OA667: The Referrals Have Been Made. Now What Will It Take To Convict?

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 667. More importantly, happy scombert day, everybody.

0:01:23 Andrew: I am so excited to be a part of Happy Scombert Day and I couldn't be happier and I'm at a loss for words other than congratulations to you, to your lovely wife Lydia, to the whole family. You are now entering that territory of which I know nothing but was terrified, which is having more small children than you have hands, yeah, that's true. If you if you and Lydia never, ever do anything individually ever again, you will have more hands than children.

0:01:48 Thomas: If you count us together, you know. Yeah. We stay tethered to each other And the kids. Due date is, as you're hearing this probably today, but due date is Friday the 23rd. Uh, Lydia just was at the doctor and has a slightly high blood pressure apparently, so we're going to induce. Here's the thing, here's what I'm wondering. Lydia has has said, I still don't believe this, but she double checked. She said that only four percent of babies come on their due date, which seems... that seems, there's no, how could that, how could that be right? Could that possibly be right? But Arlo came right on his due date. Now here'sthe thing, if Scombert, if labor takes more than five hours here, which it will, within getting induced, there's no way, unless things go swimmingly. That means Scombert will be on his Scomber day too. So I'll have two babies right on their due date, possibly, which strikes me as pretty, uh, uh, rare. If 4% is to be believed, once you multiply those together, when it'd be like, point 0.16 crazy.

0:01:59 Andrew: Yep. Yeah, absolutely. Yeah.

0:02:50 Thomas: So that's, uh fingers crossed. Anyway, we're, uh here to do the show. If you're hearing this, that means I somehow did it and got it edited in time, which I plan to. So why don't we get going?

0:03:00 Andrew: If you hear this and it sounds crappy, you'll know why

0:03:03 Thomas: Yeah, that means I found someone else to edit it. All

0:03:08 Andrew: Well, I am just absolutely thrilled for you, and uh, it makes makes my day uh

0:03:09 Thomas: Right. I'm not terribly superstitious, Andrew, but I won't count my Scomberts before they hatch.

0:03:20 Andrew: Well, but still, Happy holidays, everyone. Uh, one, one quick announcement. If, if your home, if you're visiting family, that sort of thing, Tuesday we are doing a very special sit Uncle Frank down in front of Opening Arguments, and we're going to do our very, very best to be respectful, to be a show that he can listen to from start to finish that will conclusively debunk something that is going around the right wing of sphere right now. And, you know, look, like it's not going, gonna get him to stop voting for Trump right this second, but, but, you know, maybe puts a little stone in his shoe, maybe gets him to think like, "Well, gosh, why did those two liberals on that dingbat podcast know way more than the Gateway Pundit and all these sources that I trust?"

0:03:21 Thomas: Yeah.

0:04:06 Thomas: That's a phenomenal idea, Andrew. It was Andrew's idea. It's really good. I can't wait, and again, if you hear it that means I got it edited, which I will, so look forward to that. We're at the old format, baby, two two measly shows a week, Andrew. That means we're going to do the old thing where T3B is on. This episode, wow, it feels this rusty old chest that I opened up, and it's this format and it feels, even though it's been what, like a month and a half or something, hasn't even been that long, but alright, so that's what's on the the docket. Let's get to it.

0:04:25 Andrew: Feels weird

0:04:37 Clip: We got it!

0:04:43 Thomas: So yeah, big news. We teased it in yesterday's Liz Dye episode, the January 6th committee all done. They're up the old shop there because I assume once Republicans take over, it'll be paved and turned into a gas station or something where they used to hold the January 6th Committee. So? We've already heard quite a bit on Cleanup, um, about what we're getting now. Not everybody listens to both shows, but you should. Uh, what's the Opening Arguments angle today?

0:05:00 Andrew: Yeah. I wanted to take a look at a couple of the things that really aren't being covered by the top line analysis. I do, I, I, I want to make sure we hit for our listeners who, you know, are waiting for this to break down, but I, but I want a little bit of a deep dive in a couple of the areas that, you know, maybe you haven't gotten on Cleanup or on Rachel Maddow or whatever. So, were six categories of referrals that were made out in the executive summary, which is all we have available as of this recording, of the final report to the Select Committee. It's called Introductory Material to the Final Rapport of the Select Committee.

Committee um There are other documents that are continuing uh to drop, including uh, 34 transcripts of various witnesses, of which I have been through 34 because, you know, it dropped last night and what else am I going to do, visit with my family over the holidays? Are you nuts? No. Yeah. Of Course. Um, so, uh, let's kind of put all of that together and, and tell you what's going to happen. So first, what's a criminal referral? Criminal referral is, uh, the House committee, which was convened to discuss and investigate, uh, as its, as its principal matter, uh, potential legislative changes, right, including to the Electoral Count Act, many of which have already been proposed in Congress. And, shocker, I'll tell you which party that rhymes with, Republicans, is are opposing it. Um,

0:06:07 Thomas: Boring No, I'm just kidding.

0:06:45 Thomas: Liberty, oh man, I can't not good at rhyming, better get my kid over here along

0:06:47 Andrew: Yeah. They were Tablicans Yeah, I want to dispel, because you, lawyer after lawyer in bad faith, uh, have argued, uh, the special committee was convened to investigate how to change, you know, how to make legislative recommendations and not, you know, go on a criminal witch hunt. Well, yeah, that's right. And that's exactly what they've done. They have, in fact, released a series of recommendations. And now what they're doing is saying, but we

0:07:21 Thomas: The way we discovered all these witches, actually, so

0:07:22 Andrew: Yeah. Yeah. But by the way, we've noticed and it is within our ancillary jurisdiction to say, oh, also, if there are crimes, if if there were crimes, then we can say this is not within our jurisdiction. But we're going to tell the people in whose jurisdiction it is, namely the Department of Justice. And that is what a criminal referral is about. So you could say if you are at your most cynical, it's a sternly worded crunch wrap. But there are good reasons not to be cynical here. The largest reason is the coordination between the January 6th committee and the Department And if the Department of Justice had zero intention to follow up on any of these referrals, I feel reasonably confident that somebody at the Merrick Garland level or below, you know, might have said, hey, can we not have a parade float staged with all of the referrals that are coming our way?

