OA414: Steve Bannon Arrested!

Transcript

This transcript was generated automatically and may contain errors — the audio is the record.

0:01:17 Thomas: Hello and welcome to opening arguments. This is episode 414. I'm Thomas. That's Andrew. How you doing, sir?

0:01:23 Andrew: I am fantastic. Thomas, how are you? You know,

0:01:26 Thomas: This just in hold on another, Jared Kushner indicted by

0:01:32 Andrew: Oh man. So look, like people know, right? I, I work super hard and read primary documents and, you know, throughout the week, I keep some flexibility in the whiteboard because you know you, you gotta do that. But like by 10 AM on a Thursday, I kinda like to have 95% of everything wrapped up right and sometimes you can't and that's okay and I'll block that. There is nothing like hitting that 10 a.m. this morning, looking up at the monitor and seeing Steve Bannon indicted, uh, and being like, oh, all right, well, guess that uh lengthy bit on the uh Fortnight versus Apple lawsuit is going to get pushed off for

0:01:33 Thomas: Yeah Yep, oh man,

0:02:15 Andrew: Another week. Oh, it's such a cool. Yeah, it did. So, I promise, um, I have like all the hep cool, like with it, Fortnite reference? No, I do not, um, I'm, I'm, my son doesn't even play Fortnite, um, he has some, like, and I gotta tell you, like, I've watched people playing Fortnite and it's super cool looking, um, I would totally, if I were you, you know, a teenage boy

0:02:16 Thomas: That's a good bit too. I want to know about that It looked all goofy I played Apex Legends for a minute with my brother and that one's less goofy looking. And Fortnite looks weird to me. I don't get it. But anyway, because of the time difference, I always like when I wake up and because I, you know, I'm a night person, I wake up and I'll have all the notifications on my phone and I instantly know how Andrew's day is going. Like within seconds of waking up, I could look at my phone, be like, Hmm, this is Andrew's having a day. Cause this is a lot of news, right? Right. When you want to be already ready to record.

0:02:38 Andrew: Yeah yeah I right

0:03:07 Thomas: So, but it's good news.

0:03:07 Andrew: There so uh, but we'll be we will be covering it, so there you go.

0:03:11 Thomas: Yeah. Yeah, yeah, this just in, Roger Stone, no, I'm just kidding, it just keeps going, yeah this is, uh, whoo, I am on fire over here by the way, people have asked, yes, fires are very close, not, not life threateningly close, but, uh well, I guess if you depend on air to breathe, then sure, uh, life threatening, it's, uh, the air is not good, so that's, that's me.

I did say this on SIO though, that the one, the one benefit of the fire, well, there's two benefits of the fires, one is, uh, should be probably 108 degrees today, but instead it'll be like a nice cool 100, so that the smoke just you know, it's like you're in the shade all the time, just yeah, yep, and then the other is that I've, it's actually the the right lighting for 2020 and for the last four years, you know, like when we've had to watch those bad religious videos where there's like the end, end the world in the rapture. The lighting is always weird. That's how it looks over here in these fires. And I realized, like, it should just look like this all the time. Like, this should be the country's official mood lighting for the last four years. Like, it would make, we'd be like,

0:03:30 Andrew: Oh yeah like I said grab a fleece uh

0:04:19 Thomas: Oh yeah, that fits. That's how I feel right now. So that's, that's the two benefits.

0:04:21 Andrew: That that goes hand in hand with you discovering that your air quality map just added a new color without the legend on it

0:04:27 Thomas: I swear to God it did. The air quality map had a color purple. I was like, oh, once red isn't bad enough, they're like, shoot, purple, I guess. We'll go with that.

0:04:31 Andrew: Oh yeah, yeah yeah that's that that's the, that's the death ozone zone, that's, everyone knows that, so uh

0:04:39 Thomas: Yeah. So that's me. Anyway. Oh, quick. Some other announcements here. I did a little debunking thing on Twitter about this Kamala Harris meme that I saw shared that was really annoying. So I talked about that on SIO. Gosh, we have so much to talk about today. I don't want. Sure,

0:04:43 Andrew: Yeah let's talk but seriously talk, talk about that, because I see this, uh, all the time

0:05:00 Thomas: I just don't want to be contributing to the losing of segments later on when, when, when things get shaved off. Well, people shared a thing that said, oh, when Kamala Harris was announced as VP, prison stocks went through the roof, kind of thing, and, uh, it just didn't seem right to me, because it doesn't, I don't know, I mean, it's not impossible, but it's like that doesn't seem right.

0:05:19 Andrew: Because because the, the Democratic ticket that has campaigned on abolishing private prisons, building on the work of the Obama administration to scale back the use of private prisons, uh, the fact that the private prison industry skyrocketed when Donald Trump won the election, uh, those things indicated maybe that you should be skeptical, spectacle.

0:05:20 Thomas: Mm-hmm. Yeah right So I did a little research and it's pretty much everything you just said. So I did a little debunking on Twitter. Yeah, it's, it's obvious, it's a done, when you look at the full five-year map, this is, it's nothing. It turns out the fund got added to an index, that means some, you know, some mutual funds and some tracker funds have to like buy up shares, so some people tried to buy it up first a little bit to profit on that, but when you look in the full chart, it's an absolute nothing blip in the radar that you can't even see compared to how high it went when Trump was elected, because Republicans are really good for private prisons and Democrats are not good for private prison. So if you want to check out the Twitter thread on this at Serious Pod, or I also talk about it on the Serious Inquiries Only episode that was out last night, so check that out if you'd like to hear more, plus a couple other things I debunked and some ramblings, and

0:05:42 Andrew: No it's great stuff. I have a deep dive on the U.S. Postal Service. It, it was right, look, that was obviously going to be this week's main story until it was no longer this week main story, so it will be Tuesday's maiden story. Part of the reason on that is, number one, I want to make sure we can cover it in depth.

0:06:52 Andrew: General, Louis DeJoy, is going to testify again, this time before the U.S. Senate next Friday. So this will be, you know, sort of a perfect kind of background, background of the the sorts of questions you can expect to ask. Um, we look at, I, I know you have seen, because you are a loyal, uh, John Oliver viewer the the way I am, because you know his writers steal from our show, um, we, we, we take a look at a claim made by John Olivier that maybe has a little bit more nuance than was portrayed. So, you know, yeah, it's, uh, it's gonna be a lot of fun, um, it's, I'm really, really proud of the work and wish I could give it to you today, but I can't.

0:07:33 Thomas: Right, so Tuesday show, big deep dive on the post office, awesome, um, okay, let's try to get to all the stuff we need to talk about today.

0:07:41 Andrew: Yep. I'm going to speak really quickly. So if you typically listen to the show at 1.5 speed, you might want to dial it back a click.

0:07:41 Thomas: Yeah all

0:07:49 Clip: Andrew Torrez is wrong, wrong sir, wrong sir, Andrew Torrez is wrong, wrong, wrong.

0:08:03 Thomas: We, got a quick, Andrew was wrong and Andrew was right kind of thing, what do we got?

0:08:06 Andrew: Couple of different things. One of them not so quick. All of these relate to our Kamala Harris episode. And I think it's really, really important to provide accurate context and information and own up where we get it wrong in minor and not so minor ways. None of this changes the analysis in any way in that episode. It. So first, conversed with Josh Tauberer, who was the founder of GovTrack, regarding our repetition of the Fox News claim that Kamala Harris had the most liberal voting record in 2019, see GovTrack. And he clarified something that I think is really important to clarify. So I want to read his tweet back to us on the air.

I've also chatted with him. He might come on the show. It'd great. Here's what Josh says: "Respect to GovTrack, we don't measure voting record, so please don't use our numbers as evidence of something we're not measuring. Also, please don't reduce a black woman's career to simply a number computed by white people." So yeah, uh, total agreement on that. Let me explain what he means by that first half, because I, I don't think we said voting record. But But again, we certainly elided over the unique methodology that GovTrack uses. And so I think it's worth amplifying it because, again, we're, we're, we're really in a disagreement here at all.

