Drakesgiving Special

Transcript

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

0:00:00 Clip: You must never, ever give up or give in. You must keep the faith and keep your eyes on the prize. That is your calling. That is you mission. That is moral obligation. That is mandate. Get out there and do it. Get in the way. Change happens because people care. The people have the power to make this life free and beautiful. To make this live a wonderful adventure.

0:00:38 Clip: I still believe with all my heart, America can be a place where no child is left hungry, no community is left behind, and no one gets told they don't belong. Country is always worth it.

0:00:57 Thomas: And welcome to opening arguments. Gobble, gobble, gobble. Although it's for me, it's a bit of a sad gobble. It's episode 1093. I'm your host Thomas Smith, and that over there is Matt Cameron, real-life attorney. How you doing, Matt?

0:01:09 Matt: But gratitude Thomas I'm having a beautiful day and uh I'm sure yours will get better no

0:01:14 Thomas: We had everything all set and then uh wouldn't you know it Arlo barfed and then it's like well Well, no one's coming over. It's like, all right. Yeah, not doing it. Barfing, no go. I thing is it might just be food allergy related, but I don't know. Who knows?

0:01:22 Matt: Call call it yeah

0:01:30 Thomas: Kind of a bummer over here. Still do what we can, but I am, I got to tell you, legit legit excited for this episode because, you have to know, we have have to cover, when that Jack Smith news dropped, I was like, I wish we could do this yesterday. Cause I, so many people, of... one of these days, Matt, one of these days we'll do a full, like look back at Merrick Garland and Jack Smith and all this stuff, because it's, I just don't know what to think. I think it's so easy. There's so many, on the left who, who are so quick to say that Merrick garland was a traitor. He did nothing. He got nothing done. I don't know where the truth is on all that. Lot I of me feels like this is going to be pretty unfair because it's just expecting things that people can't do. But also, I don't know. There might be an argument that Merrick Garland took too long to do some stuff. But when it comes to Jack Smith and this news that he dismissed these charges, we got to make sure we know exactly what's going on there, because that's a that's a panic headline. That's the kind of thing where it's like, I'm sure a lot of people who are just listeners who follow the news are hoping this isn't somebody, you know, caving. Hopefully this isn't somebody just giving up. We're going to, we're going to break that down. Going, going to have Matt tell us exactly what's going on there. And then it's all fun after that.

0:01:29 Matt: Sure yeah have got one big thanksgiving turkey to talk about and one uh aubrey drake graham we'll be talking calling

0:02:44 Thomas: He is a turkey. That's a real turkey right there. The Drake lawsuit, look, I am uncomfortable with this whole thing. We'll talk about it because I I don't like, you '—I don't like seeing people just get absolutely bullied. I don''t like it, but—but Drake is not doing himself any favors, can I say? Not doing himself anything favors.

0:02:46 Matt: Him out that's right and all never has been sure

0:03:01 Thomas: I have no allegiances here. I don't know anything about anybody because I don't follow this, but, you know, I don't love when someone's just getting absolutely just wrecked on. Anybody, it just makes me sad. I really... I don't like it.

0:03:11 Matt: I have an opinion on diss tracks that might surprise you we'll get there.

0:03:14 Thomas: Okay. Well, I'm excited for that, and then I think we even have a footnote fetish. A Thanksgiving finish, gotta have dessert. So this will be really fun. It's gonna, um, make up for not getting the Thanksgiving that I was hoping to have. Uh, right. Well, we'll take a break and talk about thankful. We are very thankful for the patrons who support the show at patreon.com slash law.

0:03:19 Matt: Have dessert. Every Every day.

0:03:34 Thomas: So please join their ranks. Uh, you can lose the ads, you can get the bonus stuff. patreon.com slash law. All right, let's take a break and then let's uh, let's talk turkey, let's it's you know being vegetarian is a bit of a bummer on on Thanksgiving.

0:03:45 Matt: Your least favorite Thanksgiving dish? Yep. I'm

0:03:50 Thomas: Not going to lie. It has been not great. Now I don't, I'm not saying that I think we're just not good at it. I know there's good ways to do it, but like none of my family gives a crap. So it's like, and, and we, we try to do things here and there. My favorite has got to be some good Brussels sprouts, like some good burned Brussels sprouts. Like they've got, is it? Is that, you know?

0:03:50 Matt: With you there. Yep. Sure. Oh, wow. Controversial. Little bit. Not when you got mashed potatoes right there. I don't know.

0:04:16 Thomas: I mean, mashed potatoes are good, but they're kind of, oh, actually here's the big debate, and this is one that I stand by to the day I die. Peels or no peels in your mashed potatoes?

0:04:26 Matt: I could take a bit of peel.

0:04:27 Thomas: For me, it's none. You want, you want, I want, a cloud. I want it to be an edible carb cloud, of cloud. I don't want any, I don't need any, you know, tree bark in there. I don't need any roughage leaves. It's just, it's just leaves that someone left in your thing.

0:04:42 Matt: I can understand that position, but I wish I had something tastier for you to start off here, but I was thinking of this one as cranberry sauce, which I do like for the most part, but it's kind of bitter, you know? So that's what we're looking at here. Everyone has heard by now, both of the federal cases against Donald Trump have been dismissed. That's the one in Florida with the documents case that was dismissed by Eileen Cannon previously because of Jack Smith's allegedly unlawful appointment as dictated by Clarence Thomas. And then we have the DC January 6th case. I'll start with the Florida case, which is quick and easy because it was already up at the the 11th Circuit. Because it had been dismissed, it was on appeal, and the government was trying to push forward to say that it was unlawfully dismissed. I think that would have prevailed

0:04:50 Thomas: I like cranberry sauce, but it definitely

0:05:22 Matt: Eventually. Will find out, though, if it will prevail, because the two cases against Waltine Nata and Carlos de Oliveira are going to continue. Have not been dismissed. So the government will get to try out its theory on these poor guys. Well, I shouldn't say poor guys, but, you know, the body guys. They're not the main guys. They're just moving the boxes around. Ground.

0:05:22 Thomas: Was yeah hmm yeah try out, what theory exactly? That Eileen Cannon sucks? Because I thought that was the appeal. Oh,

0:05:42 Matt: Yeah, no, the appeal, basically, to try out her theory, to put it up against a court and see what happens. Somebody needs to. The D.C. Circuit has already ruled that he was lawfully appointed based on the same argument, but it'd be good to get two circuits on it. The 11th Circuit, by Jack Smith's request, dismissed it in a one-sentence order. Simple. Appellant's motion to dismiss the appeal as to Donald J. Trump only is granted. And there goes the strongest case, I think, all around against Donald Trump, the documents case.

0:06:07 Thomas: This one was nuts. It sucks that we didn't get his real day in court because

0:06:11 Matt: Full eulogy sometime, but more importantly, what I want to talk about today is the DC case, because we actually have some real text on that to go through. For a motion to dismiss, you end up with an order like the one I just read you, which is just a simple one-sentencer. But Judge Chutkan gave us two pages, which was a little more than I'd expect. And Jack Smith's motion itself was six pages, which again, when you're talking about the government dismissing its own case, you don't usually need six pages to do that. Just telling the court you're not going forward.

0:06:36 Thomas: Changed my mind. I'm busy that day. Not going to do it.