0:07:34 Thomas: Witchcraft

0:08:26 Andrew: Because, you know, this is going to make us look bad when we don't do anything. That hasn't happened. It's been widely publicized. And I think that gives you confidence either way. If you think that the special prosecutor, Jack Smith, has been slow to act, I don't know why you would think that. Every indication we have is that he's been incredibly aggressive. Serves as external pressure. And the fact that it serves as external pressure is a pretty good indicator of where the DOJ's head is right now. So what criminal referrals were made out? You've heard of most of these, but I want to kind of walk you through what we know and some of the additional information that's come out as a result. The first is obstruction of an official proceeding, 18 U.S.C.

0:09:13 Andrew: 1512(c). I broke down the four elements on cleanup on all 45. This is pretty much a no-brainer. This Is, I think, the easiest one to prove because you have to prove there was an official proceeding. We knew that there was a beneficial proceeding. You obstructed it. It got obstructed, and you did so corruptly. Um, the corrupt, you know, the intent element is the most challenging, but um, based on the Eastman documents that we have, we know that the entire purpose of everything in the post-election period was how can we find ways to mess with the electoral count on January 6th.

0:09:20 Thomas: Yeah, I know, we've been through it, but like the idea that, like, the corruptly is the problem with the coup on our Capital that resulted in deaths of, you know, officers and stuff, like, "Oh, no, I was just doing that, not corruptly, like a regular" coup, just a not corrupt one sounds

0:10:01 Andrew: Yeah. Yeah. Right. Right. And same thing for conspiracy to defraud the United States, 18 U.S.C. 371. That is to deprive the United States of anything of value. And the thing of value is being able to transact your business. And if you're thinking, wait, I don't know, why is that a thing of a thing? A value? Just imagine in the private plaintiff context, right? So suppose I'm in my law office, I'm about to meet a client, and you stage a protest and prevent me from being able to access the building. Now, right, you may have a First Amendment right to do that. But suppose now that it's an illicit protest, right, you were applied for the permit, andyou were denied, andyou went ahead, andye did it anyway, way, and I uncover an email that says, "Man, I hate Andrew and I really want to mess up the operation of his law office."

0:10:59 Andrew: And suppose you're able to do that? And you stop me from being able to go to work that day. That's clear that that is, you have deprived me of a thing of value, You've deprived me from being ableto see my clients and go towork and charge them for the work that I do. So the same thing is true with the government, right? When you deprive the government of its ability to work for six hours and force them to be evacuated into safe rooms and, you know, to have to reconvene and go until four in the morning in order to complete the Electoral Count Act, that is defrauding the United States of a thing of value.

0:11:36 Thomas: Accurate to me, sounds a little understated, to say the least, but that's again that's the theme, oh

0:11:39 Andrew: Yeah, I think that's right. We learned a little bit more in connection with the release of some of the transcripts of the witnesses about this third count, which is the third set of referrals. And that is 18 U.S.C. 1001, conspiracy to make a false statement. Now, listeners to this show will remember there were a ton of 1001 charges that were made during the Mueller investigation, right, because this is typically deployed as part of an obstruction charge, and what happens is, we bring you in for an, you know, we bring in, uh, you know, Steve Bannon for an interview, and we say, well, let's use somebody who was actually, uh, convicted, we bring him, Paul Manafort, for an interview, and they say, "Hey, relax, Paul, you're not a target of this investigation, you're a person of interest because you, you know, advise the president, but, um, we'd like you voluntarily to talk to us and tell us what's going on in connection with that."

0:12:38 Andrew: And then Steve Bannon, I'm sorry, then Paul Manafort in his little ostrich skin jacket smugly sits down and is like, these rubes, I am going to totally snow them, lies his ass off. And shocker, the FBI interviews other people than you. And they contradict your story and then, yeah. And then they bring you back in, and the second time they bringyou in, you say, "I plead the fifth." And then they say, "That's awesome, because we are going to indict you criminally for making obviously false statements to us." That is 18 U.S.C. 1001. Here, the false statements are very, very, are different and are very specifically circumscribed. And that is, reason that it is a conspiracy to make a false statement, that is Donald Trump, John Eastman, Ken Cheesebro and others, conspiring to get the Denny's parking lot electors to file their false electoral certificates, right, and they filed them with the National Archives, and that they signed a

0:12:58 Thomas: No, fair.

0:13:43 Andrew: Document that said, "We the undersigned are the duly elected electors of the state of of Arizona." And no, you're not.

0:13:50 Thomas: It's just so sad that he sullied the great name of Cheesebro. Cheesebro used to mean something in this town. Do

0:13:52 Andrew: I know. And Cheese Here is where we actually find out some interesting things in some of the witnesses who nevertheless took the fifth to every single question, right? So let me give you two examples. First is Kathy Berden, who was the Michigan chair of the GOP and one of these, you know, fake electors. Um, she answers the fifth to literally everything, right, she gives no Information.

0:14:20 Thomas: They ever trick them and be like, which Beethoven symphony? And then they're like, oh, damn it. I answered a question. Crap.

0:14:23 Andrew: They Hilariously enough, they do trick some of the people who have shown up uh pro se, you know, unrepresented by council, and even one person who was represented by council, to be like, "Okay, we understand that you're pleading the fifth here, um, I'd like to to understand specifically what you're pleading the fifth to, so can you tell me, like, what your reason is for that, right?" And, and, and, like, by the way, don't take legal advice for a podcast, the answer that should always be I, I plead the fifth.

0:14:52 Thomas: Fifth. Yeah.

0:14:54 Andrew: Right, because if you explain why you've taken the Fifth, right?

0:14:57 Thomas: Oh, you see, I committed a crime. And so, ah,

0:15:00 Andrew: Yeah, So don't do that, but nevertheless multiple witnesses fall for that. It's really, really funny.

