The Thursday Night Massacre, Part 2

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. This is episode 1127. I'm your host Thomas Smith, and if you are a patron, today's episode is just T3BE because you already got that part two early. If you're a non -patron, here is part two of the Thursday Night Massacre of Opening Arguments. So much good stuff here. And then, of course, we'll have T3BE and have Lydia joining for the shout outs and all the usual stuff. So we're going to take that quick break and get right on over to part two

0:01:31 Matt: Is February 13th, 2025. And this is a letter in response to a letter that was not received by Emil Beauvais, that was received by Pam Bondi. So he's responding to a word that was addressed to him. Always a good tactic. And this letter is really something. This the memo several times over, I have to say.

0:01:47 Liz: I want to note at the top, it says the Danielle Sassoon one, it said via email, the thing that she sent to Pam and Bondi, this says via email and hand delivery.

0:01:56 Liz: And I just, I would really love to know the hand interaction delivery that was, that came associated with this, but I I'll suspect see if I can have any moles, but I don't have any anecdotes right now.

0:01:56 Thomas: And hand delivery. Slavery it's very interesting I

0:02:06 Matt: It'll be a good scene in the movie.

0:02:07 Thomas: It's disturbing, I'm gonna say something obvious, I find it disturbing how easily these people slipped into fascism mode like I really you know like I would have at least I get it I get trump the administration they're all fascists I get it we got a lot but it's disturbing how many of them are like oh I'll join up instant fascist like they've been practicing or something like what I I

0:02:28 Matt: Well, especially Emile Beauvais, because he's been working with Trump for over a year now. He defended him all the way through the People v. New York case, I believe. A lot of partners with Todd Blanche. He's had lots of close personal time with Donald Trump. And clearly, he was doing all of that, expecting this job, and this is what he's doing in this job. And if this one person, Emile beauvais, would decide to have a conscience and realize that he's completely making himself one of the greatest legal villains in U.S. history, then this whole thing would be a lot harder to get done. They'd probably find some other shithead to do it, but yeah.

0:02:58 Thomas: Was gonna say it's just another in this in a long line of resignations, man.

0:03:00 Matt: But mean, this is, he is at this point, I have to think, criminal and ethical liabilities. And I have to say that if we don't take real steps, you know, we'll be talking to the 65 Project pretty soon, which is just working to file bar discipline against people who do things like this in the advance of authoritarianism. And this is exactly why we do it.

0:03:20 Thomas: Should immediately be disbarred. Like that's the bar.

0:03:22 Matt: An example.

0:03:23 Thomas: The bar needs to step up and actually do things that matter.

0:03:23 Liz: I mean, absolutely. Absolutely.

0:03:26 Matt: It's in writing right here. We can all read it. And especially after reading this, you're going to think that because this is something else.

0:03:32 Thomas: As you say, I mean, that hand delivery got my eye too. All right. Ms. Sassoon, in response to your refusal to comply with my instruction to dismiss the prosecution of Mayor Eric Adams, I write to notify you of the following. First, your resignation is accepted. This decision is based on your choice to continue pursuing a politically motivated prosecution despite an express instruction to dismiss the case. You lost sight of the oath that you took when you started at the Department of Justice by suggesting that you retain discretion to interpret the Constitution in a manner inconsistent with the policies of a democratically elected president and Senate-confirmed attorney general. What?

0:04:13 Matt: Yeah, like, who put you in this position is his question. But it's just the idea, though, that the oath was to do anything resembling this. And she didn't even really cite the Constitution. She was citing a bunch of case law and ethics.

0:04:25 Thomas: Actually, I don't remember the Constitution at all in that letter that we just read.

0:04:27 Matt: It didn't really come up. Didn't need to.

0:04:29 Thomas: Wow. Plus the idea that like, no, you don't have any discretion to question orders. That's all you do is take orders. That's it. That can't be how this works. Second, you indicated that the prosecution team is aware of your communications with the Justice Department, expressly supportive of your approach and is unwilling to comply with the order to dismiss the case. Accordingly, the AUSAs principally responsible for this case are being placed on off-duty administrative leave pending investigations by the Office of the Attorney General and the Office of professional responsibility, both of which will evaluate your conduct. At the conclusion of these investigations, the Attorney General will determine whether termination or some other action is appropriate. Assume

0:05:08 Liz: Just incredibly messed up.

0:05:09 Matt: Yeah, this is, I mean, I just have to summarize the footnote. We don't have to read the footnotes, but when he drops a footnote to administrative leave and says they're going to be in effect until further notice, but they are completely off of other cases. They can't touch government -issued equipment. They can't log in. And, you know, they have to respond to management like you very much. So this is just because you refuse to do something that's so clearly illegal and unethical, You're going to be investigated.

0:05:32 Liz: I mean, mean they, oh, literally took away their login credentials, right? Like just on the basis of something that she, I mean it's really something. I means that goes back to kind of what you were saying Thomas is like, well, what if like people kind of say they're going to do something and then kind of dilly dally? I mean also the approaches, these individuals haven't even said anything, to the extent that she implied that in her previous memo. But Beauvais' response is, fine, card doesn't work. You can't log in. Get F out of here.

0:05:58 Matt: Yeah.

0:05:58 Thomas: Is, this is insane.

0:05:59 Matt: And footnote two, I just want to mention, is citing the president's ending the weaponization of federal government memo. And this thing is just going to keep getting thrown around as a fascist tool. That's exactly what it is.

0:06:07 Liz: Well, they don't have anything else. They don't Have any real Department of Justice document to support anything that they're doing. Exactly.

0:06:17 Matt: I just don't say it's chilling because the investigation by the office of the attorney general will be conducted pursuant to this executive order and nothing else. Like that is okay yeah

0:06:28 Liz: I mean, exactly. I mean, it's it's insane, right? I mean what he's saying is you, now going to investigate these people. Like he is threatening, he's don't follow what we're going to do. We're going to terminate you. We're going to investigate you and maybe even bring charges against you. I mean, this is, uh, this is, I, I'm like, my voice is kind of breaking here because this is the nightmare of an autocratic or government that, once again, is not acting based on the rule of law, but is ruling by law.

0:06:56 Matt: Yeah, you can't alarm this hard enough like this is how many I don't know how many alarms is the most but it's a lot watch

0:07:00 Thomas: This istrickin, yeah. Based on attendance at our recent meetings, I understand the relevant AUSAs to be Hagen Scotten, oh Derek, watch this Hagen, yeah, and Derek Wickstrom, if either of these AUSAs wish to comply with my directive but was prohibited from doing so by you or the management of your office, or if these AUSA's wish to make me aware of other mitigating considerations they believe are relevant, they can contact my office directly. This fucking guy.

0:07:09 Matt: This space feel

0:07:33 Thomas: The Justice Management Division and EOUSA have taken steps to remove access to electronic devices, and I ask that you and the AUSAs cooperate with those efforts and preserve all electronic and hard copy records relating to this matter, whether they are stored on official or personal devices. Third, under your leadership, the office has demonstrated itself to be incapable of fairly and impartially reviewing the circumstances of this prosecution. Therefore, the prosecution of Mayor Adams is transferred to the Justice Department, which will file a motion to dismiss the charges pursuant to Rule 48 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. My prior directive regarding no further targeting of Mayor Adams or additional investigative steps related to this matter remains in place. So how does this work?

0:07:32 Matt: Free to snitch

0:08:23 Liz: Think it's helpful to kind of situate where we are sort of procedurally, right? So this prosecution was brought by the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York, that office, right. And, you know, we have the circumstance where SDNY, the U.S. Attorney Danielle Sassoon has refused Beauvais' directive. It appears that prosecuting the case also will be refusing Beauvais's directive. And so what he has said is, fine, you don't want to do what I want you to do. I am taking this prosecution and bringing it over to Main Justice, Main Justice being Washington, D.C., where he goes into the Department of Justice building. And someone from there will file the Rule 48 motion for dismissal.

0:09:06 Thomas: Can he do that? How does that work?

0:09:09 Liz: The yeah, you can do that. You can do that. We need to have someone who's... I mean, the docket entries are kind of interesting. We can talk about those in a bit. But what admitted in New York to kind of go onto the doocket.

0:09:18 Thomas: That's what I was thinking. Again, like a different lawyer can't just like take over right away with no, right?

0:09:23 Liz: Well, what you can do is what we see happen, which is you file a notice of appearance on the docket and you say, I'm so -and -so. And you do have to be admitted in New York and specifically admitted in the Southern District of New York. I realize sometimes we use these terms interchangeably, but like there's this sort of prosecutor for SDNY and then there's the court for SD NY, but you need to be admitted in SDNY, which I actually am, for example, which is just like you, you are like a New York lawyer that has filed the, you know, requisite things. And so Emile Beauvais himself is admitted in SD NY. We'll talk about that too, because he files a notice of appearance. But yeah, they're grabbing the prosecution. They're taking it from the prosecutor for SDNY, bringing it over to Maine Justice. And someone from Maine Justice who's admitted in SDNY who can file this thing is going to be filing it. And so that's what he's saying. And the other thing this also means to me is it's worth noting that the best person that Donald Trump had in SDNY to appoint as interim US attorney was Danielle Sasson. That That was the best person they could find. Like, obviously they did some search around of the 200 US attorneys there and they were trying to figure out who was sufficiently senior and who had the best conservative credentials and who was most likely to do what Donald Trump said or what Emile Beauvais said or what Pam Bondi said. And that was Danielle Sassoon. And they totally struck out on that one and they don't have anyone else. I mean, I really believe that. Like, it's that sovereign of an office.

0:10:48 Matt: Oh, I was going to say this, this can't have ever happened before, like this exact series of things where an entire, especially SDNY, but an entire U.S. attorney's office refuses to take an order from justice so they take the case back I understand taking the case like that makes some sense in some cases but this is really when you put it that way that's

0:11:03 Thomas: So he has a, you know, restatement of the background, according to him, which I'm sure is insane. But for skip to the end of that where he catches us up to present time. You might wonder so we you know the freeze frame and then you have not complied with the clear directives in my February 10th insane fascist memorandum, further, that was me, sorry, further, you made clear that you did not intend to do so during telephone calls with myself and Chad Mizelle, the attorney general's, it's just me, by the way, you just say with me, you don't say with myself, I don't, it just bothers me, forever everybody does that and I think they're being more official. With myself. Yeah.

0:11:40 Liz: Also like of course that person's named Chad. Sorry for

0:11:43 Thomas: As well as in written submission to the attorney general that day.

0:11:47 Liz: All the Chads.

0:11:48 Thomas: Yeah, there are good chads out there, I'm sure. You also stated that the prosecution team had reviewed your letter to the Attorney General and that they would not file a motion to dismiss the case. At approximately 1:50 p.m. today, you tendered your resignation via email.

0:11:49 Liz: It is what it is.

0:12:03 Thomas: Discussion. Like, I can do headings as well.

0:12:05 Liz: He's like, yeah, he's very proud that he's done some headings. And I it that way. Let's put it that way.

0:12:08 Thomas: Discussion. No, it doesn't make

0:12:10 Liz: It's better to put an argument rather than like

0:12:10 Thomas: Sense.

0:12:14 Matt: This is not a discussion that we're having I

0:12:15 Thomas: I was going to say, well, fascist though, an argument would be like he has something to prove. These fascists are always just right. They don't have to argue anything. The weaponization finding in my February 10th memorandum was made pursuant to a policy set forth by President Trump, who is the only elected official in the executive branch in connection with a decision that was authorized by the Senate -confirmed Attorney General of the United States, and entirely consistent with guidance issued by the Attorney General shortly after that confirmation. Your office has no authority to contest the weaponization finding or the second independent basis requiring dismissal set forth in my memorandum. The Justice Department will not tolerate the insubordination and apparent misconduct reflected in the approach that you and your office have taken in this manner. Her.

0:12:58 Matt: Just want to repeat the phrase weaponization finding, that he made a formal finding of weaponization based on this stupid thing that Trump signed on January 20th, I mean, that's just a thing now, apparently, it's not great let's

0:13:11 Liz: It'S It'S not a thing.

0:13:09 Thomas: Yeah, that's not a thing. Oh, and so there's a footnote relating to the note taking thing. Footnote So three, you correctly noted in your letter to the attorney general that during the second meeting, I questioned why a member of the prosecution team appeared to have been brought for for the sole purpose of transcribing our discussion. You failed to note, however, that I made those comments in the context of a conversation about leaks relating to our deliberations.

0:13:34 Matt: I did tell you not to take notes uh

0:13:35 Thomas: What?

