Strict Scrutiny - Trump Indicted Again Again

Episode Date: August 2, 2023

Former President Donald Trump has been indicted for a third time-- this time in a Washington, DC, case about attempts to overturn the 2020 election. Kate, Melissa, and Leah huddle to break down the charges, the people involved, and what happens next. Follow us on Instagram, Twitter, Threads, and Bluesky

Hey guys, I just got back from the Sag Harbor Carnival. What did I miss? Anything big? Quiet evening. So nothing big, which is why we're doing a special emergency episode. I was wondering about that. What happened? It's about the SAG carnival.

Is that where you were? I have to say it was super fun. I saw Rachel Zoe from Nicole Richie, Parrots Hilton, The Simple Life Fame. Remember that whole shtick? Remember her? I remember when you told me two minutes ago who that was. But no. It's not for you, Kate.

That is, in fact, not the reason we are convening an emergency episode of Trick Scrutiny. It's not about Rachel, though. It's not. If you guys want to do a special episode about her after I peel off, you have my blessing. She would indict you for crimes of fashion. Oh, I would deserve that. But, Melissa, queen of the segue, that's pretty good because we are, in fact, here for a special emergency episode to break down former President Trump's latest indictment, this time for his efforts to overturn the results of the 2020 election. And it can kind of feel like these indictments are so numerous at this point that they don't like necessarily warrant an emergency episode.

We kind of debated whether we were going to do this, But like, where we landed is this is not normal, people. Like nothing alleged in this indictment, which we will talk about, is normal. It is not normal to have a former president and leading presidential contender indicted triply and probably on his way to more. And we kind of don't want to lose sight of that. Triply. Bigly. Bigly. Very bigly. And we'll be biglier probably before like the month is up. But anyway, we are here in your ears and recording past Leah's bedtime for that reason. We're your hosts. I'm Kate Shaw. I'm Leah Lippman, who's supposed to be in bed.

I'm Melissa Murray. It's dinner time. I mean, I need my beauty rest before the final US show of the era's tour. It's important. How do your show numbers compare to Donald Trump's indictment numbers, Leah? Are they about the same? TBD. Well, you need to see how many more shows you make it to and how many more indictments he's subject to. Right, exactly.

Exactly. Like, thus far, once this next show happens, I will be at more shows than the number of indictments. But given that it doesn't seem like we are yet at the ceiling of the number of indictments. Okay, so right now you're tied is what you're saying. But I'm going to pull ahead. So as we have obviously mentioned, but just in case folks have started to lose track of it, this is not the first indictment. It will almost certainly not be the last indictment, but it does feel like the most consequential to date. This indictment is

about a direct assault on American democracy and kind of whatever happens with these charges. It does feel like bringing them is an attempt to impose some meaningful accountability. And just as a reminder, in terms of the other charges, Trump is already facing 37 federal felony counts in the Mar-a-Lago documents case. Maybe it's 38 now that there's been the addition with like the possible video destruction. It might be up to 38. He's also facing 34 felony counts in New York State Court for falsifying business records in conjunction with hush money payments to Stormy Daniels. Those two cases are both set for trial, one in March, one in May of 2024 if those dates hold. So it's going to be a

busy spring for the likely Republican candidate for president. In light of this, that is all of these indictments and all of these charges, I wanted to revisit an oldie but a goodie. And that is, of course, Ginny Thomas's text messages. You might recall that two days after the 2020 election, Ginny texted Mark Meadows, the chief of staff to President Trump, quote, Biden crime family and ballot fraud co-conspirators, parenthesis, elected officials, bureaucrats, social media censorship mongers, fake stream media reporters, etc. End parenthesis, are being arrested and detained for ballot fraud right now and over coming days and will be living in barges off Gitmo to face military tribunals for sedition. I hope this is true. You should say that last sentence was a quote. This was not Leah editorializing. No, yeah, that's literally what she said. End quote. Those were Ginny's texts. So this is not in the indictment, we should say. And yet it does set the scene. Like this is the

