OA631: Updates on Trump Treason!

Transcript

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

0:01:18 Thomas: Hello, and welcome to Opening Arguments. This is episode 631. I'm Thomas. That's Andrew Torres, Esquire. How you doing, Andrew?

0:01:25 Andrew: I'm fantastic, Thomas. How are you?

0:01:28 Thomas: I am good, although I am looking at the spreadsheet here, sir, I...

0:01:33 Andrew: There's a little optimism baked into the spreadsheet. Don't get me wrong.

0:01:35 Thomas: Look, you have a criminal history of criminally overestimating the number of bullet points that you can get into one segment, but you know, we can do that infomercial. And now there's more, we just pack ever more bullet points now with 30% more bullet points, even though I'm pretty sure the package always has that amount and. You know what I mean? It's always, somehow everything's always 30% More than some quantity that it wasn't.

0:01:45 Andrew: That's true.

0:02:01 Andrew: We're the jewelry store, We've marked right? It up five times so that we can offer it for half price.

0:02:05 Thomas: I you It's eight bullet points that I'm seeing eight.

0:02:08 Andrew: All right.

0:02:09 Thomas: You, your world record for getting through them without this becoming like a two part show is I want to say five, maybe optimistically, maybe six.

0:02:17 Andrew: Well, Try and clear the record, but first have to do a special patron announcement, have a thing. It's a top secret thing and, uh, we want our patron input on it because we see good arguments for doing the thing and good arguments against doing the thing. I apologize for the vague booking, but we're, uh, going to put that up as a poll for patrons at any level and you can help us decide whether to do the thing.

0:02:46 Thomas: Oh, wow. Can't wait to figure out what that is. That's so cryptic. I don't even know. I'm just kidding. Patrons, Yeah. Look for a poll coming at you or it already happened. So this is a weird way to notify you. If but you didn't see it, check your email. All right. I got the Guinness people on the phone, not the, not The Beer. Well, maybe I should get The Beer people on too.

0:02:49 Andrew: Yep. Yeah. Let's Have a couple of beers.

0:03:03 Thomas: But We're going to see if You can beat your world record for most bullet points, and it's all about Trump updates, uh, so I think we're yodeling, we're treason is treasoning, we're every whatever every which thing we're doing for treason day here. It is.

0:03:03 Andrew: Yeah. It

0:03:17 Clip: Treason is treason.

0:03:21 Andrew: This past week felt like the montage at the end of Casino, right? Like where it's just, you're watching, we watched, you know, Mike Lindell get his phone seized at a Hardy's. I mean, just fantastic stuff, um,

0:03:25 Thomas: Boy.

0:03:36 Thomas: I'll tell you if You're like me and you didn't catch that bit of news, but you just saw all the Hardy's tweets, I

0:03:43 Andrew: Our biscuits are fantastic, I

0:03:45 Thomas: I'm a good enough detective that I did make the, I was like, what in the name of fast food is happening here? Because I just see all these Hardee's tweets of like, if you have your cell phone, come to, or something. I was, like, oh, so I can't wait to hear it. I think I pieced it together, but it's really funny in this day and age. If you miss the initial thing and then you just see the tweet reactions, it can be a confusing world. I'll just say, it.

0:04:10 Andrew: I Agree with that, so but let's start off with the the thing that that we get the most questions about, and we're three days in now from Donald Trump being on a plane and getting off on the tarmac in golf shoes and frumpy attire.

0:04:20 Thomas: Yeah, that was what, was it Friday? No, when was that? Sunday?

0:04:26 Andrew: That was, I believe, Sunday night.

0:04:28 Thomas: So he was cited in DC, right? And everybody went nuts of like, is he being arrested? Is he whatever? So what the hell was that, Andrew?

0:04:28 Andrew: Yeah. Correct. So we still don't know. This is part of why, you know, we don't speculate as to that. There are I mean, if you want complete random guesses, here's where I would put my random guess. But okay, again, we I have no way of knowing this is developing, my basis for making this assumption is based on a story we're going to cover on one of the future bullet points, um, and that is that it looks as though Donald Trump is making settlement overtures, right? Particularly we we know Tish James, New York attorney general, has come out on the record as of today, as of this recording, and said she rejected Donald Trump's specific efforts to settle that case.

0:05:21 Andrew: So is it possible that he made the same overture to DOJ?

0:05:27 Thomas: I back you up what about this even caught attention? Because, like, he was sighted in DC, right? Like, is that abnormal? Does he not go to DC from time to time? Or were the circumstances about it what seemed weird to you? He

0:05:42 Andrew: So What I think seemed weird to everybody was a combination of factors. Number one, the timing, right? Number two, the fact that it was unannounced. And number three, the fact that for somebody who is legendarily unattractive, it is also Donald Trump is somebody who is legendarily vain, right? Like, there are all sorts of reports of having, you know, uh, staff travel with him to, you know, press his pants as he gets off of Air Force One and is walking down the steps, you know, never minding that a huge, you know, burst of wind is going to come by and, like, you know, blow that comb over so that it's standing straight up in the air, whatever. And the idea that you would travel and then be seen in golf cleats coming off of your, your plane, right, like you

0:06:28 Thomas: Actually has had golf shoes on? Hmm.

0:06:31 Andrew: He had golf shoes on, that's part of the report, and was in you know, there's his dumb sweater and that sort of thing. That's the basis for the entire speculation. So this is these are thin reeds to go on, right? I'm going to use this as a springboard. There is zero evidence, and this is, by definition, you could not say this is the most likely occurrence, because there are any number of possibilities, and a large number of them fall into the category of not relevant to the potential ongoing criminal investigations against the f photos, right? But here's one, and I decided to throw it out here because it's part of our ongoing legal education, and that people will at least understand some vernacular. And to kind of bring that all home, and that is, you can, uh, make a proffer to the Department of Justice, and if If they accept it, is written, then the Department of Justice will conduct an informal interview with you as the suspect, right? As the target of an ongoing investigation regarding information and evidence you have that is potentially of use to the Department of Justice.

0:07:44 Thomas: When they do so, do they make you go in the middle of a golf game at the drop of a hat? I government doesn't normally work that way. Oh.

0:07:51 Andrew: They Don't they don't normally work that way, uh, but, you know, if you've been sort of pushing back and forth, uh, and all of a sudden they say, "All right, yeah, but you got to get here by, you know, X date and time," you know what I mean, that could result in that. I am telling you, I don't think this is a great fit, but it's a possibility. That proffer letter, right, is sometimes referred to as being "queen for a day," okay?

0:08:17 Thomas: Yeah. You've told us about this. I really want Trump to be like the queen for a day.

0:08:17 Andrew: Yeah. And "queen for a day" means you come in You I'm just, you fully and truthfully disclose everything that you know, and the government agrees that they cannot use your statements, delivered in connection with that proffer, against you in later court proceedings. Now, can they use those statements as the basis of an investigation? Of course they can, right? It's a dangerous thing to do, um, and if you're the president, if you're the former president, it's especially dangerous, because, you this is the kind of thing that works very, very well when you are an Alan Weisselberg, right, when you're the CFO, maybe helping them by in incriminating someone further up the line.

You're at the head of the line, right? So it's entirely possible, uh, that the DOJ said, "No, we're not interested in extending you a proffer letter because we don't want you to come in and say something that we already know and thereby prevent us from using the equivalent of that statement against you. They, right, may feel like they have enough already, and there's nobody else Trump can implicate that they care about enough to do that. This, right, is separate from just saying, "Hey, let's come in and talk about a plea deal." Right, this is a specific written agreement whereby you provide valuable information.

And again, remember, "queen for a day" is also no promises that that will lead to a deal. That, right, the DOJ is free to hear the stuff you have, um, it's kind of implicit that they will, uh, offer you a deal at the end, but only if they're convinced that that information was useful, truthful which is always a problem with Trump and that it will, this is the most important part, that it will lead to the conviction of the people we really want to get.

