Jack - Episode 57 | This is OUR Constitution (feat. Judge Luttig)

Episode Date: December 31, 2023

This week, we are joined by Judge J. Michael Luttig to go over the brief helped  write to the District Court on DC in support of DoJ’s proposed trial date and against Trump’s claims of immunity. Judge Luttig reminds us that it is the Constitution, not politics, that disqualifies Trump from holding federal office, again.Then, we discuss DoJ’s motion to limit specific arguments and evidence that Trump may try to bring up at trial.Plus, we have some great listener questions.Our Guest:Judge J. Michael Luttighttps://twitter.com/judgeluttigAMICI CURIAE to the District Court of DC https://democracy21.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/08/Attachment-Brief-of-Amici-Curiae-in-Support-of-Governments-Proposed-Trial-Date.pdfAri Fleischer’s irresponsible take on attempts to keep Trump off of ballots was still up at the time of publishing this episode.https://x.com/AriFleischer/status/1740752537320669411?s=20“Make no mistake: Attempts to throw Trump off the ballot are white-collar insurrections, carried out by Democrats in powerful positions, who falsely use the "law" as a weapon. They fear a vote of the people, so they resort to this. This is an insurrection.” Good to know:Rule 403bhttps://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre/rule_40318 U.S. Code § 1512https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1512Brian Greer’s Quick Guide to CIPAhttps://www.justsecurity.org/87134/the-quick-guide-to-cipa-classified-information-procedures-act/ 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/ https://apple.co/3YNpW3P 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 Podcasts

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 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. It is Sunday, December 31st, 2023. I'm Allison Gill and I'm Andy McCabe. Oh my gosh, we have a very special guest for our final episode of 2023. And that guest is Judge J Michael Lutig. Judge Lutig served as an associate with the White House Council during the Reagan administration. He then clerked for Justice Antonin Scalia

when Scalia was on the DC Circuit Court of Appeals, and later for Chief Justice Warren Berger on the Supreme Court. He worked at the DOJ under George H.W. Bush, who would then appoint him to the fourth circuit court of appeals. He recently testified before the January 6th Select Committee, and has co-founded the Society for the Rule of Law Institute, with George Conway and Barbara Comstock. Judge Ludig will be joining us to discuss his amicus brief arguing against Trump's immunity motion

and his amicus brief has just been accepted by the DC Circuit Court of Appeals. Yeah, and speaking of that immunity claim, Andy, we have Trump's brief that he filed on 1223. We'll be discussing that with Judge Ludig. He filed that with the DC Circuit Court of Appeals as we know the expedited briefing schedule was that his filing was due on December 23rd. And of course the DOJ's filing which I have some predictions about will be filed on December 30th, which is, you know, yesterday, but we record this show on Fridays,

so it is not out yet. So we will not be discussing it on this show. We will be discussing it in the new year, although I can basically tell you what it's going to say. I'm fed you can. So we'll go over that. And then we also have Jack Smith. He filed a motion in lemonade. We, we motion in lemonade, right? That is the, the motion of stuff that he wants, he wants the judge to keep out of the trial. That's right. And even though that trial is stayed, he has filed the motion in lemonade in the DC case.

And we have a speedy trial report update that he filed, the Jack Smith filed in the Mara logo documents case. Yes. So all of that today, that is a lot. Okay. So we discussed the Amicus brief two weeks ago when it was filed for consideration, but

just as a reminder, an Amicus puree, which is Latin for friend of the court, is an individual or organization who is not a party to a legal case, but who is permitted to assist the court by offering information, expertise, or insight that has a bearing on the issues in the case. Now, whether an amicus brief will be considered is typically under the court's discretion. The brief we were talking about here

was filed on December 12th, with the DC Circuit Court of Appeals by Judge Ludig and 23 other, quote, former officials who have worked in five Republican administrations from President Nixon to George W. Bush served as elected Republican officials, our constitutional scholars, and others who support a strong presidency. And on December 26th, a per-curium order was issued on the docket. That's an order issued by the three-judge panel, all in agreement, quote, granting motion by former officials of five Republican administrations for leave to participate in an Amicus curi in support of a pelly, unquote.

So the DC Circuit has accepted the Amicus brief and joining us to discuss the brief is Judge J. Michael Ludig. It's great to see you, Judge. Thank you, Alison, and Andrew. It's a pleasure to be on this afternoon. No, it's a true honor for us, so thanks very much for taking the time. Thank you, Andrew. So my first question for you, Judge, is that the argument I've read through this, Amicus brief, pretty thoroughly a few times, and the argument that you and your colleagues are making

seems to be centered around protecting the Constitution's executive vesting clause and the design of the office of the presidency itself. Can you explain the crux of your argument and what the executive Vesting clause is? Yes, Alan. This was from myself and my colleagues, a very, very important brief to file on the immunity question. But as I'll explain in a moment, it was especially important to

me for my work on section three of the 14th Amendment disqualification of the former president. But as to the Amicus brief that we filed in the DC Circuit. We had filed essentially the same brief in the district court. In district courts, as you both know, typically don't receive a mechus briefs at all. And in this instance, Judge Chutkin denied our motion for leave to file that brief. That was not of any note to me. I just wanted to file, I wanted to lodge the brief and then have it covered by, you know, the national media. But in any of it. So then Judge Jenkins ordered denying absolute immunity

to the former president from prosecution for his offenses in and around January 6th. It went to the Supreme Court by passing initially the DC Circuit Court of Appeals because a special counsel, Jack Smith, asked the Supreme Court to expedite consideration. The Supreme Court eventually declined Jack Smith's request and then returning the matter to the DC circuit. The DC circuit had already scheduled argument for the immunity question in on January a I believe. So that's just on one single argument that interestingly to

us and to your listeners as well, Jack Smith and the Department of Justice had not made and have not made formally yet although it has begun to tease out our theory in other filings which are of no relevance just today. So what we decided was that, well, let me back up and say for your listeners, the Supreme Court has never decided the question of whether a president is immune from a criminal prosecution after he leaves office. That said, for those of us who have followed the presidency for 50 years, in my case, and the legal issues surrounding the constitutional issues surrounding the presidency. I have never had any doubt

whatsoever that a president is never entitled to absolute immunity from prosecution for criminal offenses against the United States. The Supreme Court has never said otherwise, but in the cases, only several cases that it has decided in both the criminal and civil contexts, it has left open the possibility that it might hold someday that in some context, a present would be immune from criminal prosecution. So that's where the state of the law at the moment. That's the state of the law at the moment. So for instance, my colleagues who I worked on this brief were they were very conscious that perhaps the Supreme Court might hold that the former president is immune from prosecution.