milieu out of which the events detailed in the indictment arose. And obviously, that's the world that Ginny Thomas lives in. I think they're connected. not everything is coming up Trump just because he was indicted a third time. So wanted to note that on Tuesday before 5pm, he posted on Truth Social that he was going to be indicted at 5pm. And sure enough, he was. So something came up. I don't know. I think it was like 540 was definitely post five. Okay, like a little after five, but within the hour. Kate, come on. That was a long 40 minutes. You always run five minutes late. It's true, but this was like 40 minutes. He was indicted at 5 p.m. Kate's shot time. That's true. That's true. Yes, KST. Okay, but back to the indictment. The overarching basis for the charges, and again, I just skimmed this coming back from the Sag Harbor carnival, but the overarching basis for the charges here are Donald Trump's efforts to overturn

the legitimate results of the 2020 election, results that defendant Trump and his apparently, as of now, unindicted co-conspirators are alleged to have known were actually legitimate. So they were acting like this was not legitimate when in fact, everyone knew it was legitimate. Including them. And the indictment charges conspiracies under three separate federal statutes. I'll just briefly mention them. The first, 18 U.S.C. Section 371, is conspiracy to defraud the government, basically obstructing a governmental function by deceitful or dishonest means. The second is 18 U.S.C. Section 1512, C2, obstruction of an official proceeding. This is a charge that's been used extensively against lower-level January 6th defendants, and it's

basically about disrupting Congress's certification of the Electoral College votes. And the third, 18 U.S.C. Section 241, conspiracy against rights, makes it a crime for an individual to conspire, to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured by the Constitution or laws. target letter got the most attention because it is part of this post-Civil War reconstruction era KKK Ku Klux Klan statute that was intended to secure the civil rights of formerly enslaved people against the anticipated encroachments of Southerners. And again, I think this is really meaningful. It's deeply symbolic. I think about Ruby Freeman and her daughter, Shea Moss, who were the poll workers in Georgia who said their lives were basically turned upside down by Donald Trump's claims that this was an illegitimately conducted

election and that they had done wrong during the conduct of that election. So I mean, this is, I think, a very deeply meaningful charge in a lot of different ways. There were two other charges that the January 6th committee included in its referral to the Department of Justice. One was inciting or aiding an insurrection, and the other was conspiracy to make a false statement. Interestingly, Jack Smith, the prosecutor here, did not charge either of those. And the first in particular, there was a lot of kind of discussion about how difficult it might be to make out an incitement or insurrection charge. And it is interesting that although that is not charged outright, all of the conduct detailed, and we'll talk about just how much detail there is in the

indictment, is really about insurrectionary conduct. And it's just offered in support of other probably more straightforward charges. So I think that was an interesting charging decision. Yeah. I mean, maybe no charged insurrection, just a Ginny-surrection. But I mean, I think you're right, Kate, like on the broader point, right, what this describes is an attack on democracy, sedition, treason, conspiracy, right, like maybe not formally amounting to like those legal charges, but it just so happened that, like what they were doing morally and to our democracy happened to violate a bunch of other federal laws as well. So obstructing an official act of the United States along the way towards treason or whatever you want to describe it in a kind of colloquial

sense. But like the Mar-a-Lago documents indictment, this too is a speaking indictment in the sense that it lays out a case. It also puts it together in narrative form combined with specific evidence. So just to read from the second paragraph, quote, despite having lost, the defendant was determined to remain in power. So for more than two months following Election Day, the defendant spread lies that there had been, but the defendant repeated and widely disseminated them anyway to make his knowingly false claims appear legitimate, create an intense national atmosphere of mistrust and anger, and erode public faith in the administration of the election. The indictment documents efforts to target seven states and to stop those seven states from certifying the results of the election as contemplated by the Electoral Count Act and the Constitution. It also discusses the efforts to stop the VP, Mike Pence, and Congress from doing the same on January 6. So what the indictment describes, as we were kind of generally alluding to, is a plot to overturn the will of the people, to throw out millions of votes, deny many people their rights to vote, and more generally, this huge threat to democracy that, you know, Melissa, you were noting that charging under the general deprivation of rights statute is significant because, you know, the allegations here really call to mind previous incidents in history,

