OA577: This Week in 'Republicans Are Horrendously Evil'

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 577. I'm Thomas. That's Andrew. How are you doing, my friend?

0:01:23 Andrew: I am fantastic, Thomas. How are you?

0:01:25 Thomas: I'm not super thrilled. Today's episode is one of the tough ones. You know, the Republicans are really – they're really Republican-ing in worse ways than ever, it feels like.

0:01:31 Andrew: Yeah, if we get to the wild card segment, that will be fun.

0:01:41 Thomas: Well, you know what? That should be inspiration for us to get to that wildcard segment so that we have a little bit of, you know, spoonful of sugar to help the medicine go down. But let's get to our first segment here on these awful bills the Republicans are passing.

0:01:45 Andrew: All right.

0:01:59 Clip: Down the law, down the law.

0:02:03 Thomas: So we're going to start with Florida. This is called the Don't Say Gay Bill. I got a question for you. Do they accept that wording? Whose version of the name of it is that? I just want to know how far into the doom have we gotten? Have we gotten to the point where they're branding it as that? Or is that us calling it that?

0:02:21 Andrew: No, that's that is our branding. That is Lambda Legal. And and it's really smart branding because this is the most evil in how the bills have been crafted in terms of don't say the the quiet part loud. It is. Right. Why I want to explain exactly what is in the bill, because the bill is designed so that Uncle Frank can say, well, it doesn't say that.

0:02:22 Thomas: Okay. Right.

0:02:47 Andrew: Yeah. Keep in mind, none of these bills are law as of the time that we're recording this. Um, the Florida bill is House Bill 1557 uh and it has passed the full House and it just is awaiting Governor DeSantis's signature.

0:03:04 Thomas: Uncle Joey?

0:03:05 Andrew: Yeah, yeah.

0:03:06 Thomas: No, sorry.

0:03:07 Andrew: Dave.

0:03:07 Thomas: Never mind.

0:03:09 Andrew: Coulet there. We go.

0:03:10 Thomas: Yeah. I'm just surprised at them. That's all I'll say.

0:03:14 Andrew: R.I.P. Bob Saget, we'll pour one out for you. Uh, and again, obviously I think DeSantis will approve this bill, although weirdly, prior to its passage, uh, he did not come out and say, I am, you definitely going to vote for these, that I'm, you know, supportive of fighting. And what have you. What all is Bill 1557 do? It creates four operative sections that create new subsections of Florida Statute 1001.428C. And each of these is, as I suggested, kind of Orwellian in how they're written. Right. So subsection two is a school district may not adopt procedures or student support forms that prohibit school district personnel from notifying a parent about his or her student's mental, emotional, or physical health or well-being or a change in related services or monitoring, or that encourage or have the effect of encouraging a student to withhold from a parent such information. School district personnel. Yeah, I got one more sentence.

0:03:16 Thomas: Yeah. Hmm.

0:04:17 Thomas: What? Okay.

0:04:20 Andrew: And then I'll explain. School district personnel may not discourage or prohibit parental notification of an involvement in critical decisions affecting a student's mental, emotional or physical health or well-being. This is uh meant to target the practice of Florida schools which allow school counselors to tell LGBTQ plus kids, hey, it's OK, you can come in and talk to us even if you're afraid to come out to your parents. And the idea is now that that being having anxiety about being LGBTQ plus with parents who are unlikely to accept it is now a student's mental, emotional or physical health or well-being. It almost certainly is.

0:05:06 Andrew: And this says, right, we can't adopt, schools cannot adopt any policy that prohibits or discourages school district personnel from notifying the parents about that kind of information.

0:05:20 Thomas: So it's a little different. I mean, just on the first thing here. It sounds a little like preemptive, sort of. It's like, don't stop us or someone else from doing a bad thing. But I guess it's slightly different than saying you must do a bad thing. Or do I have that wrong?

0:05:22 Andrew: Yep.

0:05:38 Andrew: So this section, and this is part of why this bill is so insidious, right, is because it has multiple approaches that are designed to make public schools an unfriendly environment for LGBTQ folks. Folks part is designed to make the school guidance counselor's office less safe. Now, if you have, if you are fortunate enough as a kid to have a school counselor who is LGBTQ plus affirming, you're probably still going to be okay. They could still decide, well, this doesn't seem like a matter affecting a student's mental, emotional or physical health or well-being. And they could probably say, you know, so therefore I feel like I don't have to abide by any kind of school policy that says I should be informing the parents.

0:05:43 Thomas: Okay.

0:06:28 Andrew: Right. And I think good people of goodwill will still do that. What this is going to change are counselors who have not made that clear and to whom kids come and say, hey, I'm worried about coming out to my parents because I'm gay and I don't have anybody that I can talk to. And counselors who are bigots will now have a justification to violate that trust. I don't want to say confidentiality because a school, student and a school counselor, they don't enjoy the same kinds of protections that, you know, an adult and, know, a mental health professional share. But schools certainly encourage you to, you know, have that view. And this is a way of saying and a way of getting up that counselor's office is not necessarily a safe space.

0:07:15 Andrew: Case. A counselor is an anti-gay bigot and they think that a child has come in and said something, you know, hey, I'm worried about coming out to my parents that I'm gay, they can make the determination that that is to the student's mental, emotional, or physical health or well-being, because it is, and the school may not prohibit them from notifying the parents. So, uh, you are correct, this provision, uh, does not affirmatively, uh, we've talked about like mandatory reporters in Texas.

0:07:44 Thomas: Yeah.

0:07:44 Andrew: Um, not, it does not strike at the heart of LGBTQ plus advocates that are in the school system, but it empowers monsters.

0:07:52 Thomas: Yeah, and I imagine, you know, a student might not necessarily know if their guidance counselor is a monster or not. It's not, it's probably not always easy to tell.

0:07:52 Andrew: Yep.

0:08:01 Andrew: And, they are unlikely to have access to mental health professionals, uh, in another way, I mean, you know, you typically get that through your parents when you're a kid. And if your parents are the ones you're afraid to go to, uh, it's hard to see how that, you know, we can get kids an environment in which they can talk freely. So, you again, I agree with you, by itself is this, uh, turn on the sirens? No. But it is indicative of, uh, what this bill is trying to do. So let's get to provisions three and four, which state classroom instruction by school personnel or third parties on sexual orientation or gender identity may not occur in kindergarten through grade three. Okay, that means no Heather Has Two Mommies. Or in a manner that is not age appropriate or developmentally appropriate for students in accordance with state standards. What are those state standards?

