Todd Blanche Can Also Lie and Dodge Questions in Writing Too!

Transcript

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

0:00:03 Thomas: Convicted sex trafficker Ghislaine Maxwell is a naturalized citizen, given the criteria. Man, I didn't think about that.

0:00:17 Matt: All told, this case hazards untold consequences for federal law. What was a Second Amendment as applied challenge now leaps beyond the felon in possession statutes, beyond federal criminal law, and beyond our authority as an inferior court. I dissent. That's a great dissent,

0:00:34 Thomas: Hello and welcome to Opening Arguments. This is episode 1281. I'm Thomas. That over there is real life attorney Matt Cameron. How you doing, Matt?

0:00:41 Matt: Thomas. I'm coming at you with both hands tied behind my back, as Rush Limbaugh kind of used to say.

0:00:47 Thomas: Yeah, boy, that sounds, what a horrific image.

0:00:51 Matt: Yeah well double conjunctivitis is no joke man

0:00:53 Thomas: Jeez, double conjunctivitis. It's those damn kids you have, you know?

0:00:57 Matt: Yeah no uh no it's just going to try on glasses it turns out is a great way to get conjunctivitis who knew

0:01:03 Thomas: Jeez. You know you don't wear the glasses in your eyeballs, right? Yeah. Did you go try on contact lenses, like browsing the gas station for some contact lenses? Yeah. Jeez, what bad luck. Yeah, poor Matt had a bit of a health thing, a bit of an eye problem there, and had to delay and record on a bit of a different setup, so it might sound a little different, but what a trooper Matt is for coming to us still, and what are we going to be talking about today? Day.

0:01:06 Matt: I am new to glasses I'm learning I'm learning no just out in the open I found them on the ground that's I thought that was fine slightly used just wash them off oh we got plenty so we got to hit some of the aftermath of the The Todd Blanch nomination that we talked about last week for the hearing, the vote is coming up allegedly maybe next week, I think.

0:01:46 Matt: So we're going to wait on that. But in the meantime, we have a lengthy questionnaire that came out just after the hearing of all the written answers to questions. I want to go through some of them because they're pretty entertaining. So we got to find out what he's been saying in writing. And then I've got a really interesting story that I just came across in which the Fifth Circuit is picking up something that Clarence Thomas put down.

0:02:05 Thomas: That sounds horrible. That's a match made in hell.

0:02:10 Matt: And speaking of contact lenses he found on the ground. It's about as clean, about as trustworthy. Yeah.

0:02:11 Thomas: Yeah. Perfect.

0:02:19 Matt: Very interesting line of thinking here from the Hamani case, the drugs and weed case, his concurrence. This very much reminds me of the Eileen Cannon thing where he had that weird concurrence in the immunity case that she picked up, you know, like a month, a week later, ran with and then terminated the Jack Smith case. It's an interesting sort of example of who he's writing these concurrences for, because we always wonder about this, these weird little takes on the law and his retrograde 19th century view of the Commerce Clause. Really interesting implications for this. I don't think it's going to go anywhere, but I think it'd be interesting to watch the Fifth Circuit be happy to pick up a silly Clarence Thomas concurrence.

0:02:53 Thomas: Great.

0:02:53 Matt: So I didn't really see it getting a lot of attention, thought I'd take a look at that. And then of course, as always, we've got a fun footnote, yet another AI footnote. I've been trying to keep track of all the different milestones that are being set by AI, and we have got a big one that I missed out on last month.

0:03:07 Matt: We have got, for the first time in American history, both sides completely disqualified from a civil case and the case is terminated because everybody's using AI. Too much AI. Yeah.

0:03:14 Thomas: Wow. Yeah it's like you can't just have the bots suing each other. That is not how no case in controversy. Well, that sounds like a lot of fun. I'm really curious to hear what Todd Blanche has been writing in his diary.

0:03:22 Matt: Not yet. We're getting there. Yeah, right. Yep. These

0:03:36 Thomas: Those are things where they submit questions like after or is it before or during or while?

0:03:41 Matt: Are after...

0:03:41 Thomas: It's like follow -ups. Like, hey, I noticed you didn't answer anything, asshole. Tell me this.

0:03:47 Matt: Yes, would you like to put this in writing and give us some real answers? There's some pretty funny stuff in here. It's also just interesting to see what the different members think is important.

0:03:51 Thomas: Is he able to put in writing like filibusters, adjust tie, eye stammers uh uh avoids question and it looks like I'm out of

0:04:00 Matt: Yeah. Right. Yeah. Just about. Just about proximity

0:04:06 Thomas: Time all right well excited to get to it so why don't we take our usual break hey big announcement lot awful movies is out as we speak uh thanks so much to the patrons for making the show happen as a thank you it's a lot awful movies this one was so much fun I'm gonna go ahead and say you got an eye infection from this show actually from yeah yeah

0:04:27 Matt: Of having to think about this dumb show. If if we start talking about it now we're going to talk about it for another three hours which I'm sure we did on a lot of movies but just the ella actually rough justice was

0:04:33 Thomas: We did it's been an edit what's it called bad justice no outlaw outlaw yeah yeah

0:04:41 Matt: The original title and that would have been a lot better usually for these kinds of shows we watch a couple of episodes but we both realized the pilot was going to be it because the pilot is riddled with legal error

0:04:49 Thomas: And then Matt watched all the episodes oh man

0:04:51 Matt: Yeah and then I had to anyway because I hadTo see if it got better and it didn't uh but the pilot is really something I've never seen the law gotten quite that

0:04:59 Thomas: Worst law of any film ever made

0:05:03 Matt: Wrong but fun times for the

0:05:03 Thomas: It's so good so yeah patreon.com/law $2 .11 above get that lot of movies that's a full nearly two hours of fun and the book club is also a great reason to be on there so many good reasons and avoid the stupid ads they are the worst we have no control over them so avoid them patreon .com slash law and uh speaking of eye infections those ads they're near infection get rid of

0:05:23 Matt: Listeners. Actually, since you mentioned it, I just want to plug Sunday the 26th, we'll be having book club with Peter O 'Neill. He'll be stopping by our guest from earlier this week.

0:05:30 Thomas: Them all right such a cool

0:05:34 Matt: Great memoir, really fun conversation, and I'm really looking forward to having him back. And then of course, we'll kick him out and we'll talk about him after he leaves. So that's how it goes.

