GG77: The Most Brazen and Corrupt Heist in American History

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 gavel heads. I'm Thomas. That over there is Lydia. How you doing?

0:00:30 Lydia: Hi, feeling gavel -y today.

0:00:32 Thomas: Wow. I I'm feeling too gavily for just us.

0:00:35 Lydia: How many gavels?

0:00:35 Thomas: A third gavel has entered the chat. How's it going, man?

0:00:37 Lydia: Yeah, the villa. Wow.

0:00:37 Matt: Hey, all right. Ready to bring the gavel down on one of the most corrupt things that's ever happened in US history.

0:00:46 Thomas: Yeah, I think the most, I don't know. I think it's just the most.

0:00:48 Matt: Yeah. Yeah, it is. And it's all right here in the papers we're going to be reading.

0:00:53 Lydia: In black and white.

0:00:53 Matt: And yeah, yeah. Yeah. So what I love about Gavel Gavel is we're not just going to talk about what happened. We're actually going to show you from the record exactly how this all went down with the so -called slush fund and the massive immunity. Well, the attempt, at least. This hasn't worked out very well so far. But the attempt by Todd Blanche to clear Donald Trump and all of his cronies and his family from any consequences from all kinds of things until, well, not from the beginning of time until the date of the agreement. Fortunately, not until the end of time.

0:01:15 Lydia: Until the end of time. Oh, okay. I was like, forever.

0:01:25 Matt: So no, fortunately, no. But if they they committed a tax fraud in the Paleolithic era, then that'll be covered. So my initial thought on this was that we'd read through the decision from Kathleen Williams that came down not too long ago, and it is a fantastic decision. It absolutely deserves to be read every word of it. We're not going to read every Word. We'll read a lot of it, in which she just rips the... Yeah, that's right. You can figure out the rest. That's right, right.

0:01:44 Thomas: We're going to read every other word. Just, just for, yeah, it's a fun game.

0:01:46 Lydia: And then you guys can guess. It's like Mad Libs. You guys pick adjectives and stuff beforehand. We'll leave those blank.

0:01:55 Matt: But it is...

0:01:56 Lydia: Actually, side note, that's a good idea for a Gavel Gavel. I'm going to write that down really fast.

0:02:00 Matt: Gavel gavel mad libs yeah yeah that's what you can take we could take actual transcripts and just blank out

0:02:00 Thomas: Wait a minute. Is there a podcast called Mad Libs that's like as in like liberals, you know, like a political.

0:02:07 Matt: Words there's got to

0:02:10 Lydia: I don't know if there is. Okay.

0:02:12 Thomas: Too many ideas. Damn it.

0:02:12 Lydia: Stop everything. Stop everything.

0:02:11 Matt: Be uh what's

0:02:14 Thomas: We're in the we're inthe execution phase currently. We can't be in the idea phase anymore.

0:02:19 Matt: One more podcast you can stop anytime it's fine we've got so much to talk about though I hope listeners have some idea about the so -called slush fund I mean I should say I should stop saying so -call slush bond it's a slush fund it was the anti -weaponization fund uh the thing that was set up as a result of the lawsuit we're going to talk about. The whole thing is now dead. But this lawsuit, the outcomes of all of this, the attempt by Todd Blanch to commit the most corrupt act pretty much ever perpetrated by the attorney general. And this is all coming out just days before his confirmation hearing. As of the time we're recording this, his confirmation hiring was this week. And I think Kathleen Williams intentionally timed this decision so that it would come out just before his confirmation hearing and of course it did come up at his confirmation.

0:02:29 Thomas: Yeah, it's yeah.

0:02:58 Lydia: That spicy. I like that.

0:02:59 Thomas: That's what that's what I said yesterday. You coming on to my theory? Sorry.

0:03:01 Matt: I think she did. Yeah, Yeah, I think so. Yeah.

0:03:03 Lydia: I like that a lot. Yeah, wow. Wow.

0:03:06 Matt: With so many things, when federal judges find this stuff and then write it out, we know. We've been watching the news. But it's nice to know that they know and that they're putting it all on paper the way they are. But I think it's interesting. And one of the purposes of this show is to just show you behind the scenes, under the hood, what happens in these proceedings and how the government files its pleadings and how there was an un...

0:03:27 Thomas: Behind the scenes under the hood. I'm in like are we doing Greece?

0:03:31 Matt: That's right.

0:03:31 Thomas: It's a production of Grease, I think. So we're behind the scenes, but we're under the hood. Yeah, some sort. Oh, great.

0:03:33 Matt: We're in the garage behind the scene. That's right. We're also watching the sausage get made. So it's, it's

0:03:35 Lydia: I'm racing for pink slips. Oh, my God.

0:03:42 Thomas: Man, my library of musicals is not.

0:03:44 Matt: A very unsanitary garage.

0:03:47 Lydia: Sweeney Todd.

0:03:49 Thomas: There's no cars in that. You can't do all three.

0:03:53 Matt: Danny Todd sausage. So yeah, I'm excited to go through this because I don't think any other show does this or is going to do this for you rather than just reading about it in the New York times. You can hear what the people have to say for themselves. And most importantly, that the most significant thing of all of this is what 35 federal judges had to say when they stepped in in this case.

0:04:12 Matt: Never happened before. We'll read a little of that too, but that is completely unprecedented. And one of the reasons I think that Kathleen Williams, I think she's going to do this anyway, but one ofthe reasons that she really took this seriously is because you had federal judges around the country saying, no, you can't let this happen. And getting this thing essentially reopened when Trump thought it was sealed. So this is something, this is such an extraordinary case and I do not want to let it go. This is a moment in history that we have to to really understand and be able to talk about for years to come. So I hope this show helps everybody do that.

0:04:41 Thomas: I'm excited.

0:04:42 Lydia: Me too.

0:04:42 Thomas: So why don't we take our usual break? You can support the show, patreon.com/gavelpod. Any bonus stuff, any early stuff, you'll see it there first and you'll avoid those annoying ads. And you'll make this show possible if you enjoy us reading mad libs of decisions give me a noun that is corrupt no I don't know give me an orange noun an orange now support

0:05:01 Matt: If you enjoy us just being mad libs, there you go. We're going to begin at the beginning on January 29th, 2026, when Donald J. Trump and the Trump Organization and Eric Trump and Donald Trump Jr. all joined forces to file a complaint. So let's pull that complaint up. This is the beginning of the lawsuit that will result in all of this. And this is all kind of of butterfly effect stuff from Charles Littlejohn's brave decision to leak not just Trump's tax returns, but actually a tax returns of a number of other wealthy people that had been cheating on their taxes.

0:05:07 Thomas: The show patreon.com/gavelpod

0:05:18 Ad: [Ad break 1 — ad music]

0:05:43 Matt: But the focus here, of course, is on Trump's taxes. So to understand this case, let's take a look at the complaint and what the plaintiff is saying. Now, remember, yes,

0:05:50 Lydia: Side note. Side note really fast. Shout out to Charles Littlejohn's partner who reached out as a patron. So cool. Yeah. Yeah. Love that.

