Jack - Luxury Steve (feat. Elie Honig)

Episode Date: May 4, 2020

This week on MSW: we have an interview with Elie Honig discussing why Fauci isn't being allowed to testify, and we have a segment from Jordan Coburn on what Michael Cohen is up to. Want bonus content, like video streams? Join us at patreon.com/muellershewrote

Season 4 of How We Win Is Here For the past four years, we've been making history in critical elections all over the country. And last year, we made history again by expanding our majority in the Senate, eating election denying Republicans and crucial state house races, and fighting back a non-existent red wave. But the Maga Republicans who plotted and pardoned the attempted overthrow of our government now control the house. Thanks to gerrymandered maps and repressive anti-voter laws. And the chaotic spectacle we've already seen shows us just how far they will go to

seize power, dismantle our government, and take away our freedoms. So, the official podcast of the persistence is back with season four. There's so much more important work ahead of us to fight for equity, justice, and our very democracy itself. We'll take you behind the lines and inside the rooms where it happens, with strategy and inspiration from progressive change makers all over the country. And we'll dig deep into the weekly news that matters most and what you can do about it, with messaging and communications expert co-founder of Way to Win and our new co-host, Jennifer Fernandez-Ancona. So join Steve and I every Wednesday for your weekly dose of inspiration, action and hope.

I'm Steve Pearson. And I'm Jennifer Fernandez-Ancona. And this is How We Win. This is Greg Oliar, the author of Dirty Rubles. And you're listening to Mueller, she wrote. So to be clear, Mr. Trump has no financial relationships with any Russian oligarchs. That's what he said.

That's what I said. That's obviously what our position is. I'm not aware of any of those activities. I have been called a surrogate at a time, a two, and that campaign, and I didn't have not have communications with the Russians. What do I have to get involved with Putin for? I have nothing to do with Putin. I've never spoken to him.

I don't know anything about a mother than he will respect me. Russia, if you're listening, I hope you're able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing. So it is political. You're a communist. No, Mr. Green. Communism is just a red herring. Like all members of the oldest profession I'm a capitalist. Hello and welcome to Muller She Wrote. I'm your host A.G. And we have a quick and dirty show for you today including a story from Jordan Coburn about what Michael Cohen has been up to. I will have an interview later on with Ellie Honeg about the White House blocking Dr. Fauci from testifying before the House Appropriations Committee and what that has to do with the McGann Muller obstruction of justice House judiciary subpoena that is now, uh, looking like it might go to the Supreme Court, uh, or no, it's already

in the Supreme Court. And then of course we have all the headlines that fell under the COVID radar for you. I'm flying solo today under lockdown and I have a lot of news to tell you about, but first uh, let's get to some corrections. It's time to stay. It's time for me to say I'm sorry. Oh, I made a mistake. Oh. All right, so let's see here. I've got a correction here that says, first of all, I adore all of you and thank you so much for bringing levity and truth to the news. There's less of correction and more of a yes and in response

to the conversation you had in Shouting Word Salad way back on December 18th, 2019. This person is still catching up on episodes. You had a conversation about homeless shelters in Jordan, especially was wondering why there are so many people who do not utilize homeless shelters. As someone who does trauma work and works with many marginalized communities, I thought I could add some information to your conversation.

There are a ton of reasons why not everyone uses homeless shelters or homeless services, including house rules. Some shelters have rules for staying at them that not everyone can meet as AG mentioned, like being sober or going through their specific program for housing. Or for example, my local shelter requires you to go to the police headquarters every day and get a night pass before you're allowed to access the shelter. Also, there's overcrowding many shelters, especially in urban areas or full.

Qualifying as homeless can be an issue. A homeless, some homeless services have very stringent rules for qualifying. For example, my local homelessness task force requires you to be living on the street for a year to qualify as homeless. And then of course, priorities versus compliance, since homeless folks have different personal priorities than homeless service professionals.

For example, many trans folks refuse to focus on food, shelter, or anything else until they gain access to hormone replacement therapy and health care, but many homeless services professionals are trained to expect unhoused folks to comply with their order for accomplishing things. And then there's work requirements. Some homeless shelters services also have work requirements. It makes me want to pull my hair out. And they require the person to be applying for jobs, if they are unemployed, without recognition that many and house folks are disabled or require other services to be able to work.