0:08:58 Andrew: Paragraph four, student support services training developed or provided by a school district to school district personnel must adhere to student services guidelines, standards and frameworks established by the state Department of Education. So these are the don't say gay provisions, right? This is the, the two things that they're gonna implement. The first is, um, again, no mention of sexual orientation or gender identity, uh, to the youngest kids. Um, and, uh, again, uh, I get that the, like, James Lindsey anti-woke mob is like, they're teaching six-year-olds how to be trans. No. What, what books like Heather Has Two Mommies do is normalize relationships that ought to be normalized.

0:09:43 Thomas: Yeah. And that language was like age appropriate. Well, who decides that? Because I told my daughter when she was like, I don't know, two. And I think, yeah, I think one of her classmates at daycare has two moms, I think. And it was like. Oh, yeah. Some people have two moms and two dads. And I was like that's fine. She didn't go. I'm too young.

0:10:02 Andrew: You. Have scarred Phoebe for life, yeah.

0:10:07 Thomas: Like melted down. I was like, oh, okay, it's fine. It's easy. Done.

0:10:07 Andrew: Yeah. Yeah. Oddly enough, when you don't indoctrinate kids with stupid biases, they're like, yeah, sure, that seems totally fine.

0:10:17 Thomas: Yeah. Just another thing they learned about the world. So age appropriate, I guess is zero and up, I think. So as long as they're not negative one, Ithink it's okay.

0:10:18 Andrew: Yeah. As established Yeah. Those standards will be established as rules promulgated by the Florida the Department of Education and you can guess as to, right, that's an executive branch agency staffed by Ron DeSantis, so it's pretty obvious what what they're gonna do, yeah.

0:10:32 Thomas: Ah, yeah.

0:10:42 Thomas: 21 and older. You'll be able to go to war and smoke, but not be ableto learn about gay people. That'll be, that's my guess.

0:10:47 Andrew: Yeah. And, look, I, Heather Has Two Mommies, as, I mean, that was, a that was out when Alex was a child. Right, I've, there, I, are materials, uh, that attempt for young kids to normalize, right, the great variety of relationships that are out there. Um, and, you know, this is a way of saying, no, no, we don't want to deal with any of that. So it is, we, we call that instruction in sexual orientation or gender identity.

0:10:52 Thomas: Ah.

0:11:13 Thomas: Well, Well, and not only that, I mean, maybe it's because I'm here in woke California or something. But like, I hope we're on the next phase of that, which is you don't even need the book. That's like some people have to mom. You just have characters in stuff that have that. And it's normal that I think that's kind of where we are now, actually, at least in the stuff that my kids consume. Zoom. It's just instead of being a special case that you need to make your kids aware of, it's just another background thingy, which I think is even better, hopefully. More progress.

0:11:13 Andrew: Right. Yeah.

0:11:42 Andrew: And And could you imagine, and look, like, it is the same sin to the fundamentalist Christian activists that are pushing this, but could you imagin if we had to push at the, uh, elementary school kindergarten level materials that were like, like, well, you know, divorced kids are weird, you know, children of divorced parents are weird, right? Everybody would instantly understand, like, well, that's a terrible thing to do to kids. Because you're going to have kids in the class who have divorced parents, and now all of a sudden, everybody's going to be like, wow, you're weird now. The fifth section, the fourth section, paragraph five, is the last operative part of this bill. And it is, at the beginning of the school year, each school district shall notify parents of each health care service offered at their student school and the option to withhold consent or decline any specific service.

0:12:40 Andrew: Parental consent to a health care surface does not waive the parent's right to access his or her student's educational or health records, or to be notified about a change in his or his student's services or monitoring, as provided by this paragraph. Um, that seems very clearly to me to be, uh, an effort to prevent, uh, schools from, uh, handing out condoms without letting parents object to it. Don't offer that many health care services.

0:13:03 Thomas: I don't think I ever got any condoms from my school, but

0:13:04 Andrew: Um, Yeah, lots of, lots of schools, um, have that, uh, yeah.

0:13:09 Thomas: Damn. I just had to try to buy them really awkwardly at a gas station.

0:13:10 Andrew: Yeah. Yeah. That that trip through the 7-Eleven where you're like Yeah, I want

0:13:17 Thomas: Oh, God. Well, But you're not from a small town. It's, it's a different, different experience, man. Like, please be knowing, I know, please be knowing, I know. Oh,

0:13:27 Andrew: Well, in any event, like, condoms should be, seriously, they should be, like, handed out on the street. It should be, uh, you know, the, the, uh, like newspaper boxes, right, you should just be able to open up a box and take out a condom whenever you want. But anyway. Anyway, that is the text of the Don't Say Gay bill. I am pleased that it has mobilized opposition. I am pleased GLAAD and Lambda Legal have done a good job in parsing through, you know, what legalese, you might, like, just look at that on the surface and go, well, it doesn't say "don't say gay," but

0:13:32 Thomas: Man, yeah, yeah, yeah, oh,

0:14:03 Andrew: You that's effectively what it is. It is going to ban, uh, discussions as not being, quote, age appropriate, uh, and it bans, uh, any kind of discussion to youngest children, which again plays into, you what the right wing thinks the woke mob is doing, as opposed to, we're, you actually doing, um, a version of this has been introduced as Georgia Senate Bill 613. So, so, you these things proliferate when they, when they pass, they get replicated in other jurisdictions. That's, that's terrifying, but maybe less terrifying than the next two. If you're up for it. OK. Idaho House Bill 675 has been voted out of committee. It is headed to a full vote in the Idaho State House. So there is still time to oppose this one. It amends section 18-1506B of the Idaho code, and I haven't seen this reported elsewhere, that's the provision that criminalizes female clitoridectomy, right, female genital general mutilation, in Idaho it is a felony punishable by up to life in prison. And And this, who proposed this bill, wants to amend that section and say, oh, yeah, you know what else is genital mutilation?

0:14:35 Thomas: Great. Oh, yeah, oh, yeah, yeah,

0:15:16 Andrew: And again, thanks to our listeners on this, not just gender reassignment surgery, but, quote, administering or supplying the following medications that induce, and again this is the language of the statute, profound morphologic changes in the genitals of a child, or induce transient or permanent infertility, and they are described as one, puberty blocking medication to stop or delay normal puberty, put a pin in that, two, super physiological doses of testosterone to a female, or three, super physiological doses. So let's work backwards through that. That supraphysiological is just a big fancy word, meaning more than is just what is produced naturally by your body.

0:16:02 Andrew: So estrogen treatments, right? The first estrogen treatment to a trans woman, a trans girl is considered the equivalent of female genital mutilation under this bill. Same thing administering testosterone to a trans male, transgender to boy. And the entirely reversible use of puberty blockers are considered delaying the onset of normal puberty. Need to speak to this for a second because to the show know that my son is severely ADHD. I've talked about that our medical interventions really have enabled him to live and thrive and live his best life.