0:05:39 Thomas: Guy yeah it's if you're into the book club or if you just really into shit talking it's a good gossiping no I'm just kidding oh

0:05:48 Matt: And I'll already get excited about next month's book, but we'll break that soon. It's a big one.

0:05:52 Thomas: Oh, slow down, man. Okay. All right. We'll take a quick break and then we'll get to it.

0:06:01 Ad: [Ad break 1 — ad music]

0:06:01 Thomas: All right, so we'll be talking about the journals first, some journaling.

0:06:05 Matt: Yeah, I sent you this gigantic document. It's about 400 pages. It starts right it off with a bank and with something that I wish he'd been asked more about at the hearing, there's a pretty funny thing that happens here. This document is 404 pages, and it's set up by questions asked by each of the people from Congress who want to ask him questions. Top of the page, we've got Chuck Grassley, Charles Grassley from Iowa, trying to do him some favors here by asking him about the Epstein stuff, but this doesn't come out very well. He had said at the meeting hearing that he's met with counsel for Epstein survivors, as have many people in the Department of Justice. He's been taking this tack that he can't meet with the survivors personally because because they have to go through counsel, but they could have counsel present. He's allowed to meet with them. They are witnesses. He has really been dodging this whole thing.

0:06:45 Thomas: It's like another routine audit. Sorry, it's a routine audit as soon as they're done.

0:06:48 Matt: Yes, that's right, just can't do it. That's right. That is right. Check out his response to the first actual question in bold there. That was the question and answer.

0:06:57 Thomas: Since you were appointed as Deputy Attorney General, have you and other individuals at DOJ met with Epstein victims and or counsel for Epstein victim? Response. Yes, several meetings have occurred between DOJ staff and victims over the last 15 months, including as recently as on July 16th, 2026. That's weird. Huh.

0:07:15 Matt: July 16th, 2026, that is an interesting date, Todd Blanch, because that is the second date of your confirmation hearing. His first date was July 15th when he was on the stand himself.

0:07:22 Thomas: Like he was cramming for the exam? Like, oh, shit, I was supposed to be. Yeah, I meet with them all the time.

0:07:30 Matt: That Is right.

0:07:30 Thomas: Boy, come to think of it, I Was Just Meeting With Them, Actually.

0:07:33 Matt: As recently as yesterday, day, I finally met them. Yeah. But the way he's phrasing that, because they're making the point, they've barely talked to anybody at DOJ, they've not been heard. And here he is saying out in public, and this meeting did happen and they were not happy with it. This was not something the survivors found to be particularly helpful. Look at the response, because he's pushing it again about how many meetings have actually taken place since he was deputy attorney general.

0:07:54 Thomas: In addition to previous meetings DOJ leadership and officials have had with victims and their counsel, I have met with victims of Jeffrey Epstein or their counsel or both twice, including on July 16th, 2026, where Danny Bensky, who testified at my confirmation hearing, was present. I remain committed to engaging with victims OF Jeffrey Epsteins every time I have a confirmation hearing.

0:08:16 Matt: Exactly. Yes. Just the shamelessness of this, of just like, yeah, there was that one time.

0:08:23 Thomas: Yeah, yeah, come to think of it. Oh, yeah. I did just study for the test that was today.

0:08:28 Matt: And me what if I talked to them I would not talk to them

0:08:29 Thomas: I certainly read the last page of the chapter of the book that is the test today, and I can say several words that are on that.

0:08:36 Matt: Yeah same with the next question which as I mentioned is about he's not allowed to meet with them directly you know if they're represented by counsel but he'd also said if they represented I had to meet mit with them through counsel which is true but of course I can meet with him so Grassley is asking which one is it and he has this answer about just quoting directly from that when a witness is represented when you know the witness is represented you have to meet their attorney but again nothing stopping the attorney from being there with the witness so this is just more weaselly stuff yeah there's kind of a funny thing with the foreign agents. I go down to page six in the PDF.

0:09:03 Thomas: That is so funny. Boy, this is 400 pages. Holy crap.

0:09:12 Matt: Yeah, there's so much. A lot of it is repetitive and just kind of little specialist questions that the members have for him about their little concerns.

0:09:20 Thomas: Is this still like under oath technically and all that?

0:09:23 Matt: Yeah.

0:09:24 Thomas: So they're probably trying to get a lot of stuff on record. I've never heard of anybody being prosecuted for any perjury related to this, but who knows?

0:09:27 Matt: Could happen. He certainly, I'm sure somewhere else already committed some. For example, when he said he's never read the Washington Post, that's another thing. That was the previous hearing. Top of the page here. It's kind of an interesting little little detail

0:09:38 Thomas: I'm concerned that it has been impossible to search the Foreign Agents Registration Act database website for at least several weeks. Wow. Will you commit to fixing this website malfunction as soon as possible? Response. The website is not malfunctioning. In 2021, the department migrated the Foreign Agents Registration Act far out websites to the below current locations. Efforts are, it has like some URLs, I guess. Effort are underway to automatically redirect users accessing legacy websites to their new locations.

0:10:14 Matt: New 2021 location something fishy is going on here to

0:10:16 Thomas: Efforts are underway to automatically that is the most simple technology thing you literally put in a redirect yeah it's like one dns line it's nothing

0:10:25 Matt: Forward josh holly of course has some questions about the comstack act we won't get into it's pretty much what you'd expect with the mail order mifepristone there's been this basically I'm going to call it a loophole it's not exactly a loop hole but this biden era policy as long as they can't prove intent they're not going to prosecute people that are shipping mifepristone to states where it's illegal he's trying to get into that that's what you expect from josh hawley this marcia blackburn question is very concerning. His answer isn't specific as she probably wants, but just the fact that she's even raising this. This is about denaturalization. So what she's saying, I didn't know this was on the table, but she's proposed something called the Fraud Accountability Act, which sounds great, but it would amend immigration law so that anybody who's convicted of any kind of crime or fraud in any amount, it makes it a deportable offense. Now, pretty much any theft or fraud is already a deportible offense, sort of considered to be a crime involving moral turpitude. And it's going to get you denied a green card at least, but here's the real problem. On top of that, my bill also allows the denaturalization of individuals who commit these fraud crimes or any other deportable offenses. Please explain the need to ensure that every crime of fraud committed by a naturalized citizen should result in deportation and denatualization. That is insane, Marsha Blackburn. Also, that's the wrong order.

0:10:45 Thomas: What what that's the stupidest yeah

0:11:40 Matt: You don't deport and then denatralize. That doesn't make any sense. You're just going to send citizens to Russia and then I guess maybe denaturalize them.