0:06:40 Matt: But of Of course, this is one of the most important federal cases in American history, so he's got to put it down. And I wanted to parse what he had to say here, because I think it's very important. And I think he is certainly not being subtle about what he is saying. Um, the thing he really wants you to know is that he is bound by the Office of Legal Counsel, and the Department of Justice, OLC are the ultimate deciders about what DOJ does and

0:07:01 Thomas: Yeah. Is he though? Is that, how does that work? Cause I remember we've talked about this OLC memo where it's like, hey, if the president doesn't, it's legal. No, it's not quite that bad, but it's all, it's been the one where they can't, can't go after a sitting president. What is the detail of it? And it was from Clinton. When was it?

0:07:04 Matt: He's it goes back to Nixon actually, so he talks about both the Nixon and the Clinton uh investigations and how OLC issued different different memos at those times, but what it amounts to is you can't have an indictment against a sitting president. And they have interpreted that to mean you can have a continuing indictment against a sitting president, that, now, it means, because the question hadn't really been raised before. What if you had a private citizen who's elected, yep, comes into office with pending cases. So they decided that had to mean continuing cases. We go. And then there's also the question of if they should be holding it open, as we discussed as a possibility a few weeks ago, which makes sense, right? That you can just ask the judge to continue it under these extraordinary circumstances and pick the case back up on January 21, 2027.

0:07:36 Thomas: If you already had it. Yeah. Wow. Good point.

0:07:59 Matt: So, or 20, 29? Arithmetic.

0:07:59 Thomas: 29. If You want to hear more lawyers not doing math, tune in to Gavel Gavel, where you had a delightful lawyer not being able to do math.

0:08:10 Matt: Yeah, oh man, dyscalculia.

0:08:11 Thomas: I don't think that's real. I think you're making that up, but it's okay. It's fine.

0:08:14 Matt: It's real.

0:08:15 Thomas: There are dozens of us.

0:08:18 Matt: There are actually more people with dyscalculus than dyslexia, believe it or not, but it just doesn't get diagnosed.

0:08:22 Thomas: Sorry. Is this an actual thing you have that I shouldn't be making fun of? I'm sorry.

0:08:25 Matt: Yeah. I mean, I think it's kind of funny, but you know, it is technically a disability.

0:08:29 Thomas: Oh really? This is actual. I thought you were just, I totally thought that was made up. So you're telling me you have, it's like, it's related to dyslexia with numbers.

0:08:36 Matt: I'm actually requesting an accommodation at work, Thomas. So here we go. Now the ADA has kicked in.

0:08:39 Thomas: I absolutely, I know I'm, I'm this is like,

0:08:42 Matt: Doing it on the air? No, it's okay.

0:08:43 Thomas: 100 % this is gonna be a huge ass settlement but yeah let me know what they tell I mean you can have HR email me but like what am I allowed to am I allow to refer to you as those people or is that not genuinely

0:08:52 Matt: Well, so far, I joke about it all the time. It's totally fair game. And the accommodation on this show is that you do the math. That's fine with me.

0:08:59 Thomas: Didn't know this okay well oh that's

0:09:04 Matt: So yeah, that seems to be how it works out. Anyway, so back in 2000, they, when they looked at it, they said that the sitting president is immune from indictment as well as further criminal process. So just basically that it's too much of a restriction on the presidency to have an open criminal case. Like we were talking about, he would still be under the jurisdiction of the court during the whole time he's president. There'd be some weird questions about travel and everything else potentially. So that's the bad news, of course. And again, it is strange, as

0:09:04 Thomas: Fine yeah darn yeah I gotta ask you some stuff about this because, so it's the Office of Legal Counsel, I think I want to head off what people might likely be thinking. You might be thinking, well, that's Biden's office of legal counsel right now or whatever. How is it? Why couldn't they just say, well it's fine? I think we have to remember that it's only Biden's for another few months and then that would all be, could be undone anyway. Also, is it the kind of thing where Jack Smith is literally bound by it, though the office of Legal Counsel itself, I mean, a memo. They could write a new memo, right?

0:09:56 Matt: They could. And, you know, it's a little annoying to see OLC memos cited as if they're legal precedent. But at the same time, in Trump v. U.S., the immunity decision, John Roberts, I believe, did cite at least a couple of them, you know, in the same kind of way. And they have to be given some weight. But, again, it doesn't have to been given any weight. They're just memos. But at same time this is DOJ's lawyers. These are the people that tell them what to do.

0:10:16 Matt: And so you'd be going against the advice of the government's own lawyers by doing anything else. And

0:10:19 Thomas: I feel like Jack Smith's hands are tied on that, but I don't know about some other hands. I don' t know how far up the hand tying goes, because it feels like you to could come a different conclusion. However, again, that'll all go away in five seconds if were to come to different conclusion, but what about the merits of that conclusion itself I mean it does seem like it would be pretty weird and difficult to have a sitting president be indicted um I really a lot of this is like well the solution was don't elect this freaking guy to be president that was the solution and I but I don't know so I'm trying to get I think that's what people want is a sense of like how much sense does this make or is this cowardly Dems not going after not holding him accountable you know like that's what that's why I

0:10:23 Matt: They are. Sure. Sure. Yep. Yeah.

0:11:06 Thomas: Think I want to have in my mind and get your take on um terms of all this yeah

0:11:10 Matt: About why I think there's some good news in here, but I will say for the most part, um, do you know, we were talking before, we're kind of debating about whether it makes sense for Smith to quit or just, you know, be fired, and at the same time, you think about it, if Jack Smith were fired immediately, Pam Bondi, or whoever the AG is going to end up being by the time we get there, uh, would get up and give a press conference and explain it all in Trump's terms and say, you know, we fired this guy because his investigation was a witch hunt or whatever, right, and this way he gets to go out in his motion to dismiss and explain the government's plan and explain why they're doing it and get it for history well

0:11:32 Thomas: That's whatever wait a minute that's forget it's not just that he's dismissing the cases he's resigning

0:11:41 Matt: He doesn't have a job anymore after this that was his

0:11:43 Thomas: Is your job literally just these cases you can't be like well I'm still you know we got that's office birthday party coming up. I'm going to, I'm still going to hang around. You know, I can help or, you know, just anybody needs a hand with something good with computers. It's just like, if this case is gone, your job is over. Okay. That makes sense. Actually. I hadn't thought about that.

0:12:01 Matt: They are planning to resign before, is the the report, uh, this is clearly, I mean, they have no cases at this point and nothing else to investigate if they're not going to be indicting a president. So, but uh, let me tell you the about the bit of good news that is in here, because he did go out of his way to to make it clear, this is a goodbye for now. This is not a final goodbye to this case necessarily. And there's very much kind of a see you in four years thing all the way through this and in Chutkan's acknowledgement as well. This really overall, this has to be the most unusual mission to dismiss in the history of federal courts. Like this is so bizarre to read. I'm just going to read you the first paragraph a little bit. As a result of the election held on November 5th, 2024, the defendant, comma, Donald J. Trump, comma, will be inaugurated as president on January 20, 2025. The defendant will be inaugurated as president.

0:12:43 Thomas: We're as confused as you are.

0:12:46 Matt: But when would you ever, the defendant will inaugurate as president?

0:12:48 Thomas: it'S just, it'S JUST NUTS.

0:12:49 Matt: It's an incredible thing to read.

0:12:51 Thomas: It really is.

0:12:52 Matt: Courts of the country have never faced a circumstance here where a federal indictment against a private citizen has been returned by a grand jury and criminal prosecution is already underway when the defendant is elected president. Confronted with this unprecedented situation, special counsel's office consulted with the the department's Office of Legal Counsel, whose interpretation of constitutional questions such as those raised here is binding on department prosecutors. So he could not be telling you more clearly, he does not want to do this. All the way through this motion, that this is not his choice, this is what he has to do and he is making it clear categorically that this has nothing to do he literally says it's a categorical matter like this is the cases are strong we still believe in them there's no question that this should be prosecuted but we just can't do it categorically play. So he also explains at length about why dismissal without prejudice is appropriate. And that's really important, obviously. He didn't have to go out of his way to say that.

