showing Jack Smith was looking at obstruction and fall statements charges for Jeffrey Clark and John Eastman. Far earlier than we thought, another federal judge is ordering representative Scott Perry to hand over his communications to Jack Smith and down in Florida. We have Jack Smith's motion and Trump's opposition for a jury questionnaire and filings on whether CEPA section four should be like it always is X part A as it's defined in the statute, but nevertheless.

And that the classified documents should not go to Nauta and Dale Lavera. We don't care if he was in the Navy once or that he saw all of the classified documents while they were strewn about the floor in Mar-a-Lago. That doesn't give him access. He wants to relieve himself in a bathroom surrounded by confidential and secret documents. I feel like that gives him some sort of clearance. Yeah, I had to move all the classified documents to take a shower one time. Exactly.

Andy, I think we should start with the Supreme Court ruling on the immunity cert being heard before the appeals court ruling. So let's talk about that. Yeah, sure. I mean, that was the big kind of bombshell this week that, of course, you know, could have a pretty significant impact on the timing of the trial. So the Supreme Court has denied Jack Smith's bid to have them take up Trump's immunity claim before the DC Circuit Court of Appeals rules on the matter.

So you remember from last week, Jack Smith leapfrogged over the appellate court and asked the Supreme Court to take the immunity case first. Trump had until December 20th to file his opposition and he did. And though he spent a lot of time arguing the merits of the case, instead of arguing solely on the question before the court, which of course was, do we take this now before the DC circuit weighs in on it? Or do we let it go through its normal course of business? That was the only thing.

And technically Smith's filing was a petition for cert, as we discussed last week. That's an official request to the Supreme Court to take up an issue and decide a particular question. So they have decided not to do that. They issued an order saying that that petition for cert have been denied. They did not provide any sort of explanation as to why or who was for it or who was against it. Every once in a while when they deny a petition for cert, you'll see one or two of the

justices will file a dissent from that denial of cert. That did not happen here. So it's pretty clean. No, we're not going to take it right now. It's not a decision on the merits of Trump's immunity claim. It simply is them saying, we're not interested at this moment. And likely comes with a comeback and see us later if you're still arguing about this.

Yeah, I don't know. I like what George Conway're still arguing about this. Yeah. I don't know. I like what George Conway had to say about this. I think Andrew Weissman, a couple of other people saying, this isn't a big deal. This is just where we were before we were surprised by Jack Smith filing the petition for Sirth was scotus in the first place. And given the appeals courts, like super fast, supercharged schedule, which I'm going to talk about here in a minute.

I mean, I don't know. I'm a little confused about why the Supreme Court granted an expedited review for cert, but then denied it. You know what I mean? Yeah. Yeah. I'm also a little confused about the fact, or I'm heartened, I should say, by the fact that there were no public dissents.

And I'm, I think, and correct me if I'm wrong. Most cases need four votes to get cert granted, but one of these kinds of, you know, deciding before the Appellate Court decisions needs five votes, right? I know you write about the four votes on a normal petition for cert. I haven't heard that other, like, that there is a separate standard of majority essentially for a decision to pull it before it goes to the appeal court. The super rare that that happens, just to put it in perspective, right? It almost never happens.

The case that they were pointing to pretty strongly and the injects filing was, of course, the Nixon case in which they did that. I think it's disappointing. It wasn't infreseeable, but it is disappointing because the request was so reasonable and logical. Like this issue is not going to be decided by the appellate court,

unless it comes in the form of a denial of cert for the underlying issue from the Supreme Court. So it's going, whatever happens at the DC circuit and whether that takes two rounds, the initial round and then an on-bunk round or just one, one of the two parties is going to request Supreme Court review. And so understanding that, it made sense to me, and I think a lot of people that the special council tried to just get it there now to, you know, kind of cut out the middleman, but that's not where we are. And so now we're going to have to go

through that process. Yeah. And you know, my dream scenario from the jump, we talked about this before when this was first filed by Jack Smith, is that the Supreme Court denies cert, step one, and then the appellate court denies immunity on the merits. And then they apply again for cert, petition again for cert to scoters and scoters denies it. That would be the fastest way. Yeah. And so that's kind of been because that's the fastest way. That's been like fingers crossed for that. So this denial is actually, you know, step one in my dream scenario, but that's assuming that they, that they all got together and

said, we're not taking this case. It's dumb. Let's hurry it up, deny, and then deny again, and let the lower courts ruling stand. I don't know. Part of me doesn't see that happening because I think that they do wanna take this up so that they can deny it. But, you know, so the most likely scenario is not my dream scenario. The most likely scenario that will go through the appellate court.

And then it will go up to the Supreme court. They'll grant cert, they'll grant an expedited briefing schedule and review and we'll have a decision sometime in March, maybe. Yeah. I think the one alteration I'd make to make your dream scenario a little bit more likely is I think if Trump loses at the first round in the circuit court, that's the three judge panel. I think he'll likely apply for a rehearing in Bonk before he goes to the Supreme Court

because it's another step he can eject into the process. It's more briefing schedules, it's more delay, and that's, of course, we all know that's the goal here. So they don't have to take that case on Bonka. I had put this, I thought we would talk about it later in the show, but I'll refer to it here. Just so folks understand, Rule 35, Federal Court Rule 35 lays out how you get an on-bunk re-hearing. And it says, when hearing or or rehearing on a bank may be ordered, a majority of the circuit judges who are in regular active service

and who are not disqualified may order that an appeal or other proceeding be heard or reheared by the court of appeals on a bank. An on a bank hearing or rehearing is not favored and ordinarily will not be ordered. Unless on a bond consideration is necessary to secure maintain uniformity of a court's decisions or the proceeding involves a question of exceptional importance. So, this is exceptionally important.

