Jack - Episode 61 | Expert Witness List

Episode Date: January 28, 2024

Before the E. Jean Carroll damages were announced it looked like Trump was having a pretty ok week. His DC trial is stayed; Jack Smith filed a list of expert witnesses in the Mar-a-Lago case; and the prosecution in Fulton County is getting some bad press.Representative Barry “Look-at-that-beautiful-sconce” Loudermilk seems to want to get the names of some White House personnel who testified to the January 6 Committee with the guarantee that their names would remain anonymous.Plus another great listener question. AMICI 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.pdfGood 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 MaterialBrady 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%20guiltJenksJencks Material | Thomson Reuters Practical Law Glossaryhttps://content.next.westlaw.com/Glossary/PracticalLaw/I87bcf994d05a11e598dc8b09b4f043e0?transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default)Gigliohttps://definitions.uslegal.com/g/giglio-information/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

MSOW Media I signed an order appointing Jack Smith 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! Hey everybody, welcome to episode 61 of Jack, the podcast about all things special counsel. It's Sunday, January 28th, 2024. I'm Allison Gill. And I'm Andy McCabe. Well, all right Allison, we've been at this for 61 weeks now and we once again have a lot to cover this week, including an entry in the Mar-a-Lago documents case from Jack Smith, which included some information about six expert FBI witnesses that he plans to put on the stand-to-trial. As of now, that trial is scheduled to begin in May, but in all likelihood, that will almost definitely get delayed.

Yeah, totally. There's also an open motion out there for Trump to unseal some supplemental classified filings that he made as part of his wild and overly broad non-material motion to compel discovery. You all remember he filed one in DC, he filed one down in Florida basically asking for every single document and everything anyone's ever said from any agency ever about the best president ever, Donald John Trump. And he wants it all. And it's like, that's not how you compel discovery. But he had a couple of classified briefings, classified, I guess, addendums or supplementals to that motion to compel, filed on the docket down in Florida. He wants them to be filed publicly with some redactions.

Jack Smith didn't have a problem with that. We'll talk about, we'll bring you all up to speed because there's some more filings in that. And then in DC, the circuit court, the DC circuit court has denied Trump's motion to rehear the limited gag order issued by Judge Chutkin on bonk, right, which means by the full panel. And the Biden White House has agreed to provide four unredacted January 6th committee transcripts to representative Barry Loudermilk, okay?

But something Andy is conspicuously missing from our show today. And what might that be? The DC Circuit Court decision on absolute immunity, the monarchy motion and double jeopardy. This will be our third show since the hearings without a decision. I should say the hearing, there was one.

That's right. That's right. Three weeks of Tuesday. Don't want to rub it in or anything, but okay, now I'm just not going to, I'm only going to finish that sentence. You won the bet. Yes, you won the bet. Yes, you're very sick, Corey. I thought we'd have it by the first Friday. We did not. We didn't.

Nor the second, now, nor the third. Now the third is passing and still no response, no ruling from the court. But that's okay. We're still here and we'll be ready whenever it arrives. Yes, and I am feverishly refreshing Pacer. So we'll see what ends up happening there. But that's where I want to start today is that it's missing. We don't have it yet. But before we do that, let's do

this new segment that we've brought up called Good Week Bad Week, Andrew, where you tell me for Jack Smith and for Donald Trump, are they having a good week or a bad week? All right. So I'm gonna go with Trump had a good week once again. And here's why. Basically because first and foremost, no response yet, no ruling from the court. So in all likelihood, that ruling is not going to go his way. So the fact that he didn't get it yet means the bad news for him has been suspended another week.

That's sad. When it's a good week for you, when you haven't gotten a huge loss from the DC circuit court. Yeah. It's like knowing the bully down the street is going to punch you next time you see him and then you just don't see him for another week. You're like, hey, I know I'm getting punched at some point, but it didn't happen this week. So that's good. Also, I mean, in practical terms, it means it's another week of delay for him.

It's another week burned with really no progress in the Gen 6 case. So I think it's been a good week for him so far on that grounds. And of course, when you look at Marlago, decent week there, nothing really has happened to move the ball forward there either. So again, like every day that ticks by that he that he is able to burn without getting really any closer is a good week for him. And then finally, of course, you know, look at Georgia, Georgia seems to be in disarray right now over this crazy story about Fonny Willis's deputy, who she hired, who's going through a divorce.