0:15:07 Thomas: See, the Fifth allows me to have committed a crime and not talk about it. Here, I'll tell you which one, just so you're, you seem confused here, let me explain, I, they could get you, Andrew, by having you do a deep dive, can be like tricking you and do a deep dive on the, what's the history of the Fifth and, uh, pleading the Fifth, oh, okay, and then you just go into it for an hour, that

0:15:25 Andrew: I would fall prey to that. This is one of my favorite ones, as long as we're doing this. This This is Christopher Barnes-Anus, who is a low-level member of the Proud Boys, right? He's a second-degree member of The Proud Boyz. I'm not kidding. When you graduate from first degree to second degree, they, like, make you take a drink and sing, like five karaoke songs. He testifies to that. Yeah, you know, so, you ladies and gentlemen, the master race. And when questioned, I absolutely love this, so when questioned about fundraising for the Proud Boys, um, here's some of that questioning, and you can see maybe where your selective pleading of the Fifth kind of gives some stuff away. So yeah

0:15:53 Thomas: Sounds right. All right, little, little, little quiz here, a little riddle, law riddle, let's see

0:16:19 Andrew: Yeah so this is page 18 of Barnes-Anus's transcript, uh, question, okay, so that was more like fundraising for a specific event as opposed to like a monthly or a yearly due amount? Answer, I want to assert my Fifth Amendment privilege on that question. Okay, can you tell me if you've ever paid dues for the Proud Boys? Answer, I assert my Fifth Amendment privilege. Question, okay, you mentioned that you've done some fundraising for specific events, do you you recall any of those specific events? Answer, we've raised money for legal defenses, that's not a lot of money, but, you know, we do what we can. Question, and whose legal defense did you raise money for? Answer, various people, I don't want to give specifics, just, you know, people that need help. Question, okay, you know, I'm sure that your attorney, Mr. Webb, has described to you that this is a deposition, so you're obligated to answer all the questions that I ask unless you've got a specific privilege you're going to assert.

0:17:12 Andrew: So I'll just ask again, who are the individuals that you've raised money for as a legal defense? Answer. I assert my Fifth Amendment privilege. Question. Can you tell me, is anybody helping you pay for your legal defense answer? No, it's out of pocket question for the other legal defense funds that you mentioned. Those are other Proud Boys answer. I assert My Fifth Amendment Privilege question. Have you raised money? For, for the legal defense of Mr. Tarrio, that is Enrique Tarrio. The leader of Proud boys answer. Never question. How How about other members of your chapter? Answer, I assert my Fifth Amendment privilege.

0:17:47 Thomas: Interesting.

0:17:48 Andrew: Question, when you've done fundraising for other legal defense funds, how did you raise the money? Was it cash or some other method? Answer, I asserted Fifth Amendment privilege. Question, did you rise any money related to the 2020 election? Answer, no. So yeah, not hard. I was going to do that a little later on, But while we're talking about people, you know, maybe being slightly confused, I I thought that was pretty funny. Got it. So they read into the a transcript, a right, Ken Cheesebro memo that we have not previously seen. This is Exhibit 5 to Kathy Berden. So here's the question, they say. On page 4 of Exhibition 5, which is still the memo we were talking about, Subpoint C says Michigan. Remember, she's part of the fake Michigan electors. 16 electors, and it talks about various provisions of the Michigan Code, and it says, Michigan is much more specific about the location in which electors must meet, which could could be a bit awkward.

0:18:41 Andrew: It then goes on to say, under 168.47, the electors, quote, shall convene in the Senate chamber of the capital of the state at 2 p.m. Eastern Standard Time, and then, unquote. However, there is no requirement that they convene on the Senate floor, where presumably the Biden-Harris electors will convene. Presumably they could convene in the senate gallery. And then if you go to page five at the very bottom, it says, in conclusion, it appears that voting by an alternate slate of electors is unproblematic in Arizona and Wisconsin, slightly problematic in Michigan, and somewhat dicey in other places, and very problematic in others. We're going to talk about some of those others. The provisions we just discussed about where the Republican electors would need to meet in Michigan, and questions about whether this is appropriate that are raised in this memo, were those ever discussed among the Republican electors, right, who cast vote for Donald Trump in the state of Michigan, despite, despite the fact that he lost in the state of Michigan? Answer, I plead the Fifth.

But, so notice, we got no information out of Kathy Berden, but we got information that the January 6th committee knew and has previously unreleased that Ken Cheesebro sent around a memo that advised, in terms of crafting these Denny's parking lot electors, state by state, how easy is it to get these through versus how much of an uphill

0:19:14 Thomas: Is

0:19:59 Andrew: Battle do we face? What states are very problematic? What states Are somewhat dicey?

0:20:05 Thomas: That an official legal designation, by the way? Somewhat dicey.

0:20:07 Andrew: Yeah. Yeah, not not that I know of. But you know, I'm no Ken Cheese, bro. So absolutely, right? Conspiracy to make a false statement. You know, that these are not real electors. You You know that they're signing a false document. And the reason you know that is because you're trying to figure out ways, right? Like the one that I just read you in Michigan was, well, damn it, they have to meet at the Capitol. Ah, but it doesn't say where in the Capitol. They can hide in a room at the same time that the Biden-Harris electors are on the Senate floor and, you know, that'll be fine. And that's literally what the memo says. Says. Jim DeGraffenried, who was one of the Nevada fake electors, again, pleads the fifth with respect to everything. But he gets another part of this same Ken Cheeseburg memo. And again, eventually we're going to have a copy of this. We just don't have it today. So I have to pierce it together from, you various testimony. So this is page 22 of the DeGraffenried testimony.

Testimony, and it says, the first paragraph of this section begins, quote, Nevada is an extremely problematic state because it requires the meeting of the electors to be overseen by the Secretary of State, who is only supposed to permit electoral votes for the winner of the popular vote in Nevada. What did you understand this to mean?

0:20:12 Thomas: But that's evidence of corrupt intent, basically.

0:20:40 Thomas: Oh, my God.

0:21:27 Andrew: Under advice of counsel, I assert the prior privilege. With respect to the words extremely problematic, did you understanding that to mean that it would be unlawful or problematic for some other reason. Fifth, the section then continues arguing that these provisions are designed to thwart the faithless elector and then says, quote, they make no sense when applied to this situation. Therefore, perhaps arguably, the Nevada electors could simply meet and cast their votes without the involvement of the Secretary of State. And then further down this cheeseburger memo says, if there were a vote in Congress to take Nevada away from Biden and Harris, presumably along with it would come a vote to overlook this procedural detail, end of quote.

0:22:08 Thomas: Then what are we doing here, then? I love how they're thinking all this. Oh, we can get them, sneak them in the closet over here, and that'll technically whatever. And for this one, they're like, well, they'll just vote that it's fine. Well, then they just vote. Vote all of them are fine. I don't know. All the...