Of course, there are many additional barriers to accessing shelters, housing, or homeless services, but I'm sure you get the idea here. Basically, homelessness service tends to be very paternalistic instead of empowerment based, and this results in many downstream challenges to addressing the needs of the unhoused, best sky cantola, communications director, and thank you very much for sending that correction or a yes and. And then from Chris, hello ladies, just want to let you know the daily beans are still the only essential daily podcast to listen to to keep up with the most batch of timelines. Truly, you are essential workers. That said, I got tripped up at the mention of David Faradhold winning the Pulitzer Prize Wednesday. You were right. He won it for exposing Trump

Foundation scandal, but he won it in 2017. The 2020 Pulitzer prizes, which should have been announced last week, were instead delayed until May of May the 4th due to COVID-19. So what triggered his orange fuckitude on the Pulitzer No Bull prizes? Who knows? Maybe he's now snorting bleach cleansers or getting a UV Enema. It's Trump. Corrections may be your favorite part of the show, but mine is everything altogether, especially when all three of you can talk back and forth together. I miss that.

Nature is returning to the cities, and laughter is the best medicine. Be well, stay safe, and keep up the awesome work. Thank you, Chris. From Bill, to the best of my knowledge, Trump hasn't defunded the World Health Organization because he actually can't. The US contribution has already been made for 2020. The House would have to sign off in any future defunded the World Health Organization because he actually can't. The U.S. contribution has already been made for 2020. The House would have to sign off in

any future defunding. Yeah, Bill, I thought we mentioned that. I thought we went over that this is part of the Empowerment Control Act. Same thing that the GAO found wrong with the holding up of the Ukraine aid. You are correct, Bill, that is true. He has not defunded it yet, but he has announced his intentions to do so. I think of the 120 million appropriated, 60 million has gone their way and he's trying to hold back the other 60 million. Of course, that is probably against the law. I'm sure we'll get some sort of a memo from the government accountability office, which resides in the legislative branch, not the executive

branch, so Trump doesn't have as much of a reach to shut them up. I'm sure we'll get a memo saying that that does in fact violate the Empowerment Control Act. So thank you for that. And from Mark Owens, expert armchair legal analyst analysis always appreciated. On Jordan's segment, on Mueller, she wrote on April 26th about the NRA, she lamented the lack of alternatives. While the NRA certainly has a large membership, they're not the only gun rights organization and look into pink pistols and the Huey P Newton gun club organizations. I would even add ducks unlimited to disgusted NRA members. I really appreciate your guests.

You're able to feel the deep bench of eloquent experts. Thank you. I don't know how we do it either. From Ezra, you are also funny. I'm a daily listener. A.G. always mentions active measures on Netflix. Finally went to go watch it, but it's no longer on Netflix. I found it on Hulu. I thought it would be helpful if someone else wanted to watch. Love you all. Thank you for letting us know. And from Celeste Jaword,

Love You Ladies, you make my day start with a dose of news and smart commentary. Helps so much. A.G. expressed worry that 30 New Yorkers had gone to the hospital with issues relating to ingesting bleach. I can't find the news that anyone has done this. The 30 number might have been from a widely circulated story that there was a spike in calls to the NYC Poison Control Center, but compared to numbers last year on the same day, which had 13 calls, but such an increase had been happening for a while because of increased disinfectant use. Again, I have the balls to correct you on this because you guys are so good about getting things right, and not being jerks about it. And the really good news is that Trump's ridiculous statements haven't seemed to endanger anyone

except for maybe children or the mentally incapacitated who should be kept from poisons in the first place anyway. Thanks for a great show. Celeste, thank you for that correction. I had read it in passing and I must have confused it. So thank you for letting me know. All right, those are corrections. If you have any for us, please head to mullershearote.com. Click on Contact.