And now they're they're alleging that she's in a relationship with him. And who knows what's going to happen to that thing. But I mean, all these delay and chaos in these trials, all good news for Trump. So I think it's been a good week for him. Yep. And what about Jack Smith? I don't think it's been a bad week. I think it's been a quiet week for the special counsel team. Doesn't mean they're not working.

I'm sure they're burning the Mid-Eight Oil. They've got two massive cases that are rambling at one speed or another towards trial, and there's a lot, a lot, a lot of work. Investigative work, preparation work, stuff like that, preparing witnesses to do. I'm sure they're still doing that, but they're doing it quietly right now, which is probably decent for them to kind of keep their heads down for a little bit. Yeah. And we'll see some of that later. When we talk about these six FBI witness, expert witnesses that he plans on bringing

in the Mar-a-Lago documents case at least, of course, like you said, nothing can be filed on the DC docket with Judge Chuckin's ruling that, you know, everybody would need leave, of course, permission to file anything on that from here on out. I have the exact same answer, Andy. I think Trump had a good week in that he didn't, we didn't get the DC circuit court ruling.

And I think Jack's week has just been meh, like not good, not bad, just there. Right down the middle, right down the middle. Now that's just in relation to what's going on in the Jack Smith investigations. If you add in everything else that's happening, this is a very, very bad week for Donald Trump. Yeah, sure.

But I mean, the jury right now as we speak is deliberating in the second E. Gene Carroll case, which is called E. Gene 1, actually. He could get a ruling from Judge Engorron and the New York Attorney General's $370 million civil fraud trial at any moment. By the end of this month, he could owe hundreds of millions of dollars to different people. So it's a very, very bad week for him in general. But as far as Jack Smith stuff goes, he's got the DC trial stayed. He's basically got the Mar-a-Lago trial stayed because of Eileen Cannon. So yeah, he's doing okay. He is. And let's not forget that on the week that he won the New Hampshire

primary, he managed to turn that into absolute misery, ranting and raving about Nikki Haley's dress and kicking people out of the MAGA camp. So, you know, he, he managed to find the bad in every week. And threatened to indict her, I guess, on little stuff. I don't even know what that means. Yeah. It's so crazy So crazy. I think that's just like some mob

Stuff right like you know, I've got the dirt on you and I will use it I you know, it's just something very bad could happen to you. You know, whatever. Okay fine. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah She's gonna go through some things right? Yeah, so let's talk about this missing DC circuit, okay decision because on the merits, just strictly on the merits, we should have had a decision fairly quickly, but there's a lot of other stuff going on, right? And I penned an article on post about what could be taking so long. And first, I want to be clear, three weeks is not technically a long time in the world.

It is not. It still would be very fast. It's just, I feel like the fact that we're all just waiting for it every day and that each day that goes by is another day that the DC trial is delayed makes it seem like it's been forever. But also it's on an expedited basis, right? Yeah. But three weeks is not a long time in this universe. The gag order appeal for the limit, you know, the limited gag order, I don't call it a gag order. Mm-hmm. That took 45 days to get a ruling and they were all in concurrence. So, you know, but that's not under an approved expedited

briefing schedule. And the immunity issue is. So we were both expecting a ruling by last episode, but here we are a week later and we still don't have a ruling. As we record this episode, we record Friday afternoon. So why is that? Now, perhaps the three judges aren't on the same page. And again, not about the merits, not about immunity. I'm pretty sure they all agree. Trump has no absolute immunity here. But Henderson, Judge Henderson and Judge Pan seem to have a difference of opinion on jurisdiction, right?

Yep. So Pan indicated in her questioning that the Midland asphalt precedent saying that immunity isn't subject to interlocutory review? Yeah, right. So remind our listeners Midland basically said there's a strong preference against interlocutory appeals, right? They want people to be, to the trial to go forth and conclude, and then you appeal all your issues at once.

And so it set these kind of thresholds for a very limited number of things that could be appealed on an interlocutory basis. They didn't specifically call out this issue, determining whether or not presidents have limitless immunity as one of those eligible for interlocutory appeals. Yeah, exactly. So Pan seemed to think this should just, you can try for your immunity thing after you're convicted, if you're convicted, after the trial. So she asked the Department of Justice why they weren't arguing that because American Oversight filed an amicus brief arguing this.