0:13:19 Thomas: Without prejudice, meaning he could bring it again, right yeah

0:13:42 Matt: That's right. The government can always bring it back as soon as Trump is not president. And he's making it very clear. The Constitution requires dismissal in this context, pursuant to the memo at least, consistent with the temporary nature of the immunity afforded a sitting President, it Does not require a dismissal with prejudice. I really like that expression, the temporary nature of immunity afford a sitting president. He's citing directly the 2000 LLC memo in that this is right at the end, saying that there's nothing that would preclude prosecution as soon as the president's term is over. Now, all of that does raise a few more questions. But let me just address Chutkin's decision here, which very much picks up what he is putting down. She is very into this.

0:14:00 Thomas: Kidding

0:14:20 Matt: That's right, real collab. She has in the end here a long paragraph about why dismissal without prejudice is appropriate, and she uses that exact sentence. She just lifts it and says dismissal without prejudice also consistent with the government's understanding about temporary temporary immunity, and that there's no indication of prosecutorial harassment or other impropriety underlying the motion.

0:14:18 Thomas: Real jazz happening here

0:14:41 Matt: So, you know, no basis for overriding the presumption, you just dismiss it. Because there's a presumption when the prosecution moves to dismiss that you really, really have to dismiss, because they're the ones who bring in the case. There are always reasons, as we've discussed with the Adnan Saeed case and others, where you might want to take a look and see why the prosecutor is moving to dismiss. The judge still has to assess that. So she's saying this appears to be something he's doing of his own volition, but see you in four years. So that raises a few questions that I want to address. Some of them raised by patrons, so I just wanted to answer those.

0:14:39 Thomas: Yeah yeah hey another great benefit to our amazing patrons who we are are very thankful for yeah

0:15:12 Matt: That. Could this actually be brought again? Several people have asked, and that's something that we'd all like to know. Now, we talked about the statute of limitations around this before. Typically, there's a five-year statute of limitation from the time of the incident to indictment for pretty much all federal offenses. There's terrorism offenses, some crimes that are punishable by death, obviously, sex offenses. Some financial crimes are 10 years. My favorite, actually, I was looking through to just kind of look at all the possible federal statutes of limitations. There is a 20-year statute of limitations for thefts of major works of art. So if he stuck a Renoir in those boxes, we're in business. Issues at all. But yeah, generally speaking, five years, it's probably what we should assume. Courts can toll it, as we've discussed before. The courts can say there's some reason, right, we couldn't do it before. And like we were talking about, if the defendant were in a coma for four years, or if he happened to be, you for four ears.

0:15:58 Thomas: Some bizarre immunity that shouldn't exist for example well

0:16:01 Matt: Right. Something that absolutely kept him from being prosecuted for something he should be prosecuted for. So that would be, again, like everything else in this case that would present a bunch of novel arguments and they'd have to have it out at the time that they filed the indictment again. But I there's a very strong case for tolling and it seems like OLC does too.

0:16:15 Thomas: But but oh so but did they ask for for that though?

0:16:18 Matt: They can't, because have to do it at the time of the refiling indictment. You have to say I've been tolling him.

0:16:23 Thomas: Huh. That's interesting. That feels like it would create a problem because, because, you know, one of the principles is like, you want people to not feel like they're always on the hook for something. So I feel like you would just assume you'd want to have that answer before, time passes, and

0:16:35 Matt: Most defendants, I would agree with you, but I don't mind.

0:16:37 Thomas: Just, just as me trying to intuit what the rules are. So when you try to go to re -indict him in 2029 that's when you make the argument about tolling huh

0:16:46 Matt: The defense would immediately try to dismiss the indictment saying it's too late. And then you'd have to make that argument. You can put it in the indictement while you think it's on time, but yeah.

0:16:48 Thomas: I guess that makes sense yeah yeah

0:16:53 Matt: But he notes in the, he quotes the 1973 Nixon OLC opinion, and they did investigate that possibility and think that equitable tolling makes sense in that circumstance. So, and it does, that seems like something you'd expect. Again, if you have, this is a lot of ifs, but if we have an administration that's willing to bring these cases again, if Donald Trump is still able to be tried. Assuming there's no major problems with the evidence or witnesses, I don't see why they shouldn't re -indict as soon as possible. And honestly, I think, I'm just going to put this out there, the next person to run for president as a Democrat or not a Republican, at least, should promise to prosecute Donald Trump. I think.

0:17:25 Thomas: Campaign on this because this is some absolute bullshit this

0:17:30 Matt: We're going to bring these indictments back. And this is not prosecuting your political opponents. This is bringing back a case that never should have have been dismissed.

0:17:34 Thomas: Is someone who avoided consequences forever needing consequences yeah

0:17:39 Matt: Like hardly anyone else ever has. Patron general Jigglypuff asks, are self -pardons legal? Does dropping charges with or without prejudice matter if he pardons himself? Which certainly is a possibility in this case, that he could just avoid the whole problem that we're just talking about and just take care of it on day one. Of course, there's a tweet for that, as you would expect. There's always a tweet. Trump tweeted in 2018, as has been stated by numerous legal scholars, which of course usually means Alan Dershowitz and Jonathan Turley.

0:18:07 Thomas: Whoever last talked to him yeah

0:18:09 Matt: Whoever was on OANN that night. Yep. I have the absolute right to, in caps, pardon myself, but why would I do that when I've done nothing wrong? In the meantime, the never-ending witch hunt led by 13 very angry and conflicted Democrats, parentheses, and others, continues into the midterms. This is 2018. So it is his position consistent with numerous legal scholars that he can pardon himself. And the answer to this question about whether it is legal is, of course, it's the president. If he does it, it is legal.

0:18:33 Matt: That's the point we're at, because there's nobody really to say that he can't, because the presidential pardon power is so broad. Now, OLC did take this question up just around the time that they were concerned about Nixon. And this is a three-page memo, but I submit to you it could have been finished in paragraph two, which ends with this sentence. The fundamental rule that no one may be a judge in his own case, it would seem the question should be answered in the negative. But they went on for two more pages because they're lawyers

0:18:33 Thomas: Pretty much. Yeah. Yeah, that's that. You could have just had that sentence, really. Yeah it's a good one. Would seem to be, yeah, this is a complicated one. Like honestly, it's possible it makes sense. It's possible doesn't make sense. I know we did a lot of deep dive stuff on that back in the day and it's not the most outrageous thing in the world to think that the president has the right to do this, but it's also perfectly reasonable. It seems to me that like, yeah, someone shouldn't be the judge in their own case, you would think.

0:19:25 Thomas: So, but I don't know. I don' t, this isn't something I put any stock in. I don'T know that, like if he didn't do it in the first term, I feel like there's a reason he's not doing this. I think it looks, he's all about, you know, how everything feels and looks. Maybe he just feels like it, he never, that would be admitting guilt and he never wants to do that. I don''t know.

0:19:25 Matt: It's a real it's true it would be, you know, but yeah, um, our cranberry sauce. It's not all bad, and I think that I do appreciate at least the way he's going out for history. And of course, we do have the report to look forward to.

0:19:51 Thomas: Oh, we do?

0:19:52 Matt: That'll still be coming, I I assume. There's no reason he wouldn't be releasing it.

0:19:55 Thomas: What? That's news to me. Me. I didn't know we were getting that.

0:19:57 Matt: He's required to release a report. The regulations.

