Did Trump Just Violate the Logan Act?

Transcript

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

0:00:45 Thomas: And welcome to Opening Arguments. This is episode 1062. I am your hoarse, sexy-voiced host, Thomas. I didn't necessarily know I sounded like this until I started talking. And that over there is real-life attorney, Matt Cameron. How you doing, Matt?

0:01:00 Matt: Hold on, I'm just going to finish registering for Disney Plus, just about done. And we're in

0:01:04 Thomas: And they they killed your family member sniper had them in the sights, I

0:01:05 Matt: Yeah. Yeah, uh, update on that story from last week. I just wanted to start with before we go to the break, uh, has this week, uh, uh, itself, uh, because it it turns out that, you know, some legal podcasts and such were yelling about this.

0:01:20 Thomas: Was gonna say, yeah. Disney, Disney attorney was visited by three podcast ghosts in the night. And which one, I think I'd be the present. I don't know which one would I be. I don't know, I'm not spooky at all, yeah. Um, I did see, uh And I love this. Lately, Matt has just been trying to squeeze stuff in before the break. I think it's because he's a man of the people and he just wants to get accessible it as as possible. I love it. But I did see on Reddit a like, look, everyone is wrong about this Disney thing. And I was worried because it was kind of plausible enough. It was like, "Look, people are covering this terribly. The thing is, Disney vouched for the allergy friendly thing on the website. And so that was the it wasn't actually a Disney restaurant. That's why it makes sense to say, hey, if you looked at this through our Web site and that's why we're in trouble here, then when you signed on for the Web site, you agreed to this arbitration agreement," which, like, its face, that sounds plausible, plausible. Is that not

0:01:24 Matt: That's right. That's true. You're all the podcast ghosts.

0:02:18 Thomas: Right?

0:02:19 Matt: It sounds plausible if you haven't read the complaint, but I did actually read the complaint, so I don't know what that guy's talking about.

0:02:23 Thomas: Well, why does that not work? So explain it to the people who can't remember already what you said.

0:02:27 Matt: There's going to have to be some discovery on this, but one of the allegations that they're making in the complaint is that Disney has something to do with the training and menu at these restaurants, which are on their property. It's on resort property. It's in Disney Springs. So that was one of the opening kind of gambits in the complaint. So that is still a live issue. There's also the fact that we did discuss this in the show last week, that he had researched ahead of time to see, you know, safest places to eat around. And that was one of the things they learned when they researched. It mean that we're wrong. Are just a number of other parts of the argument. Fundamentally, everything I stand by, I think that we said last week about this. But I do feel the need to update when these stories change, and Disney felt the need to get out of this when they realized that they had just said something that was a complete PR disaster. Good for them, I guess.

0:03:10 Thomas: Pretty dumb. Plus I had thought that the liability stemmed from some sort of Disney like or something of the restaurant. Cause I remember you, you like they owned it, but it wasn't on a site of a thing, you

0:03:22 Matt: You buy a ticket, because it's on the resort premises, but not inside the park, so that was legally significant to me.

0:03:28 Thomas: Right. Right. Okay. And so that's still Because this debunk tried to make it like Disney didn't no stake in that or anything. And so that, right, sure, sure.

0:03:35 Matt: They're taking the Disney side of it, obviously. Anybody can make allegations in these early stages. We're going to see how the discovery goes, because Disney has now waived arbitration, any claim to that, and they're going going to move forward on this, but it sounds like there's some live issues at least. I was just trying to summarize what the plaintiff's basic arguments were, as we always do.

0:03:50 Thomas: Well, and we all know that Disney definitely, if that was the right argument, they would totally voluntarily give it up just for no reason. Like, that's definitely what they would do. No, it sounds like Disney, maybe that was like that one Disney lawyer's sock account trying to be like, look, you don't get it. And then everyone's like, I don't know, that still seems pretty dumb. And then he's like, all right, fine, we'll give it up. Yeah.

0:03:58 Matt: Of course.

0:04:10 Matt: Might've taken it personally when you said that they should be launched into the sun. I don't know. It happens.

0:04:13 Thomas: That was like the kindest thing I said at least. You get a free trip to the sun out of that and uh, you pedants always point out that it's harder to launch somebody in the sun than it is to launch them out into space because of the way our planets were orbiting and all that, and I get it, okay, but it's still more fun to say you're going to launch them into the sun. Cool.

0:04:14 Matt: Yeah. Yeah me too actually. And it's quick.

0:04:33 Matt: I learned there's a non -zero number of astrophysicists listening to the show, too. So, hello, astrophysicists. Just to close this out, at Disney, we strive to put humanity above all other considerations, was the official statement. We try. We really try.

0:04:44 Thomas: If you're gonna be a pain in the ass about it. We, yeah.

0:04:48 Matt: It's with such unique circumstances as the one in this case, we believe this situation warrants a sensitive approach to expedited resolution for the family who have experienced such a painful loss. Having actually realized what we said, having read it.

0:04:48 Thomas: Yeah.

0:04:57 Thomas: At Disney, if you're going to be a whole, do a whole thing, then we value human life, I guess, on the second or third try. There's also the thing about the, like, all right, but don't do it again, you know, which I hope, again, I hope was some sort of automated message. I really do on the refund that they gave him on, on the tickets. Hey, all right, just this once that we killed your wife, but next time, no free tickets. Thanks for the update. And they did abandon that. I think entirely because of me, I'm going to go and claim that single -handedly. They just had never heard such harsh things being said. And frankly, they spit out their soup as they were listening.

0:05:07 Matt: Yeah. Okay. Yeah. The withering light of the podcast. Yeah. That

0:05:35 Thomas: Thanks for the update. Another pre-break bonus there. Oh, another thing to say pre-break, uh, Alec Baldwin trial thingy, uh, what would I call that, fiasco, um, up on Gavel Gavel, that's patreon.com/gavelpod, really fascinating one. Yeah.

0:05:51 Matt: Was a fun one.

0:05:52 Thomas: Matt did an excellent job on that, uh, us through that hearing, all the clips, it's perfect, Gavel Gavel, it's really what that show is meant to be after we finish this Trump trial, um, those kinds Of things, so definitely go check that out. And speaking of Trump trial, we've also recorded uh more Michael Cohen. I have to work on the edit for that, which as everyone can tell, does take minute in these trying times, but can't wait for it. It's so good that I just have to tease it because I'm so excited about it. So, all being said, I think it is finally time for our break, which you can avoid at patreon.com/law. Get rid of all the ads and get the goodies. And the Gorsuch bonus, by the way, the Gorsuch bonus, Law'd Awful Movies is also in

0:06:00 Matt: Yeah, oh yeah. That was fun.

0:06:31 Thomas: The edit bay and that will be out. Guarantee before the end of the month, it is a lot. I don't know how I don't ever do it anyway. Uh, uh, so that's all that can be found on patreon.com/law. And, So after this break, let's get to the rest of the lot of stuff we have.

0:06:35 Matt: Much content.