Trump's lawyers argued against it, but the DOJ was also arguing against it. And Judge Pan couldn't understand that. She was like, why would you do this to yourself? We could give you a win right now. And DOJ was like, we have to do what's right by the law. It would be improper if you dismissed this fully and remanded it back to Judge Chuckin on Midland, using the Midland thing. What he wanted, what I think his name was Pierce, the lawyer arguing for Jack Smith's team. He said, it'd be more proper if you reached hypothetical jurisdiction if you have questions about it

and rule.use the hypothetical jurisdiction to rule on the merits. Like, all right, let's pretend we have jurisdiction here. If we have jurisdiction, we think the merits are stupid. You know, that's kind of how the hypothetical jurisdiction doctrine works. It's almost like an in the alternative argument, right? It's like we're the hypothetical jurisdiction doctrine works. It's almost like an in the alternative argument. It's like we're covering all of our bases. And I think that their position, it seems strange, maybe it'll turn out to have been not a good decision.

But I think their decision was based on this idea that because of the totally uniqueness of this motion, it's like no one else in the world could really bring this same issue in the way a former president can. It's not fair if, in fact, he has the immunity he claims to have, then it's not fair to put him through a trial only to later determine that he was immune from these charges and from this trial.

Right? Exactly. So, I mean, you gotta give them credit for taking the high road, whether that proves to have been a strategic error, I guess we'll find out. Yeah, and we don't yet know the ruling, but Judge Henderson, who is kind of weird, she was actually the sole vote against an expedited appeal, right? When Jack Smith said, can we expedite this?

This three-judge panel, two of them said, can we expedite this? This three judge panel, two of them said, yes, but Henderson said, no, but she was outvoted. Sure. Yep. And she expressed during the hearing almost three weeks ago that Midland asphalt was a mere suggestion, not precedent, seeming to suggest that the argument for jurisdiction was kind of... Yeah. The argument that there is jurisdiction for them to hear this motion is strong, is valid. Exactly.

Right. Where Pan was kind of like, we don't have jurisdiction. She seemed reluctant. Yeah. Henderson was like, yeah, we do. Now, they didn't say it directly, but that's kind of what I was implying through their questions. Even though Pan and Henderson probably both agree that Trump loses on the Now, they didn't say it directly, but that's kind of what I was implying through their questions. And even though Pan and Henderson probably both agree that Trump loses on the merits, they may have a dispute about how to establish jurisdiction here. So if Pan

and Childs, that's the other judge, the third judge, agree on jurisdiction and outvote Henderson, a disagreement on jurisdiction in their ruling might actually give the Supreme Court a reason to grant cert, right? Which could delay the proceeding even further. Now, there could be disagreements on the merits as well, namely whether the double jeopardy argument deserves interlocutory review, but that's jurisdictional again. Not that it's correct just that it maybe deserves review. So, they might be sorting that all out. and finally, the reason that you and I have also

been talking about and everybody mentions, they may be crafting the ruling to be the definitive and final say on the matter, right, to avoid scotis granting cert or the full court granting a re-hearing on bonk. Those rulings work best when all three judges are in agreement. So I'm concerned they don't all agree on something here, probably jurisdiction, that's just my guess. Yeah, even if the last possibility you covered there is true, the one that you and I have been pointing to, like they're really trying to do a solid job on this and provide an opinion

that is just absolutely unassailable, even that would make it possible that if there's any variance between them on any one of these issues, they're trying to iron that out so they can go forward as a unanimous opinion because that carries more weight than a two-to-one. There's a lot of if-then's in this case, right? Do we have jurisdiction? No. If then, can we establish hypothetical jurisdiction? Yes or no? If then, if yes, do what are our decisions on the merits for double jeopardy? What are our decisions on the merits for absolute immunity? And if not, then how do we resolve the issue without having hypothetical jurisdiction?

Should we dismiss and remand back to Judge Chuckin, which would probably add to the delay as well because then she would have to come up with the reasons, etc. So I mean, there's all the flowchart for the decisions here because there's multiple issues in question is very complex, right? So you're right. If they want to be able to agree on every single point at every single step of the way through the flowchart, it's going to take a minute. Yeah. And let's remember, even though it is on an expedited track, expedited just means

faster than the normal, incredibly slow pace. So all it means, it doesn't mean like, oh, well, bam, it's going to come out tomorrow. So, you know, a month to turn this thing around, considering all the things we just discussed, is still pretty quick by court time. Yeah. Yeah. And considering the limited gag order on bonk rehearing, which was unanimous, no, which we'll get to in a minute, took 45 days. Right.