0:20:00 Thomas: He's required to give it to who? Merrick Garland or something. And then that's right.

0:20:03 Matt: And then they decide, just like with the Mueller report, remember when Barr kind of took a few days with it and then released...

0:20:08 Thomas: That's a good point. Yeah. Cause that came back with no indictments too. So yeah, that seems like it'd be the same thing. Okay.

0:20:14 Matt: I think it's Trump, yeah.

0:20:16 Thomas: That'll be good. That's going to be big. If that comes out, we're, we're doing 800 specials on that. I will actually read it. That's how, that'S how interested I am in all that. Yeah." Um, just to sum everything up, so when it comes to Florida, obviously that was corrupt bullshit with Judge Cannon, but, and it was under appeal, but now it's like, well, we're, we're dropping the appeal. So what happens when it comes to like, those, those kind of limitation, these stuff, like what goes on there? Because that seems like a little bit of a different thing. Is it not?

0:20:23 Matt: Let's do it. They could bring the indictment again at that point, I think. It wouldn't be double jeopardy. No. Actually, let's ask Eric Trump, actually, whether it'd be double jeopardy. I Eric Trump is an illegal expert, right?

0:20:49 Thomas: Boy, I can't imagine wanting to ask him anything. But OK, if you say so. Just

0:20:57 Clip: The case got dismissed. The case will not get revived. By the time I pop this out of the office, the statute of limitations will be long gone. You can't have Dublin Shepard.

0:21:07 Matt: I love the confidence of that.

0:21:07 Thomas: Throwing out every, yeah, every term you can.

0:21:10 Matt: Hope listeners understand that is not double jeopardy, because we didn't get anywhere near trial, unfortunately, in these cases. So jeopardy,

0:21:16 Thomas: That's a T3B question I constantly get wrong, but I at least remember it's somewhere in the trial phase. It's this phase. We're not even close. There's no difference between the fact that the judge dismissed it versus him dismissing his own thing. That doesn't change the calculation there in of statute of limitations, double jeopardy or statute of limitation, any of that stuff.

0:21:36 Matt: So for the motion to dismiss was was completely in Jack Smith's appointment. So if they did a different kind of appointment or they somehow got around the issues, me, they, they wouldn't have that basis as a basis to dismiss the whole charge, but I believe they should be able to bring it again without double jeopardy. There's no reason that this indictment could not be renewed. Yeah.

0:21:41 Thomas: That's good point. Yeah. Here we come, huh? Mueller is coming.

0:21:53 Matt: Yeah just uh yeah yeah

0:21:59 Thomas: Oh boy. It sucks going through the same thing, but worse and with no energy. Everybody's just like, I don't know. I'm hoping, open arms as a, resistance here, we'll have a different kind of energy than last time, a smarter energy, you know? And I think we are doing that. And so that, so that's the document. So the the J6 case, we might get, get a report, you're thinking, um, we wouldn't get one on the documents case? Interesting.

0:22:21 Matt: I'm From my read of the regulation, he could produce one on the documents case, too. The regulation requires him to produce a report when he's wrapping up or closing a case to explain what happened. So he did not close the other case. I think he could, there's no reason at all that he shouldn't just do a report for both cases, and knowing him, I'm sure he will, he's very, very thorough. And he really wants this preserved for history.

0:22:39 Thomas: But there's not gonna be like any uh old-fashioned institutionalist I heard

0:22:42 Matt: Don't think so, because let me just read the regulatory provision that always helps. I just want to double check it. It is 28 CFR 600.8, and part C, it says at the conclusion of the special counsel's work, he or she shall provide the attorney general with a confidential report explaining the prosecution or declination decisions reached by the special counsel. So really just give it a history of the the case right

0:23:00 Thomas: Confidential was what I heard there was a word that was

0:23:03 Matt: Uh right, so institutionalist bullshit could, uh, certainly, assuming he gets it turned in before, uh, I assume he will, he gets it turned in before the inauguration, then it's up to the biden administration to see how much they want to release

0:23:10 Thomas: Would hope, it's up to Merrick Garland, I guess, or, oh boy, well, you know what, I'll be right in line calling for his head with everybody else if he doesn't release this, because honestly, yeah, like, if that happens, then screw this guy. Like, so let's hope we get these reports, yeah imagine, I don't know why we wouldn't, like it doesn't, it would be pretty insane to not. It's just, it's a report. What, what, how harmful could a report be of all this wrongdoing?

0:23:26 Matt: I'm sure we will Not like we don't know, uh, have some idea here, and that brief that he filed with Chutkan a couple months ago was outstanding. I mean, that was like 100 pages. That was basically the report itself, just a beautiful narrative of everything that they had with footnotes and citations. So I expect we'll be expanding from that.

0:23:52 Thomas: Right. And then the, uh, what about the Gavel Gavel case? What about the Trump-y New York?

0:23:56 Matt: We talked last week about how Alvin Bragg's office was pushing forward and trying to make sure that this case is not dismissed. But now Judge Juan Merchan has really, and for similar reasons to what we've been talking about with Jack Smith, has had to indefinitely stay the sentencing. So that date is adjourned with no new date.

0:24:11 Thomas: But state it's not, it'S not like, like, oh, you're free to go, sir. It's like, yeah, that's good.

0:24:13 Matt: Stayed. That's right. At all. Not in the least. And he is still hearing the arguments about the motion dismissed, so he has to make a decision about that. So we'll be following that as it goes, but nothing too notable otherwise yeah

0:24:23 Thomas: Right. Well, the best of news, but not the worst of news. I think that it sounds like everyone is doing everything they can to keep this stuff alive in the face of this insane thing that happened, that defendant Trump was elected president.

0:24:35 Matt: I think he's doing what he can I really think so yeah

0:24:40 Thomas: Okay, so on to the fun stuff. Matt, what is going on? Look, we've got some sort of rap battle. We've got diss tracks. This is not something I know know anything about seems like this uh drake guy uh don't like him like something about underage girls so I don't lack him either but then he just he absolutely gets his ass handed to him and now I'm seeing he told the teacher like he did like the worst thing you can do with a bully oh yeah

0:25:01 Matt: Yeah, yeah, yeah, let's see if two vegetarians can carve up a turkey. All right, so Aubrey Drake Graham, uh, I know that, you, generally speaking, I'm just going from what you told me here, but you know about as much about hip-hop as I know about hockey, I think, maybe probably about right so I just want to make sure everybody's got the background here I just want to say up front that I love diss tracks this this is a surprise to me as much as it is to you but I'm a very painfully polite person like I'm very nice to everybody and I can't imagine putting this stuff on record but diss tracks are so cathartic they're incredible they're just like an ultimate elevation of the form you're just taking one person and explaining exactly why they suck in detail you and know sometimes they get people killed obviously like the biggie tupac rivalry with there's a

0:25:15 Thomas: That's probably similar oh okay wow yeah yeah can someone distract trump has Probably

0:25:46 Matt: Literally there's a song called F Donald Trump that he loved. A report of him sitting there watching it. It's about rival gang members teaming up to F Donald Trump and he loved it. Mean, but there've just been so many great diss tracks in history and I'm just really a connoisseur. Pop Goes the Weasel back with third base like dissing on vanilla ice that was that was actually which

0:25:54 Thomas: Is. Yeah. What good that did. Okay. Sorry. What? Oh, it goes back to the original pop goes the weasel, which is like, what are you talking about?