0:05:53 Thomas: Oh yeah I was just thinking that

0:05:54 Matt: Yes, as a listener, really appreciate you. Happy to keep the story going here.

0:05:59 Thomas: Thought I dreamed that for a second I was literally like wait did that

0:06:03 Matt: So let us pull up the complaint here so that we can understand the lawsuit. Yeah in

0:06:05 Thomas: Happen you're like leading us in church let us pray open your bibles to complaint page

0:06:13 Matt: Your hymnals to number 56

0:06:14 Thomas: I just am amazed they let eric in on this you know do you think it was like okay let him just write his stupid name on it you know the

0:06:19 Lydia: The back of the card. There's no more room.

0:06:22 Thomas: Crayon yeah like when we have remy sign the cards for stuff yeah did

0:06:26 Lydia: Uh-huh. Yeah. We're like, just draw something. It's fine.

0:06:31 Thomas: You see that headline on that topic that eric trump lost a bunch of money on some sort sort of crypto skew. I love that it's like in the most corrupt organization, the most corrupt presidency, they're making money hand over fist. And then only stupid Eric Trump would be like losing money. You got like the whole government available to you to make money. It's easy. Even Barron Trump is probably raking in. Yeah, exactly. Melania. They're all able to do it.

0:06:37 Lydia: No, I didn't say that. He still gets it wrong. Yeah.

0:06:58 Thomas: Eric's like, shit, I lost 80 million dollars.

0:06:54 Lydia: Tiffany's doing fine. Oh,

0:07:01 Matt: All right let's pull up the complaint and just check out the very first thing in the complaint because it's so important if you want to read out paragraph one

0:07:01 Lydia: Man, that's funny. President Donald J. Trump is the founder and former chief executive officer of the Trump Organization. President Trump served as the 45th president of the United States and as the 47th president of the Unites States. President Trump brings this suit in his personal capacity.

0:07:26 Matt: Right okay he's bringing

0:07:27 Thomas: Then why all the other other stuff

0:07:29 Matt: This he's a person he's he's bringing this as a person but he's also currently the president who is in charge of the no notice Let's actually notice that we talked about the plaintiffs. The defendants in this case, the other side of the V, are the Internal Revenue Service and the U .S. Department of the Treasury, both of which are parts of the executive branch, which he has argued to the Supreme Court he controls completely. So we have the president bringing this in his personal capacity.

0:07:53 Lydia: Yeah, just a little bit of a conflict of interest there, I think. Just a little bit.

0:07:56 Matt: I don't know. I might need an expert for this one, but yeah,

0:07:59 Thomas: Yeah it's a unitary executive until it wants to sue itself and then all of a sudden it's

0:08:03 Matt: Pretty much. But Kathleen Williams is going to, of course, note how in Congress this is, that he's bringing in his personal capacity as if that's even possible. So, we don't need to read all of this, but just just going down just so we know what this is about to paragraph six, they're saying that they did file tax returns. And then let's read out seven.

0:08:21 Lydia: From May 2019 through at least September 2020, former IRS employee Charles, in quotes, Chaz Littlejohn, who was jointly employed by the IRS and or one of its contractors, illegally obtained access to and disclosed plaintiff's tax returns and return information to The New York Times, ProPublica and other leftist media outlets. Let's. Okay. Oh, boy.

0:08:43 Matt: Yeah, I just had to throw that in. Yeah. All right. And then going down to eight, number

0:08:45 Thomas: Not sure man leftist shut up

0:08:48 Lydia: Defendants had a duty to safeguard and protect plaintiffs' confidential tax returns and related tax return information from such unauthorized inspection and public disclosure. Accordingly, defendants were obligated to have appropriate technical, employee screening, security, and monitoring systems to prevent Littlejohn's unlawful conduct.

0:09:06 Matt: Nine, just to really nail this, just

0:09:07 Lydia: Defendants failed to take such mandatory precautions.

0:09:10 Thomas: They had no

0:09:11 Matt: Consider the absurdity of this, because there's an extra layer of absurdity that we haven't mentioned yet, which is that this happened in 2019 to 2020. And I'm having a little trouble remembering who was president at the time. I think that was Donald Trump, pretty sure. So he's talking about failure to safeguard data under his own administration at a time when he was continuing to argue the unitary executive theory that he is responsible for everything. So defendant, me, did not properly safeguard my own information.

0:09:24 Thomas: Security yeah well pay yourself a thousand dollars sir but also I mean legally this sounds like a normal negligency thing like give a duty to somebody. But like, is that how it works with the U .S. government? Like usually they have to let us sue the government. Right. So I assume when we get to sue the government, is it like this or would we just be using the statute that lets us sue them for whatever the thing is? I'm just curious.

0:10:06 Matt: He's specifically alleging a violation of Section 60 -103. I'm just looking at it now about the confidentiality provisions. So there is presumably presumably an exception to sovereign immunity. There's a lot of really strict rules about privacy and confidentiality in the government and what happens if they don't follow those. Little John was a contractor, I should note, too. He didn't work directly for the IRS at the time, but it's still relevant.

0:10:26 Matt: He's still an agent of the IRS for those purposes.

0:10:28 Thomas: Is there much on the light? Like, do we know how he did this? And it's one thing to say, well, you have a duty to keep stuff safe, but isn't it part of this kind of law? To what extent were you doing that? Were procedures followed or not? You know, If somebody is the world's best hacker and hacks in, I think that's a little different than if somebody like, oh, I dropped the USB stick during lunch that had all the tax returns on it. Does it go into that at all? Do we know how this happened?

0:10:51 Lydia: Mm hmm.

0:10:51 Matt: He was working as a contractor and presumably had access to this information and presumably would have signed some kind of confidentiality thing. So he chose to break that, I think, is how it works.

0:11:01 Thomas: Right. Is it on him or how does that work? Because it's like if somebody just steals it and leaks it, is that a matter of like technical monitoring systems that's saying or is that just like, well, yeah, I guess somebody can go rogue and do. You oh it says employee screening are they supposed you should know oh

0:11:13 Lydia: Like No, ahead of time. Yeah, exactly.

0:11:20 Matt: So let's look at the enormous amount of damage this caused because we found out that he wasn't really paying his taxes very much.

0:11:26 Thomas: Yeah well it's caused a lot of I can jump in right there uh he went to prison gosh it caused him so much trouble that he didn't pay his fucking taxes he went to prison I think we took all his assets he's a he's actually homeless yeah

0:11:37 Lydia: Oh, the entire family is destitute, actually.