What GovTrack does in their ideology score is they use an analysis of bills and resolutions that are co-sponsored and how similar those are to other members of Congress, right? So they then say the score can be interpreted as a conservative liberal scale. And in fact, it is identified that way, right? So the reason for Kamala Harris is that her line, it says most conservative, Tom Cotton, 100, then 99, and then it goes all the way down to one, Kamala Harris, most liberal, right. Right. So. So, again, I don't know that there is any disingenuousness saying, according to GovTrack, Kamala

0:08:57 Thomas: Cool yeah yeah

0:10:14 Andrew: Harris was the most liberal senator. Yeah, yeah, yeah. But but I think it's important to note that there and again, I think it's importante to note because it strengthens our overall point, right? That if a unique analysis of looking at the kind of bills you introduce, it happens to converge on the same conclusion as more traditional analysis of how did you vote on certain legislation, then in my view, That makes the argument stronger for the notion that Kamala

0:10:14 Thomas: Well look if you can't say that sentence then they shouldn't be putting out a thing that says that like come on right yeah

0:10:50 Andrew: Harris has been a progressive senator throughout her entire career. Right. She doesn't just vote for progressive policies because, look, each of these methodologies separately, you might critique. Right. You might critique a voting and be like, yeah, it's super easy to stage votes that like pad your record. Right. Like that was often a complaint. Again, I don't want to just be dogpiling on the other side. But this is the one that comes to mind is, you know, Ron Paul would symbolically vote against the budget every year. Right. And, you know, that would pass the House, you know, four hundred and thirty four to one.

0:11:00 Thomas: Yeah. Mm hmm.

0:11:28 Andrew: Yeah, Exactly. Right. And so, yeah, it's it's easy to manipulate your voting record for to vote for things that don't have a shot in hell of passing or vote against things that are definitely going to pass. So looking at the kinds of bills you introduce is a different metric. And it's worth emphasizing that they have a different metric. It is also worth emphasizing, I totally empathize with GovTrack, which has done a tremendous amount of good in the world in promoting public access to this kind of information. And I get why they wouldn't want to be used by Fox News as a political football. Ball, so, uh, that's kind of point one on, uh, on GovTrack. And, uh, and we support, we support

0:11:27 Thomas: What a hero, right?

0:12:14 Andrew: What they're doing. Second, this is going to require a little bit more to unpack, uh, and and there is a clear error here on my end. When I was discussing Laura Bazelon's article on Kamala Harris, I made an offhanded comment that, again, I, I don't think was intended to to be used as discrediting the entire article, not the least of which is, as you listen to the entire episode, I'm a fan of Laura Bazelon's writings, right? Like, I think I treat her fairly and respectfully. I talked about her description of Gage versus Chappelle, right, that was the case involving the convicted sexual offender. And Kamala Harris's office opposed Gage's second petition for habeas on procedural grounds.

And I said two things, number one, that it wasn't Kamala Harris who did that, right, it was the line prosecutor David Cook, probably Kamala Harris signed off on it. And, and number two, um, don't know that there was a good out from that, right, like the habeas petition wanted to reopen the case to introduce evidence to discredit survivor's testimony, right? So, yeah, it's super important not to wrongly convict people. It's super important not reopen a case, right, like there's there are not a lot of good solutions to that. And to use that as the linchpin of an an argument against Harris, I think, was and is a bad argument.

0:13:51 Andrew: But then I said this, and I said, the article says that the Ninth Circuit ordered mediation, and that's not a thing that courts do, that appellate courts do. And that was based on two things. Number one, 23 years of experience in arguing before appellant courts. And number two, having gone to the the opinion and read the disposition, right, um, in which that was not a part of the mandate. The court did not, uh, order mediation. The court just dismissed the petition for, uh, the second habeas petition as, uh, being, uh, as on procedural grounds. Right. And then I said, and, you if you were a lawyer, you probably know that that that's not how appellate courts, don't order mediation as part of the disposition.

0:14:45 Andrew: So two errors here. Number one, Professor Bazelon is, in fact, a lawyer. She is a professor. I think if you go back and listen fairly, right, that was not that was it was meant to be a description as sort of part of the overall, you know, hey, this this would look weird. If you're a lawyer, you would look at this description of this case and say, this looks kind of weird. And that's why that stuck in my head that way. Secondly, as a listener pointed out, if if you got— now, I've now done this. I have gone and pulled up the docket. In between oral argument and disposition, the Ninth Circuit referred this case to the court's mediation program. It's a little different. And by the way, that is that is something I have never seen a court do ever.

0:15:34 Andrew: Right. In the entirety of my practice. And particularly, you don't see that in criminal cases. Right? You might see, you know, courts try and mediate cases all the time. But typically you're mediating at the district court level, not at the appellate level, because all of the equities, right? Like by the time you get before the Ninth Circuit, you've already spent the money, right. You've written the briefs. It's just on the law. It'S not about the facts. There's very little to mediate. So, that 100% did happen. I would have written about that very, very differently, right? Bazelon wrote, the Ninth Circuit sent the case to mediation, a clear signal for Ms.

0:16:21 Andrew: Harris to dismiss the case. When she refused to budge, the court upheld the conviction on that technicality. Mr. Gage is still in prison. And I stand by a couple of things there, right? Number one, the mediation order did not include Kamala Harris. Number two, mediations the interstitial period, right, are confidential, right. So, you know, you can say I would infer that, but, you have no idea. And the mediation order itself is a sentence long. It just says that this case has been ordered to mediation for the parties to participate. And now again, this is a long piece, maybe she didn't have full editorial control. It's a little bit of a weird way to describe it, but hey, in fairness, like it's, it's a lot of the things I describe on the show, one might say that's a weird way for a lawyer to describe something, right?

0:17:10 Andrew: So the bottom line is, I did misread that. I did make those two compounded errors. And I owe Professor Bazelon an apology, and I owe the listeners that correction. This is why we do Andrew Was Wrong. I don't like being wrong. I tried to do my due diligence. Yeah, very, very weird procedural quirk in the middle of that case, um, doesn't doesn't change my analysis, but it is important for me to be accountable.

0:17:39 Thomas: So you still don't think it's reasonable to infer what she did there about the case, right,

0:17:45 Andrew: So I She didn't do anything, right. Right, the court's order sent David Cook, representing the warden for San Quentin in his official capacity, and, uh, the inmate Kevin Chappelle and his court appointed counsel, uh, to mediation. Uh, it went for one session, um, it obviously didn't go well, again, it's privileged. So we don't know why. And then the mediation reported back and said this was not productive. And then the court ruled and the court rolled, as I described it. So I it

0:18:05 Thomas: Right.

0:18:15 Thomas: I don't hear Kamala Harris being involved in that at all from your description.

0:18:17 Andrew: Did not was not at all involved in that. But again, very, very important. And I did say should strike a lawyer as odd to write that the Ninth Circuit ordered mediation. I stand by that. Right. It's super odd. And in fact, like, you know, she clearly knows more about this case than than than we do and maybe knows more than is available from publicly available sources. Sources. I can say is, you it still strikes me as an odd way to describe the case. But I was 100% right. I do not want to, you know, I don't want to use that as an excuse to say, I don't own up to the fact that when I get it wrong, I get it wrong and I got it wrong.

0:18:20 Thomas: Okay.

0:18:59 Thomas: Yeah. No, I just want to make sure that we're not throwing the Andrew out with the bathwater. I always want to know like which thing is wrong and why, you know, it's. So that's why I just want to like clarify the overall point still doesn't sound like Kamala Harris was involved in, in that. It still sounds weird to say, well, Kamala wouldn't budge. So the court did this. It's just like, so that's still a weird description, right?

0:19:09 Andrew: Yeah.

0:19:21 Andrew: I Stand by that, yes.