0:22:09 Andrew: Yeah, No, absolutely correct. And so this memo is, I think, just as much of a smoking gun as any of the Eastman memos, right? I mean, it says, you know, here's the conclusion. Most of the electors, with the the possible exception of the Nevada electors, will be able to take the essential steps needed to validly cast and transmit their votes. And they can do so without any involvement of the governor of any other state official, except in Nevada, where the secretary of state is involved. And then, of force, they submitted the fake Nevada sleep without the involvement of the Secretary of State. And so again, that's going to go in front of a jury. And you're just going to have to ask the the jury like, I do, you think that that's right. Do you think that this qualifies as with corrupt intent, um, and there's... there's lots more

0:22:58 Thomas: Do you think this was above board? It really Yeah, this is like their diagram of the security fences and cameras and dogs and stuff for the diamond heist. It's like, okay, we see for this one, you it's gonna be tough because there's security here. It's, yeah, that's corrupt intent, like you can, you can kind of tell they're planning on stealing the diamond, don't you think?

0:23:09 Andrew: Yeah that that said, that is the perfect analogy, and I'm going to steal it from now on whenever I talk about it, because it's uh, no, that's, that, that's absolutely what this is. So we didn't go into that on detail on Clean Up on Aisle 45, but it is clear the committee has done a ton of work on the fake elector part of this. And one of the first sets of subpoenas that that Jack Smith, special counsel, sent out were in connection with the fake electors. So it is, again, 18 USC 1001, right? That is, uh, making a false statement to Congress, right? It is not a serious felony. It's a felony. And I would be stunned that this level of work has gone through to not see Trump charged with 18 U.S.C.

0:23:28 Thomas: There's

0:24:16 Andrew: 1001 conspiracy, right, 371. So you're charged with 18 U.S.C. 371, which is conspiracy to commit any offense against the United States. And then the offense that you were conspiring to commit was to submit these false slates of electors. And that as clear to a slam dunk as the disrupting an official proceeding, maybe even more so. And That's the work that they've done. The fourth set of referrals, and here is where is going to burst a little bit of a bubble. This is 18 USC 2383. And I'm going to tell you, I read every 18 USC 2383 case. Uh, but the bubble that that's going to first is, um, when you type it into Westlaw, you get 200 and some, but then you get 58 cases.

Uh. But then that's really only nine. And then that really only one. So I read a case for you guys, but I paged through all of the cases. I'm going to explain that in a minute. But first, the text, 2383 is Rebellion or Insurrection. And it says, whoever incites, sets on foot, assists, or engages in any rebellion or insurrection against the authority of the United States or the laws thereof, or gives aide or comfort thereto, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 10 years or both, and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.

Well, first, let's deal with that back clause that's already started to make its way again. We discussed this in Opening Arguments episode 621. That clause cannot constitutionally apply to the presidency. It could apply to mean, you know, Donald Trump could not be made Speaker of the House under the, like, crazy cockamamie theories that were going around.

0:24:53 Thomas: Like three yeah

0:25:56 Andrew: But Congress cannot set an additional qualification beyond the Constitution on being So don't read that last part and get your hopes up. It's not going to prevent Donald Trump from being reelected. But whoever gives aid or comfort to a rebellion or insurrection against the authority of the United States or laws thereof seems to be right in the wheelhouse of what Donald Trump did. And specifically, the allegations are, was aware that the Capitol was being stormed and at 2.24 p.m. tweeted out, knowing that they were carrying a gallows that said, hang Mike Pence, tweeted out very disappointed that Mike Pence didn't have the courage to do what he was going to do.

Um, then continued, uh, through both action and inaction, and we're going to talk about that in a second, uh, to, or at minimum, not call out the National Guard to disperse the rioters until he was finally talked into making that sort of milquetoast statement in the evening, you know, "We love you," and this was stolen from us, but, you know, try not to kill anybody else on the way out, right? Main question that I want to answer is that, right, if proven, meets the standards for convicting someone under 2383. The first thing I want to say is the reason that this is 2383 and not the seditious conspiracy charge for which Stuart Rhodes and others were convicted by a jury of seditious conspiracy, that requires you by force to conspire to overthrow the government of the United States. And as of right now, the January 6th committee does not have the kind of evidence that back and forth between Trump and the Proud Boys that says,

0:27:02 Thomas: Yeah you're very special so

0:27:55 Andrew: Yeah, I am bringing you guys here as my muscle to make sure that this gets stopped, Now, we suspect that those documents, that that proof exists? Yeah, I do. I think it's in the hands of Roger Stone. And I

0:28:08 Thomas: What do you base that on

0:28:10 Andrew: Base that on the war room. I base it on two things. Number one, the warroom at the Willard Hotel, which had Trump, Bernie Carrick, Rudy Giuliani, Roger Stone, and number two, the fact that Roger Stone travels with members of the Proud Boys as his personal bodyguards. So, I think, it is not a stretch to think that the conduit from Trump to the Proud Boys was Roger Stone.

0:28:36 Thomas: Guess it's hard to know either way, but I've, I've honestly always figured Roger Stone just would do that on his own, you know, like I honestly, like, honestly, or maybe from a like a no paper trail type, conversation with Trump. I doubt you would be very surprised if we ever got that evidence, is all I'm saying.

0:28:42 Andrew: So the fact that you feel that way is, I think, why the committee very prudently said, okay, we're not going to make a criminal criminal referral out for any criminal offense that requires Donald Trump to have used or planned to use force, because there's just too easy an out for that, right? We don't want him to say, like, yeah, no, I wanted the Proud Boys there. When I said it was going to be wild, you know, girls gone wild, right. Like I thought people were going to big, you now, yeah, taking their tops off and screaming and running around, but I definitely didn't think would be wild, will be wild meant, you know, bring your guns. Even though, you know, yeah, I know every single one of my followers has like 11 guns that they keep on their person at all times, but whatever. The fact that it seems plausible to you that Trump could kind of deny, yeah, no, I just, I didn't want him to kill anybody. I didn't want him to kill cops or police or members of

0:29:26 Thomas: Yeah Woodstock 99 baby, yeah no

0:29:57 Andrew: The Secret Service.

