OA452: Another "Expert" Witness Unmasked; Bernie's Filibuster Explained

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 452. I'm Thomas. That's Andrew. How you doing, Mr. Fantastic? I knew it.

0:01:25 Andrew: I am doing fantastic, Thomas. How

0:01:28 Thomas: I called it.

0:01:28 Andrew: Are you? Happy, happy new year, Thomas!

0:01:31 Thomas: What is New Year? Because tomorrow is December 32nd, and then it's December 33rd after that, and I be done with it. No, it's going to nice to be with 2020, that's for sure. Don't believe in anything, but just Mentally, it feels nice. To kind of turn the page on this whole whole crapshoot of year. I'm seeing memories from a year ago, you know, and you're just like, wow, the things that I thought I was going to be doing. I'm sure that'll continue right until March.

0:01:56 Andrew: I the things we were doing, right?

0:01:58 Thomas: Yeah. Live shows, all that stuff. So yeah, it's, it's a new year's Eve for us right now. And, uh, stay the F at home, everybody. It's not worth just self everybody stay home.

0:01:58 Andrew: Yeah, no, The, the there was that's Yeah.

0:02:09 Thomas: There's not with it.

0:02:09 Andrew: Well and as an incentive for people to, you know, stay home, party as much as you want, but, you know, stay home. Uh, we're, we're gonna do another live Q&A. This one's gonna be Saturday the 2nd, so, you know, you'll have had a chance to sleep off the hangover, um, unless you get one of those, like, uh, over 40, two-day hangovers.

0:02:29 Thomas: Hmm.

0:02:29 Andrew: Uh, I don't, I don't recommend that. Um, those

0:02:32 Thomas: Did you say 42 day hangovers? I don't think I've ever. Oh, okay.

0:02:33 Andrew: Oh, No. No, no, no, no, over 40, two-day hangovers.

0:02:39 Thomas: I thought it was like under 42 days.

0:02:39 Andrew: Right. Like, oh, no.

0:02:42 Thomas: That's fine. What kind of drinking are are you doing? I, yeah.

0:02:44 Andrew: I, I used to, you know, I used to be able to, you now, tie one on, and then, like, you know, you'd have six to 24 hours of misery, but, like, the second day you were fine, right? And, and yeah, once, once,

0:02:59 Thomas: See, I know this is the over 28, uh, four, two day, two day hangover. So I got those early is all I'm saying. Yeah.

0:03:00 Andrew: Oh, Good. Excellent. Yeah, good I, Yeah.

0:03:08 Thomas: That, that's, that didn't have to wait till 40.

0:03:08 Andrew: Wow, and But any of that, don't have a two-day hangover, have a one-day hangover, and come, uh, participate in the live Q&A, which is going to be 7 p.m. Eastern, for Pacific, Saturday, January 2nd. Anybody can come and show up, and, uh, if you're a patron at any level, you still have the opportunity to go, uh, pop into the thread and, uh, suggest a question, upload the questions you want us to answer, you know, all that good stuff.

0:03:10 Thomas: Yeah, mm-hmm.

0:03:37 Thomas: So much fun. I can't wait. I'm dying for the next Q and A. It's always always so good. Uh, so yeah, Saturday, like you said, 4 PM Pacific, 7 PM Eastern be there, be square. And Andrew, uh, you, this is, I can't believe you're doing this, but you're doing another podcast more than one podcast. This is unheard of.

0:03:56 Andrew: I, yeah, I am, I'm starting a new show with our friend AG from Muller. She wrote The Daily Beans. It's going to be called Clean Up on Aisle 45. And the most important thing I want to say, a couple of people have asked, like, does that mean OA is ending or scaling? Hell no. OA, I love the show more than any other thing I do professionally. And not only is it not ending, but, you know, we're going to continue to roll out, like, great new stuff. One of the things that we've been doing lately, is the every single patron gets the Miss Ashley's newsletter, which is like two to seven pages long. And it's all the stories that we research with all the links that we just don't have time to cover. So, you know, if you're a total OA geek, and if you listen to this, you're a total geek, if you're patron at any level, you get, you get the Miss Ashley's. We're going to continue to do all of that.

But there are, I mean, Thomas, you, you know, you and I have chatted about this when you'll send me a note and you'll be like, "Everybody's talking about X." And I'm like, "Right, but that's a political story, it's not a legal story. You know, how do we cover it on OA?" Away. Um, and so having a show where I can talk politics with our friend AG, like, I sounded like a lot of fun to me. And, um, if it sounds like fun to you, check out, we're, uh, gonna launch on Inauguration Day, uh, January

0:04:39 Thomas: Yeah.

0:05:22 Andrew: 20th, It

0:05:22 Thomas: That's like five months away. Why would you even tell? Okay. Wake me up when we're closer to that. I can'T wait. Wait.

0:05:25 Andrew: Is I will, I will, but,

0:05:30 Thomas: It still feels like we're so far away. It'll never end. Slowest 20 days of my life. But that'll be a nice thing to look forward to. A second thing to Look Forward To on January 20th.

0:05:30 Andrew: But. Oh, yeah, there we go. Yeah. There you go. A slightly minor part, but a good part.

0:05:43 Thomas: Yeah, I'm not going to lie. It's

0:05:44 Andrew: Anyway, it should be.

0:05:44 Thomas: In second place, but that's okay. Just getting over this madness is in first place. But a close second, Andrew. Close second. Looking clean up on aisle 45, check it out, everybody.

0:05:53 Andrew: Yeah. And Yeah. And then very excited about this. Thomas, on Tuesday's episode, uh, we're gonna do kind of a classic deep dive. I've got a little bit of an iconoclastic take on this, and I think you're on the other side. I know that uh Morgan Stringer, ace associate, is on the other sid of this, so I could be wrong. Um, but uh, but if you saw the letter that went out from from counsel for Dominion, right, the voting machines, with respect to Melissa Carone, who was the drunky McDrunkerson witness who memorably,

0:06:38 Thomas: Think you mean she was the star expert witness who crushed it and brought down the whole uh plot to steal the election, right, that's

0:06:45 Andrew: It was something like that, although I think much more memorably portrayed on Saturday Night Live than in reality. Um, I, have a take on that that has not been popular on uh on our side of the aisle, but but I thought this was um thought this was kind of a bridge too far. I'm gonna tell you why I think that. We're gonna do a deep dive on like what litigation hold letters are, all sorts of the kind of stuff. So it's a transition, right, like the kind of deep dives we promise you are coming in a Biden administration, but you know still with With Trump awfulness

0:06:46 Thomas: Yeah. Yeah. Oh this is part of the transition team like this is like we're giving you briefs for the next administration of oa and this is Yeah. Awesome. Well, I can't wait. I don't know that I'm for sure on the other side. Just, you know, we'll see.

0:07:20 Andrew: Layered over. There you go. That's right. Yeah.

0:07:32 Thomas: You'll have to, well, I'll see what I make of the arguments. I don't know. Okay. Well that's plenty of announcements. We've got to get to our show. But those were all great things. So we had to say them.

0:07:32 Andrew: Yeah. Yeah.

0:07:43 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.