0:11:45 Thomas: I'm gonna deport first and naturalize later

0:11:48 Matt: Yeah. Ask questions later. Yeah, he gives is a very generic answer to this, but I did not realize that this was even on the table. I guess I should have, but this is something to flag that we've got MAGA Republican senators who think it's a good idea to find ways to denaturalize people that don't exist. Because right now, denatualization, as we've discussed before, it's pretty narrow. It really is just for if you lied on your naturalization, if you'd covered up the fact that you're a war criminal or had a criminal record in your country. Exactly. Yeah, we all know that. And there are very limited things in which if you do them within five years of naturalization you could potentially be denatralized. But she's saying she wants to make it easier for somebody committed to just basically like who writes a bad check or whatever to be denaturalized that concerned me very much I don't like that at all

0:12:10 Thomas: And if you're elon musk you can do all that and it doesn't matter.

0:12:28 Thomas: Why is this a question for the attorney general?

0:12:31 Matt: Yeah this is interesting like I said you can kind of get a little sense of the the things they're obsessed with their little

0:12:36 Thomas: Yeah, I mean, to a certain extent, all this stuff, we cover a lot of these on here and where there's woke and even some gavel gavel, I guess. And a lot OF it is like trying to get their stupid bullshit in and shoehorn it into no matter who the person is. I guess she just wants him to be like, oh, yeah, fraud and crime. It's unbelievable out there. It is always and it's always immigrants every single time. Yeah.

0:12:52 Matt: Picadillos yeah fortunately he doesn't actually sign off on the idea of denatualization but you know obviously doj has a lot to do with immigration policy and immigration enforcement so it does make sense

0:13:06 Thomas: I think what's funny here, too, is that knowing the dynamics of the MAGA bullshit, he has zero need to really help these people and their dumb stuff that much. You know, like there's no because all that matters is Trump, obviously. And this is in the written Q &A after a thing. No one's going to be like, Mr. Trump, Todd Blanche did not answer my question thoroughly that I, a MAGA Republican, asked in the paperwork. Like, that doesn't matter.

0:13:37 Thomas: So he's probably just trying to get through that part as fast as possible.

0:13:40 Matt: Yeah there's very little consequence to him to brushing that off. Speaking of brushing it off, page 13, we've got Tom Tillis, who of course is not a Trump fan at this point, asking some pretty important questions about January 6th and January 6 defendants.

0:13:52 Thomas: At CPAC in March 2026, you cheered on the president regarding the pardons granted to January 6th defendants, some of whom were convicted of assaulting federal officers. Do you believe individuals who assaulted law enforcement officers on January 6th committed serious crimes? Response, an assault on a federal law enforcement officer is a serious crime and a violation of federal law. Under my leadership, the Department of Justice will prosecute those who assault federal law enforcement officers and or set them free. Pardon them completely. Just depends. Pence. Do you believe that these individuals who are convicted of assaulting law enforcement are victims of government weaponization? Response. As I testified at my confirmation hearing, any person who assaults law enforcement should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. Yeah. So it's even easier to dodge all the questions here.

0:14:18 Matt: We totally will, if that ever happens. Yeah. Yeah, right.

0:14:41 Matt: Just say, I will prosecute in the future without answering.

0:14:44 Thomas: What are they going to do? Write another letter? Dear Mr. Blanche, in my last missive. Yeah, it's like, okay. If confirmed, how would you ensure that future political violence is investigated and prosecuted without regard to political ideology response. Oh no, it's just with regard to political ideology. No, there is no acceptable level of political violence that can be tolerated. For this reason, we have created operation Vanguard. Oh, shut up, which targets and prosecutes any criminal conduct that seeks to intimidate or suppress political speech or activity, regardless of its affiliation. Okay.

0:15:16 Matt: Just as at the confirmation hearing, there's a number of questions from Tillis and other people about the slush fund, the weaponization fund. He will not comment on that. He just keeps saying it would be inappropriate to comment on internal deliberations, even when he's asked about how much, like the $1 .776 billion, how'd you get to that?

0:15:28 Thomas: He keeps saying people keep asking a lot of questions about my, it's not a slush fund t -shirt that are already answered by my, it's a slosh fund t shirt. Okay.

0:15:35 Matt: Yeah, exactly. Yeah. Questions about the litigation risk assessment of Trump v. IRS, which as we've discussed at length now in Gavel Gavel, is certainly no litigation risk to the government. That certainly could have been settled pretty easily with a dismissal. And you can see over and over again, he just basically does the equivalent of pleading the fifth. And he just says it'd be inappropriate for me to comment on internal deliberations that may or may not have occurred, etc., etc. Every single question about the slush fund is to that. And then he starts doing a new tack, and page 20, he just starts saying the anti -weaponization fund is dead like 20 times over and over again.

0:16:09 Thomas: It's like Bart Simpson. He starts doing chalkboard.

0:16:13 Matt: Not the kind of answers you'd want if you look at page 21 when they're asking him to confirm. He's saying that the slosh fund has been abandoned by the administration. How can you assure us that it's not going to come back later, right? And look at this response.

0:16:22 Thomas: As I testified in my confirmation hearing and as the department has repeatedly represented in court, no commissioners have been appointed, no funds have been transferred, no claims have been received, and no claims have been paid. The anti -weaponization fund is dead.

0:16:39 Matt: Not really an answer, right, because he's going to say the same thing in the next question too. The best answer would be that Judge Kathleen Williams has struck it down. It was actually completely destroyed by the decision that we've been reading in Gavel Gavel, which is a beautiful piece of work from Kathleen Williams in Florida. But instead, he's talking again in this kind of present future tense, the way he is with the law enforcement thing about like, well, we're not going to do this again. Nothing has been done yet. It's not really reassuring.

0:17:03 Matt: Great question that should have been asked at the hearing. This is Dick Durbin talking about how denaturalization has suddenly become a major priority of the the administration.

0:17:11 Thomas: As I mentioned to you during our courtesy meeting, convicted sex trafficker Ghislaine Maxwell is a naturalized citizen. Listen, given the criteria for denaturalization and the Trump administration's focus on this issue, will DOJ begin denatualization proceedings against her? Response, consistent with longstanding policy, the department does not comment on potential denatralization efforts involving specific individuals.

