GG73: We Have the Broadview Grand Jury Transcripts. They Are Incredible.

Transcript

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

0:00:01 Clip: All rise. Court is now in session. Court is reconvened. I may be seated. Maintain order. The federal rise to face the jury and harken to its verdicts.

0:00:25 Thomas: Gavel in gavelinos. I haven't gotten to say that in a while. It's Thomas and Lydia and Matt. How are we all doing? That's not the right thing. Yeah, it's like a very bizarre saying. It looks like he brought a gavel to an autopsy. This man died of a bunch of tiny hammers.

0:00:33 Matt: Hey, what's up? I brought my gavel to an autopsy today. We're going to have some fun. Yeah, we've got, I'm going to, it's not very sanitary either. This gavel's been around. Yeah, We've got quite a corpse to inspect today, folks.

0:00:36 Lydia: Oh. I don't think that's going to be effective, Matt. Yeah, gross. Paints a picture.

0:00:54 Lydia: Honestly, paints a picture, though. I can see it, so.

0:00:58 Matt: Death by a thousand gavels.

0:00:58 Thomas: The guy thinks every every single person is dying by a bunch of little hits it's weird yeah

0:01:05 Matt: No, we are of course talking about the Broadview six grand jury transcripts, which we now have, and we are going to go through in classic gavel gavel fashion. And this is going to be a treat. I got to tell you, it is worse than I thought. And I thought it was pretty bad. We've already done the episode, of course, where we talked about how bad the judge thought it was. And now we get to see it for ourselves. And this is quite an autopsy. We don't ever get to do this. We get to read grand jury proceedings, almost completely unredacted, and just see what DOJ does when nobody's looking.

0:01:32 Lydia: This must be like one of the most like law nerdy things available.

0:01:36 Matt: Oh, yeah. It's so fun.

0:01:37 Thomas: It's rare that we're treated to this much open corruption

0:01:40 Matt: Yeah. Because it wasn't open. That's the whole point. You know, it's a grand jury. And the astonishing thing about it, that to me. There are a lot of astonishing things about this. But Sheri Mecklenburg, who will be played, of course, by Lydia Smith today, the prosecutor, the lead in this case, the veteran of 20 years at the Department of Justice, is not great at her job, I'm sorry to say. We're going to see a lot OF instances of her being very bad at her job. And it has to come out. We'll talk about it at the end. But now, unfortunately, for U .S. Attorney Boutros, Andrew Boutlos, the person actually in charge of this office, he's just had to file a number of motions in other cases involving her where she's done done similar things. A bunch of their cases are about to fall apart because it turns out that she's not great with grand juries. And I think she might've just gotten too comfortable. You'll see it in the transcripts here, but I think he's gotten too uncomfortable in closed proceedings where the transcript will never come out.

0:01:42 Thomas: Yeah exactly normally yeah whoa hmm yeah okay so remind me wait who are you talking about because I remember it being a dude or whatever I'm a little fuzzy on the

0:02:32 Matt: Yes. So we should talk about the cast of characters. The Department of Justice, as I said, comes out looking pretty bad here, but it's not necessarily the fault of Matthew Skiba, who is the other prosecutor you're going to be hearing from. And you may remember from our conversation last time, he's the one who was just a few months out of law school, basically, just getting his career started. And he was asked by the judge, would you do what she did in this case? Like the person who was supervising him and he had to say on the record, wouldn't have put it that way. No, basically, you might remember that. So yeah, you're going to see exactly why he said that because we're goingto get to read her actual words. Words. But yeah, we should step back and talk about, just remind everybody, catch everybody up on what this case is about, how we got here, what these proceedings are and why this matters. We can get through all that pretty quickly, but I just want to put this in the context of what we've been talking about with the sandwich trial, which is 18 U .S .C. 111 very quickly. Those charges are involved here because it does tie in directly to the sandwich trail because we're talking again about obstructing, impeding, harassing, intimidating, otherwise getting in the way of a federal agent. That's the main charge, but there's also this conspiracy charge that was not present in the sandwich trial because, of course, Sean Dunn was but one man. You would think maybe he was a force unto himself, but that's right. The unindicted co -conspirator to

0:02:37 Thomas: Memory oh boy they never because they never caught the subway sandwich artist that's why some say he's still making subway sandwiches somewhere to this day yeah yeah all

0:03:50 Lydia: It's creating weapons. Jeez.

0:03:49 Matt: This day. That is a secret laboratory. The really notable thing about this prosecution, and I'm going to go deeper in all of this, but I want to set this up. The thing that made this one different and that we we are now starting to see in other similar cases. And the reason that we really want to talk about Broadview now is that they are starting to use this tactic around the country, both in Minnesota, Washington, we've just seen in other places now startingto creep up. But using Section 372, which is the conspiracy statute, which has hardly ever, ever been used because it's basically conspiracy to do all of those things in 18 U .S .C. 111, to somehow get in the way of a federal agent. And the question of how you prove conspiracy, what conspiracy looks like, how it is established, who is involved in a conspiracy, a lot of this stuff there's not a lot lot of precedent for because we have not used this statute in this way, as DOJ has been doing in a lot of cases now. They're just kind of freelancing with what they've got. So there's going to be some really interesting legal stuff that I had to spend some time thinking about because one of the many problems with this transcript is they're going to present three different versions of what they think the conspiracy is and how it was formed successfully on different days. So that's something to look forward to. But there are just so many issues here and more issues even than the judge flagged that I'm going to try to pick up as we go. But what I'm going to try to do here is after we get through the preliminaries, we'll talk about, we will just intro each one of these issues by showing what the judge said on the record and then going to the part of the transcript that upset her. And I think that's a big way to do it.

0:05:13 Matt: And we've got so much to cover here. So we should get started.

0:05:15 Thomas: Well I'm excited to get to all the corruption we'll take a break support the show patreon .com slash gavel pod get the goodies skip the ads and uh we'll be right right back

0:05:30 Ad: [Ad break 1 — ad music]

0:05:30 Matt: Well, let's quickly review just in case anybody didn't hear our last episode on this. I just, and just to catch everybody up, there's a lot going on here. It's a pretty simple case at the end of the day, but a few concepts I want to make sure we understand and context that you're really going to need before we dive into this. So this, of course, is the case that's been known as the Broadview Six. We've got six different people who were arrested outside an ICE facility in Chicago during a protest in September of 2025. And the named defendants are all people who are there, but didn't really have anything to do with the things that they're alleging happened. So I want to explain that these are people who are known in their communities. Most famously, Kat Abagazila, who we've had on the show, who was running for Congress at the time, but everybody else named in the indictment was either in office or running for office, as well as her field manager was also arrested. Interested. So that off the bat should be suspicious that you've got a very large crowd of people. And the only people charged with crimes are people that are some kind of prominence because the allegation when it comes down to it is that we have an officer identified as officer agent A in the indictment. He'll be named. We'll talk about him. He's trying to get to work and there's a protest happening outside. The police are clearing the protest, but this man is really determined to get work in his government vehicle. So he just drives into the crowd. That's what happens.

