Jack - Episode 53 - Monarchy Motion Denied

Episode Date: December 3, 2023

This week, Trump’s motion to declare him immune from prosecution is denied as is his fishing expedition motion to produce imaginary “missing” January 6 Committee materials; more from Rep. Scott Perry’s phone; Ken Chesebro is taking his fraudulent electors scheme talk cross-country, maybe to a jurisdiction near you. Plus, we have some great listener questions.Brian Greer’s Quick Guide to CIPAhttps://www.justsecurity.org/87134/the-quick-guide-to-cipa-classified-information-procedures-act/ Some terms to remember:Prior RestraintPrior Restraint | Wex | US Law | LII / Legal Information InstituteBrady 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. O. 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 heard? The events leading up to and on January 6th. Classified documents and other presidential records.

You understand what prison is. Send me to jail. and Allison, this is podcast number one in our year two. It is Sunday, December 3rd, 2023. And as I said, we're just over a year into the investigations. I am Andy McCabe. And I'm Allison Gill. We have some important rulings on total presidential monarchy. That's right.

To discuss today, as well as a denial of Trump's motion to subpoena the missing January 6th committee materials were judge Chuck and said nothing's missing. The missing, not missing committee materials. And Donald Trump's DC defense starts taking shape in his new wild weird motion to compel discovery. And this is a motion to compel, uh, is it giglio? Am I saying that right? Yeah, yeah, You got it. Giggly oh, jinks and, uh, Brady material, right? The

ex-culpatory stuff and stuff that you could use to impeach government witnesses. That's right. Brady is ex-culpatory and giggly oh and jinks are the two seminal rulings on, uh, discovery that's necessary to cross examine a witness. Yeah, so that's where that falls out. We also have updates on Representative Scott Perry's phone. We have Ken Cheesebrose, fraudulent electric tour, buyer tickets now, coming to a town near you.

We have a swing state near you. That's right, coming to a courthouse near you. We have information about what Trump lawyer Jennifer Little told the special counsel about her role in the Mar-a-Lago case. And we have some new information in the Trump Twitter account search warrant battle. Whoop, whoop. Also, I want to let everybody know that we're planning an MSW media meetup, like a retreat, like a gathering in DC and April

for patrons of this podcast, as well as patrons of the daily beans, and clean up on all 45. Everybody's gonna be there. So if you've been on the fence about becoming a supporting member, now would be a good time, because you'll get to go to that for free.

You can pledge at patreon.com slash mullershiroat. We look forward to giving a little back with food and drinks, cocktails, mocktails, and DC this spring. And with that, let's start with the big news in DC this week that came at the end of the week this past Friday. First, the DC circuit court of appeals ruled that Donald Trump is not immune from civil suits that arise out of his inciting the insurrection. Yeah, these are these are suits from like members of Congress, DC police officers, people like that predominantly.

Yeah. Blasping game at all, right? And they consolidated them all into one thing because they shared one thing in common. Donald Trump was the defendant in those cases. And also Judge Chuckkin ruled that he's not immune from criminal prosecution. And we got him in bang one, two order, like a one, two punch. We got the DC circuit court of appeals in blasping game saying, Nope, not immune. And then we got Judge Chuckkin within an hour, uh, ruling on that monarchy, uh, motion as a, as we like to call it, uh, total

presidential immunity. So briefly, like I said, in blasping game at all, this is a group of consolidated civil lawsuits against Donald Trump brought by, as you said, Andy Capital Police Officers, members of Congress, they won the right to continue with their lawsuits when the DC Circuit ruled that Donald Trump was not acting in his capacity as president when he gave his speech at the ellipse on January 6th

because he was giving that speech as a candidate for president, not an occupant of the office. That's right. Therefore the speech can't be considered within the outer perimeters of his duties as president. This is the same ruling DOJ gave when they wouldn't represent Mo Brooks. They said, you were campaigning. You were campaigning during that speech. We aren't going to represent you.

We're going to sub in and represent you. And DOJ said, this goes for all federal employees. And I said, this does not bode well for Trump. And here we are. Here we are. Now, I covered that ruling on the Daily Beans bonus episode for patrons this weekend. Normally, I do a recap of the headlines,

but I'm going to go over the blasin game ruling. But since it's not really, it doesn't really pertain to Jack's criminal investigations, we're today, instead, we're going to discuss Judge Chuckkin's ruling on Trump's monarchy motion for absolute presidential immunity. It's a banger, Andy. It's a banger. Yes, it is. She very rarely disappoints in these decisions and she hasn't in this one either. So like on the very first page, in footnote one, Judge Chuck can explain that she's ruling

on the constitutional issues first. The quote, defendant has also moved to dismiss based on statutory grounds and for selective and vindictive prosecution. The court will address those motions separately. The Supreme Court has repeatedly stressed the importance of resolving immunity questions at the earliest possible stage in litigation.

The court therefore rules first on the immunity motion and the constitutional motion in which defendant asserts, quote, constitutional immunity from double jeopardy. That's some others. Yeah. So she starts off with a, you know, she lays it out. Here's how it's going to be, right? Well, Jack Smith asked her to go first on this, like hurry up on these, because remember, we talked about this interlocutory appeals are the one thing that could delay the March

4th trial, because these kinds of constitutional issues have to be adjudicated before trial begins. That's right. That's right. If you go forward with the trial, and then it's later determined that you stepped on or violated someone's immunity from trial, you've already injured them. So that's the importance in getting that done first. So some other standout quotes from her 48 page ruling include,

Defendant contends that the Constitution grants him absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for actions performed within the outer perimeter of his official responsibility, while he served as president of the United States, so long as he was not both impeached and convicted for those actions. The Constitution's text, structure, and history do not support that contention. No court or any other branch of government has ever accepted it. This court will not so hold. Whatever immunity is a sitting president may enjoy. The United States has only one chief executive at a time. That position does not confer lifelong, quote, get out of jail free pass. That's meaningful. That's bold, right? Because mean, because when you and I had read his monarchy motion, we like to call it, we were

like, this is, this is, turns the history of the United States on its head. That's absolutely right. It's fundamentally inconsistent with just about everything in the Constitution. The entire purpose, the history, the intent of the framers was clear, they were doing what they were doing to get out of the hands of an absolute monarch who could do whatever he wanted to them without any recognition of legal process.

And so they very clearly went into Great Lanes not to create a new one here and much to Mr. Trump's chagrin. So she goes on to say, defendant concludes that the president may be charged by indictment only in cases where the president has been impeached and convicted by trial in the Senate. But defendant is not president

and reading the clause to grant absolute criminal immunity to former presidents would contravene its plain meaning, original understanding and common sense. In addition to lacking textural or historical support, defendants interpretation of the clause collapses under the application of common sense. For one, his reasoning is based on the logical fallacy of quote, denying the antecedent. Now, this one took me a minute to reload a few times

before I understood where she was going, but it really makes perfect sense. So here she explains, from the statement, if the animal is a cat, then it can be a pet. It does not follow that if the animal is not a cat, it cannot be a pet. Okay, you still with me? I'm still with you.

All right, there you go. All right, there you go. A person woman, yeah. Here you go. Yet defendant argues that because a president who is impeached and convicted may be subject to criminal prosecution, a president who is not convicted may not be subject to criminal prosecution.