Yeah, I mean, it certainly fits there. You can make a sound argument that it fits and it would give him another chance in kind of another bite at the apple substantively, although that's not really the goal here. It's just more briefing schedules and hearings and, you know, more time burned. Ironically, I think if he goes, there's that step and they, and he gets an on-bomb hearing, I think that makes the likelihood of a Supreme Court issuing cert even lower, because by then you would have had likely two very consistent, very sound opinions by the most respected circuit court in the country and it may kind of lift the

responsibility from the Supreme Court shoulders to weigh in on it if they feel like it's been adequately covered. So who knows? But what I can't figure out is why if the Supreme Court wanted to take this case, why they wouldn't take it before the appeals court. I mean, there's been, you know, you said you brought up the Nixon case, Jack Smith brought up several other cases. There's been 19 since 2019 that they've taken on an expedited basis. One was just so Trump could execute somebody before he left office. execute somebody before he left office. Another was President Biden's student debt relief program. Right. They wanted to hurry up and I guess screw people over. I'm not sure why if they want to hear this case or it's important, they didn't take it the first time. And to me, the only thing I could think of

as in my head is they don't want to take it. They want to hurry up and say, no, because that's what they did this time. They granted an expedited review to decide whether or not to grant certain and then said, no, so it was like hurry up and no. But obviously, we can speculate all day, but we'll see what ends up happening. But either way, and this was true before Jack Smith even went to the Supreme Court, before there was a denial, I think that that March 4th trial date isn't a little bit of jeopardy. But we knew that going in when the trial date was set. Moge, March is great because then it can go off in June or July for normal things that happen that put off a trial. So, and let's talk real quick about the appellate briefing

because that happened this week too, like Jack Smith asked for expedited schedule for the appeal score, the DC circuit court of appeals. And with that, it's on the merits, right? They aren't hurrying up to decide whether or not they're going to decide. They are hurrying up to decide this case on the merits. And they put together a lightning fast briefing schedule, December 23rd, which is today, as we record this episode yesterday, as you listen to it, that is when Trump's briefing is due. The Department of Justice's response is due December 30th. And then Trump's replies do January

2nd. This thing will be fully briefed by January 2nd. And then they came in a little bit afterwards because they said arguments TBD to be determined. And they scheduled arguments for January 9th. And more details are still yet to come on the arguments. For instance, how much time each side is going to get to argue their case during that hearing. But that's on January 9th. And they could have a decision before January 15th, you know, before the month is up. But, you know, again, if he applies on bonk and that gets turned down, there's another 15, two weeks, three weeks, maybe max putting us in February and jury selection was supposed

to begin on February 9th, but now because this thing has been stayed. But there's one other thing that can happen here, right? The DC Circuit, when they render their decision sometime after January 9th, they could lift the stay on the DC trial. Yes. Forcing Donald Trump to go to the Supreme Court or the full panel or both, because he kind of does that sometimes, and ask for that stay to go back on. And once that stay, if it's lifted, as lifted, then what we're going to talk about here

in a minute about Jack Smith sending over some discovery and exhibit lists is BAM. Now, now you are, you have it. You know what I mean? Yeah. If they, if it remains lifted, right? Because I think Trump petitioning to continue this day, that's a guarantee. Yeah, he could get an administrative stay pending a consideration of a full stay,

but that could be turned down. Yeah, yeah, we'll have to see. I mean, it's just like a, you know, a decision-al flow chart. It's like 15 different branches here that we're trying to walk through in our heads. But I think when the DC circuit came back with this super fast schedule, I think it kind of took the pressure off the Supreme Court to take the case. That's probably most likely what happened.

Supreme Court was like, we don't have to decide this right now. We can go through regular order because we have a hearing on January right now. Yeah. The special counsel made this petition based on the need for speed. He's getting speed at the circuit court level. So let's just let that play itself out. I think that's probably what I'm talking about. And I think if there was some gamesmanship or shenanigans, we would have seen a public dissent from one or more of the justices. Yeah. I think that's probably right. Probably right. Okay.

So shall we move to the 11th circuit? Yeah. This is interesting. It's not really, it's more fault in county, but I think it has, I think it has some weight in the DC case. Yeah. There's a good tie here, which you were on your game and pointing out. So also this week, the 11th Circuit denied Mark Meadows bid

to remove his Fulton County case to federal court. And they did so for two reasons. First, they ruled that removal doesn't apply to a former federal officials. And then they said that even if it did, the behavior that Meadows and Gate was engaging in is not within the scope of his duties. So, electioneering and campaigning

are not the job of anyone in the executive branch. Okay, so why are we bringing this up? Well, the 11th Circuit's chief judge, Judge Pryor, wrote the opinion, and he is apparently very close with Clarence Thomas, and he's a very respected kind of conservative member of the judiciary. And he's a guy who carries a lot of weight on the Supreme Court. So if he ruled that election oversight is not part of anyone's job and the executive branch,

that might be taken into consideration by the Supreme Court when ruling on whether Donald Trump's actions fell within the scope of his duties. Yeah, because that's his argument. He was that he was acting within the outer, he made all those arguments arguments in his filing to the Supreme Court, which he didn't, that wasn't about the merits, which was funny, but that, that's his argument. This was all within the outer perimeter of my job. And now we've got multiple courts saying, no, it's not. The executive, the states, and this Supreme Court is very big on the states administering their own election stuff.

Right. And so the president doesn't have anything to do with that. And even in the Appellate Court ruling, the 11th Circuit for meadows, the conservative 11th Circuit is like, bro, you were violating a hatch act by campaigning for Donald Trump while an executive branch member or as under the under the color of being the chief of staff. Yeah, it's definitely a good, it's a good decision for the prosecution and more broadly for the, for both federal prosecutions of Trump,

where these things are gonna come in, these defenses will come in as we've discussed before in terms of like how could I have broken the law if all I was doing was trying to protect election integrity and return the rightfully one election to the rightful winner, by the way, me. So yeah, this is an interesting piece. It's not certainly not precedent for the cases that are headed on their way to the court right now, but could be factored in by a guy who

whose opinions are taken pretty seriously there. Yeah, and even separately, it's not going to be considered in the Supreme Court because that's not how things work. But the fact that prior wrote this decision is a big deal that conservative jurists on major circuit courts, chief jurists believe that this is all outside of the job of anybody in the executive branch. That's right. And a story that went under the radar this week, this from CNN, your colleagues over there, Donald Trump and Don Trump, Jr., both father and son have come to the defense of that social

media influencer who was convicted of election interference and his well-known history of publishing racist, anti-Semitic, anti-Muslim and homophobic content on his social media pages. Now, in a video posted by his campaign in early December, former president Trump blasted Joe Biden and his quote, henchman for allegedly trampling on the first amendment rights of Douglas Mackey. He's a longtime supporter of Trump. He had a Twitter account in 2016.