0:19:25 Thomas: Okay. All All Right. One of the many items that popped up on my newsfeed that made, told me that you were having a day was, was we got another ruling on the Trump and the tax? I can't keep track of all this. When it comes to Trump and his taxes, it just seems like judges from time to time are like, yeah, I don't even know if they're involved in any cases that a judge will just be like, hey, Trump, hand over your tax returns. Remind us which of the many cases this is and what's going on.

0:19:25 Andrew: Yeah. This It's Trump versus Vance, right? That is the investigation in the Southern District of New York into Donald Trump's taxes, uh, that we believe primarily relates to, uh, misrepresentations regarding real estate. And I have said on this show, after the Supreme Court decided the consolidated Trump taxes, while people were saying, "OK, well, this is going to put them beyond everyone's reach before the election," I said, you know, that's it is not impossible that if the courts are cognizant of the fact that that delay is prejudice, that Cy Vance could get those documents from Mazars.

0:20:39 Andrew: Right. From third party sources who, yeah, you know, they're not going to violate their clients trust. But if they are subjected to a valid subpoena, they are not going violate the law, even for the president. And this morning, the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York entered a 101 page written ruling that dismissed Trump's second amended complaint that was designed to continue to delay and say, look, here are all the reasons that the subpoena is overly broad and, you know, blah, blah. Blah, blah. And in one hundred and one pages, the court dismantled that and engaged in a rather lengthy discussion in which they said, we're we're not saying that the president is trying to run out the clock.

0:21:32 Andrew: But we are. And the legal term for that is being dilatory in filings. Right. Like time wasting. So they say, we'RE not saying THAT the president IS trying to RUN OUT THE CLOCK, but we ARE saying that IF you were trying to Run Out the Clock, this is exactly the kind of thing that you would do. And it ends with

0:21:47 Thomas: Yeah, a clock runner out or says what?

0:21:48 Andrew: Right. Right. And it adds with justice does not require granting leave to replete under these circumstances. Justice requires an end to this controversy that was entered today. And I know what you're going to ask. You're going to say, can Trump appeal this? And the answer is, he can, but remember that his appeal now puts the onus on Donald Trump to go to first the Second Circuit and then the Supreme Court and say, I want you to issue an injunction that prevents this ruling from going into effect. He's 100% going to lose at the Second Circuit. And the question is, what is the Supreme Court going to do?

0:22:36 Andrew: I'm pretty sure that the Supreme Court will not stay. That's based on the fact that Roberts ruled the other way in the case in chief, right? And this opinion is super thorough on the facts. And to prevail, you have to demonstrate a substantial likelihood of success on the merits. So, know, I think the USDC here did what you would want them to do, which is shame John Roberts. And I stand by it. Will the Trump administration be able to run out the clock? They might. Right. We've never said they can't run out the clock. What we've said is there is reason to think that maybe they can't. Maybe they get tripped up at the goal line at the last minute. So this is a really, really good it's a it's a good ruling.

0:23:25 Andrew: And it illustrates that the courts are, you know, not just that they're not going to be strung along by extrajudicial hardball. Right. They're aware that Trump's game is to run out the clock and and they're doing their best to make sure that doesn't happen.

0:23:43 Thomas: Wow, we might see these things by 2048, possibly. Possibly.

0:23:47 Andrew: Yeah, I knew you were gonna say that

0:23:48 Thomas: 17 more judge rulings away. No, I'm being pessimistic. Well, we'll see. Maybe we'll get them in time for the election.

0:23:52 Andrew: Yeah. Maybe. Right.

0:23:55 Thomas: All

0:23:56 Andrew: And again, maybe not, but maybe.

0:24:00 Clip: Because people have got to know whether or not their president's a crook. So you're not aware of any contacts during the course of the election? How many times do I have to answer this question? Can you just say yes or Russia is a ruse. I know you have to get up and ask a question so important. Russia is a ruse. Well, I'm not a crook.

0:24:18 Thomas: Okay, Andrew, Senate Intelligence Committee report. What is going on here? This is like, I've heard a bit about it, but I can't wait to hear your coverage. This is, if I remember correctly, the Republicans control the Senate, but somehow somehow we got a report. Um, tell us what happened. Yeah.

0:24:33 Andrew: Yeah. This is volume five. We have talked about the various previous four volumes, uh, in uh

0:24:45 Thomas: Dance with Dragons, a song fire and I I

0:24:45 Andrew: Yeah. Yeah. Uh. Yeah, this one is is a trim 966 pages. So yeah, George R.R. Martin would, would, would approve.

0:24:53 Thomas: Was gonna say the Republicans issued a damning report of Trump before George R Martin could finish book whatever it is, six of his thing that he's never gonna finish.

0:25:01 Andrew: Yeah. And it is, I mean, you, you know, you just gave away, right, who gets to sit on the iron throne. This is damning. Um. The way in which you can tell that it is damming is at the end are supplemental statements, right? So the report is voted out by the entire committee. And then when members of the committee have alternative views, they can issue a minority report at the end. So at the end is the additional views of Senators Risch, Rubio, Blunt, Cotton, Cornyn, and Sasse. You may recognize those as six of the eight Republicans who are on this committee. It excludes Susan Collins, who did not sign on to this because she still thinks that it's possible that she's not going to get her ass kicked by Sarah Gideon.

0:25:53 Andrew: That's not true. But, hey, good. Good for her. Or Richard Burr, who is trying to lay low after serious allegations of insider trading. Yeah.

0:26:00 Thomas: Yeah. The stock. Yeah. Wow.

0:26:03 Andrew: So this did not make it into the report because it is a nakedly political statement and therefore was unable to garner a majority of the Republicans. Well, I mean, gathered a majority of the Republicans, but it was unable to garner a majority of votes in the Senate Intelligence Committee, despite the fact that Republicans control that committee.

0:26:25 Thomas: Because of these two dissenters essentially

0:26:27 Andrew: Correct. So here's what And I'm just going to read two of the lines, and then you're going to ask me a question so brain-splittingly obvious that it will prove the point. Volume 5, this is the Rish Rubio Blunt Republican minority report part. Volume 5, starting at page 943, if you want to read along, exhaustively reviews the counterintelligence threats and vulnerabilities to the 2016 election, but never explicitly states the critical fact the committee found no evidence that then-candidate Donald Trump or his campaign colluded with the Russian government in its efforts to meddle in the election. That is in bold italics on page 943, and in case, uh, you can't read bold italic, in bold non-italics on page 944 it repeats, "After more than three years of investigation by this committee, we can now say

0:26:28 Thomas: Oh.

0:26:39 Thomas: I

0:27:25 Andrew: With no doubt there was no collusion." That's all in bold. So go ahead, like,

0:27:32 Thomas: We have expected this committee to find evidence of collusion, even if collusion happened?

0:27:38 Andrew: The Senate Intelligence Committee—this is a counterintelligence investigation. Their instructions, their orders, their sole mission is to determine what is the threat or threats to our nation from hostile foreign powers. Right. That's what intelligence means in this context, right? And in fact, if you don't believe me, you might believe the Senate Intelligence Committee, which on page five of this report says the committee did not specifically seek to investigate crime or facilitate the apprehension of criminals. It then goes on to add, though, if the committee became aware of information related to potential criminal activity during the course of its investigation, that information was referred to the appropriate law enforcement entity for whatever action it deemed appropriate, right?

0:28:30 Andrew: Right. So why would this report not opine as to criminal activity? A, because it's not a criminal investigation. B, when they came across criminal investigation, they referred it out to the Department of Justice. C, that's contained in Appendix A, which is redacted. Of course it is. And D, however, a whistleblower connected with the Senate Intelligence Committee, almost certainly a staffer, reported to NBC News that in that redacted annex A, that included criminal referrals to the Department of Justice. I cannot emphasize this strongly enough. The Republican Senate Intelligence Committee made criminal referrals to the Department of Justice of Donald Trump Jr., Jared Kushner, Steve Bannon, put a pin in that, Eric Prince and Trump co-chair Sam Clovis. That may be the only name that you don't recognize on that list. Two federal prosecutors at the Department of Justice in 2019 passing along there. And again, here I'm quoting from NBC News, quote, passing along their suspicions that the men may have misled the committee during their testimony. End of quote. You might ask, what did the Department of Justice do with those?

