Jack - Episode 51 - Overcooked Ham

Episode Date: November 19, 2023

It’s been one year since Jack Smith was appointed Special Counsel to investigate Trump for the willful retention of classified documents, and the crimes surrounding the attempted coup. This week we take a look at new reporting about the meeting where Trump’s lawyers tried to convince DoJ not to indict. New motions and responses to the request for the DC trial to be televised. The DC Circuit Court temporarily lifts Trump’s gag order. Judge Cannon continues to add delays to the proceedings in Florida. Plus, we have some great listener questions.See Brian Greer’s Charts - It’s Complicated with Renato and AshaIt's Complicated Episode 51 | Cannon's Shenanigans | Renato Mariotti & Asha RangappaBrian Greer’s Quick Guide to CIPAhttps://www.justsecurity.org/87134/the-quick-guide-to-cipa-classified-information-procedures-act/ A couple of terms to remember:Brady Rule | US Law |Cornell Law School | Legal Information Institutehttps://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/brady_rule#:~:text=Brady%20material%2C%20or%20the%20evidence,infer%20against%20the%20defendant's%20guiltJencks Material | Thomson Reuters Practical Law Glossaryhttps://content.next.westlaw.com/Glossary/PracticalLaw/I87bcf994d05a11e598dc8b09b4f043e0?transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default)Statutes:18 U.S.C. § 241 | Conspiracy Against Rights18 U.S.C. § 371 | Conspiracy to Defraud the United States | JM | Department of Justice18 U.S.C.  § 1512 | Tampering With Victims, Witnesses, Or Informants Questions for the pod Submit questions for the pod here https://formfacade.com/sm/PTk_BSogJCheck out other MSW Media podcastshttps://mswmedia.com/shows/Follow AGFollow Mueller, She Wrote on Posthttps://twitter.com/allisongillhttps://twitter.com/MuellerSheWrotehttps://twitter.com/dailybeanspodAndrew McCabe isn’t on social media, but you can buy his book The ThreatThe Threat: How the FBI Protects America in the Age of Terror and TrumpWe would like to know more about our listeners. Please participate in this brief surveyListener Survey and CommentsThis Show is Available Ad-Free And Early For Patreon and Supercast Supporters at the Justice Enforcers level and above:https://dailybeans.supercast.techOrhttps://patreon.com/thedailybeansOr when you subscribe on Apple Podcastshttps://apple.co/3YNpW3P

M.S.W. Media. I signed in order appointing Jack Smith. And nobody knows you. And those who say Jack is a finesse. Mr. Smith is a veteran career prosecutor. What law have I grew? The events leading up to and on January 6th. Classified documents and other presidential records.

You understand what prison is? Send me to jail. 23, I'm Allison Gill and Andy, it's been one year since Jack Smith was appointed special council and next week will be our one year anniversary. I honestly felt like it took me months to start this show after the appointment of special council, Jack Smith, but apparently we did it in a week. You know, sometimes you get a good idea, you just gotta roll with it, right? So that's that's what we did. And oh my god, look, look how long, look how far along we've come in a year. It's amazing. Everybody I'm Andy McCabe and we have lots to cover today, including the battle over whether the

DC trial should be televised and the ongoing appeal of Judge Chutkins. Don't call it a gag order, which is now with the DC circuit court of appeals. Yep. Yep. We also have an inside look at that meeting between Trump lawyers and Jack Smith, you know, where the Trump lawyers pitched their case against the indictment of their client, Donald Trump, as well as a few motions in both the DC case and the Florida case. We can't get out of, can't get out of a week without a ton of motions.

That's right. And then Andy, I have some questions for you about a few things that happened in Fulton County this week and how it might impact to the special council investigations. Sounds good. Sounds good. So let's go with the back and forth over the broadcast of the DC trial. All right. All right.

So as we know, DOJ filed a motion against televising the trial and then per local rules, DOJ reported in that motion that they conferred with Trump's lawyers and that Trump took no position on televising the proceedings. Then, of course, late on Friday night, Trump's lawyers, which is, I think they're favorite filing time of the week, his lawyers filed a motion that they are in favor of televising the trial. And it's a barn burner. It's a typical kind of sendyary political filing that cites zero case law. Yeah. And you know, I thought Andy that Trump changed his position because

he knew the trial wouldn't be televised. It's rule 53. It's the rule of law. You don't we don't televised trials. And he wanted to get in there and file a motion that would be denied by Judge Chukkin, so he could point to it as being unfair. Much like he's crying victim up in New York for not having a jury trial with Judge Angoran because he didn't check the box and fight to see if he could get a jury trial. I don't think the law allows it there, but he didn't even bother trying. So now he's trying, right, so that he can point back at this. That was kind of what I thought seemed to be the obvious, you know, motive

here. And that makes perfect sense because what he's doing is playing to the crowd, right, not to the court, not to the law. He's just playing to the crowd. He's playing to the crowd, but he's not even on trial yet, and he's already playing to the crowd. So if anything, the filing shows what a complete circus you would turn a televised trial into. But in any case,

here's some of the language from Trump's motion. Quote, for the first time in American history an incumbent administration has charged its main leading electoral opponent with a criminal offense, aware that its charges are meritless. The prosecution has sought to proceed in secret, forcing the nation and the world to rely on biased secondhand accounts coming from the Biden administration and its media allies. As a result, the citizens of our great country are unable to review for themselves what the facts of this case show and how unfairly President Trump is being treated at the hands of his political

opponent. The prosecution wishes to continue this travesty in darkness. President Trump calls for sunlight every person in America and beyond should have, I'm sorry, the Buzz Lightyear reference every person in America and being on should have the opportunity to study this case firsthand and watch if there is a trial. President Trump exonerates himself of these baseless and politically motivated charges. Quote, at every turn, the court has, at the prosecutor's urging, denied President Trump has inalienable rights, including without limitation, the rights to a fair trial and a politically diverse venue, do process a judge without the appearance of bias or pre-judgment,

prepare for trial, and the right to speak freely and publicly about this case in the face of the prosecutions egregious lies. And I have to say, I apologize for the hack need reading of this thing, but I dare any of you to pull this thing up and try to read it. Here at Lee yourself, it's a little, um, I shall I say overdone. Yeah. Mm-hmm. That's what we call overdone. Yeah. Uh, what's the quote? That's what back where I come from. That's what we call an overcooked ham. This is clearly an overcooked ham. The Department of Justice responded to Trump's ridiculous filing, notifying the court that Trump's lawyers misled the special counsel's office and the court by first saying they took no position, right? Department of Justice asked for permission to file a

response to Donald's misive saying saying, we haven't ready. It's four pages. It's ready to go. We'll file it as soon as we get leave from the court and leave from the court means permission from the court. Would you have to get if you want to add a filing or a sur reply that's not in the basic rules, you need to ask for leave of court or for permission to make that filing. And they're like, we got it ready to go.