And I said in our internal discussions that I didn't believe that there would be a single justice who would hold the hat. And of course, it remains to be seen. So with that background, here's what we said in the wherever else in whatever context a president might be immune from prosecution. He or she can not be immune from prosecution for the offense for the offense of violating the executive vesting clause of the Constitution in an attempt to remain in power and deny the peaceful transfer of power, which is exactly what the former president did. Now, the reason that, so as soon as we've had filed that brief in the insurrection or rebellion against the Constitution of the

United States that gives rise to the former president's disqualification under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment. So, so that's a lot of legalese, I apologize, but let me just for your lay listeners, just spit it out clearly. On the in the immunity context, we argued for the first time, and today, no one, including the government has argued this at all, And today, no one, including the government, has argued this at all, that a president can never be immune from prosecution for an attempt to overturn a presidential election and remain in power, notwithstanding that the American people had voted for his successor. And then, I have since made the argument that I just spelled out, in particular, that

that same conduct, if you will, is what constitutes an insurrection or rebellion against the Constitution of the United States for purposes of Section 3 of the Fourteen Amendment, yielding the President's disqualification under the Fourteen Amendment from holding the presidency in 2024. So can you talk a little bit about the clause? I think it's Article 2, Section 1 clause 1, because you are defending here what you call a strong presidency. Within that, it's assumed within that, is the idea that a president serves a four-year term. serves a four-year term. And I believe what you are getting at is that it particularly in this context, regardless of whether the Supreme Court believes that there is some sort of criminal immunity and other contexts, which we don't know about yet, or haven't thought of yet, or haven't heard

or litigated, that it within this context, that would kind of destroy the idea of a four-year term of a president serving a four-year term, right? That's exactly right, Allison. And it's neither here nor there, but I'm as certain as absolutely certain of this constitutional argument as I've been of any argument in 50 years. Wow. You know, Judge, we have kind of jokingly, but not really joking, referred to this in previous episodes. What is soon as Trump made the argument, we referred to it as not the immunity motion, but the monarchy motion.

And the idea of absolute immunity for criminal acts while your president is just, it seems even to the certainly far less sophisticated constitutional scholars like Alison and I and many of our listeners, it's just so inherently contrary to everything we think of when we think about the framers and why they constructed the constitution in the way that they did. And their concerns about creating a president who essentially served, like the monarch who they were trying to get away from. And I think that your argument really puts a fine point on those thoughts because you make it very clear that the Vesting Clause absolutely requires a president to leave the presidency after four years if they are not reelected and given the ability to the immunity to commit crimes

to remain in power undermines that entire idea. That's exactly right, and you're far too modest about both yours and Allison's understanding of the Constitution. But here's another way that I've thought about it, and I would urge you to think about it this way. As you and your listeners know, I never speak a word other than law, okay, in public. So much so that I don't remember ever uttering the phrase that everyone has said many times over that no man is above the law. But for the first time in my career, I have stated that with respect to the issue that we're talking about today. It captures what we've long meant and understood

by the phrase, no man is above the law, okay? No other argument that the former president's made, have I been willing to say publicly, this is what that adage stands for. Now, to dig deeper into what you just began to tease out, it would be very interesting for your listeners to know that it is probably the greatest concern and the subject of the greatest discussion by the framers of our constitution was a demagogue in the presidency. If you go back through the Federalist papers, all of the ratification discussions in debate, the single greatest concern

was that America might someday come to have a demagogue as president because that person, and this is the founders in the framers talking, not me, because that person would play on the passions, the irrational, un-reasoned passions of the populace in order to secure their votes for his or her presidency. That is that a demagogue would come along and and and appeal to the American voters not on the basis of their reason, but instead on the basis of their passions. That's what Donald Trump has done to a favor they will. That's right. Yeah. And Peter Baker pointed out that Jefferson foresaw the danger of a president who refuses

to seed power when he said, quote, if once elected and at a second or a third election outvoted by one or two votes, he will pretend false votes, foul play, hold possession of the reigns of government and be supported by the states voting for him. So this, right, this was all foretold and judge the way that you feel about the, no one is above the law, I feel the same way about the 14th amendment, that if it's not designed for this particular situation and this particular man, then who is it for? And I wanna talk more about that, plus some of the arguments the former president has made,

but we do need to take a quick break. So everybody, stick around, we'll be right back. Everybody, welcome back. We are talking with Judge James Michael Ludig about his amicus brief and about the immunity case going up to the DC Circuit Court of Appeals. And Judge, I would like to, you had briefly mentioned, you know, talking about no one is above the law in the face of some of the arguments

that the former president is making. And in his December 23rd filing with the DC Circuit Court, his arguments are basically the same arguments that he's been making that he should have immunity for official acts, those that fall within the outer perimeter of his official responsibilities. And he talks about the impeachment judgment clause, which in my opinion is also very silly. Do you think that the 11th circuit ruling written by Judge Prior in the Mark Meadows removal case could have any impact here?

I know that the 11th circuit is a different circuit, but doesn't the Supreme Court generally resolve issues when circuit courts are in some kind of disagreement. And I don't see any circuit court here conflicting with what Judge Chuck can rule in the in the immunity case. Yeah, yes, just Allison. I would respond this way, there is not an argument in the world that's ever been espoused by an individual or held by a court of the United States that even suggests that a president would be absolutely immune from criminal prosecution.

I don't believe for one second that the DC Circuit will hold otherwise. I don't believe that a single justice on the Supreme Court would hold otherwise. And in fact, when this DC circuit rejects the former president's claim to absolute immunity, I would expect the Supreme Court to deny sir on the appeal, former president's appeal to the Supreme Court. That's my hope. That's my dream scenario from the jump. Yeah, Allison's been rooting for that for weeks now. So I'm sure a lot of a lot of our listeners will be happy to hear that prediction. Can you talk to us for just a minute about his argument?