0:29:31 Thomas: Yeah. Yeah. Why didn't we hear about this?

0:29:52 Andrew: And the answer is that would be at a time in which Bill Barr was attorney general. So, indeed, it was. But those referrals were made by the Republicans in the Senate Intelligence Committee. So just remember that when you hear remember these names. Right. Because they all do know. But in particular, Marco Rubio, Ben Sasse, John Cornyn, who's in a tight race in Texas, Tom Cotton, who is a racist nitwit, Roy Blunt from Missouri, and James Risch from Idaho, they Trump's son, son-in-law, and top campaign officials committed crimes. Or I should say, to be fair, to steal me on the other side as much as you possibly can, that there is significant evidence that they committed crimes. They made a criminal referral to the Department of Justice that was swept under the rug by Bill Barr. Are

0:29:56 Thomas: Oh, what do you know? So it was a black hole and we'll never know about it. Jeez. Cool. Cool.

0:30:52 Andrew: Uh, it's worse than that. Um, Ron Wyden, uh, Democratic senator, notes on page 949 that, quote, "significant aspects of the story remain hidden from the American public." Uh, information related to Paul Manafort's interactions with Konstantin Kilimnik, Russian intelligence operative, particularly in April 2016, are the subject of extensive redactions. And it's true. You can go back and look and see, like, there are huge pages blacked out under the section about Manafort. I should mention Paul Manafort's name appears one thousand two hundred and sixty seven times in this report. It is on virtually every page from pages twenty seven through one hundred and fifty nine.

0:31:38 Andrew: And the allegations are way more explicit than in the Mueller report, but corroborative of that which was found in the report. And that is that Paul Manafort, as the chairman of the Donald Trump for president campaign, leaked polling information and campaign strategy information to a Russian operative while the campaign was receiving assistance from Russian operatives who had as their goal the election of Donald Trump kind

0:32:09 Thomas: Well, that's weird. It sounds like this report found evidence of collusion, weirdly.

0:32:12 Andrew: Of does, doesn't it? That is pages 170 to 171 at the very end of it. It is clear as Kushner. This report also, and nobody has really reported this, this report also has extensive evidence regarding the other key aspect of the Mueller report, which is obstruction of justice. And here I'm going to read, and I want you to remember, first, remember, Richard Burr, right, Republican from North Carolina, and then Marco Rubio wrote these sections, quote, the committee anticipated that it could face executive privilege claims from the Obama administration officials who testified about actions they took as part of the National Security Council or conversations they had with President Obama about Russian interference.

0:33:08 Andrew: In practice, though, Obama administration officials freely shared their conversations with then-President Obama and each other related to the Russia threat. The committee heard testimony from Susan Rice, Dennis McDonough, Michael Daniel, Celeste Wallander, Jay Johnson, Ben Rhodes, Samantha Power, Loretta Lynch, Sally Yates, and Lisa Monaco, among others. This testimony provided useful insights into the history of interactions between the Obama administration and the Russian government, which informed the committee's report. Needless to say, these Republicans would not fall all over themselves complimenting the Obama Administration if that did not happen. And, you know, I might imagine, Hey, boy, we expected Obama to stiff us.

0:33:56 Andrew: What about Donald Trump? Quote, the committee did not anticipate, however, the multitude of novel and unprecedented potential executive privilege claims from the White House counsel's office on behalf of members of President-elect Trump's transition team and the transition itself for communications before Trump took office. This the committee was surprised, I, I want to read this sentence, I know I'm reading a lot, uh, this is a sentence written by the Republican Senate committee, quote, the committee were surprised by these assertions because they were made inconsistently and because they have no basis in law, end of quote, then they, then detail, so first, uh, the Trump administration raised frivolous claims of privilege about the transition team, that is Michael Flynn and others, talking to Russia in violation of the law in December of 2016 when Donald Trump was not the president.

0:34:52 Andrew: There are then frivolous claims and evidence of outright obstruction, including an unsubstantiated joint defense agreement that was never produced to the committee. They just said, oh yeah, we have this joint defense arrangement so we can't talk about at it, that could be entirely fabricated. So then on page 17, they note, due to time and resource considerations, the committee opted not to further pursue its inquiry into potentially obstructive conduct under this alleged JDA umbrella. Doing so would have likely required initiating litigation over subpoena compliance, a process that may not have resolved in time to be of investigative value. So, again, translating from legalese, this is the Republicans on the Senate Intelligence Committee saying, yeah, the Trump administration lied to us about imaginary privilege, then claimed an imaginary joint defense agreement that they never produced to us, stonewalled us, refused to produce witnesses.

0:35:48 Andrew: We could have gone after them, but they would have just stiffed us, and it would have made us go to court, and that would have taken years, and we wouldn't have been able to produce this report before the 2020 election. That's their defense.

0:36:01 Thomas: Yeah, I'm sitting here thinking, like, how did this even get published? Like, could they have not... I mean, Republicans control this, so...

0:36:08 Andrew: They do. They they do. And again, it's because Donald Trump will not be president forever.

0:36:15 Thomas: Oh, is that what it is, or is it just that they think, like their top-line defense will be compelling enough that they can...

0:36:17 Andrew: I don't I mean, look, if you're Marco Rubio and you the demented belief that you will be president of the United States someday, you are trying to walk that tightrope between not losing. The Republican Party now by failing to be Trump's lapdog but also recognizing Donald Trump is probably not going to be remembered in history as anything other than a criminal and um so yeah so so this is Rubio talking out of both sides of his mouth uh they have released the report and and look again it's hard to steel man these guys um but but you may recall that I picked Richard Burr as you know the the gatekeeper to Yodel Mountain right like I I I think there is a level like look it's hard to defend the way in which they have got on board and lined up behind Donald Trump I do think that there is some level at which like they might feel a twinge not nearly enough but they might feels a twidge of guilt of yeah maybe it's a bad thing that uh we let Vladimir Putin sabotaged our 2016 elections

0:36:31 Thomas: Yeah.

0:37:26 Thomas: Nah. They already would be past that. All that matters is when he loses. That's all that matters. And maybe and maybe if polling looks bad enough, maybe they'll try to jump ship a little bit before to try to try to look like they had some integrity. Oh, you know, it's November 1st. And I think maybe I don't like this, Donald Trump. You know, like, OK, you took you till now that that's all that matters, they only care about whether or not he can win for them or his voters will come out. That's all they care about.

0:37:30 Andrew: Yeah yep yeah we'll see yep yep yep I I Certainly wouldn't want to argue too strenuously with that. I'm trying to do my best to steal me on the other side. Um, oh, one more thing, the witnesses that Donald Trump did allow to cooperate with the Senate Intelligence investigation all took the fifth. So so the Intelligence Committee report notes the committee attempted to interview Rick Gates, Mike Flynn, George Papadopoulos, re-engaged Paul Manafort and Sam Patten, all five individuals asserted their fifth amendment privilege against self-incrimination in response to subpoenas and or voluntary requests for interviews. The committee held a business meeting to consider granting immunity to those guys, right, which that's a new fact.

But the vote failed and the committee did not consider granting immunity again. No details on that, but I have a pretty good idea how that vote failed. So there you go. The Republican Senate Intelligence Committee report confirms that Russia actively engaged in efforts that were known by the Trump administration and assisted by the the Trump administration in undermining the 2020 election. And in attempting to figure out just how bad it was, the Trump Administration asserted bogus claims of privilege, refused to produce witnesses, and the witnesses they did produce took the fifth and provided no useful information.

0:37:58 Thomas: Hmm.

0:38:37 Thomas: So innocent so

0:39:18 Andrew: That's their that's Their Defense. So there you go.