0:13:37 Liz: Me, this blew my mind as someone in those meetings in the past. I mean first off, didn't bring a member of the prosecution team solely for transcribing. They brought a member Of the prosecution because they were a member The prosecution team, okay? And then incidentally, they kind of probably went in and said, who's going to transcribe? Who's going to do our little memo of this meeting? Because that's what you do when you have meetings. Lawyers, we're just like, we are memo creators. We go to meetings, we write, do write -ups. And And then you failed to notice that, note that I made those comments in the context of a conversation about leaks relating to our deliberations. I mean, whatever.

0:14:12 Liz: I just, it's not better. And also the other thing is, any I sort of leaks are not, they're not leaking departmental memos. They're leaking sort of like, yeah, you know, there's, there're pressure from Beauvais to dismiss the prosecution in a quid pro quo.

0:14:12 Thomas: That's not better. Yeah. You took my pen. I can't leak now. It's like you could also just leak what you remember from the meeting. I mean, this is just silly.

0:14:25 Liz: It just, It's just so absurd. Mean speaking of pretextual, no, it they, he didn't want. Notes being also taken because what they were doing was engaging in an illegal, in my view, an illegal conversation, making promises that are not permitted under law.

0:14:43 Matt: Note how lawyerly this footnote is, he does not deny that he demanded that nobody take notes, he's like, oh, so that thing you said about the prosecutor who was sitting in, like, it's just, it's very, very indirect, and he confirms, of course, that he did tell her not to take notes by saying, remember what I told you about leaks. It's all in there.

0:14:58 Thomas: Improper weaponization and heading A. You are well aware of the department's weaponization concerns regarding the handling of the investigation and prosecution of Mayor Adams. Those concerns include behavior that supports at a minimum unacceptable appearances of impropriety and the politicization of your office. The investigation was accelerated after Mayor Adams publicly criticized President Biden's failed immigration policies and led by a former U.S. attorney with deep connections to the former attorney general who oversaw the weaponization of the Justice Department. Deep connections to The Attorney General? That,

0:15:31 Liz: Other thing that's notable is just the comparison of this to what we just read, which is when Danielle Sassoon goes in and explains exactly why this wasn't politicized. She she cites specific things. When I took over this, I saw it began on this date before Damian Williams was appointed, that this there process that was gone through that resists this, this. This Beauvais, these series of sentences, these are just what I would call often in legal terms, conclusory. He is stating conclusions, but he is not actually supporting it with facts.

0:15:59 Thomas: The very idea that's like, no, you don't understand. The in charge had deep connections. To the former Attorney General. General

0:16:05 Matt: He did clerk for Merrick Garland. Guess I that's what they mean. So presumably they were close. Well, he just wants note to note the connection.

0:16:09 Thomas: Well but that why would that matter he

0:16:14 Liz: If you're making up anything, let's just make things up.

0:16:18 Thomas: But right now what they're doing is having the Attorney General order them to do a thing it doesn't matter the connections to the yeah I know but he's saying it needs to be dismissed because the former U.S. Attorney had deep connections to the Attorney General, that doesn't taint anything, is what I'm saying, that doesn't, that wouldn't taint anything any more than this attorney general telling them to do a thing would taint something, why, just saying things that are connected, like, oh, they're connected, that doesn't mean anything, they he's saying like it is the position of I don't know this administration that the previous department of justice was He was, quote unquote, politicized. So this former attorney who was a part of this, although she already noted that it started before he was there, right? But he had deep connections to the former attorney general. What does that even matter? That's like, you're already just saying anything they did was wrong. You don't even need the deep connections part. It's just it's just like trying to make something sound that sinister isn't

0:16:25 Matt: A previous attorney general. Sorry. Purely political. It's just a political statement.

0:17:20 Thomas: Unless I'm misreading it.

0:17:21 Liz: And investigation wasn't led by him, right? That's the whole point. It wasn't. He had very minimal involvement in it. It happened to be under the office that he led, but it was not led by him. The sort of investigation was accelerated after Mayor Adams publicly criticized Biden. It's just, it's an absurd statement. Correlation is not causation. It just, you know, an investigation has an initial stage. They're talking to witnesses, they're making deals, they're figuring out, you're bringing stuff. And then, yes, I mean, as it happened, as a bunch of allegations that they had, that they investigated. They believe that they had sufficient evidence they bring in front of a grand jury. And that's what happens. And then there's an indictment. And then you're trying to figure out if there's going to be a trial, a deal, or whatever. It has nothing to do with the timeline of any sort of criticism that Mayor Adams had. It's an absurd statement. But once again, you're just conclusions making here. And that's what Beauvais is doing. It's nonsense.

0:18:16 Matt: They're litigating this whole thing in public and he's very purposely releasing something public. I think these are just Tucker Carlson talking points. This is just what they can go forward with, you know, from right wing media. I don't just know their purpose here.

0:18:26 Thomas: Wouldn't even elevate it to a Glenn Beck level. Yeah, makes the case, I guess, further here. On my review, in our meetings, the charging decision was rushed as the 2024 presidential election approached. And as the former U .S. attorney appears to have been pursuing potential political appointments in the event Kamala Harris won that election.

0:18:47 Matt: As one does.

0:18:47 Thomas: I'm a Democrat, right? Am I crazy? Like, yes, he, he quote unquote criticized Biden or whatever, but But like, come on, like, whatever.

0:18:50 Liz: Yes, yes. He is a Democrat, although I have to note, everyone, he's definitely making moves to potentially run as a Republican in the New York mayoral election.

0:19:02 Thomas: For sure. Yeah. I don't mean that in a moral sense. I mean, in like literally the letter after his name.

0:19:07 Liz: I just I just, I mean Adams Adams is someone who is out for himself.

0:19:11 Thomas: Yeah. President Trump won the election in late December 2024, the U.S. attorney launched a personal website which closely resembles a campaign website that touts articles about the ongoing prosecution of Mayor Adams with titles such as U.S. Attorney Damian Williams has come for the kings. A mayor, a rapper, a senator, a billionaire. Meet the man who has prosecuted them all. And federal prosecutor Damian William flexes SDNY power against Eric Adams and Sean Combs. The former U .s. attorney increased the appearances of impropriety by releasing an op -ed January 16th entitled, An Indictment of the Sad State of New York Government. In that piece, he disparaged Mayor Adams with the following comment, America's most vital city is being led with a broken ethical compass. The former U.S. attorney also made what I reasonably interpreted as a reference to himself in that piece when he suggested that there was a need for elected officials willing to disrupt the status quo.

0:20:06 Matt: This is so pathetic.

0:20:07 Liz: So pathetic. This is taken directly the Rule 6E sanctions motions that Alex Spiro and company, for Adams, tried to file saying that there was just too much taint and this was politically prosecuted. They try to do this two different times before Beauvais himself orders the case dismissed. But it's totally ridiculous. Sentence in the beginning is a little confusing because it makes it sound like Trump won the election in late December. Not a great writer. But what happened was, you know, he, Damien Williams puts up this website, some sort of personal website, and this is after he has resigned. Okay. So he's not in office then. And it's like, just, just up some news articles.

0:20:45 Liz: That's, it's, it's standard stuff. I mean, if I had any news articles about me, maybe I'd make a personal website. I don't know. It seems fine.

0:20:44 Thomas: Like it's Like if you were interviewing for a job and he's like, well, in the last job, I did prosecute some pretty serious people. Hold on. Call Department of Justice. Impropriety. Drop those prosecutions. He bragged about them in his resume

0:21:02 Matt: And then he went on to write an op-ed in January. Who cares?

0:21:07 Liz: This indictment reflects the sad state of New York government it does facts the

0:21:09 Matt: Fact. Correct.

0:21:10 Thomas: Hey I've got a I've got a thought as a as a non -lawyer if these are such good arguments wouldn't they have maybe succeeded in front of the judge

0:21:19 Matt: You got a point.

0:21:20 Liz: Judge went through and wrote a thorough just you know said absolutely not no move on

0:21:23 Thomas: Assume the judge was like yes this is all great you're free to go eric adams but no that can't be true because we're still here uh did not directly defend the former U.S. attorney's behavior in response to a current defense motion, nor could you. His actions inappropriately politicized and tainted your office's prosecution, potentially permanently. Instead of addressing these concerns with the district court, you simply claimed that these actions were beside the point. Not true. The actions by the former U S attorney implicate the concerns that president Trump raised in executive order 14147.

0:21:56 Liz: I'm just laughing at not true not true and false

0:21:57 Thomas: In connection with the prosecution of an elected official who voiced opposition to the prior administration's policies, the fact that the district court denied the defense motion does not establish that continuing the prosecution of Mayor Adams reflects an appropriate exercise of prosecutorial discretion. Wow.

0:22:17 Matt: Just one guy's opinion.

0:22:19 Thomas: Yeah, that's a weird non sequitur there. Why? What? What? Similarly, the fact that AUSA has convinced a grand jury to return an indictment on a one -sided and inherently partial presentation of the evidence does not establish that the case was appropriate at the time, much less that it would be appropriate to continue to pursue the case based on events that occurred after the true bill was returned. Concerned

0:22:46 Matt: So that's weird, Emil. I thought you said you hadn't looked at the case or the arguments or the facts. Sounds like he's pretty familiar with them.

0:22:52 Liz: Mean but but they were one -sided and inherently partial sort

0:22:55 Matt: He knows that for sure without looking at it. So here we are.

0:22:57 Thomas: Normally prosecutors are really like two -sided when they go get an indictment yeah

0:23:05 Matt: Present both sides.

0:23:06 Liz: Of saying like one - sided and partial but he still got even really giving up that there's was a problem with the case. Also, let me just tell you, by definition, a grand jury indictment is based on one -sided and partial presentation.

0:23:14 Matt: It's true. Yeah?

0:23:21 Thomas: That's what I'm saying yeah

0:23:23 Liz: It's not supposed to be, and I talk to my clients about this all the time as a defense attorney, because they have a right to testify in front of the grand jury. And what I say to them is that it's right, because the presentation of the evidence is basically entirely controlled by the district attorney that's presenting it. They bring in whatever witnesses they want, whatever evidence they want to bring. There's not a lot of rights. And even if you testify as your own defense, I don't get to make any arguments. I don't get to ask any questions. I don't get to knock down anything. Like grand jury presentations are inherently one -sided and partial. They're the domain of the prosecutor.

0:23:55 Liz: That is, that is what they are. The idea of a trial is where everything kind of gets aired and argued over.

0:24:01 Thomas: Matt

0:24:02 Matt: This is pretty funny. If it weren't so sad, you'd be laughing a little more. But I don't I just give a little context on the beginning of this paragraph, though, because you would think from what he's saying that the former U .S. attorney went on some kind of drunken rant on TikTok or something. But he's still talking about the op -ed. I went back and checked. That's what he thinks is, you know, I just want to point that out because it sounds like, you Know, the U. S. Attorney's behavior in response to a recent defense motion, it was to write an op-ed after he'd resigned. Just want to keep that in context.

0:24:27 Thomas: It's all exactly the same as the logic That's why I kind of said it's all the in -universe logic that they need to have. Everything they said in the Trump trial was exactly the same, which you can find on Gavelpod, which is just, hey, these on the other side want to have me convicted, and that means it's unfair. It's like, no, that's just normal.

0:24:49 Liz: I mean, can I just say the world's worst sentence right Justice Department will not ignore the fact that the timing of the charges authorized by a former U .S. attorney with apparent political aspirations interferes with Mayor Adams' ability to run a campaign in the 2025 election. Yes, this Justice Department, this Justice department who cares so much about the pursuit of fair justice, they're not going to ignore that the time of these charges is going to be hard.

0:25:05 Thomas: What timing? Stupid.

0:25:18 Liz: It's They're not going to ignore that. Also, like there's just, this is just such a, it's such a terribly written sentence, but it's so stupid.

0:25:25 Thomas: Yeah. Yeah. It's one of those like classic, like somebody thinks they have a snarky point, but they they're actually there. Well, I hope you know that if it's like just a mess of logic, that's like they just eventually get to the thing they want to think is a good point, but it's not. Episode is brought to you by First Leaf. I love getting to talk about wine. Lydia and I are big fans. For us, it's Cabernet. Not a lie, it's Cabernet Sauvignon. That's, that's our go-to. You've got a different favorite, or maybe don'T know what you're favorite is, First maybe Leaf is perfect for you, because they'll get to know your specific preferences, preferences whether you like white or red or sweet or dry for example and then they'll send you shipment and in every shipment you get to unbox a new selection of bottles that you're guaranteed to love to get started all you have to do is answer a few quick questions about what you like to drink and here's the thing about first leaf it's so easy to control your delivery schedule maybe you're going to be gone maybe you want to skip a shipment maybe maybe you've got like, I don't know, like a gathering coming up or it's a holiday. You get that shipment early. Maybe get a few extra bottles. It's all customizable. Gotten now, I believe three shipments of first leaf. Have enjoyed every bottle. It hasn't lasted long. Told it we what liked, and it hasn't missed yet. Enjoyed it. Our friends have enjoyed it They're now. Batting a thousand for us. But they also told me if I get a bottle that I don't absolutely love, it's not a problem because First Leaf has a 100 % satisfaction guarantee. They'll make it right. They'll fix it. Go ahead and treat yourself with wines from First Leaf. Go to tryfirstleaf.com/opening to sign up and you'll get your first six hand-picked bottles for just $44.95. That's T-R-Y-F-I-R-S-T-L-E-A-F dot com slash opening. Tryfirstleaf.com/opening.