Select Corrections from the drop-down menu and build us a compliment sandwich. We'll get it right eventually, we like to say. And now it is time for the headlines. So let's jump in with just the facts. All right, the big news this week, as at least as far as I'm concerned, is that the DC Circuit Court of Appeals has denied a stay requested by the Trump administration in the

Mueller-Granjury Material case, and has given the Trump administration only until the Department of Justice only until May 11th to seek a stay from the Supreme Court. If they fail to do so, or if the Supreme Court denies the stay, the Department of Justice will be forced to hand over the grand jury materials to the House Judiciary who demanded it. Last July 27th, we were live on stage in Chicago with Renato Mariotti, I'll never forget it.

They submitted, Jerry Nellor submitted that request, demand on July 27th under its article One Powers of Impeachment. That is when I felt that the impeachment inquiry actually opened because article One Im I impeachment inquiry was invoked in the demand for the grand jury materials by Nadler and the House Judiciary Committee on July 27th, although it wasn't until September,

when Nancy Pelosi announced official impeachment inquiry looking into the Ukraine affair. Given the history of the Supreme Court here and motions for stays from this administration, I think that the Supreme Court will grant a stay, but I don't want you to think that that means the court is bought and paid for, yet at least. We haven't had any of these big five cases decided in the Supreme Court, but I would put beans on them granting this stay. They seem to be airing on the side of caution and conservatism in these cases because this is the President of the United States. I'll talk

to Ellie Honeig a little bit about that as well later on in the show, but you know, as we, you know, I'm, if you've been listening, you know what the Mueller-Granjury Materials means. It's every piece of documentary evidence that came out of the Mueller investigation, millions and millions of documents, terabytes of data. And this is the equivalent of the Jaworsky Roadmap that was sent from the, you know, Jaworsky, the special counsel, the independent counsel, looking into Watergate to the House of Representatives then. And that is what gave them the roadmap to impeachment. There were actually accusations of crimes committed by Nixon in that document, which is what caused

him to resign and what caused Republicans in the Senate to say, and the House, to say, we can't support you, bro. There's crimes found by the grand jury that you would have been indicted for. And so that was sent over. Now, we didn't see the Jaworski Road map until a couple of years ago. That's how sacrosanct the grand jury secrecy rules are. It had been almost 40 years, and we hadn't seen the materials, the Jaworski materials. And now we've got the Mueller grand jury materials about to make their way to the house. I do believe eventually they will get there.

I think that even if Scotus grants the stay, and here's this case on the merits, that they will say that the Department of Justice has to hand over the Mueller materials. If it happens after the election, an argument could be that this is no longer needed for impeachment. And so that might be a bit of a roadblock and then we won't get it until 40 years from now, but honestly, I don't know. I just hope they figure out a way to keep my head alive so I can be there for when that news drops and From the Washington Post the secret service paid for a room at the Trump hotel in downtown DC for 137 consecutive nights in 2017 to the tune of almost $33,000.

And that was so it could protect Treasury Secretary Steve while he lived in one of the luxury hotel suites that's $8,300 a night next door to this room. This is according to federal documents and people, three people familiar with this deal. Steve lived in the luxury suite for several months before moving to DC and buying a house there. Manuchin paid for his own room according to the Treasury Department. Do I believe them? No, but in any case. The Secret Service rented out the room next door at the Tax Payers Expense. Let's see, 137 nights at $8,300. Let me get out. I'm a trustee.

T.I. Texas Instruments calculator here. Then I keep at the desk for these types of calculations, 137 and 8300. That's $1.14 million to Trump from Steve and 33,000 from the taxpayers. And again, according to federal documents, Steve lived in this luxury suite, like I said, before he bought a 12.0 million dollar mansion, let's see here, 12.6 million dollars in DC in February, totally a man of the people.

Anyway, the Trump hotel charged the max rate for the Secret Service, allowed for federal agencies, which was 242 per night, which isn't unusual to charge the max rate. But Steve's decision to stay at the hotel and the Secret Service set up two separate revenue streams for Trump, one from Steve to the 2 and 1.14 million provided. He paid the full $8300.