0:39:19 Thomas: He's totally totally innocent yeah uh Opening Arguments is brought to you by forhims.com. forhims.com is all about men's wellness. Do you need help with hair loss, ED, or do you have a cold? Are you interested in mental health or COVID-19 home tests? Hims is here for you. Let's face it, going to the doctor for some of these issues can be an annoyance. It can be embarrassing. I hate when you have to tell three different people why you're there, the exact same thing, you know, and if it's something that you're a little sensitive about, then you got to do that three different times with three different people for some reason. But not with hymns. And so if you're one of the 66% of men who start to lose their hair by age 35, you might want to check out forhims.com. Because maybe your dad had to settle for hair loss, but thanks to Hims, you don't have to.

0:40:10 Thomas: It's it's time to prevent more hair loss, and there's no better time to do that than while you still have some. Thanks to science, hair loss can be optional. Hims connects you to FDA-approved products to treat hair loss, and they have thousands of happy customers loving their results. Hims will connect you to licensed medical professionals online to answer your questions for free and to see if FDA approved products to treat hair loss are right for you. If approved, products will be shipped directly to your door in discreet packaging. If look, anyone can make claims about treating hair loss, but if you're not happy after 90 days, just email Hims for a full refund. So today, Hims is giving you their best offer yet. If you are not happy with your results after 90 days, Hims will give you a full refund.

0:40:57 Thomas: And right now, our listeners can get their first visit absolutely free. Go to forhims.com/OA. That's F-O-R-H-I-M-S dot com slash OA. Full refund of price paid available for first 90-day supply. Refund requests must be made between 90 and 180 days after product shipment delivered. Prescription products require an online consultation with a medical professional who will determine if a prescription is appropriate. Restrictions apply. Apply. See website for full details and important safety information.

0:41:31 Clip: The law breaking down

0:41:38 Thomas: There's a lot more in that report um maybe maybe for a later date, but we need to talk about the breaking news.

0:41:41 Andrew: Could could we talk about Julian Assange? Could you talk about that on SIO? Yeah, it's.

0:41:45 Thomas: Yeah, yeah, yeah. Breaking news on Steve Bannon indicted. Who would have thought? Couldn't happen to a nicer guy. What happened? I know it's, you've had all of five seconds to digest this. What's going on here?

0:41:52 Andrew: Yeah. I'm going to explain exactly what happened, which is in the extreme. I will tell you, other than the general environment of of grift and graft. Right. But both senses of of those words that was created by Donald Trump's draining the swamp and in particular taking advantage of the stupidest segment of Trump donors. This has nothing to do with the president of the United States, other than, again, the president United States hires criminals right to to run his campaign. So, yeah. So Steve Bannon was indicted, along with three other individuals today for on one count of wire fraud and one count. Of conspiracy to commit wire fraud, which we're going to get into that. Those individuals are Brian Kolfage, who is a triple amputee and big time Trump supporter. Andrew Badolato, somebody that we know nothing about. And when I first saw this, I cannot tell you uh another criminal named Timothy Shea, not the Tim Shea who was at the Department of Justice who signed off on uh the 48A motion to dismiss Michael Flynn, but a different Tim Shea uh

0:42:30 Thomas: Well, he chooses the best people. Yeah.

0:43:21 Thomas: Wow.

0:43:21 Andrew: Tracking that down was fun this morning um this is I I want to be super clear about this at the top uh this is a federal indictment coming out of the United States District Court for the the Southern District of New York and the grand jury impaneled in that court and the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York. And you might say, wait, isn't that the Department of Justice? Don't they report to Attorney General Bill Barr? The answer to that is yes. So these are federal crimes. They are crimes for which the president may eventually pardon Steve Bannon. But yeah, who knows? Right. Because the very first question I asked and I asked a lot of people, this was how the hell did this get past Bill Barr?

0:44:02 Thomas: Really? I don't know.

0:44:12 Thomas: Yeah?

0:44:12 Andrew: Right? I mean, we just talked about in the last segment how Bill Barr managed to make criminal referrals of Donald Trump Jr. and that gang, which included Steve Bannon, go away.

0:44:22 Thomas: I mean, let's not this. Let's not let this be unsaid. Bill Barr is effectively just letting crime be okay for a bunch of people, right. I mean, this

0:44:30 Andrew: Yes, yes, Yes. And again, if you want to to steal me on the other side, prosecutorial discretion is is part of the job. Uh, I don't think anybody could fairly say that Bill Barr is doing that, uh, in line with typical standards, which, by the way, are set forth in considerable detail in the DOJ manual. Right? Like, you you are directed not to prosecute a case when, right, prosecution would take tremendous resources and you don't to have a good shot of winning. And it is clear that what Bill Barr is doing is putting his thumb on the scale of justice in favor of Donald Trump's friends and family members. So why not here? The best answer I got was from our good buddy Randall Eliason, who says two possibilities.

0:45:21 Andrew: One is that the Southern District just brought the case without notifying the main Department. He says, that's probably unlikely, but I would add that of the things that would tend to corroborate that is that the press release surrounding the indictment makes it clear that the arrests, the unsealing of the indictments, and the investigation were all conducted without notifying the FBI. In fact, the press release thanks the New York field office of the United States Postal Inspection Service. Right. Because, again, this is wire fraud, right? So it technically, which is using the mails, so you can technically use the Postal Inspection Service to facilitate the arrest.

0:46:10 Andrew: And that gives rise to an inference that maybe this was not signed off on at the DOJ.

0:46:18 Thomas: Is so great, so the post office is going to become like the heroes of law and order that we needed. Like, there's it's perfect.

0:46:20 Andrew: Yeah. Is that not amazing? It is

0:46:28 Thomas: Back The blue.

0:46:28 Andrew: Truly delightful. Yep.

0:46:31 Thomas: Everybody, here's

0:46:32 Andrew: Yep. SD, SD, back to blue, the post office. Yeah. SDNY going rogue. I'm to quote from Professor Eliason again. Second is that even Barr is only willing to go so far. He tried to put his own guy in place. And that and that you may remember when Donald Trump first announced that he was firing Jeffrey Berman, the U.S. attorney for the Southern District of New York. By the way, hey, Republican, right? But the speculation was at the time Berman had conducted, had opened several investigations into Rudy Giuliani and his associates. And so this was clearly viewed as retaliation. And Berman said, nope, you can't fire me because Trump had said, I'm going to fire him and I'm gonna replace him with Jay Clayton, the head of the SEC, and somebody who is not qualified to run the Southern District of New York.

0:47:27 Andrew: And someone whom we can infer is a Trump toady. Then Bill Barr actually had to walk that back and said, OK, if you resign, we'll allow the next senior person, who is Audrey Strauss, to become acting U.S. attorney for the Southern District of new York until we can confirm somebody through the Senate. That's what happened. And then Berman said, OK, I agree. I have talked to several prosecutors in the Department of Justice who obviously need to remain anonymous.

And they they've all told me the same story, which is tremendously good things about Audrey Strauss. So said, hey, I'll let you push me out, but only if you let Strauss take over. And ultimately they did, I guess, hoping that that might take some of the wind out of the sails of some of this stuff that Berman was doing. Doing. And, um, and so it may be that, uh, that having failed to do that, um, that Bill Barr was kind of unwilling to, you know, try and take a third bite at the apple. Um, Professor Elison goes on to say, "It's a far different and more difficult thing to kill a prosecution being recommended by an independent career U.S. attorney. Word would get out, and the consequences would probably be worse for Trump than the indictment." So there you go. That's the that's the the inside political potential machinations. Now, what did Steve Bannon do? This is delightful.

0:49:00 Andrew: Four amigos here, Kolfage, Bannon, Andrew Badalato and Tim Shea got together to start a crowdfunding campaign, right? And that was called We Build the Wall. And the initial representation on the crowdfunding website, and again, I just haven't looked to see which one it is, and the indictment doesn't specify, so I'm going to continue to use the language of the indictments, because I don't know if this was a GoFundMe or one of The others.

0:49:28 Thomas: I think it was but yeah.