0:26:10 Matt: Is about president mckinley yes uh the Third Base song, way better, uh, actually made fun of him being sued by Queen, which was really good, uh but see that pop goes a weasel was like a really classic like diss track it was also a rare incident of uh white on white hip -hop violence but uh yeah third base was It's two -thirds white, at least, one of the rare first -generational groups.

0:26:20 Thomas: That's funny. Yeah. Oh, wow. It's just hard to understand a lot of the words you're using, but I think I got it. Okay. Okay.

0:26:36 Matt: To find an excuse to just do an episode on diss tracks. I can't really think of one other than this lawsuit, but maybe I'll come up with one.

0:26:44 Matt: I mean, the fact that Eminem had a diss track about Mariah Carey, I don't know if you knew that.

0:26:48 Thomas: Matt, do you know the all -time assists leader for the NHL?

0:26:55 Matt: I can't name a single player but Wayne Gretzky, so yeah, got nothing.

0:26:58 Thomas: Honestly, it's probably Wayne Gretzky. Sorry, I should have said, not counting Wayne Gretzky, because he has every record.

0:27:02 Matt: Sure, yeah. We are on that level. I gotcha.

0:27:05 Thomas: Do you know how many Gordie Howe hat tricks Gordy Howe had? That's a fun bit of trivia. It's like two, I think, or Famously, one. They named it after him, and yet he only had or two. One Okay, does that answer your question? I don't know any of these people. I know kind of some of the names. I don'T really even understand the point of a diss track. It just sounds really mean.

0:27:15 Matt: It that well all okay is it is

0:27:24 Thomas: Okay, so people get really... Is it like a tweet?

0:27:24 Matt: But you get all kinds of freedom to say this stuff I mean obviously like can end pretty badly as it did um the east coast west coast wars um for the most part it's fun uh although and it can also unfortunately the really classic golden age stuff is always super misogynistic and homophobic but yeah even like the eminem like the mariah carey thing it's one of eminems best work I'm not even really a fan but it's an outstanding track but you know it's what you'd expect um it's just because she refused to acknowledge that they'd been together for like six months allegedly um

0:27:52 Thomas: So it's like a breakup track as well, kind of, in

0:27:54 Matt: But like why are you lying about me also uh he's got voicemails and everything it's great so

0:27:57 Thomas: That's what sucks about these things, Even the Drake one, I feel like got a little sexist or homophobic, I want to say. Yeah, it's like, okay, well, that ruins the whole thing. Sorry, I can't do it.

0:28:03 Matt: It did I know Yeah, very true. It does. It does. Yeah, so let's talk about Pulitzer Prize winner Kendrick Lamar, who's, of course, just outstanding lyricist, and Drake, who is Drake from Canada.

0:28:17 Matt: I'm going to get a diss track before this is over, I think. So Drake is fine. He's a pop musician, you whatever. But for some reason, Kendrick lamar absolutely absolutely despises drake like just it's it's hatred it's not just because usually these diss tracks you can get like a real sense of dislike but this has really been one of the most epic exchanges of diss tracks I think ever in hip-hop history but it didn't even start with anything particularly bad it was just you know Kendrick sort of generally talking about his competition, Drake misinterprets it, goes back and forth and they end up with like six songs back and forth between each other, one of them was released within an hour. Um, it's amazing, I mean really, just talent, yeah there was some meet the grams was released an hour after Family Matters from Drake. Uh, usually too, the other thing about diss tracks is usually you're dissing on like your opponent's style and the way he looks and like, you know, like this other stuff, but this is, you know, Drake comes out and says that Kendrick is abusive and cheating on his partner and has kids that are actually his manager's

0:29:10 Matt: And then he's got, and you get Kendrick saying that Drake is a deadbeat dad who has a secret daughter and mistreats black women, is a terrible person. And of course, as you said, is into underage girls, which is, of course the heart of a lot of this, this is the real problem. And that's a, that's a little beyond that's you're getting into actual defamation territory there perhaps.

0:29:09 Thomas: Holy crap. Yeah wow.

0:29:29 Matt: So it has been a big, long, messy drag out fight. And most recently it has culminated in Kendrick's track, Not Like Us, which has done very, very, very well, which is why we're now talking about it.

0:29:38 Thomas: That was I I think the last I heard it was that just went insane. Everybody's talking about it every five seconds and I think Drake was declared dead and then that was the end of it.

0:29:42 Matt: No, it's, it's great. Pretty much, much, uh, it was a killer track and, just, just as a quick music joke, uh, the previous diss track was in A minor, which is an easy little joke there, and then of course he makes reference to striking a chord in A minor in this one, which I appreciated. Well, lots of great little lines like that in here, but the point is, uh, we've all heard there are now two different lawsuits involved with this song that Drake has filed. I'm going to talk about each of them very quickly here. So, okay, first one is not a lawsuit. It is sort of a prelude to a lawsuit, it's the intro track to a lawsuit, and it is brought under a special New York provision. Like in New York, when you are thinking about filing suit and you don't know who to sue, because, you know, you can imagine, like, you've had some damage done to your property or whatever or you've been hit by a car and you think you might know who did it but you need to get some discovery so you can file this now that isn't really the case here because he's suing universal music

0:30:34 Matt: Group he

0:30:34 Thomas: I can I can point to who did it man.

0:30:36 Matt: Right, well in this case he's not exactly suing Kendrick. This is, this is even more of, like, this as a response to a diss track is possibly the weakest response to diss track in history it's

0:30:45 Thomas: It's got to be the word. That's what's look I know nothing about this but just from what I'm seeing, I'm like, man, this is so bad. Like, why would you do this? What lawyer convinced you this was a good, okay.

0:30:48 Matt: Ridiculous yes yeah yes how is this worth it, I know because like if the whole point of this is, you know, I'm harder and stronger than you, like going to court and whining about Spotify, it's just, and bots, um

0:31:05 Thomas: Yeah, you'll have to tell us what it is.

0:31:06 Matt: Yes, what it is, is uh New York Civil Practice Law 3102(c). You use this order, this is sort of a pre-trial petition to order the court to get discovery from people to find out if they should be defendants or if you can narrow down your complaint. And from what I understand about this provision, it is much more likely that you're going to get this discovery that you want if you don't know the defendant, that's the main use of it. But you can also use it to flesh out your complaint if there's big pieces of information that you need to actually sue them, but it's very strictly used, you cannot use it as a fishing expedition because do that if they think they want to sue somebody. And that's fairly, I think, people are saying that's what Drake's doing here. And you have to have an adequate showing that wrongdoing has actually occurred, and you have to show some impact, have come correct with something. You can't just show up looking for stuff from your enemies, as it seems to be.

0:31:53 Thomas: Because I don't know if anyone knows this, Discovery's really horrible, so it would suck to just like inflict that on someone with not good reason.

0:31:58 Matt: It's a mess. Even Spotify.

0:32:03 Thomas: Spotify, show me all the records related to you paying artists fairly? Oh, none. We got done. Zero

0:32:08 Matt: I to talk more about the law around Spotify and just how they do things, their business model, because they don't pay the artists, they pay the rights holders and the publishers. That's part of the problem here, pay the middleman. According to this, I'm going to call it a complaint, but a petition, from what they know of UMG's, this is Universal Music Group, which manages both Drake and Kendrick Lamar incidentally, the theory here is that they are boosting interest in this feud by promoting the song. That's what this suit is coming down to. So Drake is claiming that Spotify paid UMG about $2.2 billion last year, which is 19% of its total revenues from Spotify. That is getting to be quite a lot. The point is that he's basically saying there's reason to believe, because somebody, somebody went on a podcast, some whistleblower, went on a podcast and talked about how he was paid $2,500 to rig the system, basically, to promote this and use bots. And there's also some other people saying, they're apparently credible, that they don't have something they can put in a complaint yet, think that UMG and Aeroscope have conspired with other parties to use bots to inflate the spread of this.