We still don't know that per night. And one from Mr. and Mrs. John Q taxpayer, that's us. The Constitution bars the president from taking payments from the federal government. But Trump has argued that this provision was not meant for him. I don't know who it's meant for, if not you. And this very specific scenario, that is domestic emoluments. The administration and the Treasury continue to block reporting on accounting of how much federal agencies have paid to Trump's

companies since the inauguration. And Steve, as we know, from past reporting here on this show, has asked to delay a secret service accounting until after the election. Why? Gosh, I can't imagine. But like I said, he moved out of the Trump Hotel in February when he bought his $13 million mansion and spent your tax dollars to line the pockets of the president by having a secret service live next door. On any other planet, this would be a massive scandal. But as Matto says, we're on planet one right now. And this is just going right under the radar.

And in other news, Mitch McConnell wants to recall the Senate, despite there being a massive pandemic outbreak, and despite not having adequate testing, according to Politico, and he wants to do this not to work on stimulus or a coronavirus response, but to a point conservative judges. Probably before Trump loses his ass in November, he wants to pack the courts as much as he can before that fateful election. So wonderful. Putting our elected

officials, lawmakers, lives at risk to appoint judges. But he wouldn't give Merrick Garland a meeting. Interesting. And now let's get an update on Michael Cohen from Jordan Coburn for Hot Notes. Hot Notes. Hello, welcome to Jordan's Hot Notes. I got a quick one for you today very quick. So I'm just going to jump right into it. This one's about our buddy Michael Cohen. Michael Cohen was supposed to be released from prison on Friday. That's because of the increased danger to inmates that was assessed in many of the prisons. This is obviously because of COVID-19 and

he's not gonna actually get out though. He's not seeing that release and there's some interesting events that unfolded immediately following that announcement that he wasn't going to be released. But Cohnsler, Roger Adler, he told CNBC about this. I am disappointed that Michael was not released after the 14-day quarantine period. That's what the understanding was that he was going to... he was going to quarantine for those two weeks. He did that and then he was going to serve out the rest of his time confined at home. But now it seems like he's going to be eligible for release at the end of May. And so the weird kind of thing that happens surrounding that announcement other the day The the okay, so the delay announcement happened a day after

Charles after not before my bed a day after Charles Harder who's a lawyer for the Trump organization set cone a letter As a warning saying that when he gets out he would be at legal risk if he wrote the book that it has been rumored that he's going to write about his time working for Trump. Harder noted that Cohen had signed an NDA and that he couldn't reveal any info about Trump's family or his businesses. That's according to ABC News. Cohen, as we know, has been working on a huge maybe seen news. Cohen, as we know, has been working on a huge, you know, tell all book like all these people are doing right now. And ideally, it was going to be released before the November election. So that'll just be very interesting to

see what happens. I mean, he can still be working on the book currently while he's in prison. I'm sure he's already doing that. So I don't know how much. I imagine all the other people who have written tell all books also had some sort of like agreement signed where they weren't supposed to talk about things maybe not though because They were functioning in the capacity of government officials versus essentially like a you know privately hired attorney for Trump So I can't wait to see how that all unfolds. I hope that we get to we get to hear everything but we'll see and that's it. That's all I got for the hot note today folks. Super short. Hope everyone is doing great and having a good start to their week

and holding up holding up, holding up, okay. I will talk to you all next week on Mueller, she wrote. Goodbye. All right, thanks Jordan for that update. And finally, the White House is blocking Dr. Fauci from testifying and the McGand decision could impact a coronavirus reckoning. Let's listen to a discussion I had today

with an expert about the implications. All right everybody, welcome back. Joining me for the interview is CNN Legal Analyst Informer State and Federal Prosecutor, Ellie Honegg. Ellie, thanks for agreeing to speak with me today. Thank you for having me. I think like probably a lot of listeners. I have a lot of time on my hand, so more than happy to have something to do. Awesome. And I know you're outside right now and I can hear the birds chirping and I absolutely love it. I am. Enjoy the Jersey nature that I'm surrounded by. Jersey nature. Got it. I guess you don't live near any petrochemical refineries or anything. Not within the five mile radius. I can

say that. I don't know beyond that. The Garden State is alive and well. How are you holding up during this? I'm doing really, really, all things considered very well. I mean, most importantly, healthy and happy and able to work. And it's just so many people are going through so many worse things that I will be the absolute last person to complain about any of this.