0:49:29 Andrew: I think it was, but I don't want to libel GoFundMe. So I'll continue to say crowdfunding. So they started this. We build the wall. And they said, what we're going to do with We Build the Wall is we are going to donate that money to the U.S. government for building the wall, right, so that they don't have to raise your taxes. And that started on or around December 17th of 2018, and it said 100% of your donations will be given to the government for the construction of a wall, and that if the campaign could not attain its goal, it would refund every single penny. Yes,

0:49:29 Thomas: Yeah, yeah. So Are you telling me these right-wingers just invented taxes? Cool.

0:50:12 Andrew: Within a week

0:50:13 Thomas: Hey, we will we will provide the service of giving your money to the government for you, but it's a private enterprise, not not taxes.

0:50:16 Andrew: Week, Yeah, right. Yeah, yeah. It's uh, Robert Nozick would be proud. So, from idiot, how many idiots do you think in a week, yeah,

0:50:24 Thomas: But yeah, Oh, My God, I already have seen the screenshots. So too many, you would hope this would raise twenty-seven dollars and 30 cents, but I'm pretty sure it raised millions.

0:50:33 Andrew: Uh-huh. Yeah, yeah, I you would when we, when I compared the amount of money. Yeah. The they raised within a week, they raised 17 million dollars, right? And when I compare that that to our Patreon, um, you guys, right, we clearly are in the wrong business. We need to start we build the wall. Yeah.

0:50:42 Thomas: Yeah. Yeah. Look, we all know this is not what GoFundMe is for. GoFundMe is for providing for providing medical care to people who don't have health insurance. But maybe if they, put you together a smart enough media campaign, they can maybe get some donations to get health care. That's how it should work. Sorry, that was satire. That's we, live in a dystopia, I'm just, God,

0:51:11 Andrew: I we we, we do no. But yeah, so they raised more than 20 million bucks. And then GoFundMe, or the crowdfunding website, I should say, said, "We don't think you can actually give this money to the federal government, so we're going to refund everybody's money unless you do something that we can actually do." So brought in Steve, Steve Bannon.

0:51:39 Andrew: So the first one, I should say, was just Kolfagee, right? And Colfag and Shea started the first We Build the Wall that said, we're going to raise a billion dollars. We're going to give it to the government. They're goingto build the wall. Then GoFundMe or the crowdfunding website said, that's not a thing you can do on our website. So unless you can find a non-profit that you can give the money to, we're going to reverse everybody's charges. These grifters did not want everybody's churches being reversed. So they brought in

0:51:39 Thomas: Oh, right. Yeah, okay, yeah.

0:52:13 Thomas: They also wanted to profit, but yeah, huh.

0:52:15 Andrew: We're gonna get there. So, they brought in Steve Bannon and Steve Bannon, within days of becoming involved, created a new 501(c)(4), and again, footnote to that, as we we have discussed on the show the difference between a 501 c3 and a 501 c4 is that a 501 c4 can engage in political lobbying. Why you would need to make this a C4, uh, is not stated even in the indictment. Right? It, I assume it is to facilitate also spending the money on ads for Donald Trump, right? But, uh, but I don't know, because, um, the indictement doesn't say, but it's weird. Right. Like, if, if you were going to make a either a real or a fake charity to build the wall, you would make it a C3, not a C4.

0:53:06 Thomas: Yep.

0:53:06 Andrew: Anyway, so they made a new C4 called We Build the Wall, Inc., which would continue fundraising activities, quote, with the modified purpose of funding the private construction of a wall along the southern border of the United States. End of quote. So then the Gang of Four went back to their crowdfunding website and said, OK, we're going to rewrite that. We're no longer going to promise that the funds we made are going to be given to the government. The funds we raise are going going to be used to hire private contractors to actually build the wall. By the way, the crowdfunding website said, OK, that's totally fine. You can do that. In the course of converting their first website into the second website, one constraint that the crowd funding website put on them was that the donors would have to opt in.

0:54:06 Andrew: Right. So in other words, everybody who gave money the first time, you'd have to send them an email and they would have to say, yeah, yeah. It's OK to use that to actually build the wall instead of give to the government to build the law. So they did all that. So basically, like not only did they raise over 20 million dollars the first But they basically raised it twice. Right. And as part of doing so, they repeatedly represented that Colfage would take no salary or compensation, that 100 percent of the money would be used to build the wall. Then the indictment very dryly notes, contrary to the representations, both to donors and to the website, the gang of four worked together to misappropriate hundreds of thousands of dollars from those funds for their personal benefit.

0:54:55 Andrew: And and in fact, that is what happened, that that this was a giant operation that despite promising not to take a penny in salary Uh, that Colfage drew a $20,000 a month salary that in addition to all of the money that was put out, and this is paragraph 23, uh, is, is really, uh. Culmination of of the graft Colfage, the defendant received more than three hundred and fifty thousand dollars in donor funds from We Build the Wall, all passed indirectly at the direction and with the assistance of Steve Bannon, Andrew Badalato and Tim Shea, the defendants through various shell companies.

0:55:41 Andrew: Right. That were created by Steve Bannon, one of which is an outfit that non-profit, one shell company that is referred to repeatedly in the indictment is an outfit called Citizens of the American Republic.org, which is a Steve Bannon outfit, to quote, "advance the ideals of economic nationalism and American sovereignty through a combination of ideas, communication and action." Um, so yeah, he like, when Steve Bannon creates ficticious shell entities to launder money, they're white nationalist fictitious shell entities to laundering. Like, it, it is hard to imagine, right?

0:56:22 Thomas: He could have just done one that was like Walls Ink., Ink. Siding right.

0:56:24 Andrew: Yeah, it's like Michael Cohen's Essential Consultants, LLC, like

0:56:31 Thomas: Things standing at right angles, uh, LLC. So

0:56:32 Andrew: Yeah, no, no, no, he's got to create yeah, that Citizens of the American Republic received over a million dollars from We Build the Wall. And, um, like any good money launderer, right, some of it was used to pay Colfage, right, his $350,000, and, and, and stuff. Um, and when I say stuff, I mean, and again, here I'll quote: home renovations, payments toward a boat, a luxury SUV, a golf cart, jewelry, cosmetic surgery, personal tax payments and credit card debt. And when you say

0:57:07 Thomas: It's the kind of thing where they essentially just set up shell companies, and they say, well, we're contrast, so this this main 501(c)(4) is totally legit. Like, they're just 100% wall building white nationalist enterprises. It's just totally what we charge people for. We charge people to, you know, be racist and build a wall that's stupid and does nothing is just a monument to racism. So that's totally legit, but, you know, we're using the following contractors to help us along that goal. And then those contracted companies are the ones where this is just basic fraud, right? I mean, those are the companies where the people are also double dealing and, and are, uh, taking salaries from those companies and trying to make it look like it's just normal companies they're contracting with, yeah.

0:57:08 Andrew: Yeah, yeah, that's exactly right, and the way that you figure out who those companies are, right, like, the the the indictment will list those as, you know, nonprofit one, and, you know, individual one, who happened to be elected president, right? Like, we've seen all that before, but, but the way in which you can figure it out is you, you go down to the bottom, right? Read, read a complaint backwards, and indictment is the same way. And you read the forfeiture allegations, right, because one of the things you want to do in a criminal indictment is to say, oh, well, we want to get all the money back that you stole. Right. And so that's asset forfeitor. And they have to specify what it is that they want to get back, right? So it will say, right, there's this account with this account number in the name of We Build the Wall, Inc.

0:58:39 Andrew: And then you start reading down and it says, this Wells Fargo bank account held in the names of citizens of the American Republic. This one in the named of Ranch Property Marketing and Management. How about Freedom Daily LLC? First Medical LLC? America First Medical LLC. My favorite, White Knights and Vultures LLC.

0:59:02 Andrew: So yeah, so those are all the shell companies that got distributions. And then this is where you also see the details on the goodies that were laundered out to Colfage, which include a 2018 Land Rover Range Rover, uh and remember that boat, that is a 2019 Jupiter Marine boat named Warfighter. So, uh, they didn't build a wall, but they did buy that dude a boat. So I mentioned all of these are allegations, they are, uh, not yet proven in a court of law. We could include the the word alleged in front of all of these. Criminals, um, that this has been referred out by a grand jury. The indictment was under, was under seal, and until unsealed this morning, when all four were arrested.