That's exactly what he argued. So this is like a combination of, um, I don't know, linguistic philosopher and some sort of Jedi mind trick. But by the time you get to the end of that paragraph, it makes total sense. He's right. It's logically inconsistent. What he's saying. Yeah, it is a logical fallacy denying the antecedent and she picked it out. Nobody had, she, you know, nobody had talked about that. We were just like, it just doesn't make any sense. He's just being dumb.

Right. Right. You went a little deeper than we did in the analysis there, which is good. Absolutely. She then goes on to address the historical precedent, right? And this is kind of what you and I were talking about. Like, this is just, it turns everything on its head. She says, nothing in American history, nothing justifies the absolute immunity to the defendant's seeks. As discussed above, there's no evidence

that the founders understood the Constitution to grant it. And since that time, the Supreme Court, quote, has never suggested that the policy considerations, which compel civil immunity for certain government officials, also placed them beyond the reach of criminal law. She talked about Nixon there, right? Mm-hmm. That's right. That's right. But then she brings up Clinton. And she's like, but when you're not doing your duty, when you're outside of your

duties, you don't get immunity. You know, and that's civil. And she's like, that's just civil. This is criminal. Nothing ever in the history of anything ever. Yeah. It's been applied to criminal prosecution. Devenants for your services, Commander in Chief, I love this one.

His four year service as Commander in Chief did not bestow on him the divine right of kings to evade the criminal accountability that governs his fellow citizens. Oh, that is some shame. Oh, jeez. Yeah, like it's a law. That says that is says shay. No cheek. Yeah, like it's a law. That says that is says so much. That is like a book in that sentence.

She goes on to say quote, no man in this country, not even a former president is so high that he is above the law. In his constitutional motion, defendant argues that the indictment should be dismissed because it criminalizes his speech and therefore violates the First Amendment. But it's well established, the First Amendment does not protect speech that's used as an instrument of a crime. And consequently, the indictment, which charges the defendant with, among other things, making statements and furtherance of a crime, does not violate the defendant's First Amendment rights.

She also found the indictment doesn't violate due process, as we said. It doesn't violate double jeopardyy or the impeachment judgment clause. He was actually arguing if you, I was tried by impeachment. So now it's double jeopardy. But also you can only try me if I'm impeached and convicted. Yeah. So it's just, it's the double fallacy approach. If I say things that are wrong, and then I say two things that

are completely contradictory and both wrong, somehow the double negative makes them positive and they're right, I mean, it's just, it's crazy. Yeah, and he does this all the time. He argues one side out of one side, one thing out of one side of his mouth and something else out of the other. Like when he wanted to be an officer of the United States for purposes of the Westfall Act. So he couldn't be sued by E. Jean Carroll. But then he doesn't want to be an officer of the United States because of section three

of the 14th Amendment. Right. Or he claims he's a candidate for president in the Texas election lawsuit or will he he a candidate, right? And this is what they used in the blasin game thing. They're like, you even told us in your motion to intervene in the Texas lawsuit against several swing states brought by Texas attorney general and 17 other, 17 other attorneys general, he referred to himself as a, he's intervening as a private citizen as a candidate for

president. But then he says he's a sitting president when he faces that civil suit for his campaign rally. He does this. And we're gonna talk a little bit later in his motion to compel when he says, Russia, the whole Russia, Russia thing was a hoax, but then blames January 6th on Russia. So it's that's just how he operates.

Yep, do as I say, not as I do. on Russia. On Russia. So, that's just how he operates. Yep. Do as I say, not as I do. He's the king of contradiction. So next up, Judge Tony Chutkin has issued ruling on Trump's weird and vague motion to subpoena what he calls the missing, and I call the not missing, January 6th, a committee material. The motion request leave to issue subpoenas do say's teacum to seven non-party individuals. The archivist, the clerk of the house,

the current House Administrative Committee, Richard Sober, who is Biden's counsel, the general counsel of DHS, Barry Louder milk, and Benny Thompson. Defendants proposed subpoenas Barry Louder milk and Benny Thompson. Defendants propose subpoenas centron on certain purportedly missing materials from the select committee's archive. So a couple of things here. Subpoena do say sticum, just a cool Latin phrase. And it just means a subpoena that requires a witness

to produce a document in furtherance of an ongoing proceeding. So unlike a grand jury subpoena, which requires someone to turn over a document and furtherance of an ongoing proceeding. Unlike a grand jury subpoena, which requires someone to turn over a document to the government for the purpose of an investigation, subpoena does a stichem is to hand over a document within the scope or the process of a trial or hearing something like that.

Of course, she denies the motion. Rule 17C subpoenas are not appropriate where the moving party seeks materials procurable reasonably in advance of trial by exercise of due diligence or operate as a general fishing expedition. A pretrial rule 17C subpoena, quote, must clear three hurdles. The information sought must be relevant, it must be admissible, and it must be specific. Specific. That's right. You can't just throw these crazy

nonsensical demands out at the other side and bog them down in these fishing expeditions for non-specific or irrelevant material or material that wouldn't be admissible even if you had it. So she goes on to say, defendant has not met his burdens with respect to the proposed Rule 17 C subpoenas. He has not sufficiently justified his requests

for either the missing materials themselves or the other five categories of documents related to them. Defendants propose subipinas define, quote, missing materials. As certain records, the January 6th Committee sent to the executive branch that were, quote, transmitted pursuant to the Sober and Meyer letters. Those records include several subcategories,

but the 1-6th Committee didn't actually send any material under most of those categories. As the government notes, the Sabar and Meyer letters describe transmitting only written transcriptions of Witness interviews, not any other records. So it's really only the videos of the interviews and the transcripts of the interviews. Yeah, yeah, and if she's like dude, you got the transcripts two months ago. Right. And the fact that you have the transcripts makes the videos irrelevant. Trump says the videos, though, might be used for impeachment of witnesses, but Trump provides

no basis to conclude the videos could impeach any witnesses. That is that specificity problem that he has. Yep. Quote, this falls well short of his burden. The relevance prong is not satisfied merely because a defendant can articulate what they hope to find in subpoenaed evidence, right? Yeah, that piece you mentioned earlier too, like information that you could reasonably procure on your own is also relevant here because to the extent that he's interested in seeing the videos of these of these depositions, he could have watched the committee hearings. He could have now,

I'm sure there's recordings available of all those January six committee hearings where you see a lot of those videos. So this stuff is out there if you wanted to do the work himself he could. Right. And then she goes on to say, and the other five categories of stuff that you're looking for, they just don't exist. My man, there's nothing that's missing. She goes the broad scope of the records that you seek and your vague description of their

potential relevance resembles less a good faith effort to obtain identified evidence than they do a general fishing expedition that attempts to use Rule 17 subpoenas as a discovery device. And if the moving party cannot reasonably specify the information contained or believed to be contained

in the documents sought by merely hopes that something useful will turn up. This is a sure sign that the subpoena is being misused. So she's accusing him of misusing the 17 C subpoena. So for those reasons, she denied the defendant's motion for those subpoenas. Yep, so nope. Can't have it.