But it's not on a, it's not, that's the slow normal course of things. Right. Right. So a very complex matter where you want to get everybody in agreement and put forward a rock solid ruling. On an expedited basis, if that could come in at 30 days, that's expedited. It is. You know.

So anyway, it's frustrating because we all want things instantly in this society, but they don't do instant. No, they don't. And obviously, when we get that ruling, we will cover it in detail. I'm not going to make any more bets, but I hope we get it by next Friday. Yes, I do too. But no more bets on my part. I hope we get it by next Friday, but with a little bit of time to read the thing before

we have to sit here and talk about it. Oh, well, we'll see. Yeah, all right. Wait, refreshing pacer one more time. And nope, we don't have it yet. All right, so we're gonna go on to the B block, but we have to take a real quick break. We have a lot more news to get to.

Everybody stick around, we'll be right back. ["Dance of the Sugar Plum Fairy"] Welcome back. Okay, let's stay in DC and discuss the ruling we did get from the court, the DC Circuit Court, and that is the percurium denial of Trump's petition to have the entire panel of judges rehear the limited, don't call it a gag order issue. So that there's a lot packed in there. Let's sort through it first. So you'll remember that Jack Smith filed a motion for a limited gag order in the DC case, which would prevent Trump from commenting on potential witnesses, the court, prosecutors, prosecutors, families, all that stuff.

Now, Trump had been posting on social media about Jack Smith's wife, about the judge, about other prosecutors on the team, stuff like that, and about potential witnesses, including Mike Pence and General Mark Milley. Yeah, and Mark Meadows too, I think, yeah. Yeah, yeah, yeah. So Judge Chutkin initially awarded the limited gag order. And then of course, Trump was able to appeal the order and get a brief administrative stay. And during that two-week period, he resumed his attacks on the prosecutors and the witnesses. Like, might

as well just charge forward and keep committing the same foul. So then a three-judge panel of the D.C. Circuit Court then ruled to lift the stay on the gag order and approve the gag order, although they narrowed it a bit more, allowing Trump to make comments about Jack Smith but not about his family, that sort of thing. So the gag order was back in effect with that slightly narrower focus. Following that, Trump appealed for a re-hearing en banc. Weekly listeners will know en banc means means it's the entire DC court. There's, I think, 13 judges, right? So if you've gotten a ruling from the normal three-judge panel that you don't agree with, you can go back to the court and ask them to re-hear

the matter in front of the entire court. And that brings us up to this week. Oh, he also asked for an emergency stay as well to hold the gag order again while they decide whether or not they're going to rehear this on bunk. Right. Right. So the DC Circuit Court issued their ruling, which as we said before, took 45 days. And the ruling states, upon consideration of appellant's petition for panel re-hearing, filed December 18, 2023, and the request for administrative stay, it is ordered that the

petition be denied. It is further ordered that the request for administrative stay be denied. Per curiam. So per curiam, just to be clear, that is what the court says when they issue a decision that is not authored by an individual identified judge. Percurium just means... The whole court. Right.

Speaking for the whole court, not speaking for an individual judge. And percurium opinions are typically just announcements of a decision without including any sort of rationale or reasoning or anything like that. So this is kind of a classic percurium opinion. So that's where we stand. The don't call it a gag order is in effect and it has been imposed on Trump according to the three judge panels slightly narrower focus than what Judge Chutkin originally approved. Yeah, that's still so funny to me that we're splitting hairs on something that could have

just been like a full gag order issued where you can't talk about the case at all. And everyone's like, okay, but when and how and is the lift, is there a stay? Do we do this? Can we talk about Jack Smith's wife's brother's girlfriend? And everyone's trying to break this down. When this is one of the narrowest gag orders I've ever seen, I'm granted I'm not a lawyer. Yeah. And you know what it also highlights for me, AG, is this is a little bit of inside the

prosecution team, right? When anything comes up like this, like at the beginning of this case, when Trump was saying all these things that are very arguably you know, arguably tampering with witnesses, threatening witnesses or things that could be interpreted by witnesses to be threatening or impacting their testimony, they have a hard decision to make. Like, do they go out and request a gag order? Is it even worth it, right? Is the juice worth the squeeze?

