GG86: Broadview 6 Prosecutor Sheri Mecklenburg - Whistleblower or Ass Coverer?

Transcript

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

0:00:26 Thomas: Gavelinos, I'm Thomas, that over there's Lydia, how, or should I say, She -shell, Shelly, Sheri, that's like coming to see the play you're in, and being like, yeah, you were,

0:00:30 Lydia: Me, me, me. Sherri, wow, wow.

0:00:46 Lydia: Yeah, and the Sound of Music, only like the lead. Oh, okay, yeah. Mary Poppins and Mary Poppin's, Maria and the sound of music, but yes. Yep.

0:00:55 Thomas: You same plane, I mean

0:01:02 Lydia: Just saying that because Julie Andrews played both parts.

0:01:02 Thomas: Did She, oh my god, I even realized that

0:01:06 Lydia: Yes, yeah, Julie Andrew's and Lydia Smith played both part.

0:01:07 Thomas: Wow. Wow. That's what they say. That's

0:01:10 Lydia: I know, yep. We went down in the history books together. That's why I got this role.

0:01:13 Thomas: Yeah. Man. That's the same movie, though. I mean, I obviously love Sound of Music better than the other one, but they're both the same.

0:01:21 Lydia: They're both great. Oh, no, they're both beautiful. No!

0:01:25 Thomas: A singing lady comes and rescues a family. I don't know. What is Mary Poppins? Is she an alien? I don't understand that one. I'm going to admit this right now. I don'T understand it. I DON'T know it. When I went to see you in it, I was confused the entire time.

0:01:26 Lydia: What? What? Oh, boy.

0:01:43 Lydia: The musical is more confusing than the movie. I'll give you that.

0:01:48 Thomas: It's one of those things that just assumes you know what the fuck's happening. It really does. And you know what? Fine. Mary Poppin's was something I happened and to miss as a, as a human. And so all of a sudden this lady's doing weird stuff. I don't know. What does this have to do with anything? Nothing except that that actress was Albert Einstein. Yeah. That actress was Lydia Smith, who we got, you're not going to believe this.

0:01:52 Lydia: Yeah. Yep. My acting prowess. Yes. That actress is Albert Einstein. Oh,

0:02:13 Thomas: We got to play the role of Cheryl, Sheri, Sherri, baby, Sheri Mecklenburg. Yep. That's it. It.

0:02:18 Lydia: Boy. Yep, yep. Nailed it.

0:02:24 Thomas: Nailed it in one. You know how many micro edits I have to do to make me sound like sure. Cause I'll be like, and then I cut it and all sounds smooth. So I'm like Sheri Mecklenburg for nice. And that was an edit. There's actually so many edits in that.

0:02:37 Lydia: Yeah. Yep. Wow. That's Why, you're the top of your class in audio editing. Oh yeah.

0:02:49 Thomas: Oh boy. Well, I'm excited to get to it. This, um, is of course a part two. If you didn't hear part part one, you gotta go back and hear that for sure. Um, this we're finally gonna dig into, uh, know, it's, it's the classic thing where our very, um, flawed character told their version of the history, in and then we're gonna rewind the tape and see, uh, see how close they were, see if they got it got it right. Right. Well, I'm so excited. Lydia is already in her, uh, kind, here, she's barely even talking, she's on vocal rest, so she's not, she's said very little. Yeah.

0:02:56 Lydia: Yeah. Yep. Yep. I have a vocal rest. Exactly. I'm waiting for my places. Call. Oh.

0:03:23 Thomas: Uh, so we better get on over to, we'll take a break, patreon.com/gavelpod and get whatever's next, which, there is a next thing, it's coming, there's a few next things you can get it there first. Support the show, lose the ads. Thanks so much. Let's get on over to Matt and Sheri. Thank thank you. Please, they're just gonna keep doing it forever.

0:03:24 Lydia: Yeah.

0:03:35 Lydia: There sure are. Places. Thank you. Places. Yeah. Exactly. Stuck in the loop.

0:03:57 Matt: Let's open up our our transcript again, the moment we've been waiting for. Going to look at her history with this particular juror. And I'm going to start at page 8, line 14. remember, this is her coming back after already having been no -billed, having the jury told her no deal. Right. Yes.

0:04:00 Lydia: Page Failed.

0:04:13 Thomas: Do I get to be my favorite juror too? Oh, guys, this is the best. All right, so boring.

0:04:15 Lydia: You do. Christmas came early this year.

0:04:15 Matt: It's your time. Stepping up.

0:04:19 Thomas: Matt was like, yeah, let's just go to the part that we need to read. I want to read the whole fucking thing. No, I'm just kidding. Uh, are we getting in the good parts.

0:04:24 Matt: No, you're going get the good parts. We're getting in the good parts. I promise. Yep.

0:04:27 Thomas: Okay, she I know, but I felt like that was already, okay, what's stuff above it wasn't anything, okay, all right, yeah, you're right, that's a different, like, narcher, it's like, oh, can we have homework? Or, okay, do you have unlimited tries? Unlimited tries, like you keep coming back as many times as you want. Oh,

0:04:27 Lydia: Yeah. Yeah. Line 14.

0:04:28 Matt: 17

0:04:43 Lydia: Do we have what did you ask? I don't think we have to worry about that. I think we're going to be just fine. Then Mr. Skiba, I hope you don't have your mind made up already that I'm going to need more tries.

0:04:55 Thomas: Saying is, second time is the charm. Yeah, I mean,

0:05:02 Lydia: You just responded like, well, maybe I do. Do you?

0:05:07 Thomas: I'll listen.

0:05:08 Lydia: Do you have an open mind for deliberation and returning a verdict if the facts meet the law? Okay. Is there anybody here who feels differently? Because if you do, then you shouldn't deliberate with it. So you, you took a, you know, you have a duty to, to have an open mind and see if the fact's fit the law, and you don't get to decide decide if you like the law or you don I don't it to decide I like the lawyer I don't, and, and then deliberate and then decide if those facts that the law, but if you're telling me now and you have rights say to me this, this is the case I just don't like and I just can't do it, that's true, then tell us now.

0:05:13 Thomas: Yes. Uh, yes, sir? You actually presenting any new actual facts, or just a different viewpoint on your side?

0:05:49 Lydia: Okay, I'm feeling the skepticism already. Are you going to be able to listen with an open mind? Tell me the truth.

0:05:55 Thomas: No?

0:05:56 Lydia: Okay, then you have to go.

0:05:59 Thomas: Heard this case last week, and I thought it was a crock of shit then, and I still think it is.

0:06:03 Lydia: Okay, thank you for your opinion for everybody. I kind of had that impression from last week, but thank you.

0:06:06 Thomas: -huh. You have any evidence other than the...

0:06:11 Lydia: Have a good evening. Pardon me? I didn't say there's no new evidence. If you feel that you can't be, then excuse yourself. That's fine. There's still 16.

0:06:14 Thomas: No new evidence? Uh Let's see what we have now.

0:06:25 Lydia: Two, three. Okay. That's fine.

0:06:28 Matt: Versus 17. Yep, so So that is it, that is, that is our favorite part. Uh

0:06:30 Thomas: I'll just wait until God

0:06:28 Lydia: Okay, that's fine That's mine. God, she's so pissed.