0:17:35 Matt: Now, you know me, I don't usually support denaturalizing people, but if you're gonna, he points out here that she became a citizen in 2002 when she was well aware that she was participating in juvenile sex trafficking. Obviously, she checked no about if she'd ever committed or been involved in any kind of crime or if she's ever procured anybody for prostitution.

0:17:54 Matt: She definitely checked no knowing that wasn't true. And that is the kind of thing that gets you denatralized.

0:17:57 Thomas: She got a bunch of the questions that we all look at is like, well, this is dumb. Who the hell? She's like, oh, those are all me. I guess I better lie.

0:18:01 Matt: Yeah, exactly. Exactly. Also, I didn't realize that But Epstein was her initial visa sponsor. I guess that makes sense.

0:18:09 Thomas: Oh my gosh. Okay. Denaturalize everyone. No, unless they're a victim, I guess, but it's like, that's a bad sign if he was your sponsor.

0:18:17 Matt: You remember, of course, we don't normally talk about this much, but there were members of Congress who put out a video advising service members, U.S. service military members, that they did not have to participate in the legal acts. Pretty straightforward. Just reminding them that they have constitutional duties.

0:18:29 Thomas: It might as well be like a only you can prevent forest fires video. Like there's not, it's just like, don't start a fire. Don't break the law. Yeah.

0:18:38 Matt: Don't do war crimes, guys. Not what you're here for.

0:18:40 Thomas: Pretty uncontroversial.

0:18:42 Matt: I really appreciated this question here.

0:18:44 Thomas: When addressing the members of Congress who issued a video advising U .S. service members that they have a right not to follow unlawful or unconstitutional orders, you previously stated on Fox News, quote, I think they should be held to account. I think that those congressmen should be required to answer questions and to answer question about why they did what they did. And the American people deserve that. And so does President Trump. Oh, my God. So does President Trump. How far we've fallen that he's he's not only Trump's lawyer, he's also like his spooster, like, hey, Trump deserves you to say why you said his troops shouldn't break the law. Like he's just deserves that.

0:19:20 Thomas: Okay. Uh, please explain what you meant when you said president Trump does. Oh, okay. Thinking along the same lines as me. When you said that president Trump deserves answers from the members lawfully exercising their constitutional rights to communicate with the public response under longstanding department policy, it would be inappropriate for me to comment on pending litigation. What, what pending litig does he have? Are they doing something?

0:19:42 Matt: Great question. There was a case. There was an attempt to bring a case against some of these members. Of course, that was dropped in February. So there is no pending litigation, which means that he's either lying to Congress or he is just so inept and not following his own prosecutions. He doesn't know who they're prosecuting these days.

0:19:54 Thomas: Or they have another bullshit going, I guess. It's the the only other possibility wow so

0:19:57 Matt: That's true. They could have some other investigation. The dodge on this, like, just say what you meant. Just say that you didn't like what they said.

0:20:03 Thomas: Pathetic this is the worst part of our entire political system meaningless questions well sorry not meaningless questions but questions that are sometimes very meaningful with just no if this is even if you thought hearings were bad where they just dodge forever it doesn't matter god imagine was just like a john deere letter to quote dumb and dumber was just a you know some some notes back and forth if you are instructed by the president the vice president or any other white house personnel directly or indirectly to either defy ignore or delay the implementation of a court order will you do it response I respectfully reject that premise what you can't what what part of that could you

0:20:47 Matt: It's a pretty reasonable premise because you've already done it.

0:20:49 Thomas: Reject if confirmed I will continue to always uphold my oath to support and defend the Constitution and I would follow the law

0:20:56 Matt: Unless I think the judges aren't following the law and then I won't follow the judges.

0:20:58 Thomas: Yeah why why the first part you could just say the second part it would be bullshit but you could have just done that.

0:21:04 Matt: Yep, yep. Just say that. Just that you'll follow court orders, Todd Blanche. It is not that hard. You're the the attorney general.

0:21:08 Thomas: In February, 2026, Judge Schlitz in Minnesota issued an unprecedented statement demanding that one way or another, ICE will comply with this court's orders after having to threaten civil or criminal contempt against the U .S. attorney for Minnesota. Do you believe judges should have to threaten the DOJ with civil or criminal contempt to get them to follow the law response? This is a gross mischaracterization and does not reflect my experience or observation of the diligent public servants and dedicated litigators who serve the American public at the Justice Department.

0:21:41 Matt: Well, it reflects Judge Schlitsch's observation. He was there.

0:21:44 Thomas: How is that a gross mischaracterization?

0:21:46 Matt: We've read the news here. We know what's going on in Minnesota or anywhere else. One more here on the question about Deutsche Bank.

0:21:52 Thomas: Deutsche Bank records reportedly document approximately 755 million across 186 Epstein-related transactions involving more than 95 shell entities. Did the DOJ conduct conduct a comprehensive financial crimes or money laundering analysis based on those transaction chains. Response. The FBI pursued all investigative leads in its investigation into Jeffrey Epstein. Yeah, sure. Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell, including potential financial crimes. If any evidence is provided to the department suggesting a federal crime occurred, the department will investigate and prosecute that matter, blah, blah. Nothing. Wow. Interesting.

0:22:31 Matt: We don't see it. And this, of course, is the biggest single unanswered question about the Epstein files is where is the money? Where did the money go? Who knew about the money? There's quite a lot of money involved. Same with the next question, which is about wire transfer shell companies, all the other stuff they could have been looking at. And now that they have all the papers, it's all in one place. And same answer, that we did pursue everything. And his His idea of pursuing an investigative lead was going to talk to somebody who was convicted many years ago already now. Yeah.

0:22:54 Thomas: We asked them and they said, no, it was no laundering.

0:22:57 Matt: She said she didn't do it. So what do you want here?

0:22:59 Thomas: It was a pro she proffered it. It was a proper session.

0:23:02 Matt: One more Epstein thing and we'll move on. One thing I learned from this is DOJ has been blocking New Mexico's attempt to investigate Epstein's ranch in New Mexico.

0:23:10 Thomas: Oh, wow. What?

0:23:11 Matt: Not great.

0:23:12 Thomas: Huh?

0:23:13 Matt: Yeah. Yes.

0:23:13 Thomas: That's, that's a new one on me. At your confirmation hearing, we had the following exchange. Mr. Blanche, over the course of the past five months, the New Mexico Department of Justice has talked to your staff about getting access to information for its investigation into alleged crimes at Jeffrey Epstein's Zorro Ranch. Zorro ranch. Will you and your team continue to cooperate with the New New Mexico Department of Justice and help it get the information it needs. Blanche, yes, we're continuing to work with them. And yes, yes. So that was the answer at the hearing.