0:06:54 Thomas: Matt Hunter Biden I'm so conflicted about this because this whole Trump thing being dismissed because of the special prosecutor thing seems dumb and I get that Hunter Biden is obviously going to try to use that but also just hate it because it feels like some sort of endorsement of this you wrong decision but what's happening there because

0:07:08 Matt: Yeah to remind everybody the completely wrong decision by Aileen Cannon last month to dismiss the pending Trump documents case on the basis that Jack Smith was wrongfully appointed because well because she thought So basically, we

0:07:25 Thomas: Clarence Thomas put it in a margin note in a decision yeah

0:07:29 Matt: Yes. So that decision was used as a basis to try to dismiss Hunter Biden's pending other case, not the one he was convicted for recently, but his pending tax case in California. And that is before Judge George George George Scarzi. He was a Trump appointee. And Judge Scarzi had already considered arguments on this. But of course, as a lawyer, when you have new precedent, you got to try to bring it back in front of the judge. And that's what they tried to do here. They actually cited not only the Eileen Cannon, but I'll say the Quirin's time was concurrent, just for good measure, to make sure that you knew that was out there. And Scarsi shot that down pretty quickly.

0:07:54 Thomas: I gonna say so if there's a real judge here they'll be like this is stupid what are you talking about oh

0:08:03 Matt: Yeah. So Judge Scarzi came back pretty quickly on this. Was essentially a motion to reconsider. Now, Hunter Buttern was saying the argument was jurisdictional, which would mean that there's not a timeliness issue, that it basically goes to the entire jurisdiction of the court, which is an issue you can raise at any time, which Is what Cannon was doing, obviously, saying that there was no authority to bring these charges at all. Scarzi disagreed pretty hard. Court.

Notwithstanding the emergence of new non -binding authorities, just to remind you that Clarence Thomas and Eileen Kean are not binding on this court, the legal bases for the instant motion are the same as those that grounded the prior motion, which he had also raised the questions about Jack Smith. He said that he didn't consider that anything even remotely suggests that there's a jurisdictional concern, that there is anything that he should care about, and there's nothing that warrants reconsideration.

He did, in a footnote, suggest that he might be sanctioning the lawyers for misrepresenting when David Weiss actually brought the charges against Hunter Biden. So that's an unfortunate side effect there. Yeah, they suggested he didn't bring charges until he was special counsel, but that is not true. He actually indicted before he was special counsel, and he was still a regular U.S. attorney, some of the misdemeanors. So not really a mistake you want to make in

0:09:04 Matt: Your filings. And that's what you get for asking.

0:08:52 Thomas: Wow yeah Hunter Biden's attorneys maybe just don't is all I have to say sounds like this is no zero benefit at all and you might have gotten sanctioned if I'm understanding you correctly yeah

0:09:08 Matt: Yeah. Possibly, yeah. But again, as lawyers, when we have a new option, when You might as well raise it just to say that you raised it and try it on appeal later. But I think we all knew that this thing with Eileen Cannon, it was just a wingnut outlier decision and

0:09:28 Thomas: Hey maybe be like well did the judge sign up for disney plus yeah I don't know just try that while you're trying stuff I

0:09:34 Matt: Throw it in there. So that's pretty much it for Hunter Biden. Just want to mention that since we've been keeping track of his case and keeping track, of course, of Eileen Canon's many adventures in the law.

0:09:44 Thomas: Don't know that we've ever covered the california case in detail but I also don't know that it matters to some sort of tax thing yeah hey

0:09:47 Matt: Not really. It doesn't that much. Much. It'll be going to trial sometime soon. We can follow it. But, you know, he essentially didn't pay his taxes. So that's a pretty easy case to prove.

0:09:57 Thomas: Yeah I'm not voting for him for president not only that I'm not gonna vote for joe biden anymore because of this like I that is finally yeah I'm not doing it you heard it here first I'm NOT voting for Joe Biden. Issue is just too much. It's, it's finally the last straw.

0:09:59 Matt: That's right. Oh, Thomas. Wow. That's extreme. You now, if you thought that was bad, you should hear what's in this impeachment report, because that's what I want to talking about next.

0:10:14 Thomas: Boy. I mean, even more not vote for him.

0:10:15 Matt: Yeah. You're really not going to want it for Joe Biden. I mean, this is shocking, Shocking, shocking stuff from the House committee. Yeah.

0:10:17 Thomas: Oh wow. Man. This is, let's talk about this. This is... I love this because this is just, I Can Also Do a Politics or something. You know, know, it's just like the most pathetic.

0:10:31 Matt: It's so stupid.

0:10:32 Thomas: Yeah. It's just Republicans pretending they're serious and they're just not, they're Just not at all. And what I love is that, like, I don't know, I'm not watching Fox News, but like, all I know is that for me and for any media or social media or anything I consume, the excitement of the DNC has so just overshadowed any of this nonsense that I actually forgot it even happened until you mentioned it. So please tell us what happened with this uh impeachment report, yeah.

0:10:36 Matt: Yeah, they actually released it Monday, the first day of the DNC, to try to steal some headlines, and it didn't work. I feel like we're talking about it far enough away that we're not doing their job. But I wanted to mention it mostly in the same reason that I wanted to talk about the impeachment of Mayorkas, and we talked about that a few months ago, because I think that people should know how high as Republicans are spending their time. It is government money. It is our resources. It is Our Lawmakers doing these things. This a pretty funny report for a lot of different reasons. Let me just mention a few things here. President Joe Biden conspired to commit influence, peddling, and grift. In doing so, he abused his office, and by repeatedly lying about his abuse of office, has defrauded the United States to enrich his family.

0:11:07 Thomas: Yeah. Yeah.

0:11:36 Thomas: He Lost my vote, sorry, I keep making that joke every time. Wait,

0:11:38 Matt: Now, right, of course. There was the $1.2 billion deal with Qatar, you might remember, that he entered into during his father's presidency to save a bad New York real estate investment. Oh, that was Jerry Kushner. I'm sorry, I'm looking at the wrong report. Hold on. Oh! There was a private equity firm that he opened after he left office and he got $2 billion from the Saudis, even though the Saudi fund said they shouldn't actually give him him the money because he didn't know. Oh, that was Jared Kushner too.

0:11:47 Thomas: What? Yeah, oh, Yeah. Weird.

0:11:59 Thomas: Matt.

0:11:59 Matt: Hold on. Wait, there's a sister -in -law. Use the family name to sell sketchy immigration opportunities to wealthy Chinese investors. I know that was Jarrod's sister -on -law? Oh, what else am I looking at? Hold on, there's got to be something here.

0:12:10 Thomas: I don't know if I have enough hard drive space for you to go through, I want you to try, but like to go through this whole bit, it's gonna take a while.

0:12:17 Matt: My notes are a little disorganized. I don't know, I mean, I've got this other note here about how he went over the world capitalizing on his father's business while he was president and generating massive new investments. Was Don Jr. Okay, hold on. Oh, and then there was all those Chinese trademarks. There's like hundreds of Chinese trademerks that he got for his fashion. No, that was Ivanka Trump's fashion line. Yeah, you get the idea. None of those things are mentioned.