0:11:38 Thomas: Now because um so yeah his his dynasty is ruined like the whole thing yeah so that's all the consequences that have so so he's right you know whatever amount of consequences he had from this, I agree that we should repay him anything

0:11:39 Lydia: Yeah. And future generations, too. Right. Like like they are saddled. Yeah mm hmm.

0:11:53 Thomas: He's owed for all of the consequences he faced for this.

0:11:56 Lydia: Poor baby. Mm -hmm. Defendants have caused plaintiffs reputational and financial harm, public embarrassment, unfairly tarnished their business reputations, portrayed them in a false light, and negatively affected President Trump and the other plaintiffs' public standing.

0:12:11 Matt: I want to remind everybody what the returns actually said, which is that he paid $750 in 2016 and 2017.

0:12:19 Thomas: Jesus.

0:12:20 Matt: $750. And in some years paid no taxes because he'd lost more than he'd made on paper at least. Yeah. And this is actually just like we were talking about the prosecutor in Florida who is the only person so far to pay for the classified documents case, other than Walt Nauta, who helped him move the documents. The person who was probably in the process of trying to leak the second Jack Smith report, right? It's just that she might be going to prison because she emailed it to herself.

0:12:24 Lydia: This is so infuriating. Mm -hmm.

0:12:47 Matt: And now we have Charles Littlejohn doing five years because he did this public service of letting people know before the election that this is a man who definitely wasn't paying his taxes,

0:12:55 Thomas: Well, plus I find it interesting that like from a legal perspective, I know we're not really entertaining much of this, but the part that would have caused reputational harm is your stupid tax returns and you not paying taxes. It's not really the revealed. Yeah. Right.

0:13:06 Lydia: Exactly. Not them being disclosed. Yeah.

0:13:09 Thomas: I mean, I don't know if there's anything signing their legally map. But like, how much responsibility would the U .S. government have for that? Like, that's that's you. That's Trump.

0:13:17 Matt: Yeah. Well, exactly. And also you're admitting in this paragraph that, you know, it's embarrassing to not pay your taxes. You know, it's bad. Right. And they're saying it's a false slate, but I mean, the New York times, it was not out of false light like you just they're just like literally here's what's in it see what you think about it right yeah

0:13:31 Thomas: If it was false light, you wouldn't be suing the government. You can't be responsible for somebody else's false light. Wait, I think I've made this point on something before. It might be this. Yeah, I'm just remembering.

0:13:38 Matt: I think it's come up before yeah

0:13:40 Thomas: It's like if I sue Lydia for revealing confidential information and I'm like, and it's false, it's lying. It's lying about that when everybody knew.

0:13:49 Lydia: Both can't be true.

0:13:49 Thomas: ItS like, well, yeah, I THINK both can't be true. Because if it was false light, it wouldn't be about, well, that wasn't a bad example because it's suing the government. So it's like, I don't think you can be all of those things at once. That sounds hard to me.

0:14:00 Lydia: Well, is it something where, like, if it's stripped of the context, right, that it's not necessarily false information?

0:14:07 Thomas: Yeah. But then, then it would be whatever publication, wouldn't you be suing The New York Times?

0:14:10 Matt: Right how the new york times presented it right it was yeah so you know that's that's I think that's a good point it's just infuriating like you said just the idea that they know full well in this paragraph they're saying it makes them look bad before the election they didn't pay his taxes and that's why we're suing for 10 billion dollars literally 10 billion not to spoil this but that's where he's going with this

0:14:27 Lydia: Right, like not didn't pay their taxes but just, like are cheating the government and finding every single loophole they can so they don't have to pay into the system that everybody else pays into.

0:14:36 Thomas: Which, look, I know we don't have much sympathy for like the U .S. government, but just for a moment, pretend it was anything else and be like, hey, you know that time when I totally robbed you blind?

0:14:46 Lydia: Mm -hm.

0:14:46 Thomas: Well, you let someone find out that I robbed you blind so you need to pay me money it is what's what it literally is yeah

0:14:46 Matt: Yeah yeah

0:14:50 Lydia: Right. Exactly. That's what it feels like. That that's really what this is. Yeah.

0:14:52 Matt: Right yes exactly that's what it is yeah

0:14:56 Lydia: So stupid.

0:14:57 Matt: Let's go to 23 that does have the answer to the question we're just skip ahead here uh about little john's it's kind of the scope of his employment just to re -establish that

0:15:04 Lydia: Mr. Littlejohn had staff like access to tax returns and confidential tax return information and defendants exercised the power to control the detailed physical performance of his work.

0:15:15 Matt: So that's enough to establish you know under regular circumstances you know that he wasn't a contract with the government that he had access to these and you know they should have screened him better or whatever and then there's a whole section about how the defendants had previously tried to warn every year from 2010 to 2020 the treasury inspector General had warned the IRS about security deficiencies. Apparently some of these security deficiencies could be attributed to how he had access, whatever, whatever. So this is all stupid, obviously. Let's skip ahead. I just want to skim the complaint very quickly. It has the whole thing actually about how he saved the returns to multiple storage devices, how he actually did it. And then let's go to actually to 68 and 69, rather.

0:15:49 Lydia: Nice. Somebody had to say it.

0:15:50 Thomas: That's what lydia brings to the table

0:15:56 Lydia: At that sentencing mr little john admitted quote I felt that the american people should have the opportunity to see the tax returns of the sitting president before they decided on how they were going to vote mr littlejohn clearly committed his crimes which the defendants allowed to occur in order to improperly influence the results of the 2020 presidential election

0:16:17 Matt: Man, that is infuriating.

0:16:18 Thomas: Yeah but the government can't be responsible for his motives you can't be like you know what I mean like it's it's trying to introduce that oh he did it for this reason and you allowed it to happen doesn't matter what reason trying to sue the custodian of the record you know I mean if somebody had our data in a server farm and then somebody went and stole it and like released embarrassing stuff. We can't sue the server farm and be like, yeah. And the guy did that for these political reasons. Like that doesn't, they're a server farm.

0:16:45 Lydia: Irrelevant Irrelevant. Yeah.

0:16:45 Thomas: It doesn't fucking matter. Yeah. It's like they probably, they had a duty, like in a normal circumstance, there might be something here. If it was like somebody had a Duty of Care and they didn't protect your stuff enough. But beyond that, none of the other stuff is relevant at all. Right. It doesn't matter why the thief did it. Like we have to go into the motivations of the data thief of why they did it yet. Yeah.

0:17:04 Matt: I also have to wonder if they understand how this reads to regular people, because I mean, this is so bad. You know who else thought that we should have the opportunity to see the tax returns of presidential candidates? Every other presidential candidate.

0:17:13 Thomas: Everybody. Yeah.

0:17:15 Matt: This is so unprecedented not to release your tax returns. And the length that he went to to not do that and to claim that he was under constant audit or whatever, right?

0:17:22 Lydia: Because

0:17:24 Thomas: Well, he's under a routine.

0:17:24 Matt: And I mean, it's just that, yeah, right. And then 73, just to give you the idea.