0:23:41 Matt: And now she's following up.

0:23:42 Thomas: Question A, does that commitment to continue working with the New Mexico Department of justice to help it Get the information needs for its Zorro Ranch investigation include providing unredacted Epstein related records in DOJ's possession that are relevant to NMDOJ's investigation. Response. The department works cooperatively with... Okay, boilerplate bullshit. Law enforcement, partners of manner, blah, blah. Victim privacy, unredacted or sensitive records are not shared broadly. Sure. Yeah, that's broadly.

0:24:15 Matt: That's not the question. Right.

0:24:16 Thomas: Are not shared widely to avoid compromising ongoing... We will, by the way, just publish the unredactic victims' names, but we don't want to share them with the New Mexico Department of Justice idiot. Uh, anyway, records, unredacted or sensitive records are not shared broadly to avoid compromising ongoing federal interest, active investigation or protected information.

0:24:39 Matt: I thought this was interesting contrast because you just said you're clearly not actively investigating the financial part, which is the most interesting part to me.

0:24:45 Thomas: Yeah. They're like, if anyone has anything, you know, just bring it in. We'll, we'll look at it. Take a look. Yeah. Focus on Facebook

0:24:48 Matt: You poke us. We'll take a look. Yeah. Yeah, that's right.

0:24:52 Thomas: In 2005.

0:24:54 Matt: But here he's saying they can't turn over records about things that happened in a ranch in New Mexico 20, 25 years ago because there's ongoing federal interest, active investigations. I've heard a couple of victims saying they believe there are bodies buried in that ranch. They really think that the girls went missing and died there.

0:25:08 Thomas: Holy crap.

0:25:10 Matt: And there were a lot of other crimes. No doubt, we already know it committed there. He's just so unresponsive to the most basic questions. All you have to do is say, yes, we're committed to all the survivors and to all of the memories of everyone who's no longer with us. We want to get this right. It's all you have to say. We'll help however we can.

0:25:25 Thomas: That is weird.

0:25:27 Matt: Why are you blocking this? What's going on? I mean, we know.

0:25:29 Thomas: Is he blocking it for sure? Or?

0:25:32 Matt: He's certainly not being cooperative in this or from what I understand of what's going with New Mexico. They've been trying and trying to get these records.

0:25:38 Thomas: That is extremely weird. Yep.

0:25:40 Matt: It seems very strange to me. So yeah, just a little taste. I think there's plenty more in here and we'll link to it. But I just wanted to give everybody a little test that it's not just in person. He's gone to the trouble of carefully dodging questions in writing too.

0:25:52 Thomas: Even more so.

0:25:56 Ad: [Ad break 2 — ad music]

0:25:56 Thomas: All right, Matt, you had an eye infection for us?

0:26:02 Matt: Yeah. As we've often discussed, Clarence Thomas will often find the weirdest singular take on whatever it is that the conservatives are doing in the court. You know, the Hamani decision was supposed to be very narrow. Now, this is the decision, of course, in which you have an occasional cannabis user who's being prosecuted for filling out a gun application for the same reason that Hunter Biden was prosecuted, right? Because Hunter Biden may or may not have been an addict at the time.

0:26:24 Thomas: The president's son.

0:26:26 Matt: Yeah, right, exactly. But in this case, you know, he admitted later that he did sometimes smoke pot on weekends or whatever, not that often. He was being investigated for something else, and they hung him up in this gun charge. And this thing carries up to 15 years under Section 922G. Now, 922, as we'll talk about in this segment today, includes a lot of different gun crimes. I'm very interested in the way that Clarence Thomas goes his own way on this stuff. Fortunately, right now, Clarence Thomas is very much sort of the lobby of one. He doesn't really have a lot people behind him. There's kind of like a dedicated, I guess, group of Clarence Thomas heads that are really into his work.

0:26:59 Thomas: God, imagine being in this court in this day and age and still being like, still just me who thinks this insane thing? Come on, Alito, come on. All Right. I'll join you with some of them. Not all of them, man. You're crazy.

0:27:09 Matt: They were being careful in Hamani to draw this narrowly and to say, as applied, if you're going to prosecute people this way, it is unconstitutional to prosecue people when marijuana is legal in many places and where it doesn't have anywhere near the same kind of problems as a habitual drunkard, which is the kind of the analog, the historical analog they're trying to use. The court was going out of its way to be as narrow as possible and to just apply it to this kind of situation, which makes sense. That's an important thing the court does in these. I would have liked to have seen them strike the whole thing down, but they didn't. But Clarence Thomas says, you know what, we should just get out of the business of doing anything with the Commerce Clause ever in his concurrence. Because he's all about bringing the Commerce clause back to the early 1900s. That's what he thinks it should work.

0:27:52 Thomas: You are playing playing on easy mode when you're fricking asshole conservative and you're just trying to ruin everything. It's so easy.

0:27:59 Matt: Yeah, it is.

0:27:59 Thomas: You get to pick any part of like the jurisprudence of the last 150 years and just be like, you know, I don't like that part. Why don't we not do that? It's like, yeah, it's going to be an easy argument to just be the founders did blah, blah, bla, blah. God, it sucks.

0:28:14 Matt: And as we're going to learn from a dissenter in a case that's coming up here that we're talking about, this is a great way to undo a lot of the federal criminal justice system, if you actually want to do this, because there are so many crimes, federal crimes, that are predicated on the idea of interstate commerce, including a lot of gun crimes. I learned a couple of things as I was looking into this, but the reason I wanted to mention it is because I just read that the Fifth Circuit was asked to reconsider a case that was similar to Imani's, but it was brought on 9 -22 -1, which is basically anybody who's a felon in possession of a gun that has basically been involved in interstate commerce. Now, it's not that the person took it across state lines. It just has to be that a gun at some point was involved in intrastate commerce.

0:28:21 Thomas: Oh, right. That's a good point. Yeah. Hmm.