And Trump accused Biden of seeking to jail Mackey for sharing a joking meme about Hillary Clinton several years ago. Now, Mackey was under federal investigation for conspiracy to suppress votes in the 2016 election. He was charged seven days after Biden took office and convicted earlier in the year this year. He was sentenced to seven months in prison. Now, a prosecutor said that Mackie targeted black voters on Twitter with a tweet meant to look like a campaign advertisement that said you could vote for Clinton by text message.

Right. Yeah. Now what CNN doesn't mention here, and I think that this is the whole crux of the story. Personally, is that Mackey was convicted for violating Title 18, US Code section 241. And that is one of the charges that Jack Smith has brought against Donald Trump. So it makes sense to me that Trump and junior are decrying investigations and convictions and jailing of Douglas Mackey because he committed the same crime that Donald Trump is being charged with.

Yeah. I mean, you almost think if this, if this was kind of an intentional strategic move on their part that it was likely one guided by their lawyers. It's not one that either of the two of these would have ever figured out on their own. No, no, they're not monitoring what people have been convicted with and whether they're not their conduct matches up with their own. He's just Googling. He's just, you know, in the bathroom surrounded by classified documents, Googling, who else is in jail for 241?

What's 241? Let me see the dicta on the last circuit court to, yeah, I don't think so. But it makes sense that he's going to wrap his arms around this guy and start drawing attention to the unfairness of this charge because like you said, it's one of the big four. It's right there in the Gen 6 indictment. So, there in the Jan 6 indictment. So yeah, there we go. Once again, acting according to form from the two trump dudes. A lot of his pardons were for stuff that he's guilty of, right?

Like we noticed that a lot when that whole pardon list came down. All right, everybody, we have to take a quick break. We're going to talk about that. Don't call it a gag order, but we will first hear a word from our sponsors. So stick around. We'll be right back. Welcome back. Okay, let's stay in DC where we have an update on the don't call it a gag order issued by Judge Chutkin. Here a panel of three judges on the DC Circuit Court of Appeals upheld most of the gag order, and now Donald Trump is filed to have his motion heard by the full circuit panel, which

is as we've been discussing, referred to as an unbunk hearing, or re-hearing actually, because it's just a, it's round two at the same decision essentially. He's also asked for an administrative state to block the gag order while the full panel considers his motion. Now, Trump attorney's right. This petition presents a question of exceptional importance, whether a district court may gag the core political speech of the leading candidate for president of the United States disregarding the first amendment rights of over 100 million American voters based on speculation that undefined possible future harms to the judicial process. The Supreme Court has, quote, never allowed the government to prohibit candidates from communicating relevant information to voters during an election.

Close call. Never had a leading candidate facing 91 felony counts either. Yeah, that's true. He didn't point that out though. And his face. No. And I think my favorite part is disregarding the first amendment rights of over 100 million American voters, 100 million, followed by based on speculation.

You just speculated that there are 100 million people who want to hear what you have to say. Yeah, I mean, there weren't 100 million people who want to hear what you have to say. Yeah. I mean, there weren't a hundred million people to vote for them. Nope. In either race. So, the thing that kills me is the way they phrase this. Whether a district court may gag the core political speech of the leading candidate for president of the United States, like almost suggesting it would be okay if you wanted

to gag, you know, some also ran like the VEC or Chris Christie. But the leading candidate enjoys some sort of elevated protection by the First Amendment. And this stuff really gets to me because I feel like it goes at, it goes at an issue that we've seen in a lot of different ways. And that is that we've seen in a lot of different ways. And that is with the behavior of many Republicans in the White House, in the form of Trump, and of course others on the Hill. We are seriously running the risk of creating a special political class of citizenship that does not have to, it is not bound by court orders, does not have to answer subpoenas. And now in this argument, they enjoy an elevated protection by the First Amendment simply

because they unilaterally chose to run for office, which I think is so, so troubling and completely flawed. Yeah. And like, are there going to be cottage industries that pop up out of this? Are there going to be firms that while you're in prison, somebody can run out and get all the signatures you need to run for office? And you know, you pay them. Yeah, I mean, if he, like, it's kind of a well-known aspect of totalitarian regimes,

right? Russia, obviously, they have the Duma. That's their version of Congress. You are immune from any sort of criminal prosecution when you're in the Duma. So you have like oligarchs and organized criminals who routinely get themselves elected through unfair elections to seats in the Duma simply to avoid prosecution. Like, is that where we're headed here? Is that the direction that half the country wants us to go in?

I don't think so. I don't think people are thinking of it that way. No, they are. But there's no question that there are Republicans on the hill, like Jim Jordan, who just decides to ignore a subpoena from the Janssix committee, and then turns around and serves subpoenas on other people and expects them to show up.

Like the hypocrisy, it's not just hypocrisy. It's literally the creation of a double standard where some people, i.e. politicians, are going to enjoy greater benefits, greater protections under the Constitution and less accountability under the law. And I think it's super frightening. That's my soapbox for the week. Yeah, no, I agree with you. But also this week, and this is kind of a little bit of, um, um, comic relief.