0:08:01 Thomas: Okay, Andrew, these, this, infuriating. I'm going to do my best not to be too mad, but the pardons that are coming coming out of Trump's office, um, for, you know, war criminals, murderers. I mean, it's absolutely awful. Why don't you, uh, give us a bit of a breakdown on that?

0:08:16 Andrew: You you should be mad. I will tell you our our buddy Legal Eagle Devin Stone put up a video that's I mean, that dude is unflappable. As as angry as I have ever seen him. He got flapped.

0:08:22 Thomas: Yeah.

0:08:31 Thomas: He got flapped a little bit flapped.

0:08:35 Andrew: You should be. So I want to focus on an actual legal issue that we're going to have to deal with because Donald Trump has paid off all of his criminal friends. And I want to explain that this is not just unprecedented in American history. It is not just corrupt. It is every level of outrage that you can muster and more are due and owing. And why don't we start kind of right off the bat, right? Manafort is 100 percent a criminal independent of Donald Trump.

0:09:20 Andrew: He went and worked lobbying for hostile foreign powers to subvert the U.S. interests in Ukraine and install a pro-Russian stooge president who had to flee the country. As part of, Roger

0:09:35 Thomas: Do you think he's like the hipster of the Trump cronies? He's like, you know, I was, I Was doing this before Trump. Like I was that's true.

0:09:41 Andrew: Stone is the hipster of the Trump

0:09:43 Thomas: And then Roger sounds like, okay, buddy, let's talk.

0:09:43 Andrew: Cronies. He just cracks his knuckles and is like, oh, are we doing this like a dance-off?

0:09:47 Thomas: Yeah. Oh, You think you've been doing criming longer than I have? Okay. Yeah.

0:09:53 Andrew: Yeah. Manafort was convicted in two separate trials. Right. He was first convicted in Virginia. He wound up pleading guilty in the D.C. case. But in the Virginia case. Right, he was convicted of eight separate felonies. Right? Five counts of filing false tax returns, two counts of bank fraud and one count of failing to disclose a foreign bank account. Why? Because of work he did in the 2000s on behalf of, again, a pro-Russian stooge who got elected president of Ukraine and then whose abdication paved the way for Russia's invasion and occupation of Crimea, right? Right. This is a small, right, like not capital, but colloquially the kind of thing that you might call a war crime.

0:10:45 Andrew: And because he was being paid off by foreign oligarchs, he stuck all that money in foreign bank accounts, didn't declare it on his taxes, defrauded the American public out of tens of millions of dollars in tax revenue. That was before he met Donald Trump. OK. And all of those crimes came to light as a result of the Mueller investigation. Things you might think if you're the party of law and order would be a good thing to have come to light to say, oh, look, this businessman has been hiding tens, perhaps hundreds of millions of dollars in assets, not paying taxes, subverting our interests abroad. Yeah, maybe we'd like to get that money back. Right. So that was the Virginia indictment arrest trial conviction.

0:11:33 Andrew: Also, Paul Manafort, through complicated procedural reasons that not worth going into here, faced charges in the District of Columbia. That was more memorable because that was one of the trials presided over by Judge Amy Berman Jackson, who was not having any of Paul Manafort's shenanigans. In that, in that case, Manafort pled guilty. He negotiated a plea deal with the U.S. government in which he would plead guilty to two charges, conspiracy to defraud the United States and witness tampering, and then he would also plead guilty to the remaining counts related to the tax fraud and everything. For which there was a hung jury in Virginia and on which he was scheduled to be retried.

0:12:22 Andrew: As a result of that plea deal, Manafort forfeited tens of millions of dollars. Right. Three separate bank accounts, a life insurance policy and a bunch of different properties. We talked about this on the show. It's one of the reasons that, contrary to what Uncle Frank says, the Mueller investigation more than paid for itself. It made money in criminal forfeitures from crooks like Paul Manafort. Manafort also was required to fully cooperate with the government as a result of his plea agreement. And spoiler alert, Manafort did not cooperate fully with the U.S. government as a result of his plea agreement. He clearly lied to the government on multiple occasions.

0:13:08 Andrew: He was less than forthcoming, particularly about anything having to do with Donald Trump, and failed to disclose. And this is where if your blood pressure is not already breaking through the top of that little bulby thing, they should. Good. Manafort was the back channel from the Trump campaign to high ranking operatives in the Russian government. That is to America's enemy. Right. Manafort was the person who we discovered and covered on the show through failure properly to redact their pleadings regarding the question of whether he had fully cooperated. The fact that Manafort met with Konstantin Kalimnik, right, that is known Russian intelligence asset, and gave him polling data, internal polling data and swing states from the Trump campaign.

The Trump campaign then went on to win by unbelievably narrow margins in Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin, areas that the Trump internal campaign polling data deviated wildly from, say, publicly available campaign data, publicly affordable polling data. Right. So I don't know what happened there. I don't know to what extent the Russians got involved. I do know that when you give that kind of information to a hostile foreign power, that's the kind of thing I would like to see you go to jail over. Paul Manafort went to jail over that until Donald Trump decided that he was going to pardon everybody who stayed quiet during the Mueller investigation while refusing to give pardons to the handful of people.

0:14:17 Thomas: Does

0:15:04 Andrew: Rick Gates comes to mind, who testified honestly and truthfully, who actually did, uh, rollover on him. Um, then I read Manafort's actual pardon and, um, and Thomas, are you sitting down?

0:15:19 Thomas: It Get Better, or does it get worse, because I already blew the Bulb Out of the cartoon, uh, blood pressure meter thing.

0:15:20 Andrew: Yeah. Well, depends on how you define that. Yep. So it says, Paul Manafort, I hereby, uh, have granted unto Paul J. Manafort Jr. a full and unconditional pardon for his conviction in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia on a superseding indictment charging him with various violations for which he was sentenced on March 7th, 2019 to 47 months imprisonment, three years supervised release, a $50,000 fine, $25,500,000 as restitution as amended by order of March 21st, 2019, and an $800 special assessment in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia on a superseding information charging him with violations of various statutes for which he was sentenced to 73 months imprisonment, 36 months supervised release running concurrently, $6 million in restitution, a $200 special assessment, and a forfeiture of $11 million.

0:16:24 Andrew: So I read that and I thought, Donald Trump trying to give the money back? Because when I read this, it sure looks like Donald Trump is trying to get the money back, right? $31 million in restitution plus $11 million in forfeiture.

0:16:39 Thomas: That something you can pardon back? How does that, I didn't know the president had the power to do that.

0:16:43 Andrew: So I didn't either. So I had to go research it. And as it turns out, I'm 90% confident that you can't give the money back. Right.

0:16:47 Thomas: Okay. All right. In 2020 terms, hold on, once the clock turns over, maybe I'll feel a little better, but for now, in 2020 terms, 90% confident from Andrew Torrez. So I'm like 30% confident, everybody.

0:16:57 Andrew: Yeah, I don't know. Yeah. Look, look, when I say I'm 95%, I'm going to explain. But I should tell you, I am less confident that Trump cannot give $42 million to Paul Manafort via pardon than I am that say the Senate is going to, you know, entertain objections to the counting of the electoral votes and secretly stall and allow Mike Pence to become president. Right. Like I'm ninety nine point nine percent confident on those.

0:17:13 Thomas: Okay. Okay.