0:12:38 Thomas: There's So much more, too. Like, there's...

0:12:40 Matt: So many more, so many more Ways. I mean, if you want to talk about grift, if he wanted to talk about, I mean let alone Trump himself. I guess the last one that I actually wanted to mention was that Joe Biden repeatedly and willfully violated the Constitution by allowing his businesses to to accept millions of dollars from some of the most corrupt nations on earth. And I'm looking at the wrong house report. That was the House stems from earlier this year on foreign government spending at Trump properties, about 8 million from the Saudis and the Chinese, at least on Trump properties while Trump was president. And of course we all know that Trump was staying at his own resorts everywhere he went and making the Secret Service pay to stay there at full rack Rates.

0:12:41 Thomas: Oh, yeah. God,

0:13:12 Matt: I mean, it just so many different ways, right. That we could talk, if you want to talk about grift, if we want to talk about using, you know, if he won't talk about moments, you you know, just everything, right?

0:13:12 Thomas: Forgot about that. This raises the question, why isn't that a bigger deal? Yeah. So it sounds like the Democrats did do some sort of, you stuff on...

0:13:21 Matt: Weren't – yes, why wasn't that impeachable after the

0:13:26 Thomas: Oh, is it because we lost the... We lost the House, right? That's why we didn't do all this stuff?

0:13:26 Matt: Fact review? Yeah, we couldn't do any of that. But it also – I think there should have been much more robust investigation. Because I don't remember that the – press conference where Trump stood up with a giant pile of folders? This has just burned into my mind. There's like these manila folders. They're They're clearly just full of blank paper.

0:13:31 Thomas: Oh, okay.

0:13:42 Thomas: There's just so many different... Yeah. Was he selling Trump branded folders like the stakes in the water or is this a different thing?

0:13:45 Matt: Yeah. Now, this is the one where he claimed that he was...

0:13:50 Thomas: Because it is back to school time. So I might want.

0:13:52 Matt: That's true. You got to get your discounts. He claimed that he would be going to be staying out of any of his business deals and they'd be completely separate from him. He wouldn't be... Yes, of course. He wouldn'T be making any money during his presidency.

0:13:54 Thomas: Oh, yeah. Because you also. Yeah. You need to bring a bunch of folders of random papers in order to sign over your like of your

0:14:07 Matt: Yes. Show that you're not doing something. Yes.

0:14:12 Thomas: Such an idiot. It's so, it's so perfect. Fake wrestling. Everything is just like them. It's like not even a good movie prop version of it's just a bad, a bad movie version of everything. That's his whole reality. I

0:14:23 Matt: We really Do deserve better. But yeah. So I just want to point out a couple of things about this, though. Obviously, we're talking about conduct from 2014 to present. We're talking about things that Hunter Biden was doing that are demonstrably less bad than the things that any of the Trump kids are doing based on the Trump name. And of course, that was during the presidency. A lot of the stuff we're taking about was when Biden was vice president, is not necessarily impeachable for now. It does have to be impeachability, you know, presidential conduct.

0:14:48 Thomas: Think The policy, the law should be, if you can somehow take advantage or make money from being vice president, that's a fair game, you know, like it's such A useless, there's such an useless position. Like, there's a, you are, if you kan, good for you, like, well done.

0:14:49 Matt: Uh Sure Yeah Yeah, sell some beer or something. Yeah, just, you know, something to do. Uh, the report actually says, just something I wanted to point out as a matter of law, that is just not true. In 2019, House Democrats asserted that impeachable offenses need not rise to the level of criminal conduct. Uh, no, that was the founders, those are Of the people who wrote The Constitution, they Said that already, not

0:15:19 Thomas: Yeah Yeah That That happened a long time ago, sorry.

0:15:23 Matt: Not the Democrats. Uh, they really want to whine about how the house may therefore impeach President Biden for non-criminal conduct. That

0:15:28 Thomas: Was Was Bill Clinton impeached for criminal conduct? I thought it was Oh Kind of, oh Sure Okay I thought There was Oh, okay It was just the perjury.

0:15:29 Matt: Uh Perjury Kind of, it Was Yeah But Not actually Charged Yeah I Mean, that's on paper, because he lied During his deposition about the affair, and that's what they were going for.

0:15:38 Thomas: Yeah That's Right, I forgot That that was the technicality they use, sorry, my fault. Thought

0:15:44 Matt: Yeah No It's all right, it's hard to keep track, all these stupid things. Uh, they, they don't make a lot of sense most of the time. But, you know, this idea that, like, because, you know, of course, when Trump was impeached, especially the second time, they were just like, okay, we're going to impeach every one of your guys now. That's just how it's going to be.

0:16:01 Thomas: I'm, I, and want to go on record again that I was on record saying don't, not do something because the other team might do a dumb thing. We can't pre-give up because they might do the wrong, well, we can't charge this murderer with murder because then they'll charge not a murderer with murder. What, so just let them murder, is that the solution? Or when they do charge a non-murder with murder, do we say, hey, that's not actually a murderer, you're wrong about that. Maybe that's the better way to do it. And I'm gonna go ahead and take a little victory lap because they did their little stupid impeachment report and no one gives a shit because it's Nothing, sorry.

0:16:34 Matt: Nope. It's very stupid. I just wanted to make sure we know that. No, no, I'm with you.

0:16:36 Thomas: I Just Was so Pissed Off By this

0:16:38 Matt: I'm mitia.

0:16:38 Thomas: Arc, it Was, it was a lot of liberals too, or at least, like, central We can't, we shouldn't do that, let's Let The People Vote him out, no, let's impeach him because he did impeachable stuff. Otherwise, What is the point of that useless part of the Constitution, Constitution?

0:16:40 Matt: Yeah. Don't rock the boat. Yeah. Yeah. Especially that last, last round when we had to stop and say, no, you can't let people invade the Capitol. We just can't have that. You've got to have a record. You got to make it for history, even if he was on the way out. This idea that somehow it's the Democrats' fault because they have started to make impeachments watered down or something, or make it easier to do, I just want to point out, because I just went back and looked at a few examples.

1808, in Judge Peter Bruin was almost impeached for neglect of duty and drunkenness on the bench. That's all it took. Those Are not necessarily crimes. He resigned before he could be impeached. In 1818, there were a couple of judges who were up for impeachment just for not doing their jobs, just because they weren't showing up. And they were cleared eventually. But it goes on. There's a number of other examples like that of people that were derelict in their duties or otherwise just were corrupt in different ways that weren't charged. It does not require criminal conduct. High crimes and misdemeanors was never supposed to be crimes exclusively.

0:16:52 Thomas: Yeah Yeah Yeah

0:17:41 Matt: So just to be very clear about that. So the report itself, we've all heard all this stuff before, more or less, even if we don't watch Fox News at all. All the different ways that Hunter Biden was allegedly peddling on his dad's influence. And he might have, honestly. I mean, he's a Biden.