Despite the DC trial and the pretrial schedule being stage, right? Judge Chuck in has stayed that pending the outcome of Trump's immunity claim. Jack Smith went ahead and sent the exhibit list and more discovery over to Trump's attorneys because they were due to be handed over on December 17th and 18th. Jack Smith explained that he understands pretrial schedules are on hold, but didn't want to miss the deadline so you could have these materials that you need for your defense if and when the trial schedule resumes. Of course, this upset Donald, who had his attorney's penile letter, which stated,

Bernie's pen a letter, which stated, dear Thomas and Molly. Nice. So congenial. Yeah. They must really be friends in real life. Tom, Tom's and malls. Hey, I, uh, I, having dinner at your place last weekend. I don't think that happened. But anyway, well, they continue. I write on behalf of the defense team in response to one, your production letter dated December 17, 2023, which purports to produce additional discovery to us. And two, your December 18, 2023 production

of a purported draft exhibit list. Both of these productions violate the courts December 13, 2023 order, staying the case. Accordingly, we do not accept the productions and we will not review them. We ask that you refrain from all further attempts to impose litigation burdens on us, including through discovery or other submissions, until and unless the courts lift this day on the order. Now you know they're looking at them. I mean, what the purported discovery or the purported list? Okay.

I guess you could say you could call it purported discovery or the purported list. Okay, I guess you could say, you could call it purported discovery because maybe you think you're holding out some issue that it's not actually discoverable material or not what you asked for or whatever. But a list is a list. It can't be a purported list. It's actually a list. No, it is.

Yeah. And really, honestly, Donald Trump wants to say, once this trial is back on, he wants to say, oh, now we're just now getting to this discovery. We need more time. We need more time because that's been one of his number one arguments. The voluminous, disorganized discovery that we particularly asked for things in these particular order, but, you know, whatever. But yeah, the guy filing a motion after motion to delay because of slow discovery is now refusing to accept discovery.

Now granted, the pretrial schedule is stayed. He doesn't have to. That's cool. Yeah. He doesn't have to send them this stuff, but they don't have to look at it either. Like, there's nothing they have to do with it. I guess next, if he does it again, they'll go to the judge and say, please tell the other side to stop mailing us things.

To which he'll reply, I can't say anything right now, because this trial is stayed. Yeah. I can only comment on your violating your bail conditions and the limited gag order. I will hear no motions from you. Oh my God. It's just so, it's so, you know, you understand how people who are

following these cases closely, because they're so, you know, you understand how people who are following these cases closely because they're so important and interesting, but they're not like from the legal system, they see this stuff and they're just like, oh my god, how does this, how does anything ever get resolved in the legal system? It's clunky. Okay, next up from Kyle Cheney at Politico, months before special counsel Jack Smith took over the case. Federal prosecutors in Washington, DC were considering obstruction charges and connection with Donald Trump's bid to subvert the 2020 election. Cheney goes on to say a newly unsealed court filing related to the Trump grand jury shows

that prosecutors were eyeing the charge, which had already been deployed against dozens of January 6 riot defendants. And at least by September 2022, perhaps as early as the spring, the filing relates to search war and subterrain by prosecutors in June and July of 2022 to scour the personal email accounts of former Justice Department official Jeffrey Clark, his deputy Kenneth Kuklowski, and Chapman University account of John Eastman. Those warrants had previously been disclosed by US District Court Judge Barrel Howell, who unsealed the documents connected to the search full year ago. However, the versions of the documents released last year were redacted to conceal the precise charges being considered by prosecutors as they obtained those warrants. On Tuesday, the newly unsealed document revealed

the potential charges included 1512 and 2001, which is of course false statements. The filing indicates that federal prosecutors began weighing the obstruction charges in connection with the Trump probe well before the House January 6th select committee formally recommended that the foreign president be indicted on that charge. Oh, wait, I'm sorry, huh? What, what? Okay. Sorry.

I won't get any apologies, but, you know, this is so... Been saying, and, you know, 1512 includes 1512K, conspiracy. That includes Donald Trump. It's not clear from these documents that they were investigating Donald Trump, but no do I. So... Yeah. And I think it's good. It's kind of cool inside baseball to see like the way the sausage is actually made.

I mean, you put a lot of evidence in front of a grand jury on a big overarching case like this. And then, you know, you see how the evidence goes in, you see how the grand jury takes it, you see if they have lots of questions or confusion or if they get it quickly, as opposed to maybe like really struggling to understand how it applies, that sort of thing. And you factor all that in as you approach the end of the grand jury and you decide what

to have them actually vote on. So there's things that they may have considered and thought about and thrown out for whatever reason. They didn't think their evidence are strong enough. They didn't think in particular witnessed a good job. Yeah, who knows. But yeah, this is a little bit of a peek behind the curtain. Yeah. And great. And so we can dispatch with the conspiracy theory that the Department of Justice didn't live to

finger until the January 6th committee told them to. Yes. Just putting that aside there. Something else that's been going on for over a year. It's the fight to get what's inside representative Scott Perry's phone. We've been talking about this for a very long time. My friends, since we started this show this week, Judge Boesberg, who is a chief judge, granted Jack Smith access to nearly 1700 records recovered from Scott Perry's phone this week. They're going over. He withheld 396 others after a federal appeals court directed him to individually review

2000 and 55 communications from Perry's phone to decide which were protected by the Constitution's speech or debate clause, which grants members of Congress immunity from criminal investigation when acting in their official capacities. The FBI seized the phones in August of the phone, excuse me, in August of 2022. Now, unlike how Bozberg pulled back Perry's communications seeking information about election fraud before Congress's January 6th certification vote, how was going to let those go over the appellate court said those aren't covered or those are covered by speech or debate Bozberg, you go through all these and pull them out and so he has. by speech or debate, Bozberg, you go through all these and pull them out. And so he has, but a 90% of what barrel howl was going to send to Jack Smith is now being sent to

Jack Smith, still going. Bozberg. It's just taken a year to get this done. Bozberg, well, unlike how Bozberg pulled back Perry's communications seeking those congressional, that, that, that informal fact finding for fraud before January 6th, as I said, and before its vote on proposed legislation, that was HB1, right? Right. But Boseberg agreed with how the congressional immunity did not shield Perry's discussions seeking to provide information to or influence the conduct of others outside the government or in the executive branch, including meadows, who we met with several times, who then burned stuff in his fireplace after those meetings.