0:06:43 Thomas: So many hateable things in that sentence and then what you just said first off a guy who wants to get to work I already hate him yeah um yeah yeah he's like your honor I'm still an asshole I'm

0:06:46 Matt: Yeah, right. Yes. Especially when that job is ICE. So, we've got a very determined ICE agent. And again, the police are in the process of clearing the protesters and clearing the way so people get in, but he decides to do it his own way. And so, of course, he's not blamed for that. The protesters are, as they're pounding the hood and telling him to back off, and he almost hits a number of people. And there's people trying to redirect him, doing what you'd expect, and a big crowd of people with a vehicle going through. I think one of his windshield wipers gets torn off. And at some point, somebody – yeah, I know. Think of the windshield wipERS. And at one point, at some time, somebody etches or paints pig on the side of his car. But it wasn't any of these people. And they're not alleging it was any of those people. What they're alleging is that these people all contributed to the harassment, intimidation, or impeding of his government duties. And also, just as an interesting legal note, he wasn't on the clock at the time he was commuting to work. So that does become kind of an issue. You. It's not really an issue because he still obviously has to commute to get there, but just a technicality.

0:06:51 Lydia: Yeah $15.

0:07:47 Thomas: Still a fucking asshole off the clock on the clock I'm Still an Ice Pig yeah Grand Jury Club

0:07:47 Matt: Yeah, that's right. 24 -7. So as I said, the heart of this thing is not just these 18 U .S .C. 111 charges, but this idea of conspiracy that all of these people spontaneously in this moment came together, including people who didn't know each other. Now, you can form a conspiracy with people you don't know. That can happen. You can imagine like a drug operation where you're helping make the drugs and there's people selling the drugs. They're all part of the the same conspiracy, you're never going to meet. But these are people who are all within a few yards of each other who had no prior agreement and were just doing what they could to protect the crowd. And again, there's no even real testimony that these particular people were doing anything. They're basically just blaming them for them. And they are blaming them for being at a protest. That's what this comes down to. Very much like the Prairieland defendants we've been talking about, that these are being charged with federal felonies or trying to get them in federal felонies. We'll get to that. For being at protest. So the U .S. Attorney's office has been very, very aggressive about charging people that are at protests all over the country. And this one is particularly prominent because we've got somebody running for office and we've gotten a number of people in office and this got a lot of attention. So then they have very good lawyers. At some point in the proceedings, they started to realize that the US attorney's office had presented a number different versions of conspiracy, which we'll talk about. And it became a live issue about whether or not they should get the grand jury transcripts, which is very unusual as we've discussed it. This is not something that you ever expect to see. And just remind everybody just may not be as familiar with these things. When we're talking about a grand jury, we're not talking about the standard jury of 12 people that's picked by both sides to sit in judgment of their peers, to find beyond a reasonable doubt whether or not somebody did something. We're talking about 23 people who are chosen from the community and come in once a week on a Thursday in this case for a federal grand jury. Federal grand jury service is a slog and it takes 12 of the 23, I believe, to fine probable cause to indict. And that's all you you have to do is basically just, is it more likely, it basically seems likely that this person committed a crime. Is there enough reason from what you've seen here to go forward on a case?

0:07:52 Lydia: Did you say that they meet every Thursday? Like is that like all grand juries are all grand grand juries meet every Thursday?

0:09:54 Matt: I know this one was, but they do have like a regular meeting schedule. Yeah.

0:09:55 Lydia: Oh, okay. I didn't know.

0:09:56 Thomas: Man between the conspiracies and the grand jury people are just meeting people And I can't find it. You know what I mean? Like, I guess I got to get into a drug conspiracy or grand jury and I can meet people, you know? Yeah. Loneliness epidemic.

0:10:06 Matt: That's right. That's where you can hang out or just go show up to an ice protest and you'll make friends fast. That'S right. I just wanted to note that because you'll hear at some point, I think she'll mention that they're meeting every Thursday. So these are people by this point that she's presenting in October. I think they've been doing it for several months. They know each other. They know the drill. They know her, as we're going to learn. They know her already. And I really want to make sure that people understand, before we start reading this, some very important things legally about how grand juries work. This is a pretty informal process, and at any point, as you're going to see in these transcripts, a grand jury can just raise their hand and ask a question while the prosecutor's talking, which is pretty cool.

0:10:43 Thomas: Well, I never would have get if there's one thing that sounds like it wouldn't be informal, you know, a grand jury. Hey, we're just if you want to bring pizza in a grand jury, you can if you if you wanted to show and tell, you You know, it's just what it's just all all bets are off in grand jury. Yeah. Pet it or whatever. Yeah.

0:10:48 Matt: Yeah, it's a grand jury. Yeah. Yeah, that's a good point because technically speaking, a trial jury is called a petty jury, right? Like a little jury. But of course, a little juror is the one that convicts you of murder. And this is the one that indicts you. So a little backwards. The other thing you need to know is that there's no voir dire. And that's going to become relevant because you're going to see something that I did not expect to see in this. And the judge didn't really call it, I don't think, directly in the sentencing hearing. They're going to be doing basically the equivalent of voir dire in ways that are very inappropriate, appropriate, which is, of course, screening the jury. Really, all that you need to be screened for in a grand jury is making sure that you don't know the person involved or any of the people involved or that you weren't there or whatever. But this is not the kind of thing where we do extensive jury questionnaires to figure out your personal beliefs and we don't bring in Dr. Bull to sort this all out with his wonderful glasses. We just have a grand jury sit there and decide whether it's likely we should proceed with this case. The other thing you need know is that the reason we have a Grand Jury at all is because the government chose, just as they tried with Sean undone, they chose to try to go first for the felony version of all of this. They didn't have to do that. And if they hadn't done that, we wouldn't have had any of this happen. We wouldn't be reading this today. They would have just proceeded on information. And there's a good chance this actually might have gone to trial and these people could have been convicted. But they had to do it this way. And this is what happened. One more thing before we get started. Yes, total hubris. Oh, all this is. There's a lot of hubris going on in these records. But there's also, as we're going through this, I want you to consider what it would actually take. Very interesting question I haven't really had to think about before because I don't read a lot of grand jury transcripts. The judge didn't have to get to the question I'm going to ask you, but it's something to consider as we're reading this. What does it actually take to have a grand jury proceeding be so bad that you've got to throw out the indictment? Because the judge didn'T do that. What happened in this case, on the sentencing hearing that we discussed, was the judge said, look, I've got a lot questions about this. I actually think that even though I really don't like what I'm reading here, and I really DON'T like that you redacted a lot OF this before you gave it to me, and

0:10:49 Lydia: I know. I feel like the name needs to be changed. Yeah, yeah, right. Hubris. Yeah

0:12:49 Matt: I'm going to identify as we go the places where we know they redactED it so you you can see how bad that was. She said, I don't think a lot of this actually was cured or wasn't that bad. I have real concerns about at least one piece that I'll talk about, but I want to hold further hearings. And certainly I want more information because I think sanctions are appropriate for the lawyers involved, which they should be. There should be consequences for this. But after lunch, as we know at the sentencing hearing, Andrew Boutros came back. Yep.