0:06:36 Thomas: Good. Yeah.

0:06:36 Lydia: She's so freaking mad

0:06:39 Matt: So passive aggressive. Have a good evening. All right, and like you're not saying "have a good evening" like "please remain," like that's not like that, like, the conversation's over and and you're still in the room. Like, clearly, you want this person to leave. So let me just make sure. Yeah, no. So this, let's go back and read that.

0:06:41 Lydia: Yeah, okay, bye Yeah, yeah

0:06:47 Thomas: Yeah. I remember

0:06:56 Lydia: It's dismissive and dismissing like kind of feels both both angles. Yeah, page

0:06:59 Matt: Yeah, exactly, right? Now, there's a couple, there is another section we're going to, actually, yeah, let us actually do the other part, too. So then we can go back, and read this paragraph, and decide if this is what she is doing. To page 26, line 4. actually, you know what? Let's start at the top of 26. You have a question.

0:07:13 Matt: Yeah, yeah, yeah. Thank you. Yeah. Yeah that's what I meant to say.

0:07:12 Thomas: I was just gonna say well, I what about, do you think, um, starting from that, Ms. Mecklenburg on 25 at the bottom. Yeah, yeah, it might be good.

0:07:19 Matt: Yeah just for context. That's fine. Yeah yeah. All

0:07:21 Lydia: We will stop it so you can see each defendant, and if you need us to go through the identification at the end again of how we identified each defendant, if we have to do that, we will. I don't know that we'll have time, but we'll do whatever we can, but I definitely want to get Agent A in today. I know this is your last week because of the shutdown, so have a question. Okay?

0:07:37 Thomas: We're not sure yet. No, I don't think I can vote.

0:07:43 Lydia: Do we still have 16?

0:07:44 Thomas: Yes, we have 16.

0:07:46 Lydia: Okay.

0:07:46 Matt: So that's relevant of course because she needs 16 to have a grand jury. She needs 12 to get the indictment. So she's making sure that she still has what she needs in the room. So again like the way that.

0:07:57 Lydia: But So I don's

0:07:57 Thomas: There's some more. Do

0:07:57 Matt: Yeah they're similar. Yeah let's keep going.

0:07:58 Thomas: You want to keep?

0:07:58 Lydia: Think I can vote indicating that he's or she's not gonna be one of the 12, or that they want to be excused, as like the bottom, you know, the, the denominator of 16

0:07:58 Thomas: Yeah. That's a good question.

0:07:58 Matt: Yeah yeah. Yeah Yeah, it is a little unclear, and I think maybe it'll become more clear. But I think also, either way, it's like either I don't have the information I need or I can't vote for this, right? I'm not sure which one.

0:08:08 Lydia: Okay?

0:08:15 Thomas: Well, this is also a little weird to be like. Actually, yeah. Hold on. How many bites at the apple do you get if you have more than 16? Like, okay. Okay, it's one thing to be like, we've got 16, you need 12 to go your way, right? It's another to be, like, well, we got, like 20, and then the first ones that are, like this is fucking bullshit, oh, well you're not part of the 16, what? Like that's just, like not, that's like having alternates, but then you get to not count the alternates if they're bad, but, then if they are good, you get put them in the 12.

0:08:29 Lydia: Right. Right, right.

0:08:32 Matt: Right. Yep.

0:08:47 Lydia: Why the manual needs to be, like, actually public? Because

0:08:49 Matt: Yeah.

0:08:49 Thomas: Yeah, Thomas and Heath proofed, when we're trying to find the rules of a game, no, I just want to, I'm missing something, Matt, like that seems like how it's working.

0:08:51 Lydia: It's Yeah.

0:08:53 Matt: Yep. No, no. Seems how it's working. And yeah, her obsession with making sure that she's got enough to get her case, that's all she cares about, obviously.

0:09:02 Lydia: I don't know, it's just like, it's shenanigans, like it just all feels like, like shenanigans, and the fact that you can't see, like, the rules that they're supposed to go by either is shenanigans to me, like, this is not not okay, not in

0:09:12 Thomas: I'm trying to think, how would this, what could I be missing here, because doesn't that seem like that's what's happening? What

0:09:19 Lydia: This day and age when we don't trust our government, like come on, yeah.

0:09:21 Matt: No, I think you got it. I think your right.

0:09:23 Thomas: The hell, it's not like they bring in a new person who hasn't seen or heard anything yet, right? Okay. That's shenanigans. Okay, all Yes, we have 16. I'm just working on, on the videos. Do

0:09:29 Matt: No. Yeah. This is the grand jury. Yeah.

0:09:32 Lydia: Okay. I'm sorry, pardon me, what's that? Yes.

0:09:38 Thomas: We have new evidence, we, we do have new evidence. Oh, sorry.

0:09:42 Lydia: We do, we have new evidence, and when you took your oath That oath, yeah.

0:09:49 Thomas: What is that supposed to be when you took your, sorry, if I say it, I'll, I'll start steaming like I'm not allowed to say, uh, Sheri.

0:09:49 Matt: Like That The Prompt the Charges

0:09:59 Lydia: That oath didn't say, do you like the law, do you like the facts, it's can you be fair, and that's all we're asking. No.

0:10:06 Thomas: A question I noticed, it is the individuals, if we decide that five of the six, you're like a hundred percent, but not the six, can we, okay.

0:10:17 Lydia: That's what you decide, yes, you can.

0:10:19 Thomas: So, so it's not all of them together. Wait, we, uh, yeah. Uh, it's got another voice. Oh, we could, no, I'm just kidding.

0:10:27 Lydia: No.

0:10:28 Thomas: We could do each count individually?

0:10:30 Lydia: We can do each count individually. We're not here last week. Okay.

0:10:34 Thomas: Sheri, of course, I am having technical difficulties.

0:10:37 Lydia: You plugged in?

0:10:37 Thomas: I assume I'm plugged into the, to to the mic.

0:10:40 Lydia: The drive, whatever you have.

0:10:42 Thomas: I just had it on. Folks, can you bear with me one moment while I get the technology down? Is there more here? It's just funny.

0:10:48 Matt: Yeah. There is actually the next part's important.

0:10:49 Thomas: Okay. Oh, Don't worry. Oh,

0:10:50 Lydia: I will say I'm a little disappointed.

0:10:54 Thomas: Yeah, this part, I'm like the, the fan who's hearing the start of the, the best, the number one hit song. Yes, I love this part. Come on, Mecklenburg. Here we go.

0:11:00 Lydia: I will say I'm a little disappointed that there are people who didn't want to hear the agent. Dissapointed Disappointed.

0:11:09 Thomas: Disappointed. Oh man, um,

0:11:16 Matt: You can I don't think we read this part, but you can keep going because this is relevant. Well, there's multiple parts where she's disappointed in all of you.

0:11:17 Thomas: Thought Wait, I thought this was the part where she's like you're right That's true, there's so many parts that are like, there's like the song that sounds like the number one hit song. Yeah, well, okay, I think I'm remembering where she was like, you know, "Boy, this is, I expect this out of the Tuesday crew, but the fucking Friday crew."