Yep, yep, Jeff Clark. Jeff Clark. Scott Perry was the guy that brought Jeff Clark to the table. And yeah, so any discussions about installing Jeffery Clark between Perry and Trump and Clark and Perry are going to go to to Jack Smith and talks about non legislative efforts to combat fraud. His communications about vice president Mike Pence's role or what occurred during the insurrection at the Capitol on January 6th. All of it goes over. So as a recording of this episode, Perry has not appealed this decision. And this really speaks to how long these investigations can take. Yeah.

And it might be another reason why members of Congress haven't been charged possibly. You know, we've, we've been speculating, and I still think broadly that he's not going to charge anybody until Trump's trial is done. But he may, and maybe the reason he hasn't is because he's still waiting for all the additional evidence. Yeah. I think there's probably considerable and well-founded concern on the part of the special council team that charges against anyone else for this or related conduct could somehow throw a hand grenade into the Trump case.

And he's got as many hand grenades there as he needs right now. So I think it's the right call to keep it clean and focused. I'm just hoping that, you know, when this one's done, they don't dust off their hands and walk away because there are so many people high-level people who should be charged for their role in these conspiracies and there certainly may be members of Congress who should be on that list.

I agree. But as I've said, Jackson Smith is no stranger to inditing members of Congress. He's done it in the past. That's true. Many times. And if he does not hear, I will wait to pass judgment on that decision until I read his report and read his declination decisions. Right. Because I trust Jack Smith, if there are charges to be brought will bring charges. I hope. Yeah. I'm with you. I'm with you. We've got a lot more to get to, but we need to take another break. Everybody stick around. We'll be right back. All right. Welcome back. We have some movement in the Mar-a-Lago documents case.

Yes, that's true. It's not actually a joke or an oxymoron. There is movement in Mar-a-Lago. First up, Jack Smith is filed as consolidated opposition to two motions. Trump's motion for access to CEPA Section 4 filings, which are usually filed X part A, meaning only between DOJ and the judge. Now, CEPA Section 4 is when the government and the judge get together to determine how classified information is going to be presented at trial. And the other motion Jack Smith is responding to is NADA and Dale Lavera's motion related to the X part A

nature of CEPA Section 4. So that motion was for NADA and D'Alevar as attorneys to have access to the Cephas section 4 filings. So Jax Smith is responded to both motions in one consolidated finding. So Trump filing to have access to the Cephas section 4 X partate proceedings where it's just the prosecutors and the judge, something that never happens. And NADA and Dale Lavera are basically saying, hey, we want access as well. And they aren't even charged with any... No, it's totally not relevant to their charges.

Nobody's gonna, you know, it's not a factual matter in this case that the government is gonna prove that Dale Lavera and Nada were intentionally retaining national security material. No, I'd be like, I demand to see the actual cash that was robbed from the bank when I threw the tire strip out in front of the cop car on his way there. Yeah, yeah, or I was the getaway driver. Yeah. No one's saying that you personally opened up the

double bags of cash and counted it before you drove away. You just, but you knew what was going on. You were involved in that thing. Anyway, okay, so Smith opens up with, and I quote, on December 6, 2023, defendant Donald J. Trump filed a motion seeking attorneys' eyes only access to all government filings pursuant to Section 4 of the Classified Information Procedures Act, SEPA. He also seeks to compel the government to file publicly redacted versions of its SEPA Section 4 motions, but neither the statute nor the cases interpreting it, nor the off-point cases Trump cites justify the relief he seeks.

Section 4 plainly contemplates and authorizes preceding ex parte, and appellate courts have uniformly in the face of defense challenges held that its text and underlying rationale justify preceding ex parte, whereas here, defense access would defeat the motion's purpose. I love the off point characters. You should know this case. That one stings. The response goes on to say, the 11th circuit did so in USV campa 2008. Trump fails to distinguish campa and the cases from other circuits with similar

holdings. Struggles to find a single case to support his motion, even the three courts he claims to have granted the relief he seeks did not do so, and then resorts to an in opposite case outside the SIPA context in an unpersuasive effort to substantiate his requested relief. This court should follow campa and deny Trump's motion. Once again, highlight of the week comes from a somewhat biting special counsel motion filing. Okay, this is my, this is my favorite. It's first of all very smart here for Jackson Smith to cite the 11th circuit. Yeah. Because 11th circuit took Canon to school in the special master case.

to cite the 11th circuit. Because 11th circuit took Canon to school in the special master case. And this, by the way, the disc, you know, what does he say? In opposite cases, outside the CIPA context, these three courts, he claims, to quote myself in last week's episode, I said, quote, Trump gives only three examples of times

when the courts have denied CIPA 4, BX Part A. He then, for some reason, lists other proceedings that aren't X part A, like FOIA cases involving habeas petitions, some FISA proceedings, like what? And I joked, hey, Andy, my lab results at the VA weren't X part A. So C-P-section IV filings shouldn't be either. And that is so my very crude language was very eloquently restated by Jack Smith in this. Yeah, he didn't go with your medical records example, which I feel like adds it real weight, but he's pretty, he's right in the same channel. You guys are thinking alike again. So well played. Okay, so Jack Smith goes on to say,

and this is like confronting this kind of second half of this response. Defendants Waltean Nada. I did not know that his name was actually Waltean. I just assumed Walter, but Waltean. Defendants Waltean Nada and Carlos Delevere also filed a motion on December 6th, requesting that the court limit the exparte nature of the government's SEAPIS section 4 submissions. In their briefing, they made two key concessions, with which the government agrees. One, if any of the information the government seeks to protect via SEAPIS section 4 is not discoverable, neither the defendants nor their council have a right to see it.