0:16:49 Andrew: Um, of the very real, very well documented, there's a Polton, 26, uh, 2016, uh, Polton et al, uh, peer-reviewed paper, uh, it's well known that the um, particularly in boys, uh, the treatment regimen of stimulants, right, including Ritalin, uh, can delay the onset of puberty in boys. And again, without, you know, too much into my kid's history, like that probably happened, like, it was a little older when you, when that happened. Um, was, and and by the way, that was a, a side effect we discussed with him right as, as a child, again, you got to get, you know, you have to get advice from medical professionals and parents or whatever. We discussed that, you know, it was not even close to, obviously I will run that risk because, you know, the meds helped me function and helped me get through daily life. Idea that that is child abuse, right? And again, this bill, those provisions, it does not amend. It adds to the definition, but but does not amend the punishment, which, again, is a felony punishable by up to life in prison. That's what these people think helping trans kids is.

0:17:38 Thomas: Yeah. It's Just unbelievable. I, what does one say? I don't even, I mean, it's it's it's Handmaid's Tale. It really is. I missed the times where I used to think that stuff wasn't plausible.

0:18:13 Andrew: Gets worse because they've obviously talked to anti trans doctors, uh, and other activists who were like, oh, yeah, all right, well, you know, you got to keep in mind you're going to get all sorts of problems. So that there is a health exception, uh, in the bill, but then the health exception contains an exception to the exception. And it says, except that a medical intervention that results in the impairment and mutilation of the reproductive organs and parts of a child, and and keep in mind, and I know I'm sorry for using this language, language. That's the language I just defined to you, is right, including, right, administering testosterone, estrogen, puberty blockers, is never necessary to the health of the child on whom it is performed if it is for the sole purpose of attempting to change or affirm the child's perception of the child's sex.

0:19:05 Andrew: The child's sex, if that perception is inconsistent with the child's biological sex. So, uh, again, notice the way in which that's written, right, that concedes, right, gender dysphoria is a real thing, it's the child's perception of their own gender, right. And then if that's inconsistent with the child's, you, biological sex, um,

0:19:22 Thomas: Right. I'm not a doctor, but doesn't this really screw over people who are born intersex?

0:19:32 Andrew: Great question. Again, they have tried to block that out because They've added new subsection six that says the bill shall not apply to a child with external biological sex characteristics that are ambiguous and irresolvable, such as a child born having 46 chromosomes, XX chromosomes with virilization, XY chromosomes with undervirilization, or with both ovarian and testicular tissue. Or when a physician is otherwise diagnosed a disorder of sexual development in which the physician is determined through genetic testing that the child does not have the, quote, normal sex chromosome structure for a male or female. And again, know, I'm quoting from the legislation here, I don't obviously endorse any of this language. Yeah, but no, they thought of that one already, Thomas, and just wrote intersex out of it because they knew that this was an indefensible line to take. So, so keep an eye on, again, Not the law right now, but Idaho House Bill 675 has passed, made it out of committee, is working its way to the full statehouse. House

0:19:37 Thomas: Oh, This show is brought to you by ZipRecruiter. Folks, I think it's a great idea to always keep learning new things, new skills. That's why you listen to the show. We learn so much from Andrew each and every week. I learn more about the law, the ethics, the bar exam questions. If you're always learning, it keeps you sharp, just like Zip Recruiter, their AI is always learning. So if you're hiring, their A.I. gets better and faster at finding the right candidates for all your roles. And right now, you can try it for free at ziprecruiter.com. the job. Then, it proactively presents these candidates to you. You can easily review these recommended candidates and invite your top choices to apply for your job, which encourages them to apply faster.

0:21:27 Thomas: It's no wonder ZipRecruiter is the number one rated hiring site in the U.S. based on G2 ratings. And now you can try Zip Recruiter for free at this exclusive web address, ziprecruiter.com slash OA. That's ziprecruiter.com slash OA, ZipRecruiter, the smartest way to hire. This show is brought to you by Masterworks. I saw an article on art auction prices and I cannot wrap my head around the numbers I'm seeing. 71 million for an Andy Warhol painting, 103 million for for Picasso, 110 million for Basquiat.

Might want something like in your portfolio, but like, how can you afford 71 million? I don't know if we have a listener who can afford $71 million or even the, you know, the higher budget, $110 million for Basquiat, if we do, you go to our Patreon, but if that's not you, a way you can get your hands on that kind of asset without that kind of money is Masterworks. Masterworks is the first investing platform in the world, enabling you to invest in blue chip art. It's an asset that's outpaced the S&P 500 by 164% from 1995 to 2021. That's a long period of time. That's kind of a proven record. And it's made affordable through fractional ownership. Because with Masterworks, you can buy shares representing an investment in famous artworks. And if you go to masterworks.art opening, you can start investing today, joining over 350,000 other members.

0:23:06 Thomas: That's masterworks dot art slash opening. See important Regulation A disclosures at masterworks dot io slash cd. One more time. That's Masterworks dot art slash opening.

0:23:21 Andrew: We go down the increasingly unlikely spectrum, uh, the third, uh, bill, um, this is just a dude has proposed this, okay, this has gotten a lot of attention, but has, um, not gotten out of committee yet. I would think it would have no chance of getting out of committee, but, see, See the previous two segments we just did. So this is Missouri House Bill 1677, which bans, uh, aiding and abetting anyone getting an abortion, quote, regardless of where the abortion is or will be performed, um, so that is the, um, you know, even out of state, it uses the same Texas House Bill 8 civil enforcement vigilantism mechanism, uh, with $10,000 in statutory damages, uh, defines aiding or abetting an abortion as, uh, mifepristone and misoprostol, which are the, uh, that, that together, that's the abortion pill regimen. Uh, mifepristone is RU486, so, uh, yes, the the implication is, uh, pharmacy in Illinois sells a woman in Missouri, uh, the abortion bill, uh, uh, could then be sued by anybody, by private vigilantes in Missouri for aiding and abetting an abortion.

0:23:36 Thomas: Who knows?

0:24:34 Andrew: It's terrible and horrible, and I would hope it can't get out of committee. But

0:24:40 Thomas: Let's say that does go into law. Is this where we could start seeing states really doing battle with one another? You know, extraditing and being like, no, I'm not going to do that.

0:24:50 Andrew: You could. And the, I think this is the reason behind, well, I think there are multiple reasons, reasons behind using the vigilante civil enforcement mechanism, right? Because it's very, very clear that if this were a criminal offense, that you cannot make criminal behavior in Illinois subject to prosecution in Missouri. But you can, right, establish civil liability, you know, for businesses that to do business in Missouri. Right. Again, we've used this example. We have a bunch of podcast listeners in Missouri, were probably subject to personal jurisdiction in the state of Missouri if we got sued there.