whether that's succession, Jim Crow, redemption, and whatnot, that also were like full frontal attacks on our democracy. Let's play a clip from special counsel Jack Smith's press conference where he discussed the charges and the road forward. The attack on our nation's capital on January 6th, 2021, was an unprecedented assault on the seat of American democracy. It's described in the indictment, it was fueled by lies. Lies by the defendant targeted at obstructing a bedrock function of the U.S. government, the nation's process of collecting, counting, and

certifying the results of the presidential election. The men and women of law enforcement who defended the U.S. Capitol on January 6th are heroes. They are patriots and they are the very best of us. They did not just defend a building or the people sheltering in it. They put their lives on the line to defend who we are as a country and as a people. They defended the very institutions and principles that define the United States. Having played that, let's stop and talk Jack Smith for just a minute. You know, I had the same thought this time as I did last time. You know, he gave a very similar, also very short press conference after the Mar-a-Lago indictment. This is not a guy who craves the spotlight, right? He spoke for literally three minutes this time. It might've been a bit longer in the Mar-a-Lago charge, but he really seemed, if you watched him,

to be up there because he thought he had to be, not because he wanted to be. And I was like, this is literally the anti-Donald Trump. This person really abhors the spotlight, but he's been thrust into it. And I think he thought correctly that he needed to actually take the podium and say some things to the American people. But it was just like really a few things. And the other thing I just couldn't stop thinking about was his background. And I think it's important to remember that prosecutor worship is like really dangerous. And I don't think Jack Smith or any other prosecutor can alone save American democracy. But I do think this guy does seem like a badass and not likely to be cowed by Trump or like whatever Trump might do in response to this.

He was a war crimes prosecutor in The Hague. He indicted the then sitting president of Kosovo for war crimes, said then sitting president allegedly committed in the 90s, including murder and torture. And there was a lot of pressure brought to bear on him then, and it didn't seem to have any effect. And I just don't see him as being easily cowed. And so he does really feel like the right person for this moment. I think a big part of why he seems like a badass is that he basically looks like Rasputin. It's a short beard. That's not Rasputin. I mean, I don't know. It just looks like he's been too busy to shave to me. True.

Let's also hear a little bit from Attorney General Merrick Garland describing the lead up to the indictment. Mr. Smith and his team of experienced, principled career agents and prosecutors have followed the facts and the law wherever they lead. Right now, Donald Trump is the only one charged in this indictment. This indictment is United States versus Donald Trump. However, there are several unindicted, unnamed co-conspirators, specifically six of them. It's not clear if they will be indicted. And it is, you know, the Department of Justice's practice not to name unindicted co-conspirators, but in this case,

you can kind of tell who some of them are. Name names. Oh, I will, trust me. Co-conspirator number one is an attorney who is willing to spread knowingly false claims. His name probably rhymes- I guess Rudy Giuliani. Yeah, I think it rhymes with Rudy Giuliani.

Whether it's Rudy Giuliani himself, I guess we'll see. But just based on some of the statements in the indictment, those are things that he has said. The second unindicted co-conspirator is another attorney who devised and attempted to implement a strategy to leverage the vice president's ceremonial role in this entire scheme. I know it. I know it. John Eastman. Who is John Eastman? Definitely. All right. Jeopardy champion coming out exactly exactly we have unindicted undame co-conspirator number three

also an attorney who made unfounded claims of election fraud they privately acknowledge were unfounded ding ding ding melissa who is sydney powell which you know because even trump was describing her allegations as crazy but but nevertheless continued to report them. All of this is in the indictment. Okay, so Melissa seems like she's three for three. Kate, feel free to try any of these. I'm jumping in. I got four. Okay, ready? Okay.

Number four, someone at the Department of Justice involved in civil matters who tried to open sham election criminal investigations. That was definitely Jeffrey Clark. That was an easy one. You did not phrase your answer in the form of a question. Who is Jeffrey Clark. That was an easy one. You did not phrase your answer in the form of a question. Who is Jeffrey Clark? I didn't know the Jeopardy rules applied. Yes, definitely Jeffrey Clark.

Number five is another attorney who assisted in devising and attempting to implement the fraudulent slate of electors. Less clear who this one is. This is like a double Jeopardy, like a daily double. This is a really tough one. I think, who is Kenneth Cheeseborough? I think you might be right, but how much would you have wagered? I probably had nothing. She only had one answer to wager. It's bad. I didn't have a lot to work with, but I think I doubled it. And number six is a political consultant who helped implement the scheme. No idea. Could this be whatever his name is? I truly don't know here.