0:17:42 Andrew: I'm only 90 percent confident on this one. Very, very strongly. But but here's the authority.

0:17:48 Thomas: If this were any other era, would this be 100%?

0:17:51 Andrew: Yeah, it would be. But but but here I

0:17:52 Thomas: Okay. Gotcha. So you're already trying to do the Trump adjusting for us. Okay.

0:17:55 Andrew: Am. I am scaling. I mean, giving the the, you know, Trump AI bonus here or whatever, um, this case, uh, that is the go-to law on the subject, it's, it is what every pardons case cites for the proposition that you can't pardon, give back the money, right? Um, and and I'm going to read the sentence and I'm going to tell you for what it's cited and you're going to say, say, "Oh, why aren't you 100?" And then I'm going to tell you why I'm not 100. So, Ex Parte Garland is a case from 1866, because of course it is, says, after describing how wide ranging the pardon power is, says there is only this limitation to its operation, that is the pardon power, it does not restore offices forfeited, or property or interests vested in others in consequence of of the conviction and judgment.

0:18:54 Andrew: Okay? So, and that's been cited a hundred times in subsequent cases. So you say, okay, closed, right? Like, that's the law. Pardon can't restore property.

0:19:01 Thomas: Yeah. Yeah. Thank you, Dr. Hibbert.

0:19:07 Andrew: That was so good. It actually, I was taken aback.

0:19:10 Thomas: You thought I just played the segment on you.

0:19:11 Andrew: I did.

0:19:12 Thomas: Played the bumper.

0:19:12 Andrew: I thought you did.

0:19:13 Thomas: Yeah. Nope.

0:19:13 Andrew: Oh, so great.

0:19:14 Thomas: Sorry, gonna have to if I want to keep tricking you, I'm going to have to get some Foley going and get the the shoe, you, the sound of him walking away. Anyway, go on. So why are we not 100 percent?

0:19:22 Andrew: We've talked about on the show the difference between a holding and dicta. Right. A holding is a legal analysis that is central to the disposition of the matter at stake in that case. Everything else is dicta, right? And again, you know, that doesn't mean no lawyer would say, oh, that's just dicta it doesn't matter. Right? Right. But it does mean that it's not a holding. It was not. And you were free to come back and say the court was opining on something that was beyond the particular case that it was adjudicating there. And in this case, the Garland, Mr. Garland—I don't think we even find out his first name—was was a lawyer in Arkansas. And then Arkansas seceded from the United States, joined the Confederacy. And this lawyer, Garland, served in the Congress of the Confederacy. Right. So very clearly aided and abetted an enemy during wartime.

0:19:49 Thomas: Yeah.

0:20:37 Andrew: That's treason. In 1865, July of 1865, received a pardon from the president of the United States. But, you know, it's not like history repeats itself here or anything. For all offenses committed by his participation, direct or implied, in the Civil War. Right, and he said, okay, um, but the problem is that the bar of Arkansas is saying, you know, you got to fill out your application and everything. And, uh, and it says, have you ever been convicted of any crime? And I wrote, well, just the treason thing. And they said,

0:21:08 Thomas: Does That Count? Uh, yeah, if you include light treason.

0:21:14 Andrew: Yeah. Right. Uh, and they sad, oh, well, well, we're not going to admit you to practice the law. And he sued to be readmitted to the bar. He said, look, I have a pardon here. I should be allowed to practice law again in Arkansas. And the holding of Ex parte Garland was, yes, yes you should. It is the very next paragraph after the sentence that I've read. So what the Supreme Court does is they say, all right, here's what the law is. Pardon power is really broad. It's limited. You can't give back by a pardon something that was either restitutionary or forfeiture. That's right. Does not restore offices forfeited or property or interest vested in others.

0:22:04 Andrew: And then it says, this pardon here is a full pardon for all offenses and is subject to conditions which have been complied with. The effect is to relieve the petitioner from all penalties and disabilities attached to the offense of treason committed by his participation in the Civil War, so far as that offense is concerned. He is thus placed beyond the reach of punishment of any kind.

To exclude him by reason of that offense from continuing in the enjoyment of a previously acquired right is to enforce a punishment for that offense, notwithstanding the pardon. Right, so in other words, if you say we're going to kick him out of the bar, we're not going to admit him back in just because of the treason thing, you're essentially circumventing the pardon. And, um, and you can't do that.

You got to admit him back to the bar because, you know, it's not like you're giving him property, it's not like you're taking money away from someone else. So that was the holding of Ex parte Garland. It has been cited a hundred times, like I said, for the proposition that you can't pardon your way into forty two million dollars. If you think I would say this, if I represented Paul Manafort, I would absolutely bring a lawsuit to try and get my forty two million dollars back. I don't think it would. A, I would never represent Paul Manaford. But it first view, it is not Rule 11 per se sanctionable. Right. You don't become Sidney Powell by arguing that Paul Manafort should get the money back. I think he's going to lose, but I think he's gonna argue to get the money back, and he's gonna have the plain language of this pardon supporting him, and he is going to have 75 million QAnon supporting idiots chanting in the

0:23:52 Andrew: Street for the federal government to fork over 42 million dollars to somebody who is without a doubt not just a criminal but a criminal who could not care less about the actual interests of the United States. And, and that was just one of the many pardons of Donald Trump that we're gonna see unfolding over the next three weeks. It's gonna be great, it's going to be wonderful.

0:24:19 Thomas: Wow, and all that is without even talking about the war criminal murderers, just the one OG criminal, but later topic for a later date, I suppose. But yeah, that's infuriating, and I hope that dicta stands, um, and that that you're 90 percent uh, is true there

0:24:25 Andrew: Yeah. Yeah, me too.

0:24:39 Clip: Joe Biden will become the 46th president of the United States. This election is not over. It's over, beast. This is a major fraud in our nation. If you count the legal votes, I easily win. You lose. It's Over Beast.

0:25:04 Thomas: Right, Andrew, we've got another spider on our hands. We've got another, you know, entry, Homeland 24, whatever. Source, uh, Sydney Powell secret expert witness unmasked number two, the sequel. Secret of the Ooze. I

0:25:18 Andrew: Yeah yeah. This is a Electric Boogaloo. Exactly.

0:25:22 Thomas: Thought Secret of the Oozes was going to be about Rudy Giuliani, though. Uh, but okay, never mind. No.

0:25:27 Andrew: Yeah this this This person did not formerly have a super cool handle.

0:25:35 Thomas: Why get, get into the Sydney Powell witness game? Hmm.

0:25:38 Andrew: But that's because this person is very, very good at making up their own handles. They are. And I'm going to read you later from this court order. But they are referred to in the longest caption for a single person that I have ever seen before a court. That's because this person, Terpsichore maris I am not kidding appears to be her real name.

0:25:44 Thomas: Oh. Okay.

0:26:07 Andrew: Um, also goes by Terpsychore Maria Terpsicho Lindeman, Terpsicha Maris Linderman, Terpsichi Meris Linderman, a.k.a. Terpsichore Meris, a.k.a. Terpichore P. Linderman. It's it is hysterical. She's a 42-year-old pro-Trump podcaster.

0:26:26 Thomas: But Like through all those akas, there was always Terpsichore, so that's there's that's the one thing you're not changing, is is that part of your name okay never mind that's Fine, Yeah. All right, so terpsychore Skittle?