0:25:37 Andrew: And so, by the way, that's not an admission for purposes of Opening Arguments Media LLC. So it complicates the question in a way that, answer to the question should be, don't leave your criminal enforcement to vigilantes and bounty hunters. Yeah, it it makes it a harder question.

0:25:54 Thomas: Makes what a harder... Sorry, don't... So my question is, so can So if California, let's say California, me in California or some business, we start sending people the abortion pills that they can't get. Does California have any way to protect me if it wanted to?

0:26:12 Andrew: California could then pass a law that says, you all liability in connection with, interstate shipments of, you mifepristone and misoprostol, you'd frame it larger than that. You would say, you now, all liability and connection with women's health services, you know, shall, uh, be adjudicated under the laws of the state of California, right. That's what I would pass.

0:26:39 Thomas: Hmm.

0:26:39 Andrew: And then, right, you're in a, a Missouri court, right, and you would just argue, we've talked about this before, you would argue conflict of laws rules, you Would say, hey, I'm a Californian law, I, I prescribed this on, in, I'm a Californic corporation, uh, we prescribed this under Californial law, we shipped it out of our California office. And the statute says California law applies to these kinds of disputes. And then the Missouri court would be obligated to apply California law, even though, you know, to that bounty case, which would then, you dismiss out the case. There are a lot of ifs in that Chain. So I love the question because, you know, you're sort of thinking five steps ahead and saying, if this turns out to be the new, you know, sort of Handmaid's Tale landscape, what can we do to protect, uh, people.

0:26:48 Thomas: Hmm. Wow. Yeah. Yeah.

0:27:29 Andrew: And and the answer is, um, we do not have to give up the fight just because Missouri has passed a terrible law. Um, and so, uh, if this, let's hope that this doesn't pass, but If It does, I will do an episode on, um, what we need to be passing in, uh, in blue states to to make sure that that people don't run afoul of us. You

0:27:39 Thomas: Yeah. All Fingers crossed that it doesn't pass. But, well, I don't know. Look, I'll try not to yell, Andrew. But, you know, we got all the, maybe I should. You know, I mean, protecting gay and trans youth is probably worth a little yelling. There's just something uniquely horrible to the fact that this is so obviously a political ploy to get people focused on, you culture war issues that they've riled people up about using Fox News and other outlets and all that, and that it's so obviously just a way to get their base motivated. But it also still has these real and terrible impacts. It's such a weird kind of dichotomy to be stuck in where it's like, okay, yes, this is just some bullshit that you're doing to score political points using people as a football, but people are still being used as a football, as you kind of said here.

0:27:54 Andrew: Can yell. I'm

0:28:41 Thomas: It is truly horrifying. And also, I people used to argue during, I don't know, every election recently that it's not enough to just not be a Republican. It's not Enough. And I'm just going to go ahead and say, yes, it is enough to just not be Republican. I think that's that is enough, actually. And it's Not, you know, it's not where anybody wants to be. It'S not like I would love to be in a position where just saying you're a Democrat or just loosely speaking, being a Democrat is enough To vote for you. But it It actually is true. Like when the other side is, I don't know, handmaid's tale, it actually is enough of a campaign promise to be like, I'm not that.

0:29:18 Andrew: Not that. Yeah.

0:29:19 Thomas: Yeah. Like, uh, yeah. Like if I'm getting picked up by an Uber and the driver, I asked the driver like, what do you stand for? What's your deal? And he's like, well, I am not a serial killer. And the other guy that's going to pick you up is a serial kill. I'm like, yeah, sure. But being not a serious killer is not enough. It's like no, that is enough. Just take that Uber. Like that's the position we're in. We're stranded somewhere. We've got two Ubers. One is a serial killer and one is a guy saying, I'm not. By the way, that's not even the situation we're In because Democrats do great things as we've seen. But like, even if you, that's your view of the situation that some, you know, centrist Democrat is like not worth voting for. It actually is enough because we need to prevent this harm. We need to present bills like this from being passed. We have

0:29:19 Andrew: But Thomas, If I ride with enough serial killers for Uber, then eventually Like, Uber will be overthrown and replaced with a socialist system to drive people around anyway. All Right, okay, um, as long as we're on that path, uh, uh, how about we, and again, cannot say this strongly enough, Democrats do not sponsor or vote for any of the bills that we just talked about. Right. These are Republican proposals.

0:30:08 Thomas: To. Yeah, yeah, exactly. Yeah. Sorry, I wasn't finished with that thing. I just had one more bit. Apologies. So the only way to round this out is, by the way, if you want to get out of this situation, contrary to Andrew's facetious plan of just let yourself get serial killed enough times, that doesn't work. If you want to get Out of this Situation, which we all should want to Get Out of, The only way to do it is to completely eliminate Republicans' viability in elections. That's the only way.

0:30:30 Andrew: OK, I'm sorry. Please do. No, no, no. Please.

0:30:52 Andrew: Yeah.

0:30:52 Thomas: The way to have good things again and to get better and better, more progressive candidates is to get us out of this. We have to break this cycle of letting Republicans win. We can't, we have to eliminate them from the possibility landscape electorally. And then what we get is, you know, AOC versus Joe Biden. Then we can be like, oh yeah, let's vote for AOC. That's awesome. She's way better. But until we get to that point, we have to just vote Republicans out. It's the only option. Sorry about that. Okay. Onward to other stuff.

0:31:23 Andrew: Yeah, well, and and and again, drive that point home by talking about how Republicans are stealing elections. And I got two little stories here that you need to know about. The first is, and again, remember, the only electoral fraud there is are Republicans trying to prove election fraud. So Right. We just got a 13-count indictment against Tina Peters in Mesa County, Colorado.

Colorado, uh, and she was the, um, she is of course running for secretary of state, um, she and her deputy Belinda Nicely were both, uh, subject of a 13-count indictment, um, she was, uh, the clerk and recorder of Mesa County, Colorado, she believes in the big lie, and, uh, in connection with that was a, what is, what is called a safe, a trusted build, okay, so Colorado using Dominion voting systems for their electronic voting machines, and so the system is set to come in, uh, and, uh, be, uh, installed and then you upgrade the software and, right, everything else, and so the, the way in which, uh, the secretary of state office does this is, um, you have, uh, the, trusted build installed under video camera so that members of the public that are interested in the process can then watch that video from start to finish, and you can see, oh, look, okay, here's how this Dominion voting system was installed, and here's, like, here's them clicking the button to, you know, start updating the software, here, them, you know, here's the software saying 100 installed, here's them disconnecting it from the modem, here's that, at no point do they call Venezuela, right? Um, well, uh, in order to prove that Dominion systems are fraudulent, what Tina Peters did was, got, uh, a fraudulent account.