0:33:03 Thomas: My God. It's part of what? The first one? The last one? The what? Like,

0:33:07 Matt: And The last one, the last one is the one that he's really chafed about, because, you know, as anybody would be, because it says he's a pedophile. Like, that's very direct.

0:33:12 Thomas: At point, I mean, it'd be one thing. Look, I know a decent amount about this because of just the internet. And the fact that I know that, and that it's Kendrick Lamar is the guy, isn't he insanely popular and well-regarded by a lot of people? Like, be one thing if it was like some guy no one's ever heard of wrote a diss track and it exploded, and that's weird.

0:33:26 Matt: He's a Pulitzer Prize winner, yeah

0:33:34 Thomas: Why would you think this would need help? Especially the last song. Everyone's already like so into this. I've seen, but that's how much I've been seeing posts and know about it. That's how many people are into it. And you're like, no, it's gotta be, it's rigged. Stop counting. Stop the count. Count the count. It's insane.

0:33:34 Matt: Right yeah right well one thing I thought was very funny, and just, again, the weakness of this, that he has to, in the complaint, he has to acknowledge that it's super popular and everybody loves this song, uh, million streams on Spotify, and to date, uh, it has the record for single biggest day streams of a hip-hop song, which, which is, that's big. That's huge.

0:34:06 Thomas: That, apropos of nothing, if someone asked me, do you think this, this diss track in this thing that everybody's talking about all day, every day?

0:34:14 Matt: Yep.

0:34:14 Thomas: Do you think that would possibly get a lot of listens? I'd be like, yes.

0:34:19 Matt: Going to stop and listen to right then when they hear that there's a new track.

0:34:21 Thomas: This doesn't beg an explanation. What's going on, what's really happening here? Must be someone getting paid twenty five hundred dollars. It's like, what are you talking about, man?

0:34:31 Matt: There's a little more to this though. And I will say, I mean, I don't think this is necessarily going to work out for him with the discovery. I don't, honestly, I'm not a New York lawyer, but I really don't think this is going anywhere. If the claims that he's making are true, there is something to explore here. So what he's talking about is a form of payola, which, again, payola law under the Communications Act of '34, and I want to talk about payola sometime, it's a wonderful topic. It's actually something I know something about, but it only applies to terrestrial radio. So specifically the head, Michael O'Reilly, wrote a letter, which is actually footnoted in this complaint. And I just want to complain very briefly that they footnoted it, but they did not properly link to the document. So I had to find it myself. I don't appreciate it, your footnotes, people.

0:35:08 Thomas: I for sure thought payola was like, like mafia slang for like, ah, get the dough, get the payola. You gotta, what is it? It's an actual term for something.

0:35:13 Matt: It's real. Yeah. It's pay for play without disclosure in the radio industry. So a DJ named Alan Freed that went down, and he and Dick Clark were both doing it, but Dick Clark narked. So he got out of it. Yeah, Dick Clark still alive?

0:35:24 Thomas: Dick Clark. Wow, wow. No,

0:35:27 Matt: Did I just defame him?

0:35:28 Thomas: No. He's been dead for quite a while. He was dead for a while while they still brought him out on New Year's Eve. Like he was, I think the last several of those, he was more than a little dead, yeah

0:35:35 Matt: That's right, that was rough. I remember that. Unfortunate, yeah. Just a note here from the FCC, competing for the same listeners, the U.S. radio industry finds itself subject to payola restrictions when alternative technologies such as streaming, internet radio, podcasts, and other commercial audio distribution platforms do not. This asymmetric treatment, we could.

0:35:53 Thomas: Could we get into this payola bridge hey

0:35:55 Matt: Hey,

0:35:56 Thomas: Does anyone want to pay us all, I don't totally get it, but patreon .com slash law, sure yeah I don't care, I got no skin in this game it's a tough market out there we need every revenue stream we can get folks.

0:35:59 Matt: UMG, if you want to pay us to play Drake's next diss track, we'll do that. Yeah. Point being that payola, platforms, so that's not exactly what he's arguing. He does mention payola in the Communications Act of 1934 because they are also alleging that UMG was paying off some radio stations, which is a very interesting allegation, and that would constitute actual payola and be actionable to play the track. I don't know that that's true, but it's what he's saying, I don't think that was necessary, but that's what he's saying. So, yeah, he's, he's also saying that Apple is in on this because Siri, apparently, when you ask it to play his song Certified Lover Boy, will play the diss track instead, which I think is very funny. Allegedly.

0:36:25 Thomas: Do what? Okay.

0:36:44 Matt: I don't have Siri. You can try that out for yourself, folks. So there's kind of a scattering of claims here, but the main one is about the use of Spotify and the bots, and I'm not aware of a lawsuit like this before, and Spotify does do a form of payola where they will give you, uh, reduction on your royalties in exchange for getting, getting on the discover playlist, and that is a known thing that they do, and I think that sucks because the discover playlists should be for actual new artists that are being organically discovered, um, that's just getting us right back to exactly, that's getting us back to '50s payola where, like, you create bands by doing that um

0:37:04 Thomas: Does suck. Kidding. Ripped off. Yeah. Dick Clark all over again.

0:37:14 Matt: Pretty much, so that is brought under a civil RICO claim, uh fraud mail fraud, right, right, of course, RICO, and of course it would be a conspiracy if that's what he's talking about, if it's really true. Uh, I know, I can see that, uh, it potentially could even be a criminal conspiracy, the Department of Justice, uh, I actually was going to want to talk about this case at some point, but they charged a guy named Michael Smith in North Carolina playing with Spotify, with rigging it to play fake music and make himself a bunch of money. That was charged, I believe, as a, I don't know if it was RICO, but it's certainly a criminal case. Deceptive business practices and false advertising as torts, you know, that would both be true if these allegations were true, but we'll see. As you said, though, overall, the damage here is reputational, I just don't, I don't know why he would launch into this unless there's a really

0:37:18 Thomas: Everything is. Yeah,

0:37:54 Matt: Good chance he's getting something out of it.

0:37:54 Thomas: So bad. Yeah this is just so bad

0:37:57 Matt: It gets worse, though. It gets worse. Oh, yeah. Was at beginning of the week. And then on, yep,

0:37:58 Thomas: Worse you're right that was just the first thing

0:38:03 Matt: On November 25th, he went there. And everybody was asking, why are you suing UMG when you could be suing the guy that's called you a pedophile, for, you know, defamation? He did not do that. He sued UMG again and iHeartMedia. And the theory in this is that they did not properly control the defamation and that they allowed this track to be released which called him a pedophile. Now, uh, the same question, when he put this out, and then I started thinking about it, and from what I know about Drake, it's the kind of door maybe he doesn't want to open, because obviously the best defense to defamation is that he is in fact into underage girls, and, like, you might be familiar with his very strange communications with, uh yes

0:38:33 Thomas: With the girl from Stranger Things, is this what you're gonna say yeah what okay, I remember seeing something about that and was like, that's bizarre he's

0:38:42 Matt: That's weird not normal yeah, he's like, what is, I have to check his age, uh a 38 year old man, he has no business doing that, so well well you don't have any business doing it either, yeah, so

0:38:47 Thomas: Got to be a 40 year old ass man at least, oh that's my age what an old, old sack of crap. Jeez. Crusty. Oh, okay. Yeah. Just delete, delete my messages. What's her name now? He just said, I appreciated her force powers. That's all I said. It's all he said, guys. You can see the message.