0:26:31 Andrew: Yeah. Yeah. Yeah, that part is non-negotiable, Thomas. But you Would you, would not know that this woman is a 42-year-old pro-Trump podcaster from the declaration that she filed, the 37 page affidavit that she filled in Sidney Powell's insane Kraken loser lawsuits, attempting to demonstrate that there was and I wish I could make this up a secret conspiracy between Dominion, right, the company that installed the voting machines, and then a company I can't pronounce the name of. I mean, I'm not good at pronunciations under the best of circumstances, but S-C-Y-T-L. So Skittle?

0:27:30 Andrew: Skittle. Skittle, yeah.

0:27:30 Thomas: Yes. Oh, Skittle, okay, it could be like going for Skittle but spelled differently. All right.

0:27:34 Andrew: Yeah, who knows? So.

0:27:35 Thomas: That should have been the code name. That's like spider. You've got the Y theme going. They could all, come on, people do better.

0:27:36 Andrew: Oh, yeah. So. So Skittle is apparently a Spanish based company that processes the data that are collected on Dominion machines. And if you're wondering, does Terpsichore spell this out in her affidavit? And you bet she doesn't. On page 19, this is paragraph 54, buried in the middle. And I'm going to include, I've uploaded this because I found a copy of her expert report and I have uploaded it to the Opening Arguments website. Are pages and pages of impenetrable math right where it is, here is the encryption formula, sigma sub pk parenthesis m semicolon r equals g to the r comma y to the r times m, right, like that's just designed to look like it's super fancy math, but then, then, after 18 pages of super fancy math, you get this, which even I, as somebody who's not had a math class in 25 years, can understand.

Skittle and Dominion have an agreement. Only the two would know the parameters. This means that access is able to occur through backdoors in hardware if the parameters of the commitments are known in order to alter the range of the algorithm deployed to satisfy the outcome sought in the case of algorithm failure. Now, what does that mean? That means there is an allegation with zero proof that Dominion created a trap door. The trap door allows Skittle to come in and change the results in order to alter those results in favor of Democrats. Democrats, rare,

0:29:30 Thomas: Yeah.

0:29:32 Andrew: In an expert witness report. We have this paragraph 61, which says, hence, you can't prove anyone manipulated anything. The trapdoor key holders can offer you enough to verify to you what you need to see without revealing anything. And once again, indicating the inability to detect manipulation. And then, in capital bold letters, I don't understand, it says, zero proof of integrity of the vote, um,

0:29:41 Thomas: So Let me get this straight, can't if you're Dominion, you can just mess with the data yourself. That's too easy to track. You need to contract with a third party conspirator, give them backdoor encryption, encryption access to your data, and then they mess with the data and change it to, to so that Democrats lose all the Senate elections by the way, uh, and but I guess win the presidency and then that way, you, nobody can tell, but what, doesn't that just move the problem one step for, they couldn't, you just be like, okay, well then, skittler skittle, skittle, get out, along, over here, skittle, and let's see your files. I mean, I know, they're a Spanish company, but...

0:30:26 Andrew: Yeah, Right, Shush, Shush, Quiet, you, Everybody knows Everybody knows that the best conspiracies have more people in them, yeah, exactly, um, and

0:30:49 Thomas: Yeah, if it's deal with encryption, just do the vote changey stuff on your own encrypted server and then, encrypt it yourself. There's nothing magical about giving an encryption key to somebody else, you now? Am I wrong?

0:31:03 Andrew: No, no, no, you are in no way wrong. Although, you know, you have exactly the expert credentials that Terpsichore has to

0:31:14 Thomas: Yeah, well, don't sell me short.

0:31:16 Andrew: Opine on this. And I will point out, and this is from pages 23 on, her affidavit is based on nothing more than your Uncle Frank's intuition of, oh, Oh, and it's got it's Got tracking of votes processed and the margin, right, the blue versus red margin. And so for example, it's just every time a large group of votes come in that are democratic, they're labeled with a circle and labeled a Biden injection. Right? I'm not making this up, never minding the fact that so for For example, on the Arizona page, the Biden injection occurs an hour into Election Day, into the counting after the polls close.

0:32:06 Andrew: When Biden is already ahead, that helps him go ahead by more. And then you see the red and blue lines converging and tightening. So that's listed as November 3rd, 8.06 p.m., plus 143,000 votes, Maricopa and Prima County. In Michigan, on the other hand, you have Election Day, Michigan Republicans, Trump running well ahead of Biden. Then you have a line of votes Biden is narrowing the margin. And then on November 7th at 6 a.m., you have a 54,000 vote injection, which is then labeled the digital fix in quotation marks, to put Biden over the top. Right. So already in in two cases. Right. We have it's evidence of hacking when Biden leads, but his lead grows bigger now on election day. Now, it's also evidence of hiking when Biden is trailing and then makes up four days later or

0:32:41 Thomas: Well.

0:33:16 Thomas: I think I found the common ingredient. Votes for Biden are fraud. Yeah.

0:33:17 Andrew: Yes, that's literally what this amounts to. It says whenever we've counted in an area that has a lot of Democratic votes, which, by the way, are what we call cities, right? These states have those, right. I know fewer in Georgia and Arizona than in Michigan, but they have them. And literally, it's just a whole bunch of blue votes came in. That's my evidence, evidence. And as you might imagine, the Georgia evidence splits the difference. Right. You have the Republican way ahead, and then on November 4th, you have 107,000 votes. So to a sane person, you would look at this and say, oh, I get it, when cities

0:33:21 Thomas: Yeah.

0:33:37 Thomas: But An election happened

0:34:00 Andrew: Get counted they tend disproportionately, disproportionately, to vote for Democrats. And also, they tend to have more people in them than non-cities. So you get spikes in behavior. And if you were going to be an actual expert witness demonstrating fraud, what you would expect would be some kind of longitudinal analysis, right? Something that's like, this is what it looked like in 2020. Here are these spikes. Here's what it it looked like in 2016. Here's what it looked like in 2012. Here's but it looked like in 2008. Right? Go back over time and show it. Are spikes common for Democrats, or are they not? Well, you know what, Terpsichore has not done. She has not gone back over time to see. Yeah.

0:34:01 Thomas: Yeah wow Terpsichore I'm disappointed in Terpsychore. Well,

0:34:48 Andrew: Think you're about to be more disappointed in Terpsichoore.

0:34:51 Thomas: I wanted to just ask, where, they it's not like they, did they get access to the actual data? Are they just using like the election returns? You know, how, they how they even getting their hands on this and pointing that? So,

0:35:01 Andrew: I I love that you asked that question, because I forgot to mention that all of this is just the election return data from The New York Times.

0:35:14 Thomas: It could have nothing to do with that. It could just be the way they entered it, or the timing on, how, well,

0:35:20 Andrew: There's a little bitty asterisk down there that says data sourced from The new York Times, you know, which is what

0:35:25 Thomas: They're, they're in on it too. I mean, they've got the encryption back. Trapdoor.