0:17:54 Thomas: It seems Like he did, honestly Yeah

0:17:55 Matt: Yeah, he probably got some jobs that he probably wouldn't have otherwise gotten. He got some connections, he got some deals, he got money he probably would have otherwise forgotten. That's on him because they are unable to, in any of this, they're unable to prove any link between Hunter Biden and his father actually intervening, doing anything to get him a job, do anything corrupt. And even if he did, I still don't know that that rises to the level of impeachable, especially if it was done before he was president or vice president.

0:18:19 Thomas: Well And especially, yeah, again, that's Hunter, are we impeaching Hunter? It Sounds Like Was there anything they were able to point to that would implicate Joe at all, or was it Like Hunter Biden saying, hey, you know who my dad is, and then get some, you know, money or something. Yeah, okay, bad on Hunter Bidan, but, like, how is, is Joe supposed to stop the job that he's doing to somehow stop his son from doing that?

0:18:22 Matt: Yeah, we are. So the one thing they can cite, they take out of context and they omit the most important part of, and I'll just explain that very quickly so everyone understands. Stance.

0:18:51 Thomas: Not the Republicans I know.

0:18:52 Matt: Hiding evidence. Devin Archer was a business partner, also one of the Burisma board members that served with Hunter Biden. And he went into a House committee, which we have the transcript and I've looked at it, so I know that this is what he said. He heard Joe Biden on speaker, he estimated about 20 times maybe at different times when Hunter Biden was talking to various business partners or investors or whatever. And, you know, he made the point that Joe Biden talks to his son constantly. He's just always calling him and they're just in regular touch because he's a good father.

0:19:18 Thomas: Yeah, this is a good dad. Yeah.

0:19:20 Matt: Exactly. He said that to the Republicans. He said, in certain circumstances, if your dad calls you at dinner, he picks up the phone, there's a conversation. Spoke to his dad every day. But he saidthat in all of those times when he heard Joe Biden on the speakerphone, he was never talking about business dealings. He was never doing anything that would suggest that he was trying to negotiate a deal or help his son out in any way. Andhe was specifically asked on the record, are you aware of any wrongdoing by vice President Biden. No, I'm not aware of any.

0:19:34 Thomas: Hmm.

0:19:47 Matt: That was his response.

0:19:46 Thomas: Star witness right there.

0:19:48 Matt: Right. Somehow that testimony did not make it into the 291 -page report. I guess they didn't have enough room to get those lines in.

0:19:56 Thomas: Because all the other evidence that they have.

0:19:59 Matt: Yeah. You these reports at the end recommend specific charges of impeachment, you know counts that they can actually forward on to the Senate to review that the House can put together. And they don't do that. This report just fizzles out. Let me read you the end. It's It's pretty funny, actually.

0:20:13 Thomas: Boy, these Republicans and George R .R. Martin, they're going to finish their stories, right? They're like, oh, we're working. You might wonder why this impeachment report ended a little earlier than you were thinking. Well, get on it. We're still plugging away.

0:20:27 Matt: Is kind of the same problem when you've written too much fiction and you've got to keep it all straight. So let me just read the conclusion here. Both president and vice president, Joe Biden has abused his office of public trust, putting his family's financial interests above the interests of the American people. Although the committee's fact -finding is ongoing amid President Biden's obstruction, The evidence uncovered in the impeachment inquiry to date already amounts to impeachable conduct. The committees present this information to the House of Representatives for its evaluation and consideration. But they're not going to do that. They already know they don't have the votes, and there's no specific articles of impeachment recommended here. There's no charges of impeachment. Recommended here, as far as I can tell.

0:20:31 Thomas: Yeah.

0:21:02 Thomas: They're not. So it's just a. What? What is this?

0:21:04 Matt: A report.

0:21:08 Thomas: So they are not even doing it then. Oh, come on.

0:21:08 Matt: No, it's not going to happen. It's going to be sent down and it's going to die somewhere because they know it. And Marjorie Taylor Greene, of course, is very upset about this, but there's nothing she can do about it. I will say the last section of the report is about obstruction, which I mentioned here when I was reading it. I'm not saying there was obstruction, but I'm saying that might be the strongest piece of all of this. I think there's anything to it after looking at it, But different records.

0:21:30 Thomas: Yeah. What do they. You didn't let them look at something. What was it? I Biden's

0:21:34 Matt: And stupid like that. Yeah.

0:21:34 Thomas: Diaries or something. Something yeah that's

0:21:36 Matt: Well, there was at one point, remember, they were demanding to actually get the audio record, even though they had the transcript, because they just wanted to hear Biden being old, talking to her. Also very concerned with the way the DOJ handled the Hunter Biden case, which

0:21:41 Thomas: Right yeah yeah are mean the one where he got convicted where like everyone was like this is weird why are we even doing this

0:21:49 Matt: Yeah. Are we charging this? Yeah. Something that you and I would not be charged for, I'm certain of. So yeah, they just, they got nothing. They got to try. And course, let me just actually do a quick control F here because I kept seeing the expression Biden -Harris administration for some reason. Biden - Harris appears 21 times in this document. So they really want you to know it's the Biden - Harris administration. They got nothing on Kamala, I would say, but

0:21:54 Thomas: Yeah yeah weird when they impeach clinton were they like clinton gore did that no that's not not obviously they're trying to it's so silly so

0:22:16 Matt: Yeah, that's right. No, yeah, no, they were releasing this the day the DNC started. It has nothing to it. It's just something they can point to and jump up and down about. But of course, they're not even going to write articles of impeachment or bring it forward. If they do, we'll talk about them. And if they do they'll be just as dumb as the Mayorkas ones, which that was still one of my favorite episodes going through the Mayokas ones. So that's pretty much it. No high crimes, no misdemeanors. And, you know, again, Joe Biden has been, just to be clear, a corporate Democrat for a very long time. He's been involved. He's from Delaware. Like, you can't be from Delaware and not be involved in corporate politics, not be involved in, you Know, helping credit card companies and all the other stuff that he's done over the course of his career. It is, you Delaware is business central of the United States. I you don't think he's actually any more corrupt than anyone else who's ever been in American politics.

0:22:24 Thomas: Fundamentally unserious yeah plus here's what I was gonna say hey maybe let's take a look at the state of corruption and bribery law oh what's that the supreme court spilled their chocolate milk on it oh no bummer there's no such thing as corruption or bribery anymore who ruined that was it was it it the biden crime family that ruined how all of that works or was it your stupid supreme court

0:23:11 Matt: Well, we'll never know. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Well, you know, if Burisma and all these other companies had just given Joe Biden some gratuities, that would be fine. After the fact, little thank yous.