And here's what they said in that filing. They said the government accurately reported that to the court on November 10th. However, the defendant reversed course and filed a response and support of the applications. The defendant's response did not engage with a relevant federal rule of criminal procedure or cite any applicable case law. And instead made false and incendiary claims about the administration of his criminal case. The government requests an opportunity to respond to the defendant's claims and is prepared to file its proposed reply, which is four pages immediately upon receiving leave from

the court. The government sought the positions of the applicants and the defendant on the motion for leave to file, the defendant objects. So they conferred about this four page filing with Trump's lawyers and Trump's lawyers object. NBC Universal Media LLC does not object. The media coalition wants the opportunity to address any issues raised by the government's reply in its reply that is currently due on November 17th, and accordingly does not object as long as the government files its reply by November 14th.

Yeah. So essentially they're saying, look, we have a four page response, which is pretty brief as these things go. And the people who actually made this motion initially, which was the media, not Trump or Jack Smith, they don't object to the government filing their response, but of course, and it has objected. No, I don't want to see your four pages. Yeah, of course.

Yikes. And of course, in under an hour, Judge Chutkin granted leave for DOJ to file their reply to Trump's demands. And as promised, within minutes of receiving permission from the court to file Jack Smith filed his response, and here's some of what he had to say. Quote, the defendant's response does not cite a single rule or case in support of his position because there are none. Instead, decrying the alleged unfairness of the unequivocal and constitutionally sound broadcast

prohibition that has governed federal criminal trials, no matter the defendant for decades, the defendant's response is a transparent effort to demand special treatment to try his case in the courtroom of public opinion and to turn his trial into a media event. The court should reject this attempt of distraction and deny the applications. The defendant offers no legal argument or case law to support his demand that the trial in this case be conducted, unlike that for every other federal criminal defendant. His purported interest in sunlight does not cure that defect. That's a good shot. That's a good line. The defendant ignores that high-profile federal

criminal trials have long proceeded in accordance with the broadcast prohibition under the rules and that they have garnered significant and detailed media coverage of courtroom proceedings. This has remained true in the context of trials related to the January 6, 2021 attack on the United States Capitol, including on seditious conspiracy charges. Just like every other criminal defendant, Trump can file motions to dismiss like he has and which this court is considering. Yet he complains that he has no redress and even complains about a change of venue motion

that he has never made. That's a good point. Yeah, the argument was, I'm entitled to a better venue with a politically diverse group of jurors. Yeah, that's not reflected anywhere in this case so far. He never made that motion. So, the defendant peppers his response with various references to fairness, but what he actually seeks is to defy a uniform and longstanding broadcast prohibition that was crafted precisely

with fair and orderly trial proceedings in mind. He desires instead to create a carnival atmosphere from which he hopes to profit by distracting, like many fraud defendants try to do, and the charges against him. And here you go, my favorite part. Although the defendant proclaims that his goal is for the American public to watch the proceedings in this case, he has consistently made clear his desire to delay the trial in this case or to ensure that one does not happen at all. If the defendant sought sunlight as he claims, he should welcome the opportunity to put the

government to its proof at trial. In his response to the applications, he shows that he will continue to attempt to avoid answering for his criminal conduct in the courtroom while at the same time publicly grandstanding on the court's docket. Nice. Yeah. It's a good, nice swing. Four pages, but man, he makes a couple of like really outstanding points there.

Yeah. Now, he didn't bring up at all the fact that he's just doing this so that he can claim he didn't get a fair trial, which was my initial thought, but that was a very, very good four-page motion, I think. Yeah, you can imagine the rally speeches. It's going to be, I was fighting for you. I wanted you to be able to see this travesty of justice, but the judge doesn't want that and the prosecutors doesn't want that and the prosecutors don't want it

because they want to continue to proceed. They're going to do it in darkness and secret. Right. This is the first trial that's ever not been televised. Yeah, Biden administration is trying to hide it from you because I'm there number one top amazing political opponent. Yeah.

Most leading. And did I mention leading opponent? Yeah. Yeah, that's what's going to happen. Yeah, we'll see how it goes. Yeah, we look forward to that. All right, we have more from the DC case, but we need to take a quick break, so everybody stick around.

We'll be right back. Hey, everybody, welcome back. All right, let's stay in DC, but let duh, duh, duh, duh, duh, duh, duh, duh, duh, duh, duh, duh, duh, duh, duh, duh, duh, duh, duh, duh, duh, duh, duh, duh, duh, duh, duh, duh, duh, duh, duh, duh, duh, duh, duh, duh, duh, duh, duh, duh, duh, duh, duh, duh, duh, duh, duh, duh, duh, duh, duh, duh, duh, duh, duh, duh, duh, duh, duh, duh, duh, duh, duh, duh, duh, duh, duh, duh, duh, duh, duh, duh, duh, duh, duh, duh, duh, duh, duh, duh, duh, duh, duh, duh, duh, duh, duh, duh, duh, duh, duh, duh, duh, duh, duh, duh, duh, duh, duh, duh, duh, duh, duh, duh, duh, duh, duh, duh, duh, duh, duh, duh, duh, duh, duh, duh, duh, duh, duh, duh, duh, duh, duh, duh, duh, duh, duh, duh, duh, duh, duh, duh, duh, duh, duh, duh, duh, duh, duh, duh, duh, duh, duh, duh, duh, duh, duh, duh, duh, duh, duh, duh, duh, duh, duh, duh, duh, duh, duh, duh, duh, duh, duh, duh, duh, duh, duh, duh, duh, duh, duh, duh, duh, duh, duh, duh, duh, duh, duh, duh, duh, duh, duh, duh, duh, duh, duh, duh, duh, duh, duh, duh, duh, duh, duh, duh, duh, duh, duh, duh, duh, duh, duh, duh, duh, duh, duh, duh, duh, duh, duh, duh Chuck can temporarily stayed the limited gag order, and then ruled against Trump's motion for a stay and reinstated the order. Now, of course, while the order was stayed, Trump took full advantage and issued statements that would otherwise have violated the order had it been in effect. Then Trump appealed Judge Chuck's decision, and the

appeals court put a temporary stay on the order until it's hearing on the matter, which is scheduled for November 20th. And of course, Trump has taken advantage again, calling Jack Smith a dangerous thug and attacking his family and his wife during his vermin speech in New Hampshire last weekend. That's what I've dubbed it, the vermin speech, where he was neo-Nazi echoes, Hitler echoes, Mussolini echoes in that speech. And now, the Department of Justice has filed its brief to the circuit court of appeals. And in it, they mentioned those comments that Trump made about the special counsel and his family.