And are you locked down with some family or? Yeah, I have a 14 and a 12 year old kid, a son and a daughter, so they are doing the homeschooling thing. Luckily, this is a big factor, how old your kids are. My kids are old enough, they don't need me, but people with eight and six and seven year old's gosh, they have to be with them all day and walk them through their second grade curriculum, that is tough. I don't have to deal with that, thankfully.

Yeah, I only have cats and a dog, so I did. Home schooling is very different for me. Yeah, yeah. All right, well, the reason I wanted to bring you on is because of some stuff that you tweeted out last week. I think we learned Friday that the White House has decided to block Dr. Anthony Fauci from testifying about the COVID response to a House committee. Can you tell us a little bit about that committee

and the request? So this is the House Appropriations Committee, which basically holds the purse strings. They decide where money gets spent. And so their jurisdiction is really almost as broad as whatever they want to ask about. It's kind of like a parent who says, look, I pay your bills, I can ask you whatever I want. And so appropriations committee typically has very broad sort of subject matter jurisdiction. So in that sense, I think there's nothing

surprising about this. And it's a certainty, a mathematical certainty that Congress will at some point dig deep into the administration's coronavirus efforts. I think there's an argument to be made that this is maybe a bit early to be asking Dr. Fachi for his testimony. I mean, we're still right in the middle of this. And I think there's a fair argument. It's not a legal argument.

It's just an overall argument of, look, when the dust settles, that's the time to do this. But I guess the counter argument would be, if there's this handle going on now, we need to know about it. We Congress and we the American public need to know about it now, and we still have the opportunity to do something about it. Yeah, and there's another argument, too, because I think we just learned that Fauci is being allowed to answer questions in the Senate

in two weeks. And since the House is democratically controlled, the Senate is controlled by Republicans. Does this smell political at all to you? I mean, I know we can only speculate. 100%. I mean, that's a huge difference. And we saw it during impeachment. The difference between being questioned in a Democratic-controlled House versus being

controlled in a Republican, a question in a Republican controlled Senate is night and day. And whichever party is in the majority makes all the rules and controls the floor and really has its run of the show. And so I think it's absolutely a political calculation that we're fine with them testifying in the Republican controlled Senate, but not in the Democratic controlled House. And one thing I have to point out, this may be a coincidence, I don't know, but May 12 is the day when Fauci's supposed to testify in the Senate.

It also happens to be the day the Trump tax returns case is getting argued in the U.S. Supreme Court. So, we'll see where the attention goes, but I suspect if Fauci's testifying that will get all of the attention. Yeah, 100 percent. I mean, before when these arguments were scheduled for March 31st, that is when they magically said that Bill Barr could testify to Congress.

So they have a knack for scheduling things on oral arguments, go to case, tax Trump day. That's a good point, yeah. And of course, also, it just occurred to me, as you were speaking there, the Appropriations Committee during impeachment. We remember the government accountability office, which is a legislative body, had put out a memo saying, hey, we, you know what, the withholding of Ukraine aid is against the law.

It's against the Empowerment Control Act. And of course, the Empowerment Control Act. And of course, the Empowerment Control Act is directly tied to the Appropriations Committee because funding appropriated by Congress may not be blocked by the executive branch. And so maybe Trump just has a, you know, something up his crawl with the Appropriations Committee. It could be. It could be. And the question now really is, is the Appropriations Committee or the House Democrats going to fight back? Are they going to push for Fauci or are they just going to sort of sit back and take it as they've shown a bit of a tendency to do in the Mueller case and in impeachment? Yeah, although I will say given the fact that the election is what six months away, and we're in the middle of the pandemic, it might not be politically optically wise

to do a commission, 9-11 commission style investigation, although that's not what I think, I don't think that's what this was, but it just might not be prudent at this juncture as George would say. I agree. I think we eventually will see a 9-11 commission like investigation of this, but I think like the 9-11 commission,

that will happen well after the fact. I think 9-11 commission report came out, you know, a good amount of time after 9-11. But what I think, if I think the House's argument here would be, we want to monitor what's happening to some extent in real time. Obviously, members of the House can't be inside the important rooms of the White House, but they can still conduct oversight. And I think they might say, it's important that we do this while there's still something that can be done. If there's this is not so much about assigning blame and credit as it is about ensuring