0:29:57 Thomas: I think he wanted them to, but I just don't I doubt there's going to be any document of that, is all. Yeah.

0:29:59 Andrew: Oh, I do. I think that's right. And so without that kind of evidence and without the cooperation, Roger Stone, right? I mean, he's been to prison before. He'll go to prison again, right, like he's not flipping. So without direct testimony and without documents, it's going to be hard to prove of 2384. So they charged 2383, which does not require that you plan the violence. It requires that you gave aid and comfort to those who engaged in the violence, and that part's already been proven, right?

Those people have been convicted of seditious conspiracy, of using violence to overthrow the government of the United States. So all you have to prove now is that Trump gave aid and discomfort to the Proud Boys, and we're going to talk about what that means in a minute. To finish up, the other two areas of potential referrals are seditious conspiracy, right, the 2384, in which they say, hey, we don't have direct evidence of the but, you know, DOJ may encounter information that would lead it to believe that Donald Trump conspired to engage in insurrection against the authority of the United States or the laws thereof. So don't forget about that one, guys. And then number six, obstruction of the committee investigation itself. And that's not something we've talked about. But remember, the entire volume two of the Mueller report, the the actually provable easy to prove beyond a reasonable doubt. Out and just look back at our past episode, The Nine Crimes of Donald Trump, clearest crimes that Donald Trump committed in connection with the Mueller report were witness tampering and obstruction of justice in connection mit the Mueller investigation.

0:31:40 Andrew: And similarly, there is evidence developed by the 1-6 Committee, some of which has been made public. The stories circulating today about Passantino, who was, Stefan Passantino, who was paid for by the Trump campaign to be Cassidy Hutchinson's lawyer, and who Cassidy Hutchinson says, her, instructed her, to testify falsely before the January 6th committee. That's classic witness tampering, right? I pay for your lawyer, your lawyer is not acting in your interest, but is in fact reporting back to the a person about whom you are expected to give truthful testimony as to whether you were a good little soldier and got in line or not. So we have not seen any obstruction charges yet against Trump or any of his minions.

0:32:31 Andrew: But the One-Six Committee has that evidence. They have compiled it and they have passed it along to the Department of Justice. So that's another area that be advised. That's coming. But now, let's go back to 2383. I told you I read through all 58 of those cases, almost all of them. This is something I learned in my investigation, and by God, now You're going to learn it too. 18 U.S.C. 2383 is like the phrase, fraud vitiates everything. Thing, it's a thing that conspiracy theory sovereign citizen from and on the land have co-opted in their crazy pants filings. So I'll give you a classic story, this is the late, the last case that that cites 18 USC 2383 is a case called Stevens versus Vernal City from Utah, 2015. And in that the plaintiff Dale Stevens was pulled over by the police and issued a ticket for driving on a quote, quote, "denied license." Now, we see

0:32:54 Thomas: Denied license

0:33:34 Andrew: This sovereign citizen crap all the time that they don't think they have to follow the laws. So, you know, they do that.

0:33:34 Thomas: Yeah does this, please tell me this means they made their own little laminated, like, license with, yeah, yeah

0:33:46 Andrew: So I don't want to say 100% positive, but I'm 95% positive. He has like, when he gets pulled over, you know, and they're like, can I see your license and registration? He gets out a manifesto and it's like signed in blood with a wax seal.

0:33:57 Thomas: Yeah now Andrew, you won't know this because you're uh, uncultured swine, but Parks and Rec has a fantastic bit on this, the the lovable libertarian character, cop or somebody asked if he has a permit for this. He says, "Oh yeah, I have a permit." And gets out a piece of paper and it just says, "I can do what I want" on it.

0:34:16 Andrew: Yeah, but they do that sort of thing. So anyway, uh, issued a ticket for driving on a quote, denied license, which has to be just, you know, laminated garbage, right, uh, so then Stevens goes into court, right, to defend himself from this charge and moves to dismiss the citation on various sovereign citizen bullshit, "you didn't get the real person because I'm a corporate fit," right. And he lost because they always lose, and right?

0:34:18 Thomas: Yeah, yeah.

0:34:41 Andrew: So then, yeah, Stevens sued the police officers, the judge, various court officers, the city, the presiding judge, you know, everybody for, quote, excessive prejudice, capital M, malicious prosecution, malicious, lowercase m, not sure why on that one, abusive process against the plaintiff, and then against the, yeah.

0:34:41 Thomas: That doesn't work, huh?

0:35:01 Thomas: That's a lesser included offense.

0:35:03 Andrew: The city and state defendants as employees, officers, officials, and agents of Vernal City.

0:35:07 Thomas: That was a great law joke, Andrew. Give me, come on.

0:35:09 Andrew: It really was. It was. It was good. I laughed. I chuckled. Sued all the state defendants and the city defendants under a number of theories, including malicious abuse of process, negligence, gross negligence under the laws of the state of Utah. This is for enforcing the "you cannot drive without a license" statute, well as under the federal constitutional amendments and the federal civil rights statutes for their involvement in processing his traffic citation, alleged that they violated his 1st, 4th, 5th, and 14th Amendment rights, and that they did so by committing 18 U.S.C. 2383, committing insurrection, right? And the court's like, a cop giving you a ticket is not an insurrection against the free men on the land, you nitwit. Go to hell, it

0:35:52 Thomas: Boy, there there is, am I being detained? And there is am I getting arrested? Detained? And that's, yeah, That's capital, am I being detained?

0:35:59 Andrew: Two others that are related that were equally hilarious that I just need to share. Dimit versus Deloach, Kansas, 1991. Plaintiff filed this pro se complaint, uh, in the district court of Stanton County against defendants in their individual or private capacities, identifying each defendant only, only as a, quote, "franchised, licensed title of nobility corporate subject of the Marxist-Communist bankers' legislative democracy of the District of Columbia." Jurisdiction is invoked, quote, "at the law side, under Article 3 and 6 of We the People's Constitution of the United State of America, a republic under the rule of necessity to decide constitutional issues of we the people's" republican form of government pursuant to Article 4, Section 4, and again, uh, they are claiming that that, uh, was a form of insurrection against the We the People's Constitution of the United State of America.