0:27:09 Thomas: Look at the conclusory sentence there. Thus, as a trial was negotiated, Mary Adams was faced with an impossible choice between seeking to defend himself at a pre -election trial in the hopes that he could campaign based on exoneration and taking a reasonable amount of time to review the discovery and prepare his defense at a post-election trial. His acquiescence to the former option does not justify your office's decision.

0:27:33 Liz: My brain has exploded and there are like chunks on the floor. I just, I cannot. I can't. I really cannot.

0:27:39 Thomas: That's in response to her saying he chose the timing of his trial. And this is Beauvais being like, well, he had a possible choice. Yeah.

0:27:44 Liz: Real Sophie's choice over here. Uh -huh.

0:27:48 Matt: Again, under this standard, you could not ever prosecute anybody who might run for office or is running for office.

0:27:52 Thomas: Ever. Yeah. Stupid.

0:27:54 Liz: Absurd.

0:27:54 Thomas: Which is what they want. On again.

0:27:54 Liz: Which, which we know that

0:27:55 Thomas: This all, yeah.

0:27:55 Liz: They're going to start doing now, but it'll be Democrats. Real Democrats.

0:27:58 Thomas: But all of this serves the purpose of rewriting history so that Trump's trial was like illegitimate. You know, it's all kind of in that same vein. So you want me to start in your letter, that one? In

0:28:08 Matt: Yeah, you can just do the paragraph. We don't have to read the quotation, but we can just talk about this.

0:28:11 Thomas: Letter to the attorney general, you made the dubious choice to invoke Justice Scalia. As you are

0:28:15 Matt: Always a dubious choice.

0:28:16 Liz: The dubious choice. Also explain yourself he's snarky here and not even good at it a

0:28:21 Thomas: Aware from your professional experience, Justice Scalia would have fully understood the risks of weaponization and lawfare and

0:28:30 Matt: Is a very famous dissent in Morrison v. Olson Scalia put into the idea of the special council it's just as a quick quote here from Morrison v Olson and he's just trying to throw it back at her that maybe Scalia might actually agree with me because he concerned about weaponization too

0:28:44 Thomas: And because I've defined the opposite of weaponisation as weaponisation he would therefore be so dumb he would fall for my little trick yeah

0:28:52 Liz: Percent

0:28:52 Matt: We're just propping up Antonin Scalia's corpse using it as a puppet back and forth cites another thing from Robert Jackson, just to kind of get back at her for citing the federal prosecutor several different times. It's the name of the publication.

0:29:04 Thomas: Of how the the investigation of Mayor Adams was initiated. By 2024, your office's work on the case was extremely problematic in that regard. This is great. Finally, your suggestion that President Trump should issue a pardon to Mayor Adams. By the way, that wasn't a suggestion. I don't even think it was. I think it Was like the function of that. And it was interesting, Matt, because it seemed like you read it that way. And I didn't understand because I haven't read all this stuff And I don't know if you it that way initially, but I just read that as this thing was so bad with Flynn that he had to pardon him to make it go away. I don'T really think that's her saying he needs, he therefore should pardon Adams or anything. Am I wrong? I don' t know. No,

0:29:12 Liz: Conclusory he's

0:29:19 Matt: It's implied. Think she was saying that was a distinction as to how that ended.

0:29:46 Liz: Trying to to illustrate what kind the of proper proper way to do things are like if you believe that this isn't appropriate then fine down the line what you can do is you know do a pardon I think that was sort of the implication there, but yeah.

0:29:57 Thomas: Sorry. I just really disagree. Cause I, I just think that the function of those, I mean, we can go back, maybe I read it wrong, but like the function of it was here's a comparison. It's the Flynn case and the Flynn case. Yes. We got someone in DOJ who said that it was tainted or something. And so that's a big distinction because here we have nobody who's willing to say that this case is illegitimate. Everyone here says it's legitimate. She goes on to say, even still, that thing was such a mess that Trump issued a pardon to get out of that whole mess. So I thought that was her saying, like, not only it's one of those distinct like not only is this distinct, it also was still really bad, so much so that he had to issue a a pardon. I don't read that as saying, therefore, you should issue a pardon to Mayor Adams. That's not at all how I would read that personally, but we can agree to disagree.

0:30:46 Matt: Was influenced because I'd read this letter and I just sort of internalized that that's how he read it. But

0:30:50 Liz: Read it how Matt did ever slightly, which is to say, she said, no one's expressed any doubts over the guilt, but in Flynn, and ultimately even in that case, because these Rule 48 dismissals are so messy and terrible, President issued a pardon. I think she was just sort of saying that really the the invocation of Rule 48 or any sort of direction to dismiss a case. And like, you if there is an appropriate outlet, it could be a pardon. But also I agree. You know, I don't know, Thomas, you're also convincing me.

0:31:17 Thomas: Can agree to agree. You're the lawyers, so people can take your word for it. But I don' t read it that way. But here, your suggestion that I think this is Beauvais trying to do a little trick here is what I feel like. But

0:31:26 Liz: Would say at best implication, not suggestion.

0:31:29 Thomas: Because he says your suggestion that President Trump should issue a pardon, that's nowhere in there.

0:31:34 Liz: That's nowhere.

0:31:34 Thomas: Should issue a pardon to mayor adams reveals that your office's insubordination is little more than a preference to avoid a duty that you regard as unpleasant and politically inconvenient your oath to uphold the constitution does not permit you to substitute your policy judgment for that of the president or senior leadership of the justice department and you are in no position to suggest that the president exercise his exclusive article to authority to make your job easier.

0:31:35 Matt: Make

0:31:35 Liz: I agree.

0:32:00 Matt: Your job easier.

0:32:01 Thomas: Fuck off, dude.

0:32:01 Liz: I mean, it's so absurd.

0:32:03 Thomas: For all these reasons, dismissal is necessary in the interests of justice. Your refusal to recognize that fact and comply with my directive has only exacerbated the concerns I raised initially. No matter what, it's just, it just keeps getting more and more political. Every time you disobey me, then it's even more tainted.

0:32:03 Liz: That's so observed. Because this oath of office gets referenced a few times. I thought it'd be just worth noting what it actually says. Kind of interesting. A form SF -61, and it's something that you do an affidavit for when you become a U .S. attorney. You say, I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic, that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same, and that I take this obligation freely without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion, and then I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on on which I am about to enter. So it's, it's really this kind of like argument of, as I say, of like who gets to interpret the constitution here. Um, it's very clear from, I think from this oath as I read it, that you, is your own personal sort of discharge of these obligations in good faith, which is why we see that, that kind of back and forth in both of these memos. Um, Beauvais's interpretation is what the oath says is to do what I told you to.

0:33:17 Thomas: Yeah. Yeah. Other words, fascism.

0:33:19 Liz: Yeah. Yeah, not

0:33:22 Thomas: With Mayor Adams' ability to govern. Your objections to the second basis for my memo, blah, blah. That the pending prosecution has unduly restricted Mayor Adams ability to devote full attention and resources to illegal immigration and violence crime are based on exaggerated claims that further illustrate your office's inability to grapple with the problems that this case actually presents. A result of the pending prosecution, Mayor Adams is unable to communicate directly with and candidly with city officials, he is responsible for managing as well as, yeah, what is that?

0:33:55 Liz: True. Sorry. I can't even let you finish that. No, that he, that's not correct.

0:33:59 Matt: Of them are also charged with crimes, right?

0:34:00 Thomas: City

0:34:01 Liz: I mean, the idea is that he can't engage in any sort of candid communications because there's a pending indictment. It's just not right.

0:34:01 Thomas: Officials? Yeah, I don't, how would that work? Weird.

0:34:09 Matt: They're still going to be under indictment, so I don't know what he's trying to say.

0:34:12 Thomas: City officials are? Who's under, who?

0:34:14 Matt: There are a few city officials indicted, right, in this whole thing.

0:34:14 Liz: There are a few. I

0:34:17 Thomas: Oh, it's related to this. Oh, so it's like saying he can't talk because they're all defendants and they're all like criminal defendants together.

0:34:24 Liz: Sense. I mean, what he's going to be saying is that they, he can't talk about any sort of like things with federal officials. Cause he doesn't have like the security clearances or something like that, which is just not true. Can absolutely have conversations with, it's just absurd. Well,

0:34:36 Thomas: Well as federal agencies trying to protect the public from national security threats and violent crime, Mayor Adams has been denied a security clearance that limits his access to details of national security issues in the city he was elected to govern and protect. He cannot speak to federal officials regarding imminent security threats to the city, and he cannot fully cooperate with the federal government in the manner he deems appropriate to keep the city and its residents safe. This situation is unacceptable and directly endangers the lives of millions of New Yorkers. My directive to you reflected a determination by the Justice Department that these public safety risks greatly outweigh any interest you have identified. It is not for local federal officials such as yourself who lack access to all relevant information question these judgments within the Justice Department's chain of command. So this now, we're now at, you cannot prosecute a sitting official at all, no matter what, right?

0:35:29 Matt: The mayor of New York City, as

0:35:31 Liz: Yeah, I means he couldn't do his job then. I mean it's just, it's totally absurd. It's it just absolutely absurd.

0:35:35 Thomas: Well, and the way you know it's absurd is then why are we even talking about the timing of an election? That has nothing the fuck to do with anything. If now the rule is, well, millions will die, die, tie, Liz. If he can't have a security clearance. Well then you can, he can do anything he could just do any crimes

0:35:41 Liz: Listen, I feel a lot safer with Mayor not having a security clearance, okay? That's how I, that's how my conception of public safety. As a longtime representative of York City, best that he not have one.

0:35:56 Matt: A resident of New York City. I will say this is a good point, generally speaking, that it's not great if the mayor of new york city does not have a security clearance and can't talk to intelligence agencies about possible threats to the city. But the response to that is that the mayor should have resigned. He should not be in office. That's what usually happens when somebody's charged with felonies. Federal So, yeah.

0:36:07 Thomas: Resign yeah ah boy I just think anyone like a doctor can commit crime anyone who it's like well lives are at stake I guess you know if you can say you're doing something so important that at least you know a couple human lives are at stake then you know do whatever crimes you want because you know know, we can't inconvenience you. We can't. It's just stupid.

0:36:33 Matt: If you want to kill a few patients along the way, it's your priority.

0:36:35 Thomas: You claim to find my reference to Victor Bout to be alarming, but you have missed the fundamental point. Here we go. OK, I'm excited for this. Presidents frequently make policy decisions that the Justice Department is charged with implementing. In connection with the case against Bout, President Biden made a questionable decision to release the merchant of death from prison. Once that decision was made, it was the responsibility of the department in your office to execute it. Did they also drop the criminal chart? Yeah. Regardless of anyone's personal views of the policy choice, an AUSA from your office filed a motion to assist in effectuating the decision. That was your job here and the job of the AUSAs assigned to the case. You have all violated your oaths by failing to do it. In no valid sense do you uphold the constitution by disobeying direct orders implementing the policy of a duly elected president and anyone romanticizing that behavior does a disservice to the nature of this work and the public's perception of our efforts so

0:37:04 Liz: Absurd. That's

0:37:33 Matt: Romanticizing.

0:37:35 Thomas: Again he's walking right into the comparison that's not a flattering comparison yeah when the president decides to exchange someone all know is a horrible criminal in exchange for something almost a quid pro quo quo, you might say. Your job is to say how high. It's leaning right into it.

0:37:52 Liz: And you, Beauvais, know, coming with the ultimate Valentine's Day spoiler. You're not romanticizing this. This is not romantic.

0:37:59 Thomas: You have also strained unsuccessfully to suggest that some kind of quid pro quo arises from it. You just did it yourself. You just said, when the president quid pros quos, you say how high. But also, you're suggesting a quid quo in the prisoner exchange we're doing with Come on.

0:38:05 Matt: Straining. She said it. Didn't. And Sassoon did not suggest it. He said it directly in a footnote and said what he did.

0:38:21 Thomas: She noted that you said it.

0:38:25 Liz: Emil Beauvais is trying to write well here and he just still sucks. Like, strained comma, unsuccessfully to suggest.

0:38:31 Thomas: Did she successfully strain?