0:39:06 Matt: I'm Sure, that's all he said too, sue us. Under basic First Amendment law, which is, he's got a bunch of issues here, starting with the fact that in discovery, Drake would be able to get the messages to prove that there was a reason for him to say that he was into minors, and allegedly not just the Stranger Things woman, but a number of other people he's been communicating with inappropriately. There was one incident, I think, at a show with a fan, it was like an underage fan that he kissed in front of everybody.

0:39:27 Thomas: I feel like you could point to that as a pretty good defense against a defamation claim. Like, Hey, remember that time I saw you do this and everybody saw you do that? Cause you did it in front of everybody. Missed.

0:39:31 Matt: Saying he's into minors. Yeah. You also have to prove the injury, obviously, reputationally, that's like one of the worst things you can say about somebody. So I certainly understand that. But business-wise, it's certainly got a lot more plays for both of them, because you have to listen to the Drake tracks, and he's getting a lot of more publicity.

0:39:50 Thomas: Well, Well, I think defamation – now, I don't want to pretend a lawyer, but having some experience with this kind of thing, there is the category where you don't have to prove damages. And so this is – it would be – I would imagine.

0:39:59 Matt: That'd be that. Yeah, I was just pointing out, yeah, I'm just saying it's not necessarily a business reputation issue here, because yeah.

0:40:05 Thomas: – moral turpitude, right? It's moral turptitude, you don'T have to proof like, oh, IT COST ME $100 WHEN YOU SAID I WAS A PEDOPHILE. Usually, it's just like, no, we get it. The law courts are like, yeah, if someone's not a pedophile, you shouldn't call them a pedophile.

0:40:17 Matt: It's per se, right? It's just automatically per se to say that somebody is into an enjoyment. That is just something that everyone everyone agrees is disgusting.

0:40:24 Thomas: Yet, Elon Musk can do it for no reason to a guy trying to save kids who are stuck in a cave. Doesn't matter. Weirdest thing.

0:40:31 Matt: That's right. That was a defamation suit too. That's right. But the real problem, of course, is that, uh, he is a public figure. So because he's a public figure, no, no question, he's a public figure, one of the most popular artists in the world, because of that, he'd have to prove that Kendrick Lamar did it with actual malice, which doesn't mean that he doesn't like him, 'cause that's pretty clearly true, if it was based on that, I think he'd win on that. He definitely has real malice by the definition of that term, but actual malice is, of course, the knowledge that you have reason to believe it's false, or this reckless disregard for the truth, rather. So, uh, not necessarily reckless disregard if it's out there already yeah

0:41:00 Thomas: And if you, again, if you have anything to point at, like that thing, like, you're saying exists where he did it in front of people. Like, I just can't, I can't imagine this going anywhere. That's just insane.

0:41:10 Matt: No, the weakest possible response to losing a rap battle, to go to court in Texas, like it's just

0:41:16 Thomas: It's the kind of thing that's so weak where you really do, I think you said this, you really do wonder, like, is there something we don't know, because I really think sometimes people who are surrounded with yes men and who are narcissists are just like, well, no one could not like me, so like there must be a conspiracy.

0:41:31 Matt: That's a pretty good description of Drake, I think so yeah

0:41:35 Thomas: And Trump and a bunch of other people are like, no, I don't know Drake at all. Like if he's that kind of guy, that sucks. But like, is that, so did we cover all the things he's trying? So he's not suing Kendrick Lamar for defamation, you're saying he's doing the outlet, kind of the publisher or whatever kind of thing.

0:41:49 Matt: Which is even weaker, yeah

0:41:51 Thomas: Even weaker. And he's also suing about the conspiracy about the thing, or was that still the exploratory thing? Is that a different?

0:41:52 Matt: That's The separate, yeah, this New York case, uh, is just a prelude to whatever else he wants to do yeah

0:42:02 Thomas: So, the behind that is he'll do that and then maybe there would be a suit from that theoretically. Okay, okay, so we don't have that yet.

0:42:08 Matt: Whereas defamation he can already prove because the song came out, so right there, uh

0:42:12 Thomas: This whole thing, that's the actual complaint, is just defamation, is there any other, like, stuff that he's trying to do?

0:42:17 Matt: Nope, this one in Texas is just straight defamation and

0:42:19 Thomas: Wait, Texas? Why is it in Texas?

0:42:21 Matt: Bexar County, Texas is the home of iHeartMedia, which is included with UMG as defendants, so is. It's

0:42:25 Thomas: Is bizarre. So to make sure, because, again, this seems weak as hell. The OA thing that I want, though, is like, hey, are we missing something here? Is there a reason this makes sense, Matt? Or in your lawyer opinion, Matt, is this just boy, this is weak shit that a sore loser is trying to pull? Have an app, okay oh

0:42:44 Matt: Half and half, I think the defamation suit is absolutely that. And I think the defamation was a CYA thing, just so he can say, well, I sued him for defamation because it was so bad what he said about me. Show that he tried to defend his rights, is certainly better than solving it the, uh, the way that it ended with Tupac and Biggie, obviously, uh, going to court certainly, always prefer that. But the first, I think even though that petition isn't really going to get him very much, I think the questions it raises are very interesting, and he clearly believes them, I think. I don't think he would be going into this if he didn't think that UMG was doing things to inflate these numbers, and that Spotify might be in on it, because Spotify claims to punish people that do this and to exclude them from the platform, so, and they would know

0:42:53 Thomas: Yeah, yeah, I the allegation is they're using bots, but then also Spotify is, is named in it, so is the allegation both that someone's using bots but then Spotify is like letting them, or something okay

0:43:30 Matt: Because they would have to know, like, these numbers, they'd see when bots are being used, I can't think they're that clever. So

0:43:35 Thomas: This is stupid, this, this thing is, okay it's not saying you think that's necessarily true, you're just saying if true, oh

0:43:37 Matt: It is. If true, because if that is something that could be proven, that really is an important thing for consumers to know and could have implications for the industry. And I've heard things like this before. I just don't think it's ever been litigated. So we'll find out.

0:43:56 Thomas: One funny tweet I did see, although I won't say it's a tweet, it was probably a skeet, or it was on Reddit, because I don't go on Twitter really anymore, get off of Twitter, go on Bluesky, we're there, uh, like, hey, um, everyone can find the details of Drake's, like, complaint, but nobody could find Harris's, Kamala's, policies, so, like, hey, let's maybe resort our priorities here a little bit because everybody seems real Real able to track down the details of this, but, you know, what are you going to do?

0:44:15 Matt: It's true. Well, Welcome new listeners who wanted to tune in for this, appreciate it, uh it's time it's time for some more music law this is guitar law actually just for you so I'm gonna send you something here and I don't want to spoil it but I think this might be your christmas present take a look at that link see

0:44:27 Thomas: Now, a footnote fetish, we need, I need it because, because I don't get a real Thanksgiving. Thank you. Hey. Ooh, guitar law, huh? Surprise. It's a virus. Sorry, my God. Trump guitars. Come on. Trump guitars, his garish gold bullshit color scheme on the website, get a Trump guitar. This is, this looks like the, a, what's the name of this? That classic, what's-his-face, uh, guitar. I'm Les Paul. That's it. Yeah, the Gibson, Les Paul, whatever.

0:45:02 Matt: I the les paul That's right.

0:45:05 Thomas: They're for $1,500, it's not an insane price for an electric guitar, unless it's like really badly made knockoff bullshit, oh okay oh for

0:45:12 Matt: Over to the American Eagle series, and you'll find that for $10 ,250, you can get something that also looks like a Gibson signed by the president.