0:10:13 Andrew: So, you could Trump try and pin this all on John Eastman and Rudy Giuliani? I don't know, like I said, don't think this is super likely, uh, but I thought it was a good time to kind of revisit the different options that are available out there.

0:10:23 Thomas: I was gonna say I mean, with eight bullet points to go, I feel like this was a bit of a waste of a bullet point, Andrew. I feel like this was just a medical thing. I mean, the only thing that would really cause Donald Trump to, get be out of a plane without even having put on his, don't lifts and his whatever, way uh it's got to be medical, right, or whatever, yeah

0:10:38 Andrew: Big boy pants yeah, right, I Given I've given a lot of disclaimers that I think the overwhelming likelihood is that it has nothing to do with the ongoing practices, and this is why I we don't stake out a position, but, but I thought we could talk about that in the abstract, and at least, you know, get through the kinds of things that criminal defendants can say to the DOJ. So there you go, um, in total agreement with you, this is likely a nothing burger, and and that's not what the show we do.

0:10:58 Thomas: Yeah now

0:11:11 Andrew: Not.

0:11:09 Thomas: I Well when I saw golf thing, and I also thought we were going to talked about the picture of I don't even know, this has made the rounds everywhere, it's just Trump and a bunch of people, I don't if you know who they are, are a bunch of people on a golf course with golf carts. Now, as you say, I play golf way more than the normal, the usual foursome, you know, a-holes break the rules, sometimes you see a fivesome, you see six. Foursome is generally, you know, the max that you have in a game of golf, usually, for pace of play reasons. Maybe this doesn't apply to presidents playing, F POTUSes playing in private courses. But it was like, what, 10 people? I don't even know. No. And And someone was like, "Look, they don't even have golf clubs." And to that, I just wanted to say one quick thing, which is really funny, which has actually no, there is one person who has a golf club. Did you notice this?

0:11:58 Thomas: There's one guy. And I love this idea that they all came to do. I don't know what secret meetings of like selling secrets or who knows what it is. I'd be curious if you have any speculation on that part, but I love the idea. There is one One guy with a driver on his shoulder and like a, it looks like a maybe a tiger club cover. And I just love that that one guy was like, oh, oh we're not, we're not playing. Oh, oh okay. Oh, is he doing secrets? Yeah. Well, we could do secrets and play though, right? No, no, you don't. Okay.

0:12:04 Andrew: Yeah. Oh. The heath of the group is like, yeah, can't

0:12:30 Thomas: Very kind of you to say Heath, because that would also be me. I very kind, you know, that was such a friendly gesture you made just now, Andrew. It would also been me and Heath. We'd be like, but we could play. We're going to do treason and play. I can treason. And look, I want to, ah, it's so nice out. Let's hit a ball. There's one guy. It's great.

0:12:33 Andrew: No.

0:12:47 Thomas: Look at the picture.

0:12:47 Andrew: The casino, right, conducting, uh, the criminal business outside of government surveillance on the golf course comes to mind, but you, we just, we just don't know, so

0:12:56 Thomas: That is weird though. Like that's, I mean, to me, it was weirder than the, than the tarmac thing. Like it was bizarre.

0:12:57 Andrew: Yeah. Sure. All of it, is all of this is, is weird, because it is a typical, let's let, let me connect up that, uh, casino, but, and again, don't like being in a position of speculation, so you I keep saying I'm hanging 90 percent error bars, this is most likely not not the case, but one of the things that is interesting is that the DOJ has now confirmed in its filings that it has had surveillance on Donald Trump and Mar-a-Lago, Mar-a-Lago, for pretty much all of 2022. So previously they knew that the, and again, this was also unsealed, so this ties into a later bullet point, uh, that the government requested and received surveillance video from Mar-o-laco. And again, you know, who knows whether that was edited, unedited, whether there's some missing part. We just don't know.

0:13:13 Thomas: Yeah.

0:13:51 Thomas: I love the same guy being like, Hey, did you get any of my swings? And I just want to see my form, you know, the Same one. Golf surveying, let's pick up, I had a really good shot the other day, I just wanted to see if, you, no you didn't have that. Okay, all

0:13:53 Andrew: Right. Yep. So, uh, look, like, is it possible that this is the first time that FPOTUS is actually scared that there is going to be an investigation? I mean, I want you to think about the number of people, right, a hundred percent of Republicans, and a, a significant chunk of those, you know, of our audience, of those of us on the left, who, you know, just sort of thought like, oh yeah, Merrick Garland is attorney general, institutionalist, you know, not, not Morgan Stringer, who care, they're not going to investigate the former president, it's done, right? And so he may have not thought that he was in any real danger, and the, the kid gloves, gloves with which he has been treated by, uh, first NARA and then the DOJ up until June, may have given him the false sense of security of, oh yeah, look, I continue to get away with whatever, I hit whatever I want. So, so could that be a reason for the change in behavior, that all of a sudden he knows the noose is tightening? Could be, right? Again, we just don't know.

0:15:01 Thomas: Right, bullet point, so, I, you know, I slowed you down there, I, next, I there you go it's Honestly, true.

0:15:05 Andrew: It was, was my fault for putting golf on the list So I take Full responsibility.

0:15:11 Thomas: Next, uh, okay, now I'm finally gonna learn about this Hardy's, Mike Lindell connection.

0:15:16 Andrew: Uh, Mike Lindell was personally served with a subpoena at a Hardy's during breakfast, during which they, pursuant to said subpoena, confiscated his phone. We know what the subpoena is seeking because Mike Lindell, of course, put it up on the screen on his Frank dot, you, globe fart dot, whatever. You

0:15:36 Thomas: Is a pity that Chris Farley isn't alive to do Mike Lindell. It would have been tremendous. I

0:15:38 Andrew: Oh, my God. Oh, That would have been the very, very best.

0:15:43 Thomas: Know, legend.

0:15:44 Andrew: So we know that, among other things, the FBI is now seeking information on Mike Lindell's ties to Tina Peters. And if that name sounds familiar, that is the election clerk, from, former election clerk, she got fired and then ran for public office. I'm going to talk about her indictment in a minute. It, after, uh, being indicted, decided that she was going to run for Colorado Secretary of State, which is, of course, the job of counting the votes, this is big, an lie proponent, lost, uh, with 29 percent of the vote.

0:16:16 Thomas: Mean, I'm not laughing at a indicted criminal only getting 29% of the vote. Should be lost with none percent of the vote.

0:16:22 Andrew: No, that's that's Be, and by the way, the winning, the candidate, uh, Pam Anderson, uh, yeah, exactly. Won by fourteen percent. So, of course, you know, Tina Peters, uh, claimed, you know, fraud and had a recount and blah blah blah, and the recount gave her 13 more votes. And, in case you're wondering, is 13 more voters equivalent to 14 percent of the vote? No.

0:16:29 Thomas: Damn it, good. For her only In South Dakota, yes.

0:16:51 Andrew: No, no, it is not. So a big lie proponent, when I say that, we covered her on the, the show, she was the one, uh, as the election chief, that got the fake ID for a temporary worker called Jerry Woods fired. The real Jerry Wood hired another guy whose name was Conan Hayes, which I just love, uh, had him pretend to be Jerry Wood, get into the restricted area during a critical update of the Dominion software, uh, and, in order to prove that the software could, could be compromised, um, left the facility insecure, right, disabled various security cameras, left doors unlocked, live streamed them putting in the administrative password, and thereby compromised the integrity of the voting machines, in order to prove that, Hugo Chavez was illegally controlling the elections, or whatever the hell it was. So, uh, absolute, so not just a lunatic, but, like, like a lunatic who knows that she's peddling fraud. Deliberately, right? Manufactured fraud in order to prove that Dominion's machines could be hacked. That is one subject, Mike Lindell's connections to Tina Peters. She showed up in one of his weird things.