Yeah, they do. I think it's probably the only benefit to having to continue to fight this thing and this day of this thing is that at every level they get to add more evidence to their argument. But in this case, the DOJ's brief is 67 pages long. And there's also a supplemental joint appendix that has been filed under seal, so we can't see that. After a statement saying that the DC court has jurisdiction, DOJ begins with a brief statement of the issue and here's how they frame it. The issue is whether the district court permissibly issued an order under local criminal rule 57.7C prohibiting the

parties and their council from making extra judicial statements targeting certain trial participants, while expressly leaving the defendant free to make statements criticizing the government generally, including the current administration or the Department of Justice, statements asserting that the defendant is innocent of the charges against him, or that his prosecution is politically motivated, or statements criticizing the campaign platforms or policies of the defendant's current political rivals. Yep, so that's the issue. That's whether or not the district court permissibly issued this order. And this is, you know, they're talking to the appeals court now. Then Jack Smith repeats what we heard him say in his filing opposing Trump's motion to strike

January 6th riot language from the indictment, right? He kind of repeats that and says, although the indictment does not charge the defendant with incitement to insurrection, C.E. Title 18, U.S. Code Section 2383, it squarely alleges that he is responsible for the events of January 6th, 2021, where, quote, lives were lost, blood was shed, portions of the Capitol building were badly damaged, and the lives of members of the House and Senate, as well as AIDS, staffers, and others who were working the building were endangered. And then the DOJ gets to the heart of the matter, that Trump continues to make public statements that could undermine the integrity of the

proceedings, the process, the fair trial process. Yep. Quote, the defendant has persistently used social media to make prejudicial comments about the case and its participants. Three days after the indictment, he issued the public threat. If you go after me, I'm coming after you. And then, followed through on that threat by using disparaging and inflammatory language

to target the district court, the special counsel, and trial witnesses who, as he knew from discovery, were expected to offer inculpatory testimony against him. And culpatory is the opposite of ex culpatory. Ex culpatory stuff that's good for you. And culpatory stuff that's bad for you. Yes.

Inculpatory gets you in prison. In prison. In prison? In prison. That's a good way to remember it. There you go. And yeah, and ex culpatory information has to be turned over under Brady rules, right? That's right.

Like to hand that over. It goes on to say, he described the presiding district judge as a fraud and a hack. He repeatedly called the prosecutors handling the case, deranged thugs and lunatics, and asserted that one of them whom he identified by name had gone to the White House for an improper purpose, a claim that he knew to be false from the materials he received in discovery. He described his former vice president or a foreseeable trial witness as delusional and not a very good person who wants to show he's a tough guy. He said that the person he had appointed chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff,

another foreseeable trial witness, had done something, quote, so egregious that in times gone by, the punishment would have been death. He said that potentially unfavorable testimony from his former chief of staff was a lie made up to secure immunity, adding that only a weakling and coward would provide such testimony. I mean, this is all just complete blatant witness intimidation. Yeah, you can imagine like somebody he's thought, how can I best ensure that these rulings will go against me? I'll continue to say the exact things that the prosecutors called out, the things they cautioned against the things they told the judge to look out for.

I'll just continue doing exactly that. The special counsel then illustrates how Trump's statements result in intimidation and threats. So like not just we're worried about this is going to happen, but how it's actually happening. They say four days after the indictment, and one day after his post stating, if you go after me, I'm coming after you, one of his followers called the district courts chambers saying, quote, hey, you stupid slave n word. If Trump doesn't get elected in 2024, we are coming to kill you. So tread lightly, bitch, you will be targeted personally, publicly, your family, all of

it. Close quote. Mm. Government goes on to say that episode is part of a pattern stretching back years in which people publicly targeted by the defendant are as a result of the targeting subject to harassment, threats, and intimidation. They then cite an election commissioner who was targeted by the defendant in the wake of the 2020 election described the results in congressional testimony stating quote after the president tweeted at me by name,

calling me out the way he did, the threats became much more specific, much more graphic, and included not just me by name, but included my members of my family by name, their ages, our address, pictures of our home, just every bit of detail that you could imagine. And that was what changed with that tweet. An election worker likewise testified, do you know how it feels to have the president of the

United States to target you? When someone is powerful as the president of the United States, eggs on a mob, that mob will come. A state judge likewise described needing additional police protection after the defendant targeted him on social media. Quote, more recently, the defendant posted to social media a photograph of a state judge's law clerk, along with the caption falsely alleging that she was the girlfriend of a political adversary. Prziding judge there ordered the removal of the post, but has stated, quote, since the commencement of this bench trial, my chambers have been inundated with hundreds of harassing threatening phone calls, voice mails, emails, letters and packages.

Yeah, so that whole section there is designed to basically say, these are his threats and we're not just saying, you know, that his statements are made and there's no consequences here Here are the consequences of the statements. It's we spend a lot of time theorizing about the damage that Donald Trump's wildly dangerous statements can make and that's kind of where this motion started out Hey, if he says things it might intimidate witnesses. But now we're actually

citing specific instances of it happening. There's no longer like a theoretical discussion. They're saying, here's the receipts, right? This is happening day to day. Yeah, here's the cause and effect. And there's just so much evidence of it of Trump's statements attacking his perceived political opponents and the impact that it has. And then Jack Smith reminds us that Trump uses this well-known dynamic to his advantage and then links it to his threats against Mike Pence on January 6th. Check this out. DOJ says, when the defendant did, in fact, repeatedly target the vice president on January 6th, 2021, members of the violent crowd at the Capitol responded by chanting, mic pence, where is pence, bring him out, and traitor pence.

DOJ also points out in a footnote, the reasons the order extends to the trial participants' families, and cite Trump's recent comments in his New Hampshire speech, quote, the defendant has recently resumed targeting the special counsel's family while the order has been administratively stayed. DOJ then repeats that the order is narrowly tailored. It's not vague. It doesn't violate first amendment rights. And there's ample evidence that his statements have the desired effect.