0:31:30 Thomas: Oh, God. Yeah.

0:33:21 Andrew: She said, oh, got a temp in my office who's going to come in. Um, turned out, not uh to actually be a person. Um, it was somebody they, they thought was going to be, I think, a stooge, like, but they wound up not hiring, uh, this guy, um, and so they just used this person's badge, uh, to come in, uh, and shut off the cameras, and they, took the guy's name, by the way, was Gerald Wood, right? Know, Tina Peters says, hey, I've got a temp employee, Gerald Wood, I need you to give me an access badge, uh, they get the fake access badge, they come in, uh, on May 17th, they turned off the surveillance cameras, which then stayed off throughout the entire build process, uh, they hacked into, uh, the software and got the Tina Peters, uh, hacked into the software. Well, you know, I mean, had access to it, but, you know what I mean, is used, uh, the secured access badges, uh, to access the software, and then, as a result, uh, published, uh, the passwords to access the Mesa County voting systems, uh, on right-wing websites, including Gateway Pundit.

0:33:28 Thomas: Oh, wow. Wow. Wait, who hacked into the software? What? Uh-huh.

0:34:35 Thomas: In order to

0:34:36 Andrew: It In order to, yeah, right, exactly.

0:34:36 Thomas: Increase election security. Yeah.

0:34:39 Andrew: Um, Tina Peters, of course, showed up at the My Pillow guy's nonsense conference, um, and, so all of a sudden, like, Colorado secretary of state employees were like, uh, you do know that, like, our passwords are out here on right-wing nut job sites, and, you know, the, the goddamn My Pillow guy is saying, like, see, this is how easy it is to get into the Colorado election system, well, yeah, it is when you sabotage it by people who are trying to prove the thing that they have, then set up. So,

0:34:39 Thomas: Okay. Sure. Yeah. To

0:35:12 Andrew: Good news, uh, 13 felonies, um, attempting to influence a public servant, conspiracy to commit criminal impersonation, uh, criminal impersonation, um, failure to comply with the requirements of the secretary of state, that's a misdemeanor, uh, violation of duty, that's also a misdemeanor, uh, and, then first degree official misconduct, uh, of the job, uh, and, uh, and also identity theft, uh, in connection with the fake badge for Gerald Wood, who appears to have backed out of the system, so, uh, that's the 13 count indictment against, uh, Tina Peters, uh, and her clerk, her assistant, Belinda Nicely, so just a reminder, right, election fraud is perpetrated by Republicans when they're trying to prove that our systems are, yeah, not safe.

0:35:53 Thomas: Prove election. Yeah. Yeah. But you said they, so they didn't actually steal an election though.

0:35:59 Andrew: They did, this was all, uh, in connection with the setup of the voting systems for the 2022 election, yeah, so we at least caught them, yeah, it's good, I

0:36:05 Thomas: Right. Okay. I just want to, yeah. Okay, I don't know. Look, it's so bad these days. I don't know, Andrew. The end of the story could be that they stole the election. I d' n't know, yeah,

0:36:16 Andrew: Mean, it could be, fortunately not, uh, but, uh, because voter fraud is such a big problem, uh, the, uh, Florida state legislature has now passed this, has gone under the, the radar, and, and I'm really glad that we're reporting on it, um, the don't say gay bill has has gotten a lot of attention, uh, Florida has passed Senate Bill 524, which creates an election day goon squad, it funds it with two and a half million bucks and 25 employees, uh, Florida SB 524, uh, the first part of, by the way, just like, as an incidental, like, a mustache twirling part, prohibits any jurisdiction in Florida, right, any county or city, right, from using ranked choice voting, so that's nice, kind of like, you know, wind up there, it says a ranked-choice voting method that allows voters to rank candidates for an office in order of preference and has ballots cast be tabulated in multiple rounds following the elimination of a candidate until a single candidate attains a majority, may not be used in determining the election or nomination of any candidate to any local, state, or federal elective office in the state, and again, I, I know you're, you're sick of hearing us say this, but like, this could, this is black-and-white proof that what

0:37:30 Andrew: The right wing wants is for you to split your vote, voting for a third wing, the third-party candidate, right, the the clear solution is right choice voting, then we're all happy, right, go ahead, right, vote the socialist one, the Democrat two, and the Republican 9th, uh, and, we're all happy, uh, prohibiting rank choice voting and then encouraging, uh, demoralized, uh, folks on the left to stay home, uh, when, you a compromise or centrist candidates get in, is their strategy, it's in black and white, yep.

0:37:30 Thomas: Yeah I, as you say, we've said this a lot, but I've, it' funny because I've had literally this interaction, I d n' know, 20 times where I post or say something that's like, hey, sorry, kind of what I said earlier situation we're in is we just have to get Republicans out. That's the only choice. And then inevitably, some of the comments are we need ranked choice voting. And it's like yet. Yeah, no, I sure I agree. How do we get that? Is it by letting Republicans win and then they pass bills like this that say never any ranked choice vote? Is that the way we do it? Or do we get Republicans the F out of office, which was what I already said anyway. So what is this comment adding? That happens frequently.

0:38:39 Andrew: And when and when they do, by the way, it is Democrats in blue jurisdictions that pass RCV statutes, yeah. So yeah, this the second thing that the, uh, goon squad does is, uh, this is the actual goon squad, it creates, uh, it's not called the goon quad, although I think they should be

0:38:47 Thomas: Yes, exactly. Couldn't be more clear.

0:39:00 Thomas: Oh, that's sad. That would be the only redeeming quality of it. Hi, Ed Goins.

0:39:02 Andrew: Required yeah, to wear that hired goons, yeah, you just don't get the kind of personal touch, uh, it is called the Office of Election Crimes and Security, is created within the Department of State, and the, the purpose of the office is to aid the secretary of state in completion of his or her duties under the statute, which means receiving and reviewing notices and reports generated by government officials or any other person regarding alleged occurrences of election law violations or election irregularities in the state, initiating independent inquiries and conducting preliminary investigations into allegations of election law violations or election irregularities within the state, and then, uh, you know, I'm not going to read all of the, the, the rest of this, um, you, can, I will link it in the show notes, again, it's Florida SB 524, uh, but basically, uh, says that the, uh, secretary, right, shall appoint a director of this office, right, of election crimes and security, uh, shall, shall be based state capital, Tallahassee, shall employ non-sworn investigators to conduct any investigations, and the positions and resources necessary for the office to accomplish its duties shall be established through and subject to the legislative appropriations process. This means that something that has long been a voter suppression tactic, we've talked about this, the

0:39:08 Thomas: Yeah.