0:13:12 Thomas: Your Honor, we're calling it off. We don't, you know, why waste everybody's time? Let's get out of here. It's a nice day. Yeah.

0:13:19 Matt: We didn't want a trial anyway. That's fine. It's just wasting everybody's time here. And so yeah, they voluntarily dismissed the charge rather than have to face going to trial or try to sort this out or have the judge tell them more about what they did wrong. So that's an interesting kind of thing hanging over all of this is what would have happened if he hadn't dismissed it and the judge had held further hearings as they were talking about doing on motions, which the judge was basically begging the defense to file for sanctions and for further information about the grand jury and to bring in more testimony. And yeah.

0:13:48 Lydia: Voluntarily dismissing the action though like doesn't necessarily alleviate the potential for sanctions, does it? Like that is Okay, that's still on the table. Oh, okay. Yeah, yeah. Financial impact and all that kind of stuff too. Yeah. Yeah?

0:13:54 Matt: Oh no, still happened. Happened. That still happened. Yeah. But it does keep them. Stop the bleeding. Yeah, right. We can at least take a break for the day and not have to get any more testimony out. Yeah. And of course, the voluntary dismissal that was with prejudice. And there was also an open question for the judge about whether she would have to dismiss with prejudice if she found that the grand jury violations were bad enough. So as I said, all of this autopsy is an interesting exercise. It's a rare opportunity. But in the end, because they did proceed on information, Once they couldn't get where they wanted to go with the grand jury, they did actually just proceed without them. It's all kind of moot. It doesn't matter. But that's why it's such a great time to look at this, because nobody got hurt. I mean, obviously, people were put through the long process of being charged with federal crimes, and that's half the point with these things. Things, well, yeah, of course, hang over you. And of course Catabagazela, who knows, maybe she would have had a better chance. She didn't lose by that much. If she hadn't had this hanging over her, we will never know. No idea. Yeah, probably did. But again, who know? You can't know. So let's start with the issue of prosecutorial vouching. So I will read to you. I'm going to let you guys do the readings for the most part, but I'm just going to read the section from the sentencing transcripts. I don't have to go back to that. This is from May 21st in the sentencing hearing, Judge April Perry says, several potential issues jumped out at me immediately and glaringly. First, improper prosecutorial vouching to the grand jurors, with the AUSA putting her personal credibility and trustworthiness on the line in support of the charges. And that's as much as we really knew. That's pretty bad. Vouching is not good.

0:13:58 Thomas: But it at least stops like you stop digging, I guess. Yeah.

0:14:51 Thomas: I think it probably helped her, to be honest. I can vouch for that.

0:15:30 Matt: That is right. What you're about to read is way beyond what I thought it was going to be. I got to tell you, I did not expect it to be this bad. And there's one word you really don't want to use if you don't wants to get accused of vouching. See if you can spot it. So let's just start. So we're going to October 9th, 2025 in Chicago. This is Sheri Mecklenburg, the veteran prosecutor, and she's going to be introducing the case to the grand jury.

0:15:57 Matt: It's the first time they've heard anything about it. And of course, we'll have Lydia playing the part of Sheri Mecklenburg.

0:16:01 Lydia: This is a very interesting case. It's a little different. I purposely asked if I could wait for the Thursday grand jury. I did. Matt will vouch for me. I said I want to go in front of the Thursday Grand Jury because I know you and I trust you and you know me and you trust me and I would never ask you to charge somebody if I didn't think there was probable cause and you know you've asked me before well what about this person and I said I don't charge people unless I'm absolutely sure wow

0:16:17 Thomas: Oh, my God. Yeah. Yeah. We're watching the 80s VHS office tape of like, here's what not to do.

0:16:28 Matt: So bad. It is so bad. If you asked me to just monologue. Exactly. Prosecutor vouching.

0:16:39 Thomas: I think Lydia was in black and white just now. Yeah. Yeah, no parts of it were not vouching like it was 100 % vouching for like full paragraphs.

0:16:34 Lydia: Like like a demonstration of vouching like what is happening okay

0:16:42 Matt: Yep. In the legal dictionary, the footnote, this is vouching, here's an excerpt. Exactly, yep.

0:16:57 Matt: So that's the worst of that. Obviously, she's going to introduce the kids.

0:17:03 Thomas: Do the next paragraph real quick.

0:17:04 Lydia: So this case I want you to do what we have done and that is put and that is put aside any personal feelings. It arises out of the protests at the ICE facility. I want you to put aside your personal feelings, your politics have nothing to do with that.

0:17:17 Thomas: We have. I just love the like, do what we've done. Like it's you develop a rapport with your grand jury of like hey, we're putting, we're always, it's always right. Yeah. We're the team. This is like any other one that we've done, you know, you and I we're team. Yeah, yeah.

0:17:23 Lydia: Mm -hmm. We're on the same team. Yep.

0:17:27 Matt: Yep, yep, exactly. No, that's such a good catch. And put aside your personal feelings except the way that you trust Trust me. Your personal feelings for me should come into this, obviously. But yeah, so this is really inappropriate. And I can see how this happens when you've been talking to the same people for months and months and month, especially federal grand juries. They go for a long time. Nicole actually almost got called for one. And generally, I want anybody I know to go to a jury, especially a lawyer, but it would have completely destroyed the office for quite a while because of the way they do federal grand jury's here. She would have actually had to be there for a lot lot more than just one Thursday a week, it would have been pretty bad.

0:17:41 Thomas: That's a good point.

0:18:06 Lydia: Interesting.

0:18:06 Matt: I think it's pretty hard to get people on them around here. But let's go to page 60.

0:18:11 Thomas: Expedited.

0:18:12 Lydia: I know, yeah. And unfortunately, it's a header that's on every single page, so it's misspelled on every simple page.

0:18:17 Matt: Yeah. Good catch.

0:18:17 Thomas: Look, it'S a sign of how expedited it was. We can't even fix that. Don't even have time.