0:11:23 Matt: Yeah.

0:11:33 Lydia: Yeah, yeah.

0:11:33 Thomas: You know, like that whole stuff. It doesn't go into that all

0:11:35 Lydia: Yeah, that was so funny.

0:11:36 Thomas: Right. Um,

0:11:36 Matt: I like this part because he's going to remind her about the law, the four person is.

0:11:38 Thomas: Okay. Would say one thing when the USA, uh, guy was here last week, the one thing he said that made so much sense, can I say it? Is this the, is this a fucking teacher's pet? Is this Hermione Granger? He said, "It's Leviosa, not Leviosa. Uh, this is the accusatory phase, not the guilt finding phase." So Those are very different things. Our burden of proof, this guy's a narc, this is a, a plant, fuck this guy, our, those are, are very different things if burden of proof is much lower than, like, if we had a trial we have to prove that these people did something. Well, to be fair, we only hear one half of the story, we don't hear the other half. Yes.

0:12:02 Lydia: Right.

0:12:21 Lydia: True. We can't say like when you only hear one half, of course, whatever you say is going to sound good because you're only hearing from you. But I mean, absolutely. But, I think that's a great point and I'm glad that you told me and I'll remember to say.

0:12:36 Matt: You get the idea.

0:12:36 Thomas: Disappointed.

0:12:37 Matt: Yeah, that's this part. That's the pretty excerpts that I think are relevant to what we're talking about here, which is the way that she treated the grand jury about their open mind and about, and I'm disappointed about how, you know, she's very much the person who's coming in with the case that you're going to approve for her, right? That's very much the way she treated it.

0:12:37 Lydia: Yeah, yeah.

0:12:54 Thomas: She like brought in a prop pair of glasses to, like, look down her nose at, like this

0:12:58 Matt: Totally.

0:12:58 Lydia: Can I just say, I know we're not reading this this entire transcript, I just happened to land a couple pages later, where, you know, they're talking about the identification of the individuals in the video. This is so hilarious. And it's just her and Skiba going back and forth, where she says, "Right behind Kat is," and Skiva says, "Yes, yes, sticking out right here is Kat Sharp." Then Sheri, "You can see Brian Sharp just moved in, sorry, Matthew," and then Skiba, "Brian Rabbit," right? Like, they are talking about the identification

0:13:23 Thomas: Is they do a Who's on First. Like, there's an actual Rabbit he's like, Rabbit no, hold

0:13:24 Lydia: Yeah. No. These are, like like, literally identification of the people that you're trying to, like, pursue felony charges against, and you can't even get the names right.

0:13:34 Thomas: On. Hold on.

0:13:34 Matt: You don't recognize them.

0:13:35 Lydia: Page

0:13:35 Thomas: We have to hold on, this is crazy, we didn't get to this. Let Page 31, yeah. Sorry, we're doing this all right, Lydia.

0:13:35 Matt: Yeah, yeah, yeah. All right.

0:13:38 Lydia: 31.

0:13:42 Thomas: Is, uh, Mecklenburg, and I'm the Skiba guy again, who's like the, what, what is he? He's not just tech, right? He's like this special the other guy. Yeah.

0:13:49 Matt: Oh, no, he's the other one. Yeah he's a new guy.

0:13:51 Thomas: Yeah, but he's more like the good cop to her bad cop, it feels like to me. Okay. Go ahead.

0:13:47 Lydia: He's he's the newbie yeah yeah right Behind Cat is, you

0:13:51 Matt: Yeah yeah yeah.

0:13:58 Thomas: Yes, sticking out right, right here's Cat Sharp.

0:14:01 Lydia: Can see Brian Sharp just moved in. Sorry, Matthew.

0:14:05 Thomas: Rabbit, this individual here, if you follow his arm, he is placing, I'm sorry, yes.

0:14:06 Lydia: Right. Rabbit. Rabbit.

0:14:14 Thomas: Yes, Michael Rabbitt. Yes.

0:14:15 Lydia: Rabbit.

0:14:16 Thomas: We'll call him Mr. Rabbit. Thank you. So look what the fuck is happening, it's so weird. You wonder why the grand jury didn't feel like super confident, or at least that one guy, like, you don't even know the fuck you're trying to indict. So funny.

0:14:19 Matt: That's his name, yes.

0:14:34 Thomas: Yeah.

0:14:33 Lydia: Oh boy.

0:14:35 Matt: So let's go back to her motion to reread the grand jury manual and let's decide about her conduct. Now that you know what she did, everybody can remember now. Let's reread that.

0:14:44 Thomas: Little bit of whitewashing, perhaps, and

0:14:48 Matt: Once again, from the top of page 10, or

0:14:51 Lydia: Specifically, Section 4.4 of the GJM instructs DOJ attorneys, in pertinent part, that, quote, any jurors who indicate an interest that may interfere with a fair, impartial, and just decision concerning indictment should be asked on the record whether they can put aside any personal bias or prejudice and decide the matter fairly and objectively. Yeah.

0:15:09 Thomas: Should be squarely told to fuck off and publicly embarrassed in front of the entire grand jury.

0:15:11 Lydia: Right.

0:15:12 Matt: I don't think we've already seen this case, and I think it's a crock of shit. It's not personal bias or prejudice. That's an opinion, and it's an opionon he earned.

0:15:19 Lydia: Right, exactly. Like

0:15:21 Thomas: Yeah. It's not like, "Hi, I'm a guy who always believes cases are crocks of shit," or something, you know what I mean? Or it's like, no. I've, we've done this before. I've seen this movie.

0:15:23 Matt: Right, right, right. Yeah. I haven't really been listening, but there's ICE involved, right? So

0:15:36 Thomas: Yeah. Yeah.

0:15:36 Matt: Like Yeah, right, exactly, right.

0:15:38 Thomas: Yeah. It's not that. Yeah.

0:15:38 Matt: So yeah Right.

0:15:39 Lydia: Often why Like, I think a lot of attorneys will have sort of standard, you know, little blanket statements that they'll say, or blanket questions, like where the language is very clearly defined, because, and I think Sheri needed that here. Like, if she's trying to say, like, this is what I, the interaction there was actually part of this training manual, you know, Section 4.4, and this is what I was intending there, and it's like, well, but that's not what you asked, that's not what was being presented. And if you had just said, if you have, like, standard language that you had said, where you were like, you know, "Are you able to put to the side any, you know, personal bias that you have in this case?" In response to the juror saying "crock of shit," then I think you could be like, "Well, I was just following the training." But that is not, not how the interaction went at all. Um, so I find that harder to believe.

0:15:40 Matt: Yeah. Yeah.

0:16:27 Thomas: Oh,

0:16:27 Lydia: Okay.

0:16:27 Matt: Well, we're going to get her explanation here, but

0:16:29 Lydia: Further instructs that, quote, any jurors who are unable to do so should excuse themselves from deliberating on the case. If a juror declines to do so and the prosecutor is convinced the juror should be removed, the prosecutor should request that the district court remove the jurors from the case. No.

0:16:43 Matt: Important, did not happen here. So Now, now, now we get our explanation the

0:16:45 Lydia: Yeah.