0:17:31 Lydia: Of defendants' wrongful conduct, plaintiffs were subject to, among many others, at least eight separate stories in The New York Times which wrongly and specifically alleged various improprieties related to plaintiffs' financial records and taxpayer history, including

0:17:45 Thomas: Wait, wrongly? Well, then I guess you better sue him for defamation, right? What does that have to do with the U .S. government, you moron?

0:17:47 Matt: Yeah. We're in the wrong place here, aren't we? Yeah. Check.

0:17:52 Lydia: False allegations that President Trump engaged in, quote, tax avoidance, False allegations that President Trump, quote, reduced his tax bill with questionable measures. False allegations that President Trump "suffered heavy business losses.

0:18:03 Thomas: Yeah, me, me. Me also. Yeah yeah.

0:18:08 Matt: So why else did he not pay taxes then?

0:18:09 Lydia: Right, exactly. Like, I feel like that's what the document says. So it says negative. Like, what? False allegations regarding the specifics of existence of various IRS audits of defendants.

0:18:19 Thomas: Wait, these are all false. It sounds like they didn't get the real returns then. I guess these are fake returns that they got. So then there's no crime no crime here you got fake returns yeah it's just I love how shameless they are they can have it every single different which way is the crime against me is they stole my returns they released them they're all wrong everything they said is wrong it's not true none of that's true and it led to all these not true stories that are not but you should have stopped them from stealing the fake returns but then they published the not true story's government government it's like what the fuck are you talking about me by the way me yeah me I you should I me thanks you dare executive should have stopped them from me doing that me to myself I think this isn't a good case matt I'm starting to

0:18:23 Matt: Yeah. They're fake returns. That's right. Yeah.

0:18:26 Lydia: Yeah, so dismissed, you know? Yeah.

0:18:33 Matt: Yeah, exactly.

0:18:50 Lydia: Mm hmm. Because of me. Yeah. False allegations regarding President Trump's charitable contributions. False allegations that President Trumps returns and information had, quote, red flags.

0:19:15 Thomas: Think what how I do false allegations

0:19:15 Lydia: OK, good luck with that one. Like there literally weren't red flags on it or something.

0:19:24 Matt: It's perfectly fine. Nothing wrong here.

0:19:24 Lydia: That's what you're going to say. Like false

0:19:24 Thomas: I don't I don' t well I I just love the idea that like Like the true reports could have led to false allegations of red flag. Like what? I don't. Okay, sure.

0:19:34 Lydia: Allegations that President Trump, quote, paid no federal income taxes in 11 of 18 years. False allegations.

0:19:40 Thomas: That's not true. You paid nearly $1 ,500 or whatever you said.

0:19:40 Matt: Yeah, that's right, that's right. He did.

0:19:44 Lydia: False allegations that President Trump paid, quote, $750 in federal income taxes in 2017. Well, isn't that just a line item from the IRS document itself? So then like you should be suing yourself for, yeah, then you filed something false with the U S government. If that's not true. So sue yourself. Uh -huh. All the numbers are wrong. They mad -libbed it. Spilled it out. Oh, man. That'd be funny.

0:19:59 Thomas: No, it's a false real return. It's a real false fake.

0:20:05 Thomas: Yeah. Now you understand. They stole. No, somebody stole and revealed the real returns, like the forms, but they put all the wrong numbers. They downloaded the forms from the internet that are just the blank forms yeah trump can't be responsible for that yeah

0:20:27 Matt: What's the next one? Because live the kind of life where this doesn't happen to you.

0:20:31 Lydia: Likewise, ProPublica published at least 50 articles as a result of defendants' unlawful disclosures, many of which contained false and inflammatory claims about defendants confidential tax documents.

0:20:41 Matt: Pro publica, 50 articles about your tax returns. There's got to be something there.

0:20:43 Thomas: I think one pro public article about you is not good like mostly I don't know do they do a lot of puff pieces the pro public yeah that's

0:20:47 Matt: Yeah. Generally speaking. That's right. Yeah.

0:20:51 Lydia: I would do a lot of like reflection. If my name ended up in a ProPublika piece about something that I did, I'd be like, oh, shoot. Let me think about that. Was that? Did I mess up?

0:21:01 Thomas: Like back in the day when uh ronan farrow was on the line or something like shit, well, it's all over. Yeah.

0:21:04 Lydia: Yeah, yeah, exactly. Ronan's right, you know?

0:21:08 Matt: All right. So I will flag up front that the major thing, the major problem with this lawsuit is it's way too late. You're supposed to file within two years of knowing that something happened, right? So he's going to try to address this.

0:21:19 Thomas: Hold on. That's the first easiest thing that's wrong. Yeah, yeah, yeah. I just don't want to suggest like that's not the only. It's not like, oh, had he gotten this pile of garbage in before the deadline,

0:21:22 Matt: Right. No, that's what the DOJ should have gone for right away. If this were a normal lawsuit, they would. Oh, yeah. No, no, sure. Exactly. Right.

0:21:32 Matt: It would have been fine. Yeah. Yeah, yeah.

0:21:32 Thomas: It would have been great. It's like that'S just the way the law works. You find the earliest first thing that disqualify. Yeah.

0:21:40 Lydia: President

0:21:38 Matt: Yes. Easiest. The headshot here is that there's you knew, and I'll explain exactly why he knew in a moment, but this is ridiculous. It's 76. Check this out.

0:21:48 Lydia: Trump did not discover the numerous violations of subsection 6103 that were committed in connection with his personal tax returns until January 29th, 2024, when the IRS sent a letter addressed to, quote, Donald J. Trump and Melania that stated, quote, we're providing you this letter to notify you that an Internal Revenue Service contractor has been charged with the unauthorized inspection or disclosure of your tax return or return information between 2018 and 2020.

0:22:11 Thomas: Wait, what? What? First off, I like that Melania is just first name basis.

0:22:15 Lydia: Melania, yeah.

0:22:16 Matt: Exactly. Yeah we know her well.

0:22:16 Thomas: It's like Madonna or something. Yeah. So he had no idea about this until a letter. Yeah.

0:22:18 Matt: Yeah apparently he doesn't read the New York Times. He didn't see it.

0:22:25 Lydia: Or exist on the internet or, yeah,

0:22:26 Thomas: What did he think all these stories? So they led to stories that caused all this trouble for him, but he didn't know about it.

0:22:31 Lydia: That he lost the election because of it, you know, and he just, yeah...

0:22:35 Thomas: He had no idea about This Happened, except all the bad stories were from when it happened, not five years later. Oh, okay.

0:22:41 Matt: Oh he's going to explain that. There's a perfectly good explanation. It'S coming up.

0:22:44 Lydia: When the first relevant New York Times story was released on September 27, 2020, plaintiffs had no reason to believe that an unauthorized disclosure had occurred for at least two reasons.