0:23:28 Thomas: Yeah I'm actually surprised I don't know I don'T know the the of these allegations but that strikes me as like well now this is just a tip like just you can just in the alternative we could just argue they were just you know giving a tip to uh hunter biden and that's totally fine what's wrong with it what's right with tipping your mailman you know is that a crime time yeah

0:23:42 Matt: Yeah, no, totally legit. Sure, sure. Tipping the guy who put in touch with the president. That's a very nice thing to do. Can't beat it.

0:23:53 Thomas: So infuriating republicans I if you want to team up and make corruption and grift and bribery actually illegal again oh my god am I so for that like please let's do that hundred percent sure

0:24:05 Matt: Yeah This Biden stuff, it's very concerning. Let's let's keep it from happening again. Yeah you

0:24:09 Thomas: I've I've tell you I'm not voting for him that's a stupid joke but I'm gonna keep like I'll tell the republicans you've convinced me yeah

0:24:13 Matt: Know yeah that's right that's fine well that's probably more time than that deserved but I just wanted to mention it and

0:24:20 Thomas: Absolutely my my favorite thing about that is I actually hadn't even realized they're not even doing the impeachment. Like they're, it's just, they're just have written a bit of fanfic, you know, they're like, we've got these characters, Hunter Biden, Joe Biden. We've written some fan fiction. it'S not as horny as typical fan fiction or is it? I don't know. You'll have to tell me.

0:24:31 Matt: No uh me there's some very specific kinks here if you're into talks about business deals there are some great footnotes I will say

0:24:44 Thomas: Yeah. How are the footnotes there chief? Yeah. So it's, kinky for one of these co -hosts uh at least um all right well I can't wait to get to I guess the main story then uh after this break so episode is brought to you by Quince. Do you ever open your closet and think, why did I buy that? Definitely do that. Don't I know what it is. Just everything, once it's in my closet, once It's in the store, you know what It is? It's those mannequins. It's These hot mannequ - They're just too hot. Everything looks good on those manneaquins.

But when I go home and then it's just in my closet it's like that's not as good but I gotta say since shopping with quince that's happen anymore because quince has all the seasonal must -haves like 100% european linen shirts from 30 dollars performance polos and versatile activewear And the best part is all Quince items are priced 50 to 80 % left than similar brands. Partnering directly with top factories, Quince cuts out the cost of the middleman and passes the savings on to us.

They only work with factories that use safe, ethical, and responsible manufacturing practices, along with premium fabrics and finishes. Dishes. Since it was summer and it's California, so it's massively hot, I got several pairs of shorts from Quince recently, and I love them. These really nice soft fabric ones. Got their flow knit performance short. Love it. So comfy. Them all the time. I would say I wear them too much, except I'm going to get more.

That way it doesn't seem like I'm wearing the same same thing too much because there's a different color. So, you know, it's different. That's how much I love these. Super comfy. Highly recommend. Your closet with timeless pieces you'll be wearing for summers to come with Quince. Go to quince .com slash OA for free shipping on your order and 365 day returns. That's q -u -i -n -c -e dot com slash o -a to get free shipping and 365 day returns. One more time, quince .com slash o -o -a.

0:24:51 Matt: True it's true all

0:26:49 Thomas: Uh, and patrons would like to know, Matt, does the Logan Act exist or or does it not, right?

0:26:55 Matt: Well with all love to listeners and patrons it's really time that we addressed the Logan Act, because I got to tell you, it's one of those things like HIPAA or RICO that gets thrown around a lot online and that people don't really know what it is. I'm not saying I was an expert until earlier this week, but now I kind of am. So let's talk about it. Logan Act has been raised so many different times in my lifetime for good and bad reasons. But let's just go back to where it came from. It is very old. This is a 225-year law. Law. It was passed in 1799. And it was passed because John Adams, President John Adams signed a Treaty with the UK in 1798, which kicked off a war with France. It's called the Quasi -War.

And fun note that the Quasi War was actually the first, I believe, conflict in American history that was not authorized by Congress. So that set up a very long history of those after that. Yeah. Vietnam to to Afghanistan and everything else. John Adams was a Federalist, but this guy, Dr. George Logan, was a well -respected Democratic Republican, which used to be a party. And he went to France to negotiate on behalf of the U.S. government as a private citizen without Adams' authority.

So he's just a well respected member of the opposition party. He went over there to undermine the Federalists. John Adams is a Federalists at that time. And it may or may not have worked. Eventually the stuff that he was proposing and meeting with the French on did happen. He got the embargo cargo lifted and the sailors were released that were in question. But you can't say it was necessarily directly for him.

The Federalists got really mad about it because they did not like that this guy from the opposing party was going over against the president's wishes and negotiating with a foreign power. And so there's a whole discussion. I actually found a great old book from 1917 on Google Books that explained a little bit more about the legislative history. Griswold of Connecticut proposed this law at the urging of John Adams.

He said, "I think it necessary to guard by law against the interference of individuals in the negotiation of our executive with the governments of foreign countries. If the citizens of this country shall be permitted to have intercourse with foreign governments..." Sorry, I'm 13. I just read that out loud.

0:27:09 Thomas: Geez.

0:28:47 Thomas: Sorry, yeah.

0:28:48 Matt: That's a whole other...

0:28:48 Thomas: No. I I That's funny.

0:28:49 Matt: That seems like a First Amendment or equal protection problem. I feel like you should be able to have an intercourse of foreign governments.

0:28:50 Thomas: I don't that Seems intentional. Like Is That the I know we're an old timey time, that would have been me at the time hey I know we're in old timey times, but like, is that how you have to say that? Yeah.

0:29:04 Matt: Yeah, I think dealings might be a better word these days. Conversations, yeah. Might do do the greatest injury to this country under what they conceive to be the best intentions. I guess if they're really bad at intercourse, I don't know, maybe it's bad for relations. They So passed this bill, 18 U.S.C. 953 it became, and I will just read it and then we'll talk about what it means and how it's been interpreted and what happened with it. Any citizen of the United States, wherever he may be, of course, this is only for men, who without authority of the U .N. directly or indirectly commences or carries on any correspondence or intercourse, once again, with any foreign government or any officer or agent thereof with intent to influence the measures or conduct of any foreign government, that's important, or any office or agent in relation to any disputes or controversies with the United States or to defeat the measures of the United States shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years or both. So,

0:29:06 Thomas: That's Yeah, whenever I have intercourse with a foreign government, I'm like, hey, I just want to make clear, this is not in order to influence your foreign policy, this is just plain intercourse, this is normal. Yeah.

0:30:04 Matt: Is just no-strings-attached diplomacy.

0:30:06 Thomas: Yeah. And Like this makes sense though, like, it strikes me as coming from a time where, like, feel like pretty quickly, this never would realistically matter. Like, okay, it could be wrong, but it seems like at a time when the country is very new, you know, like pretty, still relatively speaking, pretty small, not about having a, what, 15, 20-year-old country. It has got to be kind of weird, you now.

0:30:06 Matt: That's right. Right. Yeah.