0:16:45 Thomas: That's sort of like if you, like, if you were in court and a, let's say, uh, someone, someone in the, in the gallery, uh, acting unruly, and you as a lawyer as were like, "All right, buddy, get the fuck out of here," and you take him, like, shove him out, and then you point to the manual where it's like, "Yeah, no, all I did was, like, it says right here you asked the judge to have the bailiff show them out." It's Like you don't get to just do that yourself, like that would be fully a different thing, right?

0:17:05 Lydia: Right. Right, exactly. Exactly.

0:17:12 Matt: Let's find out why she doesn't think she did that somewhat.

0:17:14 Lydia: Mecklenburg's collaquy with a grand jury on October 16th, 2025, was consistent with this guidance. Indeed, Ms. Mcklenburgh repeatedly asked whether the grand jurors could listen to the facts and apply the law with an open mind. No time did she excuse any grand juror based on his or her, quote, opposition to the government's case. Yeah. A, when a grand juror expressly stated that he or she could not listen with an open mind, she correctly, according to the manual, if perhaps inartfully, told him or her that you know, and also instead of having to say he slash she, him slash her, you could just say they. You could say they just embrace

0:17:32 Thomas: Sure, Jan.

0:17:48 Matt: An artful. Yeah. That's True, we

0:17:43 Thomas: To go fuck themselves and get the hell out of here, you fucking pipsqueak piece of shit. Yeah. Yeah, that's true. Yeah. Especially, you're coming over the resistance. We love they-them. Come on.

0:17:54 Matt: Do have a pronoun in yes.

0:17:54 Lydia: Yes. Told him, her, that if he or he could not do so, he or or she should excuse himself or herself, which he or she then did. I think that that was a mistake there, and she. Yeah.

0:18:02 Thomas: Ugh.

0:18:07 Matt: I think it was a him, I think that's what we're learning. Yeah.

0:18:08 Lydia: Yeah. Yeah.

0:18:09 Thomas: And you fuck it up. See? It's way easier. Just embrace they-them, everybody.

0:18:11 Matt: Yeah. Wasn't

0:18:11 Lydia: Yep. Consistent with the course contemplated by Section 4.4, and the assertion that Miss Mecklenburg, quote, excused a second grandeur is simply inaccurate. That grandeur excused him slash herself. Yeah.

0:18:27 Matt: So Just looking back at the language, just because she's trying to say this is consistent, I don't really see it myself, and also it wasn't just opposition to the government's case, it was opposition to fact that he had to hear the entire case again that he'd already voted against. He's like, this is the same case, it's the same crack of shit that was what he was saying. So yeah.

0:18:42 Lydia: You already gotta know

0:18:37 Thomas: Yeah. Uh, if you want to give me a different crock of shit, like, oh, I mean, I'm always, I love a crock of shit. Like I'm down for it. It's not the same one.

0:18:45 Matt: Right. Right. I'll take a look. Open mind.

0:18:44 Lydia: Right. Well and the continuing questions like, is there new evidence that you guys are presenting? Is that why it's back here? Oh no, it's the same exact evidence that we've already voted on. And then what are we doing you already know our answer every

0:18:58 Thomas: Oh man, this person's my hero. Just need to know. I wish we had better idea if there are any other, cause like, it'll just say like, it does differentiate the four person just so everyone knows in the, in the script, but it just, I think it just says grand juror, right? It doesn't really ever. Yeah. So who knows there there could have been more than one. I guess we're saying, yeah, there were two, right? She's saying there's one that like left, but I guess we don't know if they had any of the good lines.

0:19:13 Lydia: Time yeah

0:19:23 Matt: Yeah. There is a big revelation coming up in the next section. We'll go to the next section.

0:19:23 Lydia: Much Miss Mecklenburg did next further undercuts any a suggestion that she was trying to manipulate the composition of the grand jury to produce an indictment. Than ask the remaining jurors to indict, Ms. Mecklenburg took advantage of a pause in the presentation to advise the front office of the highly unusual and to her unprecedented situation regarding the grand jurors who had left the grand jury room. No indictment was sought that day and the session was later discontinued in consultation with and at the direction of the USAO's criminal chief.

0:19:55 Matt: Then a footnote.

0:19:55 Lydia: Footnote, it is also worth noting that at least two of the Grand Jurors who who left the October 16th grand jury session, returned and were present on October 23rd when deliberations actually occurred.

0:19:55 Matt: Yeah.

0:20:04 Thomas: Right. So

0:20:05 Matt: And again this is very passive. Yeah.

0:20:05 Thomas: Yeah, It does feel to me like semi-credit to her. I feel like she probably realized, like, oh, that wasn't good, and did try, right? Like, I, I mean let me know what you think, Matt.

0:20:14 Matt: Yeah.

0:20:16 Lydia: I don't think anyone's trying to say she's

0:20:18 Thomas: No.

0:20:18 Lydia: Evil, right?

0:20:19 Thomas: I know. I'm just saying, like, the fact, like, I think she both is not a lot of the details in terms of the, yes, she absolutely did tell someone to go fuck themselves basically, but I I guess she kind of has a point in that, like, she did this other thing where she, you didn't try to just use that momentum to then, then get the indictment or anything. She likes, and I could see that as being consistent with, like, she definitely did a really bad thing, but then maybe she was like, ah, that was a little not the best. Yeah.

0:20:19 Lydia: Yeah.

0:20:45 Lydia: This is messy. Yeah.

0:20:46 Matt: She knew well enough to go upstairs and be like, I think I just accidentally excused her, whether I meant to or not, right? So, So like I, yeah,

0:20:48 Thomas: That's what I'm saying. So I think her, like, she's trying to defend herself by being like, oh, if I was this horrible you person doing this bad prosecuty thing, I would have done this. But I think that's a little bit of a Yeah.

0:21:01 Lydia: Would have called for a vote. Yeah.

0:21:02 Thomas: I think it's a little bit of a trick because it's like, well, there's a part in the middle where it's not like you were the worst evil prosecutor to ever evil prosecute. It's like, did you make a pretty big mistake and then probably realized, like, eee, yikes, I should put back that thing I just stole kind of thing, is still, you know, there is something to be said for it.

0:21:03 Lydia: No.

0:21:14 Matt: Yeah. Yes, heat of the moment. Yeah, exactly. To make it work. No, she's right, she is right. And then they ended the session that day because they decided that they should come back. This next part is very important.

0:21:22 Thomas: Yeah.

0:21:36 Lydia: This is October 16, re -presentation after the no bill.

0:21:40 Matt: Now this is the same day, we're still talking about October 16th, but this detail is really important and we didn't know this before.

0:21:44 Thomas: Oh, okay.

0:21:40 Lydia: Same day. United States accurately notes that on October 9th, 2025, the grand jury returned a no bill and that on Oct. 16, 2025 1925, Ms. Mecklenburg presented the case again to the same grand jury. But it did not explain that, as required by the Department of Justice Manual, Ms., Mecklenburg expressly and immediately advised the U.S. Attorney and other members of the front office of the return of the no bill on October 9th. Justice Manual Section 911 .120A. Following a no bill, the same matter, quote, should not be presented to another grand jury or resubmitted to the Same Grand Jury without without first securing the approval of the responsible United States Attorney.