You got to be more specific and relevant, my friend. And also, these things don't exist. But, you know, thanks. And it's interesting. You know, it's, we don't usually see a judge accusing legal counsel of misusing a process. Right. Usually they just approve or deny. So that, I thought was a little bit relevant. Yeah, I think it'll be interesting to see like we expect appeals of every single motion that gets denied. What's what we've seen so far. These sort of motions where you have a trial court making very factually based decisions on the most basic rules of court issues, these are ones that appellate courts are really loathed to weigh in on. So I think like if we get an appeal from this one,

I think there's a pretty good chance that you'll get a quick non-decision from the circuit court and I can't imagine the Supreme Court every weighing in on something like this. These matters are considered to be well within the province of the trial court judge. They're not making new law here. It's not a constitutional issue, like the ones we were just talking about before. So I don't see these as major drivers of significant delay. No, and the DC Circuit knows that this needs to go fast. And so if they even

decide to hear it, it'll be, I think, a pretty expedited briefing schedule, like their briefing schedule for the limited, very limited gag order judge truck in a place on them. I mean, it was like a week for you, a week for you, you each get 20 minutes go. And so I think, and they understand, and the judge here is articulating in that first footnote, these have to go first because these are interlocutory peels. All right, I can't wait to talk to you, Andy, about this motion to compel.

Here it comes. Trump. But we have to take a quick break, so everybody stick around. We'll be welcome back. Okay, so one of the weirdest documents I have read to date has to be Trump's motion to compel discovery in the DC case. We're still in DC, the federal case.

And as I read it, Andy, some of Trump's defense starts to take shape for sure. Yep. It appears that he's going to argue that the election was compromised by the Russian solar winds hack and that he didn't cause the ride on January 6th. Rather, it was a Russian effort to so anger and discord in the United States

that had everybody upset that day. Wow. So Mr. Russia hoax is blaming Russia, along with Iran and China. And he says he will prove that he was right to question election integrity and fire crabs when he said it was the most secure election in history, et cetera.

And here's, this is from the opening. Don't you feel like a little bit of this is an over-response to the prosecution signaling in their filing that we discussed last week or the week before, like, we're coming right at you over January 6th in this case. We are going to prove a trial that you are responsible for the riot. You called it, it was all you. Yeah, and some of the stuff that Jack Smith got from Twitter, which we're going to talk about shortly,

probably really helps bolster that case. I think we might see a lot of that come up as evidence. But this is a statement from Trump's opening here. To prop up the Biden administration's preferred political advocacy regarding the 2020 election, the indictment endorses the alleged views of, quote, senior White House attorneys, senior leaders of the Justice Department, the intelligence community, Department of Homeland Security, Cyrus, Dury, and infrastructure security agency, a former CSA director and others.

To prop up their preferred political advocacy, they endorsed the views of basically everyone. Basically, all the people he hired, all his advisors, his cabinet secretaries, his lawyers, his White House council. Yeah, okay, that's the Biden's go-to team to manipulate the election in their favor. That just made me laugh. Next, he says that because General Milley said Trump told Christopher Miller, right, acting sec def, Secretary Defense,

to have enough national guardsmen available for January 6th, because he told Christopher Miller, make sure you have enough. That somehow means that he called the national guard out. And this is where they're kind of nitpicking. Cosh Patel testified to this over in the Colorado, Section 3 of the 14th Amendment case, saying that Trump asked for 10,000 national guardsmen, Trump, blah, blah, blah. But never on that day, right? And

they don't really talk about that. And the events, he says of January six are not his fault, because they delayed sending out the guard. Right. They, despite that memo from Chris Miller that we all saw saying only the president can authorize the guard. So Donald said, make sure there's a national guard, but only I can authorize their use on that day, but I'm not gonna authorize their use on that day. And then he also wants all the documents and communications about the deployment of the guard that day

and any other security matters. But again, he's not being specific here. And I don't, I haven't looked at the tests to get this kind of discovery, but I'm assuming it also has to be specific. Yeah. You can't just be like, I can tell you to hand over everything that says I'm innocent.

You know, like, yeah, or give me everything that has the word cash in it It's got to be a little bit more direct in than that Right, and he also says he wants statements By anyone in the government saying Trump didn't incite the riot Kind of along the lines of what you were just describing. Mm-hmm. I want all statements by anyone at the DOJ or the government that says I'm innocent. Basically, is what he's saying. And he only gives one example, which doesn't actually help him. Okay. A DOJ prosecutor said, and I quote, nor can there be any reasonable claim that President

Trump intended to or actually authorized the defendant's particular criminal conduct. This was a prosecutor in a January 6th rioter case. Trump thinks that means Trump didn't incite the riot. When it actually means Trump's incitement doesn't exonerate the rioters. And Jackson Smith says, the department's position in other January 6th cases, that the defendant's actions did not absolve any individual rioter of responsibility for that rioter's actions, even if the rioter took them at the

defendant's direction, is in no way inconsistent with the indictment's allegations here. That's his only example he has of someone in the government saying Trump is innocent, and it doesn't even say that. I mean, it's ridiculous. Clearly, he doesn't accomplish what he's looking for. But I feel like on a fundamental level, these demands are, he's basically asking for things that he could easily go find, like statements, like non-described, just rando statements of government people that he thinks defend his position in this case.

Like go look at the January 6 cases. Go grab those transcripts. Go talk to the lawyers involved. Find your own frigging statements. Build your own defense rather than just saying, I want any time anyone said I'm a good guy. Go out and find that. And send it to me because it proved that I'm a good guy, go out and find that. And send it to me because it improved that I'm a good guy. Yeah.

And he also wants all information on, do you remember when Russia hacked sunburst solar winds? Yes. And they got into some government agencies. He wants all the information on that. Because I believe he's trying to argue that that is what compromised the election results was Russia. That's really fascinating because I'm going to guess that across 60 lawsuits challenging

the results of the election, they never made that argument a single time, but because there's no evidence of it. But yeah, I mean, he's just swinging at the rafters with these, with these theories. But again, let's remember, all he's got to do is convince one juror. He just needs to plant enough doubt in the mind of one juror and he's off the hook. So it is, it is a fascinating filing because he is, you were getting a little bit of a peek into some of the crazy things that he's going to say in an effort to create that sort of doubt. It's still with all the evidence and the facts and everything that we have on the side of the prosecutors is still a tough case for them because it's a complicated

case. It's an emotionally charged case. It cuts to the heart of things that mean a lot to a lot of people, no matter where you are in the political spectrum. And so they're in an unenviable spot of having to kind of anticipate these defenses and go out now and collect evidence or witnesses that they might be able to use if they need to later in the trial to kind of knock this stuff down and keep the jurors focused on the story there trying to tell. Yeah, and that that seat of doubt that he's trying to plant is Russia, China, Iran, they were all trying to interfere in the election, Sissa knew it, they brief Jeffrey Clark on it, that's why Jeffrey Clark wrote that letter to Georgia, that's going to be his thing so that maybe one juror is like, okay, he was just trying to protect us

from foreign election interference, which is something he completely denied for his entire four years in office. In a weird way, it's like trying to use the government's credibility against it. Yeah. Right? It's like, oh, these guys have been telling you for years how bad Russia is and how dreadfully

they undermine the 2016 election. Look, they did it again in 2020. Of course, there's no one from the government said that in 2020 and there's no evidence of it, but that's not going to stop him. Next Trump wants information on all undercover agents at the Capitol on Jan 6. Not because he wants to say they induced the riot, but that the riot happened because those undercover agents failed to stop it.