0:35:28 Andrew: Yeah. Well, why would they give

0:35:30 Thomas: As well, so what

0:35:30 Andrew: Away? Oh, gosh. I would love to go through more of this expert report, because I will tell you what's hilarious is that Terpsichore here makes references to supposed projects, things that I don't even understand what they are, right? Right. Like OCONUS, O-C-O-N-U-S, which is supposed to be an abbreviation for something, and then refers to the Help America Vote Act, H-A-V-A, in all caps, the standards promulgated pursuant to the National Institute of Standards and Technology, N-I-S-T. Those are all real things. Talks about repeatedly about voting system test laboratories, VSTLs. You might be wondering, why am I emphasizing all of the all-caps abbreviations that Terpsichore likes to use in her affidavits?

0:36:20 Andrew: Because in because in addition to all-caps abbreviations, she also randomly capitalizes every eighth word. It's amazing. So, for example, paragraph 7 says, in addition, I am well-versed due to my assignments during my time as a private contractor of how elections Oconis, for for countries I've had an assignment at, and CONUS, well-versed in HAVA Act, and more. That's a real sentence in this affidavit. I have no idea if she's trying to say that well is an abbreviation for something or if she just meant like, no, no, really, I am well-qualified for this, and I want to emphasize it. We have, again, the same thing. COTS, C-O-T-S, are preferred. They are the source, all caps, of vulnerability. Therefore, VSTLs are very, all caps, important. The whole thing reads this way. It is, of course, insanity.

0:36:29 Thomas: Does it mean I

0:37:19 Andrew: But the insanity took a slightly darker turn when Terpsichore was unmasked. I don't know. This is, you know, when we found out about Josh, it was because Sidney Powell's associate, you know, forgot to rename the file. I do not know how we unmasked Terpsichore Maris Lindemann.

0:37:43 Thomas: Cracked the encryption key is what happened. Yeah.

0:37:44 Andrew: Oh, Well, yeah. That's you and Skittle. Um.

0:37:46 Thomas: Yeah. Hey.

0:37:48 Andrew: But as it turns out, this is not the first time that Terpsichore has tried to defraud the American public. Um, in she resides in North Dakota, um, and has an outstanding judgment against her, uh, dating back to, uh, earlier this year, when, remember, I read you those like 30 different names in the captions, it was aka Terpsichore Pete Maris Lindeman, but interesting, uh, doing business as a Magic City Christmas and ML Labs dash events. And what is a Magic City Christmas? Well, Terpsychore created a fundraising campaign on Indiegogo to raise funds for families in Harvey, North Dakota, that were displaced due to a fire that destroyed the a building with apartments in it, so local fire, um, and she got on, tried to raise, uh, fifty thousand dollars, uh, for families that had been displaced in Harvey, North Dakota, and raised a thousand dollars. So, you know, not, not a, not a great result, but, you know, whatever, um.

0:38:55 Thomas: That's a thousand dollars that's better than probably most fundraising raising efforts

0:38:59 Andrew: Uh, it yeah probably, um. And unfortunately, entirety of the thousand dollars was spent not on the Magic City Christmas events or giving funds to homeless shelters, but instead to make purchases at, and I'm quoting from paragraph 15 here, quote, Cash Wise, McDonald's, Marketplace, Walmart, Waxing the City, and Target, end of quote. Defendant's purchases for herself overdrew her bank account. Additionally, defendant failed to ever secure basic necessities for her event, including sound production, because defendant overthrew overdrew her account. She was unable to pay at least one performer that she attempted to pay, and the check was returned twice due to insufficient funds. So, yeah.

0:39:22 Thomas: Terpsichore Oh, This was like a mini Fire Festival kind of oh blew it all on McDonald's, uh, this wasn't me, by the way, don't swear before anyone says it wasn't me

0:39:45 Andrew: Yeah, exactly. Also, I I are you sure the waxing the city was not you, Thomas? This, um, so spent all the money on herself, um, also, uh, in creating her online persona, uh, falsely claimed to be a 22-year veteran of naval intelligence and a Purple Heart recipient. She also claimed that she was operating a medical laboratory, hence the ML Labs, where she was doctor, among other false educational and employment accomplishments. So now, when I go back to page one of the affidavit Terpsichore's affidavat, um, I'm not a hundred percent confident that her credentials are as stated. So, uh, private contractor with experience gathering and analyzing foreign intelligence, and acted as a localizer, that's in all caps, during the deployment of projects and operations, both OCONUS and CONUS.

0:39:55 Thomas: Yeah

0:40:43 Andrew: I'm a trained cryptolinguist, hold a completed degree in molecular and cellular physiology, and I have formal training in other sciences such as computational linguistics, game theory, algorithmic aspects of machine learning, predictive analytics, among others. We don't have any way of knowing any of that. And this, again, goes back to our Josh episode. This is why you got to name your expert witnesses so that we can look them up and see, um, are they actual expert witnesses or are they pro-Trump bloggers who defraud people in order to fund their waxings? Um, I will point out, I

0:41:10 Thomas: Full of crap if you are having to defraud people in order to fund your waxings? I'm just saying, you might have you might have some issues

0:41:28 Andrew: Yeah. Go, go, go on natural your owl for a couple of weeks, it won't kill you. Attorney David C. Thompson, um, who Terpsichore, uh, was, uh, an assistant to Thomson's, uh, campaign, uh, back when he ran for mayor of Menott, North Dakota, and when, when asked about this, um, Thomason, now I'm quoting, quoting from the Washington Post article, which I will link in the show notes, said in an interview that the case was a vindictive exercise and was excessive, given the relatively small amounts of money in question. Quote, they took a missile to kill a fly, end of quote, he said. And I will point out, this is the kind of thing you say as a lawyer when you're conceding that your client took the Money, right? Like he's not saying that she didn't defraud people out of money. He's saying, come on, she had some McDonald's, she went to Target, like, you know, what's the big deal, um.

0:41:30 Thomas: Yeah yeah McRib is back. Come on. Like, case closed, never mind. Yeah. The McRip exception, it's not just dicta.

0:42:25 Andrew: Yeah, oh, so if you're following Releasing the Kraken, we're now down two expert witnesses who have, you know, committed a fraud upon the court in various ways. So way to go, Sidney Powell. I hope that Donald Trump makes you special counsel for detecting election fraud, because you do seem to be good at finding it. So, of a certain kind. Yes.

0:42:56 Thomas: At finding fraud and of a certain kind, yeah, well,

0:43:01 Clip: Thank you, Dr. Hibbert. I rest my case. You rest your case? What? Oh, no. I thought that was just a figure of speech. Case closed.

0:43:11 Thomas: Just, hopefully, barely enough time to talk about what I think is gone, you, everybody's minds, these $2,000 checks, Andrew. What's the status? Bernie possibly filibustering? It's the weirdest situation. I joked the other week, and I stand by it, that it was nice of Trump to back $2,000 checks, because it instantly made it obvious that Democrats support that and Republicans don't, and that's how it is. But we've also got some far-lefty sources like the Jacobin magazine saying that actually, no, Democrats aren't doing enough. So, what do you make of all this? Okay.

0:43:17 Andrew: Yeah.