0:18:07 Thomas: Everything he does is a weird thing, you're gonna need to specify. Stupid.

0:18:10 Andrew: Like Like? So she was at one of his conferences where he was going to document the proof that, you know, the election, the votes were physically picked up and then converted into electrons and then sent into a satellite and then beamed down to Italy where they could be decoded. And I am 100 percent not making up any of this.

0:18:30 Thomas: They were neutrons, idiots.

0:18:32 Andrew: God, and then, uh, Italy was going to change the votes and then beam them back. And, you know, among the other hilarious things, like his little, um, you they had graphs in the background, and, like, the, the point of all of the graphs and numbers in a Mike Lindell, or any kind of stop the steel thing, is the exact equivalent of those, like, background screens on Star Trek, right, like, it's yeah, that that is right, like, oh, we're here at a crayon supercomputer.

0:18:32 Thomas: All the lights going off for nothing, yeah, Suspicious.

0:19:02 Andrew: No, no, you're not, right, you have Terpsichore in her basement, like, making stuff up. And so one of the things they had that was ostensibly like the vote patterns was actually just the air traffic control route flow of, like, various European flights. So anyway, yeah, why else would this dot go from, you know, the United States to Edinburgh to Germany, yeah.

0:19:19 Thomas: Every dot Is a vote these people make you look like Gen Z, Andrew,, I'm just going to say it, I'm

0:19:27 Andrew: Yeah. Yep. Thank you, I, I greatly appreciate that. So, um, the DOJ is looking to connect up Mike Lindell with other, uh, stop the steel folks, and, uh, people who have been active in promoting the big lie. And, I, again, if you're reading the tea leaves on that one, these are, just bit players, grifters, and moron hangers on, so it seems like pretty wide-ranging investigation, if you ask me.

0:19:58 Thomas: Just glad it wasn't, didn't take place at a Taco Bell, because then I'd really be conflicted as to whose side I was on, so I'm glad it was Hardy's. Thank

0:20:04 Andrew: We're Always on the side of Taco Bell, that goes without saying.

0:20:09 Thomas: You I, it was written into the contract, the one, one stipulation for this show, I appreciate you sticking to it.

0:20:09 Andrew: Yeah. Yeah. Taco Bell, call us for sponsorship, all

0:20:16 Thomas: Three Andrew, I'm looking at the clock, well, you might pull it off. You son of a b, bullet three, um, the New York AG has rejected a Trump settlement offer, this is related to the absolute criminal griff that was the Trump org, wait,

0:20:19 Andrew: Yep. That Is correct. Remember that this is the the civil division, right, so that this can assess penalties on the Trump org and Donald Trump himself, who is named, but not put him behind bars. But New York Attorney General Letitia James, who has been very, very active and very, very aggressive, again, in context with something that will not result in Trump being in an orange jumpsuit, probably will not result in a financial penalty that approaches the magnitude of what he was able to steal from the White House.

But that worth pointing out, Trump's lawyers went to her office to make a settlement pitch. This is to what I was alluding in the first segment. And in connection therewith, not only did the attorney general rebuff their efforts to settle, but announced publicly, And this is a New York Times story that they are considering also indicting, quote, at least one of Mr. Trump's adult children, Ivanka, Eric and Donald Trump Jr., all of whom have been senior executives at the Trump organization. So, again, if you're reading the tea leaves, this is direct contrast to the Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg talked about that and decided not to against Allen Weisselberg despite having an unbelievable knockdown case, gave him a ridiculous sweetheart deal. On the flip side of that, Tish James not pleading it out, very, very likely to go to trial and may issue a superseding indictment that includes one of the Trump children.

0:22:01 Andrew: And you will recall her exclusive purview. Right. This is in connection with the notion that Trump fraudulently inflated the value of the assets of his real estate in order to avoid taxes. And, like, the documentation that, on that, seems real good.

0:22:19 Thomas: That's related to that, sorry, there's a lot to keep straight here, we, I already got some, you mentioned this is civil. So there was some sort of criminal proceeding, right? Because I remember there was the ruling of, like, none of these assholes can ever run a charity again. Was that like the first round? That was like the criminal result maybe. And that's the best we got. And then

0:22:31 Andrew: And Same investigation, same office, disbanded Trump org as a charity. This is in connection with the uh fraudulent valuation, uh, and all of the claims are defrauding the state of New York of tax revenue. It's

0:22:54 Thomas: Where I'm confused, is, I thought that was like his personal tax deal, remember, because the New York Times did that whole thing, that expose on, well, I guess that was Trump senior and how they, you know, hit all that stuff, are you telling me that his uh changing the value up and down of whatever he needed when he needed it was related to the Trump org and not like his personal uh tax return kind of thing?

0:23:16 Andrew: So, yeah, it's both. It is a wide ranging inquiry into loans that Trump took out in his own name, in the name of the organization, right? Using various properties as collateral. You, you may recall that initially, after that investigation was opened, right, and a subpoena was issued to Donald Trump, he then filed a lawsuit in 2021, ultimately unsuccessful, shocker, it's a Trump lawsuit, seeking to block the attorney general from being able to issue a subpena to him at all because, you know, he's the president and blah blah blah executive privilege something or other, and and actually The argument, this, the serious argument being made was this is a politically motivated uh prosecution, and uh, essentially, Tish James, his response was like, I can hate you for two reasons, right, like.

0:23:52 Thomas: Yeah. Yeah.

0:24:03 Andrew: And By the way, like, that's true, you know, like it, we see this selective prosecution, talked a little bit about it, on this week's cleanup on on Aisle 45, but there is not a valid claim for selective prosecution that says, hey, lots of people are committing this crime and you just picked me, right? That is the, saying the easiest way to understand that is you get pulled over on the highway.

0:24:04 Thomas: Yeah. Yeah.

0:24:29 Andrew: Right. Like, well, that guy was going 85, well. Well, you know, I got you. So, you

0:24:33 Thomas: Well. Everybody's Been overstating my assets. One

0:24:35 Andrew: Yep, exactly. Exactly right. That is what's new with Tish James in the New York Attorney General's office.

0:24:43 Thomas: More clarification. Sorry, in this situation, so Tish James is going after it because, you you said New York state taxes, they're losing out on, what's the federal version of it, like, when someone does a tax fraud, that likely would affect, I would assume, their the federal return and their state return, do, is it two separate, like, in investigations that can happen? And really

0:25:04 Andrew: Yeah, And that absolutely can happen. It does not offend double jeopardy because they're two separate sovereigns, right? The state of New York is bringing a fraud claim against you and your organization. And then a federal action would bring an action under the Internal Revenue Code that says, you you filed X document with the IRS and X document is fraudulent, because that's a subset of fraud? So the DOJ absolutely could bring that case, um, they're kind of busy right now, so they may not bring that case. Uh, that they might I Don't Know

0:25:43 Thomas: It's Not Like All Other crime, stop, they're able to do lots of different, criminal thingies, wouldn't you think?

0:25:49 Andrew: Yeah, and the DOJ may be interested in that. We know that they have convened grand juries to look into January 6th, and we know that they have convened grand juries to look into the stealing of government confidential documents at Mar-a-Lago. Uh, we also know, right, that the DOJ has said, we speak through our court filings, everything else, you know, you'll find out when we get there. So, you it would not surprise me that there was an an investigation, uh.

0:26:19 Thomas: Someday I Hope all these things get finished, or so many things.

0:26:25 Andrew: It Yep, absolutely, but there you go, bullet number three.

0:26:27 Thomas: Wow. All right. Bull number four. Even more Eastman emails, huh? This guy.