And 2, they lack a need to know the classified information the government relies on to establish that the materials it seeks to withhold or redact are in fact classified. Now considering these principles and conjunction with the government's exparte submission should end the inquiry as to them, because the information at issue in the government's ex-partei submission should end the inquiry as to them, because the information at issue in the government's motions is not discoverable as to NADA and Dale Lavera. Neither of these defendants nor their council should be permitted to see the government's ex-partei filing, nor should NADA and Dale Lavera have access to the classified discovery beyond any such documents the government will use as exhibits at trial

Only after that information set is determined or may have seized from them. So it's like That's bad when you are file a motion and in their response to your motion the other side says yes We agree with what you say. Yeah, that's why you can't ask what you asked for. Right. Yeah. It's like, wow, all right. I need to know. I need to know.

And you don't need to know. OK. He goes on to say taken together, none of the three defendants provide any reason, any special circumstances. As this court put it, remotely justifying a deviation from the normal process in which courts examine and decide seepist section for motions in camera and X part A. The government set forth in its X part A motions, this specific necessity of proceeding X part A here. Court should consider the

government's motions X part A allow the defense to provide any information they deemed helpful to the court X part A. And for the reason stated in the government's ex parte motions grant the relief the government seeks therein. Yeah, so really interesting, right? Because this is the way it's always done. This is the way the 11th circuit has set it up. This is if they have precedent and multiple other circuits. I know in other parts of this filing, Jack Smith mentions those, but specifically, you know,

pertaining to judge can and the 11th Circuit. And I think that this is something that will be appealable under SEPA on an expedited basis, if Judge Cannon somehow grants Nauta and Dale Rivera access, or have their lawyers access to SEPA section four, or if she grants that Jack Smith has to make these filings public and redacted, or that that Trump's attorneys can have eyes-only access to what goes on in

these ex-parte hearings. I think that this is appealable if she decides to go against seepah. Yeah, I think it's appealable either is appealable if she decides to go against SEPA. Yeah, I think it's appealable either way, like for either side. Yeah. Any one of these three could turn around

and appeal it if she sides with the government. I'm not sure that the, and that appeal will jack up the SEPA channel of the case, which is already pretty jacked up anyway. But I don't think it'll it shouldn't it shouldn't result in a stay on the entirety of the litigation, right? It shouldn't, but this is Eileen Canne's court, so you never really know what's going to happen there. This is one of those rare issues that we've seen in these cases where like the government has to fight this fight because even if they made a qualitative assessment that there's really not that much

significant in the material that's at the heart of the CPIS section for proceeding, they can't have a precedent, a court decision that undermines their ability to hide this stuff in national security cases, to preserve the secret nature of our classified and national defense information. So, yeah, they have to kind of fight the whole thing. But the fact that they have such strong 11th Circuit precedent that's clearly on point and should be by any one's estimation, even a very new and inexperienced judge looking at seep at things for the first time, they should be able to say like, this is the clear law in this circuit. And there's no reason to deviate from it.

Yeah. And I honestly don't think E I lean Canon rule in favor of Trump or Nauta or Dale Rivera here. I think the whole point of Trump filing this contested CPC section for is to add that delay. Of course, he can appeal. I don't think and, and you know, I say that because I've long said that so far, I lean Canon hasn't stepped outside of the bounds of being reasonable. It's just nickel and dime delays, right? Yeah, yeah.

She's being, by one view, she's being manipulated by the defense. Yeah, absolutely. And that's frustrating to watch. She's, I don't know if it's an issue of confidence or experience or whatever it is. She doesn't seem to have the wherewithal to just give them the brushback on some of this stuff and keep this thing on track. We're at a more experienced judge. And I'm not saying a more conservative or liberal judge.

I'm just saying a more experienced judge. I think they would have not put up with this. But here we are. So it's not even. Yeah. And even like Judge McAfee in Fulton County is a brand new judge. And he's fast. So I don't

Yeah, it can be done. I mean, yeah, it can but he's also was a litigator for a really long time. Now I I have all long felt she is just gonna nickel and dime delay this thing and that is evident in this next story as well because Jack Smith also filed a new motion in Florida and Trump filed an opposition to that motion. And Judge Cannon has made a ruling already on that motion. This is a motion that goes at the heart of the trial date, which is currently scheduled for May 20th. But as we've discussed on previous episodes with the SEPA schedule that she set, the fact

that she's not even going to consider revisiting the trial date until after March 1st, we've been pretty certain that the May date wouldn't hold. So perhaps to force the issue, Jack Smith filed a motion for a written jury questionnaire and asked the court to set a deadline for February 2nd for the parties to submit a joint proposed jury questionnaire. Jack Smith writes, the government is mindful of the court's prior order that apart from the dates set forth therein and the dates previously set of the court's prior order that apart from the dates set forth therein and the dates previously set for the calendar call and trial, any further

deadlines will be set after scheduling conferences on March 1, 2024. However, we would like you to set something now before March 1. We want this jury questionnaire to go out. However, given the lead time that the clerk's office will need to implement a jury questionnaire, beginning the process after March 1st, will likely not provide the court with enough time prior to trial in May. For these reasons, and these other reasons elaborated below, the government moves the court to set a deadline for February 2nd for the parties to submit a joint proposed jury questionnaire. Of course, Trump opposed that motion. He writes, President Donald J. Trump respectfully submits this opposition to the motion by special counsel to set a deadline for February 2. The court should deny this most recent effort to set deadlines

outside the courts November 10th schedule. Meaning, Judge, you said you weren't going to decide anything until March 1st, and he's trying to decide stuff before March 1st. Tell him no. Moreover, in addition to wasting the court's resources, this type of litigation detracts from the defendant's efforts to review voluminous discovery and prepare motions that are crucial to the defense. Again, which is funny considering he just rejected discovery from Jack Smith in the DC case. Therefore, President Trump respectfully requests that the court order the prosecution to refrain from further motion practice outside the existing schedule, absent truly and actually compelling circumstances. Well, this is a truly and actually compelling circumstance. You

need to start to jury questionnaire to keep the May 20 trial date. And Andy, you and I didn't even get a chance to complain about this Trump motion. Because this all happened so fast. We didn't get to talk about how long we would think it would take for Judge Cannon to rule. Because two days later, on December 22nd, she entered a ruling on Jack Smith's motion. It is a paperless paperless, paperless minute orders. So fast. And it says paperless order granting in part special counsel's motion for a written jury questionnaire, honored before February 28th, the party shall meaningfully confer and file a joint jury questionnaire for the court's consideration. So granted in part means, yeah, you can have your jury questionnaire.