0:40:23 Andrew: Consent decree came out of election fraud in Pennsylvania in which the Republicans had a voter task force complete with these fake armbands kind of wander around sites and look like an official presence to try and deter folks from voting. That used to be a thing that you faked and will now be a thing that Florida can have. They can just send out of these 25, and again, right, there are 25 full-time employees. They can use non-sworn investigators, right? That is independent contractors wearing the badge of election crimes and security under the State Department, department, uh, in connection with this election, uh, starting in 2022, if you think that's a great idea, you're probably not listening to the show, um, the law also I should add, greatly increases penalties, uh, in collection with, um, election behaviors that, uh, used to be okay. So, for example, and again, I am not a fan, we've talked about this on the show, I'm not a man of ballot harvesting. Right. Which is, it can be used to prop up.

It can be use to increase Democratic numbers, particularly in the south, in black churches will go through and like, you gather together all of their constituent, all of of their parishioners, uh, ballots, and then you know, kind of make sure that everybody is voting the way that everybody. When I'm not a fan of that, right, I, I think it's perfectly okay to prohibit ballot harvesting. I think we should have exceptions when it's, um, outside of actual, uh, jurisdictions, right, like, so I think, like,

0:40:49 Thomas: Yeah. Oh, boy.

0:42:01 Andrew: Ballot harvesting is the only thing you can do on like Native American American reservations, for example. Right. Yeah. So, okay, I'm not a fan of ballot harvesting, uh, outside of that, um, but that used to be permissible in Florida, uh, in the last bill, uh, in 2020, it was made a misdemeanor, it is now a felony punishable by $50,000 and and or five years in prison, right, so So, if I

0:42:06 Thomas: Right. Right. Wow. Wow. Why not the death penalty? I don't know. Just keep going with it. We will start to see those, I think.

0:42:29 Andrew: We will, I think that's right. So, you, all of that, I think, kind of falls under the general category of right. Republicans don't want you to vote. They want to make it harder to vote, and they want to pretend that there's fraud where there isn't. And they want to use fraud as a basis for these draconian kinds of bills. So, yeah,

0:42:45 Thomas: Yeah. They also just need to signal that they love Trump and believe he won, even though they know he didn't. It's that too. Too. Because I mean, we talked about this in Florida. It's unclear that this only hurts Democrats and helps Republicans. It might not be true. But yeah, who knows?

0:42:53 Andrew: It's it's. Yep. Yeah. Yeah. No, it certainly mega churches use ballot harvesting. Right. Yeah. So I agree with you.

0:43:09 Thomas: Yeah. Today's show is brought to you by Business Wars, a Wondery podcast. In 2007, two roommates rented out an air mattress to strangers to earn extra money. Their little experiment turned into Airbnb and exploded into a worldwide phenomenon with rentals in over 100,000 cities. But one of those cities didn't want anything to do with the startup. New York City. Business Wars is a podcast from Wondery that examines the world's biggest company rivalries and how the outcomes of these battles shape what we buy and how we live. In the new season, Airbnb versus New York City. Hear how the battle with the city became a symbol of the struggle between startups and regulators. As Airbnb hosts realize how lucrative this side hustle could be, it quickly expanded to include entire apartments, luxury units, and even castles.

0:44:03 Thomas: Oh. Soon, real estate speculators were snapping up properties left and right to rent out on Airbnb, but rather than make money for regular people as it promised, Airbnb began to limit New York's already short supply of affordable housing. Angry renters complained so much that New York City officials decided to do something about it. Airbnb wasn't going down without a fight. Definitely check out Business Wars from Wondery. It is a fascinating story. And that dynamic of a big city versus a tech company, that's played out many times and probably will play out many more times. So listen to Business Wars on Apple podcasts, Amazon Music, or you can listen ad-free by joining Wondery Plus in the Wondery app.

0:44:46 Andrew: All right. Can I please do something happy?

0:44:48 Clip: WOAH-

0:44:53 Thomas: A lot of bad news there. But why don't you bring us home? We got the wild card. We earned it. The people have earned it for listening to this horrible bad news. Um, what's the good news? Wild card. Yeah.

0:45:02 Andrew: Good news is cause number D.C. dash 22 dash 02566 to the Commission for Lawyer Discipline versus Sidney Powell filed in the 116th Judicial District, Dallas County, Texas. Yeah, Sidney Powell's going to be disbarred. And boy, it could not happen to a nicer insurrectionist. I'm going to link in the show notes. Great stuff here. Things that I didn't quite know, which is the basis in Texas were complaints filed by 10 different folks. And those 10 folks included Jocelyn Benson, the Michigan Secretary of State, Gretchen Whitmer, the Michigan governor, Dana Nessel, the Michigan attorney general. So this is in connection with that referral from Judge Parker's sanctions, but also concerned citizens who were lawyers. So Paula Carey Goldman is just a Virginia lawyer, seems to be a concerned citizen. Same thing, Adam Charles Reddick, Janet Louise Lackman.

0:45:13 Thomas: Yep.

0:46:02 Andrew: Now, she's actually in Texas. Yeah, if you've ever wondered when we've sort of made a call to action and said, yeah, if, um, you know, if you have direct knowledge of X lawyer, you know, committing Y impropriety, go ahead and fill out a complaint. Um, it, seems to be taken seriously, so that's the first kind of bit of good news. Um, the, the second, uh, are, are the bases, uh, here, um, and and one of which we've talked about briefly, uh, but it is so egregious that it's worth, uh, mentioning again. So, um, the reasons for arguing that this case should go forward against Sidney Powell are, one, Sidney Powell had no reasonable basis to believe that the lawsuits she filed were not frivolous and they violated Rule 11. That's clear.

0:46:49 Thomas: Oh.

0:46:49 Andrew: Two, she unreasonably delayed lawsuits, right, expanded out the proceedings by refusing to dismiss them out, even when the relief that could be granted was moot. I mean, she filed an appeal in the Michigan case after Joe Biden was president. So, you know, she was sanctioned in the Eastern District of Michigan by Judge Peters. So those are three really good arguments. And then the fourth is in the Pearson versus Kemp litigation that she filed in Georgia, she attached a certificate from the Georgia Secretary of State that was altered. And altered. And, and I don't know if you remember this, um, but this, uh, was actually mentioned as one of the bases, uh, for Dominion's, uh, claim of defamation against Sydney Powell. Right. So it shows up on page 37 of the Dominion versus Sidney Powell lawsuit, but, um, here's what Sydnee Powell did. And again, reminder, we are not working with the best of the brightest here.

0:47:43 Thomas: My.