0:26:33 Andrew: This was actually filed yesterday, uh, in the Eastman case, I get, you know, I get a little uh ping every time something new comes in on that docket. You might recall, in May, the one six committee requested that the court conduct an in-camera review of 721 documents that were listed on the privilege log, that was about 3,000 pages of stuff, the court reviewed it and then released a subset of those documents to the 1-6 committee. At the time, they said they were going to hold in abeyance their objections to 576 additional documents. Those documents total up to, again, a little over 3,000 pages, and reserve the right to request at a later date an in-camera review of those documents. This is, well, that later date. And the important thing, and again, again, don't read too much into it, because there is in fact an authorizing deadline, when Congress, when this Congress concludes its business at the end of the year,

0:26:40 Thomas: I

0:27:31 Andrew: Right, you will need to reauthorize the one six committee, but here's how they pled it, they said, as the select committee reaches the final months of its tenure under its current authorizing resolution, okay, it now respectfully seeks such in-camera review so that it may complete its efforts, including preparation of the final report mandated by its authorizing resolution. So here's how I read that, and again, that's factual statement, you can petition to be reauthorized, right, by the next Congress, to be reconstituted, uh, the next Congress will be seated on January 3rd, 2023. I continue to hold out optimism that in the next two months, Biden's numbers are on a turnaround and that that general national mood will propel some congressional candidates up the ladder and that Democrats can hold the House.

0:28:19 Andrew: I think this is a recognition of the fact we that might lose the House, and the 1-6 committee may not be re-upped in in 2023, so they're going to get their work done by the end of the year, I

0:28:30 Thomas: Hate that thought, Andrew. I don't like that.

0:28:32 Andrew: Don't like that either, so you know what that means, uh, get Out and Vote Democratic Yeah So But that Is telling you what's going on in the minds of the one six committee, that is, we are going to be be prepared to deliver a final report in 2022. Yep.

0:28:36 Thomas: Should we vote? All right, better vote. You heard him.

0:28:54 Thomas: This show is brought to you by MedCline. If you're somebody who has shoulder pain or your shoulders bother you at night, or you have acid reflux, That's me, actually. That'S both those things. Medcline could really help. It is a a clinically proven solution that has brought pain relief and a better night's sleep to hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions. It's not medication. It's the MedKlein or shoulder pain. So if you suffer from either of those or both, the Medklein patented pillow system is designed to cushion your body in a sleeping position that is supremely comfortable, doctor recommended and clinically proven to provide effective natural acid reflux or shoulder pain relief and a better night's sleep. In fact, 95% of patients reported an overall improvement in sleep quality when using MedCline. And I am one of those.

0:29:39 Thomas: It has helped with my acid reflüx. Stopped waking up with my throat burning starting the day with a sore throat. It really does help. MedKlein has been validated in seven independent clinical trials as the most effective natural treatment for heartburn, regurgitation, and the many painful symptoms of GERD, all while you sleep. The System is proven to reduce exposure to harmful stomach acid acid 87% better than a And in fact, sleeping on the MedKlein Reflux relief system may protect against long-term health consequences of untreated nighttime reflux, the such MedCine team can help you find the best product to help relieve your nighttime pain and truly sleep better. And they're so confident MedCINE comes with a 60-night sleep guarantee. So, if you have any of these sleep issues, I highly recommend trying MedCeline. And now get 20 percent off when you go to MedCline.com slash OA.

0:30:27 Thomas: Get 20 percentoff and a better night's sleep today at MedCine, M-E-D-C-L-I-N-E dot com slash OA Get 20%off at Medcline. Com slash O-A.

0:30:42 Thomas: Episode is brought to you by the Jordan Harbinger Show. If you'd like a new podcast to look forward to each week that's entertaining, informative, and packed with actionable content, check out Jordan's show. The Jordan Harvinger Show is a top-shelf podcast named Best of Apple in 2018. Jordan dives into the minds of fascinating people from athletes, authors, and scientists to mobsters, spies, and hostage negotiators. I know we have a lot of Dan Carlin fans in our audience. I'm a fan of Hardcore History. I recommend an episode, every time, maybe check out episode 560, Dan Carlin. And I don't, I'll have to check, but I don't think the episode was four hours long. I wonder, I wonder how Dan got Dan Carland to only talk for, I don't know, 45 minutes or so. Crazy. Crazy, that's just one example.

0:31:28 Thomas: There are so many to choose from, you can't go wrong with adding the Jordan Harbinger Show to your rotation. It's interesting, and there's never a dull show. 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. Next item, bullet five. Man, we might do it. We might do It. Three different a-holes got subpoened. Some cooperated. Some didn't. We're on Mark Meadows now. Straighten us out here. What's going on?

0:32:01 Andrew: This is something we have talked about. Various, um, folks in Trump's orbit have responded to the January 6th committee in different ways. Uh, some of them respond, again, the obvious smart way to respond, if you are an evil criminal, whether you are a mastermind or not, is the, the John Eastman, Roger Stone, Mike Flynn, yeah, okay, fine, subpoena me, I'm gonna show up. And in response to, what's your favorite color, I'm going to say, I plead the fifth. Right? In response too, Mike Flyn asked the question, do you believe that there's a constitutional requirement for the peaceful transfer of power, he said, I plead the fifth. The lawyer asked him, was like, wait, you pled the fifth of that? And he's like, I plead to that question. That literally, other than being mocked on national television by the one six committee, which Mike Flynn roundly was, but not enough, um, there was, there's nothing to stop you, you comply with that subpoena, when you show up and go fifth, fifth, fifth, which is all that John Eastman did.

0:32:58 Thomas: Yeah, that seems smart. Why didn't everybody do that?

0:33:02 Andrew: Yeah, yeah, right, because a bunch of people are so used to being in Trump's orbit that they were like, oh, congressional subpoena, you know, I, I, I use that for toilet paper. The people who used it for toilet paper got, by and large, referred out, well, all of them were referred out to the DOJ for prosecution. Some of them were prosecuted, right, the most high profile of that was Steve Bannon, right. Steve Bannon was like, have executive privilege. And therefore, I'm not even responding to this. And the DOJ was like you haven't worked in the White House since 2017. And by the way, even if you were, you still have to respond to a valid congressional subpoena. And that's why he was tried and found guilty of 2 U.S.C. 192 of willfully disobeying a congressional subpoena.

0:33:50 Andrew: We are awaiting his sentencing on both of those counts that has a one to 12 month potential prison term. So if you like the idea of Steve Bannon going to jail, you will, will love the Department of Justice yeah, exactly, so uh, Navarro took the same, essentially the same approach, uh, Dan Scavino took essentially the sam approach, um, Mark Meadows, a, you may infer greater intelligence, I don't know, took a, a different tactic, right, which was, uh, when subpoenaed by the one six committee, he began doing what Trump did, right, which was cooperating with them behind the scenes, provided a whole bunch of documents, it looked like he was going to cooperate and come in, and then he reversed course and put a pin in that one. And then, um, as we talked about during the summer's public hearings by the, the one six committee, they've kind of left open the carrot and stick, right, of, hey, uh, we have not burned you to the ground yet, we could, there

0:34:00 Thomas: Love that idea, I feel bad for the jail, as I think I've said.

0:34:51 Andrew: Are a ton of documents that show you were active in pushing big lie conspiracy theory crap all the way up until the day Trump left office, uh, but, you know, if there's, that, it's not too late to take the hero route, right, and look at all the other scumbags that we've managed to rehabilitate, so now, here's what, what has happened.