There's all these FBI agents up there, not, or sources, informants, or actual undercover employees, as we refer to them, that they should have done more to stop the riot that I started. Okay, he doesn't add that last part to the claim. But yeah, it's... Rush has started the riot, remember?

Right, right, right. And again, you know, we learned about the FBI informants who were there on the Capitol or near the Capitol, they're on January 6th through the January 6th cases and the discovery that was given by the government to the Gen 6 defendants. That was it. There's a lot of reporting on this. Like go find it for yourself. I don't know. It's just- Didn't Mike Johnson just release all the video? Go get it. Yeah, go get it. Go get it. Anyway, so he also wants all the underlying intelligence that supports the 2016 ICA or the Intel Community Assessment.

That was of course the highly classified document that we put together at the direction of President Obama to kind of summarize everything the government knew about Russian, Maline, Russian activity targeting the 2016 presidential election. And you can read that online. There's a declassified version of it out there. I highly recommend it. So Trump is asking fully unclassified version

and all of the supporting classified information. That's right. He used it was used to put that together. And he's been screaming about this for years. He tried to declassify the entire thing and release all the underlying intelligence right before the end of his term. So here we are, shooting at that again.

So he wants that because he intends to prove that he was very concerned about Russian election interference, and that's why the public questioned the election results in 2020, because of foreign influence operations by Russia and the US. And here he does ask for specific documents, but that part is actually under seal in the classified supplement to the filing, which we can't see. Yeah, and he can ask for specific things because he actually probably already has him. Yeah, he's done. He's seen all this stuff, right?

I mean, I think he gave it all over to John Solomon. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Sure. So then he asked for all proof of voter fraud, infrastructure, compromises and election irregularities. I mean, really?

All things that he claimed Russia didn't do in 2016. He went through all that stuff. He claims Russia's hack of sunbursts, solar winds, compromise the elections, but that's the only thing he specifically mentions here. Everything else is just a vague demand for voting machine and election problems. So all the money that he paid to all those research firms that found nothing, all of his lawyers who went out to try to find fraud that he sent them to steal voting machines and breach voting machines, couldn't find anything, couldn't put him in any of his lawsuits, he wants all that. That's right.

He'd like all that stuff now, please. Trump is also demanding all the info on the DNI's briefing of Jeffrey Clark, where the DNI told Clark that there wasn't any foreign influence that would have changed the outcome of the election. Now, Trump doesn't believe that that was the message, and he wants to quote real info that was briefed because he claimed it caused Clark to write those letters. So put a pin in this one because it's going to come up later in the show when we talk about Scott Perry's text messages because Perry texted Clark about that briefing with

DNI, John Radcliffe. And we're in the home stretch here on this. Trump is asking for some giglio info on Pence, meaning that's information that could be damaging to Pence's credibility, specifically he wants all the info on the investigation into Pence's handling of the classified documents. So the guy that's been indicted for mishandling classified info, I should say for retention of national defense information to be accurate.

He wants to impeach as a witness the guy who wasn't indicted for mishandling classified information. Although from the text, it appears Trump wants to argue that the Biden administration and Pence and all of Sissa and DHS, everybody, they're all on the same team for the Biden narrative to interfere in the election. And they're all out to get him. So of course, that's what he's trying to, that's this, another CD's trying to plant in the jury's mind.

Then he asks for all the info on the all DOJ coordination with the Biden administration of which there is none. Claiming it helps his defense to show that the investigation was shoddy and that he intends to attack the reliability of the investigation. And he also seeks non-specified communications about political bias disagreements between the FBI and prosecutors, which is normal, by the way. He says they didn't want, you know, the FBI didn't want to do a search warrant, and

Windom had to go to the inspector general and the postal inspector to get these things done. And the FBI said no, so that exonerates him. But it was his guy, Dan Twono, who was blocking it. And I knew this would come up, Andy. He wants all the documents related to Mike Sherwin's appearance on 60 minutes, which violated DOJ policy. However, Sherwin also discussed the Oathkeeper's case

during that interview. And those dudes are all in prison right now. So I'm not doing what he was talking about. Yeah, there's basically no legal defense that's if Sherwin violated DOJ policy, therefore I'm innocent. That doesn't, it does those two things do not don't connect in any way.

No. Yeah. So Allison, we just put a pin in the classified briefing that DNI John Radcliffe gave to Jeffrey Clark in early January 2021, and how Trump wants all the documents and prep work related to that briefing. Well, that meeting came up this week

in Scott Perry's text messages. So a redacted copy of these texts from Scott Perry's phone was unsealed Wednesday and then taken down very quickly, which likely indicates that they were mistakenly unsealed and then taken off the docket. So these texts show Perry's communications with unindicted, still unindicted co-conspirator Jeff Clark. From Caitlin Pollance and CNN, we get the text included several communications in late December 2020 and early January 2021 with DOJ's Jeffrey Clark, a Trump appointee sympathetic to contesting the election, as Trump considered installing Clark as Attorney General. Perry texted Clark, quote,

quote, quote, quote, quote, quote, quote, quote, quote, quote, quote, quote, quote, quote, quote, quote, quote, quote, quote, quote, quote, quote, quote, quote, quote, quote, quote, quote, quote, quote, quote, quote, quote, quote, quote, quote, quote, quote, quote, quote, quote, quote, quote, quote, quote, quote, quote, quote, quote, quote, quote, quote, quote, quote, quote, quote, quote, quote, quote, quote, quote, quote, quote, quote, quote, quote, quote, quote, quote, quote, quote, quote, quote, quote, quote, quote, quote, quote, quote, quote, quote, quote, quote, quote, quote, quote, quote, quote, quote, quote, quote, quote, quote, quote, quote, quote, quote, quote, quote, quote, quote, quote, quote, quote, quote I'm praying. This makes me quite nervous and wonder if I'm worthy or ready to that Perry replies quote, you are the man. I have confirmed it. And that came late at night on December 30th, 2020. Perry went on to say, God does what he does for a reason. Yeah. So then on January 1st, 2021, Perry texted Clark, who was about to receive an intelligence briefing he requested about election security to, quote, make sure, again, this is Perry telling Clark to make sure he, meaning John Radcliffe, gives you exactly what dot, dot,

you need. All right. So Clark asked Perry to tell Trump to provide him access to classified information. Perry said that Trump would. It was then that Clark updated the language of his letter from quote, the DOJ has concerns to quote, the DOJ has evidence of election irregularities. So this is really fascinating. You you get like an insight as to this briefing. So Clark, who is the guy that's been designated, point man on writing the letter that DOJ

will send to some of these states, these swing states, basically giving them the reason to throw out the election results, claiming falsely that DOJ has evidence of election irregularities, evidence of voter fraud, and therefore they should put on the brakes, don't certify whatever. So the setup to that meeting between Ratcliffe, who is totally on team Trump, he's Trump's installed DNI, he says, make sure Rat ratcliff gives you exactly what you need, meaning

possibly meaning. Not tells you the truth, not gives you the intelligence, not gives you the best, you know, analytical assessments that the USG has at this point about election security, but no, gives you what you need. I'll tell you what though, he was one of our Ocho, no, Stray, wasn't he? Rackliff. Oh, yeah. And he had to testify. He was claiming privilege. And he did testify. And there's reporting that he told Jack Smith that he didn't see any election irregularities. And that could be very damaging to whatever Trump is trying to find here. Because Rackliffe put together a report on January 7th,

saying there was no election interference. There was no, anything that would change, you know, outcome-determinative election interference here for foreign influence. But he would also have told Jack Smith the conversations he had with Donald Trump about this briefing. And so I think that I don't- And potentially Scott Perry. Yeah, and I don't understand why Trump wants this. This is not gonna be good for him. Hey, I think he's, you know, he's shooting at what he hopes it will be. I can imagine the scene, right?