Because what they've done by even asking for this, yeah, you've saddled yourself with like months of extra litigation. And that is a drawdown on the team's resources and time and focus. Every single one of these things brings with it the possibility of impacting the proceeding in terms of delay. Nobody wants any more of that. So they really have hard decisions to make, which suggests to me that in this case,

they felt like it was such an important principle to stand on, that they decided to take all those risks and try to get this guy's communications somewhat slightly restricted. Whether or not it was worth it, again, I don't know. I mean, I think... Well, here's the thing, right? He has not tweeted about executing Mark Milley or posted on Truth Social, I should say. He's not said anything about Mark Meadows. He's not said

anything about Jack Smith's family. He hasn't really said anything while this limited gag order has been in effect. So it appears to me to be working. Yeah, I mean I I Think that's true. I think that it's so limited But he does he does at least for now. He seems to be he seems to be observing it that could break any second Well, he could be very preoccupied with defaming Eugene Carroll Yeah, like look at that one. He's he's he's defaming her in the middle of the trial for damage to determine damages from his prior defamation. So he doesn't really care. That's why I'm kind

of shocked. It's almost it's it's like counterintuitive for me to draw the conclusion that he's actually moderated his speech about Jack Smith and these trials because of this gag order. I almost feel like it's more likely he's just been distracted like you said. He's busy with others. He's gonna get back to it at some point. He's busy with attacking others, you know. Yeah.

Just to how, there's not enough time in the day to go after everybody he wants to go after. All of his political enemies, you know, meanwhile, hundreds of people are approaching him every day with tears in their eyes, strong men with tears in their eyes, hoping that he runs again. So he's got a lot. So next steps, I assume he could ask the Supreme Court. That's the last and final frontier. He can ask the Supreme Court for an emergency stay. They may grant one for a few days while they decide whether or not to stay it fully before they deny hearing his case, because I think they will, but he can apply.

He, you know, he can petition the Supreme Court to hear this. So if, I just want to let everybody know, please, if the Supreme Court grants an emergency administrative stay, it is very temporary, okay, and they're just doing it while they decide if a full stay is appropriate, if they're even gonna hear the case. So don't be every time, Andy, every time the Supreme Court issues an administrative stay, the press is like, Jack Smith blocked in huge loss,

you know, and it's like, it'll be a few days and now granted, in those few days, I think we'll get a better idea if there is an administrative stay, I think we'll get a better idea if this is working or not because if he starts his flood of attacks while that there's a stay on the, then he has time. Then he's clearly watching. Yeah, for sure. I think it's super unlikely if he if he requests cert and goes to the Supreme Court I find it to be highly unlikely that they would take the case although there is a totally unique issue here, which is What is the impact of a stay on a person who's running for office is the gag order?

Yeah, so I'm not this not the stay, I'm sorry, the gag order. Is it permissible under the circumstances of here's a candidate running for the presidency, can you really impose a gag order on them when they believe that the prosecution itself is part of the campaign? So it's not impossible that they take it. Although I do think it's right. They're not probably looking for extra cases to get involved in this mess. And they've already got definitely one and maybe another coming their way. So yeah, they really don't want to touch any of this, I think with a no with their enemies, judiciary. But that's,

yeah, that's where we are. One other quick story before we take a break, the White House, this White House, Biden's White House has written a letter to Barry Loudermilk, okay? That's the guy who gave tours of the Capitol tunnels on January 5th, and then lied about it. I'm going to say lied, I know reporters are supposed to say, gave incorrect information. When the committee asked him about those tours, he first said, and I think multiple democratic representatives sent him letters, he first said he gave a tour to a family with two children of my constituents. Then when pressed and photos came out, he changed his story saying, oh, it was a family

and a bunch of their friends. And then it was like 16 people. And then, yes, some of them were marrying Maga hats because at first he was like, there was no Maga hats. And then it just kept changing. Uh, and, and the people who were taking photos of the tunnels from the Canon house to the Capitol, louder milk said they were really taking photos of the beautiful sconces and the stairwells.