0:22:19 Matt: So this isn't the big thing we're gonna learn from this paragraph, but it's interesting because we didn't have this language before that there had been some question because I was talking to Casey about this too, about like, wouldn't you have to go all the way to the top to bring something back after you got a no bill? Like you can't just decide to bring it back yourself, right? That's just not right. This does confirm that the only way that could have happened is if the U.S. attorney, Andrew Boutros, personally authorized it.

0:22:40 Lydia: Right.

0:22:40 Matt: So we were pretty sure about that, but now we know that from the manual. But here's the really important part coming up in the next paragraph, but we'll read the rest of this part.

0:22:46 Lydia: Ms. Mecklenburg only re the case on October 16th after receiving the instruction to do so from the U.S. Attorney, which more than satisfies that provision. Indeed, at every turn, Ms. Mecklenburge kept the front office informed of all developments in the case and followed its instructions. The United States also admitted the fact that, following her notification to the front Office of the Nobel on October 9th, 2026, the U.S. attorney directed Miss Mecklenburg to order an expedited copy of the October 9th grand jury session. She did so and promptly sent it to the front office, including the U.S. attorney, as instructed. She did not try to hide anything she said or did in the Octtober 9th gran jury session.

0:23:23 Matt: So this is the big news. We did not know that the U.S. Attorney had personally been interested enough to get an expedited copy to review review the October 9th when it was no build, so that is very important. Um, and that's

0:23:32 Lydia: Do you yeah like What do you think was going on there, like just to see, like, okay, where, where are the holes, like, you know, what can we clean up here to, to try and get a yes vote.

0:23:34 Matt: Yeah Yeah, Exactly, he's Like, he's He's invested, like, he is really overseeing this thing in a way that I think he was trying to distance himself, distance himself from before, so he cannot say that this was her kind of rogue thing, or that he was just like, okay, sure, bring it again. It's like, no, he's going to take a look at it. He has the transcript. There's also some debate about when they had the transcript script and how. The next section, and we'll come back to that. The next section is about whether or not she was lying. Well, let's just read it actually. Is kind of important.

0:23:43 Lydia: Right. Right.

0:23:49 Thomas: Okay. Is

0:24:04 Lydia: This is regarding grand jury statements regarding law enforcement presence. Defendants reply alleged for the very first time that in the October 16th grand jury session, Ms. Mecklenburg was, quote, outright lying when in a discussion of the sources of the video being shown to the grand jurors, she told them that no law enforcement officers were present at the scene in Broadview.

Former defendants well know, the two videos of the events surrounding the now dismissed charges that were shown to the grand jury do not depict the presence of any law enforcement officials.

Officers. Her statement in the grand jury that, quote, no law enforcement was out there so they didn't take any video, was based on her review of those two videos. When she was later notified by one of the former defendants' attorneys that the former dependents considered videos of interactions between protesters and local law enforcement earlier that morning also to be relevant, Miss Mecklenburg personally secured copies of those videos from the local police department and produce them to the former defendant's. Her review those videos was the the first time Ms. Mecklenburg became aware that Broadview Police body cam and dash cam footage existed of the very initial portion of the confrontation between the large crowd of protesters and the agent's vehicle. Defendants' accusation of a deliberate lie is reckless, irresponsible, and without merit. Ms. Recklenberg had no reason to lie about police presence, especially when she was actually showing the grand jury video of who was present during the incident and when she personally obtained and produced the very video footage on which which former defendants now rely.

0:25:26 Matt: This is interesting because she, and I understand why she wants to defend herself on this point, but she is not telling you that in this transcript, Matt Skiba told the jury that there were police on scene and that there there were police there, right, at the time. So that she, if she'd been listening, maybe she wasn't listening to him, I don't know, but she was listening to his presentation. She's trying to say, based on the evidence she had in front of me, I didn't know that there were police there. Then, but unfortunately also for her, her own witness that afternoon, own witness that afternoon had actually said that he saw officers standing at the intersection and that the Broadview Police Department was there. So she had reason to know, based on what had already happened in the grand jury, that officers were there. And so I think she just misspoke. I think that she was just thinking about the evidence in front of her. I don't know that she necessarily lied. You know, the defense was right to raise it. And I think he's right to defend herself here. But,

0:25:40 Lydia: Yeah.

0:26:09 Lydia: Why isn't she defending it in the way of, like, you a are lot a of moving parts and stuff and misspoke at that point in time of the grand jury rather than saying, like I wasn't aware until they informed me, oh, we actually had interactions with police officers. Can you get those videos? And then I saw that and that's when I knew. Like, you Know what I mean? Like, why can't you just be honest then about what actually happened?

0:26:15 Matt: She's presenting the best version of what she did, I guess. That's it. So it's what she's doing throughout this. And you can't blame her. I mean, this is filed by her lawyers. That's what their job is. But I just wanted to point out that discrepancy. She did go get the police footage, and she handed it over. So you've got to give her that much credit. So obviously the next section is about redactions. We have no question. Obviously she didn't have anything to do with the redactions she's right to say it. That's fine. Uh, next after the, uh. Asterisk here.

0:26:47 Lydia: Right. Right. Noted, these are only examples of the issues on which Ms. Mecklenburg will need to present her positions if the court allows any of the additional proceedings former defendants request. If the court grants either or both of former defendents' motions, Ms .Mecklenburg should be permitted to intervene to address these issues and others with additional information she can provide, including addressing other misrepresentations of her role in events. The extent that Ms. Meckleberg made mistakes, as the court suggested, she owns them.

In particular, she fully acknowledges that she should not have vouched in the October 9th grand jury session. She also understands, as she stated on the record in the grand jury on October 23rd, that she shouldn't have interacted with two of the grand jurors outside the grand jury room. With respect to those brief interactions, however, as noted by the United States in its response, they were not, quote, substantive discussions about the case and did not constitute comments, quote designed to cause prejudice. Moreover, Ms. Mecklenburg immediately contacted the front office about those contacts and and promptly memorialized them on the record. Those acknowledgments, however, do not support the much more serious conclusions former defendants urge. At bottom, there is no basis for them to smear her with meritless accusations that she lied or acted in bad faith.

The record as a whole shows, and if this motion to intervene is granted will further show, a prosecutor who did not act with animus or ill will, and certainly did not engage in any conduct in contempt of court. Accordingly, intervener movement Sheri h Mecklenburg requests should the court grant either or both of former defendants' motions that it grant her leave to intervene in this case as to any further related proceedings on or resulting from those motions. Do

0:28:24 Lydia: You think the language at the end there is kind of like addressing the timing thing where it's like, well, should you, like, this, like, is relevant should you grant those things. So I understand, like, don't feel like, like, you have to look at this now and make a decision on this now. I know that the other thing has to come first, but if you grant those, then please consider this. You have

0:28:42 Matt: So this is how I'll participate. This is what I have to say, basically, among other things. And this is her position. And I think most of these positions are fair. I just think that the way she's characterizing 4.4 and her interaction with that juror and all that, I think that's not really great, but it's the best she can do probably with what happened. What's interesting is the way the defendants the same day respond to this, because they do actually respond to This. So we will pull that up now. Come back and we'll talk about the overall picture after we see this.