I've been into 1,000 of these briefings. The DNI comes in, the DNI doesn't actually provide the briefing, analysts provide the briefings, right? The subject matter experts. So the DNI typically like opens it up, says a couple of introductory things, gives the bottom line up front sort of big picture, wavetop view, and then the analysts give the details and then answer the questions.

So there still could be a fair amount of disagreements from the people, if you put all those people together and said, what, what did Ratcliffe say? I mean Clark might say, well, no, the impression that I got from what he said and everybody else said was there was all kinds of problems in the election. You might then have Rackliff take the stand and say, no, that's not what I told him at all. So it's, it could be a diverse kind of group of opinions and Trump will undoubtedly pick the ones that support his narrative and run forward with those.

Yeah. And Perry also, some other messages received received he received a message from a former colleague of Trump asking if Perry could help persuade Trump and then vice president Mike Pence and others to use the vice president's power to change the debate rules or you know for January 6th. Yeah and Perry's election texts were described and quoted by federal district judge, Barrel Howe, in an opinion that she wrote in December 2022, which we know about, but we didn't know all about, but now we've seen it all. As the special counsel's office prosecutor

swept in cell phone records from several of Trump top, Trump's top allies before deciding to charge him. Now the DC Circuit Court of Appeals, above Howe, looked at her opinion and other underlying records confidentially, but the appeals court briefly made howls writing public on Wednesday afternoon, again, before taking it down, suggesting that it was a mistake to unseal it. Now, how confidentially reviewed more than 2,000 documents Perry had sought to keep from investigators after they seized his cell phone, including these text messages. And how had found that the messages should be available

to special counsel investigators looking at top government officials. But the appeals court curtailed it a little bit, curtailed some of what the investigators could see of parries, text messages, and we covered that decision, which is a public decision. We covered it when it came out this past September. So anyway, those are still out there.

Washington Post has them all published. If you want to take a look at them, and it's quite a bit. All right, we will be, this is fun. We have the real Twitter files, Andy. And we're going to talk about them right after this quick break. Stick around everybody. 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 the information under seal, along with parts of the search warrant that show what Jack Smith was looking for. Remember we were trying to guess?

Yes. We were pretty right on, but it seems like a standard, it seems like a standard Twitter search warrant, you know, it seems like kind of a template. Yep. And here's some excerpts from Judge Bozberg's ruling. As part of special counsel's investigation, the government sought and obtained a search warrant for Twitter records associated with at-reel Donald Trump. After the investigation yielded an indictment of former President Trump,

a press coalition and Twitter sought to unseal documents associated with the warrant. Since then, large swaths of these proceedings have been unsealed with government consent, though several documents remain under lock and key. The court now concludes that further disclosure is not warranted and will deny what remains of the press application. He go on to say on January 17th, this is almost a year ago, 2022, Jack Smith sought the warrant for Trump's Twitter account. Twitter, under Elon Musk, tried to block it and then tried to get permission to tell Trump

about the subpoena, but he lost that fight. But I still bet he told him. The court has unsealed a bunch of stuff, including the court's opinion, affirming the denial of Twitter's motion to vacate, and an additional 509 pages of materials from the district court litigation, including briefings, orders, and opinions. The judge said, but that didn't satisfy the press. They filed for all warrant application materials, all ceiling-related motions and orders. The search warrant, docket sheet, and any other judicial records,

as to which there is no longer a compelling need for secrecy. Now, Twitter joined that application, the government opposed, but agreed to unseal the docket sheet. And once the docket sheet was unsealed, it made clear the documents that were still an issue. The warrant application, the warrant applications, lengthy supporting affidavit, and the warrant that issued, which is nearly identical to the application, the warrant that issued, which is nearly identical

to the application, the NDO application, which is Twitter, you can't tell Trump about this. The government's ex-parté opposition, along with its exhibits to Twitter's motion to vacate and the NDO and stay the warrant. And when a party wants to unseal records, there's something called the Hubbard factors, which are weighed. And I know you're very familiar with these factor one need for public access. The judge said that weighs heavily, not heavily, but it weighs in favor of disclosure, because the government doesn't dispute the public really wants to know about this stuff. Correct. Yeah, that's an easy one. The judge says that has to be weighed against the other factors, though.

Factor two, the extent of previous public access. This factor is neutral because there is an unruly mix of secret and public facts. I love that unruly mix. I'm going to have to start using that daily life. I like it. Factor three, the fact that someone has objected to disclosure and who that is, the government's opposition adds slightly to the case for non-disclosure, keeping the rest of this stuff under block of key. Factor four, the rest of this stuff under block a key.

Factor four, the strength of any property and privacy interests. And this weighs moderately in the case to keep everything the rest of the stuff sealed, because of the safety of the swearing government agent and the individuals in addition to Trump that special counsel considers relevant to the investigation. Yeah, although you got to imagine a world where the press would totally be happy with getting these documents and just leaving the identities of those people still redacted, but nevertheless. Yeah, totally.

But they did a lot during the Mueller investigation and there were all these sleuths online trying to figure out what fit behind the red action bars, what names. Factor five, prejudice to the party opposing disclosure, which is the government, and this is the weightiest factor. Although Trump has been indicted, quote, investigations of other individuals continue. That is what special counsel Jack Smith said in a statement on August 1st, 2023, just a couple months ago.

Mm-hmm. The government, I know. I did. I love it. It also weighs heavily in favor of us being right that he's going to indict the rest of these folks just maybe after the Trump trial goes. Double fingers crossed. Yeah, double fingers crossed.

The investigation continues. He said that a couple months ago into others in DC. And he, the government hopes to keep private, quote, details about the government's investigative methods, including the precise information it sought from the materials Twitter was ordered to produce, specific events and individuals of interest to the investigation, and the government's

internal procedures for warrant execution. Twitter's assumption that the indictment has laid bear all there is to know about the investigation is insufficient to discount the government's compelling interest here. Factors six, the purposes for which the documents were introduced, that favors unceiling for reasons similar to those discussed concerning the public interest, right? Right. Ultimately, the undeniable need to protect an ongoing criminal investigation tips the balance toward the government's request to continue sealing.

For the four-going reasons, the court will deny what remains of the press's application. A separate order so stating will issue this day. So no, we can't have the rest of it. The investigation is ongoing. The DC January 6th investigation is ongoing. Yeah, and I have to say, in my experience, the factor five is really what tips it in every case. And I think that people who are following this very closely, which is our listeners certainly,

you have almost a little bit of a warped perspective on how these decisions were made, because there has been a lot of prior documents that were originally sealed later being unsealed and shared with the public in some capacity. That almost never happens in your day-to-day federal criminal cases, and almost never in the context of an affidavit supporting a search warrant.