0:59:53 Andrew: And for the cap on all of this, I have another 20 minutes on this, but I'm only going to give you 20 seconds. Steve Bannon was arrested at sea. He was he was on a boat. He was on a boat owned by a Chinese billionaire named Guo Wengui, and I apologize for almost certainly mangling that name, who, in July of 2020, with the assistance of Steve Bannon, declared a brand new sovereign nation called the New Federal State of China, whose sole goal it is to overthrow the Chinese government, government uh, as the fake Chinese government in exile. From Guo's boat. Guo Wengui, by the way, is a member of Mar-a-Lago, of

1:00:04 Thomas: Uh, yeah, I saw that huh course.

1:00:47 Andrew: Course. Uh, and this was not, we say boat, right, this was, you know, like, like I'm on a boat, right, like this is a 35 million dollar Yacht, yeah, um, And Bannon apparently had just been at sea for a couple of weeks on this yacht that is a sovereign nation, uh, quote unquote, the New Federal State of China.

1:00:47 Thomas: Yeah, a giant yacht, yeah. Tell you what, though, not gonna protect you when those postal workers come to, come to arrest you, the only functioning law enforcement in this country. I just

1:01:15 Andrew: What? You gonna do that's Oh my God, I want, I want

1:01:22 Thomas: Picture one of them, like, ropes in and, like, shoots, like, letters, like, you know, like, that's their, their weapon of choice, and the, they put them in a big, mail bag, you know, this is the comic, the action kind of comic book we need right now is the the boys in blue.

1:01:22 Andrew: Yeah, I a giant, a giant sorter, yeah. Yeah. Yeah, I I love that more than everything. So thanks, as always, to intrepid firm associate Morgan Stringer, who uncovered all of the Guo Wengui connections, which are amazing and really right in her area of expertise of the law. So it's it's absolutely bonkers. I love it.

1:01:49 Thomas: How bad is this going to be for Steve Bannon? So,

1:02:05 Andrew: It's super duper bad. Um, so wire fraud is 18 USC Section 1343, and it says, whoever, having devised or intending to devise any scheme or artifice to defraud or for obtaining money or property by means of false or fraudulent pretenses, who then causes that to be transmitted by means of wire, radio, or television communication in interstate or foreign commerce, and yes, that includes email, uh, shall be fined under this title or in prison, not more than 20 years, or both. So yeah, really, really serious felony, the kind for which people go to prison for a real long time over. And if the allegations are true, and sure look like it, Steve Bannon is potentially in a heap of trouble.

1:02:50 Andrew: Again, can Donald Trump pardon Steve Bannan? He can, right? And again, we, you know, don't elect a criminal president of the United States if you don't want this to happen, um, but, but I will point out that that Trump is stuck here, they are entirely federal charges, um, it is possible, uh, that you may get some parallel state charges, but, why, you're fraught, right, because of the whole interstate commerce thing, um, is sort of by definition, uh, a federal charge. But I don't know that Donald Trump, right, like Donald Trump.

1:03:02 Thomas: These are entirely federal charges, okay?

1:03:13 Thomas: Yeah yeah I don't know that he necessarily will pardon him maybe on the way out, I don't know, yeah

1:03:24 Andrew: Yeah, it may be in the lame duck is, is that, that's taking over the role of Negatron. Randall Eliason says, oh, you know, don't, don't underestimate the lame ducks. Session. And I was like, thanks, Negatron. Um, but, uh, you know, Trump did the legwork, right? He never wavered on Flynn and Stone, right, said, oh, these are, you know, great Americans who are being railroaded by the Illuminati, subject to the reverse vampires and the lizard people. Um, Trump has already thrown, uh, Steve Bannon under the bus, right? Like, he, he gave an interview in which he, he said, well, he was basically, you know, like the, the coffee boy.

1:04:06 Andrew: And somebody said, like, wasn't he your campaign chair?

1:04:06 Thomas: Yeah he literally was in charge for a minute, boy.

1:04:11 Andrew: Yeah. Yeah. Trump was like, oh, yeah. But, you Know, what's what's a campaign chair like? He mostly brought me coffee. Yeah.

1:04:16 Thomas: I' tell you that campaign had a lot of coffee, like, there was always coffee available for everybody, based on Trump's later telling, how many people he's had to say, yeah, he's a coffee boy. A lot of coffee, suspiciously high number of coffee boys were in that campaign. Yeah.

1:04:33 Andrew: So we'll see. But look, let's go back to that Senate Intelligence Committee report. Steve Bannon has mentioned two hundred and ninety times in that report. Right. Steve Bannon was part of the overall scheme. And so, you know, is there potential leverage? I don't know. We're going to have to see how this unfolded. There is absolutely no connection between Steve Bannons grift here and the Trump campaign other than who support Donald Trump are stupid.

1:05:02 Thomas: Other than that's the kind of people that

1:05:04 Andrew: Stupid. Yeah, exactly. Is there that the potential for this to interact with the other criminal stuff Steve Bannon did for Donald Trump? You know, only time will tell.

1:05:04 Thomas: He attracts yeah, all right, well, uh, you know, a happy note for once, I just, I just picture those post office police, they, they put themselves in some packages, you know, some boxes, and just by your door and just wait, you know, I think is another way they could get you, you know, ah, you've been served. I don't know, whatever, we'll work on it, we'll work on the comic book. But that is a heartwarming tale. Again, couldn't have happened to a nicer guy. And

1:05:18 Andrew: Yeah.

1:05:38 Clip: And thank you, Let's go!

1:05:39 Thomas: And now it's time to thank our new patrons at patreon.com/law. Enjoying the Law'd Awful Movies, all kinds of perks every month. We make it worth your while. And Andrew, why don't you start us off?

1:05:51 Andrew: And thank you to John Alexander, Tiago Guimarães, John Morrow, primary Chris Coons, vote Jessica Scarane, jessfordelaware.com, yeah, uh, Chris Coons, one of the most needlessly conservative Democrats, so, uh, I'm 100 behind uh, primary him again, not, not overall, right, overall reasonable record, but, uh, doesn't have to be as far right as he is, and, um, I love that this is, this is exactly what we're talking about. Sean Moore, or Joseph Piccione, listen to Famous Court Decisions on patreon.com/CaseBookAudio. I don't know that one, but we'll check it out. Support Larry E Klayman (The Legal Beagle) for US Supreme Court Fund. Now, I am wondering if somebody managed to read about the Steve Bannon indictment and is just trying to get in on the action under the wire.

1:06:08 Thomas: Ooh. Yeah.

1:06:43 Andrew: I feel like we could make millions with the Support Larry E Klayman (The Legal Beagle) for US Supreme Court Fund. Watching With Concern From North Of The Border, yeah, Lord Humongous the ayotolla of rock and rolla, and Alaina, take it away, Thomas.

1:06:58 Thomas: All Ateo. 404 name not found. Optimus Sawyer is Andrew's Rush cover band. The Spirit of Clownhorn is Thomas's. Lyrics by Brian at Goodnessfirst.com. Uh, man, I would love to try to, you know, be a part of a Rush cover band, but I don't, I'm a musician, I don't that I'm good enough to play any instrument within that band. Rush is a very technically amazing band, so that would be fun, though, but uh, Tom Sawyer, great song.

1:07:21 Andrew: I I love that we can, yeah, that we can converge on, uh, an appreciation for the music of Rush. I mean, not yeah

1:07:30 Thomas: I mean the worst thing about Rush is the lyrics, they're God awful. I hate them. They're so bad and cringy. Uh, if you read them, yeah, they're, they're awful.

1:07:33 Andrew: Yeah well they're Ayn Rand inspired, so yeah, we, we even agree on that, too.

1:07:39 Thomas: Yeah. So I, if, if somehow the cover band could have a cover lyricist, then I guess maybe you or I could take that on, but anything else within the band is so technically difficult. Hey, I could probably, I can probably get the guitar going if I practice, you know, and then what are you going to do? Triangle or you, you could take one. Please.