0:43:44 Andrew: So here's what I make of all this. And and I want to say that the goal of Bernie Sanders is filibuster. I am taking directly from Bernie Sanders. Right. Which is to delay a vote to overturn the presidential veto on the National Defense Authorization Act. Right. That's his stated goal. It is not more robust than that. The reason to delay is to draw attention to this as an issue. That's Bernie Sanders's stated goal. Nothing more. And as that goal, I want to tell you, this is really, really smart. He is achieving his goal and it is going to have a couple knock on effects that I want But any idea that the Bernie Sanders filibuster was going to result in the actual amendments to the CARES Act coming through and people getting $2,000 checks today or tomorrow, that was never Bernie Sanders' goal, right?

0:43:55 Thomas: Yeah

0:44:48 Andrew: That's not what this is meant to accomplish. So what we have is the procedural interplay between a veto. The president vetoed the National Defense Authorization Act. I'm going to explain why he did that and why that was like a free play in a minute. And then the president vacillating, demanding two thousand dollars checks, but ultimately signing the five thousand six hundred page bill for 2020. Right. The one that we broke down.

0:45:18 Thomas: Everybody passes six hundred dollars when the Democrats were asking for two thousand, they say no, six hundred, and then Trump says, no can do, I want two thousand, and then the Republicans are like, no, and then he's like, okay, I'll sign the, the $600. What did we just waste our time doing? What was the point of all that? Can you tell me?

0:45:36 Andrew: Yeah. Well, one of two things. Right. Or perhaps two of two things. The first is that I think Donald Trump really, really wanted his name on a big check to people to go out to distract from the fact that he's trying to give 40 million dollars to Paul Manafort and the like. And if you wanted to be more cynical, right, and there's every reason for you to have that, yeah, I thought perhaps you might, to say, and also his advisors, the people around him looked at this and were like, oh, great, like this will throw a monkey wrench into the whole works, right? And the more that we're able to push this off and potentially down the line say, oh, yeah, yeah. This trillion dollar bill was added on Joe Biden's watch, not Donald Trump. He was a he was a sound steward of the American economy or whatever. I don't know how much of that that cynical calculus went into play. But I would be shocked if Jared Kushner hadn't thought of it. Right. So,

0:45:51 Thomas: Yeah. Oh, I like being more cynical. Go on.

0:46:42 Thomas: So, did he

0:46:43 Andrew: No,

0:46:43 Thomas: Veto the first $600 thingy or just not sign it?

0:46:46 Andrew: No. He just said I wasn't going to sign it. And then the and then Congress went back. He said, I'm not going to sign this without two thousand dollars. And then Nancy Pelosi was like, let me convene an emergency session of the House of Representatives like now. Here you go. Two grand. And then Trump and then the Senate. Mitch McConnell was like, yeah, I don't, I don't think we're going to do that.

0:46:49 Thomas: Okay. Here you go. Yeah.

0:47:07 Andrew: And then Donald was like OK, well, I'm going to sign this after all.

0:47:07 Thomas: Yeah, so what's the veto then? What got vetoed?

0:47:12 Andrew: So what got vetoed was the National Defense Authorization Act. And that is the the separate bill that funds the military. Right. So the Omnibus Appropriations Act funds all the rest of the government had all those other provisions in there that we talked about and some we didn't talk about, like, you know, repealing the crime of misusing Smokey the Bear in intellectual property. Um, lots of stuff I was prepared to go deep into, but, uh, uh, it was a separate bill, and Donald Trump said he vetoed it for two reasons. First, because it renames various, uh, military, uh, facilities that are presently named after traitors to the American Republic, i.e. Confederate war war criminals, um, and to rename them after, um, not traitors to the Republic, which you might think, like, you know, is, uh,

0:47:12 Thomas: Hmm.

0:47:33 Thomas: Should

0:48:06 Andrew: Consistent with the goals of the military, right? Like, you don't have an Adolf Hitler base somewhere, right? Like, like, generally speaking, when our military has fought and won wars against people, we do not start naming aspects of our military after them. But in any event

0:48:06 Thomas: Be Basic Yeah. Can't Wait to until we get to Fort Manafort. That's gonna happen someday. Fort Flynn and Fort Manafort. They bravely fought in the wars of 2020, but

0:48:23 Andrew: Yeah. Oh, my God. Oh, God, that's going to happen. Anyway, so that was the first thing to which Trump objected and said, I'm not going to sign this if it renames, you know, Confederate war facilities. And then the second thing was and also it doesn't have this totally unrelated provision about repealing Section 230 in it. And Mitch McConnell has said that he thinks that the that taking up the NDAA ought to include Section 230 repeal. We just talked about that on Tuesday's show. I would not be in favor of it. But I again, it's it's a complicated subject about which we could have actual arguments. And in fact, we did do a deep dive on Tuesday.

0:49:16 Andrew: So we'll go revisit that. Now, the NDAA, right, funding the military, passed the House 322 to 87 and the Senate 80 to 12. It takes a two thirds vote to override a presidential veto. So usually presidents don't veto in those situations because they don't want to look stupid when you say, I'm totally vetoing that. At. And then the Senate's like, did you not know that 80 is larger than 67? It's impossible he did not. So, so Bernie Sanders came up with something that's really, really smart. And that is ordinarily. Right. You don't filibuster an action where the votes that are required take more than the votes that are required for cloture, right, to cut off debate. So a filibuster is just saying, we're going to continue to debate this until we get 60 senators to say, all right, time to call for cloture. We're done debating. Now we can vote. And as a result, I did some research. I found a Congressional Research Service article. You can, when you're talking about overriding a presidential veto here, I'm going to quote from CRS.

0:49:40 Thomas: This President does not care about looking stupid? It, hmm.

0:50:36 Andrew: They say the question of overriding a veto is debatable under the regular rules of the Senate. The question could be debated as long as any senator sought recognition to discuss it. Debate on the question of overriding the veto can be limited by unanimous consent or by invoking cloture. OK, so let's talk about each of those two options, because the first one happened and the second is about to happen again. All things Bernie Sanders thought were going to happen. So the first One is. Laughed when I said Senate votes 80 to 12. It goes to the president. He vetoes it. You need two thirds. Ordinarily, the Senate would be like motion to duh. Right. And it kind of would do that.

0:51:24 Andrew: Right? So what they would do is they would say, I seek unanimous consent to suspend the rules to reconsider this particular proposition and then vote on it. The reason that I said that that was a motion to duh is because members of the Senate can count just like the president ostensibly can count. Right. And so even if you were one of those 12, you would look at it and be like, all right, well, we didn't magically double in size overnight. So, yeah. Right. Motion for unanimous consent. Sure. We don't need to count up all of this because we know what's going to happen. The same 80 people that voted for it the first time are going to vote for it a second time, and it's done. So usually you expedite the process.

0:52:11 Andrew: Right? Right. And you just say, hey, we're the Senate. The president vetoed the bill. We're going to, you know, override the presidential veto, and we're just going to cast. We're gonna call for unanimous consent to not have any debate, to immediately vote. And because this is a done deal, there's a fait accompli, right, but you have to have unanimous intent to do that, right? And so the very first thing that Bernie Sanders and a bunch of other Democrats did was they said, um, Mitch McConnell said, call for unanimous consent, and they were like, nope, we object. Right. And and what that does is that puts debate on the NDAA, or specifically on the question of whether to override the presidential veto on the NDA, back on the Senate calendar.