And I'm going to let you do this outside of our schedule, our court schedule thing, you know, me telling you not to ask for anything before March 1st. But I'm going to go ahead and grant this granted in part because I'm not going to give you February 2nd. I'm going to go ahead and grant this, granted in part because I'm not going to give you February 2nd. I'm going to give you February 28th. So she's got a little month-long delay added here, right? Which is so frustrating because even his own opposition isn't claiming you shouldn't do this because we need more time to get it done.

He's saying we shouldn't have to do it at all. In other words, we're looking at discovery now, and we have a right to only do one thing at a time. And so therefore, we shouldn't have to bear the burden of doing working on a jury questionnaire. Her holding says, clearly, yes, you do. This is one of the many things you have to do as we walk down this path. But she just,

her way of modifying him and every one of these motions is to throw a few more days at him, throw a few more weeks at him, throw a month at him. And that's how we get to this morass of really no chance of hearing this case before the election, not even remote. And she's renowned for making decisions that weren't even asked for. Yeah. Uh, like you said, he never he didn't argue, hey, February, seconds, no good for us. We think you should wait to decide this on March 1st and then set it sometime in April because of these reasons and these reasons. He just came in and said, I'm very busy. I can't

be bothered. He's outrageous. He's violated your March 1st, you know, position. So he didn't ask for more time, but she gave him more time. Exactly. It's very frustrating. So I know a lot of people were kind of pleased with this ruling, but to me, it's just evident of her hand in him weeks and months here and there, here and there to keep adding it. That slippage, that is what's really causing it. And that slippage comes back to bite you when he then stumbles upon a legit constitutional issue that has to be heard in interlocutory fashion or something like you have in the

January 6 case that that legitimately stops the proceeding. Like once, you know, we might survive that in the January 6 case because everything else was running according to schedule. Here we're so far off. Now you throw in one of those. I don't know what that would be or even if it will happen at this point, but if it does, man, it's gonna,

it'll, it could, you could be in a place where like six months, a year gets added, if it's a Supreme Court is it's crazy. Yeah, absolutely. All right, we'll take another quick break and we'll be back with some some additional news plus listener questions. If you have any questions, there is a link in our show notes for you to follow and fill out a forum to ask us your questions. So go ahead and do that. If you have any questions for Andy or me and we'll be right back after this break. Bum, bum, bum, bum, bum, bum, bum, bum, bum, bum, bum, bum, bum, bum, bum, bum, bum, bum, bum, bum, bum, bum, bum, bum, bum, bum, bum, bum, bum, bum, bum, bum, bum, bum, bum, bum, bum, bum, bum, bum, bum, bum, bum, bum, bum, bum, bum, bum, bum, bum, bum, bum, bum, bum, bum, bum, bum, bum, bum, bum, bum, bum, bum, bum, bum, bum, bum, bum, bum, bum, bum, bum, bum, bum, bum, bum, bum, bum, bum, bum, bum, bum, bum, bum, bum, bum, bum, bum, bum, bum, bum, bum, bum, bum, bum, bum, bum, bum, bum, bum, bum, bum, bum, bum, bum, bum, bum, bum, bum, bum, bum, bum, bum, bum, bum, bum, bum, bum, bum, bum, bum, bum, bum, bum, bum, bum, bum, bum, bum, bum, bum, bum, bum, bum, bum, bum, bum, bum, bum, bum, bum, bum, bum, bum, bum, bum, bum, bum, bum, bum, bum, bum, bum, bum, bum, bum, bum, bum, bum, bum, bum, bum, bum, bum, bum, bum, bum, bum, bum, bum, bum, bum, bum, bum, bum, bum, bum, bum, bum, bum, bum, bum, bum, bum, bum, bum, bum, bum, bum, bum, bum, bum, bum, bum, bum, bum, bum, bum, bum, bum, bum, bum, bum, Council investigation is news from Michigan. CNN reports the Detroit news reviewed a recording of a call former President Trump made to two Michigan county officials in 2020 urging them to not certify the election results from Detroit. The call was previously known and reported by CNN

and condemned at the time by election experts and Michigan Democrats who said it was stunning, a stunning attempt by a sitting president to pressure local officials to interfere with an election. For the first time, we are learning exactly what Trump said, and that's according to Detroit news. CNN hasn't independently obtained the recording to verify it, but this is reporting from Detroit news. RNC chairwoman Ron McDaniel, who was also on the call, told the officials regarding the certification, do not sign it. We will get you attorneys, told the officials regarding the certification, do not sign it,

we will get you attorneys, meaning do not sign the certification of Joe Biden's victory. Right, the real one, the real certification. If you go to bed tonight, don't sign it, we will get you attorneys, and then Trump shimmed in, we will take care of that. Now, the GOP officials from the Wayne County Board of Canvacers, Monica Palmer and William Hartman did later try to rescind their votes of verification, but it was too late. The Michigan State Canvassing Board later certified the results as well, despite public pressure from Trump and other Republicans. So of course, whenever I see these recordings get into the news, my first question Andy is

who gave this recording to the news? Yeah, because we know right now for example Chesbro is on a US tour a fraudulent electors tour talking to Arizona Nevada was constant Michigan maybe DC he's asked for travel from the probation Office down in Fulton County to be able to travel to DC For to meet with council, etc. Remember when etc. did all that heavy lifting. Yes. Was he on that phone call? Did he record it? Who else was on that phone call? This was a phone call that took place November 17th, 2020,

the day before that knockdown dragout meeting at the Oval Office, after which Trump tweeted come January 6th will be wild. I know Giuliani was in town. I know Misty Hampton was in town. They were meeting at the Willard. There was a lot of folks in and around town that may have been on that call or in the Oval Office or on the other side of the line recording that call, but I don't know who gave the tape to the press. Yeah. I mean, I think it's fair to assume that whoever recorded the call was likely someone on the Michigan side, right?