that this is being handled well. And so that's why we need to do it now. I think that's the argument they would make. And I think the argument we are hearing from the executive branch in the White House is it's a side show, it's a distraction. It's premature. I think that's the argument they would make and I think the argument we are hearing from the executive branch in the white house is It's a it's a side show. It's a distraction. It's premature. We need Dr. Fauci to be focused on his day-to-day job and He shouldn't be wasting time testifying in Congress right now

Yeah, and Mueller said that on multiple occasions in his testimony and his report You know when when saying if you can't indict the president why do you investigate? He's like well the special counsel is given the duty to do so while memories are fresh and while evidence is still available. So it makes sense. And then, of course, you know, with the House Democrats, given Trump's war against our inspectors general, as of late, I can see why they would want to take this up legislatively, but sure.

And speaking of future potential 9-11 commission style investigations into the coronavirus response, you had mentioned that there's currently a case in the Supreme, I think it's at the Supreme Court level now, or at least it's been petitioned to be by the Trump administration about the subpoena of former White House counsel Don McGahn way back from July 27th of last year,

filed under Article 1 powers of impeachment to get his testimony on whether or not Trump obstructed justice in the Mueller investigation. And while that really isn't, there's nothing to do with COVID-19. You have said it does actually matter what that decision is and when it happens in the investigation into the COVID response. Can you explain a little bit about

that? Yeah, so how does Don McGuin relate to COVID response? And the answer is that Don McGuin case is going to decide whether Congress has a truly enforceable subpoena power over the executive branch. Now, just as a quick refresher, so after the Muller report came out, House Democrats subpoenaed again. And the White House said, no, he's not going to testify. Then this is the one and only case where House Democrats actually went to court and said, courts, we need you to order them to let him testify. We need you to back our subpoena with legal force. And that argument succeeded at the district court level, the trial court level, the judge came down with a very strongly written opinion.

She said he has to testify. This is not what separation of powers is about. And people may remember the line from that judge, she said presidents are not kings. Then the case went to the court of appealsals in DC. The Court of Appeals came out the other way to actually bailed out. They said, this is not for us to rule on. This is a political dispute between Congress and the White House. The courts cannot get involved. Now that's a hugely problematic ruling because it essentially means Congress has no meaningful way to enforce its subpoenas against the executive branch. But after that opinion came the court of appeals granted rehearing, which is very rarely done. It's by what's

called unbunk, meaning all of the available judges, usually the first ruling with the re judges on a panel. And that argument just happened last week. So we're going to get a new ruling out of the DC court of appeals, and I think

that ruling will be in favor of the House. I think the court of appeals will say, yes, we can enforce a law of out of the DC Court of Appeals. And I think that ruling will be in favor of the House. I think the Court of Appeals will say, yes, we can enforce a congressional subpoena on the executive branch. And we do. And then, I think whichever side of the news

is going to try to get the case up to the Supreme Court, we don't know if the Supreme Court will take it. But ultimately, whichever way this case comes out will dictate whether the house has real enforceable subpoena power over the executive ranch, whether it's Don McGam, whether it's a witness in impeachment, whether it's Dr. Fauci or any other witness relating to coronavirus or anything else that may come up. Yeah, and I think that I listen to those arguments too, just recently for the on-bong hearing.

And I'm with you. I think it's 100% going to come down in favor of NADLAR, the House Judiciary, because one of the main arguments that the Trump administration is making in other court cases is the only remedy for going after a president is impeachment, and even Rao, Judge Rao said that in her dissent of the original ruling,

and not the original ruling, but the appellate court ruling, and that's a Trump appointee, although it shouldn't matter who appoints who, but it's obvious in this case. And so what one of the judges asked, move on, who I believe was counsel for the Department of Justice, hey, so impeachment is it, right? Yes, impeachment is the only remedy.