0:28:53 Matt: And that's pretty much any gun. It's very rare to find a gun. That was made in a state, sold in a estate, used in a State, right? It's almost certainly going to be transported. And at trials, I understand it for this offense. They basically, defense will usually stipulate to this because they don't want to have to have an ATF agent go go up there and give the entire history of the gun and really emphasize about the criminality of this gun. The Commerce Clause aspect to this is very interesting to me because what Thomas is saying, and I agree to this to some extent, in some places there's some interesting kinds of back and forth here you can have. We've talked before about the Reich case, which was a travesty. That was the case in which a woman was growing medical marijuana for her own use, somebody with a serious medical condition. And it was basically, I think, in her house in California and it was never leaving her property. And they said that was interstate commerce because inherently inherently, cannabis is something that implicates interstate commerce, just inherently, the nature of the product.

0:29:41 Thomas: Opposed to guns, which it would be pretty hard to keep all in one state the whole time. Cannabis, I feel like you could, yeah, you can't grow a gun in one State, but you could grow cannabis.

0:29:46 Matt: Yes. Right. Exactly. The Lopez case, kind of the other side of that, was Congress's attempt to do something about school shootings in 1995. And they added 922Q, which was basically possession of a gun within a school zone. They were going to make that its own kind of crime. And the Supreme Court struck that down and found that there was no connection to interstate commerce in just the possession of the gun near a school, which kind of makes sense. All Congress had to do, people don't really talk about this part of Lopez, but they actually fixed it. Congress did the thing that happens sometimes after a Supreme Court case, and they fixed it, they went back and said, okay, fine, if you want, we'll just add that the gun has been involved in interstate commerce. And we'll Just make it like the other parts of this. And that's all they had to to do. And that's never been challenged in 30 years.

0:30:31 Matt: That's been fine. So they fixed the thing. Here's the problem. The Fifth Circuit granted rehearing on Bach after Clarence Thomas's concurrence in this case to a case in which somebody was challenging 922G1 about a felon in possession of a gun. Now, this is very different from somebody who may or may not use cannabis sometimes where it's an extremely vague, inarticulate kind of statute and you can't really tell. And as applied, it's going to be unconstitutional for a lot of people because you're going to have to prove a lot OF things. And people may not even be aware that they're subject to the law. If you know that you've been convicted of a felony and you know, that you're in position of a gun, that's pretty straightforward. Like that's not that hard to know. In 1977, the Supreme court found a case called Scarborough that for in commerce or affecting commerce, which is the purpose of the commerce clause, where the federal government has the right to regulate things. It just requires a very minimal nexus. It does not require very much at all. It doesn't seem pretty unfair, but that's why you can have a mere possession case basically in which you are responsible for where that gun has been, even though you never took it anywhere. And I do understand how that kind of makes sense that you'd have a problem with that, but it really becomes an issue because the jurisdictional element of involved interstate commerce applies to all kinds of finance crimes, applies to child pornography. If you strike down this particular statute, there's an interesting side effect that the states would end up prosecuting these gun crimes. And actually in many cases, believe it or not, in places like where this case came from in Louisiana, gun laws are so much harsher actually and have higher mandatory minimums that if you had the states prosecuting some of these, I was just looking against the federal versus the state prosecutions in Louisiana. You'd end up with a much less just thing. And it's strange for me to say that, that you'd want to have some things federally prosecuted. This is one of those things. Potentially the jurisdiction might be better because it is harder to prove. At the federal level. And it's potentially lower sentencing compared to what they're going to be doing in Louisiana. It becomes wildly uneven consequences across state lines and across different jurisdictions. The dissent on this en banc decision. Now, again, en banc just means, of course, as you know, that the entire court gets together and decides, we said we weren't going to rehear this, but we're actually going to hear this now because especially because there's new law. It's not new law, it's just Clarence Thomas popping off an essay.

0:32:40 Thomas: Yeah. Descent, a descent, a

0:32:41 Matt: There's a concurrence.

0:32:42 Thomas: Concurrence. Okay.

0:32:43 Matt: And it'S also confusing because ClarenCE Thomas in his concurrence, he's concurring with the judgment, he's concurring with the majority opinion. The majority opinion in the first footnote says this is not a commerce clause issue. And then he goes ahead and agrees to that, but also says, no, it's seriously a commerce cause issue. We should stop doing this. We should just stop using the commerce clause for possession offenses or for anything except literally trade between states. That's always what he's wanted. I guess to me, seeing like an immediate real world effect of something that has nothing to do with the holding in Hamani, with the actual case of Hamani. It just has to do avec something that Clarence Thomas said in a concurrence that the Fifth Circuit, which of course is the most conservative and most reliably insane circuit, picked up and ran with it. And they decided, let's just rehear this thing and maybe we're going to strike down a pretty significant federal gun statute because of this one concurrence. I don't think there's enough support in the Supreme Court right now, but Clarence Thomas, as we've discussed before, is the kind of guy you have to watch to see where so -called conservative jurisprudence is going, where MAGA is going. Potentially pretty pretty bad, maybe.

0:33:42 Thomas: Maybe. Yeah, it does. It's hard to pick because sometimes it's, it's kind of esoteric or whatever. It'S kind of like specific. Sometimes Sometimes they latch on to him, but also sometimes he's just so out in left field. I don't know. I don' t know if it matters. But so what's the specific I'm trying to understand. So what was the concurrence in particular? I'm not sure I grasped all that.

0:34:04 Matt: He's saying, well, I agree that it's ambiguous as applied to this person, right? As opposed to Hamani in the Supreme Court case that's at issue, applied to cannabis users and like occasional, comparing that to habitual drunkards, right?

0:34:11 Thomas: And what was ambiguous? Just it being. Sorry, I said, what was The Interstate Commerce part? Like that was what needed to apply to cannabis or I think I missed that connection. Action. What's the change in interstate commerce that his thing is doing and why?

0:34:29 Matt: He doesn't think that this statute should exist. He doesn't think that 922G1, which is the felon in possession of a gun, essentially, that has been involved in interstate commerce, is Congress at the time, basically, and the courts haven't really, since Scarborough, the 1977 case I was telling you about, Congress Congress hasn't really required much. The courts haven't required much, and the courts have been happy to defer to Congress on this to actually prove that there was any kind of transaction.

0:34:52 Thomas: So Congress did it such that it's sort of just by default.

0:34:55 Matt: Yeah, that it's not really

0:34:57 Thomas: Interesting.

0:34:57 Matt: Something that's... It just becomes kind of a jurisdictional provision that you just have to have a gun that was involved in interstate commerce. It's the easiest part, usually, for them to prove. That's why it's often stipulated.

0:35:08 Thomas: Okay. But he's just saying he doesn't like the law. Yeah.