I can't believe I'm characterizing it as that, but his argument that he's essentially immune from prosecution unless he's been convicted by the Senate in an impeachment proceeding. It seems like just connecting two things that were never meant to be connected. That's how I look at it in a very simple way. You're right, Andrew. Let me go back, though, and pick up a piece of Allison's question that I did not respond to. And that is the question, whether in his conduct, in attempting to overturn the election, the president was acting within the scope of his responsibilities or within the outer boundaries of his responsibilities as the legal test is. The DC Circuit, when it decided the civil immunity question,

civil immunity question said that the president was not acting within his constitutional responsibilities on January 6th and the DC Circuit held on December 1st that the civil suit brought by the Capitol Police officers against the former president could proceed because he did not have a... he was not immune from suit or liability. Here's my point. That night, I tweeted or whatever you do these days, that the reasoning of the DC circuit in rejecting the former president's civil immunity claim is exactly the same reasoning that also tells us that he is not immune from criminal prosecution

for the same conduct. And I think, you know, I've just been amazed, frankly, that anyone reads anything I write, but I think I remember that when I said that, that tweet had half a million views overnight, and I reupted this week, and I know that it has around half a million views this week. But the point, again, it's just there are layers and layers of constitutional law and decisions by the federal courts that tell us that this is not even a difficult question at all and that there's no chance in this world that the president will be afforded absolute immunity from prosecution. We saw this in judge priors 11th Circuit explanation. It's not to the job of the executive, whether it's the chief of staff or the president, to involve themselves in the administration

of elections. That belongs to the states, which is why it's going to be difficult, I think, for Scotus to deny what the Colorado Supreme Court came up with. But yeah, I mean, they quoted Sandlin, Morvie Harper, all sorts of Supreme Court decisions that show that it is not the job at all of the president or the chief of staff, and they mentioned the President too, or not by name, to get involved in elections. That's the state's job. And I think that that is going to be interesting to see how that comes out when we talk about

Section 3 of the 14th Amendment. That's, you know, and our friend Ryan Liza earlier this week asked me for a quote when it was revealed that there had been other calls to the Michigan officials trying to overturn the election, asked me to respond to that and I did, but the former president's spokesperson, whoever it was, had said that those calls or contacts were within the former president's official duties as president of the United States. And so, in my quote that I gave Ryan, I said they were not at all within the scope of the president's responsibilities to interfere with a presidential election in the way that he did. Let me go back to Andrew's question because it's important.

It's just not as the critics have presented it, but it's otherwise a very serious question, as you know Andrew. And it's really the question of whether Section 3 is self-executing, or if instead it requires congressional action or a, literally a conviction of the offensive insurrection under, under 2383, title 18, 2383. Professors Boad and Paulson, who did the original comprehensive historical research on section three determined that it was self-executing, that it did not require congressional action or conviction. And then my friend, the most gifted constitutional scholar of our time, Larry Tribe, and I tore into the professor's research and within a week or so had written an article in the Atlantic saying that the professors were absolutely right in every single respect and that the president, former president, is disqualified under Section 3 of the

14th Amendment and that's actually what it has ignited what we have today. But the serious question, Andrew, is the one that you asked about? Is it self-executing? Now, we don't have time to go into all the details, but suffice it to say that under constitutional analysis and interpretation, there is no question in my mind or in the professor of tribes that it is self-executing. It doesn't require congressional action for three or four doctrinal reasons that I could explain today for you.

And I don't believe that the Supreme Court will ever hold that it does. That brings me to one and only point that I wanted to be sure and make on your show today, which I've gone to great lengths to make publicly for a while now, but especially last week. You know, the claim that disqualification under the 14th Amendment is anti-democratic. That's the human cry that's come up in the past few weeks, not just by the former president and his supporters, but as of last week by the national media. I was so upset about this coming from the national media that I went on, Ali Valshi showed MSNBC to make the point for the country, the constitutional point, not the political point, not the democracy point, the constitutional point that it is not disqualification that is anti-democratic, rather it is the conduct that can give rise to disqualification, that the framers of

our Constitution determined was anti-democratic. I was very disappointed in the national media, and Ali pulled out Charlie Savage's piece from the New York Times that was lamenting that the anti-democratic nature, if the Supreme Court were to disqualify the former president. But I just wanted to make that one point to your listeners because it's not just a large p political point. It is a constitutional point. I think that is so important because a lot of the conversation around both of these issues, the immunity issue and the 14th amendment disqualification issue have kind of devolved to that. Oh, it's just not, it's anti-democratic that people don't get to vote for who they want.

Or the other argument I hear a lot, which is, gee, it doesn't seem fair. It valuates fundamental fairness to disqualify the guy for something that he wasn't convicted of. And the point of both of those issues, me is this is not about some esoteric individual view on fair play. Let's have an even playing field. This is about doing things in the way that is consistent with our constitution. That's what's fair. That's what's democratic. Those are the rules that we all follow. Not these individualistic concepts of fair play and what maybe he should have. There's only one standard here and it is what the Constitution defines for us. And I think a lot of people have a hard time embracing that. No, it's a, you know, drive before I came on with you, someone had sent me a tweet by

some person named, um, Ari Fleischer, I think, uh, and, and, and they said he was a, a, a spokesman for a former president or something. Uh, and, and he had said today that, I mean, he just went on this screed, I mean, this singurally irresponsible, if he is or was a public figure, he was claiming that the plaintiffs in Maine and in Colorado were insurrectionists. By bringing this claim under the 14th Amendment that the former president is disqualified for having engaged in an insurrection. Like I said, I don't know RE and if I've even got his name right, but someone sent that to me and I was astonished a public person saying that today. But that's emblematic, Allison and Andrew, of frankly, the political response, the savage political response by the Republicans in the former

president. Yeah. So can we ask you one last very quick question before we go. You've been very clear about how you think the DC Circuit will come out on the immunity issue and you told us that you think it's likely if they deny it that the Supreme Court would not even take the case. How do you think the court will handle the now kind of bubbling up of the 14th Amendment issue through these various state decisions? I guess we have had three now in Colorado, Michigan, and at least a decision by the Secretary of State in Maine yesterday, and seems we have some variants there. The first procedurally, before the main Secretary of State's decision last night, or whatever

it was, I was thinking that the Supreme Court might deny review of the Colorado case on the reasoning, which it would never provide, that the, under the electors and electors clauses of the Constitution, the states arguably have unreviewable power to place on the primary ballot for the presidency in anyone that would be qualified under state law to be put on that ballot. If the Supreme Court had only decided whether to take the Colorado case and denied review, that would have led to chaos during the primary season. But the Supreme Court typically doesn't take, and certainly never takes a momentous case until or unless it has to and and I think that I was thinking the court might well deny sir But when the the main decision came in I believe that the Supreme Court now will take the question and I think it Probably ought to take the question. What will it do?