What you might recall, we put this question to Randall Elias, and one of the big questions that people were asking early on was, is the one six committee going to make a criminal referral of Trump or his cronies out of their proceedings, and Randell Elias came on the show and said, that's the, the wrong question to ask, right, because it's assuming that the Department of Justice isn't watching on TV. And then we later, yeah, got confirmation the DOJ is, in fact, watching on TV. And so they can request information without there being a formal referral. There have been formal referrals in narrow circumstances related to, right, Bannon's contempt, Meadows's contempt. The DOJ decided to prosecute Bannon, decided not to prosecute Mark Meadows. Of that has been kind of up in the air. But what we're seeing is the DOJ independently, without need for a referral, following the work of the 1-6 Committee. And that brings us to the news this week, CNN first broke the story, that there has been a parallel DOJ subpoena by a grand jury upon probable cause to Mark Meadows in connection with their investigation into the 1-6 insurrection.

0:35:35 Thomas: Yeah, no

0:36:23 Andrew: The, and reporting is that Meadows has now turned over the exact same materials that that he gave to the House Investigatory Committee to the Department of Justice in connection with that criminal investigation. So no need for a referral, no need für, you know, who's cooperating with whom, the DOJ has now independently gotten the same huge tranche of documents. And we saw how useful those were, even as publicly revealed, in connection mitzvah, criminal investigation, investigation, so, uh, that seems like a pretty good thing.

0:36:57 Thomas: Kidding. I love it.

0:36:59 Andrew: Is, and I'm holding myself accountable, much people have tweeted out and been like, oh, look, Andrew was right, you said, you know, Meadows was going to be the next domino to fall with the carrot and stick, um, I want to add a little precautionary note to that, because I pitched this theory off the air, uh, to, uh, my, my guest co-host on Clean Up on All 45 last week, Liz Dye, she laughed. I said, so it doesn't feel like it. She was like, oh, that's ridiculous. And I was like, really? And she pointed me to the FEC disclosures for Donald Trump's Save America PAC. And I I looked at, and it pulled the dots together.

And this is amazing detective work, so really, really great work. Here's what you will see, I'll give the link in the show notes. So Trump's Save America PAC has, of, you know, over $100 million in, right? It, it, is a giant slush fund, fund, in June of 2021, and then again in, in December of 2021, you see it being used for the, the legitimate purposes for which you can use a giant slush fund, namely, to make donations to political candidates that you

0:37:06 Thomas: Yep, yep, right, yeah.

0:38:04 Andrew: Agree with. Now, right, this is almost as if this is foreshadowing, we should do an episode on campaign finance reform, um, yeah, that seems, seems like an oddly specific number, so yeah, who is, is Trump giving many to? Garbage candidates like Ted Budd in North Carolina, Dan Cox, who is now the Maryland Republican nominee for governor, Lauren Bobert, who does not need an introduction, as being a garbage human, South Carolina senator Tim Scott, and you, what these people all have in common is, they're not just garbage humans, which, which they are, they're all active, open proponents of the big lie. All of them got $5,000, with two exceptions,

0:38:11 Thomas: Or three. What about three? Yeah.

0:38:27 Thomas: Oh,

0:38:42 Andrew: Right, that's right, all

0:38:43 Thomas: That's nothing. A bazillion dollars in this slush fund, that's worse than zero, that's insulting, and

0:38:51 Andrew: One-eleventh of what we gave to each of three separate reproductive rights charities that we raised from our listeners. So

0:38:59 Thomas: Our slush fund is not as slushy, I'll say, not as much slush, wow,

0:39:03 Andrew: Missing about six zeros off of being the Trump slush fund, so, um, two donations were larger than five thousand dollars. One went to Dan Patrick, who was the lieutenant governor of Texas, and that was for $10,000. Okay, so I don't know why he gets twice as much as Herschel Walker, but, but, whatever, he got twice as much. And then there's one on June 26th, 2021, for the Conservative Partnership Institute, that is for a million dollars. And if you're saying, what the hell is the Conservative Partnership Institutes, that is Mark Meadows' fake charity that is designed to, here, let me quote directly from their website, quote, quote, to serve and support the conservative movement on Capitol Hill, end of quote.

0:39:49 Andrew: So Mark Meadows, senior partner. And if you're asking, does the CPI, Conservative Partnership Institute, have an entire wing major project devoted to the big lie? Yes. In fact, they have the Election Integrity Network project. And if I asked, other than hiring Sidney Powell, who is the most ridiculous person you could hire to run the Election Integrity Network project, that's probably not enough information.

0:40:17 Andrew: I will tell you, yeah, disgraced former Foley and Lardner partner Cleta Mitchell, whom you will recall from the Brad Raffensperger call that not only lied about having not engaged her firm's partnership committee management committee to take on Trump as a client, but also did not know a goddamn thing on that call, right? Kept interrupting, and like, Trump would be like, Cleta, this doesn't involve you right now, like, pipe, pipe down, yeah, yeah,

0:40:17 Thomas: I was gonna say that's oh man, Terpsichore, uh, let's see, ah, right, wow, if Trump is telling you, like, god, get do some reading, you know, that is a bad sign

0:40:51 Andrew: She says, yes, I represent the president. That was news to her employer, the uh coat factory firm of Foley and Lardner, uh, who said, you know, we have requirements, you're supposed to like, you know, tell us before you take on a firm client, we should not have to read about that in a transcript in the Washington Post, so they fired her yeah um good to know that the uh incompetent trader Cleta Mitchell has managed to land on her feet with a gig at Mark Meadows' fake charity CPI, um, so that's who got a million bucks five days before the January 6th committee was officially convened. And is that a good explanation for why Mark Meadows was like, well, I'm gonna give you there, but I'm not gonna do this. And what, and, and that strikes me as a pretty plausible inference to draw, and I, it is, it is absolutely a key fact that I did not know, that is worth knowing, that Mark Meadow's is, as of right now, you can go to to their page, right, CPI.org, and he is presently involved with an organization that is

0:41:10 Thomas: A treason call yeah okay cool

0:41:59 Andrew: Spouting the big lie, funding the big law, and hiring a, one of the quote, you know, masterminds, or at least one of the lawyers involved in spreading the big lies. So uh, Mark Meadows, still not your friend.

0:42:14 Thomas: You nailed the Patsy Baloney one, but the sophomore album there, the the follow-up, the the Meadows prediction, you're thinking, yep it's

0:42:21 Andrew: Every every band goes through this where you know your second album is is there's some deep cuts that are good, and look, what I think Meadows is trying to do is thread the needle here, I right, think he is trying to stay in Trump's good graces, I think he is definitely trying to stay in good grances with the MAGA crowd, and I think he's trying to give the 1-6 committee yeah, exactly right enough that like people are willing to vouch for him, that would be my take of what we have, and we will see, it does not feel like deliberate internal sabotage, as has happened with several prior Trump witnesses, but maybe that's also because Liz Cheney is smart enough to figure out like, oh, this guy's screwing us around, so I don't know, uh, but keep Mark Meadows on your permanent skepticism list, and uh, thanks

0:42:26 Thomas: Tough you know not go to prison will

0:43:12 Andrew: And thanks to Liz on that one yep, so

0:43:12 Thomas: Do I think you cut in line, or didn't you, didn't cover this, you covered another bullet point without announcing it, right? Was that six?

0:43:19 Andrew: It ties into six, which which is on the plus side, that Trump super PAC, the Save America PAC, is now also a part of the grand jury investigation.

0:43:20 Thomas: Oh, okay. This

0:43:32 Andrew: So I, and

0:43:31 Thomas: Guy, this guy cannot do anything without it being under federal investigation of some kind.

0:43:38 Andrew: So this is in connection with the same one, six grand jury.

0:43:42 Thomas: He could put up a lemonade stand and there would be a federal agent there within a few minutes. Like there must be, this is, it's gotta be fraud, something. There must be millions of dollars of fraud just already. Ready. Incredible.