0:22:52 Thomas: There's only a number of reasons people would know that I paid bullshit taxes. How am I to know?

0:22:58 Lydia: First, the New York times reporting did not state that the information came from the IRS, arrest. And second, the IRS commissioner supposedly investigated and found that the disclosure did not come from the IRS.

0:23:09 Thomas: Wasn't that your IRS?

0:23:10 Matt: But let me tell you why we know for sure this isn't true and this This is amazing. And Kathleen Williams went out of her way. We'll get there in the decision. But I just want to tell you right now to spoil this. He sent his personal attorney, Elena Haba, to the plea hearing to speak on his behalf about how much he'd been harmed by Charles Littlejohn.

0:23:28 Thomas: The plea hearing. Well, wait, wouldn't that be after he was charged? If the letter's saying, wait a minute, I'm

0:23:29 Matt: So the plea hearings. So you can't say you didn't know the date of the plea.

0:23:38 Thomas: Just making sure.

0:23:39 Lydia: Yeah, what date was the plea hearing?

0:23:39 Thomas: If he's saying that he, well, it would have to be after he Was charged, right?

0:23:43 Lydia: It was October 12, 2023.

0:23:45 Matt: This checks out, actually, because the letter would have come after the plea that actually would make sense. Is it like a victim's notification thing? No, if the plea was in October, yeah. That checks.

0:23:45 Thomas: Why would it take that long for them to send a letter okay yeah like a year later or like a oh oh january oh so three

0:23:56 Lydia: Yeah, yeah, it was just a few months.

0:23:56 Thomas: Months oh okay sure so that means but does that three months buy you anything what date matters for the purposes of this

0:24:03 Matt: It's when you should have reasonably known. But again, my point is that what

0:24:06 Thomas: Sorry I let me rephrase the question what by what time did he need to have known for this to like because the statute of limitations would expire when I guess is what what I'm asking

0:24:16 Matt: We're saying, it would have expired in October 2025, two years after the plea hearing, because he definitely knew at the time of the plea hearing because he's got his attorney there. But under his read of it, it's going to be January 29th, 2026.

0:24:36 Lydia: Yeah, in the fall.

0:24:36 Thomas: So all of this nonsense is because they didn't file this slightly earlier like they could have just filed this three months earlier and that would have been fine they're going to this stupid length to try to extend the statute of limitations when you said that I just was kind of assuming like oh well that's like oh we missed it by a mile and you're like shit let's find a way for it to make sense that you know we gotta reset that thing back but this is funnier in that it's it's like, did you file that thing? Oh shit. We're a little bit late. Okay. Let's fabricate a whole thing about how he didn't find out until a littlebit after he would have found out. Like, it's just funnier. Like that's wow. Okay, it's Just the levels of shamelessness here are really funny.

0:25:12 Matt: Yeah, they are. And I mean, it also, I understand what you're saying about what they're saying in the complaint about how we had no idea who gave the New York Times the tax returns. But I feel like you would know. I feel like you'd know that it probably came from the IRS that somebody leaked it. But it also could have been somebody in his organization or whatever else. Times obviously protected their source.

0:25:29 Thomas: Well, I guess if it's true that somebody said if the IRS commissioner said it wasn't that that's kind of a funny sentence. The IRS commissioner supposedly investigated and found that the disclosure did not come from the rs that's isn't that his I

0:25:40 Lydia: But do you think it's like one of those things where like he's threading the needle there because it was like a contractor for the IRS so it didn't technically come fromthe IRS as a body?

0:25:49 Thomas: Don't know I'm just curious what that even means and whose commissioner that was if that was still under trump you know it's just kind of weird

0:25:54 Matt: Yeah, yeah. The whole thing's weird, obviously. But he's getting in just under his own sort of deadline, as you said, kind of squeaking in a few days early. Yeah. Yeah, basically.

0:26:00 Thomas: He could have just filed it a little earlier what

0:26:04 Lydia: Yeah, and I imagine like the fight would still be like no you were aware of it prior to that date too you know and here's the evidence but like that I mean that would be I think the most generous leeway we could give him is like well you definitely knew as of this date

0:26:19 Matt: -hmm. And then there's the Eric Trump stuff about how he didn't know until December, 2024. Yeah.

0:26:19 Thomas: He just still doesn't know actually nobody tell him he doesn't know much how did it take eric trump 11 months or whatever to find out if his dad so his dad knew in january 2024 he

0:26:26 Matt: He doesn't know anything.

0:26:37 Lydia: Well they don't talk is the thing

0:26:38 Thomas: Didn't know until yeah that's That's what I'm saying. This is another weird way of Eric Trump saying, well, I didn't find out. Yeah. Yeah.

0:26:44 Lydia: So thanks dad

0:26:58 Ad: [Ad break 2 — ad music]

0:26:58 Matt: So yeah, they go through about the different defendants and when they may or may not have found out and let's go down to the claims.

0:27:02 Lydia: Oh, wait, before we do, can I just can I

0:27:04 Thomas: Donald Trump Jr. also didn't know.

0:27:05 Lydia: Yeah, can I just say in paragraph 84 this is remarkable to me the sheer quantity that we're going to say right now, or I'm going to say, between December 2024 and May 12, 2025, the Trump Organization received subsection

0:27:06 Thomas: Didn't find that until then.

0:27:18 Lydia: 7431 notices with respect to 418 Trump entities. I'm just thinking about like the mail. How much did that cost the IRS, the government? Like how many postage stamps?

0:27:25 Thomas: Jesus. Yeah.

0:27:25 Matt: Yeah, and the people that had to put those all together and get them all out.

0:27:33 Thomas: Hopefully robots did it.

0:27:33 Lydia: Yeah, it's a lot.

0:27:33 Matt: Yeah that's a lot of work. Yeah but yeah again as required by law all these people were notified that it had been unauthorized and released. So So there is this claim for relief in account one and 26 USC 6103, which allows anybody whose information has been unlawfully disclosed by the IRS to automatically sue pretty much and get $1 ,000 each per disclosure. Simple enough. That is what we should be doing. We'll go a little further and we'll see what they're actually asking for. Let's get a prayer for relief because that's the fun part.

0:27:52 Thomas: Yeah. There you go. It's kind of what I was saying earlier. Like, isn't that what we're doing here? Like, shouldn't it just be that? Yeah. If anything.

0:28:03 Lydia: Wherefore, plaintiffs President Donald Trump, Donald Trump Jr., Eric Trump, and the Trump A. Declaring that defendants willfully, knowingly, and or by gross negligence unlawfully accessed and inspected plaintiff's confidential tax return information in violation of 26 U .S .C. subsection 6103.

0:28:23 Thomas: Wait, what? What? The government accessed and inspected it? Aren't they supposed to do that?

0:28:27 Lydia: Yeah, it's supposed to be confidential from the entity that's supposed to evaluate it. Yeah.