The court there just notes, rather dryly, in this, and this appears in a lot of these cases, that 18 U.S.C. 2383 is a criminal statute and does, does not provide a private cause of action. So they were like, oh man, not touching on that insanity. And then Wallace versus Commissioner of the Internal Revenue Code, of the Eternal Revenue Service, TC memo, tax court memos, 1976-219. No, the income tax is not an insurrection against the freemen on the land. So once you get rid of the imaginary licenses, licenses,

0:37:31 Andrew: And the Marxist Communist Bankers Association and the income tax, you wind up with nine cases. But those

0:37:37 Thomas: Oh, those are in the system? Like, why don't they just, you know, wipe their asses with them and throw them away? Because that should not be in any, like, system. Oh, my

0:37:45 Andrew: Are 49 of the 58 cases that come up on Westlaw when you search 18 USC 2383. But nine real cases left. But of those nine cases, eight of them fall in the category of FOIA requests. And the reason they do that is because when you request government records, there is an exemption, Exemption 7D, for confidential sources in connection with law enforcement, right? So in other words, why did you issue this subpoena against me? They can hold back or redact that, oh, yeah, because you talked to Jimmy the Snitch. And, you now, Yeah. And Jimmy the, the snitch told us that you were going to do it, right? So they can just either not give you that search warrant affidavit or give it to you in a redacted form because that would compromise ongoing efforts, right, that's an exception to the search warrant. Now, there was a 1993 Supreme Court case that basically made it harder to claim that 7D exemption.

It said that that the government is not entitled to a presumption that all sources who supply information to the FBI in the course of a criminal investigation are confidential. In other words, you have to actually prove that, you know, Jimmy the snitch is a confidential source in order to invoke this subsection. So all these cases, and some are pre-983, some are post-93, but they are people who were investigated by the FBI for whom the FBI did not turn over their files in connection with FOIA requests.

0:37:51 Thomas: Gosh.

0:38:24 Thomas: What

0:39:19 Andrew: And then they went to court to say they should have to give me my files. This includes Donald Williams, the deputy minister of defense for Afroset, which was a Cleveland-based self-described black nationalist organization that the FBI, of course, considered an extremist group, um, Carol King, uh, the songwriter, you know, yeah, no.

0:39:39 Thomas: The hell?

0:39:40 Andrew: Seriously, um, and and

0:39:41 Thomas: What? What? No, I need more. What? What? What's the story there?

0:39:41 Andrew: Uh let me pull up her case.

0:39:46 Thomas: You just had that and we're just going to list it? Like, yeah, Carol King, the Big Bopper, I don't know, a couple other ones without any follow-up, but wow, okay, all right, good care of my baby up on the roof, oh, I, I love that song, into something good, one fine day, Pleasant Valley Sunday for the Monkeys, it's, what a, what a great songwriter, you make me feel like a natural woman, great songwriter, one of the best ever, now what does she do, she a terrorist?

0:39:53 Andrew: Uh man, man.

0:40:18 Thomas: Well a different Carol King.

0:40:15 Andrew: Sorry You know, it's not it because it says the plaintiff was writing a book but it's, it's, clearly a different, not Carol King. But all of those cases basically say that, yes, it is a legitimate government investigation to think that you were violating 18 U.S.C. 2383, right? So to the extent that that's helpful, right, this is not something where the courts have said, oh, by the way, no one gets prosecuted under 2383. So, you know, that's a nonsense reason to try and withhold information. That's kind of another point. Even though very few people get prosecuted, that you get rid of the crank references to 2383, you then have eight more cases that fall into the category of USC 2383 is this statute that the FBI cites as part of that exemption 7D to shield their confidential sources. So in every, every single one of those cases, they say, oh yeah, that person, Donald Williams, Carole King, whomever, right, under suspicion for violating 18 U.S.C.

0:40:25 Thomas: Oh, Darn, I

0:41:28 Andrew: 2383, rebellion or insurrection, and therefore we're not giving you the information. And in all of those cases, eight for eight, the various courts, including the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeal, for example, have said, yes, that's a valid basis to withhold information pursuant to a FOIA request. Question, so this still doesn't tell you how to prosecute a 2383 case, it just says that you can, that leaves you with one case and, and even that doesn't define the key term, which I'm trying to figure out, which is what is aid, what does it mean to offer aid and comfort so that that one case is U.S. versus Silverman, which was a conspiracy among members of the Communist Party of Connecticut, the reference is, the indictment alleges an agreement to utter the kind of dangerous speech prohibited by the Smith Act, which is section 2385. We mention this obvious fact because of the ease with which this crime may be accidentally confused with the superficially similar offense of conspiring to overthrow the government by force and violence.

The latter is forbidden by 2383 and 2384. The present concerns 2385, in this case it. It would not be enough to show that the defendants were serious revolutionaries who plotted to take part in a bloody insurrection. There must be a further showing of illegal speech. Well, all right, so that's not helpful. So what is criminal aid and comfort?

0:41:50 Thomas: Yeah. Jeez, yeah no

0:42:50 Andrew: Well, it turns out that's the exact language that's used in the treason statute, 18 U.S.C. 2381. It says, whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death or be imprisoned not less than five years or fine not less than $10,000 and incapable of holding any office under the United States. Okay, that, finally, we have some ideas. And indeed, we do have some ideas as to what constitutes giving aid and comfort to an enemy of the United States. And let me give you an example of one that the Supreme Court thinks is probably sufficient. And I should tell you procedurally this case called Kramer v. U.S. from 1945 came about in a different procedural context, right? So this was an offer of proof that was later withdrawn because there was insufficient evidence. And so the Supreme Court dismissed out the treason charge, and they said, what you've given us isn't enough,

0:43:11 Thomas: Good okay

0:43:59 Andrew: But if you could have proven that other thing, that would have been enough, right. Andso it's dicta, but it's pretty useful dicta in terms of, yeah, it's Mike Dick driving the big bear bus. So here's this guy. Kramer, Right. 19.

0:44:04 Thomas: But it's Mike dicta yeah I know Kramer, I love Kramer this

0:44:14 Andrew: Yeah. In 1942, met up with a guy named Teal, despite the similarity to Peter Thiel's name, this was 1942. So it was not the same Peter Thiel. But this guy was a Nazi, nazi um. Right, so here's what happened, Kremer, right, met up with Teal, bought him lunch, uh, and Teal was like, yeah, I, uh, you know, came over here by submarine, right, like, you know, dropped an awful lot of hints that he was connected with the Nazis, and then, uh, he had a money belt.

