OA613: Cipollone Prediction: Bullseye. Here's the Next Potential Jan 6 Domino to Fall

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 613. I'm Thomas. That's Andrew. How you doing?

0:01:23 Andrew: I'm fantastic, Thomas, how are you? Oh.

0:01:26 Thomas: Great. You know, for all the listeners know, we're still together. We're cuddling. They don't know that we, that trip, that trip ended. Yeah.

0:01:30 Andrew: I'm not that fantastic Thom you

0:01:35 Thomas: We can, we can always pretend. We'll always have New Jersey. But no, it's going to be back in the swing of things. I I'm excited. So much to talk about. We had another committee hearing. We've got Elon Musk, I think, just running the script that you drew up for him, I'm pretty sure. Couldn't have called it better.

0:01:36 Andrew: Did Did I ask how you were doing?

0:01:58 Thomas: I'm doing okay. Kids are killing me right now. It's okay. But in a good way. I love them. I have a morning kid, Andrew. I have morning kid and I'm not a morning person and we can't figure it out. And it's like 5, 6 a.m., this kid is just ready to live his life and we cannot find a way to continue. It's okay. Different show. All Dear Old Dads. Tune in to Dear Old Dads.

0:02:19 Andrew: I I'm thinking of the, you know, fantastic line from Pulp Fiction that I actually used last week quite a bit, the, you, well, my girlfriend's a vegetarian, which pretty much means that I'm a vegetarian. And it's like, oh, your kid likes getting up at six in the morning. That pretty much means you like getting up at six of the morning, so.

0:02:32 Thomas: Yep. That is a perfect quote for that, absolutely true. But all that aside, I'm excited to get to our show. Today, uh, what do you want to talk about first?

0:02:39 Andrew: All right, so I am very, very excited to share this news with you. We are going to go in-depth next week when Congressman Jared Huffman from California joins us on the show to discuss House Resolution 8324, for the Health Share TranSPArency Act. So, Congressman Huffman was one of the folks that I spoke to, gave testimony before, gave a presentation. I have been working very closely with his office, and this is thanks to, uh, the input that we got from folks who reached out to us after we started doing our show on, uh, on the scam that is Christian health sharing ministries. And And this is the first step. This is legislation to require the disclosure of information to begin to educate the public in a way that hopefully can, can move us towards, you know, sort of real progress. And I'm super excited. The congressman's going to come join us. Remember, if, if you have a story to tell, please let us know. Know some of you already have, but please, uh, send us

0:03:02 Thomas: It, I Got a story about my kid waking. Oh, no, different. Sorry. Different story. Gotcha.

0:03:52 Andrew: Yeah. About being scammed by Christian Health Care Ministries, uh, send this an email to Open Arguments, o-p-e-n-a-r-g-u-m-e-n-t-s at gmail.com and, that sort of stuff is always helpful when you're talking about, the, the legislative process. So I, I feel like we continue to make a difference. Man.

0:04:11 Thomas: That's the second time, Andrew, that we've had a sitting member I believe. Well, fingers crossed. You never know until it happens.

0:04:16 Andrew: Yeah. He can still back out. Yeah, uh.

0:04:19 Thomas: Or he might resign before. No, I'm just kidding. All right. Looking forward to that. Item number two. So many people have been asking about Elon Musk. I know I have a bunch of questions. What can you tell us right now?

0:04:31 Andrew: So here's what I would say, go back and listen to episode 610 again, I feel like this was from a law perspective as close to a bullseye, you know, a three pointer from midcourt as you get. I really looked at both halves of the issue, right, the pretextual Elon Musk argument, and then also the argument that is making the rounds right now, which is exactly what I called, which was, okay, so then is Twitter going, going to try and get specific performance? I think people were a little bit confused because I said, and stand by, that that specific performance is unlikely. That Some folks have read that as me saying that that Twitter wouldn't sue.

0:05:03 Thomas: Mm-hmm.

0:05:12 Andrew: Not the case. In fact, I predicted the forum in which they would sue, in Delaware. So go back, listen, and then we're going to break this down in more detail on Tuesday's episode, because we just have so much hearing stuff that I want to cover that was just breaking really, really critical news. So I think that's where I can do it.

0:05:30 Thomas: All. Too much good stuff. It's often a problem here on the show. I can't wait for Tuesday's episode to hear more about that absolute bullseye that Robin Hood split the arrow bullseyes that you called because I was a little confused as well. But you know, we'll have to wait till Monday, day for that. Shall we go on to uh some laud great hearings?

0:05:31 Andrew: Yep.

0:05:46 Thomas: Love right so this was the first hearing after the Cipollone, I would say bombshell announcement, right? A

0:05:46 Andrew: Let's do it.

0:05:48 Clip: Treason is treason.

0:05:58 Andrew: Bombshell-y, And in fact we saw bits of recorded Cipollone testimony already queued up, right? So he, he testified behind closed doors on Friday and the committee had the ready to roll out on Tuesday, uh, and more testimony. He's going to testify live, uh, next week, so um, when that's, another, you know, you're keeping score here, uh, when I told you I thought this was going to be a really important and good witness and there was no, you triple Xanatos gambit, reverse bluff, whatever coming out, uh, feel pretty good about that prediction.

0:06:13 Thomas: Yeah. Right.

0:06:34 Thomas: Yeah. This was the first one after that bombshell announcement, but we didn't get all the testimony, as you say. There's, but we got a little bit and we got some good teaser trailers, you know, they're like, we're, we still working on the film here. There There's some testimony of him like, you know, with a green tennis ball and a green screen, you know, like we're still working on the post-production of this testimony. No, not really. But there was teaser testimony of that. And I can't wait hear to what you think went down in this hearing. It didn't seem as bombshell-y as the last one to me, but I see that you have copious notes and time stamps.

0:06:34 Andrew: Um, in a world I I'm not surprised

0:07:08 Thomas: Someone

0:07:09 Andrew: Because, and again, it's always hard for me to put myself in the position of you know, yeah.

0:07:12 Thomas: Who doesn't know what the hell they're looking at.

0:07:15 Andrew: Somebody who's not, doesn't live this, right? But but my contemporaneous notes, which we know from Richard Donahue how important that is, uh, were, uh, that I think this was probably the best hearing if you were a DOJ, uh, AUSA, looking to maybe prosecute here, and probably the worst hearing for the public. Like, it felt to me as though the committee was, were trying, trying to go back and shore up some of the weaknesses that it was discovering, some of the pushback, right? Because there was no doubt in my mind, right, that Liz Cheney, that Benny Thompson, that everybody on the 1-6 committee is questioning, saying, hey, think this is going to move the noodle over at DOJ, right. And they're getting advice. I would want to get the best devil's advocate advice, advice.