0:45:19 Thomas: American eagle oh it's a wait sold out, I can't get it anymore, damn it, why did you, go, huh, you send me this thing only to take it away, Matt, uh wow the American eagle, there's an acoustic version which, I would throw that guitar in the trash if I saw, like, I'm, I don't even care how much it's worth, I'm a guitar player, if I saw a guitar with an eagle and American flag on it with Make America Great Again I would throw it away. Right, I would, no, I don't want someone to pick it up and start using it, I would actively destroy it, I don't want to, throw it into Mount Doom, this is disgusting, this

0:45:21 Matt: So, yeah. Wow, Christmas is coming quick here for a lot of people. Yeah, I just want point out, just so people know what we're looking at, the

0:45:55 Thomas: Machine is autographed by fascists, yeah

0:45:57 Matt: That's great. Perfect. There you go. America Great Again is written in giant letters down the neck, like all the way down. So is what we're looking at. But the electric is the thing I sent you first because I was interested to hear your reaction. And your reaction could be put into an affidavit in the lawsuit that might be filed over this. Because a guitar player looked at those pictures and said, hey, isn't that a Les Paul? And, wow, this is golden.

0:46:19 Thomas: It's not, oh, I actually assumed it was like it was some sort of bullshit partnership, you're saying it's, oh god, no

0:46:26 Matt: Got to send this entire podcast to Gibson.

0:46:28 Thomas: I knew nothing about this, I saw those guitars, and I play guitar, I'm not a good name brand of stuff guy, like, you know, I feel like there tends to be kind of different kinds of people when it comes to hobbies, there'll be people who know everything about every maker of every brand of whatever and then there's me who, I just play guitar, like I don't spend a lot of time thinking about who made stuff because I just want to play it, I like the music part of it, nothing wrong with, no judgment on either side of that. I'm, I, right, right when I saw that, I was like, oh, it's a Gibson Les Paul, I just couldn't think of the name right away, but it was like, that's definitely it, and oh my god, that's so funny.

0:46:56 Matt: Says everything. Yep. Because, no,

0:46:59 Thomas: We did not plan this.

0:47:00 Matt: I was really hoping that was the reaction you would have, because I had the same reaction. I mean, it's an incredibly distinctive shape for a guitar.

0:47:05 Thomas: Yeah, you can't just take a legal question, man. Can you just steal a thing, a very famous design?

0:47:14 Matt: You might remember that Apple sued Samsung because of the shape of the phone. I don't know if you're familiar with this.

0:47:19 Matt: It's one of the longest patent suits, I think the most expensive in history.

0:47:22 Thomas: My god. That sounds dumb though, right?

0:47:23 Matt: I don't know. I mean, it went to a jury. It was pretty serious.

0:47:25 Thomas: Wasn't that the one? Oh, okay. Wasn't it the case? There's one one where it's like, hey, if it's related to the function so clearly that like it's just a phone shaped thing. Maybe that's not that one. But I do remember there was something like that where I was like, yeah, it's too related to The Function of the Thing. This is not that. This is you copying a very famous guitar.

0:47:33 Matt: It has be shaped that way. In Samsung, in that case, it was a thin rectangular cuboid with with rounded corners, which like, how

0:47:46 Thomas: Come on. Am a thin rectangular cuboid with rounded corners.

0:47:51 Matt: But this, as you said, is This is just like straight out of the factory. Know who else who thought that was Gibson Guitars, the makers of the Les Paul, and they sent a letter to 16 Creative. Now, what I think is very interesting about this, the website you're looking at is owned by a company called 16 Creative, which is not, in fact a guitar manufacturer 16 creative is a branding agency so they just sic things on other things, which is trump's business model

0:48:15 Thomas: What are God. And that's what Trump already does. So you're like double bullshitting. Yeah. It's like, well, it's like now we're a company that will arrange people who don't do anything to sign their names. Okay.

0:48:21 Matt: Still doing it that's right yeah Exactly, so

0:48:29 Thomas: So many levels, of inshittification here.

0:48:31 Matt: That raises the question, uh, where the hell are these guitars coming from, I, so that is a question on the FAQ, and I think there's only one answer to this that comes out clearly, all of the guitars featured on GetTrumpGuitars.com were custom designed and developed, very important there, designed and developed by a veteran-owned company with the help of a master luthier. Guitars have been manufactured by multiple providers and include parts slash features that are both domestic and international. This is standard with most guitar manufacturers. So this is made in China, is what they're saying. It's got to be made in china. These are, I mean, it's $1 ,500 for a Les Paul knockoff with Trump's name on it and made it make America great. And I just had the greatest time thinking about this because obviously we all know that that 25 % tariffs are coming.

0:49:13 Matt: So he's going to, you the price of his own guitars, apparently.

0:49:17 Thomas: He probably barely knows about.

0:49:19 Matt: You know, Gibson is very serious about this because they previously sued Dean Guitars for similar infringement, things like, like the, what do you call the thing where the strings go at the top of the neck?

0:49:28 Thomas: The headstock?

0:49:29 Matt: The headstock.

0:49:29 Thomas: Headstock.

0:49:30 Matt: That's right. The shape of the head stock. Yeah, and the Flying V, they had things that were pretty close to that. Was a very long lawsuit, and they did it for the love of the game, because after three years, they got $4 ,000 in damages. They were seeking $14 million, but the jury thought that was the statutory award they should get.

0:49:44 Matt: But they made the point, and then they got to say that Dean ripped them off. It was later vacated for other reasons, but point is that Gibson aggressively goes after its stuff, to to the point that actually this week, the other guitar law -related news was just this week seized the largest number of fake musical instruments ever discovered in history weird historical thing but that included a lot of gibson knockoffs so gibson actively helped in that seizure um million dollars worth of fake guitarists were seized this week so you know don't knock off gibson guitars they're a very venerable uh good guitar company like 130 years old uh guitarist .com is going to have have to stop doing this. I mean, it's just so obviously a lawsuit.

0:50:18 Thomas: You would think, but it's here it is still

0:50:20 Matt: I don't understand that nobody told them you can't just copy a Les Paul and put it online with Trump's name on it, but they're a branding agency, so maybe they don't have the best...

0:50:20 Thomas: Up. Is this for? I don't. Who is this for, man? It's like you have a hard enough time finding musicians to play. Like you got Lee Greenwood and that's it. And like a couple of Kid Rock. He doesn't play the guitar. He pretends. I guess he could hold this while he pretends, but like, what, I mean, come on, who is this, you think there's a lot of, like, budding amateur artists out there who are like big Trumpers? I don't understand, it must just be either money, for, you know, slash, just people with money who are really mad who want to virtue, vice signal, you know that they support trump because this is this is some bullcrap

0:50:59 Matt: Guess if you have money to burn, you can just buy one to smash it, but then you're still just buying a Trump guitar. So yeah, don't do that. And a cease and desist.

0:51:05 Thomas: Sorry, what's the status of that, did they file something, do they complain, or are you just anticipating it oh

0:51:09 Matt: I'm just saying, if they actually keep selling these guitars, I'm certain that they can't win this. I mean, this is just like, the that a guitar player would look at that and immediately say that's a Les Paul says a lot.

0:51:10 Thomas: Cease and desist okay of yeah 100 All right, right, Matt, well, gobble gobble everybody, I don't know when you're getting this, but hope, uh, you had a good Thanksgiving, probably better than mine, but cheered me up, appreciate it, Matt, so thankful for you, so thankful for the audience, and the patrons here's fun, everybody.

0:51:29 Matt: You all. Too. You got it.

0:51:34 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.