0:18:25 Matt: So the context here is that the witness at this point is somebody who observed, an officer observed the car coming in. So this is not the driver. This is somebody who is an eyewitness. And a grand juror has just asked, do we have records of what the condition of the car was before? Pretty reasonable question, because you're saying there's damage. You're saying there are things missing. Yes, exactly. And that's what she's going to point out. So here's some more vouching

0:18:41 Lydia: Did they drive around with pig on the car like at all times anyway? Oh, nice. Let me just point out to you, this is argument. This is not his testimony. This is my argument. I don't think in your common sense and experience, you would believe that the agent was driving around with the word pig etched into his car and his mirror broken and his rear windshield broken before this incident. That would be hard. That wouldbe a stretch of your common -sense to believe that, And you can use your common sense, which is why I came to the Thursday grand jury. Yeah.

0:18:52 Matt: In the middle of his testimony. Exactly. I mean, yeah, what do you want?

0:19:01 Thomas: Bam printed well I don't know you can use your common sense and your good looks and that's why you know those fucking idiots on tuesday who are uggos that I would expect this from them

0:19:27 Matt: We all know. So

0:19:29 Lydia: It's like while she's like cutting them a slice of cake. Right.

0:19:31 Thomas: But sorry what day is it hold on what day ist it this is thursday right it's thursday did I get the wrong day

0:19:38 Matt: These are examples, and I just want to focus on the very obvious examples of vouching. Obviously, the judge was most concerned about the first one we read, which was the most most vouchiest vouching you've ever seen on the record.

0:19:46 Thomas: Well enough for nothing it's not like yes okay on one hand it'd be like wow do you think he just drives around with the word pig on his car? Well, it could have been vandalized by somebody else that yesterday, you know, it's not like she's trying to make it like, Oh, you think he just drive around with that? It's like, it possible. Yeah, exactly.

0:20:02 Matt: I mean, he is an ICE agent, and there are a lot of people in Chicago that don't like him. So the suspects are many. So we're going to find some of these other excerpts. You'll see other examples of vouching. You'll notice one of them is going to be that she's going to refer to co -counsel Matthew Skiba as Professor Skiba several times when he's presenting on the law. He is not, of course, a law professor. So setting him up as an expert, basically, when he was just out of law school.

0:20:24 Thomas: What the

0:20:25 Lydia: What a weird way to be.

0:20:25 Thomas: Fuck is happening? What is happening. So remind me what's her bet. She's not, She's a veteran, right? So does this mean, Matt, that it's either always this bad, roughly, or that somebody who's been working in this for 20 years, once Trump enables everything, they're just like, oh, sweet, fascism, full fascism. Baby.

0:20:27 Matt: Yeah. It's so informal. This is how it is. It's a grand jury. Yeah. Nobody's ever going to read this. Certainly not going to come on any podcasts. So let's go for it. Yeah. No, I don't know. I mean, honestly, I mean I know Casey's presented to grand juries. I know she's extremely ethical and does everything by the book. I think her office generally does. I mean. I know that this is possible to do it right.

0:20:35 Lydia: 20 years. She's been doing this for 20 years?

0:21:08 Thomas: So

0:21:08 Matt: But this is not how you do it. And it does make me wonder. Yeah. I don' t know. By definition.

0:21:09 Thomas: You don't know like if, if this is, should we expect? Yeah. And it sounds like it's a system where, you know, maybe there needs to be a little bit more check on that. You know, it's one thing to be the honor system, I guess, but it can go this awry and it's pretty much a miracle. We're reading this, right? It's like if this goes awry, and someone we've never heard of is convicted of something we're never seeing this right yeah yeah yeah that'd be like one trump closing arguments well

0:21:33 Matt: It's gone this awry so far. There's much more to go. But yes. I agree with you. No. No, it is. It does make really, it's extremely enlightening. That's why I wanted to spend as much time as we want to spend. I mean, we could really just do, if we wanted to, we could actually do 190 pages of this thing because there's just lots of little moments like this, but yeah, basically. But I wanted to spend a lot of time on this particular thing because it is so rare and because it is hilarious. Honestly, there's so many things about this that are so ridiculous that I think it's worth getting as much sunshine as possible. So let's look at something else that the judge didn't flag, but Matthew Skiba, who does seem to be a pretty decent and ethical guy from from what I can tell, he's just trying to do his job. He's new to the office. He actually brought this up at the sentencing hearing. I'll read what he said before we go to the next issue, which is going to be on page three. We're going to go back to page three for this. Mr. Skiba said, it's reflected on the transcript on the first day that agent Hilton, who was the driver, was in the room during the vouching. That's not my recollection of the day, but it could have just been lots of things happened that day. The agent being in there when he should have been in the hallway, which is not top of mind. So page three of... So he's saying that the driver was inappropriately in the room at a time when he shouldn't have been.

0:21:51 Lydia: Yeah. Seriously.

0:22:35 Thomas: I didn't even understand that oh the witness and okay I guess the vouching so during the does it matter that it was during the voucher I don't know maybe I was just getting confused right right right just quickly clarifying that's always true regardless

0:22:49 Matt: Yeah, because he's hearing the prosecution's case. You should not be hearing the way that they're making the case because you're about to testify for the case. Right, exactly. Yeah. But that also means that he's here during the entire presentation of what she wants them to do with the case, so he's reading and thinking about the whole thing, which he really shouldn't be. So I just wanted to flag, top of page three, the court reporter very helpfully notes this. Evan Hilton, having entered the grand jury room, was sworn by the poor person as follows. So we've neutral observer. The court observer is writing down that she sees that the witness is in the room as of the point that everything we read at the beginning is getting started.

0:22:58 Thomas: Of if someone's vouching right right gotcha

0:23:27 Matt: So he hears everything she says about how, here's what we're going to be presenting. Here's the case you're going to Be seeing. Here is what I want you to do. And I'm going to walk you through all of this evidence. And here is what the driver is going to tell you. And again, he should not be hearing any of this. It's pretty bad. It is just an easy little small thing that the judge didn't even catch that he's just acknowledging kind of accidentally.

0:23:56 Ad: [Ad break 2 — ad music]

0:23:56 Matt: So as I said, the conspiracy charge here is basically three different theories. And I want you to sort of see how these develop. There's the object offense, basically surrounding and impeding the ICE agent, which is just the fact that there's a crowd there surrounding him. They're saying that it's a conspiracy. They're that there is an agreement formation, that the agreement can be shown by implied, spontaneous, even parallel conduct, I'm just reading here, rather than planning. So basically basically that people just started copying each other, which is a little strange. And then there's the Pinkerton liability, which was very important because they're using this in all of these cases now. And Pinkerton reliability is sort of the classic federal conspiracy liability standard. And remember, my law professor used the analogy of a train, that once the train gets going on the tracks, that everybody who's on that train is going to be liable for wherever that train goes, unless you get off at some point and explicitly get off off the train. And now a really important thing about Pinkerton liability and conspiracy generally is you do have rails that you're traveling down.