Uh, I've tried to give that here on the show, and in fact, I'm going to do that as we, uh, as we move through. I also think there was some good storytelling. I call this the unhinged meeting, and I, I kind of wanted to start there, because this, is we're really starting to put the timeline together, and I thought that that one of the effective forms of communication was the one, One sixth committee over and over again saying, look, think about this on a calendar.

0:07:17 Thomas: Yeah. Yeah, nice. Okay.

0:08:29 Andrew: December 14th is the safe harbor deadline for when the Electoral College votes are transmitted, right. Then when they're finalized from the states, slates of electors are chosen. The election is over on December 14. So let me tell you about what happened on December 18th, four days after the election is over. So why don't we start with that at 4201? And

0:08:55 Clip: Saw absolutely zero basis for the allegations, but they were made in such a sensational way, that they obviously were influencing a lot of people, members of the public, that there was a systemic corruption in the system, and that their votes didn't count, and that these machines controlled by somebody else were actually determining that, which was complete nonsense, sense, and it was being laid out there, and I told them that it was crazy stuff, and they were wasting their time on that, and that was a great, grave disservice to the country. We've learned that President Trump's White House counsel agreed with the Department of Justice about this.

0:09:39 Clip: Attorney General Barr made a public announcement on December 1st, However, the strong rejection of the Attorney General and the White House counsel of these claims did not stop the President from trying to press them in public. But that's not all they did. Indeed, as you'll see in this clip, the president asked Attorney General Bill Barr to have the Department of Justice seize voting machines in the states. My recollection the president said something like, well, we could get to the bottom, you know, some people say we could get to the bottom of this if the department sees the machines. It was a typical way of raising the point. And I said, absolutely not. There's no probable cause, and we're not going to see as any machines. That was that. Yeah.

0:09:49 Thomas: There he is. Cipollone.

0:10:04 Andrew: Again, that's big it,

0:10:05 Thomas: Yeah he

0:10:49 Clip: But this wasn't the end of the matter. On the evening of December 18, 2020, Sidney Powell, General Michael Flynn, and others entered the White House for an unplanned meeting with the President, the meeting that would last multiple hours and become hot-blooded and contentious. The executive order behind me on the screen was drafted on December the 16th, just two days after the Electoral College vote, by several of the president's outside advisors over luncheon at the Trump International Hotel. As you can see here, this proposed order directs the Secretary of Defense to seize voting machines, quote, "effective immediately," but it goes even further than that. Under the order President Trump would appoint his special counsel with the power to seize machines and then charge people with crimes, with all resources necessary to carry out her duties.

0:11:47 Thomas: Buy her a Dr.

0:11:48 Clip: The specific plan was to name Sydney Powell as special counsel, the Trump lawyer who had spent the post-election period making outlandish claims about Venezuelan and Chinese interference in the, the election, among others. Here's what White House counsel Pat Cipollone had to say about Sidney Powell's qualifications to take on such expansive authority.

0:11:48 Thomas: Pepper.

0:12:15 Clip: I thought it was the idea of the 21st National Council. I didn't think she should have been appointed to handle that.

0:12:22 Andrew: And have one more to follow on. If you go to 5704, I know this has been a long bit, but I wanted to give the flavor of this, like, cadre of crazies that met at the White House on December 18th, because that's what this hearing was designed to get you to, think, to about.

0:12:42 Clip: ...pushing back and asking one simple question, a general matter. Where is the evidence? So, what response did you get? The other one is this pattern of her colleagues... ...a variety of responses based on my current recollection, including...

0:12:58 Thomas: Long swig of a, so good

0:13:00 Clip: ...things like this, like, what do you mean, where's the evidence? You should know, you know, I know. It was like that, or, you know, disregard, I would say, a general disregard for the importance of actually backing up their say with facts. And, you know, then there was discussion, well, you don't have it, you don't have it, or whatever. I mean, if there had been me sitting in his chair, I would have fired all of them that night and had them escorted out of the building. It's delicate, I both challenged what she was saying, and she says, well, the judges are corrupt. And it was like, every one, every single case that you've done in the country you guys lost, every one of them was corrupt, even the ones we appointed? That's nice, but it was much more harsh to her. With

0:13:19 Andrew: This is Sydney Powell so So I, it's always good to dunk on Sidney Powell, you heard her in the minute, but but but I, I want to explain kind of the significance of this unhinged meeting here, because this, really, we've been talking throughout the entire J6, J6 hearings about how Donald, about what kind of defense Donald Trump is going to muster, and we've sort of settled in on the, um, he's going to claim lack of intent, lack of mens rea, and the response is going to be a willful blindness. And the more that you get to show folks around him, key trusted advisors that he listened to throughout his entire presidency, people he'd appointed, saying, come on, this is, this is nonsense, this is absurd, and the more those people get marginalized, pushed to the corners, and you know, you bring in Sydney Powell or what have, have you, the greater the inferences of, okay, we're now not in a position where a reasonable person might think, well, maybe Pat Cipollone is correct, or maybe Sidney Powell is correct.

No, a reasonable person would know that Sidney Powell is an idiot. And there's evidence later on, we're going to get to it, where there's a follow-up meeting with Rudy Giuliani and Sidney Powell and Pat Cipollone, who cannot, I mean, we talked about the limits of executive privilege, they, they ask him the question, and he answers as carefully as any witness ever has, uh, was I invited to the meeting? No. So did you not attend the meeting? Well, I walked down the hall to attend the meeting, I observed who was in the meeting, but I was later advised not to attend the, the meeting, uh,

0:14:15 Thomas: Yeah. Wow oh

0:15:33 Andrew: Was that, was that your decision? I declined to answer on the ground of executive privilege. Well, that, that means it was not his decision. If, right, it was his decision, it would not be executive privilege, right? Yeah because that that would not be something the client asked you to do, right? If I say I'm not showing up at this meeting, uh, with my client, like, you could absolutely ask me why I didn't, why I chose not to show up at the meeting.

0:15:44 Thomas: Really even if it was possibly in service of your client in some way, like you're not showing

0:15:59 Andrew: Yeah no he I don't, did mean to suggest that that's a slam dunk right, are right. To point that out. I value attorney-client privilege rather heavily, I'm just saying, I think the inference is fairly strong there that he was asked not to attend, and I think the reason you ask him not to intend is because, now I want to hear from the crazies for a while, right? Um, if you come here

0:16:06 Thomas: Right yeah we don't want any real lawyers bogging us down, right?