You know you guys have been at this as long as I have, and I'm coming at it from the perspective of a federal judge. I never predict what the Supreme Court might do, but whenever I feel comfortable, I do say that based upon the objective law, in this instance, the 14th Amendment, I believe that the court should affirm the Colorado case and the Michigan and the Michigan Secretary of State's decision for all the reasons that I've said publicly and all of those that are included in the Professor Boat and Paulson's article.

I don't believe that under the Constitutional law of the 14th Amendment, that there is any question, but that the Section 3 applies to the former president and that he engaged in an insurrection or rebellion or at least provided aid or comfort to that insurrection or rebellion against the Constitution of the United States. And I have said that publicly as a consequence of my conviction on the law. I never talk about the vagaries of the judicial process. And I leave that to others. Well, I don't blame you. I agree. I think they should. I'm in the camp that I think 100% criminal immunity isn't going to make it, but I'm not so sure about the 14th amendment. It only has to do with some of the, I guess, consistency issues that I've seen with this

particular court, but we will see. The default is he's on the ballot. So in both Maine and Colorado, unless a higher court weighs in. So maybe they will, maybe they won't, if they do, it'll be interesting to see what they do. But we really appreciate your insight today, Judge. Is there anything else that you would like to say to our listeners before we let you go? No, except this, Allison and Andrew, this is your and our Constitution. If the former president is to be disqualified, it's the Constitution of the United States. It is our Constitution that's disqualifying him. It's not Joe Biden, it's not the Democrats, it's not the insurrectionist

plaintiffs as Ari Fleischer said today. it's the Constitution of the United States. And that's why I've said in the past week that its democracy, its Constitution, and to the rule of law. Such an important point, Judge, and I really appreciate you coming on the show to reinforce that with our listeners and to make us smarter on all these issues. You can't thank you enough. Thank you both. I appreciate it. Yes, thank you so much, everybody. Judge Jay Michael Ludig, stick around.

We'll be right back after this brief message. Welcome back. AG, let's talk about Jack Smith's latest filing in the DC case. And that's the government's motion in limine, better known as the motion in lemonade. Now okay, as we all know, the proceedings in this case are stayed, pending the outcome of the immunity issue. You'll remember last week, Jack Smith submitted more discovery and an exhibit list. And Donald Trump's attorneys wrote back reminding the government that the

case was stayed and then informing them that they would not be accepting the production. I think they've just ignored it and it's probably still sitting on their front porch. But we're not going to read it. We're not even going to open it. How dare you do not let that box in my office. Okay. So in this new motion, DOJ opens with the following footnote, quote, the court has determined that the deadlines and the pretrial order are held in a bans, while the defendant's appeal of the denial of certain of his motions to dismiss are pending. Nonetheless, to provide the court and defendant notice and to promote the prompt of resumption of the pretrial schedule if and when the mandate returns, the government will continue to meet

its own deadlines as previously determined by the court. Yeah, little bit of a slapback there to the to the drug lawyers. Right. Dear Molly and what was it? Windom, Liam John, right? John, dear Molly and John. Dear, when don't you John, right? John, dear Molly and John, dear John, he wrote a dear John letter, literally. That's right, that's exactly right.

So motion and limine asks a judge to exclude certain inadmissible evidence and testimony before the trial begins. Each side knows what's off limits. So this is a way of like ahead of time setting up the boundaries. Like a prosecutor will come in and say, you know, judge, you shouldn't let the, let the defendant introduce any testimony about X because X is not relevant and it's prejudicial and it'll make the take the jury off in the wrong direction. And so please tell them now ahead of time you can't

talk about X. That's basically how it works. In this case, in this filing, DOJ says, evidence is not relevant upon a party's mere say-so. It must be connected to the charges in the indictment or to a legitimate defense supported by sufficient evidence, see United States versus Easter Day. And the proponent of the evidence bears the burden of establishing relevancy. That's from United States versus Ozegra Gonzalez. With that in mind, Jack Smith asks Judge Chutkin to prevent three main categories of evidence and argument. Yep. He sure does. First category is evidence and argument that does not bear on guilt or innocence, which is basically everything that Donald Trump says.

DOJ writes, following his indictment in the district, a defendant has made unsupported and politicized claims of selective and vindictive prosecution, indicated that he intends to explore irrelevant issues related to the government's investigation, and complained that the grand jury's indictment and the court's trial date will interfere with his political activities. None of these issues goes to the defendant's guilt or innocence. All of them should be excluded. So I'm taking that he does not hold a high opinion of the of the Defendants anticipated defenses. First up, the court should prohibit the defendant from introducing evidence, making

arguments or framing questions to advance a theory of selective or vindictive prosecution or to otherwise improperly inject politics into the trial. The defendant has levied the false accusation that the indictment returned by a grand jury of citizens of this district on a finding of probable cause. Oh, yes. That was directed by the current president as a form of election interference. In addition to being wrong, these allegations are irrelevant to the jury's determination of the defendant's guilty innocence would be prejudicial if presented to the jury and must be excluded.

And then DOJ cites usv arm strong here saying quote, a selective prosecution claim is not a defense on the merits to the criminal charge itself. And he goes on to say for the same reasons the defendant should be precluded from raising irrelevant political issues or arguments in front of the jury. Next up, because you know, some vindictive selective prosecution is something that you figure out pre trial,rial, but pre-trial motions. If you're denied, then you shut up about it. You can't bring it into court.

That's right. That's right. You may try to raise it again on appeal if you're convicted, but, hey, let's hear that in round three, four, whatever that is. So those are the kinds of things that the prosecution team would object to if Trump tried to bring them up, provided Judge Chuck can hear once the trial is no longer in advance, grants these motions in lemonade. Now, next up, Jack Smith says, quote, the court should prohibit the defendant from trying to

baselessly inject politics into the trial in the name of, quote, impeaching the, quote, investigation. No sn snarked there. Through his groundless demand for discovery of evidence regarding investigative misconduct in quotes, the defendant has suggested that he intends to impeach the integrity of the investigation by raising holy false claims, such as the government's non-existent quote, coordination with the Biden administration, unquote, and other empty allegations recycled from the selective and vindictive prosecution motion that he based on anonymous sources in newspaper articles.