So I am unable to award. I mean, like, there are basically so many possibilities floating around. What is a political consultant? Just like, you know, what is a stylist to the stars? What's pretty wild is this is the only non-lawyer as far as we know that five of the six co-conspirators five out of the six co-conspirators here are republican lawyers and i wonder not a great day for the profession not a great day i do wonder if sam alito read this and thought this is what the organized bar should be doing leaping to the president's defense when he wants to overturn

an election. With that general outline, maybe we can go through some of the notable specific allegations in the indictment. Because although this has been a widely reported on conspiracy and investigated conspiracy, I think we did learn some new things from the indictment. But we also wanted to highlight just some others as well. So one is apparently part of this conspiracy involved proposing using the military to suppress protests against the coup. So after a deputy White House counsel allegedly told co-conspirator number four, there had not been outcome determinative fraud and that there would be riots in every major city in the United States if Trump nonetheless remained in office. Co-conspirator four responded, quote, Well, that's why there's an insurrection act.

That is literally the law that would ostensibly the president be contemplating using the military to send out to suppress protests. And the co-conspirators apparently understood and expected that there was a risk of violence based on what they were doing. So the indictment notes that also on January 4th, when co-conspirator number two acknowledged to the defendant's senior advisor that no court would support his proposal, the senior advisor told co-conspirator two, you're going to cause riots in the streets. And co-conspirator two responded that there had previously been points in the nation's history where violence was necessary to protect the republic. Again, so many historians in this White House. Insanity. After that conversation, the senior advisor notified the defendant that co-conspirator two had conceded that his plan

was, quote, not going to work. We got a snapshot into Christmas in the Trump White House, backing up like a week. So on December 25th, when the vice president called the defendant to wish him a Merry Christmas, the indictment alleges that the defendant quickly turned the conversation to January 6th and his request that the vice president reject electoral votes that day. The vice president pushed back, telling the defendant, as the vice president already had in previous conversations, you know I don't think I have the authority to change the outcome. And the indictment editorializes at one point, the vice president was in a position to potentially really benefit from signing on to this plan. Like he would have gotten to keep his job and still even with self-interest pointing keep his job. And still, even with

self interest pointing in that direction, and Mike Pence wanted no part of this scheme. I was actually hoping that this part of the indictment discussing Christmas would have some choice quotes from Melania about fucking Christmas and how much she hated decorating the White House. And like that her whole like apocalypse now White House decorating scheme was like, not going to plan. But no, it was basically this phone call. It was very holiday calls from Mike Pence to his superior. Interesting. Yes. There was one more passage in the indictment from earlier in the period between the election and January 6th. So let me just read an excerpt from a paragraph about a December 8th email.

So on December 8th, I'm reading now, the senior campaign advisor wrote in an email, when our research and campaign legal team can't back up any of the claims made by our elite strike force legal team, that whole phrase is capitalized, which I love, you can see why we're 0 for 32 on our cases. I'll obviously hustle to help on all fronts, but it's tough to own any of this when it's all just conspiracy shit beamed down from the mothership. That's in writing.

Okay, that is a t-shirt. Conspiracy shit beamed down from the mothership? That's the campaign slogan. I think the merch line is Elite Strike Force

legal team and on the back is a quote. The conspiracy shit beamed down from the mothership. Conspiracy shit. What's our product? Conspiracy shit beamed down from the mothership. Conspiracy shit. What's our product?

Conspiracy shit beamed down from the mothership. That's pretty good. Put it on a t-shirt. Print it. I might start referring to the Supreme Court as the elite strike force legal team. And some of Justice Thomas and Justice Alito's writings as the conspiracy shit beamed down from the mothership.

So just warning. That might be the new Fantastico. Anyways the mothership. So just warning. That might be the new Fantastico. Anyways. But it's emails like this that are part of the reason why you don't take notes on a criminal conspiracy. I feel like we have said this before. Stringer Bell said it many years ago. I don't know why these people won't listen to him.