0:43:50 Andrew: Yep. Yep, new round of subpoenas. We, again, these are confidential, I have to go off the news reports. You know, I hate doing that. But where we are. Two potential witnesses seeking documents, records and testimony in connection with the Save America PAC's fundraising practices and expenditures. Expenditures. Uh, the New York Times says the scope of the probe is unclear. Grand jury subpoenas and search warrants issued by the Justice Department in recent days were related to numerous topics, including Trump's Pack, according to people familiar with the matter who requested anonymity for discussing an ongoing investigation. They seek records, testimony, and ask at least some of their recipients about their knowledge of efforts to engage in election fraud, according to one of the the people. So giving a million dollars to Mark Meadows' charity to defraud elections, right, is probably a pretty good sign that that that's happening. So There you go. Save America Pack also now part of the investigation. That's

0:44:52 Thomas: More to go, I think. You might pull it off. Number seven. We've got a new docken entry that one uh of us has looked into. I'm not gonna say who. Uh, from Judge Reinhert, not

0:45:00 Andrew: Yep, uh, this is just a little bit of housekeeping. So remember, uh, Merrick Garland has said that TOJ speaks through its court filings. We went through the initial unseeled affidavit in support of the search warrant, that right, was unredacted, made available on the Reinhardt docket. I then told you, after we went through and tried to piece through what was under some of the blacked out language, that the pleadings in connection with the Judge Cannon docket, right, so these are both in Florida. Remember, Reinhard is the magistrate judge who approved the search warrant at Mar-a-Lago. He's a real judge. Those are real proceedings. Judge Cannon is the Federalist Society weirdo who has yeah who has basically, uh, given Trump everything he could possibly want, despite the fact that he's not entitled to anything.

So in those Cannon filings, Trump admitted to stuff that the government was like, oh, all right, well, you're admitting that there's a, that there are grand jury subpoenas that are out there about you. Um, we left that redacted, uh, so as to not prejudice your constitutional rights, but as long as you're going to blab about it we're going to erase those redactions. So I've uploaded the, what is called, less redacted affidavit. Now you can compare, uh, and see that that really what got unredacted in that that second version is material, 60, grand jury material, uh, that basically confirms the existence of a grand jury and the various subpoenas that were issued in connection there with, uh, first, the subpoena, and then the search warrant at Mar-a-Lago.

0:45:44 Thomas: A real judge yeah, I guess we'll erase that redaction quite Quite. Quite often, it's like, what are they hiding? Why aren't they sharing anything? And it's, like, we're doing that for you, dude. Like, we are protecting your rights by not just putting out there all the stuff, all the criming that we think you've done.

0:46:45 Andrew: Yep. Such a good point. You've made this, Allison has made this on Clean Up on All 45. Even for Donald Trump, Trump, right? Is innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law. The standard for issuing a grand jury subpoena is probable cause. So there's a huge gulf in between those two, and it is standard practice not to leak to the public. The grand jury saying, yeah, we believe you probably stole a whole bunch of nuclear secrets, because if it turns out that we don't have sufficient evidence to support that criminal charge, you you've now had your name dragged through the mud.

0:47:29 Thomas: Yeah. And I'm not going to mention James Comey. I'm, not going, to say it. Not going, do it. Hillary Clinton. That's a big press conference. We're, not, we don't have time because we have other bullet points we're, now, going, talk about.

0:47:32 Andrew: We're not going to do that. That's right. That's so Let's move on to bullet point number eight. This

0:47:40 Thomas: Holy crap, my friend. Mark this day, everybody. Eight bullet points were covered. Well, unless this one you're going to be like, well, this is 35 minutes.

0:47:50 Andrew: Is kind of a log. We'll see. We'll say yes.

0:47:52 Thomas: We'll see. All right. So update in another docket, that was dubbed. Was this AG's creation, the Nara Lago phrase? That's pretty good.

0:48:01 Andrew: Yeah. This is Judge Cannon stock

0:48:02 Thomas: Good on AG.

0:48:03 Andrew: And I thought that was pretty

0:48:04 Thomas: Nara Lagos. What's the update?

0:48:04 Andrew: Good, yeah. So a couple real quick ones, um, we got back each the party's position statement as to the other party's nominees to serve as special master. I feared the DOJ has said, uh, it is okay with, uh, Judge Raymond Deary, who has been in Manhattan for a very, very long time, and I've tried to dig up the connection to Trump and I am failing. And and I, I, I just feel uncomfortable about, I have it, right, zero evidence, but I just don't think Donald Trump would propose as one of his two candidates, like the we

0:48:37 Thomas: Right. So we still don't know what the hell's going on with that? Weird.

0:48:41 Andrew: Don't. I've looked I've asked, yeah, but you know, when you say I've got two candidates, one is beholden to me in a way that is obvious and is also unqualified, and one seems like a giant pot of honey in the middle of a field yeah there's no way, I agree, well

0:48:54 Thomas: Yeah, there's no way. Unless it's the greatest prank in the history of time. If they're just like, we can propose one that's actually really good and they'll be so spooked that there's No Way They'll Accept It. That is the greatest plank of all time.

0:49:06 Andrew: Possible yeah that's that's great, that would be a good gambit. I would stop saying triple Xanatos gambit and start saying Trump gambit from from here on out if, uh yeah

0:49:15 Thomas: Well, it's not him. Who's actually doing it? Can we give the person who actually has a brain credit? His lawyer or somebody, somebody?

0:49:20 Andrew: Yeah. It's it's Chris Kyes.

0:49:21 Thomas: Yeah, they're you go.

0:49:21 Andrew: So, yeah. Trump's Opposition was a little more ridiculous. He said, I oppose the two eminently qualified candidates, including one arch conservative that the DOJ has put forward. Quote, Plaintiff submits it is more respectful to the candidates from either party to withhold the basis for opposition from a public and likely to be widely circulated pleading. Therefore, plaintiff asked this court the permission to specifically express our objections to the government's nominees only at such time that the court specifies a desire to obtain and consider that information, which would then be provided in camera pursuant to whatever procedure the court deems most efficient and appropriate. I... are you kidding me? The... I'm not going to say why we disagree agree with these candidates in public.

0:50:05 Thomas: What?

0:50:05 Andrew: It's ridiculous. Yeah, yep.

0:50:06 Thomas: What? Okay.

0:50:08 Andrew: So they just said we don't like them, but we're not going to say why unless the court specifically tells us to do so, knowing that this court will not specifically tell them to do some. That's

0:50:17 Thomas: This is just because they know they have a fake judge. Okay.

0:50:20 Andrew: That's Right.

0:50:21 Thomas: Yeah. They're just thumbing their nose at us. This is nothing. Okay?

0:50:21 Andrew: That's Exactly. Right, um, as I mentioned, one of the two candidates put forth by the DOJ is Thomas, Thomas Griffith, conservative Federalist Society member, somebody that I found appalling. Michael Lissner sent us a note that said, as to Thomas Griffith, I think the best explanation for the DOJ choosing him is this. Merrick Garland served with him on the D.C. Circuit for Griffith's entire tenure there and trusts him. Not that this means anything at all, but Griffith also introduced Justice Jackson, Ketanji Brown Jackson, at her confirmation, hit her SCOTUS confirmation hearing. T.O.J. was clearly looking for someone who's a legitimate conservative, but would do the job by the book. And I think that's... that's a pretty reasonable insight, but still scares me. Last thing we have on the docket, and we are waiting, and I've been trying to stall and see if we were going to get an update.

0:50:43 Thomas: Yeah. Oh, now we understand why all the bullet points.

0:51:11 Andrew: Is that today, today is the day, uh, that the government set for Judge Cannon to provide the specific, specific relief to her order that allows the ODNI to continue to review the small subset of classified materials for national security reasons. And, right, the government has sort of done its own carrot and stick and said, look, if you don't give it to us by Thursday, we have this appeal to the 11th Circuit docketed, uh, and we're going to request relief from that court, uh, if you don't give it to us by Thursday. And so far that has not been forthcoming. We will find out, again, sadly too late for this recording, uh, whether that happens. The reason I say carrot and stick is because unquestionably that request to stay before the 11th Circuit will be more broad, uh, and, you... is just sort of part of how you go to war against a rogue judge, uh, that is doing Trump's bidding in a way that is likely to offend even the 11th Circuit. So we're still waiting. We're still waiting. We're still waiting. I...