The affidavit is really the most important thing. That's where you lay out all the facts of the probable cause. Those affidavits never get unsealed unless a defendant is indicted and the case goes to trial, you can then get the affidavit turned over in discovery and sometimes unsealed and it becomes a piece of evidence in the trial. But if you think about the number of investigations and the number of warrants that are executed in cases that never become the subject of a major trial issue, that stuff remains sealed forever.

So, DOJ did call Trump's bluff, though, on unseal the affidavit for this search on my home. They did. And that was a bold and, you know, a really rare step by DOJ. I think it was a great one and it was necessary in this very strange case, but it doesn't have to be that way. And it was still heavily redacted. Yeah. It was still heavily redacted. But yeah, we got a little bit of a peek in that. Yeah. But we also, a couple days before this ruling came out, we got something else. That's right. The judge unsealed six pages of the 14 page Twitter search warrant.

Uh, Ann Allison, you and I reported this almost a year ago, and we had some guesses about what Jack Smith was after. That's right. We were positing that he, they definitely want to be able to prove where Trump was and what he said on Twitter. Like, no, is it his device? Was he logged in his IP address, all that metadata? And we were, I was like, he wants those DMs, he wants those direct messages.

Oh, hell yeah. You got to have the DMs. But this lays out, this is a hell of a warrant. But I, you know, I have to think that this is probably what they issue when they go after anybody's Twitter stuff. When you're looking for, it's possible that you could drop a warrant that has very specific language. But generally, when you're using it, you're drop a warrant that has very specific language, but generally

when you're using a warrant and pursuit of a broader investigation, you're going to go for everything they have, every piece of information in there that's relevant to your investigation. So here's the language from the warrant. It requested all of Trump's business records and subscriber information, including identity, contact information, data birth, phone number, physical address, all user names, all associated accounts, including those linked by cookies, IP addresses, email addresses,

or other device identifiers. A length of service, types of services utilized and credit cards on file, devices used to log into the account. That one really jumped out at me. Information about networks and connections used, all advertising information. The IP addresses used to create, log in, and use the account and associated dates, times, and port numbers from October 2020 to January 21. Privacy and account settings, change in the history of changes of any of those settings, communications between Twitter and any person

regarding the account, that's interesting too, including contacts with support and records of actions taken. So if anyone, not just Trump, but anyone contacted Twitter, like Twitter support with respect to the account, they want that, those, the actions that were taken and the substance of those communications. Yeah, so if Trump filed a TOS reporter, contacted Twitter at all to ask them to take down any tweets that he didn't like, Jackson has those. There you go. So what, when initially jumped out to me from this one,

is to me, this is a search, well, so they're looking for a lot of things here, but a top of that list is they are looking for other users of the account. People who access the account, people who may have drafted posts, people who posted, people who monitored the account, that sort of thing.

And every one of those people could potentially be a witness to Trump's intent, to Trump's state of mind. So if you're just some flunky working in the White House and you have access to the account for the purpose of posting things, let's say a particular post becomes central to the government's case, you could call that person to say, okay, did Trump write this or did you write it? And if you wrote it, did he approve it? Did he read it?

Did what did he say when he told you to go ahead and post it? So all those little kind of facts could be interesting pieces of evidence that go directly to intent. The other thing those users could help you with, and this we talked about just a second ago, the government is anticipating defenses and a possible defense here could be if there's a tweet or a post that's central to the government's case, they're thinking, well, Trump could always say, well, I didn't post that. Somebody else did. I didn't know that they had posted this language. I didn't approve it. And this way, having identified all those people ahead of time, you would, of course, interview them, bring them to the special counsel's office, maybe the grand jury, if they have something good, and figure those things out ahead of time.

So you could counteract one of those defenses on trial. Yeah, for sure. All right. So Jack Smith also wanted all communications and content from the Trump Twitter account from October 2020 to January 21, including all tweets created, drafted, favorited, liked, or retweeted by Trump, including deleted tweets and all associated multimedia, metadata, and logs. And here we go. The content of all direct messages sent from receive buy or stored in draft form associated with the Trump account, including all attachments, multimedia, header info, metadata, and logs. There it is. That's what we predicted a year ago. There it is.

Yep. They also requested information relating to all interactions between Trump and other Twitter users, including all users Trump followed, unfollowed, muted, unmuted, blocked or unblocked, and the content from those notifications tab, all lists of Twitter users that liked or retweeted Trump's tweets. And oh, God, that's a huge list. And all tweets where Trump's account was mentioned by other users. I mean, Well, if you're trying to prove that he's the one that made everybody mad about January 6th,

then you've got millions and millions and millions of people retweeting and reposting him, that can go against his idea that Russia did this. Yeah, but what do you have? Like 20 million users or something? Or followers? Something like that, yeah. Or was it seven? No, I was, I think he was at 20 million users or something, or followers, something like that. Yeah. Or was it seven?

No, I was, I think he was at 20 million something, followers. So this is a lot of information for Twitter to pull together. Not that I feel bad for them in any way, but it is a lot of stuff. They requested all contacts and related sync information, all related metadata and logs. That's interesting because that means you know how Trump will be like, bring in your contact list. How Twitter will, Twitter will ask you if you want to add your contacts on Twitter.

Oh, yeah. That's interesting. That's his contact list in his phone and they want all that. Yeah. Fascinating. All data associated with Trump's profile page, all multimedia associated with Trump's account, all records of searches. That one is a good one too. Really goes to, you're seeing that in a lot in criminal

cases now where they'll go back and say, and the defendant, the day before the homicide, went on Google and searched how to kill your wife. That's what I think. That's kind of what this looks like. Like, who else was he searching for? What else was he searching for? It really speaks to a kind of state of mind issue. So they requested all searches between October 2020 and January 2021. All location information, including all locational data collected by any plugins, widgets, or the, quote,

tweet with location service. And all information about links Trump posted, including the number of times the link was clicked. The other eight pages of the warrant are redacted and will stay that way pursuant to Bozberg's order. That's fascinating. The location services from all other widgets and stuff. That's like, you know, anything connected to Twitter that pops an ad up for you because you're nearby, that kind of Twitter location widget is different from turning on your location when you tweet, but it can also help pinpoint where you are on the globe when you posted

a specific tweet. And any other widget or app that's connected to Twitter that does that as well, they would also have all of that geolocation information. Yeah. Now that's really super relevant in a case, in a normal, normal or more normal case, where the defendant is not someone whose location is pretty much known 24, 7365. You know, he was the president. You probably could use other means to figure out where he was, but, again, gets at the issue of other users.

Like, if you have that kind of data from someone who's clearly not where you know Trump was at that time, then you know that that someone had privileges or rights or access to the account in a significant way. Maybe they were writing things, maybe not, maybe with Trump's knowledge, maybe not. So these are all very relevant questions for the prosecutors. Yeah. And before we head down to Florida, we have one last update from DC. And I say this is from DC, even though it's kind of technically from Fulton County, but the

cheese, co-conspirator number five in the DC indictment, is going on tour. He asked the Fulton County probation office for permission to travel to Nevada and Arizona, along with DC. And as it turns out, CNN is reporting that he is cooperating with prosecutors in Nevada, investigating the fraudulent electric scheme. And from your colleagues at CNN, Ken Chuzbro has agreed to sit down with Nevada investigators in hopes of avoiding prosecution there. So he's also, you know, real quick, I mentioned the kind of glazed over it, he asked permission

to travel to DC as well. Yeah. He's already pled guilty down in Georgia. He seems like he's really happy to flip and cooperate and help. So Andy, how could this cooperation impact a special counsel investigation? He is one of the six unindicted co-conspirators.