There was also an email from an Arizona lawyer summarizing a call with one of the unindicted co-conspirators that literally says, quote, kind of wild slash creative. That's describing the scheme. And the email continues. FYI, kind of wild slash creative is what your child's art teacher says about his tie-dye project. This is not a legal strategy. And he continues, quote, we would just be sending in, quote, fake electoral votes to Pence so that, quote,

someone in Congress can make an objection when they start counting votes and start arguing that the, quote, fake votes should be counted. It's like, he just put it in an email. You taking notes on a motherfucking criminal conspiracy. Like Idris Elba did it so much better. So a major issue that has been discussed as long as we have been talking about the prospect of these indictments is the question of mental state. And that really goes to the more granular question of, did Donald Trump actually know that he lost? And in knowing that he lost, that he was throwing out legitimate votes with these schemes? Well, the indictment suggests that there is considerable evidence that, in fact,

he did know that he lost and that his actions would result in the disenfranchisement of a substantial number of voters. So example one, Trump instructing his acting attorney general in December 2020 to quote, just say that the election was corrupt and leave the rest to me and the Republican congressman, end quote. Not a great look for the Republican caucus, I have to say. Another notable quote, Trump told Pence that he was, quote unquote, too honest for this conspiracy shit beamed out from the mothership. The indictment also ticks through all of the federal and state officials who told Donald Trump the results of the election were legitimate and that there was nothing approaching determinative fraud. So his vice president, Mike Pence, told him this, that he had seen no evidence of outcome determinative

fraud. Senior leaders of the Department of Justice were appointed by the defendant said that various allegations of fraud were entirely unsupported. The director of national intelligence disabused Donald Trump that any foreign interference would have changed the outcome here. The Department of Homeland Security, Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency, CISA, joined multi-agent statements that there was no evidence that any voting system had been compromised and that the 2020 election had been the most secure in history. And the CISED director announced publicly that any computer based election fraud allegations were unsubstantiated. And then Donald Trump proceeded to fire that individual. So again, total shit show. Senior White House lawyers said the same thing and told Donald Trump that his presidency would be over in January 2021. Senior White House lawyers said the same thing and told Donald Trump that his presidency

would be over in January 2021. Senior staffers on his reelection campaign said on November 7th that he had only a 5 to 10 percent chance of winning, which would only happen if he prevailed in ongoing vote counts in Arizona, Georgia and Wisconsin. Within a week, he lost Arizona. State legislators and officials, including people who had voted for him, said that these claims of fraud were unsubstantiated and false. And of course, as we have discussed on this podcast, state and federal courts rejected every single Trump campaign lawsuit dealing with the election and these allegations of fraud. Although in one case, in Wisconsin, the outcome was perhaps a little too close for comfort. So again, we didn't love

the quote unquote, neutral arbiters responsible for ensuring a fair and even minded administration of elections laws, description of the courts, but I guess we can probably take it in this circumstance. Just again, back to the oldie but goodie, I wanted to contrast and compare these statements of what various federal and state officials were saying to Trump with what Ginny Thomas was saying to Mark Meadows. Quote, do not concede, she wrote. Quote, it takes time for the army who is gathering for his back. Again, to not sort of to the point of not getting in your to any of this, like I just we have we have read these Ginny texts before, I think maybe we need to just quarterly remind

everyone that like that is the reality in which the kind of leading intellectual light of the conservatives on the Supreme Court resides. That is his home. That is his household. That's his best friend. That's his best friend. Yes. And so it's, this is not, these are not fringe players, right? Like even if Donald Trump does not manage to claw his way back to the White House in 2024, even if all the people around him never again hold positions of political power, like Jenny Thomas was all in on this plan, as much or more as anyone described in this indictment. And that Thomas is going to stay in the position that he is in. And so like that endures. I actually thought you were going to say something different. I mean, you're making a really good point. I actually just thought

like this is going back to the ethics. Like, it's absolutely batshit that the spouse of a sitting supreme court justice is even doing this i mean when you think about cecilia marshall like oh i don't go to parties anymore because my husband's a supreme court justice like it'd almost be like if she was like you know i don't go to insurrections anymore because my husband's a supreme court justice like like i stopped my insurrection thing, like, because my husband became a justice of the Supreme Court. And Ginny Thomas can't stop that. She can't stop the insurrection part. Can't stop, won't stop. And nothing in the Constitution empowers anyone to make her. Amen. She's like, coverture, bitches. I refuse to be brought down. Okay, so we have walked through the charges in general terms, some of the highlights from the