So the hearing, as we've said, November 20th. And it's about whether the state should remain in place during appeal. Each side will have 20 minutes to present their arguments. I'm of the mind that the appeals court will lift this day and reinstate the limited gag order, probably pretty quickly. And I imagine Trump will then ask the Supreme Court

for an emergency stay, and Supreme Court will probably grant a temporary administrative stay while they decide whether or not they're going to take it up. So don't be, you'll see a headlines. Scotus blocks the gag order. They'll make it sensational. But these types of appeals 99 times out of 100

will get an administrative stay. Because if you don't stay it while you decide whether or not you're going to fully stay it, or even hear the case, then the appeal is moot and you have robbed that person of due process. Yeah, you've basically judged it. Right. You've decided by not staying it. And it's frustrating, I know, because it seems like you're fighting this battle in two channels constantly and all this focus on the stay, it feels like, well, when are they

ever going to decide whether this thing is actually this restriction, you know, is effective and going to be upheld and enforced on him, you're essentially deciding that with this day. Yeah. Yeah. If the Supreme Court is like a temporary administrative stay and then they say, okay, we've decided, no, we're not going to stay this or we're going to remand it to the lower court's decision who said they're not going to stay this. The appeal goes on, right, but it's essentially moot because they've decided not to stay

it pending appeal. That's right. Yeah. Now, Andy, speaking of gag orders, there is not a gag order or a limited gag order or anything in place in Fulton County for the District Attorney Fannie Willis' racketeering case with Donald Trump and 14 other defendants now. But Fannie Willis has filed a motion to revoke bond for Harrison Floyd. Harrison Floyd was one in the conspiracy to intimidate Ruby Freeman, if you remember. Now she's the first prosecutor

in any of the Trump cases to try and revoke bond for any defendant involved in a Trump case. I just have a couple of questions. First of all, if there's enough to file a motion to revoke Harrison Floyd's bond, how in hell is there not enough to file a motion to revoke Donald Trump's bond? And again, this isn't based on any gag order. This is the bond conditions, the release conditions. You can't intimidate witnesses.

And it's in there. And that's what Harrison Floyd's been doing. So she's doing this to Harrison Floyd, but not Donald Trump. I was wondering what your thoughts were on that. Well, it's really interesting. And I think first you have to kind of acknowledge the difference in strategy here, right?

Willis is not wasting her time with gag orders, which are basically an instruction to the defendant. That shall not do whatever, X, Y, and Z. She's not even wasting her time with that. She's like, it's already, you know, one's allowed to intimidate witnesses in this state, you already have a bond order in place. I'm just going right for the throw you back in jail

for doing something that I argue violates your bond. So once again, Willis is showing to be a person of considered action. I'm sorry, I interrupted you, but this occurs to me in the DC case. The DOJ initially wanted Judge Chuck Kintinot only issue the limited gag order, but to include it in the bail conditions. And she said, no, we're not going to do that at this time. And it dawns on me that if she had made it, you know, so that they can put it in the bail conditions, then as this goes through appeal, she wouldn't no one would be the prosecutors wouldn't be able to revoke his bond on bail conditions only. But I think that because it's not included in this appeal going up and all the way up to the Supreme Court probably for whether or not this limited gag order needs to be stayed because the bail conditions are not included or that they Willis did to revoke Trump's bail for witness

intimidation. I imagine that he could do that at any time. I think so. Like I said, I think it shows a very different, a very different strategic approach, right? I thought that Chutkin's decision early on not to include this admonition in the bond order was a way of leaving herself opportunities to escalate action against him, right? She was kind of, which she's like wanted to leave the all, if we get to a point of a

gag order, I want to be able to kind of walk through that escalation process. With an eye very keenly watching the first amendment argument that invariably he would make. So, that's been her approach to it. On the state level, if she's, you know, Fannie Willis is just taking a direct cut at it. But not with Trump. You could, yeah, you could make the argument that like she's being more careful about him because of, you know, unlike the other defendants and certainly unlike this one, Harrison Floyd.

Trump is running for office. He is in this kind of constitutionally protected bubble of political speech right now. And so I think she's just treading more lightly around him and taking this sort of action against him than she is clearly around Floyd. Because if you look at some of the things that they're citing that Floyd has done or said,

it doesn't seem to be nearly at the level of the things that Trump has said about Jack Smith and others. So they're talking about Floyd made posts on Twitter, which I refuse to call X. So he makes, he makes, he throws up posts on Twitter, directed at Ruby Freeman, Gabe Sterling, Jenna Ellis. And if you look at them, they're all like, they're not really that graphic or anything. You know, he, he makes a comment that like, so here's this is quoting from a CNN article about it. Why would my team leak Jenna Ellis and proper videos when there is better stuff? For instance, Ruby Freeman's job was the reconciliation of ballots, he wrote.

She wasn't even supposed to be on a scanner. So it's like this kind of contorted argument against a comment that someone else must have made theorizing that somehow Harrison Floyd and his lawyer so we're responsible for the leak of all these, all this video testimony to the Washington Post. I mean, but then you've got Trump calling meadows a coward and a weakling and a, you know, who's a potential witness in fault and chaos.

Yeah, I mean like, like his statements are really kind of down in the weeds, you know, like almost like a conversation we would have here. It doesn't really come off. I don't think very threatening. And so it's hard to reconcile the two, to be honest. You know, maybe, look, Floyd is an easier defendant to go after than Trump.

He got fewer lawyers, he's got less money, he's been in jail before. Maybe it's easier to make the argument that there could be violence simmering here. This could be indicative of some sort of personal effort to go after witnesses because, you know, he got it, already got into a scuffle with law enforcement, which ultimately led to him serving some time

when finally presented in this case, unlike any other defendant. I don't know, I'm just kind of making guesses here. I think my guess, honestly, Fanny Willis has yet to secure a plea deal from the Ruby Freeman intimidation group of conspirators. And so if he's in pre trial, jail, and this trial doesn't happen until she, I think she told the Washington Post end of 2024 going into 2025, then maybe he might be more willing to cut a deal with Fannie Willis.

And that's the, that's my thought, maybe that that, that perhaps that's it because nothing get you deal and faster than sitting your ass in jail. Yeah, it could be. I the biggest kind of hint that I found in the reporting was, um, she apparently says in her filing that, uh, Freeman speaking about Ruby Freeman, quote, has been a frequent target of the defendants intimidating communications because of and in response to the defendants intimidating communications witness Ruby Freeman has been the subject of renewed threats of violence from third parties. So I kind of feel like this is all connected to Ruby Freeman. Ruby Freeman is very much her witness, right? She's key to that whole

intimidation piece, which is a strong part of the case. She is a resident of Georgia, a Fulton County. She's someone who volunteered to help support the electoral process. I would expect that Fony Willis feels a great deal of responsibility, not just to protect Ruby Freeman and Shea, but also to respond to threats that are directed at them. And if Trump workers, yeah. And election workers generally. So I don't know, I just, and she used the word renewed threats of violence. So who knows, Ruby Freeman might be in the midst of a real,

of a particularly tough situation, like the threats of come back in a way that they weren't for a while. Who knows, I'm just guessing there. But I guess the thing to see is if Trump takes a direct aim at Ruby Freeman, what does Fanny will us do then? Yeah, that'll be interesting. And then finally, we know that there were several this week, proper videos, as we were talking about, of Sydney Powell, Scott Hall, Ken Chuzbro, Jenna Ellis, the people with pled guilty. Their

proffer videos were released to the media by Misty Hampton's attorney who admitted it in court to Judge McAfee who then put a protective order in place over the discovery. Shut the barn door after the horse ran away. But okay. True. Yes. But you know, I'm and because Fannie Willis already had filed for a protective order and he hadn't ruled on it. But, you know, he did make a very good point, like, because, you know, everybody's sort of arguing, you know, we want to be able to release this stuff, we want to be able to release discovery.