He is. I love this story. It's got so many dimensions to it. And I hear like Willie Nelson on the road again. Like in the back of my head is where, as you were reading this. But yeah, so that it's not unexpected because his plea agreement actually required him to cooperate with investigations of this matter, this material, the fake electric stuff, in Georgia, any follow-on investigations in Georgia, and any other states. So that was a little bit of

a foreshadowing. It was not surprising they granted him the permission to travel that those places. He's clearly trying to keep himself out of jail in those states, but it's not going to help him from playing a role in the Jack Smith case if, in fact, the prosecutors decide to bring him in. He will either be a witness or a defendant in a follow on case if one is brought. If he tries to stay the role of defendant, it's really almost impossible for him to do that because he now will be on the record testifying under oath in multiple states because each one of these interviews with prosecutors and investigators in Georgia and these follow on States is going to be done.

He's going to have to swear, you know, to tell the truth in those interviews. So they become relevant prior statements. And in those statements, presumably he's making admissions about his own fault. So it almost seems impossible that he could ever defend himself against a federal case, substantively, which would make him, basically, he'd have to be a co-operator in a witness. Yeah. And the feds don't hand out misdemeanors. Generally, it reminds me of the quote in my blue heaven where the guys like, they don't have misdemeanors here, just felonies. So, you know, he's, it's generally,

from what I've seen over the last several years and you can, you know, you can talk about this just for a second, Andy, it's usually, if you're facing like 15 counts, felony counts, we'll get you on one or two and drop the rest, but you're still gonna face a little probably a little bit of jail time, depending on the robustness of your cooperation.

Yeah, that's absolutely how it works. You would have to come in. They charge you with what they had, good cases. That's half a dozen, maybe a dozen counts, let's say. You decide to cooperate. You have to then come in and tell the government everything that you'd, everything you know about that, but also every other crime you've ever committed, things they don't know about.

And people don't, that's a piece that most people don't appreciate. So the proffer session, those interviews. That's why the Michael Cohen wasn't an official cooperator. That's right. That's right. So that proffer session is much more expansive

at the federal level than it is at the state level. And once you've done that, the government will come back with like a proposal. Okay, we'll drop 11 of the 12 charges. You'll be guilty to the 12th one. That subjects you to XYZ amount of time and jail. We hold off sentencing you until your cooperation is done. And at the end of that, if you cooperate well, you tell us the truth.

You give us good information. We go in front of the judge and we say, he's facing this much time, but he's provided this substantive level of cooperation and the judge is then free to downwardly depart from that sentence, recommended sentence. So it also gives the prosecutor the opportunity to say to a jury if you're testifying in front of them. Yes, he admitted to all these crimes and he got a benefit for his testimony. But you can still believe his testimony because if he doesn't tell you the truth today,

he's still going to jail for a long time. That's the crux of what makes a federal cooperator still believable in the eyes of jurors because there's still something hanging over their heads. If they get caught caught lying all benefits go away So that that's how it would work Yeah, I again, I've got my blue heaven with Steve Martin in my head where he's testifying in a mob trial And then they're like what'd you get for your testimony? Oh, I got a nice house I'm in a witness protection program and he's like yeah, did you get this?

You get a check? Do they pay every month? And he's like that's not all I get and they's like, yeah, did you get this? You get a check? Did they pay every month? And he's like, that's not all I get. And they're like, oh, what, what do you mean? You know, and he's like, I get to never see my family again. I get to live in a place and I'm sure it's very nice. But from a man who grew up on the streets of the city that never sleeps, it's hell on earth. You know, it's just, it's so, it's Steve Martin is so funny

and that, if you guys, everyone, this is my new endorsement today. Watch my blue heaven. All right, that's a good one. That's a good one. It's a lot that comes up. All right, we have to take a quick break. We'll head down to Florida

and we'll do some listener questions. Stick around, we'll be right back. Boom, going to head down to Florida. There's one story in Florida this week. It comes from Falders and Misfolders at ABC. It's a great scoop here. One of former President Donald Trump's current attorneys told Special Counsel Jack Smith's team that within days of the Justice Department's subpoena for the documents last year, she very clearly warned Trump that if he failed to fully comply, but then swore he did, quote,

it's going to be a crime. That's according to sources familiar with the matter. I don't know anyone who's ever gotten advice from a lawyer, theoretically many of you are out there. It's very rarely that clear. And your lawyer says, if you do X, that's a crime. That's advice you really got to open up your ears and take that on board. And this is Jennifer Little, who along with Corcoran were forced to testify about things

under the crime fraud exception. She told investigators Trump absolutely understood the warning, which came during a pivotal meeting at Mar-a-Lago with Trump and Evan Corcoran, who had recently joined Trump's legal team. So, I think that's an interesting that both lawyers were at that meeting. I think that's really key point, because yeah, we basically had the substance of this before, from likely Evan Corcoran's now infamous grand jury testimony, which he provided under the crime fraud exception. So you already have theoretically one witness, Corcoran, who can say, yes, we warned him and yeah, he understood it. But the importance of having the other one is if you don't have that that second attorney, in this case Jennifer, little also prepared to testify if you just don't cover that base, then Trump can say, well, there

was another person there and they didn't say that or they disagreed or, you know, he can use the fact that you don't have both of them testifying and sink to create some, you know, mistrust and ambiguity around what he was actually told and what he thought about it. But now, not so much because the new of the one baked the orange to the same thing. Listen, look, President Trump, Sissa, Ratcliffe, DHS, White House Council, Deputy White House Council, 800 attorneys,

two research firms that, all my lawyers, come on. They're all, it's all the deep state. It's all a long range Biden campaign tactic. Yeah. To be to prevail in 2024 or something. I don't know. Crazy. Yeah. And what, what Jennifer Little allegedly told Smith's team earlier this year, May shed further light on how Smith came to accuse Trump of knowingly violating the law, saying is June 9th and indictment against Trump. He said in the indictment that the former president defied a subpoena by hiding more than 100 classified documents from the FBI and even his own legal team.

And then having his legal team certify otherwise. Jennifer Lill is a former Georgia, former Georgia state prosecutor. She is currently representing Trump in fault in county Georgia, currently representing him in Georgia. What does this happen? I mean, this is another name, right? On the list of people who are cooperated with prosecutors, provided evidence basically against Trump and are still working for him.

Mm-hmm, right? Tavaris, Suzy, what's her name? I can't remember her last name. The Pilsen. While the other political consultant, Korkren. Now Jennifer. Yeah. Yeah. Now, after the DOJ subpoena Trump, and don't forget, prosecutors wanted to execute a search warrant, but Dan Twono, at the WFO Washington field office, said, no, so they got a subpoena.