0:24:54 Matt: If something goes off the rails, so for example, if the three of us agree to rob a bank, we haven't really spent any time together. I feel like that'd be a good way to get started. If we just walk into a bank armed, now again, the classic example is we're walking in armed and everybody understands if you're armed that people get hurt, that could happen. You understand that hostages might be taken. That's its own crime, right? But what if we've got a bunch of hostages, we're just hanging out, and I decide to download a movie illegally so we can catch up on Lim.

0:25:19 Matt: Not usually something that happens during a bank robbery. You're not going to be responsible for me downloading the movie, except under this framing, you would be. Or if Lydia just decides to start selling heroin. I mean, I know how it goes during a Bank robbery.

0:25:18 Thomas: Everybody

0:25:33 Matt: So these are not things you can expect. A Pinkerton liability still does require that it's foreseeable.

0:25:32 Lydia: You do, you know, if

0:25:38 Thomas: Needs two jobs to get by these days

0:25:41 Lydia: These are the kind of shenanigans we're going to get into, if we all get together, I don't think we should all get together. This sounds. Yeah mm hmm. Mm hmm. So they all run to the front of the car together to hinder and impede the car. That is a conspiracy under the law, and I should tell you under the law for a conspiracy, this is remember when your parents told you when you were young, be careful who you hang with? A conspiracy means that you are, anyone in the conspiracy, is responsible for anything anyone else does. So for instance, if Matt and I go into a bank to rob it and I think nobody is going to get hurt and he shoots someone, I also am accountable. We had an agreement to go do this. Whatever happens is also my fault. Whatever Whatever happened out there, we don't have to find the person who scratched pig into the car. We just have to show that they were all doing this and they were all making this happen. And what we showed you for each of the people named in the indictment, every single one of those people who we showed you had their hands on the car, bracing against the car doing that, pushing their bodies against the car, trying to impede or hinder the car trying to break the mirror, trying to and banging on the car. We showed you that they were all doing something in that group. No, not necessarily. You and I could decide together right now to go do something right on the spot, and that's a conspiracy. It's not an element of conspiracy to prove prior planning, prior thought, and you can see it in the conspiracy statute that that's not element of it. Question down there? Thank you. You can agree by action. Yes? So you had a question. That's a great question. And I will tell you that for at least now, we have identified people who were there and walking alongside and recording or watching or doing other things there. And we did not charge them. We only, we identified them. We know who they are. But we only charged people who are actually with their hands on the car attempting to hinder and impede the car. I could, I don't want to go back through the video again. You'd kill me if I did. You'll see people walking along and they're, some are filming it. Some are just walking along with it. None of these people are charged. If you're walking, okay, if you're walking in a parking lot and there's a law enforcement vehicle and you go, that's not against the law. But if you are touching it in a way that is to hinder and impede it, like standing in front of the car and holding the car and bracing yourself and pushing against the car, and you're right in front if it, that is hindering and impeding the car. If you are banging on the car or if you are grabbing the mirror so the driver can't really go, if you doing all that, that is not just like touching the car that's hindering and impedening under the law."

0:25:46 Matt: Yeah, that's true. Straight to federal crimes. Crimes. I mean, some of the most fun federal crimes, but yeah, no. So it has to be within the scope in furtherance of the thing that you're doing, and it hasと be reasonably foreseeable within the scope of that, right? So that is not what she's going to be presenting. That's not how she's gonna be explaining it. So what the court said about this, we'll just say you can frame this. During my review of these transcripts, I did identify some infirmities in the legal instructions that have been provided to the grand jury, at least in regards to the very first grand grand jury appearance on October 9th. These inaccuracies were corrected, at least in my view, by the final grand jury clearance at which the indictment was obtained, during which a much more fulsome and accurate legal instruction was given to the grand jury. So she's flagging this and saying, you really should have done a better job on October ninth, but by the time you got to the one where it actually worked, you did it. But I thought it was worth noting because this, again, is a veteran, experienced prosecutor. And here is what she says the conspiracy is, because again, they're going to present three different definitions. This is not a statute that has hardly ever been used. I understand that, but it's still pretty simple, basic elementary stuff. So let's go to page 63, transcript page 63.

0:27:10 Matt: No, that's not how that works. Yeah. Carry on. Correct. Incorrect. Not whatever happens. I mean, again, it has to be reasonably foreseeable, right? Again, if he downloads the movie, right. It's dangerous. Yeah. It is. Right. Felony murder. Yeah, exactly. Yeah there's a moment where she, she shows the video and is basically narrating it and telling them what they're seeing. And It doesn't really translate to this, but so go ahead with the grand jury question.

0:27:25 Thomas: Oh really that's not the felony uh oh whatever okay gotcha yeah gotcha also it shouldn't work this way I don't think uh really but that's the felony murder rule or often yeah huh does the term conspiracy in any way imply that there's prior thought to this action yeah can your actions be a conspiracy as well because you know what the other person is doing okay uh is this this is a four person uh I'm just like how far does this go if I'm there and I find it interesting I take my cell phone out and I'm just recording it am I part of it now is it against the law to touch a law enforcement vehicle whether it's okay the grand jury says okay I really wonder how to okay yeah or if it was like

0:30:10 Matt: Right. That's good enough for now. So yeah. Okay. Yeah. Interesting read there. So, you know, again, this is very sloppy. And she's also suggesting that the idea that, just to quote this, I see them pushing, I'm going to push too, right? That's the question. Is that a conspiracy? That's mirroring. That's parallel conduct. That's like copycat, right. You did not reach a meeting of the minds. Lines. She's like, hey, that seems like a fun thing to do. I'll do it too. As opposed to there's another part where people start chanting, get to the front, get the front and they start organizing and people start actually working in concert. And the concert of action theory of conspiracy is pretty simple. And that's what she's also trying to suggest. But I'm going to push because I see other people pushing the car is not a conspiracy. And like the drug conspiracy thing that I was telling you about, which she does mention in the next friendship we'll get to, that doesn't help helper either, because you know you're part of a drug operation, even if you don't know the other people.

0:30:54 Lydia: Yeah yeah doesn't

0:31:08 Matt: You know that you're making drugs, and presumably somebody's going to sell those drugs, so it doesn't require that you know exactly the name of the person doing that. But the idea that someone in the crowd is in front of the vehicle that's preventing it from moving, that they're suddenly part of the conspiracy, it's guilt by presence. She's suggesting that anybody who was in the car that was anywhere near the car, that seems like they might have been trying to do something in parallel with everyone else, is suddenly partof a criminal conspiracy. That's It's very dangerous. It's very bad for protest and for criminalizing dissent. So I think we're going to see more of that kind of thing. Yes. Yes. And yeah, that's right.