But, you know, he made the point that a lot of discovery doesn't get into trial as admissible evidence. A lot of it is barred from motions in lemonade. If that evidence that is not allowed at trial because it would, you know, prejudice a jury, if that's out to the jury pool, you could prejudice the jury pool. So, you know, this is for the criminal defendants. There are rights to a fair trial. But I was wondering about the impact of the leak-profer videos on maybe Jack Smith's case because Chesbro's lawyer, for example, went on TV yesterday and admitted that the reason Chesbro pled guilty was he pled guilty for failing to put contingency language

in the elector's certificates. And he admitted to that. As lawyer admitted that he admits to that on television. We know Arizona is investigating fraudulent electors. We know Nevada is, Michigan is already indicted. Their fraudulent electors is continuing their investigation. But Jack Smith might also be interested in this, especially since I believe Ken Chesbroe is one of the unindicted co-conspirators in the Trump DC case. And so admitting guilt on television of your client makes me think he must have already spoken to Jack Smith or he's just terrible at loyering.

Well, either of those are probably likely to entirely possible outcomes. I think there's kind of, you have to look at this at like immediate impact and then like follow on effects, right? Immediate impact, it's fascinating to see, I'm quite sure that Jack Smith's team has taken a hard look at these as well because it's interesting intelligence that they may not have had

or may not ever get from Fulton County, depending on how everything goes down there. So it's interesting to see, it's always going to be interesting to them to see potential witnesses or potential subjects and follow-on cases, how they answer questions under oath. What's the significance of the videos themselves in terms of potential evidence in a federal case? I think not very much. Right.

You know, there are a lot of what you're hearing, like of course the Jenna Ellison comments about her interactions with Trump's director of communications. We're not going to leave the White House. Oh, Scavino. Scavino, yeah, Dan Scavino. Really interesting to hear, but not particularly, you know, significant as evidence against anyone.

It's at least hearsay. It's possibly double hearsay, depending on what you're trying to use it for, whether or not you could jam it into an exception. The hearsay rule is a more complicated question, but my guess is probably not. Yeah, I mean, all these things boil down to their lawyers. These Fault and Counties' Defendants lawyers reaching out to Jack Smith and whatever they decide or determine or agree upon, they do their own testimony up there at the Grand Journal. Of course. Yeah. Now the question is like the wider impact of them is an interesting question because the

fact that this stuff has been exposed is going to compel people like cheese bros lawyer to go out on television and answer questions about it. And then say really dumb things that can put your client in further jeopardy. I mean, you can imagine some of the people, the actual people who have been implicated as fake electors in Arizona and Nevada who are facing all kinds of legal challenges now could turn around and sue cheese bro. Sivily for what his lawyer admits was his flaw in drafting the document. So I just say that as one possible case, there's a lot that could happen.

There's ways that this could impact the proceedings either federally or in the state level. But more like tangentially. Yeah, more tangentially, I think. Cool. Well, thank you for answering those questions. And we've got a lot more to get to, including, and I'm so excited that somebody's written a book and that it's included because you and I sort of talked about what that meeting would be like between Trump's lawyers and Jack Smith.

And now we have it. And we're going to talk about it right after this break. I think we had it pretty close. We had it right on the nose, my friend. Stick around everybody. We'll be right back with it. Welcome back. Okay, reporter Jonathan Karl has a new book out called Tired of Winning. I love the title.

Well done, Jonathan. And in it, we get a better look at that meeting between Trump's lawyers and Jack Smith before the indictment. Yep, yep. And Andy, you and I talked about that meeting and what it might look like when we first learned about it and we learned about it the week that it happened, right? And I said, you know, I imagine Trump's lawyers pitching their case against indictment with hostelii, Jack Smith just sitting there quietly until everybody's finished and then saying,

yeah, we'll take it under advisement. And then just like, leafing. And you were like, yeah, I've been to these. That's pretty much how it goes. Yeah, yeah, I mean, full disclosure. I've had an inside line on this, both professionally and personally, unfortunately, but nevertheless, now we have a little window inside that meeting from Carl's new book. Okay, so this reporting is from Kyle Cheney at Politico.

Jack Smith's public image, shaped by his near invisibility, since taking over the federal criminal cases against Donald Trump has been that of a sullen, brooding, and hard-charging prosecutor. His steely glare on display and two arrangements of the former president and in a handful of public photos and videos has contributed to a sort of mythology around the veteran corruption prosecutor.

And when Smith met privately with Trump's lawyers who were making their final bid to stave off an indictment in Washington, D.C., he didn't break character. ABC's Jonathan Carl offers an account of the fateful July 27 meeting in his forthcoming book, Tired of Winning, that suggests Smith took the same wordless unsmiling approach to Trump's attorneys

that he's presented in his few public appearances. Quote, after some short pleasantries, Smith invited the Trump lawyers to sit at the conference table and offered them some water to drink. Yeah, that's right. Water. No coffee, no juice, no fresh raspberries. Okay, this is not the CIA. This is DOJ.

We didn't even want to have this meeting with you. All right. I'm obviously adding there. But, uh, okay. So back to the book, Loro quickly launched into a lengthy presentation, making the case that Smith should forego the charges against Trump related to his bid to subvert the 2020 election,

sitting across the table from Smith and his prosecutors. Loro spoke virtually uninterrupted for nearly an hour. And can I say I'm glad we don't have to listen to that? Laro's presentation featured a now familiar case that Trump genuinely believed he won the election and was exercising his first amendment right to challenge it and raise questions. That Trump was following the advice of his lawyers

and that he'd already faced impeachment and an extensive congressional investigation over the matter, indicting him would just inflame a divided country further. Quote, as Laura spoke, the prosecutors took notes, but they said nothing. Smith waited until Laura was done speaking, and then, without commenting on what he had just heard, he bid the Trump lawyers farewell, Carl writes. According to sources with direct knowledge of the meeting, Smith did not ask a single question, and aside from the pleasantries at the start of the meeting, including the

offer of a glass of water, and the goodbye at the end, neither Smith nor the two prosecutors said anything at all. Five days later, Smith indicted Trump for January 6th. Smith had given Trump the lawyers no hint that the indictment was coming. Yeah, and by the way, five hours after that meeting, he was superseded in Mar-a-Lago. Yes, for another no-heal.