Just a mess anyhow. Yeah. That's Loudermilk and that's what he's known for in my head. That's it. That's all he is, is that guy. Here's the letter from the Biden White House Council to Barry Loudermilk. This letter responds to your January 18th letter. So this was sent a little over a week ago.

Concerning transcripts of interviews of four witnesses who testified before the select committee. These individuals worked at the White House on January 6, 2021, during the Trump administration, serving in nonpartisan roles, including in positions with national security responsibilities. As I stated in prior letters to you, I have so many emails that start with that as per my last email. As I stated in prior letters, the witnesses testified voluntarily and in reliance on the select committee's agreement that their names, titles, past and present affiliations, and operational details would not be publicly disclosed. During those interviews, the

witnesses described their responsibilities, including with respect to national security. They described security protocols in and around the White House pursuant to the commitment made by the select committee. Chairman Thompson and Vice Chair Cheney sent the transcripts to the White House along with a letter confirming the select committee's goal to protect their identity of these individuals and honor the committee's commitment to best provide for continuing confidentiality of operational details and private information. The bipartisan letter from the select committee

asked the White House to review the transcripts, address the need for limitations on disclosure of sensitive information, and provide the transcripts to the National Archives in a manner that, quote, will become part of the historical record. It goes on to say, over four months ago, on September 6th, we provided copies of the transcripts to you with appropriate redactions to protect sensitive operational and personal information consistent with the White House's agreement with the select committee. Your most recent letter requested the transcripts in unredacted form. We will make the unredacted transcripts available to you for review in camera provided that you agree in writing

to abide by the commitments made on a bipartisan basis by the select committee to maintain the anonymity of the four witnesses. And I tell you what, he's not going to agree to this because that's all he wants, right? To maintain the anonymity of the witnesses consistent with the conditions under which the witnesses agreed to appear. So we made a contract. In fact, the Trump White House made a contract with the select committee that they wouldn't reveal their names. We have to honor that contract, right, that commitment. So you can come and review them in camera, but you have to tell us in writing you're

not going to reveal their names and private information and operational details. So if you agree to what the Trump White House agreed to, then you can come and look at them, but you can't take them with you. Yeah, he's not going to do that. These in-camera reviews, you set up the material in what we call a reading room, and then they would have to come over the reading room. It's probably not would not actually be in the White House. They usually do it at DOJ.

And so louder milk and probably one staffer or something would have to come over. They can't take any notes. They can't take any paper. They can't take laptops or anything into the room. There are photos of it, no recordings. No, they could just read it and then go away. The weird thing here is like,

he's already seen the transcripts. So he's already knows what they said. This is not a substantive inquiry. He just wants to know who they are. Yeah Do you think he can hold four names in his head? And that's a good Person camera TV. Do you think he can you probably have to shout it out to the nearest reporter? Immediately outside the room in order to get it right because by the time he got back to his office, he might be, um, he's putting together new monics in his head like, my mom loves me.

Okay. So that's an M and an M and an M. Oh no, there's three M's. Okay. Every good boy does fine. Right. Exactly. Um, I'm sorry. You know, and it's also interesting to me, like, how could this be this important? Why

is this so important for him? These are people who were working in the White House on January 6th. They are not people who were at the riot or, you know, at the Capitol, you know, ushering Mike Pence around or something. These are people who are just in the White House. So Trump's White House. Yeah. And they were there. You can talk to them as long as you don't tell everybody who they are. Yeah.

They were witnesses to what? What could they have been witnesses to? What was happening in the White House? That means mostly what Trump was doing. It wasn't really anything else going on in the White House at any. That's relevant to January 6th, other than the president's lack of action and inappropriate tweets or whatever else he was doing. But all the substance was unredacted.

Yeah. As far as we know, I think there were some operational things that he said were redacted, operational details and private information. These are definitely not witnesses that we saw in any of the hearings, right? Cause their identity's been protected from the beginning. So already they don't even seem like very significant witnesses.

So this is like some sort of, I don't know, vendetta or retribution or something. It's likely what we see from Congress all the time and the ilk of the Barry Louder Milks of the world. He wants to ask for something that he can't have so that he's... so it's denied and then he can cry about it. Yep, absolutely.

And talk about how there's no transparency. Like they wanted that 1023. They wanted the search warrant for, you know, affidavit from Mar-a-Lago. They wanted all the stuff that they generally aren't supposed to get their hands on. And then they can say, it's the deep state is hiding information from you. If they hide it from me, they're hiding it from you. You know, that's all I think. Probably.