0:31:08 Thomas: Okay lydia

0:31:37 Lydia: It feel to you like I mean it's not like there was a laundry list of charges that they were pursuing under this indictment don't you think like she should have a better handle on defining what this is if she's going to be presenting this information like it just felt like she was discovering the definition herself as she was talking through it it's the thursday

0:31:55 Thomas: It's thursday they know what to do on third you know if I come in here on a monday or tuesday I'm like all right he

0:32:05 Matt: Yeah, no, absolutely. And you know, it's not really an excuse that they've never used the statute before. They shouldn't be using the statute anyway. Like it's such a weak conspiracy allegation. So she's going to be talking about whether or not this person is an officer employee of the United States. Now we're getting to section 111, which is the sandwich trial offense, fence, the basic broad offense about getting in the way.

0:32:12 Lydia: Group yeah so this is just the assault whoever assaults resists opposes impedes intimidates or interferes with any officer while he's engaged with his duties has violated section 111 yes he was reporting for his duties he was about he's two minutes from getting there but they impeded him I don't know why that would matter. I'm asking you. You tell me.

0:32:34 Thomas: Was on his way he didn't actually show up right right he wasn't actually there yet correct because the way I'm reading this is you're interfering with him getting to his duty not actually doing his duty Not getting to his job

0:32:59 Lydia: He can't do his duty if you're impeding him from getting there and doing it. Did they along the way impede and hinder him in getting there in doing his duty, getting there to perform his duties?

0:33:08 Matt: So Skiba says,

0:33:08 Thomas: So he was on site he just flashed his badge he was on the way to the facility that he manages and that's when he was stopped

0:33:18 Lydia: He's on the grounds of the facility that he manages. He's one of the people that manages the facility. He is the redacted. Redacted.

0:33:20 Thomas: He's the manager okay thank you

0:33:25 Lydia: So he's there to go and make sure they have staffing, vetting to answer public inquiries about things. He's one of the manager people. He's not in uniform or anything like that. He's not, yeah, he's not in uniform. He is not out there to arrest people. He's there to just manage the facility and that was the testimony that he was not in uniform and that he wasn't there just for the facility. Yeah, I'm sorry. I didn't realize.

0:33:47 Thomas: For that clarification. Well, I have another question about the video

0:33:54 Matt: This is good to stop here. I thought this was a really interesting excerpt just to start with, because it's so cool to see the way the grand juries get involved. I know, it's great, right? I love it. And I just want to, yeah, that's right. Yeah. Yeah, these people, they've got it. They've got it. I think this is such a cool thing. It used to be, I think, way back in the day that juries could do this during trials. It was way back in medieval times. Yeah, it is cool to actually be more actively involved. Yeah. There would be just that one jury raising his hand over and over again just saying, can you slow down, Mr. Cameron? Don't need that. Yeah but I also thought this was interesting just as a legal matter because she, again, doesn't really know the statute she's working with. This is 18 U .S .C. 111, which the DOJ is using all over the country in all kinds of different cases. And she's quibbling with this grand juror who's asking very reasonable questions about, well, he's not doing his duty. He's on his way to his duty, he is not there yet, so are they really impeding? And she is right to say, yes, he will be doing his duty and he can't do his duty until he gets there. But there is also the other part of 18 U S .C 111 that is right there for her, which is that they were doing this on account of the fact that he is a federal agent. They know he is an ICE agent and they are doing it because they know he he's an ICE agent. And I thought that was interesting that she doesn't even sort of get to that part. She's just kind of arguing with the juror about that. Right. Yeah, I think you're right. I mean, he's not going to be able to do his duties until he crosses through that gate, although he's a ICE officer on the way in, I guess. But apparently he's some kind of manager of the facility that's coming out here. So I guess you have to be on site. Yeah. Yeah basically. So I just want to take you to the end of this transcript just to show you how things ended here because she got a no bill, which is incredibly unusual, a no true bill. And the grand jury declined to find there was probable cause for anything after hearing her out. Yeah, probably.

0:34:01 Thomas: Who are these geniuses on the grand jury Jesus, I want to meet them it is the thursday it is I see what she means she's like god damn hoist by my own petard of of the brilliant Thursday. I like

0:34:04 Lydia: Yeah, just like logicking their way through everything. It is the Thursday group.

0:34:21 Lydia: Yeah. The why over and over and over again, like a child. Yeah. Because I said so. Right. Yeah. Right. He's just a civilian at that point. Right.

0:34:23 Thomas: That. I could definitely see problems with it. Someone's like one of those really annoying people who has terrible questions. Well, I didn't really think, I think that, that a brilliant juror, I don't know, I didn't really get that distinction until that question where it's like, well, you can't impede them from doing their duty, but if you're just, if they're just on their way to clock in. It's not really like specifically a duty. You think of like impeding them from doing their duty. Otherwise it's, I don't know, I feel like a traffic jam would impede them fromdoing their duty has to be more like if, if you're yeah. Well, and, and I guess on that note, if, andI know it's a federal thing, I'm just speaking loosely here. If there's a accident or something and a police officer is trying to get to something with their car and you just like cut them off, then maybe that could be a crime of like, you're preventing someone from getting something like you intentionally do it or something versus that same officer. He's just hasn't clocked in yet. He is just on his way to work. You cut them off. That's not really the same thing. Like you're on your way. Well, even if he's not just a civilian, he's, he is not specifically in the performance or trying to be in the performant of like a specific duty. He is just like, oh, well he's going to go, he going to get to his duties eventually. Is that what the the distinction is, Matt? Because I don't think I had quite thought of it in those terms. It really makes a lot of sense. Oh, so I guess you make the argument that like, since he's doing just general stuff, like he does need to get in there and just do that managing stuff or whatever. And that's more specific. Okay. Oh wow. I stand by my readings of okay then.

0:37:10 Thomas: Okay, all right.

0:37:12 Matt: But I want to point out the very fun exchange she has with this grand jury at the very end of this because again, the informality of this and the way they just feel basically comfortable telling her to fuck off to her face is very funny. Let's go to 74.

0:37:25 Thomas: I'm sorry, I have one last question. The felony for conspiracy. I understand we have to indict, but I didn't think the misdemeanors were indicted because we had something similar and he charged felony well I thought you didn't even need to bring the misdemeanor okay well then I guess well then why are we

0:37:26 Lydia: Yeah. Yes. Yes, I put it all in one indictment. Can I bring the misdemeanors without you? I believe I could. I think that's right. I don't need to. It's all in one indictment. That's why. Do you want me to go back and just bring you the conspiracy in an indictment? Is that what you guys want?