Wow. A guy told me some guy called me with tears in his eyes. He said, sir, it's a vindictive prosecution. He was crying. Although he goes on to say, although the defendant is entitled to cross examine the government's law enforcement witnesses about matters fairly within the scope of their direct testimony, he cannot raise wholly irrelevant topics in an effort to confuse and distract the jury. Much as the defendant would like it otherwise, this trial should be about the facts and the law, not politics. That's not fun. That really is not okay. Booring. You would never be, you would never

beat the apprentice. Also, the court should prohibit the defendant from arguing to the jury any legal issues properly reserved for the court, meaning his immunity, his double jeopardy, and first amendment claims. Any attempt to suggest or argue that to the jury that it should acquit him based on principles of immunity or the first amendment would use SERP the court's role to decide legal issues and invite impermissible jury nullification. So these are things for the court to decide, not for the jury, shut your mouth. That's right. And the court should prohibit evidence questions or arguments regarding potential consequences of the defendant's criminal case, consequences, stuff like how the election would be impacted

or his personal profession or his finances, how that would be impacted. There's our aren't ever considered in any other criminal trial and they shouldn't be considered here either. So that is something else he wants to keep out of court. I'm just imagining, and I know this is crazy because he probably doesn't read any of this stuff, but could you imagine what's Trump's reaction if he reads this filing? Like, oh my God, I can't say anything.

This is everything I was gonna say. That's all my stuff, that's everything I have. Okay. In category number two. So the second category that Jack Smith seeks to exclude is irrelevant and prejudicial evidence and argument regarding January 6, 2021. So DOJ writes, throughout this litigation and his end in his public comments, the defendant has sought to blame others for the attack on the Capitol for which he is responsible, including law enforcement, military forces, unidentified secret agents, and foreign influence. The defendant should be precluded from introducing within the courtroom the disinformation he

has propagated outside of it. I like that line. May I meet you? Under this category, Jaxmith seeks to exclude evidence regarding agency preparation for and responses on January 6th. He says the defendant has signals his intention to blame the events of January 6th on the Capitol Police, the National Guard, and the District's mayor. This defense strategy is factually false and precluded by the rules of evidence.

As a legal matter, the alleged shortcomings of law enforcement do not sanction the defendant's criminal conduct. A bank robber cannot defend himself by blaming the bank security guard for failing to stop him. A fraud defendant cannot claim to the jury that his victims should have known better than to fall for this scheme. And the defendant cannot argue that law enforcement should have prevented the violence he caused and obstruction he intended.

Strong words. They are not pulling any punches. No, that's what happens when you write them a letter saying we're not going to accept your discovery. The next motion really punches you right in the nose. Apparently, that's the way that works. Okay, also under this category, the court should exclude evidence regarding

purported undercover officers or government sources at the Capitol. Quote, in cases in this district in which January six defendants have sought to use such evidence, courts have found that such evidence is irrelevant unless defendants can establish that an undercover actor affected the defendant's actions or mental state. There is certainly no evidence that the defendant here had contact with or knew of any undercover actor anywhere on January 6th, and certainly not at the Capitol, where the defendant promised

his supporters he would join them. No such actor, therefore, quote, could have affected or did affect his conduct or state of mind. I think that's a really interesting analysis. Obviously relying on direct precedent from this district, which is always a good thing, but it really gets to the heart of this issue. Like this smoking mirror is about, oh, FBI informants, they were all FBI informants, they weren't really Trump supporters.

That's not an actual legal defense. That's right. So like, unless a January 6th defendant, like a boots on the ground defendant was like, well, I ran into this guy and I was going to go home, but he told me to break this window with my fist. Right. Exactly.

And crush this officer in a door. You have to identify the alleged secret agent. You have to, and what they told you and how, what they told you or what they did or what they showed you impacted your mental state. That's clearly that's never going to happen here. So the following goes on to say, allowing the defendant to introduce evidence about undercover actors would inevitably lead to confusing many trials on collateral issues such as the identities and intentions of the alleged undercover actors. For example, it may require the government to introduce evidence to show that people whom the defendant alleges were undercover actors actually were his vehement supporters. It's the hall of mirrors this guy. I love that. I love that. It's like we

would have to have these mini trials and we would embarrass him. That's right. That's right. So next, Jack Smith was to exclude evidence of alleged foreign influence. I love this part. And they say, the defendant is indicated that he intends to introduce evidence of foreign influence in the 2020 presidential election to show that one, he was personally tricked by foreign disinformation and or two, the January 6 riot resulted from, quote, efforts by foreign actors to influence public opinion. Close quote.

Such evidence should be excluded as irrelevant and a confusing side show. As to any claim that the defendant was fooled by foreign influence, absent a concrete showing that the defendant won relied in good faith on two specific foreign disinformation when three making a particular false claim such evidence will be irrelevant to the defendant's mens rea and will only distract the jury from issues properly before it.

Next, any argument that foreign actors rather than the defendant and his ceaseless knowingly false claims of election fraud were responsible for inflaming his followers and causing the capital riot is nothing more than an infirm third party guilt defense. The defendant has not pointed to a single piece of evidence indicating that foreign influence rather than his own lies, motivated rioters on January 6th. And in any event, whether others be they civilians or foreign actors said untrue things on the internet does not exonerate the defendant for the lies that he told to his followers or the criminal steps he took to illegally retain power. Jack Smith also wants to exclude evidence of post crime changes to election law. And this would include arguing the fact that we had to shore up the Electoral

Count Act. And that somehow proves that he's innocent. I'm so glad that he brought this up. I've been talking about this ever since like Susan Collins was like, I love the idea of shoreing up the Electoral Count Act. And Ted Cruz was like, yeah, we should shore up the Electoral Count Act. And Ted Cruz was like, yeah, we should shore up the Electoral Count Act. I'm like, they're setting up a defense. They're setting up a vague statutory defense that the ECA was so confusing and vague. And Trump has tweeted this or put it out on true social so many

times, we had to update the law. It's so confusing and vague. We had to update it. So I couldn't have broken it It was broken not me. I didn't think you did out And I've been saying about to understand yeah from the jump man So I'm so glad that he wants to exclude that ridiculous argument from trial The final category of evidence Jack Smith wants to exclude is a miscellaneous category other improper evidence This is big it includes inadmissible testimony regarding the defendant's alleged state of mind. Jack Smith says the defendant's state of mind during the charge conspiracies will be a key issue at trial. Both parties will introduce circumstantial evidence of the defendant's state of mind and the defendant may choose to testify

himself about his own state of mind, right? But the defendant should be precluded from a listening speculative testimony from any witness other than himself about the defendant's state of mind or beliefs about the election on or his claims of election fraud. In the particular circumstances here, such testimony would go to an ultimate issue before the jury's consideration and it would be speculative, unhelpful to the jury, unfairly prejudicial and should thus be excluded. So that means he can't be like, well, Rick Grinnell here says that I believed I lost, you know, you can't.