Another no-heal to obstruct justice, yeah. So. I mean, exactly, exactly what we expected. And I, you know, it's funny. And I love the goofy descriptions of Jack Smith, the steely-eyed prosecutor. And I can tell you right now, his team is totally breaking his chops about that

around the office, which, dooly warranted. He's going around giving like blue steel, like Zoolander's model look. Like, that's the new joke. Like, hey, hey, Jack, blue steel. Show us Magnum. It's not ready yet. And in reality, Smith is really thinking like,

I just don't have a cool smile. I just don't know what to do in these situations. I keep my mouth shut and try to look like I'm serious. I'm get that to guess. Sorry. Yeah, but that's the way they go. The prosecutors, they're giving the attorneys an option and an opportunity to make their argument. It's probably things they've already heard,

they've already thought about, they've already discussed. So I mean, I think it is possible if they'd brought up something totally new, some like, massively significant and previously unknown piece of evidence or witness that was going to testify and could provide an alibi or something like that. Prosecutors might ask a couple of questions about that, but that didn't happen. Yep. So, anyway, interesting. Everybody check out Jonathan Carl's new book.

And in other DC news, Trump filed for an extension to respond to Jack Smith's filings, which oppose Trump's multiple motions to dismiss the case on statutory and constitutional grounds, including that 67-page omnibus reply that Jack Smith filed after getting permission from the court to respond to two of Trump's motions to dismiss in one reply. Of course, Trump opposed the DOJ filing an omnibus. He opposes everything. So Trump asked for an extension to file his response to Jack Smith's filings and the DOJ opposed that.

And again, because of fuzzy math. Now, here's what the DOJ had to say about Trump wanting more time. The defendant seeks yet another extension, this time for the deadline for filing replies and support of his motions to dismiss the indictment, his motion to strike allegedly inflammatory allegations from the indictment, and his motion to stay the proceeding pending resolution of his total presidential monarchy claim, excuse me, immunity claim. Oh, it's okay. No problem.

You've re-reboned off on me. The courts should deny the defendant's latest attempt at delay. Not just the courts should deny the most, the courts should deny his latest attempt at delay. And here's a funny, for the fuzzy math part. Quote, he mentions that the government filed, quote, an oversized 64-page omnibus response to his 65 pages worth of motions to dismiss, based on constitutional statutory grounds, wrongly implying that the government's single organized opposition imposes some greater burden on him than then the two separate 45 page filings, the government was entitled to file under local rules.

We could have thrown 90 pages at you. We gave you 65 and you're mad. In his defense, he's objecting to the fact that the government actually includes like arguments and law and their filings and makes it harder to read. Yeah, and apparently math. Yeah. And Trump says he needs more time because his lawyers would be very busy with the limited gag order appeal to which Jackson Smith says the defendant is represented in his appeal by three additional counsel apparently retained solely for that purpose. But regardless of the DOJ's objection, Judge Chuck

congranted Trump a brief extension. He had until November 15th to file his responses for the motion to strike the riot language, the January 6th riot language for the indictment, and his motion to stay the trial based on presidential immunity. And then she gave him until November 22nd to respond to the statutory constitutional and selective prosecution matters. And you remember, Jack Smith actually was like, can you decide those first because they are constitutional issues and subject to interlocutory appeal? But she only gave him till November 22nd. She didn't extend it that far. So we'll see what happens. Hey, day here a week there. It adds up. It really

does. I'm not saying she shouldn't have given him extra time, but there is an overall effect here that is positive for the defendant. So we have that response from Trump's lawyers to the DOJ's opposition to striking the January 6 attack on the capital language from the indictment. position to striking the January 6th attack on the capital language from the indictment. Now, you'll recall the Trump filed a motion to remove what he considered, quote, incendiary and prejudicial language about the attack on the capital from the indictment. This is important also because striking that stuff from the indictment would of course then lead to not being able to mention it at trial. So it's kind of, it looks retrospective

on the surface. If you're like, who cares? The indictment's kind of past us now, but it's not. It sets the stage for what you can talk about a trial. So DOJ filed their opposition, and that's the filing we went over in detail last week that indicated Jack Smith intends to prove it trial that Donald Trump was responsible for the attack on the Capitol. And that he saw the angry mob as a tool in his pressure campaign against the former vice president and to obstruct an official proceeding. So Trump uses the same arguments he used

and his initial motion to strike when he says the prosecution falsely asserts that President Trump is responsible for the events at the Capitol on January 6th. However, the indictment does not charge President Trump with causing or participating in those events, nor could it as not a shred of evidence suggest President Trump called for any violence or asked anyone to enter the Capitol unlawfully. In fact, President Trump clearly and repeatedly called for peaceful and patriotic assembly consistent with the finest ideals of our country.

President Trump also authorised over 10,000 national guard troops to prevent violence on January 6, protection that was denied by Democratic Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, and Democrat mayor of Washington, DC, Miro Bowser. Thus, even these transparently partisan prosecutors could not obtain an indictment on that basis. Prosecutor now seeks to try President Trump for crimes, the grand jury never charged based on actions. President Trump did not take in a place he never was on January 6th. By people, he never directed and in opposite to actions

he actually did take and statements he made, all with the goal of inflaming and prejudicing the jury. That is a horribly confusing run-on sentence, but I'm just giving you the facts here, folks. So this is the first. And I was struck by the in a place he never was language. Considering, first of all, Stuart Rhodes, oath keeper, he was convicted for obstructing

an official proceeding, 1512C2, as was Enrique Tario. And Stewart Rhodes was not in the Capitol on January 6th, and Tario was in a whole other city. He was in Baltimore on January 6th. So I think Trump has an uphill climb here for so many reasons. But I think the Department of Justice has sufficiently shown the role of the attack

on the Capitol and Trump's plot to obstruct the peaceful transfer of power. And I think the judge will deny this motion to strike the language from the indictment. Of course, I'll probably appeal it. Yeah, I'm pretty confident of that too. It's pretty basic element of our conspiracy law. People get convicted every day for conspiracy to commit murder when they were nowhere near the murder, right? Or they organize it, they maybe direct the people, communicated that they wanted it done, then it happens, you're guilty, you don't have to have actually be present and pull the trigger. So, let's speak about the same thing here.

This past week on the Daily Beans podcast, I talked to Harry Dunn, a capital police officer, Harry Dunn. He is the Capitol Police Officer who testified to the January 6th select committee after they asked him, like, what would you like us to do here? And he said, well, you know, if you, somebody sends a hitman, you guys arrest the hitman, but you also arrest the person who sent the hitman. That's right.