0:16:22 Andrew: Right So um, I had clip A um from Liz Cheney's opening statement, but I'm going to summarize it instead, um, because I think she told us something really, really interesting, and this is bookended at the very, very end, in her closing statement she says, we are talking now, we are talking still, to people who are in Trump world, and before these public hearings began, their arguments were all over the, well, maybe did, maybe did this or that, and now, you to a person, those arguments seem to be, uh, coalesced on well, okay, uh, but it was only the like team of crazies that, you know, was trying to really overthrow the country, and you thank God, those, you brave patriots around President Trump convinced him not to go with that.

And that is false from, know, you, what we've seen from the documents, the And the evidence, the the significance of saying this in public is this is telling DOJ lawyers, right, hey, hey, if you're thinking about prosecuting, you should know pro-Trump witnesses will be super fucking easy to impeach because they have changed their story already.

We have them in the past saying X, and now they're the the arguments that they're going to raise are rather than saying, well, you know, I thought John Eastman was reason and just came in and was war gaming scenarios, areas, right, we know, we know they practice that rhetoric, right, or maybe that that's just, you know, I guess it's possible that, uh, John Eastman happened to go on, you know, three separate media outlets and said the exact same thing word for word in response to the questions, possible, usually that means you've practiced that answer, I know, as somebody who practices his answer sometimes, right. Right.

0:18:11 Andrew: So it was the significance, I think, of her opening statement. And again, we're going to get a wham event at the end. She also, I Think, kind of lays out the major weakness. It is still a weakness at the End of this hearing. OK, I do not want to tell you that the case against Trump is ironclad, rock solid, whatever analogy you want to use. It comes down to phrases that were used by Liz Cheney, by other members of the committee. Did Trump summon or deploy the one six mob? Right. Like you heard that over and over again. And, right, that really is the key for an 18 U.S.C. 2384 charge, and, right, here's sort of how I've thought about that distinction. If you listen to us right now and you're super mad, as you should be, and you think the Supreme Court is illegitimate, as we've said, And Then you go down to Samuel Alito's house, right, and, and, you know, I'm gonna leave it unsaid from after, That.

0:18:50 Thomas: Yeah. Uh-huh. Me, me, oh, I love this hypothetical.

0:19:17 Andrew: No, no, no, um, you may have been inspired by us. But we're not, we didn't deploy you to do that. Like, right, we're not responsible for your protest at Samuel Alito's house.

0:19:29 Thomas: What if I tweeted, meet at Samuel Alito's house will be wild.

0:19:29 Andrew: Right That would make us much more culpable. Right yeah So don't do that yeah Right, and, that really is. And so again, as you point out, we're not without evidence to drop that connection. But again, if I'm Trump's lawyers, I'm gonna say, yeah, look, like, like, yeah, all, all he wanted, you was, uh, to, you be adored by his idiot fans on Twitter and to have big rallies and people clapping and cheering. That's not the same as, you, Stewart Rhodes, why don't you bring, you know, Power Glide and Dive Dive and, you know, all of your special strike teams,

0:19:35 Thomas: So don't, okay, delete. I'm not backspace, backspace.

0:19:46 Thomas: Oh, the wild protest at Alito'S house. Just, uh, are

0:20:09 Andrew: Outfitted with your gear? Remember, they had those like goofball GI Joe code names.

0:20:09 Thomas: Those people? Oh, I thought those were like old NES peripherals, but yeah, sure.

0:20:17 Andrew: I was, I was using Power Glide as a 1985 Transformer and Dive Dive as a Go-Bot, so that was where my mind went. I, but could have used more GI Joe code names.

0:20:25 Thomas: Oh, I'll just assume that from time, I'll just, for the future, it's always Transformers, got it.

0:20:29 Andrew: Yeah Got, so, lot of the background information that's coming out here is coming out about filling in that gap. Did Trump know, did he deploy violent elements. So, first, uh, Jamie Raskin's opening statement, 2505.

0:20:49 Clip: In the wee hours of December 19th, dissatisfied with his options, Donald Trump decided to call for a large and wild crowd on Wednesday, January 6th, the day when Congress would meet to certify the electoral votes. Never before in American history had a president called for a crowd to come contest the counting of electoral votes by Congress or engaged in any effort designed to influence, delay, or obstruct the joint session of Congress in doing its work required by our Constitution in the Electoral Count Act. As we'll see, Donald Trump's 1.42 a.m. tweet electrified and galvanized his supporters, especially the dangerous extremists in the Oath Keepers, the Proud Boys, and other racist and white nationalist groups spoiling for a fight against the government.

0:21:25 Andrew: Okay, So there are a couple significant things here. First is you hear Jamie Raskin using the language of 18 USC 1512, right, to obstruct, interfere, prevent, uh, Congress from doing its job. Up.

0:21:51 Thomas: I picked that out for

0:21:54 Andrew: Yep. You also, the timeline starts to help establish the culpability of the president. So, right, crazy, unhinged Sydney Powell meeting is the evening of December 18th. 1:42 in the morning on December 19th, like while he's still up and mad about it and pacing back and forth and going, I don't understand why I just can't make Sydney Powell the czar of seizing everything. Uh, is when, for the very first time, Trump tweets out what, what clearly has to have been his idea, right? No one else has said anything yet. That was, let's go get together and rally at the Capital on January 6th, we'll be wild, um, we're lighting over, but it will show that there were, were groups that were scheduled to get permits to demonstrate on behalf of President Trump, you know, Stop the Steel group,

0:21:54 Thomas: Sure.

0:22:46 Thomas: Sorry, do you really think he came up with any idea, you don't think Rudy was just like, hey, do the you know, yeah.

0:22:51 Andrew: Could could be, you know, who knows, the right? Point is, the is decision to initiate that began with his fat little fingers on Twitter at 1:42 in the morning, immediately after his cabal of crazies got shot down by the adults at the White House. And that's pretty significant in terms of, right. This is not just us saying, hey, rally at Alito's house. Right. Like this is, they, they went through. Right. You can argue, was you the Eastman cheese bro stuff, you know, OK, but, but this is tactics. This, right, is, let's get together at the White House and march on the Capitol. Capitol, he hadn't said march on the Capitol yet, on January 6th. So I could go through some more.

I'm going to cut, we're going, some of the, the other pieces of evidence that are worth watching this hearing to really kind of put it together, that show additional, between the boots on the ground on one six and the president's state of mind. I am also going to make my next prediction, which is the way that these last couple of hearings are trending to me suggests that the next domino, the next person to maybe come and, in this case, would be come back to the one six committee is going to be Mark Meadows.

0:23:10 Thomas: Yeah. Okay.

0:24:14 Andrew: Big prediction last time on Pat Cipollone, my prediction this time is on Mark Meadows. Now, there are key differences, right, Mark

0:24:20 Thomas: Yeah. Isn't Mark Meadows guilty of a bunch of stuff?