We have a lot more to get to, but we have to take another quick break. Thank you so much, by the way, for, for listening and sticking around with us. Um, I'm going to, you know what? Every now, every time before the break, I'm in a refresh pacer. This is starting to feel desperate, just a little bit. I mean, not in a bad way, but a little bit. There's a verdict in Carol V. Trump. Oh, wow.

The jury deliberation was significantly shorter than the one in Giuliani's, which resulted in 148 million, but we don't yet have the verdict. But that's the latest. That's the latest. There's still no DC circuit court ruling. But hey, if we get that amount, we'll tell you, but we have to take a quick break. Everybody stick around. We'll be right back.

Welcome back. Okay. Welcome back. Okay, let's head down to Florida where Jack Smith has filed notice of six expert witnesses expected to testify in his case in chief whenever that happens. So, fingers crossed. In 2034. 2034. 2034, whatever. Okay. I'm kidding.

I'm exaggerating. It's probably next year. Okay. That's right. Okay. So, the first witness is identified as Gabriella Mancini and she is an information technology specialist and also a digital forensic examiner on the computer analysis response team

at the Federal Bureau of Investigation. So just a little- I'm so glad, by the way, right at this moment that you are my co-host because you know what all these titles are. Didn't you have kind of a high up job at the FBI for a while? I can't- For a little while, for a little while.

I can't remember, or you would kind of, so I'm so, so glad that you are here. I speak FBI, which is a strange language that not a lot of people speak. So in this one, what you should be, information technology specialists just means somebody who is hired at the FBI because they are a computer expert, not because they're not working as an agent or an analyst. They are really only working on like computer issues, data issues, things like that. The computer analysis response team or referred to in FBI land as CART, the CART team. There's a CART team in pretty much every field

office now and it is an assembly of people who work in the field office. Most of them are like agents or information technology specialists, sometimes computer scientists who work on the cyber squads or some of them work on counterintelligence squads. But they all have these, you know, they all have specific computer forensic skills, some of which have been, they've gotten through FBI training, some of which from prior experience. And they go out on search warrants and seize electronic media. So which has become like a huge part of almost every search warrant we execute. You end up walking out the door with mirrored images of many, many computers and servers and storage devices and things like that. And then that data all has to be structured in a way that enables you to analyze it.

And so they do those sorts of things. They go out and seize the stuff, they bring it back, they put it into our big computers and run it through software that helps them analyze it. And then they provide that information to the agents who kind of figure out how it's relevant to the case. So that's what Gabriella Mancini does. She it is said has extensive professional training regarding the forensic analysis of electronic information, including cell phone data.

The government anticipates that Mrs. Mancini will testify that she forensically extracted and processed content and data from two digital devices, both belonging to Walt Nauta. How she extracted the data as well as how she verified it. The government anticipates Mrs. Mancini will testify that on Nauta's Apple iPhone 12 Pro Max device she located three thumbnail photographs containing classified markings. So this is also part of the trial. And in order to enter that evidence, you have to provide a what's called a foundation for it. So whoever seized it for the government or discovered it or what have you has to come in and testify, yes, here's how I got it. Here's how I know it's authentic. Here's where it came from, all that sort of thing. If there were several people who were in and testify, yes, here's how I got it, here's how I know it's authentic,

here's where it came from, all that sort of thing. If there were several people involved in that process, they will all have to come in and testify to establish what we call the chain of custody. That's usually more for something that's like physical, like drugs or a gun or something like that. But anyone who is necessary to authenticate evidence will have to testify. Interesting. So that's Ms. Minceini. Next one is Stacey Shirani, FBI Special Agent, Digital

Forensic Examiner for Computer Analysis Response Team in the Washington Field Office. So she serves on the CART team, like the last person we heard about. In her testimony, Special Agent Shirani will explain that records from the Apple iCloud account associated with Walton Auta's Gmail email account indicate that this account was set to receive iMessages from both the phone number ending in 8611 and the phone number ending in 6091.

The government anticipates that special agent, Shirani will also testify that she conducted a forensic extraction and forensic analysis of an Apple iPhone 13 Pro Max and forensic imaging of a Del Vostro laptop, both used by Trump employee to, as that person is referred to in the superseding indictment, whose identity the government has provided to the defense, and searched after the government obtained court authorized search warrant for those devices.