0:28:30 Matt: Yeah, I don't know about that.

0:28:32 Lydia: Declaring that Defendants willfully knowingly and or by gross negligence unlawful

0:28:36 Thomas: Hold on. I'm going to try that this year. IRS, I'm giving you my tax return. You're not allowed to look at this. You can't access it.

0:28:43 Matt: It's confidential. Financial.

0:28:41 Lydia: Disclosed according to 26 U.S.C. yeah subsection declaring that defendants willfully knowingly and or by gross negligence unlawfully disclosed plaintiff's

0:28:44 Thomas: Unlawful. Confidential. I don't know who I'm given it to, but it's confidential.

0:28:55 Lydia: Confidential tax return information in violation of 26 usd subsection

0:28:59 Matt: Here's the fun part coming up.

0:29:01 Lydia: 6103 yes c awarding plaintiffs pursuant to 26 U.S.C. subsection 7431 c1 the greater of either one thousand dollars in damages for each unauthorized disclosure of their tax return information, including each subsequent disclosure by third parties, including by the New York Times, ProPublica, and by many additional print, broadcast, cable, social media, and other platforms,

0:29:18 Thomas: Wait, what? That cannot be correct. There's absolutely no... you could start a server click farm of blogs, re -releasing your tax return. You're just infinite money generation machine.

0:29:24 Lydia: Which amounts to at least $10 billion. Yeah, sorry, I was counting zeros.

0:29:34 Thomas: Billion dollars. Yeah. Yeah, I think that what threw you off is they put the cents in there too.

0:29:35 Matt: Billion. That's so many zeros. Yeah. So

0:29:43 Thomas: $10 billion and zero cents. Like, why don't bother with the cents, man?

0:29:47 Matt: I will admit, I didn't actually catch this before. This one weird trick is how they got to $10 billion that every time that anybody mentioned the tax returns.

0:29:51 Thomas: Yeah. Yeah, there's absolutely... Hey, I'm not a lawyer, Matt. This is why this is how we've done the show for so long. There's no fucking way that's true. I'm sorry. Like sometimes, sometimes I get wrong. I'm like, I'm not a lawyer. There is no way that is true. And you're like, that's true. There no way, that every single time a subsequent disclosure by a third party, including broadcast cable, social media, every single post, the government's going to pay you a thousand dollars. I don't think that's how it works, Matt.

0:30:15 Lydia: $10 Any person. Yeah.

0:30:21 Matt: I will read you the law and we can decide for ourselves. 1A, this provision they're citing here, $1 ,000 for each act of unauthorized inspection or disclosure of a return or return information with respect to which such defendant is found liable. So the disclosure itself, or return informations, you're going to argue that every time any piece of information from any of those returns was published, that's not how it works.

0:30:40 Lydia: Yeah, yeah. They're trying to say that's a new disclosure.

0:30:43 Matt: Yeah. I do not see that.

0:30:43 Lydia: And it's like, no, the disclosure is ground zero, basically. And that's it.

0:30:46 Matt: $10 billion. Incredible.

0:30:47 Lydia: And then also, each of the 418 Trump Organization affiliated entities that receive notices from the IRS, which also amounts to at least $10 billion dollars. Yeah, yeah.

0:30:57 Thomas: What are the odds? Wow the math that would somehow mean like we did the math my tax returns and all they're released and also the 418 ones they both add up to 10 billion dollars that's a mathematical curiosity

0:31:15 Matt: I want $10 million and 11 cents, please. Actually, I've calculated it out.

0:31:16 Thomas: 10 billion from everywhere yeah I'm just surprised they should have like multiplied that by 418 or something I don't know do something different with that number just to make it seem but I guess they don't have to because they're not

0:31:27 Matt: And then in E, we've got a punitive damages request, which is usually not something you can do against the federal government. But under this provision of the statute, if it is willful or gross negligence, you can actually get punitive damages. So he's trying for it.

0:31:36 Thomas: Trying okay I know it doesn't matter because we're in crazy But was this willful or gross negligence? It doesn't seem like it, but I don't know. Yeah. Oh, okay. How does that work? Are they just liable? I guess. Yeah, if it's a contractor, are they liable or whatever? Who cares?

0:31:44 Matt: That was willful for one person that they're supposed to be supervising.

0:31:48 Lydia: Not against the IRS and yeah and Treasury

0:31:53 Matt: So basically, this is what he's looking for. I just want to note that this is signed by Alejandro Brito, who is a Florida attorney who has represented Trump in, I think, most of his defamation cases, all the times he sued the Washington Post and Fox and everybody else. I've seen his name pop up a bit. He'll be mentioned again by Kathleen Williams, and her decision was to look out for that name, Alejandro Brito. So this is the complaint.

0:32:12 Thomas: Yeah, I would take this case. You're telling me I get to sue you like you're suing yourself and you're in control of how we respond. Bond this is like playing chess against myself okay I win

0:32:21 Matt: Yeah, sign me up. That's right. Yeah?

0:32:25 Lydia: Man his so his law firm yeah he basically exists for trump he started his law from four years ago and it has three associates and three paralegals

0:32:30 Matt: Mm -hmm. Yep, one of those.

0:32:34 Thomas: He's like, 'I only take cases where you're suing yourself. I don't I'm not a very good lawyer.

0:32:39 Matt: I will say Trump, on his own, has been very good for the legal economy throughout the country. He's contributed to lawyers quite a lot. Okay, so this suit is filed on January 29th, which would be the day of their kind of made-up two -year thing that they're suggesting based on that letter.

0:32:53 Thomas: Geez they only hit their own. Oh man, look, we have ADHD, but this is a level of time blindness.

0:32:54 Lydia: Seriously yeah

0:32:55 Matt: Yeah! Good work! Yeah, I can imagine attorneys sitting around on scrambling of like, how can we make this work? Yeah. Yeah.

0:33:03 Lydia: Especially when you have the gall to ask for $10 billion, like, and you can't figure this out in a timelier way? Nuts.

0:33:11 Matt: Yeah, so February 18th, there's a note on the docket here that this matter is before the court sua sponte. Now again, sua sponte just means the court can take things up on its own, because now on February 5th, the court notes that public interest organizations and former government officials have filed a motion for relief to file their brief as amicus curiae. And then we have CRU, the Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, Norm Eisen, filing for their own brief. So April 29th, the court is starting to get some concerns, and it's going to express those concerns in a sua sponte, which means basically spontaneous order that it's doing on its own initiative. So it has to say, this

0:33:46 Lydia: This Matter is before the court sua sponte. As set forth in its order, the court has concerns about whether it has subject matter jurisdiction in this case. Accordingly, the Court appoints attorneys from the following law firms as amici curiae to assist the court in identifying the applicable law governing an analysis of this issue yeah right

0:34:06 Matt: Is insane, right? The fact that she has to appoint attorneys from outside because she knows that she can't trust the parties to brief her on jurisdiction. And she's convinced now that there's some kind of collusion going on and that she's not supposed to be looking at this.