Anyhow, after that subpoena was issued, Jennifer little suggested retaining an attorney who had handled federal cases before and they brought cork run on. He was hired and they met. She told Trump, if there are any more classified documents, failing to return all of them, moving forward will be, quote, a problem, especially because the subpoena requires assigned certifications wearing full compliance. Quote, once this thing is signed, she said, if anything else is located, it's going to be a crime. That is what little said to Trump, and that is what she testified. She told Trump to Jack Smith's team.

The source has said that when investigators asked little if those messages landed, she said, absolutely. Trump said something to the effect of, okay, I get it. Okay, I get it. Okay, I get it. Okay, I get it. Stop you depressing me. Bring me my ketchup. Don't you have any better news?

Come on. See, I Walt Nottah comes in with a tray of assorted ketchup for him to throw. Both little N. Corcoran spoke with investigators about certain conversations with Trump only after, like I said, federal judge ruled in March that the attorney client privilege was broken by the crime pierced by the crime fraud exception. And we reported that on this show back in March, if you want to go back and listen. So that is our whole. We got through it all.

If it weren't for those late filings on Friday, it would have been a more reasonable length of show. But that's right. We got it all covered. It's all in there now at a whopping hour plus, but a little bit of time, just a few a minute or two left for listener questions. You ready? Yeah. I am. Let's do it. All right. Lots of interest this week on the listener questions about the decision around televising the trial. And as you might expect, people are a little

frustrated that looks so far. It looks like it's not going to be televised. Got some suggestions. John from Washington citing Bush v. Gore asked if they would consider making just the audio available. And then I got a more creative one from, I'll refer to him or her. It's Fenu Lanou because that's the name we used to use for like unknown subjects of cases. First name, unknown last name, unknown. If a new, if a transcript could be used to stage a reenactment of the trial,

I mean, that has just such a operatic quality to it. I kind of like it. I kind of want to do a musical. Yeah, right. It's, I think the possibilities are endless. But bottom line is, I think this is a good question. The audio thing is interesting because you don't have to go all the way back to Bush v. Gore.

Simply COVID, right? COVID is what cracked the code on getting the US Supreme Court arguments released to the public in audio form, because they couldn't have, obviously, people come in and watch them anymore. So I feel like there's a possibility there of doing something with the audio.

And then on the other one, I don't know about it, it'd be pretty hard to stage a full reenactment, but transcripts are typically available. The challenge there is the court, especially a long trial. It's tough to marshal the resources to get the transcripts out very quickly,

but you can almost imagine a situation in which media outlets could augment court resources and get immediate transcripts and then have those transcripts available on a a daily basis, you know, within a certain number of hours after the testimony is finished for the day. So I do think who knows what they'll do, but I think there are opportunities

to be more revealing here that don't go all the way to turning it into a crazy televised circus. Yeah, and I liked NBC Universal's part, you know, part of the press coalition's idea, like maybe a compromise, let us record it, but not broadcast it until after it's over. Yeah. So we can have it for posterity.

Yeah, I think they got to be creative about it. I think the court could strike some sort of a bargain on this stuff if they're inclined to think it'd be a good idea, but we'll have to wait and see how that resolves. I like this next question from Zach. Yeah, Zach is a very interesting spelling of his name, which I will not repeat, but okay, Zach comes in with greetings and salutations esteemed hosts. I am placing my inquiry at your digital feet in the hopes that in your magnanimity and benevolence, you can bring elucidation to my ponderings. It's actually got a lot of letters and all those words.

And so I felt like we needed to read his question. His question is assuming this is enough of a grand eloquent flattery. My question is, where does Jack Smith go once these trials are complete? He's going to have arguably the most recognized face in the profession and either a paradigm shifting victory or defeat that will define his career. Can he go back to the hagg? Will it even be possible for him to continue to practice law?

What options are available for a notably private attorney after committing global attention in such a dramatic matter? I think it's a great question. It's not one we've talked about at all. Nobody knows the answer to it, so we can't be wrong, Allison, which is always one of my favorites. I feel like his opportunities in the legal profession

will be limitless, no matter how this thing turns out. There's not a big, successful law firm on the planet that would turn down his interest in becoming a top-rated partner. I I was like scad and arps. I mean, he name it. Glamoury wants you know, and it goes back to the Hague. He could go back to the pin. He could yeah, or he, you know, maybe he just puts out a shingle and gives violin lessons. James, I feared get some plastic surgery. He tries to go underground. You know, I don't know. He, it's the, but his, if the possibility is a really endless here.

Yeah. And, and, you know, even if he quote unquote loses, like, let's say, I mean, I hate to even game through this, but let's say Trump wins and closes the cases and they never go to trial. Whatever, you know, wins the election and, and foils it in one way or another. I think Jack Smith has acquitted himself so well in this case so far in the decisions that he's made and the way he's chosen to indict these cases and the language and the detail that he used

in the indictments and the way that he's pursued the investigation and, you know, right now it's like in hand-to-hand combat in terms of pretrial motions in both cases and they seem to be still doing well. He's proven his metal as a top flight litigator. He could make ridiculous amounts of money working for a private firm. That would be my odds on guesses to what he'll do for at least a little while. I hope he writes a book though. I want it. I'm here. I would I would like a book and then an interview

What I've noticed about myself at least is that I fully trust him He's conducted himself in such a manner that I trust his process his thought process and what he's doing So like for example when I was like why haven't any members of congress been indicted? The the invet he's as he said in August, the investigation is ongoing. Yep. And we know he is not afraid to indict members of Congress. He's done it. Oh, yeah.

He's done it tons in the past, working for Penn. And he's indicted them and he's both dismissed cases without inditing them. So he has a track record of being right down the middle, calling the case is based on their merit, despite, you know, even having to go through the pain of dismissing an ongoing case because you just feel like there's enough there. So, I totally agree. Doesn't indict the members of Congress, or if he does, I have faith that whatever he decides will be the right decision in those moments. Right. I really do.

Yeah. Totally agree. I think that guys at badass, he's done an amazing job with this investigation in these cases so far. Who knows where it lands, but you, I think he has earned our trust and faith in his decision making at least thus far. So and we'll get a report. We will get a report. We will. Oh, man,

that'll be. We'll be parsing that thing down to the every dot dash and period for God knows how long. Yep, for real. All right. Thank you all for these questions. This is incredible. There's going to be a link in the show notes. If you would like to submit a question, we always love your questions. Please send them to us. Again, if you want to become a patron, you can do that at patreon.com slash mullershoe route and looking forward to that meet up in April, Andy, you'll be there. Pete will be there. Dan will be there. And we'll send out information to patrons because, you know, we want to give you a little party. We want to throw you a party. First, sure, looking forward to it. It's all good to see the Patreon crowd.

Yeah. And thanks for all that you do. We had a we had a great one in DC a little bit ago and it but we could only fit like 50 people in there, but this one's going to be much bigger. So I'm looking forward to it. Excellent. All right. That is the show. Any final thoughts before we get out here? What could possibly come this week? My God. We are we are on an arc here of getting longer and longer each week and we're not going to go into a period of less information any time soon. So stay tuned, everyone. Yeah, I think we'll get the denials on the rest of those motions to dismiss, um, probably maybe this week or the next week or two.

But we'll report it all here on the Jack Podcast. I'm Anelis and Gil. And I'm Andy McKay. 다음 영상에서 만나요!