0:38:34 Liz: Like I'm sorry, like strained unsuccessfully to suggest it's, it's a lot of alliteration. I mean, we've got that, but it's really awkward. It's just not correct.

0:38:36 Thomas: You're modifying the wrong word. Yeah, yeah. It would have to be like you strained to suggest, though ultimately unsuccessfully or something like you can't unsuccessfully strain. You're like, oh, I'm trying to strain. Oh, I forgot how to strain I can't do it anymore. Weird. Weird. I tried. You saw me. I try. I couldn't do it.

0:39:00 Matt: You're so bad at straining.

0:39:02 Thomas: I'm perfectly at ease right now. Like I'm, I'm

0:39:03 Liz: My god, I'm gonna I'm going to cry.

0:39:04 Thomas: Trying to strain. I can't even strain to strain though.

0:39:06 Liz: You can't even strain you can even.

0:39:08 Thomas: How am I supposed to make myself strain? That in itself would be straining. Oh man. Is so dumb. This is false. As you acknowledged previously in writing. No, the justice department is charged with keeping people safe across the country. Your office's job is to help keep the city safe, but your actions have endangered it right

0:39:25 Liz: Come on. It

0:39:27 Matt: In writing, he's referring, of course, to his own footnote in the memo in which he cited the thing that she'd probably—I'm guessing that he called her up and said, you're going to write me a letter that says that this was never said at the meeting. That's my best guess. But the way that he cited that in that memo we did note at the time was pretty strange.

0:39:41 Liz: It was so bizarre. As you suggested it isn't quid pro quo, which is probably like she probably said something like, um, Well, you're suggesting isn't quid pro quo? I don't know. I just feel like this is a moment where we needed to know tone, but neither here nor there.

0:39:55 Thomas: But is I mean this is insane this is he's saying accusing me of saying that's a quid pro quo um you acknowledge previously it's not a quid pro quo it's like well then why why is she saying it now it's contradictory you can't you can't say that someone is suggesting that but also as you acknowledge you know it's NOT it's LIKE that's NOTHING that's not A REAL ARGUMENT

0:40:14 Liz: And we've already gone through this, but I think actually her memo does a great job of very clearly articulating the pro, the quo. This for that. How happened. So there was no straining.

0:40:19 Thomas: Yeah. I don't even think she had to strain very much.

0:40:21 Matt: It was a layup. Yeah.

0:40:27 Thomas: It's pretty easy. Hey, Matt with the sports reference. That was perfect. Well done, Matt.

0:40:32 Liz: I know.

0:40:33 Thomas: Have you been reading like a how to make sports references?

0:40:32 Matt: So of the few words I I know. Just living in Boston for 20 years, it's osmosis. It rubs off. He goes on to Section C, Rule 48, Dismissal, to say that you're not correct to say there's no valid basis for dismissal. And he takes issue you with her citations. He doesn't like the case that she cited. You know, he thinks it's whatever else. I wanted to read, this is a real own goal, I think, or I don't know what you call it, but I shouldn't try for any more sports metaphors.

0:40:58 Matt: I did my one. Any judicial discretion conferred by Rule 48a is severely cabined and likely limited to instances of bad faith, which is exactly what she said is going on in her letter. So not the best citation there for you.

0:40:58 Thomas: That might be right.

0:41:10 Liz: So exactly. Good stuff. In

0:41:14 Matt: It's limited to the thing I'm doing yeah well that's

0:41:13 Thomas: Gotcha yeah

0:41:20 Liz: Terms of, of his little citationy thing. So he cites United States versus HSBC bank. And then following that, I'm just being really nitpicky, but we have to know this following that you typically, if you set a case in a good world, you would put like a explanatory parentheses and it just says cleaned up.

0:41:36 Matt: A new thing I've been seeing um like it but it's just to so you don't have to do like three chains of citations I'm

0:41:41 Liz: Why would you, wait, why would you do cleaned up over there?

0:41:44 Matt: Assuming that's probably like citing multiple things maybe that's you know a case coming back to 1935 or something who knows yes

0:41:49 Liz: You, what I would just put his citations omitted. That's like a nice thing. I

0:41:52 Matt: I know cleaned up is really informal I agree it's

0:41:55 Liz: Up is really, it's really ugly. I dunno.

0:41:57 Matt: Appeared in some scotus decisions recently I've noticed again

0:41:59 Thomas: Huh I don't know anything that you're talking about but I'll take both of your words for it

0:42:00 Liz: Cleaned up? Okay.

0:42:05 Matt: Just to wrap this section uh he just says any concerns that you were in your office had about the prospects of a Rule 48 motion were not a valid basis for insubordination, when in fact she was writing a letter saying there is nothing to this and it's bad faith. That is a valid business to object. Okay. Now he's going to talk about the law just a little bit. And I meant to mention this when we talked about this on Wednesday, but he could have just adopted Alex Spiro's theory of why this isn't actually bribery or corruption. He could have, but he's not even trying to make a legal argument. Yeah, no. I mean, that would have been better cover than the stupid political stuff uh he tries to get into a little bit of law right

0:42:30 Thomas: Might have been easier I almost wonder if that was initially some sort of bone he was trying to throw to somebody maybe like after meeting you know yeah

0:42:44 Liz: Think that was part of it. I think, you know, he does have that paragraph of this has nothing to do with you all and the integrity. I don't know. I mean, I think he's just flailing all over the place. But it was an interesting bone that he originally threw and said this had nothing to deal with the actual merits of the case. And I haven't even looked at them.

0:42:58 Matt: But right but it I mean he does it here he's going to adopt spiro's argument basically which I think is

0:43:03 Liz: Which is,

0:43:03 Thomas: Wait no I'm sorry that was dumb uh the point of that is to keep the threat of being able to bring it again so you don't want to say there's no case because then he doesn't have the threat against mayor adams to do yeah okay that's what it was yeah but

0:43:12 Liz: That is true.

0:43:12 Matt: True it's a good point yeah all right you know if you wanted to have a real justification this is the closest thing they have uh it's you know based on the new evolving definitions of bribery under federal law as

0:43:23 Thomas: Now is he going back on that now is what he's doing where he's like

0:43:26 Liz: Well, he's saying, yeah, he says this case turns on factual and legal theories that are, at best, extremely aggressive. And so he goes ahead and he cites McDonald, which obviously kind of collapsed a lot of federal corruption law. But what he ignores here, and I should just note, is the FARA claims, the foreign registration claims are incredibly strong. That is like a very... Any sort of corruption case, federal corruption case is very challenging to bring in light of the last several years of Supreme Court decisions on that, honestly, cases that preceded Trump. But the far, the foreign registration issues where, you know, you're acting at behest of a government without being a properly registered foreign agent, that's a much stronger case. And he just totally ignores that.

0:44:09 Thomas: He does risk undermining the whole deal that he wants to you know it's like there is a reason he weren't just pardoning him or they weren't saying the case was bad it was because they want to have that constant threat but But anything he writes here, I would think now I assume that Adams could use. Right. I mean, couldn't he?

0:44:24 Matt: That's a good point.

0:44:25 Thomas: Yeah. So that's going to be ammunition.

0:44:26 Matt: Saying, I have concerns, this entire section has concerns about the case. Then we've got questionable behavior, if you want to read that paragraph.

0:44:31 Thomas: There is also questionable behavior reflected in certain of the prosecution team's decisions, which will be addressed in the forthcoming investigations. Wow. Witnesses in the case do not appear to have been treated in a manner that is consistent with your claims about the seriousness of your allegations against Mayor Adams. It is my understanding that around the time the charges were filed, the prosecution team made representations to defense counsel regarding Mayor Adams' status in the investigation that are inconsistent with the Justice Manual's definitions of target and subject. In the same period, despite having already started to draft a prosecution memo proposing to charge Mayor Adams, the persecution team invited Mayor Adams to a proffer, in effect baiting him to make unprotected statements after the line prosecutors had already decided to try to move forward with the case. What?

0:45:19 Liz: Okay. So my head exploded on this one and I know it already exploded. So like I had to, but no, no, so let me just, let me Just so I grew another head to explode. So in the same period, despite having already started to draft a memo, they invited him to a proffer. So let me tell you you guys what a proffer is. Okay. Um, as we all may know, and it came up in the Menendez case, but like, let me tell you, cause I've been, I'm sorry. I I've done like a hundred proffers in my life. Maybe Maybe, fewer. All right. Between 50 and a hundred. It's also known as a queen for a day.

0:45:24 Thomas: You grew another head to explode. Yeah. Matt, listen up. Sorry. Yeah.

0:45:47 Liz: Um. And the idea of this is that you actually sign a document saying that none of the statements that you make can be used against you. So to say that baiting him to make unprotected statements is actually just a lie. And any federal criminal lawyer would tell you that. Is Um, just, I don't know, there's just so much nonsense here.

0:46:03 Thomas: It's the, they are protected statements, I would think. Right. Cause if it is the queen for a day thing.

0:46:06 Liz: That's the, you, you sign, it a queen for a day. You get to sign an agreement saying you can say whatever you want and they can't hold it against you. They,

0:46:13 Thomas: So when I read this just now, I was thinking, Oh, that like literally, cause I remember that queen for day thing, cause it's, it's a good name. It'S a memorable name. I thought, Oh they must've done something other than that but are you saying no they just did that and right

0:46:26 Liz: Listen, any time that you're doing a federal prosecution, um, not any time, but many times when you're a federal prosecutor, you're looking at all the relevant witnesses and individuals and like oftentimes you propose someone to come in and do a proffer, to do do a queen for a day. Normally do a quid pro quo, but you imply heavily that if someone's willing to be cooperative and tell them about what they know and their role and their responsibility, maybe they won't be charged. I mean, there was a big investigation I was involved with a while ago, and many of the individuals associated with the bank that was being investigated came in for proffers, and any of them were not charged. Not just because they came in proffered, but they sort of explained their own role in that and that sort of thing. Now,

0:47:04 Thomas: You're trying to get the bigger fish essentially is that it

0:47:06 Liz: I mean, it's for the department to help understand what's going on there. But here's the thing. You there's probably almost no benefit in Adams going in for a proffer in this instance. And if I were Alex Spiro, I wouldn't have advised him to because he's really, really guilty, right?

0:47:19 Thomas: That's what I was thinking yeah

0:47:23 Liz: And he's the big kahuna. So it's not like sometimes you want to have your client go in for an offer if they're really, real guilty, if they can kind of point things further up and say, well, actually, you know, the CEO directed me to do this sort of stuff, right? You know, that's how you can kind of negotiate that. Or you want to go into a proffer because you had nothing to do with any of this nonsense and you just want to explain to the department so they don't charge you. Neither apply to Adams.

0:47:45 Matt: Also, I'm sorry, am I just insanely stupid here? Isn't it completely normal to think about how you might charge the guy that you're offering to come in for a proffer? They're saying that that's unorthodox. I mean, the U.S. attorney for the Southern District of New York didn't sit down and outline how they might be able to charge him?

0:47:56 Thomas: Well yeah actually yeah wouldn't that be a part of it to be able to say hey we could charge you with this you son of a bitch so start talking I know you're wearing that little crown and we made you queen for a day and gave you a wand like like my daughter phoebe was having her birthday party which they should do I really hope they do do that I would started

0:48:13 Liz: Absolutely. It's just not, it's just nonsense. Like total nonsense.

0:48:06 Matt: Be weird not to. But despite having already started to draft the memo, I mean, that's such a weird thing to say.

0:48:21 Thomas: To draft a memo you like a start you

0:48:23 Liz: It's so weird. What, what you're, you're going, why are you going into my drafts, Emile Beauvais?

0:48:26 Thomas: Started to strain to maybe kind of tie yeah it's Like come on man this is nothing I final paragraph I take no pleasure in imposing these I disagree piece

0:48:35 Matt: Yeah.

0:48:35 Liz: Shut up.

0:48:36 Matt: He's having a good time.

0:48:36 Thomas: Of shit

0:48:36 Liz: This man is, I mean, this might be the only thing he takes pleasure in, which is uncomfortable.

0:48:39 Thomas: I take No pleasure in Imposing these measures initiate investigations and requiring personnel from the Justice Department to come to your district to do work that your team should have done and was required to do. In this instance, however, that is what is necessary to continue the process of reconciliation and restoration of the Department of Justice's core values, as the Attorney General explained on February 5th, 2025. Respectfully, and then all all that. Okay.

0:49:07 Liz: Yeah. And then CeCe Matthew Podolsky, he's the new interim head of SDNY. He was the person who was right below Danielle Sassoon. And dann by hand delivery to Hagen Scott and Derek Wickstrom, the other two prosecutors, which again, I would love to actually know what that looks like. But For the movies.