And Jimmy Tushu's from down the street who I saw at breakfast this morning, he says he thinks I really believed it. There's no limit to the number of witnesses that he could attempt to drag in front of the jury to say all kinds of unfounded things about, oh yeah, I follow him on Twitter and for my reading of his Twitter, this is what I think he believed.

So I think they're trying to cut that one off at the pass. They may, I don't know, I'm not sure they'll get it, but I think it's a point well raised. Yeah, some of these things, I'm sure, at least I've seen before, as the judge is like, I'm not going to bar it now, but we'll deal with it when it gets to court. Yeah. Yeah. I mean, they're taking a very aggressive tack here.

They're taking a cleaver to the heart of a lot of Trump's likely defenses. And if they get, if they get rulings on half of this stuff, they'll have made a lot of Trump's likely defenses. And if they get, if they get rulings on half of this stuff, they'll have made a lot of progress. Yeah, I'm reminded of Hunter Biden's motion in lemonade saying that they don't want any evidence presented at trial that shows that Hunter Biden was living a lavish lifestyle. Right. And that reminded me of Manafort's lavish lifestyle. style. Right. And that reminded me of Manifort's lavish lifestyle. And the prosecution in the Manifort case wanted to bring that in. And of course, Manifort didn't want it brought in. And the judge in that case said, let's deal with it at trial. And then when trial happened, and they started showing the ostrich jacket and the two million dollar suits and on the shoes

and the whatever, the judge was like, all right, enough. You know, his lavish lifestyles not on trial here. And the prosecutor was like, okay. And so they went forward. So that's how a lot of this stuff works out. Being it being barred pre trial is a pretty tough hill to climb. But that doesn't mean it won't be objected to and sustained during the trial. Right. Now, last in the miscellaneous category

is cross-examination attempting to elicit irrelevant protected information. And this is really interesting. Jack Smith says, the government anticipates calling witnesses with knowledge of information protected by certain privileges, including attorney client privilege,

and the speech or debate privilege. Oh, look at that. If questioned about such information, those witnesses reasonably could assert the privilege that attaches. The defendant should be precluded from questioning witnesses about otherwise protected information on cross-examination unless he receives pre-clearance from the court. So basically, Andrew, if Trump lawyers cross- lawyers cross examine someone and ask them something they know they can't answer because of a privilege. It could look like that witness lacks candor or is hiding something from the jury, which would cause undue prejudice. So they want preclearance on that. Let's talk a little bit about the privilege here because it makes sense the attorney client privilege They're gonna bring a lot of lawyers in they're gonna bring probably sip the Pat's sip alone in Philbin

Hirschman, you know, and then Trump you Trump's lawyers could ask Hirschman like Well, what did you talk with Trump about or you know when you had a discussion with so and so what did you say and then Hirschman would have to say That's attorney client privilege information. I can't give that. And that could make the jury think, oh, he's not forthcoming. Yeah, it's almost kind of like a witness invoking their fifth amendment privilege in front of the grand jury. It's entirely, it's lawful, it's appropriate. It's, that's your right.

But it also leaves a, a, a bad taste in the mouth of the grand jurors that you are worried about some criminal liability, my face. This is a slightly more relaxed version of that. I think you've teed it up well. Anybody who invokes a privilege in front of the jury inevitably leads those jurors to start drawing conclusions about why aren't they talking more freely? Why aren't they being forthcoming? and conclusions about why aren't they talking more freely? Why aren't they being forthcoming? As far as the attorney client privilege, it could, as you said, there could be any number of attorneys.

I would likely will be a bunch of attorneys who end up testifying. And so if they're asked questions about communications they had with people that were clients, then they would have to invoke the privilege. But it also applies to any of those other people who have attorneys, it could be just random joe witness who happens to hire an attorney to help him prepare

for this appearance or advise him on it or whatever. And if Trump's attorneys phrase the question in a particular way that calls for, well, did you ask your attorney if you'd done anything wrong? Right. Right. Then the person, the witness has to say or can say, well, what I said to my attorney is

privileged and I'm not going to share that with you. Then the jury is like, oh, maybe he did ask if he'd done something wrong and the attorney said he had. So there's all kinds of ways that attorney client privilege could cause that problem. Then the other, frankly, more interesting one is speech and debate. It looks like somebody's planning to put some members of Congress on the way to stand, right? Yeah.

And a lot of folks on Twitter like, ooh, are they going to call Marjorie Taylor Green? Or are they going to put Rep Scott Perry up there? And I'm not so sure about that. I think these will probably be more friendlies. Of course. And a lot of people kind of forget, there was a whole battle for speech or debate privilege with the former vice president, Mike Pence.

That is right. He didn't have to hand over his discussions with the Senate parliamentarian about the, or his lawyer about the language that he was changing when he, you know, called for the envelopes to open and count. He changed that language. He had discussions with the Senate parliamentarian. Judge Barrel House said, that's um, speech or debate. That's covered by the privilege because you were acting in your role as president of the Senate that day. So I think that a lot of this probably has to do with pens because they don't want on cross-examination

Trump to ask pens about discussions he had with his lawyer or discussions he had with the parliamentarian under either the privileged speech or debate privilege or the attorney client privilege to try to impeach the former vice president as a witness. So that's one person that comes right to the front of my mind with the speech or debate issue. Yeah, and I think that's the most, that's really the most challenging one, right? Because that, the line of that's what's protected by speech or debate and what's not for