0:34:15 Thomas: Oh yeah because it's one one party. So, you know, it's kind of cool as a judge. It's an interesting part of the legal system where they're like, all right, you guys, you're adversarial to one another. Speech and debate club. You write me a report on what essentially of like why this should go this way. Give me the history. Give me, you You know, do the briefing. And it's interesting. Like, yeah. And it's judges have so many cases that it makes sense where it's like on one hand, you like, wait a minute, don't they? Isn't that what the judge should do?

0:34:33 Lydia: Yeah it's competing interests yeah

0:34:43 Thomas: Like, shouldn't they be the the ones doing no yeah it makes sense like it's in the interest nobody's going to be a better advocate usually than the two sides that are fighting about something like they're going to make sure to hit all the highs and lows but when it's somebody idiot suing himself you want to be like hey Harvey, two-face uh have the one of you send me the one thing and the others it's like I need real lawyers okay I'm gonna get some real lawyers and how does that process work Matt, where it's like, I mean, we've talked about that with Eric Adams is it's not like they just commandeer your lawyer or something, you know, like how do they find somebody ahead of time to agree? Do they hire them? Do they like, what does this even mean?

0:34:42 Lydia: No delegate it's smart yeah there like a database of people who are willing to like jump in yeah

0:35:25 Thomas: Like jury duty, but for lawyers, like, right.

0:35:29 Matt: The presumption is that you're going to get fees out of this, right? Because you've been appointed and later there's going to be fees one way or another. And it's also a really prestigious thing to be appointed, to be involved in something like this.

0:35:36 Thomas: How

0:35:36 Lydia: How does she decide like who to reach out to

0:35:37 Thomas: Did, yeah. How does these people be the people?

0:35:40 Matt: So yeah, these are people who are obviously well under the court. Donald Verrilli, I recognize as a former solicitor general. So, I mean, that's a big deal. Like he's somebody who's stood up in front of the Supreme court for on behalf of the Obama administration. I don't recognize John Gleeson, David O 'Neill, but any of these other people, but, and again, they're probably well

0:35:54 Lydia: So it could just be that that light like she

0:35:55 Thomas: It's like what's the process? Is she talking ahead of Time or she, I Mean, is this news to these lawyers? Like they see this fine hey did you see hey man you've been drafted you know or

0:36:03 Lydia: Trusts you're on the docket

0:36:06 Thomas: Like she does she coordinate ahead of time like what how does this work oh

0:36:08 Matt: It's a great question. I don't know. I've never been called upon. I actually, you know what, I will say, I actually had the immigration court has called upon me once or twice to do something like this, where it's like, we've got this case. This is like, somebody needs to take a look at this. And there's like a list of trusted attorneys basically of like, yeah,

0:36:21 Thomas: And then you have to do the thing where you're like yeah I don't do that anymore like you have To give that answer a few times nah I'm getting out pull out the picture of your kids

0:36:23 Lydia: Interesting yeah yeah oh

0:36:24 Matt: That's right. One more job. Yeah, no. Looking at the docket, one of the reasons she had suspicions and then this order became necessary is because the defendants weren't doing anything. And this is definitely a case where they had options, right? They had not responded to the complaint. And the plaintiffs have found something seeking more time because they're saying they're working something out, and she's getting more and more suspicious that this is looking very collusional, like collusion -esque. So this is how we get to this point where these people are appointed. And then as the amicus are starting to enter briefing, then we get this incredible thing, this motion. So Rule 60 allows basically any party that's arguable, but anyone who becomes aware of a fraud in the court or any other reason that the judgment should be set aside, because what happens is they don't respond to this order, right? She puts out an order asking them to brief the issue of jurisdiction because she's saying it sure looks like there aren't two sides to this issue. There might not be a case or controversy before me. And the defendants don't response to that. Instead of responding, the plaintiffs file voluntary dismissal.

0:37:27 Thomas: Yeah

0:37:27 Matt: We might as well just read the voluntary dismissals very quickly so you can see what goes into that.

0:37:30 Lydia: Yeah plaintiff's president donald j trump donaldj trump jr eric trump and the trump organization llc collectively plaintiffs by and through undersigned counsel hereby give notice of the voluntary dismissal of this action with prejudice pursuant to federal rule of civil Procedure 41A1A1.

0:37:44 Thomas: Uh they've settled they've reached an agreement with

0:37:49 Matt: That's right. And they're saying with prejudice because it's their complaint. They can do whatever they want with it and it's up up to them, right?

0:37:54 Lydia: Yeah.

0:37:54 Matt: So the judge doesn't get a lot of say over this. And let's see what they say here.

0:37:57 Lydia: Defendants Internal Revenue Service and the United States Department of the Treasury have neither served an answer nor a motion for summary judgment in this action.

0:38:04 Matt: Imagine that.

0:38:04 Lydia: Yeah, because you were directed not to. Accordingly, voluntary dismissal under Rule 41A11 is available as of right and requires neither leave of court nor the consent of any party.

0:38:02 Thomas: Themselves my god this is such a fraud like it's so laughable

0:38:20 Matt: Yeah, and again, Kathleen Williams is not a fool. She's a very, very experienced attorney, and she knows that this is something that's really up here, right. All right, so Kathleen Williams gets this voluntary dismissal, and She has no choice but to issue the next document we'll take a look at, which is called Order Closing Case, which is kind of unusual, too.

0:38:38 Lydia: This matter is before the court on plaintiff's notice of voluntary dismissals with prejudice. In the notice, plaintiffs state that they are voluntarily dismissing the incident litigation with prejudice pursuant to Rule 41. Because the dismissal with prejudice extinguishes the claims regarding the unlawful disclosure of plaintiffs' tax returns, the court cancels all deadlines, including the date that the parties were required to submit briefing as to whether an actual case or controversy existed in this matter.

0:39:02 Matt: And note the footnote here. There's a lot of good footnotes. I have to say, Kathleen William is very good for a footnote. We might as well read that.

0:39:07 Thomas: Gosh I can't listen to you objectifying a judge like that matt look at the size of her footnotes

0:39:14 Lydia: The court ordered the parties to brief this issue because it needed to determine whether it had subject matter jurisdiction. If a court does not have subject matter jurisdiction it cannot exercise any judicial power in the matter at hand yeah

0:39:25 Matt: I think this is her way of saying she really doesn't think she had subject matter jurisdiction in this case. She's just really sticking it in there that she's reminding everybody she wanted that briefing and she did not get that briefing.

0:39:34 Lydia: Do you think those lawyers that were called upon to like do the work were kind of bummed like they're like oh man I've already started the work will

0:39:42 Thomas: No they'll still get paid probably I don't know the one thing that lawyers are good at is getting paid they'll for whatever it is yeah

0:39:47 Lydia: They yeah that's true they'll figure out a way

0:39:49 Matt: If you're talking about the amicus?