Well, how do you expect the Congress to be able to investigate an impeachment if they don't have subpoena power if they can't enforce their subpoena power? So it seemed like it was going to be clear what that ruling is. And so it'll be interesting to see. But the timeline on this is pretty long the decision could come out in October. Yeah. So a couple things. First of all, there's definitely an irony in the fact that if you remember when the president was impeached, article two of the

impeachment was obstruction of Congress because the president, the executive ranch had ignored all of Adam ship subpoenas. And the Republican said in defense of that, you can't just impeach us. You never even went to court to try to enforce ship subpoenas and the republicans said in defense of that you can't just impeach us You never even went to court to try to enforce your subpoenas and how they're arguing in court what oh you can't come to court to enforce your subpoenas So it's very much of a catch 22 if if the Trump people Have their way, but yeah, the timeline here has been really long and and this I think is largely on the Democrats because the Mueller report came out in April. They didn't go to court to try to enforce the subpoena on the again for four months. It took

them four months to get to court until August. They didn't demand expedited ruling or anything like that. The original ruling I think came out in November, December. I mean, litigation is slow, but it doesn't have to be this slow. What the House Democrats should have done was subpoenaed again immediately, given them a week or two weeks to comply or not comply, and then gone, there's no reason they couldn't have been in court in May. Three months, three and a half months earlier than they were, and demand expedited ruling.

I mean, it's not hard to explain to a judge. This is very, very important and time sensitive. So I blame the Democrats for not pushing this with the urgency that they needed to. Yeah, I mean, in Watergate, they've got the tapes in four months. Oh, sure. I mean, there were several court disputes in Watergate

that were given expedited rulings and cases were heard and decided within days and weeks. So, of course, of course, are overburdened that were given expedited rulings and cases were heard and decided within days and weeks. So, the courts can, courts of course, are overburdened and they have too many cases on the docket, but courts control their own dockets and they can move as fast as they need to. If it's an emergency, courts can get things done

really, really quick. They're all just human beings, they know how to prioritize. So this notion that litigation must take excruciating amount of time, is really not accurate. If it's the right issue and if the parties are pushing it. Do you think we'll get in one of the on-bomb decision, maybe Monday, or I think they come out Mondays, don't they? I don't know exactly what day of the week they come out.

I think this Monday would be a little quick, I mean, the oral argument was just on this past Tuesday, that would be six days. But I think they probably know where they're going. I mean, there's a reason they granted on Bunk Review. That is, like I said, that is extraordinarily rare to see a court of appeals say, basically we're going to reconsider a subgroup of us. That usually suggests that the whole court of appeals strongly disagrees and wants to

come out the other way. So I suspect they largely already know where they're going and probably have most of their opinions already written. So yeah, I think we'll get a ruling there fairly quickly. And I hope the Court of Appeals is sort of surveying the broader landscape and saying, this case needs to move because this is going to determine things like can somebody can the Congress subpoena somebody like Dr. Fauci?

And the case is going to have someone, like we said, someone, the loser is going to, you know, someone, like we said, someone, the loser is going to try to get this to the Supreme Court without question. And if the Supreme Court takes it, then of course, they'll have the final say, and that'll take many more months. But if not, then whatever we hear from the circuit court of appeals in DC, that'll be it. That'll be the ruling.

Yeah, there's a lot of rare things happening in the courts these days. I've noticed unusual, large lot of rare things happening in the courts these days. I've noticed unusual large amounts of Stay granting happening Right, right although to pivot a little bit in the Muller Grand jury material case I know that the DC Circuit Court of Appeals just said no no stay from us. You have 11 you have to may 11th to To get a stay from the Supreme Court And we'll see it's a mini stay.

It's a tiny stay, mini stay. And we'll see how that goes down. Yeah, funny how parties want more stays when November starts to loom on the calendar if we can just push it off. Yeah, but they've been giving, they've been granted every single of the, you know, the big five cases, you know, Deutsche Bank, Mazar's, the other Mazar's, McGann and this case, the Mueller-Granjaro material case, they've granted to stay in every instance. Yeah, well courts do typically grant stays,

short stays to allow the parties an opportunity to appeal and everyone's appealing everything all the way as high as they can go. So it'll be an interesting race against the clock. Yeah, if they don't grant the stay, of Supreme Court doesn't grant the stay in the in the Mueller Grand jury material case, that'll be the first time. And then they'll be forced to hand it over. It'll be I don't I think they'll grant the stay. I feel like the Supreme Court here and the DC Circuit Court of Appeals are

going out of their way to err on the side of caution to ensure that everybody gets their full ass due process because this is the president of the United States. So I imagine they'll grant that stay, but God, I have a nice party if they didn't. Yeah. I mean, courts are inherently conservative. I don't mean ideologically. I mean, lower case scene.