And he used the hitman analogy. And, you know, I wanted to ask him, how did he feel after reading Jack Smith intends to put the riot at the Capitol front and center in his case in chief and he intends to prove that Donald Trump did send that angry mob with the intent of obstructing the official proceeding that day knowing they were violent and angry and we're going to go after Pence and that day, knowing they were violent and angry and we're going to go after Pence and all that. So, you know, I thought that, you know, finally, I felt like some of the folks who were there that day, you know, are a little more confident in what Jack Smith's purpose

here is. Because when the indictment came out, it didn't seem like the riot was going to be part of it. It was a lot of the, I mean, they mentioned the riot briefly in a few paragraphs, but it was about the fraudulent electors scheme and the vice-blind of the vice-president and all that stuff. But to see that the riot, the Capitol is going to be front and center and that Jack Smith intends to hold Donald Trump responsible for the attack on the Capitol, I think makes a huge difference in the way a lot of us view how justice is going to be done in this case. Yeah, I definitely agree.

I think that a lot of people see this just the same way Harry does. They want to see accountability for what actually happened that day. And all indications are that that's where the government is going. Yeah. So, of course, Donald Trump wants to strike that language from the indictment because he knows it's central to prove his intent, his motive, and that he used this riotous angry crowd as a tool in his campaign to retain power illegally. Um, all right. So we have a couple more quick things to

get to. We're going to head down to Florida, but we have to take another quick break. Stick around, we'll be right back. Bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum there last week we discussed Trump's motion to delay SEPA deadlines and that Judge Cannon had granted those delays but kept the May 2020-24 trial date saying she would revisit the trial date question in a status conference on March 1st of next year. When her ruling, Judge Cannon delayed the SEPA section 4 schedule. Now normally section 4 is X part A with the government and the judge in camera going over classified material, redactions and chambers without the defense being there,

but can and delayed the deadlines for section 4 filings and scheduled a hearing in March, leaving the possibility of an adversarial litigation open, meaning that Trump could file to take part in those hearings that are normally X part A, and she gave the Department of Justice until December 4th to file its section for motion, which is down, way down the road, they don't need that much time. And then after that, she gives Trump 53 days to respond, which is just totally unnecessary. Now, Brian Greer, our SEAPA expert, posited that she would use that section 4 delay to push back the section 5 deadlines. And you can hear him talk about this in depth

on the latest podcast, the latest episode of It's Complicated with Aasha Rangapa and Renato Marriotti. It's out right now, and they do a really deep dive into these delays. So this week, DOJ filed a motion to start the SEPA section 5 deadlines by December 18th to avoid that delay after the long-ass CPIS 4 delays. And on Thursday, Judge Cannon just flat-out denied DOJ's motion, said she will not set CPIS 5 deadlines until after the status conference on March 1st.

after the status conference on March 1st. So there is no way this trial goes in May. Not a chance. Nope, nope. And this is again, you know, death by a thousand paper cuts. Now up in DC, it's a week here, it's a day here, it's a few days here, down here, it's 53 days, it's 60 days, it's another 23 days, and then it's a hearing in March. I mean, it's just pushed out so far. And just like Brian Greer has said, you have said all the experts I've talked to, this trial probably isn't gonna go before the election. And just there's just probably no way to do it. Yeah, I totally agree.

What we've, what we were afraid of at the beginning, we've now seen come true. And I should also point out that like this idea But we've, what we were afraid of at the beginning, we've now seen come true. And I should also point out that like this idea that she's leaving the door open to a adversarial hearing over a seep a section for issues, I can guarantee you, well, I can't guarantee. I feel very confident in saying that the National Security Division of the Justice Department is watching this very closely.

This is not called for on the statute. It is not done in national security cases. Section four procedures are not adversarial, and that is an issue they will fight, I think, tooth and nail, because they can't take the risk of this one-off, not very sophisticated, not very experienced, and not very efficient judge, creating a loophole in the SEPA process that could affect national security cases around the rest of the country. It's not that it wouldn't be necessarily precedent because it's really just a trial-level decision, but you can bet your bottom dollar that national security defendants, their lawyers and national security cases around the country.

We'll see this and say, okay, the doors open. Let me start arguing for the same thing. In my case, and those battles will start to make their way into a pellet quartz. And that's a very dangerous thing for the application of SEPA. No, Brian, I talked to Brian about it. He seems to think that DOJ will file an opposition to, especially Nauta and Deilo Vera being in the room, but any of the defense being in the room. And that he says he thinks that she'll grant the DOJ's opposition to that and that it won't be

adversarial and that the two-day hearing in March could take a while because they have so many pages of classified documents that they're going to need to go over. But that time is set aside in case it's needed. So we'll see what ends up happening, but this is the delay for seep for procedures that we saw coming that will push back the entire trial for quite a while as well. I mean, if she's allowing 80, 90 days worth of hearings and things on section four and section five isn't even going to start until after March. I mean, there's just no way.

So, all right. That is all of the news and motions and filings, except we do have one little bit of breaking news. It's a different special counsel. His name is Robert Herr. He was appointed by Merrick Garland to investigate President Joe Biden's handling of the classified documents founded his home in Delaware in an office that he was using temporarily, I believe, after he was Vice President.

And according to CNN and sources, there will be no charges brought in this particular case. So there you go. No, and not because he's a sitting president, but because they didn't have enough evidence to rise to the level of criminality to charge. Yeah. We've talked about this a lot. It's basically you have to have some indication, some evidence that it was an intentional taking

of the material, an intentional retention of national defense information or classified information. And I don't think this surprises anyone. It probably disappoints some people on the right, but it's, there's never really been any indication of intentional retention. They always surprises how long it took and why he turned over every single rock in the world.

You know, yeah, you and I have talked about this. I've, you know, spoken to people who were connected to that investigation in one way or another, and the scope of it was enormous. They talked to really every human being who might have known someone who could have once stood next to someone else who might have had some relevance to issues that really go back to Biden's time in the Senate. So it's a lot of people they talk to just to make sure they couldn't probably be criticized as how they've done a short job.

My best friend's brother's cousin's boy friend's girlfriend knows this guy who heard from this girl who says that they saw President Biden passed out at 31 flavors last night with classified documents in his hand. Exactly. So all those people, you just identified got investigated by this special counsel. But nevertheless, he's done and the conclusion is in be interesting to see how the report

comes in, how, whether he tries to kind of, I don't want it. I just don't want it. Don't release it because it's just going to be cherry picked. And it's just going to be a Durham thing, you know, it's just going to be in every single Mara logo filing from now until the end of eternity, which is probably when the trial date will be. So, let's see. All right, listen to questions.