0:30:27 Thomas: And so, that strikes me as a time where, yeah, some random citizen could be like, yeah, no, I am Mr. United States. I am, yeah. Hi, I'm Fred United States, that is why they named it. And like that might make sense. And I feel like later on, you know, it's going to be hard for this to really come up. Like, I don't know who maybe like, some you railroad baron or something in the 1800s, like somebody who has just so much money, you that they could maybe be seen as like influence. Like, like when Elon Musk did stuff with the Russia, Ukraine stuff, I'm not sure if that quite, um, but like that strikes me as the next closest thing to where this could maybe come up. But yeah. Yeah, Um, the other closest thing is I guess if you're, about you to be president, I feel like that's maybe where it's come up a little bit.

0:30:59 Matt: Yeah, we'll come up. And actually, I want to go through some examples in a second. But I just want to talk about how it's actually been applied, because this thing has not actually even been indicted. And to be clear, nobody's ever been convicted under the Logan Act ever, never happened. And it hasn't been indicted in 172 years. And the two times that it was indicted were pretty stupid, I gotta tell you. 1803, a grand jury indicted a farmer named Francis Flourney in Kentucky, because he wrote an article in the Frankfort Guardian of Freedom, which argued for a separate Western United States allied to France. Just for writing an op -ed.

0:31:15 Thomas: Yeah.

0:31:36 Thomas: That's not intercourse at all.

0:31:38 Matt: That is not, and that is clearly not intercourse. That is a one -way communication.

0:31:42 Thomas: That's just hand stuff, yeah.

0:31:44 Matt: Totally first base with France. Then in 1803, we've got Jonas Levy, who was arrested under the Logan Act for writing a letter to the president of Mexico. I don't have the information on what that was in there, but yeah.

0:31:46 Thomas: Oh.

0:31:55 Thomas: Come on. Must. Have been a horny ass letter, yeah.

0:31:59 Matt: That's right. Seeking intercourse with the president of Mexico. So in all of that time since then, we've not had any indictments. And that doesn't mean the law doesn't exist.

0:32:01 Thomas: Yeah. Like.

0:32:08 Matt: Obviously, there's plenty of laws still around that is not necessarily a dead letter because it hasn't been.

0:32:12 Thomas: If it does prevent people from doing stuff, but you don't actually have to enforce it, maybe.

0:32:16 Matt: Yeah, sure. I mean, it's still on the books and it could be tried. But as we'll talk about by the end of this conversation, there is a good reason nobody wants to try using it. But I'll talk abut some other times that it has been invoked because it's come up a lot, especially in the Trump years. But there are so many different examples of times in the last 100 years when people have said this should apply. And there are some that are far worse. The reason we're talking about this, though, I guess let's set this up.

0:32:16 Thomas: Yeah.

0:32:37 Thomas: Maybe we shouldn't. Why are we talking about this now? In

0:32:40 Matt: Yeah, just because this wasn't the news this week. Let's actually just play the clip I sent you there from Judy Woodruff of PBS.

0:32:48 Clip: To say, without hearing this directly from anybody, that one thing that the Harris campaign would love is if President Biden would bring home a ceasefire in the Middle East right now between Gaza and Israel. And we know that Secretary of State Blinken is over there right now working with Netanyahu. The reporting is that former President Trump is on the phone with the prime minister of Israel urging him not to cut a deal right now because it's believed that would help the Harris campaign. So I don't know where that – who knows whether that will come about or not. But I have to think that the Harris campaign would like for President Biden to do what presidents do, which is work on that one. And maybe

0:33:18 Thomas: Jesus. Christ.

0:33:42 Matt: So let's be totally clear about what we're talking about here. Obviously, that allegation is very serious, that Donald Trump was on the phone with Netanyahu on August 14th and suggested to hold off on a ceasefire until he's president so that, you know, obviously it looks good for Trump. As we'll talk about in a second, there's a precedent for this. I think something like this has happened a couple of times now in American history.

0:33:59 Thomas: Seem to remember some hostages, uh, that maybe people thought.

0:34:02 Matt: I don't get to that. I just have to, for due diligence here, say that yesterday, on the 21st of August, Judy Woodruff walked this back and said, in a live TV moment, I repeated the story because I hadn't seen later reporting that both sides denied it. Because of course they did. Is a mistake, and I apologize. Now, she was working from, she admitted, from Reuters and Axios reporting, which still seems like there's something to it. There are two unnamed sources that report on this conversation that it did happen. Snopes has officially upgraded this to unproven because, you know, we don't know who those sources are, but I'm completely willing to believe it.

0:34:02 Thomas: Yeah.

0:34:33 Thomas: Was going to say, here's the thing about this, Matt. This is the single most plausible thing I've ever heard in my life. And obviously this happened. Yeah,

0:34:37 Matt: Of course. Yeah, yeah. These are two of the worst people on earth talking. And

0:34:42 Thomas: Boy, you really captured it. These are two of the worst people on, on earth. Needs to be said, I talking about a genocide happening here, in my opinion, and and also the opinion of, you international courts and stuff.

0:34:45 Matt: Yeah, that's right. The United Nations.

0:34:55 Thomas: Yeah. And we're talking about, hey, don't stop the genocide because, you won't look good if if you you time the stopping of the genocide now. And just like, just uttering those words is just the most disgusting thing I can imagine.

0:35:08 Matt: And I want credit for it, right? I mean, that is what it comes down to. I will say, I mean actually, Netanyahu has one thing in common with Trump, which is that he is facing pending indictment and is trying to stay in office so that he doesn't have to face justice. So they've also both got that for

0:35:10 Thomas: Yeah, yeah, yeah. Yep, It's true. There is a lot in common, actually. Now I think about it.

0:35:24 Matt: Multiple fraud and obstruction things. But yeah, so I just wanted to mention for the record that Judy Woodruff did walk this back, but Axios and Reuters' reporting still stands. I still think it's true. And whether it's true or not, it's worth talking about because the Logan Act comes up so often. So I just wanted to give a few more examples of times when it could have been charged and was not. Think arguably just as bad, maybe worse than... Actually, I'm going to say this is worse. 1968, Richard Nixon urged South Vietnam to stay out of peace negotiations until he was elected. So he He extended the war in Vietnam, potentially for quite a while, and got a lot more people, including U.S. service members, killed. McGovern, 1975, traveled to Cuba just to do some diplomacy on his own.

Ronald Reagan, I think this is just about as bad as you just mentioned this, but we confirmed last year from former operative Ben Barnes that he had actually witnessed John Connolly, a Reagan operative, going around the Middle East and specifically messaging to different Middle Eastern leaders to send back to Iran that Reagan would get them a better deal if he could just hold on to the hostages in Tehran. Until after the election. So, you know, prolonging their suffering for political purposes. Jackson, twice actually, was accused of Logan Act violations, unauthorized diplomacy with Nicaragua and unauthorized diplomacy with Fidel Castro. I don't know what

0:35:26 Thomas: Yeah. Mm -hmm. Oh, yeah! That's right. Geez, I don't

0:36:32 Matt: He was doing in those things, but I just started throwing together. I just basically started searching for every instance of anybody who has ever done anything like this. And I've got quite a list, but you got Ross Perot doing secret talks with Vietnam to release POWs. You got Nancy Pelosi going to Assad in Syria in 2007. You've got 47 Republican senators sending a letter to Iran in 2015, directly undermining Barack Obama by saying that they would end any agreement in the future if they could that Obama made.