They always want to make sure everyone gets, and they should be. This is their role. Everyone gets a chance to argue and be heard and appeal and reappear and all that. So, of course, we're rarely going to say just, no, too bad you're out of luck. Do this now. I don't even care if you don't have time to appeal up the line. But yeah, they do start to pile up. That'd be great.

All these cases. Right. No. Sorry. You have to tomorrow. You have to tomorrow. And I don't care. And I don't like your face.

Yeah. Well, listen, when I was a prosecutor, we used to, we didn't really ask for extra time. Our command was to always be ready at all times. But sometimes you'd see a defense lawyer ask the postponement trial or to put things off and judges would just go, now be here. We're doing this too bad.

That was always kind of fun when that happened. I really liked that when that happened with the BGN Rafiki and BGN Kean trial That was somebody that Flynn was supposed to Testify as a cooperating witness but became a Unadited co-conspirator and and they're like, hey, my my daughter's getting married and in the fall and and the judges like cool We'll do the we'll do the trial in July then bye. Yeah, well, it's funny actually speaking of the McGahn case I was at the District Court argument in Washington, DC. It was on Halloween, I remember.

And I was there for CNN covering it. And the judge said a very tight briefing schedule. And one of the parties objected because it went through Thanksgiving and the party said, well, Judge, can we push it back a little bit because it's Thanksgiving and the judges said, what do you kiddo me? I know it's Thanksgiving, like take a few hours out and be with your family,

but this is important, yet we gotta get this moving. It's kind of embarrassing moment for the attorney there. Okay. I live for those tiny moments, I really do. All right, well thank you so much for joining me today. I see an illegal analyst, former state and federal prosecutor covering both fields there. Ellie Honegg, Ellie, thanks for joining me today. I see an illegal analyst, former state and federal prosecutor covering both fields there.

Ellie Honeig, Ellie, Ellie, thanks for joining me. Anytime. Thanks for having me. Take care. All right, everybody. That is our show today. That is Mola Shiroat. I appreciate all of you emailing and your corrections from our website. Again, that's molashiroat.com. And thank you to everyone who's a patron who turned up at Saturday's Tiki cocktail, Q&A, hangout, Sweet Sweet Hangs. That was so much fun. I loved wearing my Tiki stuff.

I haven't in a while. And since August, since they've canceled Tiki Oasis, I didn't get my Tiki fix. I really appreciate you giving me the space to do that. And everyone's pictures are awesome. Everyone you can tag the hashtag Daily Beans Happy Hour with photos from from York Tiki cocktail experience as well. We've got so many great photos, so many great people thanks to hundreds of people who came on and listened.

We're going to see if we can get some guests this coming week. So you definitely want to check that out. If you're not a patron, go to patreon.com slash mullershoe route. You can sign up to be one for three bucks a month. You get to be the patron for this show and for the daily beans. And so it's it's well worth it. And you're going to help support us through this crisis. Thank you very much. Again, everyone, please take care of yourselves. Take care of each other. I love you all. This has been AG. And this is Mullershoe Road. all this has been AG and this is Muller She Wrote. Muller She Wrote is executive produced and directed by AG and Jordan Coburn with engineering

and editing by Mackenzie Mazell and Starburn's industries. Our marketing manager, production and social media direction is by Amanda Reader, fact-checking your research by AG, Jordan Coburn and Amanda Reader, and our knowledgeable listeners. Our web design and branding are by Jolo Reader with Moxie Design Studios and our website is mullershyrope.com. 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 who are playing their breakthrough album, FLEEULE 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. Disappointing paid for was somebody else's money. M-S-W-Media. money.