0:37:55 Thomas: Uh no well I personally feel the complete opposite way well I said I personally feel the completely opposite way oh boy she must have I feel like I don't know if it's just lydia's acting but apparently she felt like she was going to lose because that I would have been maybe a little more like patient she's like well there's always friday grand jury good times and

0:38:03 Lydia: Pardon? Okay. You have a right to feel that way. I told you what I've told you, and it's up to you to decide what you want to do as a group. You have to deliberate and decide. If you're going to, if you have questions, I will be out there. Okay. Thank you. Ouch. I think, no, I think she's, like, about ready to try and say some choice words to them and is pulling back a little bit. Like, I thinks she's probably, yeah. Like, what a change, too, from the ass kissing that she did at the beginning of the transcript to this. What a journey. Yeah.

0:38:19 Matt: I've always wondered what it sounds like just before you lose at the grand jury. And that's it. I personally feel the complete opposite. Yeah, I know. Just do what you're going to do. Yeah. So I wanted to go to another part here before we go to this. So the next transcript, one of the many unusual things they're going do here is present it to the same grand jury the next Thursday. They're just going to come back. This was the 9th. They are going to come on the 16th and do it over again. Exactly, right? That's very unusual. There's no reason you can't do it. No, I mean, it's not like Jeopardy attaches or anything, but there's no bar to it, but it's just not usually done as a policy. And some offices, I understand it, actually do require some kind of a sign -off. If you actually really want to do that, you have to have a supervisor tell you you can do it. And you're just trying to grind them down by doing the same thing next week, hoping it'll do good. I mean, it's the definition of insanity, right? But you can't have unlimited tries. One of the the grand jury is going to point this out. Boutros explained this. I know. Yeah, right. That is funny. But Boutro was asked about this. Andrew Boutrose, again, the US attorney was called to account, obviously had to testify at the sentencing hearing or had to appear at the sentencing hiring. And he told the judge, the reason we didn't go into a new grand jury was because we were concerned that by going into a different grand jury, we may be perceived as forum shopping, unwilling to respect the decision of the grand jury. So instead, we went to the same people and didn't respect them a week later. So let's go to, yeah. No, no. Well, okay. I'll say one thing is she's going to try a better definition of conspiracy. So that's at least an improvement, but yeah, that's right. Also, you know, I was reading up on this statute that I'm charging. So I've got to say what's the news. But the fact you didn't know the law the first time is not a reason that you get to represent it. But whatever, it's your grand jury. It's your show. But it is pretty funny because they do call her on it. So let's flip ahead to October 16th on page eight.

0:39:06 Lydia: Like, maybe they were in a bad mood or something. They already said no. So, yeah, yeah? Yeah. Honestly, like my favorite thing would be like if she tries to open it up the same way and they like are reciting it along with her or something. So freaking good. Yeah. Yeah. Weird. You guys are the Thursday group. You deserve better from me. Yeah. I finally know what I'm talking about now.

0:39:09 Thomas: Okay you say unusual is it like against the rules or is it just you don't do it okay yeah is the thinking like well we tried on this exact group of people so why would we try it again I love this grand jury god who are these people fucking rule how is that any different yeah yeah huh I mean I guess in a way that's kind of right I guess if it's like we're not trying to be deceptive like did they think are they trying to pretend like well we had some new evidence or new anything that would make it different or they just literally trying again oh okay she's gonna come in um I got some notes that I shouldn't be such an asshole um so can we do this again yeah yeah yeah boy so do you have unlimited tries

0:41:16 Lydia: Do we have? What did you ask?

0:41:16 Thomas: Unlimited tries like do you keep coming back as many times as you want are we still going or no yeah the confidence too oh I think will be I think we'll be okay wink yeah I mean I'll listen yes no yeah keep keep reading this is great uh yes sir I think I think yes sir is like calling on the person yeah like yes sir are you actually presenting any new actual facts or just a different viewpoint on your side I No? Well, I heard this case like last week, and I thought it was a crock of shit then, and I still think it is. Uh -huh. Do you have any evidence other than the... No new evidence. Let's see what we have now. 17. That is the most fun I've ever... Also, this is the role I was fucking born to play I've never identified with a character more yeah other than I would probably a regional uh I probably wouldn't have said crock of shit but other than that like you know might have said like a pile of shit yeah exactly you know other thanthat but I I my this is my soulmate yeah but it is really funny we can at least say like it's not just funny but it it is incredibly funny yeah croc shit man this is so we uh we need to read this whole thing this is the best well you're going all out of order how are we supposed to know god it's so good god what what a quote for the agent fucking legend what a fucking legend this person oh

0:41:23 Lydia: Well, I don't think we have to worry about that. I think we're going to be just fine. What is that response? Yeah, I think it's just gonna be fine. Yeah. Oh, my God. And she keeps going. Wait, I hope you don't have your mind made up already that I'm going to need more tries. Wait. You just responded like, well, maybe I do. Do you? Do you have an open mind for deliberation and returning a verdict if the facts meet the law? Okay. Yeah. Oh, wow. And she keeps going. Oh yeah. Okay. Is there anybody here who feels differently? Because if you do, then you shouldn't deliberate with it. So you took a, you know, you have a duty to, to have an open mind and see if the facts fit the law and you don't get to decide if you like the law or you don t. I certainly don't get to decide if I like the law or I don't, and then deliberate and then decide if those facts fit the law. But if you're telling me now, and you have a right to say to me, this is the case I just don't like and I just can't do it, if that's true, then tell us now. Why does Skiba say yes, sir? Oh, someone raised their hand. Okay, I thought he was saying it to Mecklenburg. Okay. I'm feeling the skepticism already. Are you going to be able to listen with an open mind? Tell me the truth. Okay? Okay. Then you have to go. You got to go Okay. Thank you for your opinion for everybody I kind of had that impression from last week, but thank you Have a good evening Pardon me? I didn't say there's no new evidence If you feel that you can't be, then excuse yourself That's fine. There's still 16 1, 2, 3. Okay, that's fine Wow. That was nuts Yeah, it really is I thought it was a crock of shit then and I still think it is yeah pile of shit yeah it's much more california yeah okay can I just say the way that she started this day I'm just going to read it very quickly I scrolled back up because it caught my eye I'm back because if you did not between the questions and not getting an indictment I did not do my job I did Not explain it to you well enough I I didn't explain the law to you. I know we were running out of time and I knew it at the time, but I realized it's on me. I did not do my job last week well enough for you. So I'm coming back today with two things. Again, within pages, she just completely changes. I can tell in the words and the pattern of speech. She's losing her mind. It's amazing. Yeah. Oh, yeah. Sorry. Sorry. Yeah. Unbelievable. Yeah, wow.