0:53:00 Andrew: Calendar, you have to then formally have to open up. You have to introduce that question onto the floor of the Senate. Right. And so that was the next step. Right, Mitch McConnell said, OK, all right, Bernie Sanders, you got me there. So yesterday, Wednesday, as we're recording this, when McConnell saw that there was not going to be unanimous consent to move forward, he said, all right, then I move that we consider the question of whether to debate the national, the overriding the presidential veto on the National Defense Authorization Act. And that led to the absurd Jacobin article that you sent me that, like, tried to excoriate Democrats for not voting in opposition to the motion to consider. Right. And here's why that was disingenuous.

0:53:48 Thomas: Hmm. In fairness, though, it does, it does say that Warren and Bernie and a few others voted that way, and we're big Warren fans, and you know, we're pretty big Bernie fans. I'm a big guy. Voted for him in '16 before in the primary. Um, so, you know, do they have a point that if, you know, if those two sterling examples of progressivism who I, I really respect, did this, should, should, should more Democrats have voted this way?

0:54:05 Andrew: Yeah. Yeah, yeah.

0:54:21 Andrew: So here's what it would have done. If more Democrats would have voted that way, there would have then been a call. You would have then debated whether to introduce the resolution onto the floor of the Senate. And as a result, there would have been an immediate call for a division, right, to say, all right, well, we have a call for cloture and a call for division. Right. And so they would have immediately said, all right, we've opened up debate. That's enough debate. We're going to talk about this. Where are the votes? And as long as there were not right, as long as there were 60 votes to proceed to the question, right, then you would proceed to the question to debating whether to introduce this. So could you theoretically have added added another layer of questioning? You could have. If you had enough Democrats who were willing to filibuster indefinitely, you could filibuster at each and every stage.

0:54:43 Thomas: Hmm.

0:55:33 Andrew: But the reality is we do not have enough Democrats to do that, right? We would need 40 Democrats to break cloture. And at this point in time, you know, we had five or six who voted.

0:55:46 Thomas: Well, you said this is a thing that passed with 80 votes, right? So that means only 20, presumably Democrats, but who knows? There could be, that could have been a mix of, oh, gotcha.

0:55:50 Andrew: Yeah, No. Well, well, two of those votes that were missing were Loeffler and Perdue, for example. Right. Yeah. So I think that the 12 is the more the most likely number on the back end. Right? So, yeah, it. So theoretically, you want to make this criticism, that right, the Democratic Party is not in a position where the day before New Year's they were willing to bring all Senate business to a halt prior to force consideration. Because Bernie's position was, we shouldn't be voting on overriding this veto until we vote on amending the Omnibus

0:56:00 Thomas: Okay. 12. Okay.

0:56:37 Thomas: Oh, the thingy

0:56:38 Andrew: Appropriations Act to get $2,000. So Democrats can't do that. They cannot do that, but what they could do was, if you got 40 of them together, they could filibuster each and every stop along the way and essentially bring the government to a crashing halt.

0:56:38 Thomas: To get $2,000. Okay. OK,

0:56:58 Andrew: If you want to say we don't have a Democratic Party that's willing to do that.

0:56:58 Thomas: It's never been, yeah, the Democratic Party's M.O. to bring the government to a halt to try to, to, by the way, to force a vote that could just go the other way anyway and probably would just go the other way anyway. I mean, right.

0:57:02 Andrew: Yeah. Yeah, yeah.

0:57:13 Andrew: And that is a fair criticism. You and I are liberal with our criticisms of the Democratic Party. It is a fair criticism to say, wish we had a Democratic Party that was further left, that was willing to draw lines in the sand in terms of getting additional funding to people who need it. I sincerely think that like I sincerely believe that I support that. I agree with that. To pin it on any one person when Bernie Sanders' pitch of the filibuster was "I want to draw attention to this issue" is in my mind beyond disingenuous. And and look, if Democrats tried to do that on the procedural vote for invocation, then you would have fewer Democrats willing to to to vote against cloture on Friday and Saturday.

0:58:06 Andrew: Right. So let's let's play out how this is going to happen. The motion has now been introduced and now will be debated every couple of minutes. Minutes, Republicans, once any Democrat has stopped speaking, Republicans will move for cloture. Right. They will say, all right, well, we've now debated this and this is enough. And this is where the Mr. Smith goes to Washington. You know, when a senator is on the floor, it is considered customary and appropriate. And again, these are customs that even Mitch McConnell respects. You don't interrupt the senator without their consent. Right? That's why you will see. Will the senator yield? Right. And during a filibuster, the first hour, everybody is screaming, will the senator yell with the senator yelled?

0:58:53 Andrew: And, you know, Bernie Sanders will say, I will not yield my time. Sorry, that was more Mitch McConnell than Bernie Sanders. I I don'T a GOOD Bernie Sanders voice. But anyway, what I will happen is there are a couple of senators, Sherrod Brown and Ed Markey, who have said that they're going to join in the actual filibuster. And it will proceed until enough combination, right, of the 53 Republicans plus seven Democrats say, all right, Bernie Sanders has had enough time. Right. And so the more egregious it feels at the beginning, the quicker you're going to lose those seven Democrats. Right? Right. And it's not hard to pick out who those Democratic senators are going to be. You know, you you start at the furthest right and you just start kind of working your way left.

0:58:58 Thomas: Yeah. Geez, what are you doing?

0:59:47 Andrew: It it wouldn't surprise me if you lost, you know, not only our friend Joe Manchin and our frenemy, Kyrsten Sinema, but probably Chris Coons from Delaware at the outset. And then you only got to pick up four more Democrats at some point between Friday and Saturday to agree with the Republicans, to call for cloture, to bring debate to a close, and then to vote for the NDAA to override the presidential veto. That's what's going to happen. But when you look at it from Bernie Sanders' perspective, two salutary things happened. Number one, effectively raised the issue and kept the issue going. And number two, forced the Senate to debate on New Year's Eve, on New Years Day, and quite possibly on Saturday, January 2nd, which I flagged Loeffler and Perdue before.

1:00:43 Andrew: Republicans need their votes. They are going to be present to vote for the NDAA, which means they're not going to to be on the campaign trail back in Georgia and so, you know, to the extent that Bernie is playing some 3D chess, they're keeping them off the campaign trial, uh, are my hats off to him, right.

1:01:01 Thomas: To reiterate, even if let's say you had 40 senators who are willing to just do this or all that does. So their goal is let's vote on the two thousand dollar checks first. Right. Wasn't that the stated goal? OK, so let's see. McConnell says, fine, you have the numbers for this filibuster. So therefore, fine, let's vote on the $2,000 checks. What do you know? Vote down. Democrats don't control the Senate. Then what?

1:01:14 Andrew: Yep. Yep.

1:01:29 Thomas: Then nothing.

1:01:28 Andrew: Then That Would Be it

1:01:29 Thomas: That's the end, right? So there's not, this isn't some trick that makes there be $2,000 checks, this is just kind of a protest thing, and not, so the criticism of the Democrats could be, you don't have enough people willing to do a protest that shuts down the government but doesn't really do anything for the $2,000 checks. Okay.

1:01:30 Andrew: Right. Yeah. Then Correct.