0:47:44 Andrew: Sidney Powell says in her complaint that Governor Kemp, Secretary of State Raffensperger, rushed through the purchase of Dominion voting machines. And she can prove that there's a conspiracy because the authorization by the Secretary of State to use Dominion voting systems was undated. Right, they just left this big thing hanging out there so that you could get it through at any one point in time. Right? Um, and you know, that proves that, uh know, the fix was in. There's only one problem. And, and by the way, I, you can, the link is in the show note, you can click on this false, fraudulent, altered document. Now it is on defending therepublic.org/georgia/court-filings Okay, so you click on it, it's Exhibit six, and it says, uh, it is my opinion that this kind of voting system and its components can safely be used by the electors of this state in all primaries and elections, uh, as provided by the law.

And she says, see, look, it's undated, they just snuck it in there, except that original was dated, had the little official seal, I hereby witness, with my hand and seal, uh, as of this, you know, and, and has the date on it and has the little, uh, like gold leaf thing around it. And she just used, like, something like Microsoft soft Paint to white it out. And, and I'm not kidding, she only whited out like part of it, like there's this red

0:49:16 Thomas: God, she didn't even do, like, a good job. She didn't click the larger, uh, brush size on MS Paint to make sure she got it all.

0:49:23 Andrew: It There's still like a red wavy line that, like, is part of the top of the seal, like that's how they figured this out. Again, we're not dealing with our best and brightest here, like I link the original, because the original from the Secretary of State's office now gets an error, access denied, when you click on it, but you can find it on the Wayback Machine on the internet. Um, it's stupendously obvious, uh, that all she's done is just tried to white out the date and then said, so you look, it doesn't have any date. Um, and look, when you, you cross the line from making idiotic arguments to altering documents is where you lose the ability to just say, you know, the John Eastman, like, well,

0:49:30 Thomas: Yeah. No yeah yeah

0:50:09 Andrew: Admittedly, I thought no Supreme Court justice would vote for this. Right. Yeah. Yeah, too. I have perpetrated a fraud on the court. And so she's alleged to violate five different provisions of the Model Rules of Professional Conduct. Um, 3.01, don't bring a case unless you have a reasonable belief that there's a non-frivolous basis for doing so. 3.02, uh, don't unreasonably increase the cost or other burdens or unreasonably delay the resolution of a matter. 3.03, don't make a knowingly false statement. 3.03(a)(5), shall not knowingly use evidence you know to be false. Um, that's a real problem for her now. And the catch-all, 8.04(a)(3), shall not engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation. The request is for an order of professional misconduct. And yes,

0:50:10 Thomas: Just Uh, Zealous Zealous advocacy over here, so

0:50:59 Andrew: That can and will include disbarment here. So Sidney Powell will not be a lawyer much longer. I am predicting disbarmen.

0:51:04 Thomas: Strong prediction, you're prediction predicting disbarment wow I arguably, she hasn't been a lawyer at all that I've seen, but, but officially, yeah. Ah well, good to go out on some good news. Thanks for that wild card.

0:51:14 Andrew: Yeah, exactly. There you go.

0:51:21 Clip: And thank you, let's go!

0:51:22 Thomas: And more good news, let's thank our top patrons, our Hall of Famers, our all-time greats on patreon.com/law, the second quintile, every it works for all of them I guess, uh it's not as good as the the final, but, but still, uh, and I think it's your turn yeah, I think it's my turn to thank our top patrons, our Hall of Famers, uh, who, by the way, are getting all the goodies, the ad-free episodes, the early episodes, the Law'd Awful Movies coming at you real soon, that may have already been recorded as you're hearing this, I'm so excited. So, Andrew, start us off. Oh.

0:51:30 Andrew: Woo-hoo. Yeah, it sure does. It's a quintile yeah thank you to Sean McGovern, to OA Chicago live show, you bring the law talking guys, I'll bring the Malort, oh my god, that's gross stuff, um but

0:52:00 Thomas: Yes we're yeah, I don't know about that last part, but we're definitely doing that at some point.

0:52:07 Andrew: I, hey you do that, I will do, I'll do one, but but not one from every person, but yeah, I'll do one shot of Maillard I think we should be, yeah the fat Jedi eating cake and drinking Emperor's Brewery beer in the Death Star canteen. Zach Bloom, support Decarcerate, working to end mass incarceration in Arkansas, decarcerear.org. I keep my candy in a jar, not in a desk, and I keep that jar sealed tightly, we should do the same with the Senate. Tell Morgan Katam, son, I have Ray Pizza School the Corgi, and Conrad Michaels have never been in the same room at the same time. Coincidence? If our top donor was a Corgi, that would just, the constellations would be in harmony. Legal Eagle is so handsome. Do take DNS advice from our live streams. The Smiths, praise be unto Hamilton. Crazy Animal Lady has given up on changing her Patreon name. Just take my money. We will, but you know, you can still change it.

0:52:11 Thomas: Are we getting, are we getting close to live shows again? I think we're close.

0:53:05 Andrew: The at canonical debate could help people get back onto Team Facts, check out the proposal, budget botanist on Fiverr suspects you all killed your pandemic plant purchases, I forgive you. Yeah, we'll stock up, yeah, replenish those please. Offer any suggestions for a podcast that would read my Patreon name weekly, asking for a friend. Academic Dispute, our instant target creature must, must block this turn if able, you may have it gain reach, learn.

0:53:33 Thomas: Well, the name of the card seems to be academic dispute. I think that's, that's the, I think. That's usually how that works, but I, yeah, I don't know the card. Sorry. And thank you to Sparkle Donkey Tequila is 100% guaranteed by the law offices of P. Andrew Torrez, and the next thing I will say is false. What?

0:53:36 Andrew: All right and Fred Grothuis

0:53:54 Thomas: Oranis, the doctrine of daylight savings time is our deference. Yeah, no kidding. OneSmartCookie sent cutters. Listener Thomas F., is anyone else concerned that in about a year, Republicans could permanently take control? Yeah, we're quite concerned about that. Happy birthday to the fat Jedi drinking at Emperor's Brewery beer. GDT says, everyone knows that the police can't arrest you without your, page two of two, consent. Maritime laws, freedom menu. Benghazi in the buttery mails. Not a last week tonight producer.

0:53:49 Andrew: Right

0:54:30 Thomas: Les deux, les bien fabuleux. Jennifer Tchaikovsky. Supreme Court justices should have 18-year term limits and so should Conrad Michaels. Not likely. It's my last shout out with testicles. Wow. Wow. Going to the vet and getting tutored. What? Tutored? I think, oh, neutered probably. On March 31st. That must be a dog one, I hope. Edgy Veggie, Evie Huntington, Harvard alum, no hood. We have legal advice if you have coin. Do not take legal advice from a coin. And John Brown did nothing wrong. Thank you so much to our Hall of Famers.

0:55:07 Clip: Sometimes you eat the bar, and sometimes the bar will eat you.