0:41:31 Matt: That's really funny. It is extra funny when you read it for some reason. I don't know why I didn't catch how funny that is. We'll be fine. And then Skiba jumps in and says, I think the saying is the second time is the charm. It's not the same. And Skiba says, Yeah, I think that she's not supposed to ask that, by the way. That's a voir dire question. That's like getting into their head, right? I mean, it's just not. Yeah, it is so funny. Oh, yeah, sure. Oh yeah, yeah, so good. Okay, let's enjoy this for a moment. I should have warned you how good this is. It's so good, so this is so good! I mean this is actually the worst thing she he does in the entire thing. And it's not just funny. I mean, she's actually dismissing a grand juror because she doesn't think that he's going to be impartial enough because she's not going to side with him. Yeah, it is very funny. Absolutely. No, it's hilarious. I heard this case last week. I thought it was a crack of shit then, and I still think it is. It's such a good line. And I love it. Yeah. Yes. Oh, yeah. Yeah? Yeah. And she knows she's going going to lose again. And here's the thing. So I was going to get to that part next, but I want to just... No, totally. No, this is a really important part. I'm just taking the issues as I see them here. But the dismissal, I just want to talk about this, and we're going to touch on a couple of times here. The fact that she felt entitled to just tell the guy, well, have a good night. See you. You're out of here. You've gone. No. That's not how it works. And there's a lot of times, as you're going to see here where she's basically challenging their partiality and saying, you're not going to side with us enough. You're not doing the thing you're supposed to do here, so you're out of here. And I mean, no wonder the judge gets so upset reading this. Yeah, it's so good. Yeah, so again, this is its own kind of vouching, right? I didn't do my job saying, this the next part I want to get to, saying it's my job to convince you and I didn t do it, so I'm back to do it again and you're gonna be convinced this time because we got the law, in now this time. So yeah, she's saying Matt's going to do that part. It's always good to have a Matt doing the legal explaining. And so he goes through their version of conspiracy here. And then so at 11 there, let's start with Professor Skiba and our class. She sets this up as we're doing a little mini law class about conspiracy, right? Setting themselves up as experts on the law, which is not how they're supposed to be. They're supposedto be presenting their case and saying, here's the law. Here are the facts. Not like we are the world's experts on conspiracy here is sander 372 yeah okay yeah I knew you were gonna have some fun with this I mean there's so much to talk about here oh

0:46:30 Thomas: My god yeah she might as well come in all right so after last week we uh put our heads together we found someone who specializes in explaining extremely simple things to idiots so professor your eminence holiness um dr skiba it is yeah um saints oh man this is the best thing ever I love this so much all

0:46:32 Lydia: So cringy. Yeah Yeah. Oh, boy.

0:47:20 Ad: [Ad break 3 — ad music]

0:47:20 Thomas: Right gavelistos gavelinos we have so much more on that this is this isthebestthisisthebrilliantwhosethebestplaywright this is george bernard shaw And I don't even know who that doesn't even yeah but also. So, yeah, it's like I can't believe how good this is. So I am so excited. We have so much more for you that we've got to put it in another episode. Hey, you know, we mentioned that Gavel Gavel might be the one show that's back to the chunk system because it does fit. And I got to say, patrons sounded off. They're like, we love the chunk system. Chunks, chunks, chunk, chunk. That's what they said. That one amazing patron said that if you say chunks while the gavel goes in the theme song, chunks, chunks, you know, like that also really works. Chunks, chunks. So that is why it is the last day of the month and you're getting some chunks. Now, as always, patrons at patreon.com/gavelpod, you can listen to the next episode right away, immediate, all yesterday. Not really, not literally. Really. It's, it's still the time goes one direction in our universe, but that we know of. Yeah. Unless we fall into a black hole or something, who knows? But no, you can listen to it right away. Normies, we do space it out a little bit. That's just the one good thing that we can do for patrons. In addition to skipping those annoying ads. That's true. I misspoke. I redact, I strike my last comment from the record, but no, oh my God, this grand, I want to find if if we could do more because

0:47:32 Lydia: Yeah, Arthur Miller, Tennessee Williams. Yeah? Thank God. Yeah everybody.

0:48:06 Lydia: I love that. Oh immediately. Yeah yeah we haven't figured that out yet mm -hmm mm -hm I was gonna say there's a couple good things we can do for patrons yeah yeah oh I know

0:48:59 Thomas: It's so it's so good I love this lady it's like the perfect character and Lydia's nailing it of course so we've got yeah it's the best characters aren't like oh they're just great you know the best characters are like kind of kind of shitty you know but you're kind of like striving with them in a way yeah it's just so funny oh there's so much more all right Cavalistas, Gavalinos and other gavel, any other language I could think of. Thanks so much for listening.

0:49:03 Lydia: Thank you so much I gotta say I'm enjoying myself in her shoes it's pretty fun ridiculous and fun yeah yeah flawed you know complex yep I don't know that those are any

0:49:33 Thomas: That's true. I'm still just the one.

0:49:33 Lydia: Other language I think you're just making it

0:49:36 Thomas: Gavel, gaveliers, gaveliers. Gavel, gavelliers. That is pretty good. We got French. As the French say, gavalier.

0:49:41 Lydia: Up yep oh boy I'm gonna download duolingo for you there you

0:49:50 Thomas: I don't know. I can't approximate any other languages. Like, what would you even do? There's no way. One of those was Italian. Gavalinos. Knows we've got the guy yeah I I feel romanced yeah so we've got a part two on this which is fantastic and then we even have some other chunk we're working on some other chunks for

0:49:54 Lydia: Go yeah I don't know okay so all the romance languages basically as you should when you're listening to Gavel Gavel

0:50:15 Thomas: You uh some sun stuff because there's just so much the supreme court decided just take a giant dump all over the country and there's so much that we can't even cover it on oa so we're gonna see there's some really good like dissents and stuff that we just don't get a chance to like dig into to oftentimes and, and nobody. Yeah. And the good thing about Gavel Gavel is like, nobody just reads you a dissent. So like the times we've done that, I think have been really interesting because

0:50:16 Lydia: Get some stuff going on mm -hmm right to the depth that they deserve yeah mm

0:50:41 Thomas: There's so much there. Uh, and that's, you know, this podcast is the podcast that reads your transcripts and stuff. So we're looking into that. All right. Thanks so much. Like I said, patrons get the part two right away. Normies got to wait a minute, but either way, thanks for listening. Much more to come in part two. You don't want to say bye?

0:50:49 Lydia: Sounds

0:51:02 Thomas: It's like with the kids every single time.

0:50:59 Lydia: Goodbye, everybody yeah Bye.

0:51:03 Thomas: Hey, your friend just said bye to you right in front of your face.

0:51:06 Lydia: Bye.

0:51:06 Thomas: Do you want for this? Okay. Gotcha.

0:51:29 Matt: This Is Lydia so this is she's gonna do the lady parts of him yeah you know

0:51:32 Lydia: The lady parts.

0:51:36 Thomas: That's an HR complaint, man.