0:36:33 Thomas: Think I know those ones.

0:36:57 Matt: Pretty bad. Exactly the kind of thing that Logan Act is supposed to be preventing, right?

0:36:55 Thomas: Oh yeah. The Right. I was going to say like, it's another one of these things where it's like, okay, this, this ever been convicted. You know, it has only been indicted twice. So it must just be something that doesn't happen. It's like well, no, you just described many instances is where a hundred million percent, it should have been used. Aren't those like, I mean, if proven true, those are textbook, what what they wrote the law for, I would think.

0:37:00 Matt: Mm Yeah, could have been used. And causing real harm in many of these cases. Then And you've got something like Donald Trump in 2016 famously saying, hey, Russia, if you're listening, you want to help out with Hillary Clinton's emails, get those over to me. One I think that actually was the closest to being charged was Michael Flynn in 2018. might remember he was in touch with the Russian ambassador, Sergey Kislyak, during the Trump transition, and he undermined Obama. Obama had just imposed diplomatic sanctions on Russia, expelled some diplomats.

And pretty much the next day after Flynn called Kislyak, Putin came out and said, don't worry about it. We're not going to respond because he had just been told by Flynn that Trump would make it right. And again, once he just directly interfering with American diplomacy. And then, of course, he lied about it to the FBI, so he had to resign. But the Justice Department at the time was heavily looking into potentially charging the first Logan Act violation in modern history, but they didn't do it.

Was a lot of talk about John Kerry being charged, or at least on the right of John Kerry, after he was Secretary of State going out to France to meet with leaders to try to fix the Iran deal. Was a little strange. I don't look too much more into that. But again, these are all examples of both parties doing this kind of stuff across the board. And there is a pretty strong argument that the Logan Act should never be used, and it's

0:37:19 Thomas: Yeah, Hmm.

0:38:24 Matt: Actually completely unconstitutional. And I've looked at both sides of this, and I think there's an argument to be made, made by Eric Posner most recently, that it could be saved, that you could actually narrow it down. And once again, friend of the show, Steve Vladeck, has said, stop trying to make the Logan Act a thing. That was his recent messaging this week because he believes, as I have when I've looked into this before, I think just from the language I just read you, I that is unconstitutional in several different directions because you're talking about restricting American citizen speech. You look at this again, commences or carries on correspondence intercourse. But this this isn't like a restriction on speech, like you can't yell fire and crowd a movie theater. This is an extremely broad restriction on speak. You're trying to influence a measure as a conduct of any foreign government, I mean, the fact that the federal government thought it was appropriate to potentially indict somebody for writing a newspaper article because he was trying to influence the French government tells you that this is pretty broad.

0:38:27 Thomas: That's interesting.

0:38:40 Thomas: Huh?

0:39:18 Matt: There are a couple of interesting open questions about this. One of them being that without authority of the United States would suggest that if you're doing it with the authority of United States, if you are in any kind of elected or appointed official that maybe you're protected. Never been tested. We don't know. It makes sense, right? That if you're acting on official authority, maybe you have a little more leeway. And we do know that obviously members of Congress have special privileges.

The rest of us don't to say things and do things in their jobs. There's the sort of basic constitutional question though about whether this kind of restriction on speech achieves a compelling state interest. Because if you are going to restrict content you might might remember from constitutional law, you have to apply what's called strict scrutiny review to it. And that would require that the government show that the law is narrowly tailored to achieve a compelling purpose. This is not a narrowly -tailored law.

It's a very broad law. It would have to be cut back. It would be amended somehow or reinterpreted by the courts to survive a challenge, I think. And I think diplomacy is a compelling state interest, but you have to be able to show that there's some other less restrictive way to do this, I I think. And it's been 225 years worth of First Amendment interpretation that this law has preceded.

And I don't think it really matches up with the way that we do the First Amendment today. It was also passed around the same time as the Alien and Sedition Acts, which are considered to be some of the worst things that we've passed, restrictive kind of fashy bills.

So the thing is that because there's never been a modern prosecution, because there has never been been a conviction on this, the DOJ doesn't want to put forward a test case and then take it up to appeal and see it overturned as unconstitutional. I think there's a good chance that we'll never actually see this thing applied. Do think that if you can prove that conversation with Netanyahu, I'd be willing to see them take a try at it and take a swing because

0:40:56 Thomas: I don't really get what you're losing. Like, oh, well then they might take away the whole thing. You mean the thing we've never used ever? Why does it matter? Yeah, to make sure, I I don't think I'm totally understanding. So maybe it's because I figuring like those examples you gave the two times, I think you said that it was even indicted. Those sounded just like dumb uses of it, like writing a newspaper article. And so I assumed like that was somebody just using it badly. But are you saying that like it actually, that wasn't a bad use of the law and it's actually the law is written in a way that that makes sense?

0:40:59 Matt: Yeah, right, right. Yeah. Mm-hmm.

0:41:30 Matt: Think that the newspaper article has to be a bad use of it because there's no way you can call that – well, it is kind of correspondence, but it's obviously just open -ended. It's an open letter. That doesn't count, obviously. Obviously.

0:41:37 Thomas: Yeah. Yeah. So that's why I figured I wouldn't. I guess I'm saying I didn't really count that as a knock against the Logan act itself. I figured some, some idiot was trying to charge something that shouldn't have been, but am I wrong about that?

0:41:43 Matt: Oh, sure. The other one in 1852 of somebody writing to the president of Mexico, the fact that the government thought that was appropriate to charge is a little concerning because it is closer to the spirit of the act. I mean, you're not wrong that these two cases don't necessarily have to do with... Just because some prosecutor somewhere thought they could do it doesn't mean that the law is bad. I just think the law's bad because it's bad. I think it's just not well-written. And I think, by today's standards, at least. 1799 Congress. But the only court to consider this was actually the Southern District of New York, our good friends in the mother court.

0:42:05 Thomas: Hmm.

0:42:18 Matt: I can't stand. It'll always be the mother current. Waldron v. BP in 1964. And this is a civil case involving the nationalization of BP's oil operations in Iran. And they just mentioned in passing that the plaintiff in this case had violated the Logan Act by dealing with the Iranian government. The in that case found that it's a doubtful question with regard to the constitutionality of that statute. This doubt is engendered by the statute's use of the vague and indefinite terms defeat and measures. Neither of these words is an abstraction of common certainty or possesses a definite statutory or judicial definition. But they didn't dispose of the case on that issue because there's so much more that they could do with it. They didn't get to that. But They just mentioned passing. They thought that this was too vague. And that's even been just one piece of it. If you're talking about intent to influence the measures or the measures, it's incredibly open

0:42:17 Thomas: The mother, it's the best too broad.