0:49:27 Thomas: Yeah. Jeez. Show is brought to you by Trade Coffee. You're like me, you've got a very specific routine. Routine. Got my routines because I can't remember anything. So I have to do everything the same way. Otherwise I'll forget to do it. Thing I never forget is coffee. That is one thing I don't actually need a routine. Now that I think about it, I do have a routine for it. I probably don't need it because I will always find a way to have my coffee because it's so important to me. I got to ask, if you are someone who is not making incredible coffee in your own home, I am about why, because, hey, things are expensive right now and getting that coffee at the local coffee shop is like, it's getting to be double digits, the amount of money that's costing. Aren't making your coffee at home, maybe I can help you. Trade Coffee is the number one US specialty coffee marketplace, you fresh coffee from over 50 of the country's top roasters. Take their quiz, and in under a minute, they'll match you with the perfect coffee. If that first bag isn't quite right, problem. They'll replace it for free until they get it right. Every bag is roasted to order. You'll taste and you'll smell, that's the most important part, you'll smell that difference from your very first cup. Took the trade coffee quiz. Nailed it. Like darker roast. Might Like something different? Well, that's what The Quiz is for, go try it. Tell you how. Now, right now, Trade is exclusively offering our 40 %off your firstorder at drinktrade .com slash OA. That's drinktrades .com for 40 % Off your first Order. More time, drinktraded .com.

0:50:58 Matt: So I want to point out that in 2017, after Jeff Sessions recused himself from the Russia investigation, Donald Trump asked the room loudly, where is my Roy Cohn? And I think eight years later, he has found his Roy Cahn. He has found a guy who is willing to do anything for him, but Emil Bovia especially.

0:51:10 Thomas: Yeah, but a lot of them.

0:51:15 Matt: I mean, this is like you, you're sure, but she hasn't gotten involved in this. And Bovia's really taken the lead.

0:51:14 Liz: Anything. I don't

0:51:16 Thomas: Well, Pam Bondi is just as much that too, right? I mean,

0:51:24 Liz: It's not like Emile Bove is some legal genius, but I don' t know if she's smart enough to even do this stuff.

0:51:27 Thomas: He'll

0:51:29 Matt: It would also be overkill to actually have the attorney general write this. I mean this is the kind of thing a deputy is supposed to do. But it's come back from this. I just have to say that. Like he should be disbarred. He should be charged with a crime. And he should not have any professional or personal redemption after having done this and having bullied these prosecutors into filing.

0:51:44 Thomas: Be on Dancing with the Stars, uh, and hosting SNL. Yeah fucking Stupid.

0:51:47 Matt: Masked singer or whatever. Yeah, yeah. No, but I'm just going to say it, that if society and legal society and professional life doesn't rise up as one and say that you can't do this, don't know that we come back from it. Sorry to say.

0:51:59 Thomas: Yeah, huh. Well, what's cheese? What's next? We still got more stuff, right?

0:51:59 Liz: Well. Mm

0:52:05 Matt: We've got a digestif if you want to have some dessert. We've Got a Fun One.

0:52:08 Thomas: It. OK, so he wrote this letter. Then what happened, guys? Because he he's basically saying justice is taking it over. Right.

0:52:15 Liz: Says justice is taking it over, right? And so he writes this letter on, it's 13th, so the day before Valentine's Day, the day before Friday. Emile bové says fine this this isn't your case anymore right theory he grabbed you know per this letter he grabs it and then he's hanging around main justice and he's kind of like hey so who from public integrity who from the public integrity section is going to file the rule 48 memo and by all accounts no one wanted to do it until he threatened to fire everybody yeah happens for at least a full day. And then on February 14th, we see a flurry of activity on the Eric Adams SDNY docket. And so we see three different attorneys entering notices of appearance. And just as a legal matter, just so you understand. So when a new attorney, you basically file, it's just a formal document saying like, I am a newly noticed attorney, Emile Beauvais in this proceeding. And I'm acting for So we see three three different people file a notice of appearances, Ed um, Sullivan, Antoinette Bacon, and then Emile Beauvais himself, which is bizarre.

0:53:21 Liz: Like attorney generals, they, don't enter themselves onto dockets. You, They, you know, this is like when you get to say I'm above all this, I don't have to file a notice of appearance. I tell people what to do, but he actually goes in and enters in a notice of appearance himself. And

0:53:35 Thomas: That means, obviously, he couldn't get someone else to do that. Right? That. That's a good sign that there's there's nobody else who is willing to. To well okay there's two other people apparently but why do why do all three of them need to do it why do you need three wow

0:53:49 Matt: So he's got to have somebody who's below him sign off on this. And I will note the structure of this is that you've got Antoinette Bacon and Edward Sullivan signing off on the motion, and then he's signing off with leave of court that the order of null process, which we'll talk about in a second, is going to enter. But I also don't think this is properly signed by Bacon and Sullivan. The slash S, I double -checked the SDNY court rules,. It's the same as our federal court rules, where you do have to actually put your name after the slash s. And so there's a signature line with no signature on it, legally.

0:54:06 Thomas: What

0:54:14 Liz: A little weird that they do a slash sign without putting their name on it. Yeah, they do the slash S. It's not proper.

0:54:18 Matt: Technically, I checked the rule. It is not properly signed. I was wondering if this is intentional.

0:54:21 Thomas: Because he yeah he I see his signature here yeah who

0:54:24 Liz: But it. Don't think it matters. It doesn't matter though, because he's now entered himself. But that's why it's okay. Because even though he didn't physically file that document, So he's not the person. Actually, interestingly, Andrew Rohrbach files that document. Andrew one of the AUSAs from SDNY who

0:54:39 Thomas: The hell is that oh so they did find somebody to do it

0:54:48 Liz: Signing it. He is not even putting his name on it. He just is literally going on to pace, sir, and putting, he is, he is being the secretary and he, he is doing the upload. That is it.

0:54:49 Matt: Just finally.

0:54:51 Thomas: Like like carrying it Yeah. Doing the upload.

0:55:03 Matt: From everything we know, this is under duress by everybody involved. And Antoinette Bacon took this on just basically saying, I'll do it. Don't put my name on this, at least apparently not sign it, just so nobody gets fired because he was saying, you have an hour to figure this out. So all of this is going to come out.

0:55:16 Liz: Then he signs it and puts it in his himself as a notice of appearance. So a, it's, it'S a correct document because someone has signed it who is an attorney who has appeared for the USA in this proceeding. IT's so nuts to have a deputy, like deputy attorney generals don't file anything. They don't sign anything. Like, like dockets, right?

0:55:27 Matt: What a

0:55:34 Thomas: Crazy.

0:55:34 Liz: I mean they do internal, they're doing internal department, you know, priorities and policy setting. They're they actually had to get Emile Beauvais to do it himself.

0:55:43 Matt: And those two attorneys are, I will remind everybody, in the public integrity unit in D.C. So again, SDNY is not involved in this. And it turns out, from

0:55:50 Thomas: I thought you just said you did have someone from SDNY. Oh someone from SDNY just did the upload but not but

0:55:55 Liz: Someone from SDNY does the upload, exactly. Not signed, not in any document.

0:55:57 Thomas: Not signed on it at all their name's not okay gotcha gotcha.

0:56:00 Liz: He does the physical upload.

0:56:01 Thomas: Gotcha.

0:56:01 Matt: Local, right? Exactly.

0:56:02 Thomas: I guess what I want to say is I should people have resisted further because I did see that talk about like well somebody said I'll do it just so no one gets gets fired and it's like well come on like what agree with that like what's going on there

0:56:15 Matt: And going to be something else next week is what the way I think about this. Like, you're going to being the same position.

0:56:19 Liz: Mean I wouldn't have made that choice.

0:56:21 Matt: Yeah, I would never sign this. I mean I think that it's, you are still putting yourself out there ethically.

0:56:25 Thomas: Well and they they didn't sign it I guess that's

0:56:28 Matt: I think it's the argument. I think, I honestly think that they're going be able to tell the bar, no, we didn't actually sign it.

0:56:31 Thomas: Interesting wow

0:56:32 Liz: We didn't actually sign this. I actually think that's, I think that is absolutely

0:56:35 Thomas: That that is very interesting

0:56:36 Liz: Right. Right. And, and Rohrbach is going to say, listen, I just uploaded the document. I had nothing else to do with this.

0:56:41 Matt: And I also just want to point out, just as a procedural matter, this is styled as a nulliprosecy, which in Massachusetts, we do things a little differently in a lot of ways, but we use a lot like the common law stuff, including this one. You can actually, by the rules in Massachusetts—a nullpros, as we call it—it does not require leave of court. So the prosecution can just come in and file one and say, that's it, we're dropping the case. That's the colloquial for it. But, of course, federal rules don't allow that. And I actually checked. It was changed in 1944 that a nullprost is no longer like a straight -up nullpros without the court involved. I think it's an interesting sort of thing that it's called a nullsprost, but effectively it's a motion to dismiss. So, you know, I'm saying it's two parts. You've got the actual dismissal motion is the thing that the public integrity lawyer sent off, and then he signs a nullpress. But it's very technical. But it'S interesting that history. I just didn't realize that's how it worked in the federal system. Again, as a Massachusetts attorney, I just think that people do the same things everywhere.

0:57:28 Thomas: This is fucking bananas can we all motion to declare this bananas will anyone sign on that do we right. So again, now we've covered what this is. Fine, I'll do it myself, apparently. All Right. Skipping to paragraph four, the acting deputy attorney general has determined pursuant to an authorization by the attorney general that dismissal is necessary and appropriate and same based on the unique facts and circumstances of this case. In connection with that determination and directive, the acting Deputy Attorney General concluded that dismissal is necessary because of appearances of impropriety and risks of interference with the 2025 elections in New York City, which implicate executive order, blah, blah. Acting The Deputy Attorney General reached that conclusion based on, among other things, a review of a website that's footnoted, maintained by former

0:57:33 Matt: Were. Granted.

0:58:18 Thomas: U .S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York, and an op -ed published by that former U .S. attorney. So, God, that is nothing. That is nothing! In connection with that determination and directive, the acting deputy attorney general also concluded that continuing these proceedings would with a defendant's ability to govern in New York City, which poses unacceptable threats to public safety, national security, and related federal immigration initiatives and policies.

0:58:26 Liz: Absurd.

0:58:44 Matt: Let me just call out that citation very quickly because he did the same thing in the previous paragraph. He doesn't just cite the executive order. He cites the place in the federal register where you can find it. And that is very concerning, I Think, because he's pretending that this is law, that the president's weaponization order is making, and again, you know, some executive orders do have the force of law, but this policy is a policy. This executive order is just saying This is how we're going to proceed and how we prosecute things.

0:59:06 Matt: And the way he uses the Federal Register there, I think, is very deceptive, or just how I read it.

0:59:11 Thomas: Yeah. The acting deputy attorney general reached that conclusion after learning, among other things, that as a result of these proceedings, Adams has been denied access to sensitive information that the acting deputy Attorney General believes is necessary for Adams to govern and to help protect the city. Accordingly the united states respectfully requests on consent that the court enter an order of null prosecute or whatever with uh pursuant to rule 48a without prejudice with respect to all of the charges in indictment 24 thingy wow all right yeah not signed by bacon and sullivan signed by emile bove hey

0:59:49 Matt: And I'll point out that this wiped out the public integrity section. I don't know how many lawyers there are in it, but presumably quite a few of the seniors are now gone. And it turns out that maybe in the U.S. Attorney's Office, people in the public integrity section might have some integrity. That appears to be where we're at. Again, we've been valorizing prosecutors a lot more than we usually would in this conversation.

1:00:06 Liz: I mean, I mean the, nothing, nothing gives me more pain, but when we have to,

1:00:07 Matt: But yeah, sure.

1:00:06 Thomas: I look I yeah yeah but I I don't I'm tired of that that, you know, people do the same thing where they're like, to Capitol Police, it's all, it's like, no, come on, come one. If Like you're standing up to something that is obvious fascism, I don't care that normally I don'T agree with your job for a lot of it. There's still a major distinction.

1:00:24 Matt: That's what I was about to say. This has

1:00:26 Liz: Why you find me engaging in, in, this conversation. Exactly.

1:00:31 Matt: To happen. People have to do these things and they're doing them. And it's really, it gives me some hope.

1:00:34 Thomas: And they, they deserve credit for this. This is, this is huge. Final thing for a little bit of fun was Hagen Scotten, someone with a last name for a first name and a not a name for the last name that heard of anyway. Very interesting. Hagen Scotton wrote letter to Bovey. Don't, what's the date on this? We don't even, it looks like the same time.

1:00:51 Liz: Guess, no, so it drops, it's not dated, and it's leaked least on February 14th, so the same day that, you everything happens in terms of the dismissals.