0:35:11 Matt: Yeah, he doesn't like this entire approach to the Commerce Clause. Let me see if I can find...

0:35:13 Thomas: If you don't like the law, buddy, just, you know, you're in the wrong job. Like they get to pass the laws. You can't just be like, I don't like that one.

0:35:20 Matt: And if you really don't like the law, persuade a few more people that are on the with you on the court to see it that way.

0:35:24 Thomas: Well, if you don't like it, you can F off. I mean, if it's actually like unconstitutional, that might be a different story, but it's just like, not a fan.

0:35:31 Matt: Sure. So he's agreeing with the majority and he just says, I write separately to call attention to another issue. And that's always going to be a problem anytime Clarence says that.

0:35:40 Thomas: Nope stop writing we don't need your

0:35:42 Matt: Yeah, exactly. You know, it's going to something that's as a matter of both original meeting and this court's precedence, 922G3, that's the drug provision, appears to exceed Congress's enumerated power to regulate interstate commerce. The statute makes it a federal crime for unlawful drug users to possess any firearm or ammunition in or affecting commerce. And then he cites his his own dissent from a denial of cert for the idea that the Commerce Clause does not authorize Congress to do this. He just cites that as authority, which I think is pretty cool. Yes, exactly. But just for perspective here, I will read from the dissent in the own box so you can get what's at stake here.

0:35:52 Thomas: Help uh oh wow that's like one of the weakest citations you could do really

0:36:18 Matt: Finding that this statute, the Felon in Possession statute, with an explicit interstate commerce nexus must fall, would mark the start of a new, severely contracted Commerce Claws era. And he says, of course, we haven't seen the briefing, thing, but I'm just going to tell you that impact is hard to overstate. In the context of 922 convictions alone, such a holding would raise several immediate questions. Can felons from the other 11 circuits now flood the Gulf Coast to rearm themselves?

0:36:41 Matt: Can or must all 922G defendants in this court now individually challenge their convictions on these grounds? What is the retroactive effect of any of this decision? More broadly, what would come of the countless other federal statutes hinging on Congress's well -settled commerce authority? Can the federal government no no longer criminalized possession of child pornography, of explosive materials, of biological weapons. Past the Title 18 level, do we lose regulations on financial transactions, on intellectual property, on endangered species? All told, this case hazards untold consequences for federal law. What was a Second Amendment as -applied challenge to 922G1, where we have studiously avoided taking an inter -circuit split, and now our own intra -cirCIRCUT split on Bach, now leaps beyond the felon in possession statutes, beyond federal criminal law, law, and beyond our authority as an inferior court, I dissent.

0:36:40 Thomas: Wow oh yeah geez yeah

0:37:25 Matt: That's a great dissent." I love it when they call themselves an inferior court also. They're your place. So yeah, serious consequences. Just like when Clarence Thomas is just musing in the immunity decision that, well, it just seems like maybe Jack Smith was unlawfully appointed.

0:37:38 Thomas: Yeah it's it's like so detached from consequence at all they can just have these stupid little conservative beliefs that they're like I don't think those words mean that they should be and it's okay here's all of this like like long history of how this has worked and what it means. You could disagree with like Marbury v. Madison, I guess. But like the whole originalism bullshit is you pick some disagreement based on words, you know, it's usually made up in bad faith, but let's say it isn't, even if it isn't. Where you're like, well, they shouldn't have ruled that way 200 years ago or whatever. It's like, yeah, okay. But they did. And then a whole nation was built, like a whole entire entire jurisprudence and history and understanding like laws were passed, things were done relying on the law having been that. And so they think the game is that they can just and again, they're just on easy mode because conservatives just want to destroy stuff. It's easier for them, but they think they can Just focus down on the hyper small, you know, little wording choices or whatever and just ignore like, well, the consequences be damned, you you know, like if it's unconstitutional, it's unconstitional.

0:38:49 Thomas: It's like, yeah, okay, so now they can't even criminalize child pornography because of your stupid thought?

0:38:55 Matt: It's always that thing. Well, what's the worst that can happen? I'm not going to think about the real world consequences, except when I really want real world consequences. I like to point these things out just so that we can hope that maybe ClarenCE Thomas kind and it's not become the majority opinion. We'll see. I don't think so. I don'T think we're there yet, but it's certainly something to be concerned about.

0:39:12 Thomas: Alright, well, I think we need ourselves a footnote.

0:39:15 Matt: You got it. We're coming right up.

0:39:19 Ad: [Ad break 3 — ad music]

0:39:19 Thomas: Alright, Matt, close your eyes and give us two eyes tied behind your fifth an eye note. Use your feet to give us an eye node, or vice versa.

0:39:23 Matt: Way ahead of you. My watering, watering eyes. We have on this program already identified so many different examples. And I was just saying there's some study that's now found something like 1 ,500 specific examples of cross jurisdictions of lawyers using AI in stupid ways. We have caught a federal judge now using it to write a decision which was hallucinating all over the place. We've caught people clearly using AI to write their briefs, clearly using AI to do their legal research for them. One very dramatic case in which a bunch of defendants were made up, in which somebody who had nothing to do with the case was brought into the case, you know, that kind of stuff. But this is something else. We've got the defense, we've got the prosecution, we got judges, we have everything else covered, but this has never happened before. There's a trial in Mississippi involving one man just trying to get paid for services he claims he rendered to the city of Aberdeen, Mississippi. Mississippi. So the suit itself is a civil suit brought by Tom Withers III, some kind of solar development project he was working on.

0:40:18 Thomas: Sorry, Tom Withers III has a silver development? What did you say?

0:40:24 Matt: Silver would make more sense.

0:40:25 Thomas: Solar. Oh, okay. I was like, what year are we in? Yeah. A prospector, Tom Withers III.

0:40:31 Matt: It's a silver claim. Withers, just to be clear, he's not in trouble. He's not the person in trouble here, but it's just his case, unfortunately for him. Both of the attorneys representing him and both of the lawyers for the city of Aberdeen were punished, were sanctioned and barred from the court for both using AI in different ways.

0:40:48 Thomas: From the city?

0:40:49 Matt: Yeah. The city of Aberdeen. Very disappointing.

0:40:51 Thomas: Yeah, I had high expectations for Aberdeen. Wow.