0:39:50 Thomas: No the ones where where she like, like commissioned them.

0:39:51 Lydia: Uh no no no the the ones that she assigned lawyers

0:39:54 Matt: Yeah, those were the amicus. So there were other amicus too, but she assigned these friends of the court to look at this issue. And they did, yeah. Yeah.

0:40:02 Thomas: Oh, there's not a different name for it when you're like voluntold. Yeah.

0:40:01 Lydia: Yeah oh oh yeah I didn't realize it was amicus yeah

0:40:06 Matt: You're like, no,

0:40:06 Thomas: Cause normally amici is like, you're just trying to get, you know, be part of it. There's like, Hey, what if you listen to what we say? Yeah. But that to be voluntoled that you're an amici. Hey, Hey friend, do it. Do us a favor.

0:40:10 Lydia: Yeah what if you don't want to be a friend of the court like that wasn't consensual

0:40:20 Matt: You're my friend now. Yeah, that's right. So they did file something, I believe. And they also, she notes, she's going to note later in the case that they actually don't want payment for this, but they're entitled to it and she wants them to get paid. And we'll talk about that later. So yeah, keep going.

0:40:34 Lydia: Because the notice does not reference any settlement or include a stipulation of settlement there is no settlement of record additionally defendants federal agencies represented by the department of justice which has an independent obligation to uphold the quote public's strong interest in knowing about the conduct of its government and expenditure of its resources and the quote fair administration of justice neither submitted any settlement documents nor filed any documents ensuring that settlement was appropriate where there was an outstanding question as to whether an actual case or controversy existed

0:41:03 Matt: That is quite a paragraph. We have her saying directly that DOJ is not doing its job. And she's saying, I don't see anything before me. I don't see any reason this should be dismissed. There's no settlement. Maybe you have one, but I haven't seen it. This is all completely out of bounds. But the reminder from the regulations, the reminder of what the DOJ is supposed to do, what their job is, you have one job and you're not doing it. That's what she's saying here, but I still have to go to last paragraph.

0:41:17 Lydia: And reminder yeah accordingly

0:41:42 Matt: Yeah, you can hear the annoyance

0:41:44 Lydia: Upon review of the notice in the record it is ordered and adjudged that this action is dismissed with prejudice each party is to bear its own attorney's fees and costs all deadlines and hearings are canceled all pending motions are denied as moot this case is closed yeah

0:41:45 Matt: In that. So they think they're getting away with it. This order enters on the 18th of May, 2026. And then these two major historic things happen, Penny

0:42:04 Ad: [Ad break 3 — ad music]

0:42:04 Thomas: What a cliffhanger. What a cliffhander.

0:42:05 Lydia: I don't know what's happening

0:42:07 Thomas: Yeah. There's so much more to, it's just because you, you don't listen. There'S so much MORE to talk about. Historic things. And this was funny because Matt was like, oh yeah, I think we can, you know, we can talk about this. We could make an episode out of it. But then we realized Matt, Matt's, Matt'S a down player. You know, MattS a down player as we're reading like, okay.

0:42:11 Lydia: Next yeah

0:42:28 Thomas: Yeah, we're like, yeah, man, we want to hear that. We want want to hear that we want to read that I realize by the time it's all said and done we've got ourselves a little mini series because this was this was the dumbest and great like the I don't know how to I need to come up with a name maybe I already did we'll see listeners listeners tell me if I already named this episode but uh right in to be like yeah stop as you named it it needs to be both the most corrupt and dumbest heist in america you know what I mean like the stupidest heist but I don't want it because when you when here's here's my problem language

0:42:25 Lydia: Maybe minimizes something sometimes yeah yeah I know right

0:43:02 Thomas: Wise when you say like oh it's just the stupidest heist then that like puts your mind into like a hijinks scenario like a you know like a home alone lovable criminals trying you know I don'T want that yeah it's like evil and corrupt but dumb and I can't

0:43:12 Lydia: No they're still evil yeah but not good at it or

0:43:18 Thomas: Yeah it's kind of failing me like I don' t know how to how to like what adjectives do that but uh you know maybe maybe the listeners already know Yeah. But it really is the stupidest, most corrupt heist ever attempted, probably. And there's so much to the story. There's, you know, we're going through pretty much all the filings and there's a lot of good stuff to come.

0:43:25 Lydia: We'll explore yeah Yeah. Oh, yeah.

0:43:39 Thomas: I can't wait.

0:43:40 Lydia: I mean, so I hear. I don't know what's next.

0:43:44 Thomas: Lydia lost her voice after all the reading we made her do.

0:43:46 Lydia: That's true. That's true. I finally got it back, you guys.

0:43:49 Thomas: Wait, is that true? I just made that up. Okay. Okay.

0:43:51 Lydia: No. I was running out of steam.

0:43:54 Thomas: Find you a partner that's willing to just lie.

0:43:57 Thomas: Yeah, exactly. If I ever murder someone and the cops are talking to Lydia and we do that improv game where, you know, like I'm in the background trying to,

0:44:06 Lydia: Yes, and? Zip, zap, zop. No, I'm just kidding. We should try that with a police officer and see what happens. No then they just like tase us that would be their zip, zap zop, zap. Zap. Yeah. Yeah, you have to say your name and an animal that starts with the first letter.

0:44:07 Thomas: Nevermind. Nevermind. I was going to say it would go well, but I'm realizing it wouldn't because you're just going to start doing weird. You're doing weird ice icebreakers or something don't know why uh like officer tell me a name and a yeah where are you from first off give me give me an object that starts with the same letter yeah

0:44:30 Lydia: You know what? We're going to walk away without a ticket, no matter what. We're going to be golden, so.

0:44:35 Thomas: Maybe if you just improv game them into oblivion to where they can't take it anymore that's possible it's possible all right well there's so much more to come really excited because this was you know we don't get many good things these days but this was someone stupid and evil getting put in their place and uh yeah and so there's there's a lot more fun so thanks for listening gavel heads and get the rest of the gavel content if you're on patreon .com slash gavel pod you get right away you can go there now and get part two yeah and other others may have to wait a little bit not too long but you know just want to do something nice for patrons

0:44:51 Lydia: Yeah. Satisfying. Oh, yeah. Immediately. We re not, you know, sadists. You re going to get it, Okay.

0:45:13 Thomas: We gotta do something nice for patron so that's what we do and also no ads you don't hear the stupid ads are horrible I don't want to hear them, they're the worst, so, all right, thanks for supporting, thanks for listening, Gavel out, we'll see you for part two,

0:45:46 Matt: Todd Sausage and 69 rather. Yes.

0:45:54 Thomas: What is the actual link, which one, I've clicked all of them, I can't, yeah, look at the size of her footnotes.

0:45:57 Lydia: I can't get up.