0:24:23 Andrew: Meadows is potent. And, and so this is not just all carrot. This, right, is carrot plus stick. This is why you had to dislodge Pat Cippolone first. Okay, because Pat Cipollone is telling us things about Mark Meadows that contradict every single document that we have. Okay, so queue up 3504.

0:24:47 Clip: Mr. Cipollone also testified that the president's chief of staff, Mark Meadows, said he shared this view. I don't believe that we can end this discussion without the president possibly conceding the election. And specifically, when you're saying that Mark Meadows assured both you and Attorney General Barr that the President would eventually agree to a graceful exit. Do you remember, Mr. Meadows, any such representation? Are you saying it's part of that meeting or separately? Again, without getting into that meeting, I would say that that is a statement and a sentiment that I've heard.

0:25:25 Clip: I see. And again, do notice I'm attorney general or something? Again, around that time, the recess went to that time. It wasn't long to see that.

0:25:40 Andrew: Wasn't a one-time statement. A little bit more. This is Bill, uh, Barr talking about what Mark Meadow said to him. This is 3820.

0:25:49 Clip: Then at that point I left, and as I walked out of the Oval Office, Jared was there with Dan Stavino, who ran the president's social media, and who I thought was a reasonable guy and believe is a reasonable guy. And I said, how long, is how long is he going to carry on with this stolen election stuff, where is this going to go. And by that time, Meadows had caught up with me and, uh, leaving the office and caught up to me and, and said, uh, that, uh, uh, he said, look, I, I think, uh, that he's becoming more realistic and knows that there's a limit to how far he can take this. And then Jared said, you know, yeah, we're working on this, we're working on it.

0:26:41 Andrew: Cipollone and Barr and others are now telling the story of, OK, Meadows is trying to rein in the president. But, who, you knows? This contradicts every single document that we have. And it is a huge tonal shift in terms of what we've seen at the prior hearings. So I have uploaded to the site, under the links, will be in the show notes, various Meadows documents. These are from beginning in December 30th. OK, so the week before January 6th, two weeks after the election is over. Done. Stick a fork in it. What Mark Meadows is doing is not just aggressively forwarding conspiracy theory crap to the DOJ and telling it to investigate, but doing so in a way that is likely to produce more crap results. So I will prove that to you. The first document here, I swear to you, I'm not making this up, is a December 30th email from Mark Meadows to Jeff Rosen, right? The acting attorney general. December 30. It contains a translated Italian document authored by Carlo Goria. Have you heard about this one?

0:28:02 Thomas: No.

0:28:03 Andrew: Okay, Carlo Goria works for Virginia-based aviation company called U.S. Aerospace Partners. He calls himself the director. I, he does not appear to be like the CEO of that, like he just calls himself the director. How do you like the million dollar dream or something, I don't know. Translated into English, this letter reads, illustrious Mr. President, and I'm skipping over some parts, illustrious Mr. President, I can confirm that Leonardo SPA, that's the Italian for incorporated and, right, the parent company of U.S. Aerospace Partners, at its Passara facility, using advanced military encryption capabilities, changed the U.S. election result from President Trump to Joe Biden.

The data switch was conducted by the head of the IT department of Leonardo spa in coordination with senior U.S. intelligence officials, CIA, a senior U.S. embassy official held regular meetings with General Claudio Graziano, EU military commander, and Ignacio Moncada, president of Fata SPA, a company owned by Leonardo SPA. On December 3rd, the head of the IT department was arrested in Naples, where he remains. Put a pin in that. We had direct and continuous contact within the organization with the IT manager, who agreed to testify to the U.S. authorities concerning what happened to the electoral data, how they were changed at the Pescara Fucino facilities, were loaded with information technology on military satellites, and what data is contained in an electronic key to demonstrate the changing of the data,

0:28:49 Thomas: Oh, yeah. Mm-hmm.

0:29:35 Andrew: From President Trump, who was clearly the winner, to Joe Biden, on November 4th, 2020. This, a response of, uh, pure insanity from our buddy Richard Donahue. That is nonsense. That is Mark Meadows not only forwarding that document, Uh, But then,

0:29:41 Thomas: Well, that's rock solid.

0:29:52 Thomas: Yeah. That's a chain email that my mom wouldn't even believe, I don't think.

0:29:53 Andrew: Right. Right, by the way, that IT manager, our buddy Richard Donahue, figured this out. He was like, "Like, I don't even know where to go to look for shit like that, right? Like, this is just..." So the IT manager was a guy named Arturo de Ilia, who was indeed arrested, but he was arrested for corporate espionage stemming to secrets he was stealing from the company from 2015 to 2017, no relation to the 2020 election, obviously.

0:30:24 Thomas: This episode is brought to you by Mint Mobile. Years of fine print contracts and getting ripped off by big wireless providers. If we've learned anything, it's that there's always a catch. So when I first heard that Mint Mobile offers starting at just 15 bucks a month, I thought, okay, what's the catch? But after talking to them and using their service, it all made sense. There isn't one. Mint Mobile's secret ingredient is that they're the first company to sell wireless service online only. I wish more companies would do this. It saves so much money and makes it cheaper for us. They cut out the cost of retail stores. Have you seen the cost to real estate lately? That's a lot of money. And they pass those sweet savings directly to us. When I tried Mint Mobile, I'll tell you what I didn't notice. I didn't notice any difference in the service compared with what I already had.

0:31:09 Thomas: And what I did notice was just how much cheaper it was. For me, quite a bit cheaper than my previous wireless service. I'm talking like a fraction, like 10% of what I was paying before. Mint Mobile gives you the best rate, whether you're buying for one or for a family. And two lines. All plans come with unlimited talk and text plus high-speed data delivered on the nation's largest 5G network. Again, 5G. That's the most Gs they have right now. The current number of Gs. And you can keep your old phone with any Mint mobile plan and keep your same phone number along with all your existing contacts. To get your new wireless plan for just 15 bucks a month and the plan shipped to your door for free, go to mintmobile.com/opening. That's mintmobile.com opening. Cut your wireless bill to 15 bucks per month at mintmobile.com.

0:32:04 Thomas: This show is brought to you by The Jordan Harbinger Show. Jordan's show, which Apple named one of its best in 2018, covers such a wide reach of topics through weekly interviews with heavy hitting guests. I've already recommended a ton of episodes. I found some more interesting ones to recommend. There's, under the category in the starter packs, financial crimes. Those are always fun. Whether it's an episode about Fyre Fest, love that absolute disaster, very interesting, or interview with Frank Abagnale, the world's greatest counterfeiter. And there really is something for everybody. So whether Jordan is conducting an interview or giving advice to a listener, you'll find something useful that you can apply to your own life in every single episode of The Jordan Harbinger Show. And that could mean learning how to ask for advice the right way or discovering a mindset difference that changes the way you see the world.