0:29:08 Matt: So like just a person who took it down. Like, it's such a great way to say a scrivener's errors. It's what to say typo basically.

0:29:06 Thomas: Scrivener's report. What's a Scrivner? Yeah. I feel like there's like a,

0:29:14 Matt: Yeah. I

0:29:12 Lydia: Like A scribe. Really

0:29:14 Thomas: Yeah, it's like, I feel Like I've seen that in like video games or something. I don't know. Like a, have

0:29:18 Matt: Definitely use it in motions all the time because I I do occasionally commit scrivener's errors. It does happen. Uh, this was filed the same day that she filed this thing we just read. So let's go down to, uh, their position on page two, middle of page two. Sorry.

0:29:31 Lydia: I Miss. Mecklenburg's motion to intervene. As to Miss. Mechlenburgs motion to intervene, defendants agree with her motion and support her request to intervene. We note that Ms. Mecklenburg states in her motion that until she retired, the Department of Justice expressly prohibited her from intervening, including telling her that she, quote, could be disciplined or terminated if she did so.

0:29:48 Matt: Briefly, before we continue the scrivener's error, we should actually talk about, I hadn't actually read what it was, because I assumed it was something minor, right? But it's actually there this is this is very clever. Yeah, it is, right? Something. And what they're, let's actually read the scrivner's error, because, because this is everything, turns out.

0:29:52 Lydia: Yeah. All

0:29:56 Thomas: They led with it. It's a top thing.

0:30:05 Lydia: Right. On September 24th, 2026, AUSA Sheri Mecklenburg filed a motion for leave to intervene in this case. In that motion, A USA Mecklerberg points out a typo in defendants reply brief that on page 45 of defendants' reply, we inadvertently included, quote, experienced AUSA 1, Ms. Mecklenburg, in a sentence regarding the prosecutor's failure to correct the court's obvious misunderstanding of the facts regarding the redactions to the grand jury transcripts the government provided to the court in camera, not once, but on two separate occasions in open court, both of which occurred after Ms. Mecklenburg had left for a new assignment in Washington, D.C. Specifically, defendants' reply stated, quote: And when the court noted that only a certain number of lines of transcript were missing, experienced a USA one experienced a AUSA 2 and Junior AUS A sat by silently not alerting the court that it was mistaken and wholesale chunks of transcript including discussions of the law had been removed from the grand jury transcripts provided to the court in camera.

Defendants erred in including experienced AUS 1 in that sentence as Ms. Mecklenburg was not present in court when those events occurred. It was a different experienced A USA in addition to experienced A US A 2 and Jr. AUSA, who was present before the court

0:31:12 Thomas: Just say their names.

0:31:13 Lydia: Then. Yeah.

0:31:14 Matt: Yeah, I know. I know, but they're apologizing. I call it a Scrivener's error, which it probably was. It sounds like they couldn't keep track.

0:31:18 Thomas: Yeah. Ah, these dastardly Scriverners.

0:31:21 Matt: That's right, but They Had These Nicknames.

0:31:22 Thomas: You can't, Like, Your Honor, you can't find a good Scrivener these days. Like, it's just.

0:31:26 Matt: That's Right. Yeah. This one's never working for us again, but so this is very interesting, though, because they realized that she was upset about the fact that they were saying that she had sat by when she had nothing to do with the redactions which is true, and so they're correcting themselves before they go on to support her, because now she is, you know, one of their closest friends, uh I just, I, I usually a scrivener's error is something like we got a date wrong, but they're saying we put the wrong person in the room, like, we, you know, we didn't mean to do that, and we apologize, and it's directly relevant to this motion because we support Yeah.

0:31:30 Thomas: Yeah.

0:31:40 Lydia: Yeah, sorry, girl. Yeah?

0:31:58 Matt: Exactly. Right, our bad. Friendly fire. Yeah.

0:31:58 Lydia: Yeah. Okay, so continuing where I left off in the motion intervene, Ms. Mecklenburg clearly has substantial information that is directly relevant and material to the matters pending before the court. Example illustrates the point. On page 12 of her motion, Ms Meckleberg states the United States also omitted the fact that following her notification to the front office of the Nobel on on October 9th, the U.S. attorney directed Ms. Mecklenburg to order an expedited copy of the October 9 grand jury session. She did so and promptly sent it to the front office, including the U.S. attorney as instructed.

New revelation is extraordinarily important, particularly given the representations made and material facts omitted by the government about that expedited grand jury transcript and its response brief to this court. We now know the October 9th, 2025 grand jury transcript was specifically requested by U.S. attorney Boutros on an expedited basis and that it was sent not only to U.S. attorney Boutrose, but apparently to the entire, quote, front office. Short, Miss Mecklenburg, who is no longer subject to the threat of termination for providing information in this case, is now able to provide highly material evidence to the court that bears directly on the issues now before it.

0:32:03 Matt: Let's pick it up.

0:33:03 Matt: Footnote.

0:33:04 Lydia: Accordingly, oh yeah, there are several other issues identified in her motion about which Ms. Mecklenburg clearly has firsthand and material information, and since she has now resigned from the Department of Justice, she is no longer under a threat of termination for answering questions and providing information that is necessary for the court to have in order to decide the pending motions. Accordingly, defendants fully support and agreed to Ms. Mecklenburg's motion for leave to intervene here.

0:33:25 Matt: Is interesting, it's good strategy, you coming forward with things that they want to have, they want to call her as a witness, and they're saying essentially by saying this that she should not be held responsible for what happened in the grand jury, that, don't know to what degree they're actually saying that, but it seems like they're saying that, and they want to hear from her. So this is interesting about the transcript that

0:33:41 Lydia: Why do you think that they're saying like, hey, this is a big deal that, you know, not only did Boutros have it, but apparently the entire front office, just saying like the number of people at play that were aware of the misconduct and and potentially were involved in covering it up. Is that kind of what they're indicating here?

0:33:57 Matt: Also the fact that the version that the judge got was not the full transcript, and they blamed IT or whatever, and everybody knew what the actual transcript was. Right, so like

0:34:04 Lydia: Right. And they've had it since October specifically. They had it, it before October 16th Even, yeah.

0:34:05 Matt: Right that they they know what was was in there. Exactly, exactly.

0:34:10 Lydia: No.

0:34:10 Matt: So they knew the full thing and they chose to give you a redacted copy court. I that's pretty important. I was going to look and actually double check about the redactions on October 9th, like how significant those were, but I think they were pretty significant. The redactions of that October 9 transcript included the vouching, the really important vouching issue you where she says, I know you and I trust you and you know me and you trust me and you can put aside your personal feelings and, you know, I don't charge people unless I'm absolutely sure. Right. All that stuff that we heard her say before. So the fact that Boutros and everybody else who received that transcript could have easily read that, it's pretty short transcript, and seen that she'd done something that prosecutors are definitely not supposed to do and then gave the court the redacted version. That's big. I mean, that's, that's a cover up. Then you're talking about a lot of people knowing about it and allowed the court to believe it was I.T.

0:34:35 Thomas: Yeah. Yeah.

0:34:59 Lydia: Yeah. Yeah. Totally. Right. Like, like Outright lying to the court. Yeah.