McDaniel, Trump, cheese, bro, any of the other, this is called them generally co-conspirators who are interested on Donald's behalf, they're not going to record a call in which they know they're asking for something that's above and beyond what they should be involved in. Right. So they're less likely to have recorded it. So if you think about the folks who are on the other end, like it's like the Raffensberger call, right? How do we have the Raffensberger call? Because Raffensberger recorded it because he and his team were so concerned about the pressure that they had received so far, they thought they needed to start recording these calls. It's likely someone on the Michigan on the receiving side made it. It's not probably been released in discovery yet in during the course of whatever's

I I'm not super up to speed on where Michigan is with who they've charged or the fake electric schemes or whatever. Well, they've only charged their fake electors. Yeah. So except for one who I think flipped and cooperated. And so, and not likely that this would have come up and been turned over in discovery as a part of that prosecution. It doesn't seem like it maybe, but that's typically a way that things get out. They get into the hands of lawyers

because they've been released in discovery and whether or not that violates a protective order or not, who knows, and giving case could be different. But it does seem to me that like, it's gotta protective order or not, who knows, and giving case could be different. But it does seem to me that like, it's got to have been someone who is concerned about this interaction. And for whatever reason, they felt like they needed a key, they were going to need a record of it. And now we have it.

Yeah. And this was though, going back to November, right? November 17th. So that brings us much earlier than the Raffinsberger call, which would indicate that people were worried about pressure from the Trump White House earlier than previously known. So. Yeah. Listen, it's not that different from Jim Comey and later my own efforts of writing memos after interactions with him because you just thought like, this is so far away from normal

that I may need to remember, have a really good contemporaneous recollection of what happened at some point. I don't know why, but I just feel like at some point, I'm gonna need to have something that I can rely on to have a record of what happened. Ah, the Komi memos. A week and a half after which I released

and reported on, I was told my job was moving across the country, fascinating. Fascinating. Trigger moment right there. Yeah, good old Komi memos. All right, we have some listener questions, yeah. Yes, we do. We had so many good questions this week.

Really appreciate people sending those in. I picked two here that I thought we could cover quickly. I always try to pick ones that represent kind of common areas of interest. So first one comes from Patricia. She says, I love your podcast. Two questions. One, if the Supreme Court decides Trump had presidential immunity, what sorts of technically illegal things could Biden do with his newfound freedom to save democracy from Trump? Interesting turn around there. And two, if the Supreme Court decides Trump has to be found guilty of insurrection and court to be kept off the ballot, could Jack add

that charge at this point? So with respect to your first question, it's hard to say what Biden would feel even if, let's say the Supreme Court goes entirely with Trump and says, yeah, president has no responsibility under the law, cannot be held criminally responsible for anything they do while they're president. Yeah, would that take the handcuffs off Biden and he'd start doing all sorts of things? I find it to be highly unlikely. Perhaps not. Not. No. He's, um, we follow the rule of law over on this. Yeah. Right. And it's like the ultimate institutionalist, right? He's not going to start doing anything different. But I do think your question highlights what one of the most concerning aspects of Trump's claim, which is essentially if he wins,

which I strongly believe he will not, presidents from now and going forward are unleashed. They can do whatever they want. You don't have to follow the law. You can just decide what you want and then order other people to do it. And that's really, you know, it's a very un-un-un-loyerly way to analyze the issue, but it's the heart of it right there. If they are not accountable under the law, that's it. We're not a democracy anymore. Well, and that's Jack Smith's main argument, and that's what Judge Chuck can wrote in her decision, denying Trump's immunity. And, you know, to say, yeah, I'm with you Joe Biden wouldn't do any of that. But I also am thinking about Judge Ludwig and his 24, 25 other people who filed that

amicus brief that says, all that stuff aside, if you allow this to be immune, especially this particular crime, then you are gutting Article 2, Section 1 clause, one of the Constitution that limits a presidential term to four years. So nobody would ever have to leave office again. Exactly. Exactly. It's all of the think of the consequences of granting immunity and how absolutely absurd it is. That is like the crux of the argument. And why I'm 100% sure that the Supreme Court will deny immunity, I'm not 100% sure they'll do it unanimously, but I'm 100% sure they will at 7, 2 at the very least, maybe even 7, 1, maybe Thomas will recuse himself and we'll get a Christmas miracle, but I doubt it.

So for the second piece here, if Supreme Court says he has, he has to be found guilty of insurrection to be kept off the ballot, could jack ad that charge. I find that to be almost impossible. We are so far down the road in this prosecution that to add to supersede the indictment, add a new trial case. I'm not even sure the court would let you do that. Even if he could, you're going to push the trial back until 2025. If you blow it up, yeah, 2025 for sure. Um, and it would also look terrible. Look like he

was responding to something politically kind of piling on all the stuff. Like, oh, you didn't have the, the, you didn't have the evidence before, but now, yeah, it would kind of wreak of foul play. It would kind of look like what David Weiss did with Hunter Biden. Oh, now you've got evidence to charge felonies. Yeah. Yeah. Okay. Exactly.

Exactly. Exactly. So that is our two questions from Patricia. Patricia, thank you so much. And yes, we're always looking for good questions to read on the air. Can't always get them all in But they're very helpful to us in understanding kind of where your heads are what your comments are on the show and And so we consider them all and really appreciate your efforts there

Yes, 100% thank you for sending those questions in everybody We will be back in your ears next week with more listener questions and undoubtedly more news, including the December 23rd filing that we didn't get in time to cover on this show. And that is with Trump's response to the appeals court for his immunity merits consideration, right? That's right. That's right.

A treat for next week. No. merits, consideration, right? That's right. That's right. A treat for next week. No! A stocking stuffer, if you will. There you go. All right, everybody. We'll see you then. And please have a wonderful and safe holiday season.

I've been Allison Gil. And I'm Andy McCabe. 끝