Pence. If you get right down, you, you very well would want to ask him questions about what he said, what he did, people he talked to on January 6th while he was trying to certify the election. And he's going to have to weave in and out of that very carefully. In A.D. Hymie claims the privilege than the defense attorneys are like, oh, you're telling the government, but you won't tell us. It kind of makes it look one-sided and kind of like a rigged game. Certainly, a juror could conclude that. So, yeah, this is an interesting one. I also thought it was notable that what he asked for was not that it be absolutely prohibited and excluded from trial, but that

he has to pre-clear it first. It's almost an acknowledgement that like, this is a big ask, it's going to be challenging. We know we're going to have to fight over this later. I'm just putting it on your radar now so we can be all you know unnoticed of it. Yeah and I imagine the judge is going to be like there's simply no wave that anyone can pre-clear every question they could think to ask during cross-examination. So I'm not going to... I imagine she will not require a pre-ance, but again, that it will be something that will happen at in trial as it happens. And then of course, I think she will also say, I will be instructing the jury not to take a negative inference

when somebody has to give those, because I've seen this happen in court, right? They let them ask the questions and then they object and then they're sustained and then the jury is told, do not, you know, or given the instructions, you may not, you shall not hold a negative inference for anybody who didn't answer questions

under these privileges. Right. That's kind of how I probably see this going. Cause to outright just ban everything or have pre-clearance on every question, it's not possible. It's kind of not feasible. But you, you know, this is the motions in limited.

You ask for the moon and you get the stars. That's exactly it's like an negotiation, right? You don't ask for what you want. You ask for twice what you want. You know, you settle somewhere waiting to what you need. Yep. Yep. All right.

We have a couple of listener questions in a quick update down in the Mar-a-Lago documents case, but we have to take a quick break and a quick update down in the Mar-a-Lago documents case, but we have to take a quick break. Everybody stick around. We'll be right back. Bum, bum, bum,ileen Cannonland, also known as Palm Beach County, Florida. The place prosecutions go to stall. The trial will be in 2028. All right, so there's an oddly enough a speedy trial report to down in Florida.

And here's what it said. This is filed by the Department of Justice. In a footnote, counsel for defendants, Nauta, Trump, and Dale Lavera reviewed this filing and have authorized the government to represent that they concur with it. You're agreement? We have an agreement. You know, it's the holiday season. It's a time for peace and joy. And so even the most warring clans come together and join hands over a speedy trial report. Yes. Yes. It is Max and the Grinch.

The Grinch and his dog have come together. Right. All right. So, so Jack Smith writes, pursuant to local rule 88.5 and the court's omnibus order setting trial date and establishing pre-trial instructions and sentencing procedures, both of which require the filing of speedy trial reports, the US hereby files this speedy trial report regarding the status of this case under the speedy trial act of 1984. That's Title 18, US Code Section 3161.

That's Title 18 US Code Section 3161. Number one, in its July 21st order, granting in part the government's motion to continue trial and resetting deadlines, the court excluded all of the time between the date of that order and the trial date May 20th, 2024. By order, dated August 21st, 2023, the court extended its earlier order to defendant Dayola Vera. And last, by order dated September 13th, 2023, the court confirmed that the same speedy trial clock applies to each defendant. Everybody's included. Of course, that it has been told until May 20th, 2024, and that 70 days remain on the speedy trial clock. So that's it. 70 days out of 100. Is it 190? Oh, I think it's nice. I don't want to guess because I'll be wrong, but it's one of the two. I mean,

you know, only I think it's 100 and I think only 30 days now have told in the speedy trial clock. And it is told until May 20th, 2024. And just to be clear, time that's excluded is time that actually happened in real life but doesn't count against the speedy trial clocks. It's like free time, it's like time out. Yeah, suspended animation. And tolling is the same thing. So yeah, basically this court is the place

where time doesn't happen. Basically. Yes, this is what I mean. I feel like when I started reading this, I thought I wouldn't be surprised if it's really short. If the entirety of the report is, nothing is happening and everything's too slow, yours truly, Jack Smith. Yeah, well, considering the indictment, it was six months ago or something.

And only 30 days have told on the speedy trial clock, that tells you a lot. Right. It's rough. So that's all that we have. We don't have any decisions on any of the other motions. Like we're waiting for that seep a section for you know how Trump wants to get in on the X part A in camera action and wants now to and Dale Rivera be able to see all the classified documents. We don't have a decision on that yet. Roger.

We'll update you when we get it sometime next year. So what do we have this week for questions, Andy? Well, I'm glad you asked as I am every week. Great questions this week. Again, awesome comments, people who are just writing and things that they think about the show. I'm gonna read one of, just a shout out really to a listener from Hungary named Andras,

who sent us a really long note, which I won't read the whole thing here, but Andras listens to every Jack episode from where he lives in Hungary. And I just wanna say thank you for your amazing note. Congratulations on your improving health and keep up the good fight, Andres, stay strong. 100%.

Yeah. So, okay, now moving on to the question, is a real global feel to this week's listener's question, because now we have Michael. And Michael starts with holiday greetings from an American listener living in Milan, Italy. I have a question about the timing of sentencing. In short, how much time typically elapses in a criminal trial between when a jury reaches

a guilty verdict and when the sentencing occurs? If the jury in the chuck in case were to return a guilty verdict at the end of April, for example, when would the sentencing likely happen before the Republican convention, or at least before Election Day? Grazie. Keep up the good work. sentencing likely happen before the Republican Convention or at least before election day, Grazie, keep up the good work. The lawyer answer is it depends. Right. Yes, thank you.

With that, I will sign out. I've done my work here. Yes, it depends. And unfortunately, for this question, it depends on a lot of different things that are almost different in every single case. So the first thing that you look to see what's happening is whether or not the defendant was in jail or out of jail before trial, like pending trial. In this case, of course, how it will apply to the former president, he is of course not held in custody pre-trial.

So defendants who are not held in custody, technically as soon as they're convicted, they can be sentenced and put in jail. But typically, even a non-custodial defendant who gets convicted, there's first they have to conduct a pretrial report, which is done by the probation office, as part of the federal courts, every district has one. And that preparation of that report and it includes a lot of information

that's relevant to sentencing, well mitigating and, exacerbating evidence, things that speak to not guilt, but the defendants and now convicts circumstances, right? So that's like when, with the, for example, the oath keepers, when they, the DOJ, entered their sentencing recommendations, they had like a enhancement for domestic terrorism.