1:01:00 Thomas: By email, re, you know, this whole mess, re this fucking bullshit. Mr. Bovey, I have received correspondence indicating that I refused your order to move to dismiss the indictment against Eric Adams without prejudice subject to certain conditions, including the express possibility of reinstatement of the indictments. That is not exactly correct. The U.S. attorney, Danielle, never asked me to file such a motion, and I therefore never had an opportunity to refuse. But I am entirely in agreement with her decision not to do so for the reasons stated in her February 12th letter to the Attorney General. In short, the first justification for the motion, that Damian Williams' role in the case has somehow tainted a valid indictment supported by ample evidence and pursued under four different U.S. attorneys is so weak as to be transparently pretextual. The second justification is worse. No system of ordered liberty can allow the government to use the carrot of dismissing charges or the stick of threatening to bring them again to induce an elected official to support its policy objectives. There is a tradition in public service of resigning in a last -ditch effort to head off a serious mistake. Some will view the mistake you are committing here in the light of their generally negative views of the new administration. I do not share those views. I can even understand how a chief executive whose background is in business and politics might see the contemplated dismissal with leverage as a good, if distasteful, deal. But any assistant U .S. attorney would know that our laws and traditions do not allow using the prosecutorial power to influence other citizens, much less elected officials, in this way. If no lawyer with an earshot of the president is willing to give him that advice, then I expect you will eventually find someone who is enough of a fool or enough of a coward to file your motion, but it was never going to be me. Please consider this my resignation. It has been an honor to serve as a prosecutor in the Southern District of New York. Yours truly, Hagen Scott. What? I

1:03:00 Thomas: Mean, yeah, that's like, that chills.

1:03:00 Matt: Good stuff.

1:03:03 Liz: I mean, like, hi, I'm Trumpy, and even I don't support this, so. Yep.

1:03:08 Matt: Let's just, I sent you a clip here, Thomas, very quickly, if you have a moment, just give you an idea of who Hagen -Scotten is. This is not a woke lib by any measure.

1:03:15 Thomas: None of these people are. And I love, by the way, I do have to just say, maybe you'll find someone who's enough of a fool or enough of a coward. Hey, it was him. It was Bovey. That's who he found.

1:03:25 Liz: Awesome. Actually, thank you for bringing that to conclusion. In fact, you. Ha!

1:03:31 Thomas: Looks in the mirror. Why? It's me, a coward and a fool. We got a clip of Hagen -Scotten.

1:03:38 Matt: I wanted to hear him talk about, well, he'll say.

1:03:44 Liz: Hard no.

1:03:45 Clip: Me now on the phone is Hagan Scotton Hagan was a clerk for Judge Kavanaugh from 2010 through 2011. Hagan, thanks for joining us. Thank you Elaine, it's really good to be here tonight. So it's great to have your insight here. Tell us what you thought thought of when you heard Judge Kavanaugh's description of his judicial philosophy? I thought what he said tonight is exactly what I learned from him as a clerk. And I took a law class he taught before I was his clerk. It was the same thing that he would tell us every day when I clerked with him. It were the same things he really wanted to see when we were as his clerk helping him to locate careful analysis of the law, the detail, and really Really coming at the case, each case, in a way to get it right without picking any outcome. This sort of law, where the law led him. Tell

1:04:27 Thomas: Jesus.

1:04:38 Matt: So this was one of many interviews. Scott was out there a lot, defending Kavanaugh, talking about what a great judge he was. Scott is a U .S. Army vet with two two bronze stars. Like this is by no means anybody.

1:04:49 Thomas: Not anyone that we're a fan of. However, really a fan of his integrity in this matter. And again, we need more of these people than the other kind, the you know, and I think we should celebrate this and yeah not easy to do not easy to do well

1:04:53 Matt: Wrote a great letter. Yeah. Yeah, absolutely. And I'm giving him full credit for this. Absolutely. But he

1:05:00 Liz: A hundred percent. Absolutely. Also, I mean, honestly, like I got to say the sassiest, snarkiest letter and of, of anything we've read. And, I love that. It it was great.

1:05:13 Thomas: Short well written I mean this is this has everything I really like

1:05:17 Liz: It's great.

1:05:17 Thomas: That letter who boy wow what a way to go out all right well is that it for now this was the Thursday night massacre and the Friday night the weekend extended into the long weekend massacre still might be going on

1:05:31 Liz: I think it's just going to be really interesting to see what's going to happen at SDNY moving forward with leadership, moving forward with potential resignations. Think it's going to be pretty scary times. Say the only thing that I have any kind of reassurance on, and I might be wrong about this, is these people, Emile Beauvais, he's very good at firing people and threatening to investigate them and doing all these things. But if of a department is going to resign, it's very hard to get people who know how to actually do this stuff. These are experienced, it's hard to do the job of assistant US attorneys.

1:06:00 Thomas: It you gotta write stuff and research stuff and

1:06:07 Liz: And know, and blue booking, no. And can't just have conclusory statements. And I think that it be very hard for them to implement many of their policy objectives if they do not have anyone close to competent working for them. It's easy to destroy things, but it's hard to build things. It is hard to create things. And that is like the only kind of, well, it's sort of scary to watch these people be forced to resign. And you're like, well I wish someone would kind of stay in there and try to muck it up. It will be hard for them to find people to actually do the work and who know how to do the thing. And I think that's the only thing I have a little bit of maybe optimism or reassurance. And, you know, I don't know. Watch the space.

1:06:47 Thomas: I I will I'm sure we'll analyze it as we go but I can't imagine the judge granting this there's no way

1:06:54 Liz: Oh no, he's not. He's going to to make it really annoying he's yes he very thorough judge dale ho will make it very annoying yeah

1:07:01 Matt: Every right to schedule an evidentiary hearing and to call everybody involved in this and to tell him under oath how this happened. And, I think, to appoint counsel if Adams himself, you know, obviously isn't going to make any argument on it. So, yeah, it could be.

1:07:06 Thomas: Please oh man that's amazing all right well thank you so much for taking the time Liz and Matt this is a lot awful bovies this is this is fucking crazy okay we'll speak soon I'm sure thank you

1:07:17 Liz: Good stuff all right bye everyone

1:07:22 Matt: It's quite a time.

1:07:26 Clip: Sometimes you eat the bar, and sometimes the bar will eat you.

1:07:33 Thomas: How are you you doing this week finished

1:07:34 Heather: I don't have any trucks to paint, so I'm pretty good. How are you? Yeah, I did.

1:07:37 Thomas: Finished them all early huh wonder if you got paid extra for that or not we'll see well whoa weirdly enough that's related to the question the t3b question I don't know if you knew that I just realized you were just telling me about your paint truck painting hubby but this actually I know you didn't realize it was actually related to the question so total accident uh speaking of said question that I'm very nervous I got wrong let's let's talk about it what was this question 58 about with the trucks and the painting

1:07:57 Heather: Idea. Our friend Carly has a fleet of trucks for her cake delivery business. And she was on a rebrand. And she hired this guy, Paul, to do some painting for her. Originally, they agreed that Paul would repaint the trucks in 45 days for $5 ,000. And then she called him up really really quickly and said, hey, by the way, it's going to have to be 30 days. I messed up on the time. He said, great. Yeah, 30 days is great. I need to charge you an additional $2 ,500 on top of that. She said, sure. He painted the trucks in 30 days, but then when it came time to pay, she didn't want to pay the additional $3 ,500. She only paid the $5 ,000 that they originally agreed on. So now Paul files suit against Carly to recover the additional $2 ,500. And we're trying to figure out who's going to win. It going to be A, Paul, because Carly had a pre -existing duty to perform? Paul because he made a new promise to Carly in exchange for more money? C, Carly because Paul had a re -existing duty to paint the trucks? D, Carley because Paul exerted undue influence over her regarding the additional $2 .500? You had said this was a contracts modification question. So tell me a little bit about how you knew that that was exactly what was being tested.

1:09:15 Thomas: Just said it was contracts and then it seemed like they were modifying the contract Oh,

1:09:19 Heather: And that was it. That you see an agreement where there's people agreeing and then they're like, yeah, this is the terms we signed on it. Then they come back and they're oh, we're going to make a new agreement. Usually a contracts modification question in the sense of here, we are trying to figure out whether or not they enforce the new terms, essentially. And that's what we're trying to do. That's what Paul's trying to do, he's trying to enforce those new terms against Carly, since she's trying to kind of wiggle out of that last $2 ,500. Initially, you were between A and B, you had said initially that Paul was going to win, right?

1:09:51 Thomas: I mean, you'd hope.

1:09:52 Heather: Yeah. Right, that makes sense. So why don't we actually start, I'll actually start with Carly because I'll give you a little bit of a preview. Paul is going to. So going to get there in just a second, but we're is going to be a loser. But we'll talk a little bit about, sorry, Carly, but that's going to be about why. Carly because Paul exerted undue influence over her. You said this wouldn't really make a ton of sense. Can you talk, maybe remind me a little bit about why you didn't like this answer?

1:10:00 Thomas: It just didn't. I don't know. It didn't seem I'd be one thing. I think it was going for like if he used the time pressure to, you get an extra million dollars or something. But like it didn't seem unreasonable to me and also seemed like you could just as easily say she was trying to do the same thing by saying I need this faster and offering nothing I don't know it just didn't seemed unreasonable influence yeah

1:10:37 Heather: And you're right. Undue influence is a defense. A defense in contracts. And a lot of times when we're looking at undue influence, what we're looking at is we're looking really a lot of times at two main things. We're looking a lot first at is there a special relationship between the parties? And that tends to be like, you know, lawyer -client, doctor -patient, trustee -beneficiary. Anytime there's like an unequal kind of power relationship betweenthe two. Then we're looking to at improper persuasion between the party, like maybe high sales pressure tactics, that kind of thing. And we don't really have any facts to suggest that. There's not a lot of like, oh, I'm trying to push you really hard to buy that refrigerator you don't need or or something like that, right? That's part of how this answer choice is wrong. So what you were saying, your inclination that this doesn't really exist, you're right. So that is how D is out. Carly, there was no undue influence here by either party. And then we have C, Carly because Paul had a pre -existing duty to paint the trucks, right. Pre -existing Duty refers to when are in in an agreement together, to do in order to perform the agreement? Says So Carly because Paul had a pre -existing duty to paint the trucks. So under the original agreement, Paul had 45 days to paintthe trucks for $5 ,000. So, under the original agreement, his pre - existing duty was that he was to paint the trucks within 45 days. That was his pre existing duty.

1:11:56 Heather: That's not why. Obviously not going to win, but that's getting at our issue here, which to your point a little bit earlier was about modification. This isn't really dealing with whether or not that new agreement, whether or Not that that's enforceable, right? Because the pre -existing duty is this, like if you had a pre -existing duty to perform, you can't try to get somebody to do that for nothing or set another way. Like, how do I explain this? So if Paul they change the terms of the agreement, right? We're not trying to get him to do this, let's say for less money, right. It's It's not we're trying to come back and get him to do it for less or for more within the same time frame, right? So this isn't really quite getting at is did he or didn't he not paint the trucks? Like in that situation.

1:12:34 Thomas: don'T think I understand okay sorry try one more time what is a pre -existing duty then what is it defined as because I was taking this was one of the difficulties of the question that I acknowledged not being a lawyer I wasn't sure what pre -existing was referring to. Was it referring to pre, meaning was it pre -existing before the modification or is it, is that tricky normal person language and pre -existing would, would have some other legal meaning.

1:12:58 Heather: It's to perform when a person already has a legal duty to do that.

1:13:03 Thomas: It's like trying to make a deal for something you already had to do. So it'S like, so that sounds like it has nothing to do with this unless

1:13:06 Heather: That's exactly it. Trying to modify an agreement, what has to happen, and this might help make it a little bit more clear, to motivate an agreement under the common law, you basically have to have new stuff on both sides.

1:13:23 Thomas: A new promise and consideration, perhaps. Okay. Yeah. That And was sort of along the lines of what I ultimately was thinking. So, making a one -sided deal where one person already has the duty and doesn't really give anything more. Which part I didn't say it but part of me worried that like oh is time frame somehow a different thing you know what I mean like I could see it being like well painting more trucks would be a change of duty but painting the same trucks faster wouldn't be just because of how contract these stuff works I was worried that would be I hope it I don't think it would be true but is that an example where it's like it has to be a new thing. So he be like, oh, I'm going to paint them in 45 days doing the exact same thing, but you need to give me more money for some reason. That doesn't really work because he already had that duty for 45 days.

1:14:17 Thomas: Okay. Okay, so now I see at least why that answer didn't... Well, okay, so I still see the possibility of C being... Therefore, the logic is it didn't modify the contract because he already had a pre -existing duty. And so Carly just paid the old amount. I think that's kind of the logic logic of it would be Carly pays 5 ,000 because don't have a modification of the contract. That was what I did in my mind was like, the reason we don't have a modification of the contract is Paul already had this preexisting. Well, I didn't get that precisely right, but it actually, I think it still fits. What's wrong with that logic? Is it just simply because we do have a modification of contract or is there some other reason that that like wording doesn't actually get at what's going on?