1:07:39 Andrew: Yeah, yeah, yeah ouch

1:08:00 Thomas: I mean, mean, it's a difficult uh, it's difficult, man.

1:07:57 Andrew: Oh, yeah, even Even the triangle, I think, would be a challenge, yeah.

1:08:05 Thomas: You can take, like, one of Neil Pert's 75 piece, you know, percussion kit that he used, and you just take one of it, and then, like, you hit that when it comes up, I think maybe that would work. What do you think?

1:08:06 Andrew: In in Fairness, I would probably screw up just the triangle part, like, I like, neil Neil Peart's kid is amazing. Yeah. Yeah.

1:08:20 Thomas: Uh, good times, all right, Cam(istry), Louis Saldana, uh, motion to put the witness in a hogan chokehold your honor.

1:08:34 Thomas: Atlas shrugged, saw what's happening, shook his head and voted blue. I listen to rush every day for the rest of my life to not have to listen to Ted Cruz. Again, another Rush name, but we like Rush. Rush is fun to listen to. Supporting PIAT's legal fees. Yeah. And Lynn nguyen. I know that a lot of people pronounce that name differently. I had, I, several friends in college with the last name Nguen and I, it felt like they all pronounced it differently. So I did my best. One of those pronunciations.

1:09:03 Andrew: Thesaurus.

1:09:05 Thomas: All right.

1:09:06 Clip: Oh, no associate of this firm has ever failed the bar exam. No kidding.

1:09:12 Thomas: And now it's time to do a little T3BE. The return. Finally.

1:09:18 Andrew: Can't wait. And this you almost got this one last week, which would have just been truly appropriate. But, you know, better late than never. Thomas, a state law that restricted abortion was challenged in state court as a violation of the due process clause of the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and as a violation of a similar due process provision of the state constitution.

1:09:25 Thomas: Oh, geez.

1:09:41 Thomas: Is this going to be our one weird state trick? Okay, let's see. It

1:09:45 Andrew: The case made its way to the state's highest court, which ruled that the law violated the due due process provisions of both the U.S. and the state constitutions.

1:09:55 Thomas: Kind of sounds like it.

1:09:56 Andrew: If petitioned to do so, may the U S Supreme court exercise jurisdiction to review the state court decision. So a no, because the state courts decision in this case rests on adequate and independent state law grounds. B no, because the US Supreme court has appellate jurisdiction only over state court decisions that determine the constitutionality of federal laws. C, yes, because the U.S. Supreme Court has appellate jurisdiction over any ruling of a state's highest court based on an interpretation of federal law. Or D, yes because the US Supreme Court has a pellet jurisdiction over decisions that find state laws in violation of the federal constitution.

1:10:00 Thomas: Oh, My This sounds

1:10:37 Andrew: All

1:10:37 Thomas: Like our one weird trick where like when you're using the, you know, the state uh constitution, then like, it I remember you explaining that was somehow immune from the, the Supreme Court reviewing it. But I'm also worried because I, yeah, every single answer seems plausible to me. Okay, state law challenged, so they, they challenged it on 14th Amendment, uh, uh, and similar due process provision of the state constitution. So the state, the case goes to the highest court, the state's highest court, which rules that the law violated due process provisions of both the U.S. and state constitution. So you would think that would be case closed. I, you know, like I don't, I don't know if there' some kind of weird thing where like somehow the Supreme Court can review just the, the constitution part of it, you kno, like, like, I don't know.

1:11:25 Thomas: I hope this is the one weird trick where they can't. So I'm leaning toward a no answer. Okay, here we go. Let's try this. So A, so it's made the Supreme Court exercise jurisdiction to review the state court decision. A, no, because the state courts decision in this case rests on adequate and independent state law grounds. Certainly a plausible answer. Sir. B, no, because the U.S. Supreme Court has appellate jurisdiction only over state court decisions that determine the constitutionality of federal laws. State court decisions that determine the constitutionality of federal law. You know, now that I read that, that seems like nonsense to me. I think I read it wrong the first time. Am I nuts? Why would you ever have a state court say this federal law is unconstitutional?

1:12:11 Thomas: I think B might be nonsense or I'm having an aneurysm, one or the other or both. So I'm going to, okay. At the very least, I'm gonna eliminate B. B C yes, because the U S Supreme court has appellate jurisdiction over any ruling of a state's highest court based on an interpretation of federal law. That's possible, you know? Cause like it's, it's in there with it. Like the case also was based on the 14th amendment, et cetera, et cetera. So that, that seems plausible. Seems Okay, finally, D, yes, because the U.S. Supreme Court has appellate jurisdiction over decisions that find state laws in violation of the federal constitution. That sounds kind of the same. I guess in looking between C and D, C is more broad. You know, it's saying it has jurisdiction over any ruling of a state's highest court based on an interpretation of federal law.

1:13:01 Thomas: Law, maybe. You know, maybe if I were a smarter lawyer I would know that there's some sort of exception, you know, that would make, because that C is a very broad language, maybe there's some exception that would makes C not true, whereas D is essentially, effectively, in this case, I think, saying the same thing but let, more specific. So D is saying it has appellate jurisdiction over decisions that find state laws in violation of the federal constitution, constitution. That certainly makes sense to me.

That sounds like, you know, cases that this Supreme Court hears all the time. So D seems fine. But again, is it the one weird trick? Is it the fact that it's both the U.S. and state constitution? Or did the one word trick depend on only challenging based on the state constitution? That's what, that's what I don't know. So Like if whoever filed this case says, no, we don't even care about the 14th Amendment, we are just trying to argue that this is a violation of the state constitution, I think that's the one weird trick. And God, this is impossible. I think that the problem, problem here is that since it violated both, think the Supreme Court can review that part of it, you would think. If that's the case, I'm looking at, so I think A is a plausible answer. And then I guess if I'm looking for a plausible yes answer, it'd be between C and D. And since C was really broad, but D seems like the most straightforward and kind of narrow, yes, yes answer. So I think I'm between A and D.

1:14:33 Thomas: This is a tough one. I think this is our one weird trick, but they did it wrong because they shouldn't have bothered with the 14th Amendment, possibly, I think. So, I'm going to say D, yes, because of the reasons it says. Because it found the state law in violation of the federal constitution, the Supreme Court has the right to exercise jurisdiction to review that case. D, final answer. It's between A A and D for me. There you go.

1:15:01 Andrew: Right. And if you'd like to join Thomas in trying to figure out the constitutionality of the state law, you know how to do that. Just share out this episode on social media, include the hashtag T3BE, include your answer, your reasons therefore. We will pick a winner and shower that person with never-ending fame and fortune. Fame and fortunate not guaranteed.

1:15:20 Thomas: Thanks so much for listening. And it's not a good day to be Steve Bannon, even though it never was. You know what? What a rare episode, Andrew. I'm happy. I feel good for once that, you know, the bad guy was apprehended by the post office. I could just, I can't get over it.

1:15:33 Andrew: Bye-bye. Bye, the post office.

1:15:38 Thomas: Thanks so much for listening. We'll see you on Tuesday, by the way, for a post office deep dive that we all need to hear. So we'll see ya then.

1:15:43 Andrew: Yep.

1:15:45 Clip: He's not even a lawyer and he's kicking your ass.

1:16:18 Clip: This podcast is a production of Opening Arguments Media, LLC. All rights reserved. It is produced with the assistance of transcriptionist Heather Loveridge, production assistant Ashley Smith, and additional contributions from Morgan Stringer and Deborah Smith. Special thanks to Teresa Gomez, who runs our live shows and heads up the OA Wiki. Follow at OA Wiki on Twitter. Additional thanks to the moderators of the Opening Argiments Facebook community, Emily Waters, Alicia Cook, Eric Brewer, Natalie Newell, Brian Ziegenhagen, and Teresa. And finally, thanks to Thomas Smith, who edits the show and created the fabulous theme music, which was used with permission.