0:52:22 Andrew: I, tried, um. Part of that effort, uh, we also received yesterday, uh, the conclusion of the briefing in support of that limited request for relief, and I think this represents a preview of the government's argument before the 11th Circuit in the event, that that they're forced to go there for relief. Um, first they tackle the recurring Trump argument of, well, you know, we secretly declassified all this stuff. So I don't know what you're even talking about. And the DOJ says, some of this rhetoric is just so good that I have to share it. This is footnote one on page one. So starts

0:52:17 Thomas: Wow. Couldn't quite filibuster enough.

0:53:05 Thomas: Right.

0:53:05 Andrew: Off with a bang. Plaintiff has characterized the government's criminal investigation as a document storage dispute or an overdue library book scenario. In doing so, plaintiff has not addressed the potential harms that could result from mishandling classified information or the strict requirements imposed by law for handling such materials. They go on in the main text, plaintiff does not actually assert, much less provide any evidence, that any of the seized records bearing classification markings have been declassified. This is such an important point. It cannot be emphasized highly enough.

0:53:13 Thomas: Yeah. Yeah.

0:53:40 Andrew: Yeah.

0:53:38 Thomas: Well, we, yeah, We talked about this.

0:53:41 Andrew: Exactly right. The fact that the DOJ is kind of refining its story for the 11th Circuit of this. This order is goddamn nonsense. You cannot issue injunctive relief on the basis of zero admissible evidence in court, on the base of not even attorney argument, but mostly attorney insinuation. And I'm glad to see them kind of sharpening that argument. But then they also note how ridiculous the argument minutes this, right, is on page five. As already noted, plaintiff has now filed multiple lengthy submissions with the court that stopped short of asserting that he in fact took any of these actions, that is, declassification actions, with respect to any of the seized records, including those at issue in the stay motion.

And you might recall that one of the things that was unredacted in the second revision was we learned that the documents that were voluntarily turned over pursuant to the subpoena was one red Weld folder that was like sealed in packing tape and marked highly confidential, whatever, and and as the search warrant affidavit notes, um, that seems to be consistent with how you would treat classified material, not, oh yeah, you know, yeah, these are just declassified personal

0:54:07 Thomas: Uh-huh. Right. Right.

0:54:54 Andrew: Record.

0:54:54 Thomas: Weird.

0:54:54 Andrew: Well then why does it have, you know, why is it sealed in tape and you...

0:54:59 Thomas: Everything.

0:54:59 Andrew: You know, why? Yeah. Why does it have a skull on the front? Right. Exactly. So DOJ continues, in light of the classification markings, official cover sheets, and other indicia of classification attended to these materials, such possibilities should not be given weight absent plaintiff's putting forward competent evidence. That's pretty big shot across the bow, I think. The next area that the reply brief addresses is the argument that Trump's team is trying out, of uh, under the Presidential Records Act, these are my personal records and so I get special access to them and I can keep everybody else out. And again, and it is such a misreading of everything, everything that, that I, I give the DOJ real credit for, yeah. It it it Absolutely.

I mean, like my brief on this would just be you the lady doing the... like, that's not how this works, that's how any of this works. Here's how the do j puts it slightly more competently than than I would have. Plaintiff's suggestion that he may, may have categorized certain of the seized materials as personal records during his presidency pursuant to the Presidential Records Act, if true, would only supply another reason that he cannot assert executive privilege with regard to those records. If plaintiff truly means to suggest that, while president, he chose to categorize records with markings such as secret and top secret as his personal records for purposes of the PRA, then he cannot ascertain that the very same records are protected by executive privilege, i.e. that they are presidential communications made

0:55:39 Thomas: It's misreading of the hobbit, it's every anything ever written. Hmm.

0:56:06 Thomas: Wow.

0:56:28 Thomas: So...

0:56:28 Andrew: In furtherance of the performance of his official duties, noting operative law and statute defining personal records as records, quote, of a purely private or non-public character which do not relate to or have an effect upon the carrying out of the constitutional, statutory, or other official or ceremonial duties of the president. Such a great gotcha.

0:56:49 Thomas: Basically, that's worse, you see how that's worst, right? Like, your defense

0:56:50 Andrew: Right. Yeah. Yeah. In any event, whether plaintiff declared documents with classification markings to be his quote personal records for purposes the PRA has no bearing on the government's compelling need to review them, both for national security purposes and as part of its investigation into the potentially unlawful retention. Exactly.

0:56:52 Thomas: Yeah.

0:57:07 Thomas: We're not gonna just like take your word on it that this is all cool. Like, we still would, even if true, which is not obviously, but we still have to verify all that. Yeah. What a joke of a judge, all

0:57:17 Andrew: Right. So Dismantles that argument and then then there are a couple of things that I view as sort of a shot across the bow to Judge Cannon of you, the hackery has to stop at some point. So this is page seven. More generally, plaintiff's response, Trump's response, disregards this court's acknowledgement of its quote, limited power in this domain, end of quote, involving involving the exercises of equitable jurisdiction in connection with an ongoing criminal investigation.

The court ordered the appointment of a special master solely to, quote, manage assertions of privilege and make recommendations thereupon and evaluate claims for return of property. The court did not and could not appoint a special master to exercise roving supervisory authority over the government's ongoing criminal investigation or to adjudicate matters ultimately irrelevant to plaintiff's potential privilege claims, such as whether plaintiff might have declassified seized documents that bear classification markings, or whether plaintiff might have designated those documents as his quote, personal records for purposes of the PRA, because plaintiff cannot plausibly assert executive privilege or attorney client privilege as to any of the seized records bearing classification markings, the court should not enjoin the government's use of those records or order those records reviewed by a special master pending the government's appeal, appeal so that tells us a couple of things, right?

Number one, that that is the DOJ saying, yeah, yeah, judge, we're giving you a way out of the fact that you enjoined the use of records in our possession in connection with an ongoing criminal investigation. We both know you can't do that, but we're willing to wink and pretend you didn't say that so long as

0:58:54 Andrew: You let us use the confidential records in connection with the criminal investigation. Remember we told you last week what that use would mean? That use would mean taking it to a grand jury to get follow-up subpoenas, right? What kind of follow-ups subpoena is, you know, a subpoena for Trump's Bedminster golf course, for example, other places where they may put all the evidence together and get a grand jury to say, yeah, he's probably like hidden stuff all over the place, who the hell knows. The DOJ's position is that's what we're going to do. That is, I think, why I saved it to the end. I was also stalling for time. But really, really big news that I haven't seen anyone really focus in on yet. And that is the DOJ has spoken through its pleadings, and it is determined to take the evidence in its possession right now bearing national security classification and use that as the basis for its continuing investigation of Donald Trump. That's really not good for Donald Trump, yeah.

0:59:58 Thomas: Right.

1:00:00 Clip: Oh, no associate of this firm has ever failed the bar exam. No kidding.

1:00:06 Thomas: Now it's time for T3BE. Oh, I, uh, I'm on a one win streak. That seems to be about as high as my streaks get these days. One win streak.

1:00:16 Andrew: You're on a one-win streak and in the interest of disclosure, new book. So again, I have flipped through this. We'll see if there's a bias in questioning or yeah, I'm curious how this goes.

1:00:19 Thomas: Oh, yeah. New book. I love being the subject of your cruel experiments. Here we go.

1:00:32 Andrew: Bicycle, a man is riding a bicycle too small for his size. He rides carefully around a bend in the road, but suddenly smashes into a parked car. The owner of the parked car sues for damages. The owner will win if, the bicycle rider rounded the bend in violation of a law. B, B, the bicycle rider rounded the bend in violation of a safety law. C, the cycle rider rounded the bend in violation of a cycling law. Or D, the bike rider the rounded the bend in violation of state law.