0:35:08 Matt: So Yeah, and you've got a U.S. attorney now implicated directly. That's huge. We thought that he might know more than he was letting on, but it seems like he knew quite a lot. So, um, interesting stuff going on here between the motion and the letter, where in the motion she just says that she notified, first of all, I'm just, I've noted a few differences here, that she notified her office that she intended to file the motion to intervene, us, that she had specifically asked if she could cite this manual.

She said it wasn't going to be a problem. And then they changed their minds and then she went ahead and did it. She's telling in the motion that she is retiring in part so she can address these issues. And of course, she's saying in the letter that she wants to make sure she keeps her health care and not a voluntary departure. It's interesting just framing, right? It's how you frame it to the court versus how you're framing it to people that you're resigning from.

I totally get that. The letter is much more adversarial to Boutros and much more like openly, you But that makes It all makes sense. It's just very interesting to see two different presentations of her position and why she's doing this thing. And it doesn't really conflict necessarily. They're just different presentations.

0:36:02 Lydia: I think you're right though that it's reason why she wrote that letter was there was like that PR mindset too, too. Right. Because like that's what's going to get shared around most likely and not the motion intervene. Like, that's, that's a very particular type of person that's going to be interested in like the legal filings.

0:36:16 Matt: Yeah.

0:36:16 Thomas: That's What is that reminding me of? I feel like, was it Trump who did this or something, where it was like making really, um, legally untrue claims in the stuff around the briefs or whatever, but then not carefully, like, not lying? What am I thinking of?

0:36:30 Matt: I think you're probably the election challenges. They did that all the time because they couldn't actually in the filings, except some some places they did. But would they constantly be talking about the things they were going to prove or the things that they believed, and they would never bring that stuff into the court because that's reality. That's where you you get in trouble, among other things. I'm sure there's lots of examples like that in the Trump administration.

0:36:30 Thomas: Yeah.

0:36:47 Thomas: But it's, it's a common tactic for a good reason. I, I guess it's like effective on

0:36:51 Lydia: Mean, we saw that with the lively Baldoni stuff, too, right? Like, where Brian Friedman would say nonsense in the press or, you know, even just like personal statements and things like that. And then nothing would ever happen like that in court filings.

0:36:51 Matt: But

0:36:53 Thomas: Yeah. Well, Well, yeah, he would do it. He would do It in the narrative, though. He would Do it in the Narrative of the Complaint and then the Evidence that he'd cite to or the like, then you just cite a bunch of like links and documents and then it doesn't actually bear that out at all. And no one ever checks.

0:37:15 Lydia: Yeah. Yeah.

0:37:17 Thomas: That's great. It's cool.

0:37:19 Matt: Is interesting all around. I mean, as I said at the beginning, these are open questions for me. I wanted to carefully go through this, hear what you guys thought about it and what listeners think about it. But I don't think, as you said, Thomas, she's not evil. She's not maybe doing her job the way she's doing all the time. She was an attorney who's still working for Trump and she only chose to quit now. So there is that. We can judge her for that.

0:37:32 Thomas: Well, you don't get me wrong. I wasn't giving like a big defense of her. I was just saying it was it was a way of like, yeah.

0:37:40 Matt: No, me neither. Me neither. But she's not a cartoon character, right? She is a person and she made mistakes and she is owning the mistakes she made. And she's saying very clearly, I shouldn't have vouched and I shouldn'T have talked to the jurors outside, but I took responsibility for those things. And She's not wrong to say that like, if the DOJ is going to come up and say there was no misconduct from the prosecutors, but she's NOT going to, but they're not going to let me make my own defense argument or even make the defense argument that is available to me, right. Now this kind of cuts both ways, because it could very well be that 4.4, they see it, they read it the way we do, and they're saying, well, this doesn't help you at all, like you didn't do the thing you're supposed to do, and you actually did excuse them improperly, um, you know, I don't know. It's

0:37:42 Thomas: Yeah.

0:37:43 Lydia: Yeah,

0:38:16 Thomas: That was kind of curious about that just because I had a split second thought that was like, well, actually the defense they're doing, which is just lying is maybe a better defense. It's like, yeah. If someone's willing to just totally lie about things on your behalf, then that's almost like a better defense. I don't know.

0:38:33 Matt: So I agree with her on a lot of this stuff, and I certainly think it's very important that she points out, and she has every right to point out, that her boss, the U.S. attorney, ordered that transcript, reviewed it, and apparently allowed those redactions to go in the way they did, uh, and also ordered it to be represented, and that it could have only been represented if he had personally signed off on it. We didn't know that for sure before, and now, I mean, I assumed it, but now we really know. Um, there's an institutional problem here, and we know that with DOJ already. We, I mean, we're assuming that all the way, but, uh, certainly should come back on him, and I think it will. There's gonna be a hearing on this on October 1st, and obviously we're gonna be following this, uh, closely, so maybe, I don't know when this is gonna air, but, uh, you know, we'll come back on it.

0:38:55 Lydia: Before

0:39:08 Matt: Oh, Great.

0:39:07 Lydia: Then Actually, This will come Up

0:39:09 Matt: Okay.

0:39:09 Lydia: Before then.

0:39:09 Matt: Great. Perfect, that was perfect timing then. Um, you, you know, she is a credible whistleblower in some places, and I think she's trying to cover her ass in other places. That's normal. That happens all the time for whistleblowers. Like, that's totally expected. Nobody's perfect on this stuff. You know, like you, I'm not going to go too far to defend a federal prosecutor, but it's interesting to kind of temper my understanding of what she did and who she is between the transcript where we read, where we're just getting the literal thing that she did, and now her sort of attempts to explain it between the motion and the letter. Think it's interested to fill in these gaps and to learn these things that we're learning.

0:39:09 Lydia: I'll

0:39:38 Thomas: I and I almost don't I don't care a whole lot. I her, you way or the other. I think it's like it's either either way, it's good what's happening because it's jumping ship and helping the defense. So I'm fine with that.

0:39:49 Matt: Yeah. Yeah. Yeah, they love it, obviously. They're happy about it.

0:39:52 Thomas: Yeah.

0:39:53 Lydia: Be like more a Sheri fan if she spills the beans on a bunch of other things, you know, about stuff that's going on, like if she actually turns because if it's like just saving your own hide, then it's like, okay, I don't really care that much about that, like, you know, self-preservation, but you get what we want from her. And then I don't really care. But if she, like, if she goes above and beyond, you know, not just saving your own skin but being like, yeah, no, like, now that I'm reflecting on it, there are issues here here and here and, um, you know, what I know about it kind of thing, then I'm like, okay, then I'll be more of a Sheri fan.

0:40:01 Matt: Yeah, yeah.

0:40:24 Thomas: Wait, do we think she has like more or would she have pretty much put it all in here, man?

0:40:28 Matt: She might have more about what's going on in Chicago DOJ because, I mean, Chicago DOD was doing a lot of immigration stuff that I'd love to hear about if she'd like to tell us about it because she has an opportunity here.

0:40:33 Lydia: If it's not relevant to this case yeah.

0:40:38 Thomas: But it wouldn't come out here. It's

0:40:40 Matt: Oh, no, not here.