Right. That kind of stuff, or is this more? Or it could be even more mundane stuff like, then, okay, this is different because it's the Trump case and everyone in the world knows about it. But in the average federal criminal case, the judge doesn't really know anything about the defendant. This is the opportunity for the defendant to learn, hey, this person is married or single. They have no kids or five kids.

They have held down a job or they haven't. Also prior convictions, so they have a rap sheet as long as your arm or is this the first time they've ever been convicted of anything? And if they have prior convictions, where they have violent you know, a rap sheet as long as your arm or is this the first time they've ever been convicted of anything? And if they have our convictions, where they for violent offenses, all these things have an impact on the actual computation of the Senate's the insubligation. And the money stuff, right? That's right.

All the money stuff has to do with like what, you know, they're, what their conditions for bond and restitution, all kinds of things like that. So we had to pay a $250 million Discouragement fine. Yes. their conditions for bond and restitution, all kinds of things like that. So the way the judge gets it. So he had to pay a $250 million Discouragement fine. Yes. That would come up then. Sure. So the way the judge finds out officially all that information is from the pre-sentence

report that can take a while to put together. Once the judge has that, there's also some, you know, the sentence can essentially take, sentencing can take place anytime after that. Some defendants will move to delay sentencing for one reason or another. If the defendant is appealing the conviction, sometimes and all depending on the defendant, what you've been convicted for, what your record looks like, and whether or not it's a violent offense, all that stuff, the judge might leave you out during the dependency of that appeal. Steve Bannon, perfect example.

He's still out, I think, right? I don't think he is. He's been sent in New York before he's put in jail for a trip to New York before he ever gets sent in. Some defendants who cooperate with the federal government and then plead guilty, their sentencing is typically delayed until their cooperation is concluded.

And some of those guys, like an organized crime case is that can go on for years and years before their ever sentence. So there's a lot of stuff that can go in. Yeah, Matt Gates' buddy was put off for like two and a half years or something like that. Yeah, Greenberg. Joel Greenberg? Yeah, yeah, yeah.

And he got sentenced for, you know, no joke. It wasn't like some simple financial fraud. He was 11 years. Looking at serious times. So there's a lot to kind of fact it. I don't think anyone's going to rush to get this one done. I think it's unrealistic to expect even if the DC case goes before the trial, concludes before the trial, and if Trump is convicted, I think it's unlikely he'll be sentenced before

the election. I think so too. And that is, I think, probably going to be another source of a lot of people being very angry at the pace of investigations. Probably. The goal here, I believe, for Jack Smith, is to have the case tried before the election. And whether it ends in an acquittal or a conviction, that's, I believe, the goal to do that. I honestly don't think he's taking the election into consideration. I think he's operating off of the idea that the public deserves a speedy trial and that the trial has been set for very good reasons in March. And I believe that that is why he's arguing that this

needs to be expedited. The immunity appeals have to be expedited. I know a lot of people on TV were like, well, he didn't say what he wants to say, which is that this needs to happen before the election. And I don't think he wants to say that. He's been very clear as has the judge in this case from the very beginning, that this guy's job, the election, politics, play no role in this. What plays a role is the rule of law, and the rule of law is the speedy trial act, which gives public, you know, the public, a deference to a speedy trial, and that justice to ladies, justice to night.

I think that it's all based on that. I don't think he wants to say that he wants this done before the election. That's just a little bit of a side thing that I've been thinking about because I take a little bit, I guess, umbridge with people who think that Jack Smith really wants to get this done before the election. And that's what he's operating. That's the timetable he's operating under. I don't think it is.

I think he's operating under the timetable of the law. Yeah. I think he's probably making a really considered effort to avoid tying the pursuit of this prosecution to the political process. I think that's important for appearance reasons to maintain the legitimacy of the prosecutorial effort, which has been under attack by Trump and his supporters for a long time. I do, though, kind of think that in his position that the public deserves a speedy trial, which they do on pure constitutional grounds, there is an echo of they deserve to know the outcome of this prosecution before they make their decisions about, you know, whether who's going to represent them

or who they're going to vote for. Whether that outcome is in a quiddle. Exactly. Exactly. It's as important for the public to know that he's not been convicted as it is he has been convicted. It's a it's a salient and relevant fact that every voter should be able to consider in whichever way they choose to consider it.

And so kind of maintaining the importance of that, but also trying to keep the prosecution out of the political process, that's a tough balance. I think he's done it pretty well so far. Yeah, I think so too. And I do agree with that. I mean, I'm not saying that it's not on his mind at all.

Right. But yeah, I think that he believes that the public deserves either a conviction or a acquittal so that they can make their choice. They can have a more informed choice. But yeah, to imagine that Donald Trump will be in prison before the election, I think is not going to happen. I do think he will be sentenced to jail. At some point, I do think that I because of the repeated calls of no one's above the law and we're not treating him any special any different or any special more special than anybody else any other criminal defendant

but the sentencing process is long It takes a long time. I've had a lot of folks say gosh, why is it? Why is it six months from now? That's BS blah blah blah. Yeah, and it's there's a lot of stuff that has to be done. Yeah, a lot of due process for the defendant. You got to find out how much money to make you got to find out what the priors are. You got to put together a sentencing memo. You got to look up on the thing and They get to breathe. They get complicated in the easiest case. This is not an easy case. There's all kinds of factors like if you're going to send in some to to incarceration, where do you do that? How can you do that safely for a former president? So in any case, we could we could do another

whole show on this. I think it's a while off. So Michael and all your friends in Milan should just kind of buckle in. We had a long way to go Absolutely and a big thanks to judge James Michael. It's huge joining us today. I feel so much smarter. I learned I haven't listened to him. It's great. So 100% Yes, excellent guys. Thank you so much everybody for listening. We will be back in your years in the new year next Sunday Everybody have a safe and happy new year and we really appreciate you in your ears in the new year. Next Sunday, everybody have a safe and happy new year, and we really appreciate you listening to us for this past year. It's been super educational for me, and of course, you know, just thank you so much Andy for co-hosting

this show with me. I really appreciate it, and I just wanted to to say that and thank you to all of listeners too. Well, thank you, A.G. And I thank you on behalf of myself and all the listeners for all the work that you do in putting this show and all all the MSW shows together do an amazing job. And I have become smarter as a result of my conversations with you. So it's been a great year and big up to the audience. Our listeners have a great and safe new year. And we will be back with you next week.

I'm Andy McCabe. And I'm Allison Gill.