1:00:39 Thomas: I already love it. This is great.

1:01:11 Thomas: I thought one of them was going to be like, it wasn't suitably hilarious enough. So therefore, it's Krusty the Clown. I'm writing a little book. So this is interesting. I love this question. Know, it does seem a little different already in style, you know, which is to be curious to see as we go forward with my failure of an exam here. So it doesn't seem criminal or even anything to ride a bike too small for your size. I mean, some people call that a good time. You know, some people call that a fun comedy routine.

I don't think there's anything illegal or like tortious about riding a bike too small for your size. But alas, Krusty the Clown here ran into a car. So it's so it's asking the owner of the car will win if which those are fun. You will make Krusty liable for running into a car?

Well, away, forgetting everything else, this too small to whatever, if I am riding my bike carefully, it says I'm riding carefully, let's say, but I just suddenly smashed into a parked car, I don't know, you know, I feels like the default should be I definitely will owe that person money, Right.

1:01:17 Andrew: He did not swallow the tricycle at the end. Yeah.

1:02:16 Thomas: I don't really. But I was riding carefully. OK, but you smashed into a car. So I feel like we're it's an uphill battle for the cyclist. Unfortunately, you got to switch gears, put it into that bigger gear, smaller gear, I think. It seems like this is an easy win for the owner. But we got to find why. Why? So will the owner win if the bicycle rider rounded the bend in violation of a law? That seems, I mean, that seems really straightforward. That would be that. So A is certainly a good answer. It seems like. B, the bicycle rounded, the bicycle rider rounded the bend in violation of a safety law. Law. Is that a separate category of law would there? Boy, this test is already so different. A safety law, it's so redundant with A, and the distinction would be like, Okay, the owner's not gonna win if it's just a law, but he will win if he violated a safety law.

1:03:10 Thomas: If you're, I'm trying to think if there's a law you violated but it wasn't related to anything. You were chewing gum, and in a town where they have law a outlining outlawing gum chewing, and then you hit the car, it's like, well, that doesn't matter that he was chewing gum. It needs to be safety related. I still don't like the word safety, a relevant law, or like a law that would, would have some bearing on like vehicles and such and such. Um, so I don't love it, but man, that's a weird one. See, the bicycle, bicycle rider rounded the bend in violation of a cycling law. Okay. That, that, one I like a little better. And as I've built that out, do think it's more specific in a way that might matter, because in violationof a law, like, well, Okay. What if that law has no relevance to whether or not the person would have struck the car? Now there is that, like, what the hell is the word for just, I was about to say no-fault divorce.

1:03:57 Thomas: There is that, like, de facto, if you are violating a law, you're full liability, something in certain states. And I can't remember. It doesn't say common law. I don't know if we assume multi-state common law, whatever. But Okay. So far, I think I actually like C best. Or is it D, the bicycle rider rounded the bend in violation of state law? Is a weird, this is really going to determine the tenor of my relationship with this book, my my involuntary years-long relationship with this book that I'm being subjected to. Law, I mean, does the fact of it being state law versus like a federal cycling, federal law, like he was embezzling or something, as he was defrauding the IRS as he rounded the bend. And I, I have to go with my instinct that it needs to be relevant to what's happening. Safety law is weird. That's a weird, I don't know what a safety law is.

I feel like most laws are kind of safety, especially like any sort of traffic laws. I think they're all safety related. A cycling law. I think Iím leaning toward my idea that it needs to be relevant and it canít just be, be like, oh, he also was hacking into a federal database while on his phone or something, I don't know, something that's like unrelated and wouldn't be causal at all to him smashing the car. And so I, I think I'm gonna go cycling law. I actually think

1:04:25 Andrew: Oh,

1:05:19 Thomas: C, cycling law. I mean, I, gosh, this feels so dumb, but I, I think that'll be like the most relevant. I think I'm between A, B, C, and D. Yeah, I've narrowed it down that far. It's not my fake answer E that it wouldn't be hilarious enough. So I've eliminated an answer that I added. And I think I'm between perhaps B and C if I were to narrow it down. Like safety law is weird as safety law. I'll tell you what. No, no, no. I am between A and C because I think A is the like, Like, yeah, it's just automatic. You're at fault if you're violating any law. That's plausible. I think there's some stuff like, I'm going to remember the phrase when we're done recording, but you're just de facto, full on, whatever liability if you vibe. It's either a, or I think I'm gonna go see just on the idea that like, you know, if he littered, you Know, that has nothing to do with the fact that he hit the car. So I'll go see

1:05:29 Andrew: Well, glad you narrowed down.

1:06:14 Andrew: Right, and if you want to play along with Thomas, you know how to do that. Just share out this episode on social media, that part's important, include the link to the episode, include the hashtag T3BE, so that we can find it. Uh We will sort through the responses, pick a winner, and share with that winner with never-ending fame and fortune. Fame and fortune not guaranteed.

1:06:33 Clip: And thank you, Let's go!

1:06:34 Thomas: Now it's time to thank our new patrons at patreon.com/law. Hey, look for a lot of movies, patrons coming at you, we promise, for reals, coming at you very soon. Possibly

1:06:41 Andrew: I Think maybe one that was highly requested, it, wink wink

1:06:48 Thomas: A possibly a lamb involving a lawyer that might be green, possibly could be Kermit yeah Kermet at law. If that's a movie, I don't know. Uh, so look forward to that imminently, and I will start us off thanking our new patrons. Thank you to Roger Champagne, Doug Pettepier, Maegan Johnson, Susan Hudson, @Oracle410, localhost, ConflictedBetwMakingAJokeAndMakingYouReadMyName, Qaysed. Yeah, oh, okay, I see. So you have a very tough name, so making us read that is a

1:06:53 Andrew: It's not easy being green yet Kermit the frog both

1:07:34 Thomas: Good choice. Yep. Paul and DKR, your turn, Andrew.

1:07:35 Andrew: Both challenging and Thank you to Cody Fisher, Sparkles Stanford, love that, A Mediocre Transbian Polycule, um, I know what a polycule is, well, anyway, thank you, thank, thank all of you, Lindsay Colman, Seth Swanson, Biff BeefBroth, Kristoffer Ohlin, derrick barnett, Philip Scheffer, backdropbooks.com commends Thomas on his stellar book choices and questions if Andrew reads anything else other than lost stuff. Yeah, I read plenty of stuff that is not uh lost stuff, I don't know, but uh, I, this was the cover blurb that I wish I had said for uh the last uh Michael Lewis book, which was on the pandemic, uh, and somebody more famous than I said, I would read Michael Lewis doing an 800 page expose on the history of the stapler, and that firmly expresses my belief in everything Michael Lewis has ever or ever will write, there's a hierarchy, some stuff is better than the others, uh, Liar's Poker is better then The Blind Side, but uh, but it's all good stuff, anyway, and a thank you, had to save this one for last, to SkeletorEsq7289, um

1:08:11 Thomas: I don't know what that's referring to. Did I give a book recommendation? Huh.

1:08:53 Andrew: I'm surprised that there are 7288 other Skeletor lawyers, but uh, welcome Skeletor, by the power of Grayskull

1:09:02 Thomas: And that's our show. Thank you so much for listening. We'll see you very soon. Patrons on Sunday night, everybody else Tuesday. So, you know join patreon

1:09:10 Clip: I move for a bad court thingy. You mean a mistrial? Yeah, that's why you're the judge and I'm the law talking guy.

1:09:43 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.

1:10:19 Andrew: And I just get that tingling sensation in my backside, you know. Sorry, I'll try it all right, um.

1:10:24 Thomas: What the? I can't believe you're talking about that on air.