0:40:53 Matt: Aberdeen, Mississippi. That's right. The judge wrote in her decision on this that she's pretty sure this is the first time anything like this has ever happened. But she found that every one of these lawyers, all four of them violated rule 11, which of course, as a lawyer, you have to sign off on everything knowing that it's true to the best of your ability and that you wrote it yourself. They were barred for two years by the judge and fined $2,500 in one case, $3,500 another. It turns out that one of the plaintiff's lawyers had been using a program called First Draft, which I'd never heard of before, but it sounds like a really bad idea.

0:41:23 Matt: And the company itself had to comment on this too. When confronted on this, the attorney claimed that she was unaware that AI could even produce hallucinated cases and explained she did not know what a hallucinated case was. Maybe true, maybe not. Apparently she had also just gotten in trouble in another court for doing the same thing. It's hard to believe at this point that lawyers could use products like this and not know that it's possible. You'd think you'd have heard the news by now. I don't know.

0:41:46 Matt: First Draft responded, the software company, by saying that the discipline was unfortunate and that it advises that all AI-generated text and proposed citations must be independently verified. Don't trust our product.

0:41:57 Thomas: I mean, the company's called First Draft. I'll go ahead and say it's not on them, this one.

0:42:04 Matt: That is truth in advertising. They are making the point that AI is a powerful tool for accelerating the drafting process, but it's not a substitute for lawyers. And I do want to emphasize that we don't use this stuff, but that is what it's for if you're going to use it. And I just hope these stories continue to get out there so every lawyer does understand that this is possible because this does have real repercussions for you as a practitioner and for your client, because this case was terminated. She just ended the case. Obviously, without prejudice, they can bring it again.

0:42:30 Thomas: That's crazy.

0:42:31 Matt: It's incredible.

0:42:32 Thomas: Sucks for Tom Withers III or whatever the heck that guy's name was.

0:42:35 Matt: Yeah, he's going to have to bring this again. I'm assuming he'll get fees out of this with the sanctions. But the contrast, too, I meant to mention Attorney Wilson, who was the solo who was using First Draft. The other one was with an actual firm that has an AI policy, and she just completely disregarded it. She just blindly relied. That's pretty bad.

0:42:53 Matt: This is getting worse and worse. I'm getting very concerned about lawyers' brains. I'm really trying to limit my own use of this stuff. But if we're reaching the point where all four lawyers in a case can be sanctioned and where a case can be terminated because people are using these tools, we've got a problem. We've got a real problem.

0:43:10 Thomas: Yeah. Maybe. Maybe I also think I think I've for one it sounds like a success story like oh okay they tried to do this shit and then they got in trouble for it we have a lot of things in our country right now where they just do bad stuff and no one gets in trouble so you know it's ahead of that uh but it reminds me of uh some old Star Trek I can't remember which generation but uh where they there's these two you know all the planets are all one thing like we found the planet that's like the you know the mime planet or something and then everybody's mimes but uh they had the one where the the two I just made that up but does that exist it should uh there's like two you know civilizations fighting instead of doing the actual war they just have the computer simulator like do it and then they just like all right the following people died

0:43:57 Matt: Exactly. Yeah. This is how it went. Right.

0:43:57 Thomas: It's like we're getting to that point where it's Like all right we'll agree on the rules each person grabs their you know anthropic and someone has a second or something it's a duel almost we'll have the lawyers, bots, duel it out. Whoever wins, wins.

0:44:13 Matt: Yeah that's what I'm afraid of is that and of course there are going to be jurisdictions at some point they're going to decide that we're just wasting money paying judges salaries. So let's just have, you know, AI driven defense and AI driven defense and plaintiffs and AI judges. Let's, let's sort it out. I really hope not, but we could be living in that world if we don't stop it.

0:44:30 Thomas: I mean, I can't imagine anyone getting away with that, but sure. I don't know. It's also, these stories always blow my mind because like, it's so easy to use these tools better. You know, I feel like it's just like going to become like Wikipedia, you know? When I went to college, citing Wikipedia was like suicide. Everyone was like, you idiot. You idiot. You know nothing. Now it's like, well, you can do that. Or at least, very least it helps looking for the sources and all that. And like, who are these people who are just like telling AI, hey, generate my entire legal case and just I'll just turn that bad boy in. I don't have time to look it over.

0:44:41 Matt: Yeah, sure.

0:45:07 Thomas: Like, who is doing that's already such a bad lawyer. I guess that's why I'm not really as worried about this maybe as you are in the way, because that's уже such a shitty lawyer that they probably were doing their job badly before. We just didn't notice.

0:45:23 Matt: Yeah well, I hate to tell you, I'm afraid we're actually creating a new generation of shitty lawyers that have been using AI since law school because it's been around for the past few years now, long enough for people to be coming out. And I am seeing problems with people older than me and people like 20 years younger than me that are both kind of letting their brains get over to the stuff. I know lots of younger people are rebelling against it and I appreciate that and don't want any part of it in their lives. And the only thing that might end up saving us is that it's just way too expensive for the people, the companies to run these things at all.

0:45:50 Thomas: Yeah, it does seem like it.

0:45:51 Matt: There's no way they can make it profitable. So maybe this stuff is going to have to be curtailed or saved for the very wealthiest. I don't know.

0:45:56 Thomas: But that's crazy. What a crazy story to have all sides of everything. Well, I was going to ask, like, could the so the plaintiff, could he get stuff from the state? Because you're saying it was like the city, not the state, the city having done it, even though his lawyers did it, too. I kind of feel like you should kind of be like, hey, I assume these people, they use AI. Oh, my lawyers did, too, but that's kind of like not my choice. You know what I mean like in a weird way I feel like that person should kind of get still have the right to be mad

0:46:27 Matt: Yeah, I feel like maybe they should pay the fees for your next lawyers. Obviously nobody should be paying the fees for the lawyers that you say. I misspoke about the case. It wasn't completely terminated; it's been stayed they do have time to find new lawyers for everybody do better lawyers do not give in to this temptation it is not worth it all

0:46:40 Thomas: All right well that's our show thanks so much matt uh thanks to matt's eyeballs for dying for our sins and uh listen to that lot of movies go patreon.com you can listen right now it's so much fun that was pre matt's eyeball gate uh so you know it was really funny really fun check it out thanks for listening everybody thanks matt and we'll see you real soon. Dear Mr. Blanche, in my last missive,

0:47:41 Matt: See you there I made the mistake of control f-ing the phrase I am not aware comes up a few times yeah

0:47:45 Thomas: Just the whole page, the whole document comes up. We found a planet that's like the, you know, the mime planet or something, and then everybody's mimes.