1:14:16 Heather: It yeah yeah nope you're yeah there was a modification yeah because yeah and because it is because um friend pa uh because he did the work in a shorter timeline and because she agreed to to pay more money for his work.

1:15:00 Thomas: That makes sense. Nice. So that does count. Gotcha. Gotcha.

1:15:09 Heather: Exactly. Yeah. So that's how C. And then we end up with Paul being our winner, And right? Then we're trying to figure out between A and B. Does so now we're between A and B, and I think we know maybe where we're at, but we'll go over A. So Paul, because Carly had a preexisting duty to perform. Under their original agreement, Carly's duty's performance was that she would pay the $5 ,000 when within the 45 -day time frame. That was the original agreement. So her pre -existing duty was to pay the $5 ,00 after he finished, right? As we kind of talked about a little bit before, they the agreement, So right. That's isn't quite right anymore, because they did modify that that agreement, right? Agreed to perform to paint the job in a shorter timeline, and then she agreed to pay that additional money, right, in order for him to complete the job in the shorter timeline. So it's $7 ,500 for 30 days. So A is out.

1:16:00 Thomas: A is like, seems even more wrong to me because like, I think I was, like I said, I admittedly didn't totally understand the preexisting thing. Now that I understand what that terminology is talking about, it seems to me that C is at least plausibly could have been correct if the details were slightly different. Whereas a doesn't, I can't think of how that would at all be correct because like a, because Carly had a preexisting duty to perform. Put it another way to to see if I actually understand the pre -existing thing the way I'm understanding it right now hoping is that the preexisting thing that that whole concept is a reason why a modification would not be legitimate right right

1:16:37 Heather: Is. Yeah. Way that could could mean that, yes, it's one way that, yeah.

1:16:41 Thomas: Yeah so it's like if try to get something out of you for doing the exact same thing I was going to do it's the Darth Vader rule do we have that I should be a law school professor except I don't know anything this would be the Darth Vader rule he's altering the deal just one -sided pray he doesn't alter it any further you got a deal with Lando and Lando's like what I thought we had a deal he's like I'm changing it but Lando doesn't get anything that's just Darth he's just changing the deal on his end and he's getting stuff and so that's that's not a valid modification do I have that right

1:17:10 Heather: Think so. Yeah. Because anytime you want and you want to change the terms of your agreement, at least under common law, right? So assuming that we're not exchanging bananas or witches. Yeah, I'm here. Well, assuming the imperial credits maybe are common law and not UCC goods, right.

1:17:17 Thomas: Imperial credits all

1:17:28 Heather: Sorry. I'm trying to do the conversion in my head.

1:17:28 Thomas: Right about that difference yeah no good it's good to be precise

1:17:34 Heather: Sorry.

1:17:35 Thomas: Yeah you gotta be precise

1:17:37 Heather: Assuming that it's common, like, yeah, you both need to change. There has to be something changed on each end.

1:17:41 Thomas: Yeah yeah so it's like hey here's some more imperial credits for your treachery to your your friends, but I, yeah, that kind of thing. It can't just be the Darth Vader rule of one -sided thing. So, okay. I think I, I think, I understand the preexisting thing there.

1:17:56 Heather: Yeah, we've each kind of, it's almost like each you've of you has to give up. It's not always give up, but there has to be a change on both sides, essentially.

1:18:04 Thomas: The other reason that A didn't seem right is cause like Carly did perform according to her preexisting duty. Like she paid the 5 ,000. So I just didn't understand how that's why ultimately I'm glad I switched the second chance answer C. I guess I'm just trying to make the the argument that I think C was slightly more plausible than A, but it's a weird question for you to answer because you actually know how things work.

1:18:24 Heather: Oh, it was funny because you couldn't hear me because as you were going like, oh, I think I'm going to switch from one to the other. I'm like, no, no, stick with me.

1:18:31 Heather: And I like too how your instinct was like, no, I'm going to keep my answer unless I can really articulate why there's another reason to change. I know you didn't like the new promise language, but the promised language a lot of times that they use is when they're talking about new considerations. So sometimes it's the language that they'll switch in for new consideration or new promise, like that

1:18:51 Thomas: What you're telling me is ultimately the answer is B because we did have a modification of the contract here and that required a new, what's the language? What does that require to actually modify it just to get it all straight?

1:19:02 Heather: For the modification, new consideration is required on And here, Carly's new consideration was the additional money. So she has to pay an additional $2 ,500. And the new consideration for our friend Paul was less time, which is so from 45 to 30 days. So B is the correct.

1:19:19 Thomas: That all is how it should be because that definitely makes a difference. Just be like do something way faster for no additional money all well I'm glad it all worked out we learned about the darth vader rule that I coined oh

1:19:22 Heather: Yes, that's no don't do that and it seems like you're in a little bit of a streak

1:19:35 Thomas: Yeah shoot I completely you know in my mind I got this one wrong because I was like I went back and forth so many times I was like oh yeah I did end up with the right answer holy crap well now I get to be even at 62 .96 six percent I'm creeping up I've Well, looking at the winners online, uh, for some, I think people have been burned too much by my messing up blue sky. So while it was posted on blue sky, we didn't have any participants this week. Going to go ahead and say, that's my fault. We'll just, uh we'll just say that's my fault. So why don't we go on over to Reddit? You have any winners picked for us?

1:19:51 Heather: You know that's have ASPZ. Time here. I think it's B. I think ANC only apply to the terms of the contract before they were modified. So they don't make sense here. Doesn't fit the fact pattern. That would be correct. And welcome. We're so so excited to have you playing for the first time.

1:20:29 Thomas: Always fun and now we got to go on patreon .com slash law we got lots of players so happy to see it lots of commenters uh well I mean that was a Lizisode so that that could be why too. I here's one, register Democrat to vote out Eric Adams, which is interesting. I don't know who the audience for that is. Because Like like, I don' t know, maybe that patron is like an independent or something and has a different context where they're trying to get people to register Democrat. Interesting. But they say, T3BE answer is, I believe, B, modification of a contract is possible if there is additional consideration. Here, the consideration is the agreement to perform in a faster timeframe in exchange for an additional fee. Carly owes the additional 2 ,500. C could be correct if Paul could in 45 days, but since he performed according to the modified contract, he went beyond his original perform, so it can't be C. pretty solid there. And we had a lot, pretty much everyone got this one. Um, it was one of those, uh, no nonsense ones. And I think if I, I'm going to pick an extra winner since I didn't have a blue sky one, I'm

1:21:31 Thomas: Also going to Pick Dr. Clerk. The time of modification, Carly's preexisting duty was to pay 5 ,000. Paul's pre existing duty was the paint. The trucks within 45 days, the modification imposed a new duty on Paul to paint the trucks within 30 days. So Paul cannot be said to have wrongfully extracted the additional 2 ,500 as compensation for preexisting. Duty. The modification has an offer, acceptance and consideration. So it is binding. Absent allegations of duress not present here. The answer is B. That pretty much nails it seems like.

1:22:00 Heather: Really love seeing, and I saw this a lot on Reddit too, I really like to see that people seem to understand kind of the basics of contract formation, which is great because, listen, I struggled like heck all through my 1L year of contracts, so all of you were doing much better than I did my contracts my one whole year so props to all of you

1:22:16 Thomas: I know it's something I thought I understood, but I recently had problems. I think it's because a lot of those contracts questions involve it's the trickiest of tricks with those. Yeah, to grab that one. So that's nice. Congratulations. Congratulations and uh again I'll make sure to post on blue sky this time so take a look there and uh are pretty good of getting a shout out if if you do that for this one so we'll uh pause here and then I'll try to take on another question with uh question 59 all show is brought to you by NPR's Up First. News is broken. Constantly doom scrolling on Facebook, on Twitter, or X, TikTok, and heard from a lot of people who are saying they're over the news. That's rough because, like, it's always true, but it's more important than ever right now that we keep up with everything. Throwing so much at us. If you have ever felt like you're over the news, it's too much. I recommend the Up first podcast from NPR? First frees you from that all day scroll obsession by telling you everything you need to know in an easy 15 minutes. It's no BS, just the facts. First is the cure you need for your news fatigue. What they do. They provide the top three news stories to start your day. With digestible 10 to 15 minute episodes, it's all the news you need so you can get back to your life feeling informed while preserving your sanity. For example, I just listened to one the other day about the future of Ukraine and a favorite topic of mine, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, something I'm very interested in preserving and something we will be covering very soon. With NPR, you know, you're going to get no no nonsense. You're getting the facts, you're getting them in reported on, and it'S not in a way that'S going to give you that news fatigue. Whether it's the Trump administration to business, to the economy, to immigration, Up First is the go -to daily habit for the news consumer who wants to stay informed, but is really strapped for time these days. That's me. They're really getting the balance on this one. It's short, but thorough, national, international. It's fact -based, but also personable. So out Up First and start your day a little more than a little. A little bit more in -the -know than when you went to sleep. Now to the Up First podcast from NPR.

1:24:20 Thomas: Right heather let's have it okay

1:24:21 Heather: Sabrina were living in different states when they entered into a valid agreement stating that ben would buy and sabrina would sell a painting the contract claimed that the painting was an original by georgia o 'keefe reportedly worth

1:24:33 Thomas: So it's the same one I wasn't sure if they're just like all right I will buy a painting you you will sell a painting. Unrelated transaction. This is a weird contract. I don't know why we're doing this. That. Okay.

1:24:42 Heather: The claim that the painting was an original by Georgia O 'Keeffe, reportedly worth $3 million, and Ben agreed to pay that amount. In a separate valid contract, Ben agreed to purchase a beachfront home in California from Sabrina worth $10 million. Purchase of the painting was completed on July 1st. Ben bought the home, he resold the painting but only received $500 because turned out to be a forgery.

1:25:11 Thomas: I like that someone paid 500 for the forgery though. I actually just like a good forgery. I value it. I'll take it. 500.

1:25:19 Heather: Ben promptly told Sabrina of his intent to sue her for three million dollars in damages then informed him that she would not move forward with the sale of the home Ben filed suit against Sabrina in federal court in California Ben claimed fraud as to the painting and sought three million in damages also claimed breach of contract as to The Home and sought specific performance He a jury trial on all issues. Issues, is Ben entitled to a jury trial? A, yes, as to both the fraud claim and the breach of contract claim. Yes as to the fraud blame, but no as to breach of contract claim, C, no as to the claim, but yes as to the breach of contract claim or D, no, as both the claim and breach of contract.

1:26:08 Thomas: Well, I'm going to say, I think this is federal civil procedure, I believe. It's again, one of those ones where you could always say like Like, it's constitutional because I believe the right to a jury trial is, even though this is like a total civil thing, I believe it ultimately stems from the Constitution. But I think this is federal civil procedure. And now I'm remembering, okay, here's a what weakness I have for this test. I have too many things in my brain. So even though we did a question pretty recently on this, I'm trying to remember. There was one we did that was about a jury trail. Trial. Cause I, I think I remember my reasoning being like, okay, there might be some limits on jury trials because like, if you demand a jury trial for like a speeding ticket or something like that's going to gum up the system really quickly. So, oh, but that's criminal stuff. No. Yeah. That was in a criminal context. Cause it was, I remember the key there. Okay. It's coming to me. It'S like, I'm receiving a radio signal from another planet. It. That is my vague memory of the, okay. I think it was, I believe that it, that that, question ended up not turning on dollar amount. Like I thought it might be dollar amount, but dollar amount, it was penalty though. Like it was criminal penalty and it seemed like it was going to be whether or not that penalty was significant, but it actually had to do with the sentence and it had to be, I don't know, I think, I'm not sure. I don' know. I'm sure it had to do. Okay. I Think it was. It had to deal with like, if you add up all the different counts and and how much time you could face. And it turned out that that wasn't what it was. Cause I remember, cause that seemed outrageous to me that if you were charged with a hundred counts of something that, you know, is like one month each, then you're still treated as though it's one month for the, for the purposes of jury trial. Okay. But all that I'm remembering is in the criminal context. I believe I may have nothing to go on when it comes to this. Maybe with the civil context, maybe there is a dollar amount that matters. And so I think what the question might be doing is pairing something that's a small dollar amount with something that is a giant dollar amount, maybe. Because the 500, well, no, not really, because it's 3 million. Well, now I think about it. Yeah, no. They're both big dollar amounts. I saw the 500. I was thinking that was a small $1, but 500 was what he received from the forgery enthusiast.