0:32:54 Thomas: Search for The Jordan Harbinger Show, that's H A R B as in boy, I N as in Nancy, G E R, on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, or wherever you listen to podcasts.

0:33:08 Andrew: Same day, December 30th, Mark Meadows forwards on from Cleta Mitchell. You remember her, the lawyer at Foley and Lardner who pretended that Foley and Lardner represented the president when really she hadn't told any of her partners and she was on the Raffensperger call. She's a crazy person. She says a of nonsense about Georgia ballot mismatch. And again, December 30th. You could have rock solid evidence at this point. It doesn't matter. Matter, George's electoral votes have been cast. Right?

Um, and Mark Meadows says, can you have your team look into these allegations of wrongdoing, only the alleged fraudulent activity. Okay, Wednesday the 30th, on Friday, January the 1st, Meadow sent a barrage of emails. One was a follow-up YouTube video about the Italian satellite conspiracy, uh, that that got forwarded to Donahue. One was a list of complaints in New Mexico that no one can figure out where that went, and this was just a laundry list of dumb arguments about Dominion machines with the instruction, "and can you forward this list to your team to review the allegations contained herein." Steve Pierce, that's the dipshit who wrote it, is the chairman of the Republican Party for New Mexico. Okay, so that was another, another Meadows request. And finally, there was a third email following up on the Cleta Mitchell stuff.

In a separate email that says, "there have been allegations of signature match anomalies in Fulton County, Georgia," and yes, that's on the laundry list, "can you get Jeff Clark to engage on this issue immediately to determine if there's any truth to this allegation?" That's the documents, it's bait stamped ending in 0672, that caused Jeff Rosen to write to Richard Donahue and say,

0:34:48 Andrew: "Can you believe this? I am not going to respond to the message below," to which Donahue replied, "at least it's better than the last one," that being the Italian satellites, "but that doesn't say much." And then one more bit, Meadows apparently called Rosen to try and get him to talk to Brad Johnson, who was behind the Italian satellite stuff. And, uh, after Donahue said that's just pure insanity, Rosen replied with, "yes, after this message I was asked, presumably a phone call, to have the FBI meet with Brad Johnson, and I responded that Johnson could call or walk into the FBI's Washington field office with any evidence he purports to have. On a follow-up call, I learned that Johnson is working with Rudy Giuliani, who regarded my comments as, quote, an insult, asked if I would reconsider."

0:35:37 Andrew: I flatly refused. And I said I would not be giving any special treatment to Giuliani or any of his, quote unquote, witnesses and reaffirmed yet again that I will not talk to Giuliani about any of these things. So that's the Meadows we have from the documents. Right. Relentlessly pushing bullshit. Bullshit that does not seem to be consistent with the Meadows we just heard the clips from. So, how, you, how do you connect those two? Let's go to Cassidy Hutchinson.

0:35:54 Thomas: Yeah. Right. And that's Barr talking about Meadows, right?

0:36:07 Andrew: Yeah. Both.

0:36:08 Thomas: That was Barr.

0:36:08 Andrew: Bar and Cipollone. Yep.

0:36:10 Thomas: Oh, both Barr and Civellone. Yeah, yeah,

0:36:10 Andrew: Yep. So, This is 50 56.

0:36:11 Thomas: Yeah. Okay.

0:36:14 Clip: Chief of Staff Mark Meadows told people that he thought Trump should concede Around the time the Electoral College certified the result, but nonetheless he later worked to try to facilitate President Trump's wishes Here's what Cassidy Hutchinson told us. During this period, I perceived his goal of all this to keep Trump in office.

0:36:40 Thomas: Is she referring to Meadows?

0:36:41 Clip: He looked very seriously and deeply considered the allegations of voter fraud. But when he began acknowledging that maybe there wasn't enough voter fraud to overturn the election, and I've witnessed him start to explore potential constitutional loopholes more extensively, which have been connected with John Eastman's theories.

0:36:42 Andrew: So,

0:36:42 Thomas: Okay.

0:37:05 Thomas: I love the, ah, maybe just not quite enough Italian satellites. You know, only the one. If we had found, you know, like three Italian satellites, maybe that'd be enough.

0:37:13 Andrew: Yeah, so here's how I put all this together behind the scenes. And again, remember, with Cipollone, uh, the, January 6th committee was offering him a tongue bath, right? A carrot, from the beginning, because they had no leverage because as we said, right, on 6/11, um, he never commit a crime, right.

0:37:27 Thomas: Yeah, right. Oh, yeah, he seems to be a guy who just pretty much did his job.

0:37:32 Andrew: Yep. Exactly, right. And, you know, now, maybe you shouldn't work for a corrupt president, but Uh, but, but he, that's, he did his job. Meadows, the January 6th committee, took its time at the beginning to say, "hey, what's circulating in Trump world is a defense around Trump that says it's only the crazies that, you know, we're trying to to commit an insurrection here." So, you know, maybe you should indict John Eastman. Maybe you should indite Ken Cheese, bro. And maybe you shouldn't indict Mark Meadows. But, you ultimately, the president listened to the right group. It was never, you know, responsible for the insurrection. So the first part is, I think, pretty significant, stick a, hey, you should know, the people you think of as your friends are already marginalizing Eastman, and if, if they're going to throw him under the bus, know, you might be the next one to wind up with, know, you tire tracks on your back.

0:37:38 Thomas: Of course, right?

0:38:30 Andrew: There is a potential way out here for you. But there's also a way in which, you if you want to persist and you want to get Trump off the hook, it may be, you know, UN John Eastman doing time. Now I can't prove any of that. All I can do is show you what I just did. And that is

0:38:46 Thomas: Well, you nailed the Cipollone one. I feel like a good reason to consider your prediction here is plausible.

0:38:48 Andrew: I'm hoping I've bought some credibility here. Yeah, it you have efforts to construct a narrative that would be consistent with bringing in Meadows and having him say, yeah. And there some are others that I could could drag out from Donahue's testimony where he would say things like, yeah, I think when Meadows is forwarding this stuff that, you he's just got to, you clear his desk for his boss. Right. But You also have, far, you want to explore the Cassidy Hutchinson testimony where she clearly felt pressured by her boss. And and she also felt that he was a complicated guy, right? Like, he he came up and said, um, you may not want to be here on January 6th because I'm worried about potential violence. You kind of wish he told the rest of us that and not just, his you staffer.