0:43:08 Matt: -ended. There's just so much. And also just any kind of communication. It's also, in 2024, it is much easier to have intercourse with foreign governments than it used to be. They're out there on Tinder now.

0:43:08 Thomas: Okay. Gotcha. You sound like my mom.

0:43:22 Matt: I don't mean to slut -shame people like to have intercourse of foreign governments. I'm sorry.

0:43:26 Thomas: Foreign policy, slut shame. Yeah.

0:43:29 Matt: One other thing before we close up the Logan Act. Also requires that this be something in which there's a dispute or controversy with the other party. And yeah, that's in the law for what it's worth. And people seem to forget that part. It can't just be regular communications trying to influence another government. And unfortunately, we don't really have a dispute or controversy with Israel right now.

0:43:36 Thomas: Oh, it does? Well,

0:43:48 Matt: Maybe we should.

0:43:48 Thomas: That's too bad. We should start one.

0:43:50 Matt: Yeah, I wouldn't be opposed to having a dispute or controversy, you should try to have intercourse with them. No, no, uh, yeah, yeah, how

0:43:50 Thomas: Yeah. I do. I have a big dispute and controversy with Israel, but I guess it doesn't count. I should, I think we should all try to have a big dispute first and then intercourse second. Man, that is how it goes. Jeez, I feel sorry for your partners.

0:44:11 Matt: Many more 13 year old jokes can I make all right that

0:44:13 Thomas: I don't know, sorry. Really didn't know that. I'm trying to slot that into the examples you already brought up. Is there anywhere else where that mattered? Or I guess not, because like the hostages, that would be a dispute. How do you even define a dispute, though?

0:44:24 Matt: The war I mean yeah, they're all things. Yeah, exactly, right. I mean, like, are we arguing about trade, are we at war, are we you know, yeah, like

0:44:28 Thomas: Okay. Sure you could find something we disagree about with every single... That's just the nature of foreign policy. Like, there's going to be something. Yeah, so, yeah, just another reason this law is just, it's too, too big.

0:44:41 Matt: Are they playing us in the World Cup? I mean, yeah, this could be anything thing. Yeah, where it stands. And again, I really appreciate the question from patrons because I had wondered about this, especially during the Flynn stuff. I remember looking into it at the time about what this Logan Act thing was all about because I hadn't heard of it before then. And and it's fair game to say there's a law in the books that says you can't do this, or even just to hear that account as you did and the reaction you had of like, "You can do that?" That's not something that somebody should be able to do.

0:45:05 Thomas: Yeah, there's gotta be something wrong with this. Yeah

0:45:07 Matt: Right, there has to be a law. Maybe there should be a better law, but I'm not Not sure it's this one.

0:45:07 Thomas: Yeah. Okay. So then my, I guess my remaining pending questions would be, I feel like we, we all think this is a pretty bad thing. Is this another one of those? Well, the remedy is impeachment. That's never going to happen. Or is you, what do you think should happen? Should the law be rewritten? Should, should this thing that we all pretty much recognize is definitely got to be wrong, how should that be policed or whatever? It

0:45:34 Matt: Mean, it could be. I can see the current law being used in extreme situations, perhaps like this one, if you can prove it. I'd still, you know, I'd give it a try. Like I said, I think that it's probably better to pass a much more modern version of this, though, which Congress will probably never do. Maybe they could be motivated at some point to do that. It's really up to how much the federal prosecutors want to try out a law, law that's never really been taken out for a spin before. It's really what it is, if you want to kick the tires and give it a try. That's not something that prosecutors really like to do, especially federal prosecutors, because they're in the habit of winning. That's one of their favorite things to do. I don't know. I don't have an answer. Think probably new law would be the best answer.

0:46:11 Thomas: Seem like, uh, let's say hypothetically we had a real Congress, um, say this happened, let's say, uh, elected, just hypothetically, is this something, and you know, we had, like, I don't know, Democratic Congress somehow, is this something that you could impeach for? Can you impeach for things that are in kind of that period of time before you're actually elected, right?

0:46:30 Matt: No, I don't believe that you can do that. But they could impeach for the ceasefire agreement if they thought it was reached correctly. Course, that's pretty complicated because most of us want a ceasefire at this point. So it's kind of strange to do that. I don't know. There's also an open question for the Logan Act as to whether something like what Michael Flynn did is necessarily a violation because obviously he is a private citizen at that point when Trump's not in office yet, but the transition team should have a right to communicate with foreign governments as they're preparing to take power.

0:46:39 Thomas: Yeah. Yeah. Yeah.

0:46:57 Matt: Shouldn't have a Right to necessarily undermine directly the current administration's policies, but I think there should be a little more leeway and this doesn't account for that either.

0:47:04 Thomas: That's a tough one, especially because I could, I could see the point of view hypothetically that, like, foreign you governments know, like, hey, you're transitioning power in, you know, 10, 30, whatever days, like, it says, what, what is going to be the position here, what's going to happen? You, that, that does seem like it is kind of relevant to them. I could see a lot of that that wouldn't necessarily be like an evil thing to be doing.

0:47:26 Matt: Pretty much my answer. And yeah, I wish that there were a clear thing besides the obvious moral problem here, but I just can't say that there's a clear legal way to say that Trump necessarily violated a law that we could prosecute him for easily, easily.

0:47:38 Thomas: Says Trump did nothing wrong, everyone. Just make sure that's clear.

0:47:40 Matt: That's right. What's the thing he always says? I don't remember.

0:47:45 Thomas: It was perfect. Perfect phone call.

0:47:47 Matt: Yeah, no, that's right, it was a perfect phone call. I was thinking the other one, but yeah.

0:47:48 Thomas: Yeah. There's... there's so many, Matt. I narrowed down.

0:47:52 Matt: There are so many, that's fine. I shouldn't repeat them anyway. That's what I have to say about the Logan Act, and I'm sure it's going to come up again, but now at least anybody listening will know that it's not necessarily something that we can invoke that easily.

0:48:05 Thomas: Darn. That And And all the people involved suck in that particular perfect phone call. And I wish there was something we could do about it. But I guess I guess that I don't

0:48:14 Matt: Let's maybe not elect Donald Trump. It would be a great thing to do about it.

0:48:17 Thomas: That would be good. That would be Good. Hey, let's also stop supporting a genocide. Just quick thought, you know, that could be something to do. So, right.

0:48:21 Matt: Yes. Something for the next administration to consider. Yeah.

0:48:26 Thomas: Well, I guess is I guess. That's our show, Matt. It was again, a reminder, Patreon.com/law for all the goodies. And patreon.com/gavelpod for the gavel gavel goodies that are happening. For supporting the show. Thanks for listening. And we'll see you on Monday.

0:48:28 Matt: All right.

0:48:41 Clip: This podcast is a production of Opening Arguments Media, LLC, All Rights Reserved. It is produced and edited by Thomas Smith, who also provided the fabulous intro and outro music used with permission.