1:28:21 Thomas: Okay actually that would be I bet that exists and now I want like I want to be the art collector that's like I only deal in forgeries like just like a good forgery I want to collect and then you could also have like your wing of your house that's like the terrible forgeries yeah this person tried to you know pass this off as a what's a face and looks terrible you know I wonder if that exists if it doesn't I want be that so I'm left really really confused because the whole, because those are, now that I think about it, both big dollar amounts. So let's go through it and see if I can figure this out. They've got two separate valid contracts. Of them was the painting. Other was Ben agreed to purchase a beachfront home worth 10 million. The painting was completed. So that one's allegedly done, but for the forgery here. When he finds out it's a forgery, he tells Sabrina, okay, I'm suing you for 3 million in damages. Yeah. So So that's that's a big dollar amount. Then informed him she would not move forward with the sale of the home. Then Ben filed suit in federal court in California, claimed fraud as to the painting and sought three million in damages and claimed breach of contract as to The Home and sought specific performance, demanded a jury trial on all issues. I'm having a hard time issue spotting like what, the jury, usually I have a good guess as to what the Jury Trial would, would turn on. Like I said before, I thought it was like the, the fines and the criminal context. Turned out I was wrong, I guess. But like, I, I also noted that the time is there. So, but like here, I don't, I'm trying to figure out what, why you wouldn't have a Jury trial or why you would be entitled to Jurity trial in either of these. I mean, you got fraud for three million dollars. That seems jury trial ish. I don't know why you wouldn't have that breach of contract. There something in seeking specific performance that would prevent you from getting a jury trial? Mean, I remember my specific performance stuff for, well, I've, I remember the amount I knew, which is that like, that's, it's really hard to get when it comes to personal services you can't get, but that none that none of that is the question here. Like we're not questioning whether or not he can get specific performance. Yeah, I, I'm having a hard time figuring out. Why either of these would not get a jury trial. I feel like the fraud in 3 million seems like jury trial 100%. That seems like that happens every day. That exact thing, but like that kind of trial or whatever. Guess the of contract with a specific performance is the one of them that seems like it is best candidate for some reason having a rule about jury trial. But I don't know what that would be. B, breach of contract. Guess, okay. I'm really grasping because I'm at a loss here. Guess a you want a jury to be the fact finder, essentially, like decider of factual questions. Is there something about the breach of contract that wouldn't have that or something? If you claim breach of contract... mean, I still feel like if you're suing for breach of contract, you have all the same usually. There's nothing that tells us there aren't factual disputes at play there. Know what they would be exactly, but I have to assume there'd be... Yeah, I don'T get it. That the answers don't help me because they're just the four different possibilities. So is Ben entitled to a jury trial? Yes, as to both the fraud claim and the breach of contract claim. Yes as to the fraud claim, no as to the breach of contract. No as to fraud, yes as to breach of contact, no is to both. Here's my first step. A high level of certainty that the fraud claim should get a jury trial, like a pretty high level of certainty. So I'm going to go ahead and eliminate C and D because those have no for fraud. That would put me between A, yes as to both the fraud claim and the breach contract or B, yes, as to to the fraud claim, but no as to the breach of contract. For the life of me, I can't, I'm missing what this issue is. I really can't figure it out. Other than if there's some reason that contract like issue, like breach of contract for whatever reason, that wouldn't be a jury trial thing. Here's what I'm going to do. I'm, I really, boy, I'm already counting down the minutes till I get to hear the answer to this. Cause I don't, I just missing something flat out missing something, which which, is honestly rare. Identify the issue, but I'm really struggling. Here's what I'm going to do. I'm going to go with A, yes, as to both the fraud and breach of contract. And my reasoning is, for one, I can't think of a reason. I haven't identified a good reason why there wouldn't be a jury trial, right, for the breach of contract. And two, even if maybe there is, there's also a slight chance that because they're combined into one action, there's also a chance that like, maybe that would mean, let's say the contract one isn't entitled to a jury trial, but maybe if it's kind consolidated into one kind of legal action, maybe they all are. So like, for those reasons, my probability, I'm going to go with A, just hoping hoping that that's correct. So A, yes as to both, essentially. Second chance answer is B, yes as to fraud, but no as to breach of contract. And I just cry, uncle, I don't know. We'll see what issue I'm missing, but that's my answer. It's going to be final answer A, second chance answer B. If you want to play along and tell me what the hell I'm messing here, please go to blue sky fall opening arguments go to reddit .com slash r slash open args and most importantly patreon .com law I am very curious to hear the answer to this one heather I insist that we record this right away uh so much for joining as always and I am just on pins and needles until we next meet hey

1:33:42 Heather: Well, I'm hoping that between now and then neither of us are in federal court it so that we know what we can do between and the next week in case this comes up.

1:33:49 Thomas: Look don't judge everyone other people's kinks some people like like being in federal. No, I don't know.

1:33:53 Heather: Listen, no kink shaming on this podcast.

1:34:01 Clip: Thank you for being, say we started from the bottom, now we're here, girl.

1:34:10 Thomas: The only thing left to do is of course thank our patrons our fine patrons at patreon .com slash law joining me is lydia how are you doing you need to see someone about that or it's a real problem everybody she can't she hasn't stopped she can' t it's it's been hell actually she's always day and night 24 hours a day she's whooping it's um she thinks it's funny but it's uh well why don't you thank our new patrons at patreon .com slash law I'm so excited they joined up hope they enjoyed that part two and the no ads and all that stuff it's

1:34:17 Lydia: I'm doing well. I'm whoop -whooping over here. Whoop -Whoop! No, it's not a problem. It's perfect. It' amazing. It's patron shout -outs! Okay. It''s for the patrons.

1:34:46 Lydia: Yeah. Oh, going to welcome Plain Jane, Marty Witter, Koshka, Noah Schlenker, HeHim, Sparkleberry, Grayson Shuck, Amanda C., Laura Peters, Joshua Mulligan, E -Dog, Original Pronunciation, Michael Parker, and William Backman. Thanks, guys. Thanks for joining. That's what it says.

1:35:08 Thomas: Just original pronunciation I love that pronunciation

1:35:12 Lydia: Original Pronunciation.

1:35:14 Thomas: Was I wasn't sure if it was like edog original pronunciation you know like it was combined now it's time to thank our top patrons our hall of famers our all -time greats these are the amazing folks who support the show so much that they get that extra shout out each and every week they get to uh put whatever they want in their name and that's fun lots of fun is had by all and I'll swear to it in the court of law so thank you to Merc, Register Democrat to Vote Out Eric Adams, Casey Khan, Democracy Cannot Survive Unregulated Capitalism, James H, gulf of, I wish

1:35:18 Lydia: No, they're separate patrons. Maybe least us two oh boy

1:35:51 Thomas: You were I wish he were doing these gulf of ligna balls don uh think you do that like oh yeah ligma what's ligma ligma ball's done you know kind of thing uh funnier when it's like the golf of up dog yeah my son too pretends to shave his face with my razor oh yeah scary tim ward fourth circuit attorney reluctantly changing her font vehicular man's laughters topical car references are running on empty so the The preference for the Lydia edit stays for

1:35:59 Lydia: My god oh yeah my God that's so scary yes

1:36:33 Thomas: Now. Okay. Yeah, you two are communicating, and this is your quality time. Just this, like, couple seconds.

1:36:34 Lydia: I was waiting we are yeah I say hong kong in response wait

1:36:44 Thomas: Sex and gender are different things. Apprentice of adventure. Still rooting for the hamburgers to deliver more timely justice than the current system. Unfrozen caveman lawyer. Fish. Whether Oh, Nick Fish was on. What was Nick Fish on? He was on a podcast recently that was like, oh, I won't. Are you going to get, that was like me setting up an up dog thing. He anyway, if that's, if I'm remembering right, congrats Nick Fish and that sounds fun. Whether we wanted it or not, we've stepped into a war with the Gavelpod on Mars, A Negative Phenomenon. Cavalri. Irregardless of anything, Ovechkin is only 15 goals from the record.

1:36:58 Lydia: Wait don't tell me is that what it was I think that's what it was

1:37:22 Thomas: And I know that one's accurate because they've been off for the coolest thing ever the four nations cup it's been amazing everyone's talking about it everyone in the world is talking about so better than everybody look anybody who cares about about sports the worst part of any sports season is the stupid all -star break that sucks they used to actually try back in the day they used to have all - star games and I don't blame them I'm not even saying like they should go back to that because

1:37:31 Lydia: My gosh on his facebook page yeah yeah why would they want to ruin their career yeah

1:37:48 Thomas: Nobody wants to get hurt like no it's not worth it but they just this NHL if you don't know they decided they're like screw all that it always sucks I'll be honest NHL one is the best because it does have a skills competition that's fun usually yeah but like right but like the other side it's just pointless they don't try eyes it's kind of dumb but they decided no we'll do a four nations cup only nhl players are allowed to compete and it's from four countries represented america canada sweden and finland and they're going to play for the championship cup of this little thing and it'S AMAZING they're like it dying they're they're gunning for it yeah it is it's like they're really into it and us is playing canada on thursday uh us beat canada for the first time since 2010 when I first that's what got me into hockey was

1:38:00 Lydia: And that's always cute yeah it's like a mini olympics yeah mm -hmm yeah miracle on ice

1:38:32 Thomas: The oh that's awesome so I married you yeah uh no that was the russians and that was 1980 yeah so but we that was 2010 we beat them in the like play you know the round rot when you're in the it means when you all play all the teams play

1:38:43 Lydia: I I know what oh not like literally a swimming pool

1:38:58 Thomas: No there's a round where they just play in a pool and we beat them in that but then once we played hockey like they definitely killed us but no we beat him and yeah it's like a round robin part we beat em and then they won they beat us in the in the championship or whatever but it was overtime it was so close anyway that got me into that's how it started in hockey 2010 literally and then uh beat dem uh other day for the first time since then it's cool 15 years later Yeah, amazing. No one cares. All right. So, but it's Thursday. There's still time if you're hearing this to tune in. It's going to be a really, really cool game. They're treating, like the players are treating it like the Stanley Cup. It's amazing.

1:39:01 Lydia: Let's try to figure that out okay crazy that's nationalism that's like driving them. But yeah,

1:39:35 Thomas: Well, yeah, but It's a good, healthy pride. It's fun. They're playing for their, I think when Canadians are like putting on the Canadian sweater and playing hockey, I mean, I don't know. I think it activates like a sleeper agent and they can't not try as hard as possible.

1:39:39 Lydia: Olympics. Yeah. Yeah, totally. Yeah?

1:39:49 Thomas: It's the best. (You Gotta) Fight For Your Right (To Ex Parte). Async, all-inclusive gender resort. Oh, I like that. Release the news hoes. But it's spelled hoes, like H-O-E-A. We need to get some news hoess up in here.

1:40:05 Lydia: Man. TikTok idea.

1:40:07 Thomas: Yeah, they come out there like dancing or whatever, like, release the news hoes! Look, I finally changed my name for real legally. Congrats. E.T., Thomas Freeman, and Cajunkilla. Finally your turn, hun.

1:40:19 Lydia: How many hockey -related tangents can I get into?

1:40:21 Thomas: You can tell us about, yeah. Someone should reference a reality show that you can tell us about.

1:40:25 Lydia: My God. Yeah. Fraud Fishy hates everything. Chris Simpson. Love the extra episodes. Gun-owning liberal who knows that root cause mitigation and gun control are both important. Liberals own guns to support root cause litigation, not ineffective gun control. Gun control works. See Australia. This isn't a Patreon name and I'm not reading anything right now. I just personally think Legal Eagle is so handsome. Mark Schultz, The Cincinnati Kid, Bob Loblaw's Law.... Podcast. Philly Basement Bar is back open and isn't taking the shit lying down. Elect Thomas Smith President, American Honkytonk Bar Association. Baltakatei. Philip Kizer. Hors d'oeuvres in the court before we report. Maybe they're keeping eggs expensive so we don't egg the White House.

1:41:11 Lydia: Coryn_Lann, A string of unpronounceable characters. Milo Meadsong is fighting petty tyrants. Malaika Chandler, Malcolm the Dragon, the precious variant, Big Easy Blasphemy, RhondaTheDork.com, FRED R GROOTHUIS, Chris Waltrip, Classic libtard, and Mitchell. Whoop!

1:41:30 Thomas: Patron to the stars, Mitchell. Incredible comeback. Not since the 2010 Miracle on Ice have we seen such a comeback.

1:41:34 Lydia: Whoop whoo saved for you, Mitchell.

1:41:41 Thomas: Right, thanks so much for listening and thanks for supporting everybody. And we'll see you for a, what I'm sure is an action -packed Friday. Got a lot in the backlog, a lot to cover. See you then.

1:41:51 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.

1:42:08 Thomas: Motion to declare this bananas will you son of a bitch so start talking I