But so that's, those that's where my prediction is that this is, know, you going to orient on Meadows. There's... there's a little bit more I do, I want to share with you to give kind of the full, uh, character of the rest of the hearing. Um, I'm gonna skip, I've got three minutes in which, uh, I think deliberately provocatively, uh, Jamie Raskin calls Owen Schreier the co-host of info wars and I think he's done that to try and piss off Alex Jones. Um, on on our episode 521, we have the

0:39:16 Thomas: Yeah,

0:40:05 Andrew: Knowledge Fight guys, Dan and Jordan, over to explain who the hell Owen Shreier is, right, when he was indicted in connection with some right-wing grift machine, and I do not think Jamie Raskin said that by accident, right, I think, uh, he knows that that Alex Jones is gonna be like, Owen Shreier's not the co-host of it, but uh unhinged Alex Jones talking to a microphone phone for four hours a day

0:40:22 Thomas: What will that accomplish? Oh, yes, because now he's just hinged. It's just hinged Alex Jones, we gotta try to rattle that guy, so maybe he

0:40:27 Andrew: Yeah right well that's true, but I think that's a bear you always poke, that's just my, uh, that's my view. Um, I'm gonna skip the clips, but the, um, next kind of bit of new information, uh, was uh, stuff leading up to, and then text messages, is from Kylie Kremer. She and Ali Alexander are the people who founded Stop the Steel, organized the one six rally, they filed for the permits, and each of them sent off to their contacts a bit that said, hey, um, just so you know, the president's going to give a speech, and then he's going march with us down to the Capitol. Now, does that prove coordination? I don't know. It could all be crazy random happenstance, but kind of seems like there was a back channel, maybe a front channel, from the White House to these groups that that organized the rallies. And there is some time spent showing that connection, Ali Alexander, to Roger Stone and Michael Flynn. Right. So, again, is any of that a knockdown?

0:40:39 Thomas: Yeah yeah

0:41:40 Andrew: It's not a knockdown, but, right, if you're asking yourself, do I, as a prosecutor, feel confident that I could charge 2384, seditious conspiracy, and prove that the president intended to use force in the accomplishment of his ends? Um, I think we have a lot more now. I'd right, love to have more than this, but, I we think we got a lot to do, uh, Cipollone also confirmed that the Eastman plan was known, uh, to be illegal. There's a great section, it's at 158, uh, in which they talk about the role of the Republican congressman, right, and once again, the one six committee names names, right, is not afraid to say, hey, here are our, quote, colleagues who were, uh, active collaborators in this. Um, and that, that also had the, uh, meeting in which Pat Cipollone was like, well, I I walked down to the meeting and then I was not attending the meeting. Um there's also a great bit where, uh, Steph Murphy keeps, uh, pronouncing his name, uh, Chipolini, like the onions, uh, which makes me feel way better about our Cipollone, uh, from the last episode it's

0:42:49 Thomas: Still don't know which it's supposed to be

0:42:51 Andrew: Simple, it's, it's everybody says sip with an s, so that's that's what I'm going with is Sipolone from here on out. I want to end with the wham line from Liz Cheney, so this is a long clip, this is starting at 258 20

0:42:54 Thomas: Okay way

0:43:06 Clip: Mr. Chairman, let me put what you have seen today in a broader context. At the very outset of our hearings, we described several elements of President Trump's multi-part plan to overturn the 2020 election. Our hearings have now covered all but one of those elements. An organized campaign to persuade millions of Americans of a falsehood that the 2020 election was stolen by widespread fraud. A corrupt effort to pressure Vice President Pence to refuse to count electoral votes. An An effort to corrupt the U.S. Department of Justice. Efforts to pressure state election officials and legislators to change state election results. A scheme to create and submit fake electoral slates from multiple states.

0:43:55 Clip: And today, you saw how President Trump summoned a mob to Washington for January 6th, and then knowing that that mob was armed, directed that mob to the United States Capitol. Every one of these elements of the planning for January 6th is an independently serious matter. They were all ultimately focused on overturning the election. And they all have one other thing in common. Donald Trump participated in each substantially and personally. He oversaw or directed the activity of those involved. Next week we will return to January 6th itself. As we have shown in prior hearings, Donald Trump and his legal team, led by Rudy Giuliani, were working on January 6th to delay or halt Congress's counting of electoral votes.

0:44:49 Clip: The mob attacking and invading the Capitol on that afternoon of January 6th was achieving that result. And for multiple hours, Donald Trump refused to intervene to stop it. He would not instruct the mob to leave or condemn the violence. He would not order them to evacuate the Capitol and disperse. The many pleas for help from Congress did no good. His staff insisted that President Trump call off the attack. He would not. Here are a few of the many things you will hear next week from Mr. Cipollone. Is necessary for you to continue to push for a statement directing people to leave all the way through that period of time until it was ultimately issued?

0:45:36 Clip: I felt it was my obligation to continue to respond. It was their obligation as well. Would it be possible at any moment for the President to walk down to the podium in the briefing And you will hear that Donald Trump never picked up the phone that day to order his administration to help. This is not ambiguous. He did not call the military. His Secretary of Defense received no order. He did not call his Attorney General. He did not talk to the Department of Homeland Security. Mike Pence did all of those things. Donald Trump did not. We will walk through the events of January 6th next week, minute by minute. And one more item.

0:46:33 Clip: After our last hearing, President Trump tried to call a witness in our investigation. A witness you have not yet seen in these hearings. That person declined to answer or respond to President Trump's call, and instead alerted their lawyer to the call. Their lawyer alerted us, and this committee has supplied that information to the Department of Justice. Let me say one more time, we will take any effort to influence witness testimony very seriously. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back. Thank you.

0:46:32 Andrew: So

0:46:34 Thomas: A

0:47:14 Andrew: Yeah, um, I, I

0:47:17 Thomas: Little more witness tampering, add that to the witness tamtering list

0:47:21 Andrew: I talked about this uh, with AG on uh, Wednesday's cleanup, every major conspiracy in American history, right, we have that aphorism of the cleanup is worse than the crime, that is not the case here, right, there the crime of insurrection is the crime, uh, but we have not been focusing on, uh, the fact that Donald Trump and his allies, I doubt, are sort of like just sort of standing around waiting to see what Liz Cheney says, right, they are engaged in, they're likely engaged in preemptive criming to try and cover it up, and my view, I've chatted with a couple prosecutors, uh, I initially misheard this and I was like, well, that seems like pretty solid evidence of, uh, the crime of witness intimidation, uh, 18 USC 1512 and folks said, well, look, you know, nobody picked up the phone, right, the witness didn't pick up the the phone, so how can it be intimidation, and I think you're free to make that answer as a criminal, I think this is at least probable cause, right, and here's why, right, when the mafia don has, you know, Machine Gun Joey walk in front of your house and wave to you, right, you don't have to open the door and go like, Joey is, thank you, no, no, like the the walking is a performative act, right, if you were a witness who turned on Donald Trump, who is yet to testify in the January 6th committee hearings, but you have reason to believe from what they have established in the past, you know, hey, you know, the Donald likes to read these transcripts, that, then. And And you see the president's number show up on your phone, I I certainly would want to hear from the witness what the witness thought that meant.