indictment. Maybe let's step back for a minute and just kind of situate these charges in the context of the larger political moment and also the other charges that have already been brought against the former president. Now, people have poo-pooed some of these previous indictments as being too small. And I'm thinking specifically of the criticisms lodged against Manhattan DA Alvin Bragg for his indictment. There's lots you can say about whether or not you should be going after Trump for the big stuff. And, you know, will any of this address the concerns that are raised by the various departures from normalcy that his presidency represented?

But I think you can't level any of those kinds of critiques at this indictment. Like this is a big, meaty indictment where the alleged crime matches in every way the threat to the republic and the democracy. And again, this is no shade to the Manhattan DA indictment. I mean, I think people should be accountable for the wrongs that they do. But I mean, this one is like, it's a big indictment, because the shit underlying it was huge. It is literally an assault on democracy and attempt to throw out democratically cast votes. You know, but I think the reality is, is that like big cases often present like new facts, right? And like slightly different legal theories. And of course, there is a desire to kind of like, simplify this to its core as a threat to

democracy. But as we were saying, like the threat to our democracy is basically being measured against what these federal criminal laws say. And like those have distinct, you know, like terms of art and legal questions that will be resolved in these proceedings. And a part of me is just worried, you know, I was mentioning earlier how what this indictment describes brings to mind, I think, like the redemption eras, threats of violence against multiracial democracy and black voters. And I worry that like, we could at the end of the day, see some federal court, maybe the Supreme Court reaching a decision like they did during the redemption era and narrowing the reach. Not with Justice Thomas on the bench,

because you know who always rehashes that redemption era history, Leah? It's Justice Clarence Thomas. He told us about Cruikshank. He told us about the Homburg Massacre. And I'm sure when this case comes before the court, he's going to be there and he's going to say, this was a threat to the republic. See Cruikshank. QED. And just to provide some context, redemption is the period after Reconstruction that was really the downfall of Reconstruction and the slide into Jim Crow

segregation and violent repression of multiracial democracy and Cruikshank is a Supreme Court decision in which the Supreme Court narrowly interpreted federal laws passed during Reconstruction to not prohibit mob violence against, you know, Black citizens who were protesting, you know, the Southern Democrats retake over of the former Confederacy.

And Clarence Thomas has criticized both redemption and the Crookshank decision, but only insofar as it limited the opportunity for newly freed black men to bear arms. So we're being super facetious here. He's not going to do anything to uphold this indictment or the underlying legal proceedings that are coming. Well, I mean, it's just important to raise the possibility that these are statutes that a determined Supreme Court could find don't cover this conduct. These are statutes that have kind of fraud, at least two of them are really kind of fraud statutes of a particular variety. And as we've talked about a lot on the

show, this is a Supreme Court that has really narrowed almost to the point of rendering inoperable a lot of federal fraud statutes. And it does not at all seem unthinkable that the Supreme Court would be receptive to such an argument by the former president if this case, you know, actually ever ends up resulting in, let's say, a conviction that he appeals all that Supreme Court. But yeah, you could see that happening. And I think there is reason for concern. I mean, every election should come with an opportunity to overthrow the government, Kate. That's just politics. But we are already seeing early Republican conservative commentators saying, you know, this indictment criminalizes protected political speech.

And of course, that is the theory that the court has used to dismantle campaign finance laws that are designed to prevent and reduce corruption in the governmental system. And I just think it's like a non-zero risk slash concern. And I think it is very good we are seeing some accountability for the threats to democracy. I think the worst thing you can do for democracy is just like not attempt to have any measure of accountability when people are literally trying to nuke the democracy itself. But at the end of the day, like criminal law prosecutions, like they are not going to fix this, even though they might be in some cases necessary. Necessary, not sufficient, I think is right. And also just to kind of go back to, yes, I think these kind of First Amendment concerns are well-founded. And Jack Smith was obviously very aware of them because page two of the indictment has this long paragraph that's a