0:44:26 Thomas: Guy wasn't, sorry Heil how are you, Heil, Heil hey, how you doing you

0:44:43 Andrew: Yeah right the money belt had 3600 in it and Teal was like, I, need you to hold on to my money, uh, by the way, I owe you 200 bucks, so take, take 200 bucks in Nazi money out of my, my belt, uh, leave some out so that, that I can have some petty cash, and then, uh, and then hide the rest, right, which uh Kramer put in a safe deposit box 3600 in 1942, which is like 80 million dollars today, right yeah, right right

0:45:10 Thomas: Million zillion billion you could buy four houses with that back then, ah

0:45:14 Andrew: Uh, you take some of, of the money for yourself. You put some of the money kind of in your apartment in the petty cash drawer, it's 160 bucks, concealed in books so that Thiel could come and get it, right? And then you put the rest of the belt in a safe deposit box, the Supreme Court notes, all of this was at Thiel's request. That Thiel would be aided by having the security of a safe-deposit box for his funds, plus the availability of smaller amounts, and being relieved of the risks of carrying large sums on his person without, without disclosing his presence or identity to a bank, seems obvious. Inference of intent from such act is also very different from the intent manifest by drinking and talking together. Taking what must have seemed a large sum of money for safekeeping is not a usual amenity of social intercourse.

0:45:23 Thomas: Yeah maybe

0:45:56 Andrew: That such responsibilities are undertaken and such trust bestowed without the scratch of a pen to show it implies some degree of mutuality and concert. And so the Supreme Court said, look, that's enough, because that was initially how the case came up. But the yeah, they dropped, the government dropped that proof and just said, well, okay, we can't prove all of that stuff. Spoiler, probably because, you know, there was some problem in the chain of custody of evidence. This is 1945. There were no exclusionary rules in play here. So, you, even if the cops beat that confession out of Kramer, right

0:45:57 Thomas: Not with the friends you hang out with, yeah I like that old-timey writing, that's the best, without the scratch of a pen, that's fine

0:46:31 Andrew: Yeah it was all fine at the time, um, so the government was like, well, look, okay, fine, we don't have the money belt thing, but we do have the fact that Kramer met with Teal and, like, they had drinks and, come on, right, you can't have drinks with a Nazi, and the Supreme Court was like, you can have drinks with a Nazi, right, that's not enough, it does not count as giving aid and comfort to your enemy to say, I took him out for some drinks, minimum level, right, of social interaction does not qualify. But any affirmative stance, you, right, know, putting your money belt in a safety deposit box does count.

0:46:31 Thomas: Yeah yeah interesting yeah

0:47:09 Andrew: So that often got mischaracterized as and you will see these I promise you that Donald Trump will, if he's ever charged with this offense, will cite in his briefs, it is well settled that one cannot by mere words be guilty of treason. That is all throughout the like 19th century post-Civil War literature. Here's what the Supreme Court said about that. Just three years later in a case called Chandler v. U.S. from 1948. It says, there are occasional statements to be found in the books to the effect that mere words cannot amount to an overt act of treason. And then they read those, words oral, written or printed, however treasonable, suspicious, or criminal of themselves do not constitute an overt act of Treason within the definition of the crime.

0:47:57 Andrew: Okay. Then the Supreme Court says, This is true in the sense that the mere utterance of disloyal sentiments is not treason. Aid and comfort must be given to the enemy. But the communication of an idea, whether by speech or writing, is as much an act as throwing a brick, though different muscles are used to achieve different effects. One may commit treason by conveying military intelligence to the army, though the only overt act is the speaking of words.

0:48:21 Thomas: I was gonna say, I'm sorry to interrupt the quote, but like this just seems, I, if a murder walks in and is like, which room is person the I want to kill in? You're like, that one over there, I've just said words, but that feels like aid and comfort, right?

0:48:23 Andrew: Yeah. Yep. Yep. Yep. That is exactly right. And that is, in fact, what the Supreme Court says. Thus, suppose an enemy agent in this country whose assigned mission was to defeat the consummation of a scientific research project of vital importance to the war effort. I love these.

0:48:44 Thomas: Love the old writing. That's great.

0:48:46 Andrew: Bribed and seduced a distinguished American scientist, a consultant in the project, to give an opinion that the work was proceeding down wrong lines and to suggest procedures which he knew would lead the project down a blind alley. We take it that the scientist in such a case could be convicted of treason for deliberately giving aid to an enemy agent in steps essential to the consummation of mission, though the only overt acts were expressing purported scientific opinions. The significant thing is not so much the character of the act, which in fact gives aid and comfort to the enemy, but whether the act is done with an intent to betray. And as the Supreme Court summarizes it, a citizen may take actions which do aid and and comfort the enemy, making a speech critical of the government or opposing its measures, profiteering, striking in defense plants, and a hundred other things which impair our cohesion and diminish our strength.

0:49:37 Andrew: But if there is no adherence to the enemy in this, if there is no intent to betray, there is No Treason. And that brings us to the summary of where we are on 2383. Trump's actions are very clearly sufficient to qualify as aid and comfort to the the enemy. Namely, the insurrectionists who forcibly invaded the Capitol required sitting members of Congress to be evacuated to safe rooms, resulting in the deaths of innocent people, resulting in injury to innocent people. Those words, via Twitter are very clearly clearly sufficient to count as giving aid and comfort to the enemy. And the only question is, was there adherence to the enemy?

0:50:22 Andrew: Was there an intent to betray the laws of the United States? This is the exact same intent evidence that you need to show 1512 or 371, right? That Donald Trump knew that he was interfering interfering with an existing orderly transfer of power. And he either didn't care or, as is specifically here, wanted it to continue, right? Quip The quipback back and forth of, youknow, well, maybe Mark doesn't, I mean, referring to Mark Meadows, doesn't care as much about this country as I do, right, the repeated efforts when being told, hang you Mike Pence was being chanted as, well, maybe he deserves it. That, I think, again, is not going to be a challenge to prove under under the consisting standards for proving, giving aid and comfort to the enemy. Me. So there you have it.