0:49:01 Andrew: We know what Liz Cheney thought it meant, right? Liz Cheney says effort to try and intimidate our witnesses is going to be referred on to the Department of Justice and taken very seriously.

0:49:12 Thomas: Yeah, and I imagine that's the kind of thing where you need a lot of context, you know is this does he normally call you, is this the first time ever that he's called you, you know, all kinds of things that would be relevant to how intimidating that would be.

0:49:13 Andrew: Yeah. Exactly. Right. Yeah. That is exactly right, so I wanted to read the the two provisions of the statute, okay, this is 18 USC 1512, uh, b or d, right, that it could potentially fit, so b says, whoever knowingly uses intimidation, threatens, or corruptly persuades another person, or attempts to do so, or engages in misleading conduct towards another person, with the intent to influence, delay, or prevent the testimony of any person in any official proceeding, or cause or induce any person to withhold testimony, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or not, or both. Okay, so again, uh, a jury have to determine, you, whether that was just like, oh, you know, Donald Trump Trump was just catching up with an old friend who was terrified to take his phone call, or, you was this very clearly intended to influence, delay, or prevent their testimony.

Again, that's about as serious a felony as you can get, 20, right? Years. Years, d, whoever intentionally harasses another person and thereby hinders, delays, prevents, or dissuades any person from attending or testifying in an official proceeding, or attempts to do so, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years or both. So much lesser standard here, attempted harassment, all you have to show is intentionally, that is, they did the the thing that was objectively harassing, you do not have to show subjective intent here, right, so Donald Trump says, what, I I thought it would be, who doesn't

0:50:08 Thomas: Mm hmm.

0:50:55 Andrew: Love a call from Donald Trump, right? It's perfect call. A beautiful call. If If the jury says objectively a pending witness in a congressional proceeding investigating Donald Trump would view a call from Donald Trump as being harassing, that's enough under the statute, right? What you have to show is that Trump intended to make that call and that a reasonable person knew or would have known that that call would have been harassing a witness. To me, again, I don't want to overexaggerate. I guess I do want to exaggerate. Minimum, I fail to see how you would not want to act on that if you were the Department of Justice. Yeah, boy,

0:51:27 Thomas: Question. This is maybe Galaxy brain thinking. Should that witness have taken the call?

0:51:42 Andrew: It is. Love that.

0:51:45 Thomas: Because like I mean, I guess it depends on what the wit. Let's say the witness is hostile to Trump. Then I don't know that that's guarantee, really. But like, let's say they they were. Wouldn't Well, I I don't know that that's true, honestly. Uh, you never know with these people, you know, could be like the one, the guy who cried about the Constitution and institutions, of the whatever, the Arizona guy. He's like, "Would you vote for Trump again?" "Yeah, oh yeah, sure." You know, could be that you never no um But like, let's say it was somebody hostile to Trump, would it have been better to like pick up the call, record it, kind of thing?

0:51:54 Andrew: Well, they are now.

0:52:07 Andrew: Fair, fair point. Fair point. I would not encourage any member of our listenership to illegally record any phone calls. Make sure you know

0:52:22 Thomas: Depends on what state eight we're talking about, right?

0:52:22 Andrew: Yep yep what kind of jurisdiction you were in. Um, Washington D.C. uh and Maryland have uh disparate laws. Maryland is a uh two-party consent state, Washington D.C. is a one-party consent state. Take legal advice from a podcast, you know, all the disclaimers that I can think of right here. Um, I go through this, the, in my view, the most parsimonious explanation is that that this person was legitimately afraid, right? That they saw the number pop up and were like, holy shit, like the president himself is getting on the call here, like, I I can't deal with that, right. To me that lends a lot of credibility to it. The problem with sort of setting yourself up as an amateur sting operator, right, is that can undercut the rest of your testimony.

0:52:55 Thomas: Yeah. Yeah.

0:53:06 Andrew: Right, you think about Steve Engel, and, right, again, we know it's not Steve Angle because Liz Cheney said it's somebody you haven't heard of him yet, but Steve Angle's testimony, the or, you know, the the head of the Republican House of Representatives in Arizona, right, his name, name escapes me, but he's testified at hearing one or two. Part of their credibility is contingent on, hey man, like, I'm a Republican, yeah, I'd vote for Trump again, right, like, I was there, I was working for him in January of 2021, right? It were his hand-picked people. And so it does, it could potentially undercut that if now all of a sudden, you know, you're sort of doing some uh you know juvenile sleuthing. So I I

0:53:06 Thomas: Good point.

0:53:44 Andrew: Don't know, yeah.

0:53:44 Thomas: Or even just take the call, you know, like, but is there legally speaking as a witness, are you breaking the rules if you like take the call or is it just for credibility down the line that you're talking to?

0:53:45 Andrew: So as a witness, um, I do not believe, and I've I've read you the relevant provisions of the statute, usually, like, we we do not bring criminal charges against the witnesses who get intimidated, right?

0:54:07 Thomas: Yeah, fair.

0:54:08 Andrew: So I don't think that witness would have been in any potential criminal danger.

0:54:14 Thomas: Fair point. Yeah. You don't normally charge, charge witnesses for being intimidated. That's true. But I don't know. That would be, that would cross my mind. Like maybe take the call and then, you see what, see what he says, you know? Even, yeah.

0:54:24 Andrew: But what if what he says seems so innocuous, and now, you you can't say, you can't testify, I thought the call itself was was intimidating, you know what I mean, so there is a there is a there's risk in whatever you do

0:54:34 Thomas: Good point. Good point. So this was a good, this was this good safe by the book approach. Report the call. Gotcha.

0:54:41 Andrew: Is a approach, yeah, I I wish they had, I mean, of course, you know, I wish I wish we had uh recording, but yeah.

0:54:43 Thomas: Okay. Yeah, or I wish it was like unknown number. I picked it up and President Trump was just yelling at me kind of thing. That'd have been, that'd have and good.

0:54:55 Andrew: I wonder how it shows up on, like, your

0:54:57 Thomas: Yeah. I was, I was thinking like maybe you got a Google voice thing where the ID shows up as don't testify you SOB or something like that. Getting a call from your dad if you testify, you know? All right. Well, what, great breakdown. That's a lot of stuff that I did not pick up on, which is why I love listening to the show, getting the breakdown later on. Because as you say, I am not a person who can keep this all in my head like you can. So that's why we come to AT over there. All So, Andrew, I'm seeing that the next hearing is expected to air in prime time, by the way, one week from when we're recording.