1:01:50 Andrew: And And if we are going with the hypothetical Democrats that were the subject of the criticism, uh, if you were Chris Coons, you, you might respond with. Yeah. And the more I am perceived as, you know, screwing around with parliamentary procedure and keeping folks here in in Washington over a holiday during a time when they're supposed to be recessed, the less likely they are to vote for my side. Now, again, I'm not saying that I endorse that argument. I've been super critical of Chris Coons a lot. It We're a podcast that likes to fight, right? But calling out Democrats for not fighting here seems to me to be beyond misguided.

1:02:17 Thomas: Yeah.

1:02:32 Thomas: Okay so, well what's, the next, thing we're looking for in, in this, weird battle? All

1:02:32 Andrew: Yeah! Just look to see how long it takes for the vote to go through. And if that vote goes through on Friday, then, you know, it will have been marginally successful. If that vote doesn't take place until Saturday the 2nd, then this will have been a good ploy by Bernie Sanders that took an extra week of time away from Loeffler and Perdue on the campaign trail and drew national attention to an issue about which there is a tremendous degree of consensus. So hats off to Bernie Sanders.

1:03:13 Thomas: Right, sounds like Bernie wants, Ossoff and Warnock to win. Cool.

1:03:17 Clip: And thank you, Let's go!

1:03:18 Thomas: And now it's time to thank our new patrons quickly here. Thank you to Beth Ann M., Swiftrain, Robert Thurston, son of a Sven, KYR, Carol Cutter Gonzales, Adam Borochoff, and Terry Spurling. Your turn, Andrew. All

1:03:37 Andrew: You to ML Shiozaki, to Evan S, Judy A Canon. Uncle Fred has been lost long ago. Thanks to if you got covid and you work in California, you were entitled to compensation for California employment law or work comp questions. But then it kind of peters off after that. So I guess you can Google that for California Employment Law. If you worked and lost your job due to COVID, California. Elizabeth Walter, Liam McGhee, and Duncan E Klassen. Thank you all so much for supporting the show.

1:04:11 Clip: Oh, no associate of this firm has ever failed the bar exam. No kidding.

1:04:17 Thomas: Right, Andrew, it's time for T3BA Impossible Streak, uh, by the way, I put a poll in the Facebook group and, uh, I think you're getting indicted based on it, so expect that in the mail, um. You've, you've Porked

1:04:30 Andrew: No, no jail in America can hold me.

1:04:31 Thomas: Yeah. Hashtag Andrew has porked the test, these questions are just way harder, so we'll see if, but you know, second place vote, I think, was the bad luck streak, maybe. So maybe these are just the unlucky impossible questions so far. Let's see. What's next on your impossible prank test? Here we go.

1:04:43 Andrew: Yeah. Thomas, a factory is located on the edge of a town. The factory is a major producer of plastics, which it supplies to manufacturers across the country. With the development of new technology and products, there is great demand for a new type of sturdier plastic. In order for the factory to produce this plastic, the factory began using chemical reactions that released a toxic gas into the air. After the factory begin production of the plastic, hundreds of citizens in the town started to complain about the gas. It brings with it an unpleasant odor and causes sickness. This gas has been proven to cause many significant illnesses and thus is jeopardizing the health of the community. A citizen of the town sues the factory for a public nuisance. Will the citizen recover?

1:04:55 Thomas: Hmm. Huh.

1:05:37 Thomas: Interesting.

1:05:38 Andrew: A. Yes, if the use or enjoyment of the citizen's property has been unreasonably interfered with. B. Yes. If the citizen has suffered some sort of damages or injuries that are unique to those suffered by the rest of the town. C.

1:05:45 Thomas: Okay. Huh?

1:05:54 Thomas: Unique to Those suffered. Okay, this

1:05:56 Andrew: Yep. C. No. If the factory has not acted unreasonably and has taken all feasible precautions to limit the gas. Or D, no, if it is deemed that the factory is not acting intentionally to spread the gas across the town.

1:06:11 Thomas: All right, producing, these have been so tricky, I gotta pay extra attention here and see what's going on. Um, I guess the key question is here maybe who has standing kind of, or who, who can, who can recover, uh, damages, I guess, is the key. A citizen, one citizen of the town has sued for public nuisance. Yeah, so, so right away I'm thinking like the trick here could be, you know, maybe the town is supposed to sue for, you know, or something. May the government is supposed to sue the factory for public or something, I don't know, who, you know, so it'll be something weird like that that I'll get wrong. A, so will the citizen recover? A, yes, if the use or enjoyment of, if the citizen's property has been unreasonably interfered with, that seems reasonable. B, yes, if the citizen has suffered some sort of damages or injuries that are unique to those suffered by the rest of the town.

1:07:02 Thomas: That one's jumping out at me because it's like for a single citizen to sue. Is there something where it like has to be a class action? But I guess if nobody else is sued, are we to assume nobody else is suing? It doesn't really say anything. It just says a citizen of the town sues for public nuisance. Know if the factory has not acted unreasonably and has taken all feasible precautions to limit the gas.

Know, if it is deemed that the factory is not acting intentionally to spread the gas across the town. I mean, this is why it's such a tricky one. Like those could just be, yeah. Okay, cool. Those could be right. I think I'm gonna go, this is impossible, I don't know what you're pranking me with here, we're not porking the streak anytime soon, I'll get every one of these wrong, uh, I wonder if I should just start flipping a coin a four-sided coin so that I can get 25% of them right, maybe I should start doing that, might be a better strategy.

Um, A, yes, if the use or enjoyment of the citizen's property has been unreasonably interfered with, seems plausible, if so they could sue because their personal property is being interfered and that's a public nuisance. Or B, yes, if this citizen has suffered some sort of damages or injuries that are unique, know, B, I think B is a real attractive one in that it seems like if a single citizen is gonna, I don't, I don't see anything here about like class action, so maybe not B, maybe B is a distractor, I'm just going with A. A, if the use or enjoyment of the citizen's property has been unreasonably interfered with. That seems like a public nuisance to me,

1:08:34 Thomas: So I'm going with a final answer. Can't wait to... Now I'm really not porking the streak. Streak un-porked.

1:08:40 Andrew: Right, and if you'd like to help Thomas pork the streak, you know how to do that, just share out this episode on social media, include the hashtag T3BE, include the hashtag pork the street, include your answer, your reasons therefore, we will find a winner and shower that winner with never-ending fame and fortune. Fame and fortunate not guaranteed. Indeed.

1:08:58 Thomas: Right, thanks so much for listening, and reminder, check out our q a Saturday coming up, hang out with us in the new year, 2020, or it's it'll be, uh, December 33rd, I think, if that, if the whole new year thing doesn't work out. Either way, 4 p.m. Pacific, 7 p. m Eastern, go check out the YouTube channel, the event should, should be there already, and you'll see the link. We'll see you then.

1:09:20 Andrew: We'll see you then.

1:09:21 Clip: I move for a bad court thingy. You mean a mistrial? Yeah, that's why you're the judge and I'm the law talking guy.

1:09:54 Clip: www.openargs.com. Be sure to join the Facebook group at facebook.com/groups/Yodel Mountain and follow us on Twitter at OpenArgs. This podcast is a production of Opening Arguments Media LLC, all rights reserved. It is produced with the assistance of transcriptionist Heather Leverage, production assistant Ashley Smith, and additional contributions from Morgan Stringer and Debra 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 Arguments 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.