0:51:16 Thomas: Just to make sure I understand this means nobody has ever been convicted of 2383. Oh,

0:51:21 Andrew: No, it means that none of those convictions have been challenged and overturned in a court of law. People do get challenged, yeah, or upheld, right? You know, challenged and upheld. But again, you don't have published decisions that say, you this is insufficient for X, Y, Z. We know that this remains a valid offense. That's part of the significance of those FOIA request decisions, right? We know that this is the kind of thing for which people get charged or at least investigated by the FBI. And know that it is infrequently prosecuted, but there is certainly nothing to indicate, just like we talked about when those charges of 2384 seditious conspiracy were brought against the leaders of the Proud Boys and the Oath Keepers, very, very rarely applied, but that doesn't mean that it's not good law. And convictions were secured in some of those cases.

0:51:28 Thomas: So only if they had had been overturned would we okay and

0:52:19 Andrew: Others are still awaiting trial. It looks like it's been successful. And I think there's no reason to think that a 2383 conviction could not also be successful, even against the President of the United States. So we will see.

0:52:33 Clip: Oh, no associate of this firm has ever failed the bar exam. No kidding.

0:52:39 Thomas: Now it's time for T3BE. Town sticks the bar exam. This exam has really been effing with me the last few times. Um, maybe it's just me, I'm effing with myself. I think that's really what's happening. So let's, let's have it, here we go. I gotta recover my dignity. This

0:52:53 Andrew: Right, Thomas. While talking with B about baseball, A held his bike to keep it from falling over. A made a joke. While laughing excessively at the joke, B blundered into A's bike, knocking it to the ground. The bike is now no longer functional.

0:53:14 Thomas: Is great. Interesting.

0:53:15 Andrew: Is B liable for conversion? No, B had no volition to touch the bike. B, no, A had no volition to touch the bike. C, yes, because conversion has occurred. Or D, yes, because the bike is now no longer functional.

0:53:35 Thomas: This, if you tell a joke so good that you cause somebody to laugh so hard that they blunder into your bike, knocking it to the ground and it breaks, that's, that must be one hell of a joke. That's got to be amazing joke. And the bike is no longer functional. It Is the person who laughed at the joke liable for conversion? I thought conversion was when you just, like, took stuff or whatever. But, well, I guess I'll just assume breaking something is conversion, converted it into not working.

0:54:11 Thomas: A.B. had no B had no volition to touch the bike. That's interesting. I note. It says while laughing excessively. So I want, maybe there's a, is there an appropriate amount to laugh and the court would decide, you know, you tell the joke and be like, here's the joke. What's an excessive amount of laughter. I don't know. So A is kind of like, no accidents mean nobody's fault. B no, A had no volition to touch the bike. I Don't holding the bike had no volition to touch the bike. I don't like that. It seems like nonsense to me. That, that seems like for someone who just mixed up the letters, maybe, I don't know. C, yes, because conversion has occurred. Okay. So that's, know, that's basically like, doesn' t matter.

0:54:10 Andrew: All

0:54:56 Thomas: No, mens rea, doesn't matter. So whatever, it' just conversion occurred. So you, you are liable for it. Or D, yes, because the bike is now no longer functional. So classic bar, classic bar exam. I don't love C or D actually, because it really feels like the main issue spotting here is like volition. That feels like what it's about. If you're just, you accidentally bump something, does that matter for conversion? And conversion feels, that's not, man, I don't know what the, I don't know, know tort would be for just accidentally knocking someone's bike over, but it feels like it wouldn't be conversion, conversion feels like it needs some sort of intent to me. In I terms of our yes answers, See, yes because conversion has occurred.

0:55:42 Thomas: Versus D, yes, because the bike is now no longer functional. So that would be both of those, I guess, are just assuming that B doesn't require any volition or whatever. And I guess what bothers me about that is they seem like the same answer. Don't like the yes answers, I just don't, that doesn't, they don't seem like they're doing the right thing, and therefore I'm gonna go with uh A, no, B had no volition to touch the bike. I feel like conversion is not, I feel like you need some volition for conversion, that's is what I'm going with. I'm going with final answer A, my second answer would probably be D, so I'm between, I guess I don't know, the yes answer just seemed too similar, so I between maybe A and D, and I'll say A.

0:56:20 Andrew: Right, if you want to play along with Thomas, you know how do that. Just share this episode on social media, include the hashtag T3BE, include your guess, your reasons therefore. We will pick a winner, shower that winner with never-ending fame and fortune. Fame and fortunate not guaranteed. I

0:56:34 Clip: And thank you, Let's go!

0:56:36 Thomas: Now it's time to thank our new patrons at patreon.com/law, enjoying all the goodies, the ad free shows, the Law'd Awful Movies, the Q&A is the all that good stuff. I'll start us off. Thank you to Alex Stukan. Nowyouhavecancer. Wow. Kathleen Luce. Can, can my conure legally become a lawyer? I don't know what that word is. Sorry, so I can't answer that question. Maybe it's a typo or am I just illiterate? I don't know, one or the other. K Bergh, Zach Lovett, Cassidy Rogers, I Own Blackacre. Thanks to Alex Jones for my new gender, Gremlin Wraith. Roger elliott, Erik A., Luke Woods, Cherise, Frank Exchange of Views, and Shilling for OA is No Longer Enough. Nice. All right. Take it away, Andrew. Drew yeah

0:57:21 Andrew: Is True. And I just want to point out, Thomas, you laughed at a Black Acre joke, that is, I think, I get one of us One of us. All right, special thanks to Matt Miles [Prower]. 5 actually isn't a prime in the Gaussian integers. Thank you, that's exactly what I meant. Rick RicViv-BPCPod, Pierce Hanley, Ian Trapp, Jeff Yeazell, Jennifer Barrett, Kevin Ward is a great lawyer but even better brother, Egotistical Scorner, Dan, Dr Scolaro, Lala Del Bray, Dave Ng, Kimberly D Stephen, Rick Siem, and Gavin Griffin, thank you all so much for supporting the show, patreon.com/law indeed.

0:57:30 Thomas: Sure and that's our show thanks so much for listening everybody we'll see you uh very soon

0:58:11 Andrew: We

0:58:12 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.

0:58:46 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.

0:59:23 Andrew: Ladies and gentlemen, the master race.