0:55:13 Thomas: And now it's time for T3BEThomasTriesToBeEthicalAnswerTime. Let's see. Did I make my first ethical misstep?

0:55:21 Andrew: So, Thomas, this was attorney represented the wife in an acrimonious dispute, uh, divorce proceeding, uh, and then the husband, through his lawyer, makes a settlement offer. The settlement offer says, uh, okay, uh, I'm gonna give you a potential settlement that is better than any potential award that you could get from the case going to judgment, but you have to agree that you can't use this lawyer in any future proceeding brought by either of us, uh, to modify or enforce the provisions of our settlement decree. The wife says, yeah, all right, well, what the hell do I care, I want to get my money, uh, and, you know, one lawyer is as good as the next, um, and her attorney says, well, yeah, this is probably in your interest, um, and so says, yeah, go, go ahead, accept it. The attorney recommended to the wife that she accept the offer.

Was it proper for the wife's attorney to recommend that the wife accept the settlement offer? You narrowed it down to one yes answer. Yes, because the attorney reasonably believed that it was in the wife's best interest to accept the proposed settlement. Or that's D, the main answer, your fallback, no answer. No, because the proposed settlement would restrict the attorney's right to represent the wife in the future. And you said, well, I think I'm going to go with D. B is a fallback if there's some rule that I've never heard of that says

0:55:43 Thomas: Yeah.

0:56:29 Andrew: You can't do that. Was, Thomas, as it turns out, is your first one wrong. There is in fact a rule that prevents you from doing that. It is rule, uh, 5.6 of the Model Rules of Professional Conduct, which says a lawyer shall not participate in offering or making, B, an agreement in which a restriction on the lawyer's right to practice is part of the settlement of a client controversy.

0:56:35 Thomas: Wow. Yeah.

0:56:51 Andrew: And it, as soon as you start thinking about it, you realize why that's in there. So imagine, you know, that you have, you have gotten to the bottom of repetitive, terrible conduct by a business against your first client. And, you know, the XYZ Corp is like, all right, fine, we're going to pay off your guy. In fact, We're going to pay him more than he could get a trial. But you have to not bring any more of these cases, Thomas Smith, where we're done. You got us over a barrel. We'll deal with Andrew Torrez. We're doing any other lawyer, but God help us, not Thomas Smith. And the idea there is that would be an unjust distribution of the results, right? Right. Like you don't get to, you file your cases against XYZ Corp and client A gets a windfall. But clients B, C and D would not get the best quality representation down the line.

0:57:07 Thomas: Okay.

0:57:42 Thomas: Wait, I thought... Well, no. It just said he can't represent the wife, though.

0:57:48 Andrew: Yeah. Well, that's but that's why the the rule in general is you can't restrict your future right to practice. The reason for not wanting to restrict the future right of practice, I think, is that, you you know.

0:57:55 Thomas: Oh, okay. Yeah. Yeah. I get that. That makes sense. But I think, you know, the fact that it was very narrowly tailored to you can't represent the wife in any further thing. It just was like, well, I don't really see how that's a thingy, but it's a rule I didn't know about. And I was very close to guessing. So it was B though, right?

0:58:14 Andrew: Yep. It's a rule you didn't know about. So there you go. Yep, it

0:58:18 Thomas: Yeah. It was very, very close to guessing B. Probably should have pulled the trigger on that. Well, am I just barred?

0:58:18 Andrew: Was in fact B. Yeah, you get one.

0:58:25 Thomas: Am I Sidney Powell?

0:58:26 Andrew: No, I think I think there's a good faith basis for thinking that. No like like you analyze the question exactly perfectly. You know, what more could you ask for?

0:58:29 Thomas: Yeah, Yeah. Yeah, it's true. Probably just getting it right would be the, yeah. I guess that'd be the one more thing.

0:58:39 Andrew: Well, that that is a a thing you could ask for that

0:58:42 Thomas: Yeah. Well, let's find out who for the first time in show history is more ethical than I am. Who is this week's big winner?

0:58:54 Andrew: All right, Thomas, and this week we have two winners. I couldn't choose between the two of them. One is a lawyer, our friend Shelly Henry, who writes very straightforwardly, it's B, never give up your right to represent a client. They settle their cases. You do not. Exactly right from the lawyer's point of view. Also, dinosaur ducky non-lawyer who writes, this question makes perfect soap opera sense. The reason for the divorce is infidelity between the wife and you guessed it, her attorney. So now the husband and adulterous wife are agreeing to steal one of the lawyer's sticks. Come on, man, no way that's legal. The answer is B. So I couldn't choose between the soap opera and the real answer, so I'm awarding a joint win here. Everyone, let's give both of them a follow on Twitter. That is at bibby henry, at B-I-B-Y-H-E-N-R-Y, for Shelly, and for dinosaur ducky, that is is at dinosaur underscore ducky, D-I-N-O-S-A-U-R underscore D-U C-K-Y. Congratulations to both of you for being this week's winner and enjoy your never ending fame and fortune split two ways, which due to the magic of infinity is still never ending fame and fortunate.

1:00:10 Thomas: And that's our show. Thanks so much for listening. I know that that's uh, that's some, tough stuff to deal with. We, we cannot let up. We cannot allow Republicans to take anything else, and we got to kick them out of everything they're in that we can, uh, because that's horrible. But if it makes you feel any better, Sidney Powell is going to be disbarred.

1:00:28 Thomas: And if Andrew's wrong about that, we'll disbar him. No, not really. But all right. Thanks, everybody. We'll see you for Rapid Response Friday.

1:00:27 Andrew: Does make me feel better

1:00:37 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.

1:01:11 Clip: www.openargs.com. Be sure to join the Facebook group at facebook.com slash groups slash 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.

1:01:47 Andrew: Sorry, I'll stop because I hear there's a barking outside. I don't know if you can hear that or not.

1:01:51 Thomas: Oh, it's been a hellscape of your neighbor using the saw or something, but we just got to live with it. No, there's nothing you can do about that.

1:01:56 Andrew: God, sorry. Close to hopefully close to having a soundproofed area.

1:02:03 Thomas: I mean, you could murder your neighbor. I mean...

1:02:05 Andrew: All right. All Right.

1:02:07 Thomas: I mean I'm saying don't do that. That would be bad. In the list of options, that's...

1:02:09 Andrew: Okay. Yeah, this is this is recorded. Okay, anyway,

1:02:13 Thomas: Yeah, but it's the option. I'm giving you the options, but I'm say don't. But that one. So, yeah.

1:02:13 Andrew: We'll come back. Oh, yeah. Right? Yeah, it would be foolish for

1:02:19 Thomas: Yeah, be foolish.

1:02:19 Andrew: Me to do that. Okay?