If you have a listener question, there's a link in the show notes for you to go to a forum to send us your questions. What do we have this week, Andy? So we have a really strong thing. Well, first of all, before I get into this week's question, I got to tell you you're getting mad props for your Dead Kennedy's reference in last week's show. Lots of people thrown in their question that the holiday Cambodia Dead Kennedy's,

like, threw them into some sort of, like, mid-90s flashback or mid-80s, really flashback, which they all appreciate. So there you go. Wonderful. I'm glad it was it. So there you go. Wonderful. I'm glad it was recognized. Yeah, it was. It was.

It was too hard. It was too hard. It was too hard. That's right. That's right. So, okay, this week is, touches on what we've just been talking about, which is like people have a lot of concerns about the delay in Florida and what it means. And so I'm going to hit on a couple of questions here, and then we'll just wrap up the issues

they raise in one speed round. So Ken writes, sincerely, this is such a wonderful podcast. One I've listened to weekly since the first one ever. You both do a remarkable job. I mean, just like really nice whole paragraph here, flattering us, which is of course what I deeply appreciate. And he concludes by saying that he actually includes a link to the Wayne's world. We're noty clip, which I thought was a nice touch. Nice. Yeah.

So, his question, the latest ruling from Judge Cannon seems so egregious that it appears to portend two possibilities. One, to circumvent the intent of SEPA and allow exposure of sensitive national security materials, or two, her major delay that pretends not to be a delay looks likely to push his other trials back until after the election. So a lot of concern there about the ramifications of the delay and can finishes by saying, do you think it's possible that Jack Smith may withdraw the charges? It means of avoiding blowing everything else up and exposing sensitive secrets

and then provide a public declination decision to Congress. I don't think so, but Catherine writes in with, I believe that Judge Kenan purposely did not reschedule her trial date despite moving all the other deadlines as a way to keep Fawni Willis from scheduling her trial. Danny comes in with Ken Fannie Willis schedule her trial for May, conditioned on the canon trial being moved, which might put

Canon in a delightful box. And then of course, Dale comes to us with Ken Judge McAfee. Just go ahead and schedule the Georgia Rico case to start in May, assuming that Judge Canon will eventually delay her trial, general, what's the process to schedule trials at the state and federal level? So we have a bunch of issues here. Do we think that Jack Smith would withdraw charges to avoid this disaster of Florida? I don't think so. What do you think?

No, no, no. He'll go to trial in 2025, 2026 if he has to. Totally agree. Totally agree. You know, assuming Donald Trump doesn't win the presidency and shut down the entire case, but I mean, it's already in court, right? So it's, it's not something that can be shut down at the Department of Justice level. I don't think, but he can still impact it the way that Bill Barr impacted the stuff in the courts with Mike Flynn and Roger Stone.

And there's a lot of, there's a lot of damage you can do to those cases. Yeah, what's drawing charges is like almost never ever happens unless you're bill bar and you don't want the president's friend to go to jail. Right, and I don't think she's going to allow, I'm hoping and you know, I got to go with Brian on this because he's the expert, but I don't think she's going to allow these documents to be unredacted and seen by Nauta and Dale Lavera or anything like that. So at least that's my hope. But I agree with you on that.

I hope I'm not just being an optimist, but I don't think she wants to be responsible for that. So next issue, can is it an attempt to block Fawney Willis' schedule? It starts to, you can spiritually, it can look that way, but I really think that canon is just very focused on her problem. What she perceives as her problems be they scheduling classified documents, what have you. The question is, does it open up an opportunity for Fani to move her case up? And I think that that's a definite,

that could happen. She's got a lot of work to do before you bring a 17 person Rico case to court. Just by dirt. Yeah, and she did tell, she did tell the post that she planned, the she thought she'd be going at the end of next year, which says to me that's when she would want to go to trial, how much time she needs to prepare, how much more time she needs to flip witnesses.

That's right. And things like that. So I wouldn't expect Fannie Willis's trial to start any time before the election, but you know, that's just me. We'll see what ends up happening. And of course, if the judge says I want to go in May, Fannie Willis might file a motion saying I need more time. But who knows?

Yeah. And then finally, coordination between state and federal, as we've said before, there's not much. Really, there's no requirement for it. It rarely ever happens. This is kind of an, you of a totally one-off situation where you've got one very prominent defendant and it's got cases all over the place.

We saw, I mean, I think we are seeing a little bit of a vol- not, I don't know that I would call it coordination, but it does seem that Alvin Bragg has kind of unilaterally said, I'm gonna pull mine back a little bit to let these others go first. So I think you could see things like that happen, If Unilaterally said, I'm going to pull mine back a little bit to let these others go first. I think you could see things like that happen, but it's unlikely that the prosecutors will get on the phone with each other and draw straws as to see who goes first.

No, and Chuck can cause people. She said in the trial date, setting hearing that I was at in person that she had spoken to another judge in another case and has decided based on all the information that she's going to schedule it on March 4th. So we're really hoping. I mean, the one thing that, you know, Canon could be doing is making the trial schedule ambiguous from May to the election for all of his trials, right? Because it occurs could be delayed any time after May and she's not saying when and she

won't say until March 1st. Right. And so she's kind of now blocked out May to the end of the year in a way, in her own way. Do you know what I mean? Like by leaving it open and not having a conference about the trial date until March 1st and putting all the seatbushit for section 4 on past until March and then not even doing CEPA 5 until after March 1st. So she's kind of blocking off the whole rest of the year there. She is, and by doing so, she's creating a question for the other prosecutors and judges,

but ultimately, they're going to look at that block, that possible time period for her, and they're going to be like, we can't figure out what she's doing. So we're just going to go ahead and do what we got to do. Yeah. They're going to schedule their motions, they're going to schedule their trials and just be like, well, whatever. Well, when we figure out what she's doing, then fine, but we got to actually have a realistic time frame here. Yeah. And if I'm shut, Ken, I'm not worried about trying to finish my trial and time for May. It's not going to happen. It's just not going to happen. Well, what great and thoughtful questions and excellent compliments. Thank you

so much, everybody. The link to submit your questions is in the show notes. That is our show for this week, the week ending November 19th. And it is the one year anniversary of Jack being being appointed and our one year anniversary next week, my friend. So it should be an interesting show to see what happens between now and then. Something always does. For real, and I will be back on Terra firma US soil next week. I'm in coming to you from Hanoi today and excited to actually be getting home. So be there for the big one year anniversary show. Can't wait. I can't wait either, my friend. All right. Alright everybody we'll talk to you next week. I've been Allison Gill. I'm Andy McCabe.