little over the top, but just luxuriates in this idea that obviously the defendant had a right to speak publicly about the election and even to falsely claim that there had been outcome determinative fraud. I'm not sure I totally agree with that, but it is meant to anticipate and respond to this objection. But obviously, we're going to see it regardless. Right. He can say all of these things, but what he can't do is try to prevent the certification of votes or throw out legitimately cast votes. One other question I wanted to pose to you guys, which is that do you think this indictment would have happened without the January 6th committee? I don't know. Because again, as I said, Jack Smith is kind of a Rasputin-esque badass, like who knows what he would have done if left to his own devices. But I do think that the January 6th committee was playing to two audiences,

obviously the Department of Justice, but also to the American public. And so I think one way in which you could interpret the events of last summer when we, well, not everyone, but a lot of people really watched this, and they really orchestrated this in a way to make it watchable for the public, was that it sort of softened the public to the idea that something was coming and then indeed something should come because this was so fucking bonkers that it demanded accountability. And I think for that reason, you have to give them some credit in the run up to this because I don't think the public would have been ready for the prospect of indicting a former president for charges of this magnitude absent their intervention.

And I don't know if Merrick Garland was ready because he didn't appoint Jack Smith until after the hearings last summer. And so I kind of think they were required to get. Now, maybe that means that there's a year-long delay that is on Merrick Garland because we are closer to this next election than would be ideal with these charges being brought now. But yeah, it was post the hearings last summer that Garland did appoint Jack Smith. And actually, he's moved pretty quickly since that November appointment. Kyle Bragg-esque quote from former D.C. Metropolitan Police Department officer Mike Fanone, who testified before the January 6th committee. He apparently gave a statement to NBC, quote, Donald Trump spent his entire lifetime fucking around and he's about to find out.

I'd like to think that in some small way I played a part in all this. That guy's amazing. Mike Fanone, come on the pod. I'd like to think that in some small way, I played a part in all this. Here's to you, Mike. Exactly. Mike Fanone, come on the pod. Mike Fanone, it's fuck around and find out season. Exactly. So we mentioned we would just know quickly things to happen next. This case has reportedly been assigned to Judge Tanya Chetkin, who is one of the federal judges in the District of Columbia.

She was appointed by President Obama, and I think she is a very well regarded judge. She has overseen some of the cases involving January 6, where I think she has been imposing some sentences on the higher end compared to say, some of the Trump appointed district judges. And we will kind of see how that plays out. The next appearance for Donald Trump will be later this week. And maybe one final question to you all. What do you think Ginny's text messages say right now?

Hunter's still going down. I mean, look, that's the thing. She's not even concerned about this. She's too busy worried about Hunter Biden's laptop. I mean look that's the thing she's like not even concerned about this she's too busy worried about Hunter Biden's laptop I mean yes

no okay all right should we leave it there yeah I just had a fried Oreo it was like oh my god

delicious I've never had one amazing right did they travel well oh you brought them back from the fair so this is like five minutes ago

I highly doubt they're delicious like day two this is like an hour ago. I highly doubt they're delicious like day two. This is like an hour ago we bought them. They were really good. I mean, I think you basically can deep fry anything and it'd be delicious. Correct. Let's deep fry this indictment

and see how it tastes. The last one we unboxed, this one we will deep fry and snack on. Alright, with that. Leah, go get some sleep. I hope you get hits different in the set in LA. A girl can dream. Dream big.

Strict Scrutiny is a Crooked Media production hosted and executive produced by Leah Lippman, me, Melissa Murray, and Kate Shaw. It's produced and edited by Melody Rowell. Ashley Mizzuo is our associate producer. We have audio engineering by Kyle Seglin, music by Eddie Cooper, and production support from Michael Martinez and Ari Schwartz, and digital support from Emilia Montu. Indictment support from Jack Smith.

And a constant stream of content from Donald Trump, Samuel Alito, Clarence and Ginny Thomas, Leonard Leo, and so many others. Oh, and snacks supplied by Melissa's offspring to fuel her rage throughout the last hour rage joy whatever I'm in a great mood like I mean I didn't I literally I didn't even know that this happened because I didn't have cell service I was like what's going and everyone everyone is so happy because no one had cell service so it was amazing