So that's Thursday, next Thursday, July 21st, a prime time hearing. I wonder why whatever. And this may be the finally hearing based on the wording I'm saying, or there might be one more. I'm not sure. I guess we'll find out. And there seem to be more surprise witnesses, each more surprising than the next. So we never know when this will be done. But a week from now, tune in and we'll see if we can work that in to be covered by us. We'll be, we're

0:55:07 Andrew: Right, right, uh yeah.

0:55:51 Thomas: Always on it. Yeah.

0:55:51 Andrew: We'll be thinking about that, yes.

0:55:54 Thomas: Well, maybe we'll do a switcheroo and do the Monday episode covering it. Something or other. We'll see. Depends on what it is.

0:56:00 Clip: Oh, no associate of this firm has ever failed the bar exam. No kidding.

0:56:07 Thomas: And we'll sneak in a quick T3BE. I'm sure I can get one wrong in, you know, seconds flat here.

0:56:12 Andrew: Yeah, super short question for you. But on the downside, it's a real property question, question. So, Thomas, testator devised his home, quote, "to my son for life, then to my son's children and their heirs."

0:56:29 Thomas: Is that a one word, like share, like testator? Is that somebody I should know?

0:56:29 Andrew: Yeah. That's the person who's making the will. Testator's son, a 70 year old widower, had one unmarried adult son and one unmarried adult daughter. In an appropriate action to construe the terms of the will, the court will determine that the remainder to the children is A, indefeasibly vested, B, contingent, C, vested subject to partial divestment, or D, vested subject to total divest. I

0:56:51 Thomas: Oh, my God. Right.

0:57:05 Thomas: So this is just a Thomas, you don't know the law. This intimidation. This is witness intimidation!

0:57:06 Andrew: I couldn't skip over the

0:57:12 Thomas: I didn't take Andrew's call, but I know that he was going to give me a very intimidating question to prove that I'm not a lawyer. Okay. No, I agree. Sanctity of the game. This is just one of those ones that's like smack you in the groin real quick and then move on to next week's question. Okay. So this is, I have to try to crack some terminology. So, uh, an artist like Cher or Prince named Testator also just happens to be, you know, the subject of, I think that's coincidence. Devise the home to my son for life, then to my sons' children and their heirs. So it's when the son dies, the son's children are definitely getting it, seems like. It's just two children, unmarried, I don't know how much that matters. So now the court is trying to construe the terms of the will.

0:57:12 Andrew: Question, all

0:57:58 Thomas: The court will determine that the remainder to the children, remainder to the children is A, indefeasibly vested. So that sounds like indefeasonable, meaning like it can't be defeased. It sounds like it's guaranteed, like it is. It's vested and you can't lose it is what that sounds like to me, which seems right. I mean, the only condition would be if the son never dies. Which I think is reasonably, legally speaking, not a possibility. Or it could, I mean, I guess it could be like if the son, if the children die before the son then you're not, but I don't know if that would mean you aren't vested. Don'T. Okay, be contingent. I DON'T know that it's contingent, this is interesting because I DONT know if you, the death of the son is viewed as like a contingency because it's definitely going to happen. It's not like a thing where Where it's like, well, if they ever use it for the wrong purpose that I specify, then it's contingent on that. And he won't get it. Like, I guess it is, it is contingent.

0:58:12 Andrew: Right.

0:58:58 Thomas: On the death, but it is also like, people like definitely die. Like,I don't think it's written in the law that like some times people don't die forever. I don't know. That's a weird parsing where maybe I'm just way off base. I don't know. So it could be contingent, maybe. See, vested subject to partial divestment. Don't, I don't even know what that would mean. Vested, it's vested, subject to partial divestment. Just don't know. Vested subject to total divestment. I just, I don't, I just, if that means total divestment by their dad or by, by them like subject. This is just impossible. Let's say, hmm, going to say, let's say C vested subject to partial divest because it'll depend on who's alive when the dad dies.

0:59:44 Thomas: So like maybe I'm going with the logic that like it's vested, but if both kids are alive when it goes, then you'll partially divest from it because you have to like split it. This could, I'm just completely making, this is impossible questions because I don't know what these words mean, but let's, let's go with that. I'm gonna go with C and then my backup is A, C and the backup is A. Final answer.

1:00:08 Andrew: And if you'd like to play along with Thomas and you are not a real property lawyer, you know how to do this, just share out the episode on social media, include the hashtag T3BE, include your guests, your reasons therefore, we will pick a winner, probably the most hilarious one. This week I think is what I'm going to use, and shower that person with never-ending fame and fortune. Fame and fortunate not guaranteed.

1:00:29 Clip: And thank you, Let's go!

1:00:31 Thomas: Now it's time to thank our new patrons at patreon.com/law. Enjoying all the goodies, uh, the ad-free shows, the bonus stuff, the a lot of great hearings, all that stuff. Andrew, why don't you start us off.

1:00:40 Andrew: Yeah, a big thank you to Why Didn't You Call It Lawed Awesome Hearings. I did, we didn't think of of that. This is, this is spontaneous, by the way, this is another Minneapolitan who wants you to do a live show in his city. Blubber Bay Airport ATM. Lawyers Are Just Bad Lit Majors. Oh, shots fired. Jo Green. Alex Webb. Unlikable Internet Goblin, I'm sure someone likes you. Jay Arr. Joe Schneider. Andrew Torrez for Maryland 2nd Congressional District, uh, don't, I don't live in Maryland's second congressional district, but nice, nice thought. I emailed you for LGH, but now I'm giving you money, well, We love you twice, Goatflavor Fishiologist, I I think there's another word for that, but Rebecca Pohl, Diane Fishburne, gary newton, and alison, take it away, Thomas.

1:01:16 Thomas: Cool. Thank, you, to Jamila Lane, Zac0118, Sanguin Jay, Jonathan Honor, Dean L Kolkey, Maggie4Fulton Commissioner my R opponent is an election denier. And that's the person I got the T3B. Maybe they'll get this one right. Maggie, keep trying, but we support you. And thanks for being a patron. Started listening at 14, now entering college for nursing. Wow. Just so you know, pre-law was a strong consideration. That's good on you for going into nursing, I know we need a ton of those right now. Christine G, Scott Sereboff, Robert lee, I hope that's not Robert either, Missy, Shelley Stracener, Truly Sleek Z, Kevin Velasquez, Daniel Perez, Tyler Forster, and Kyle Phalen. Thanks so much, new patrons, and that's our show. We'll see you on Monday for another episode, and I am looking forward to next week's hearing. It's just, they're good every time, and I even more so love Andrew's explanations of them, for all the stuff I missed. So we'll seen you then.

1:01:28 Andrew: Yeah. Wow. All right.

1:02:29 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.

1:03:02 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.