0:40:40 Thomas: Just like, yeah, okay.

0:40:41 Matt: Yeah, I'm just saying generally. But she has opportunity to sort of – if she's concerned about her future career, she's saying in this letter that she sent to Buccio, she's like, I'm giving up my career as a prosecutor, which is not necessarily true because a future Democratic administration might be happy to hire her after this. Know, she did have 20 years of experience. She did redeem herself to some degree, maybe, arguably.

0:40:53 Thomas: Yeah,

0:40:58 Lydia: Maybe with some like additional training like maybe she needs to brush Brush up on some, yeah.

0:41:02 Thomas: Ethics

0:41:00 Matt: Yeah, right. Some vouching training, yeah.

0:41:03 Thomas: Training. Yeah yeah.

0:41:04 Matt: Right, right, you now. And maybe she listened to Gavel Gavel and decided to come to Jesus' moment.

0:41:09 Lydia: Sheri, if you listened, I hope you can appreciate my portrayal of you.

0:41:11 Thomas: Almost like her better as a nemesis, you know, as a as a in the because nobody's gonna be this bad in this funny of a way. I think she was, you know, I miss it.

0:41:16 Matt: Yeah, yeah, it's true.

0:41:21 Thomas: Yeah.

0:41:20 Lydia: Just Sheri. Just SherRY.

0:41:22 Thomas: It's like Moriarty.

0:41:22 Matt: Yeah, but, you known, we've got to

0:41:24 Thomas: You're just like, ah, yeah.

0:41:25 Lydia: Yeah.

0:41:25 Matt: Be fair here. We've got humanize even our nemesis. Nemesis, uh, uh, I mean, and again, there's the argument about, like, was this a courageous move at this time, or is just, this just the most strategic thing for her to do and to keep her health care, which I completely understand? I don't have no problem with her wanting to keep her health care and her benefits. It's fine. Yeah.

0:41:28 Thomas: Yeah.

0:41:37 Lydia: Oh, yeah, yeah hashtag America, like please, we all we all get that Sheri?

0:41:40 Matt: Right. Exactly. Right.

0:41:40 Thomas: But That Also could be a very specific tactic, knowing that that's the thing that's gonna also look sympathetic, you know, like, is that is she really in a position where she doesn't have enough money to pay the amount you pay when you leave, like, because, don't do it, there's still some amount of health coverage in this country when you leave your job, right? Yeah.

0:41:48 Lydia: Yeah, it could be.

0:41:48 Matt: And courageous right? Also There are jobs available to veteran former prosecutors. They do. They do okay out there.

0:42:02 Thomas: Like she's not. There's a little bit of a pity party in that respect, right? I mean, but you know, yeah.

0:42:06 Matt: Yeah. Yeah. I mean, let alone that she could probably go to any state DA's office in Chicago. She could, I'm sure, work at a big firm. There's lots of options that she's got. She clearly wants to be a federal prosecutor. She could come back to that in a couple of years. And this certainly helps her do that, since she wasn't getting fired. I all around, this is just an interesting follow -up. And it's going to get more interesting, obviously. But this is somebody that we had a particular understanding of after reading the transcript, coming back and filling in some gaps, giving us some more details, and now seeking to become a direct party in the case. And I'm interested to see what Perry does with this, because she absolutely doesn't have to let her be an intervener in the cause. She can certainly say, and I think if I were the judge, I might say this.

I might really just say, "Hold on, let me see what I think about this motion, and we'll get to you." We'll get there. You might become a defendant. You might becomes somebody we need to sanction. I need to see the whole picture. I don't have that. You're just giving me this right now. I mean, there's a

0:42:24 Thomas: Well, that's for sure. Yeah.

0:42:24 Lydia: No, yeah yeah. But

0:42:58 Thomas: Yep.

0:42:58 Matt: Lot more going on in this motion than her, right?

0:43:01 Lydia: I think like that's what I was saying that the last little bit in Mecklenburg's motion is like, you know, identifying the order of operation. Right. And saying, like, I know you're going to be looking at this first. If you grant one or both, then please consider this at this point in time. But do you think, like, she should have held on filing it until the determination was made, like, like, like the acknowledgement of the motions from the former defendants need to be decided on first? Do you think it, like, would have been, I don't know, I guess more secure for her to maybe get being granted if she waited until there was an outcome in that specifically?

0:43:09 Matt: I can see both sides of this, honestly. There's, there's no way to say what she should have done, because this is completely unprecedented. Like, this is just as far as I can tell, it never happened. Like, so she sure, go for it, I guess. There's no reason not to try, and she can always try again. Um, you know, but this is the right time to do it. If you really want to try to intervene and keep yourself from any further consequences, is exactly the right time, and she did hire a very good law firm that advised her to do this, so, um, you, you know, I can't, yeah,

0:43:41 Lydia: Yeah. True. Yeah.

0:44:03 Lydia: And And there's also that, that PR aspect of it too, right, where I'm sure she was like, I kind of want, want to get some of this out there and, and that effective immediately, you know, like being able to release her resignation letter and also here's where I'm uh, filing my, yeah, exactly exactly, a little more powerful that way. Yeah.

0:44:16 Matt: Double barrel. Yeah. Then of course there's a confidentiality question about the fact that she's now, I actually noticed two sections of the manual she's quoting, not just the one, uh, So, you know, kind of unprecedented there. Who knows when she signed the confidentiality agreement, if they choose to. I mean, it obviously might look like overkill if they come after her for this, uh, this, this is not a DOJ that's really afraid of overkill. So who knows, uh, an open question here too though about what happens because she spilled on the manual. So, so lots of stuff to watch for the next hearing. Will be on the motions themselves for the contempt and for the appointment of special counsel. So we're not getting any definitive answers here, but it will also resolve this issue about what the judge thinks about her as an intervener. So we'll come back on it. I'm sure there's going to be plenty more great filings to read and no doubt, I hope, some more transcripts.

0:44:27 Lydia: Oh.

0:44:38 Thomas: True, they'll never be as good as the ones we read that day, so much fun. All right, Matt, well, thanks so much for the, the breakdown. Thanks, Lydia, for the amazing embodiment of our favorite character ever written for the big screen.

0:45:05 Matt: No, but we'll keep chasing that high here in Broadville.

0:45:17 Lydia: Gosh, yeah, and this is, uh, tomorrow, as we're recording this, tomorrow will be the year, the the anniversary of of the arrest. Yeah, yeah.

0:45:23 Matt: Oh, wow. Since the arrest. That's right.

0:45:27 Lydia: September 26, 2025. Crazy. It's crazy.

0:45:27 Matt: Good timing.

0:45:22 Thomas: The year. Oh, wow. All right. Well, thank you, Gavelinos and Gavalistas. And we'll see you for our next Gavel Gavel very soon.

0:45:36 Matt: All right. See you later. Thanks.

0:45:56 Thomas: On Mecklenburg, here we go. Do they call the fucking crowd the audience, the, what, don't they, they call it something like yeah, yeah, isn't there another word for it? God, what am I thinking of? But anyway, yeah, you can't find a good Scrivener these days. Like,

0:46:02 Matt: Gallery no