The government anticipates that special agent, Shirani will also testify that she was asked to review not as iCloud accounts, and the two aforementioned devices used by Trump employee two for documents with classified markings. So she was looking at those for classified docs. Special Agent Sharani found that two photos containing classification markings were texted to Trump Employee 2 from an Apple iPhone with metadata matching the identifying information

obtained by the government from Nauda's iPhone, ending in phone number 6091. So this is all very technical, but it's kind of interesting because the first part where she is basically going to be able to testify that these two separate phone numbers were both pushing Gmail into the same iMessage account. And that would be important to establish that the same person was in control of both of those separate phone devices. Having made these connections and tying them to Nauda, the government will make the argument

that Nauda sent these photographs and then ultimately texted them to employee too. And these photographs were in ultimately texted them to employee two and these photographs were in fact of classified material. Yeah. And I think that this kind of information also speaks to why investigations take so long. Because everyone's like, why isn't he arrested? We all saw what happened on TV.

We all saw January 6th happen. We know he took these documents. You can't just go into court and say, well, we all know he did it. You have to bring in an expert, first of all, to talk about how they got the phones and the search warrant and then how they extracted the data from the phones and what that imaging is so that they could talk about the validity of it. Then they have to talk about metadata and IP addresses and GPS locations and who was logged into the phone. And all of that stuff has to come from search warrants. So

I will be very interested to see at the end of all this when he puts out his final report how many search warrants this guy obtained to get at this kind of granular detailed information because you cannot enter stuff into evidence without the foundation of the evidence, like you said. So all of this stuff takes massive amounts of resources and time and anyone who's like, well, you know, it's the technological age so it should go faster.

The technological age to me seems like it's adding layers of work. Makes it more complicated, way more complicated. The funny thing to me seems like it's adding layers of work. Makes it more complicated. Way more complicated. Right. The funny thing is people think about lawyers as like, oh, I'm argumentative. I could be a good lawyer. That's not really the skill, the most important skill.

What you really have to be to be a good lawyer, whether you're a prosecutor or a defense lawyer. It's a huge pain in the butt. You have to be a giant pain in the butt. Yeah, you've got to be credibly detail oriented. Right. Details. Exactly. All this is in the butt. You have to be a giant pain in the butt. Yeah, you've got to be credibly detail-oriented. Right. Details. All this is in the details. And every single one of these little details has to be established in a way that is unassailable

if you're the prosecutors, right? So having experts testify about these devices, how they got them, how they looked at them, what they found when they looked at them, how they know based on what they saw on the device, how they can prove that the device was in the custody and control and use of a particular person, and then how that person sent these images that were likely national defense information. At the end of the day, they're trying to convict Trump of retaining national defense information. So it's not enough just to go in there and see, see this thing, we found it on the floor in his office.

You've got to be assiduous in your foundation for that evidence and how you handled it and what you concluded based on it. And then the jury is like, okay, yeah, they got their act together, I believe it, and I can convict. Or the defense attorney gets up and destroys you. It makes your evidence look like a mess. You didn't do a good job. And then there's no conviction.

So there's a lot at stake here. All right, next one is a guy named Henry Ha. He is a digital forensic examiner on the computer analysis response team. Again, the CART team at Federal Bureau of Investigation. No field office identified there. The government expects that SSA, HA, so in FBI parlance, SA is Special Agent. Those are investigative agents who are out there, street agents who are doing investigations.

SSA is Supervisory Special Agent. This indicates that Agent HA is actually a supervisor, which means he runs a field squad likely. Could be a headquarters guy, but because he's on the cart team, he's probably in a field office. So SSA Ha will testify that he conducted a forensic extraction of content and data from an Apple iPhone 12 mini used by defendant Carlos Deo Levera that was searched after the government obtained a court authorized search warrant for the device. SSA Howell explained that for purposes of this device, his role was limited to forensic extraction and verification of data from Deo Levera's phone. So he basically just took the data off the device and he's there simply to verify.

Yes, this information came off of that device that was in the custody of Carlos de Oliveira. Yes. And next on this list of experts is Andrew Kochi or Koki K-O-C-H-Y Kochi, special agent, computer analyst response team. That's the cart for the FBI. Again, no field office identified. This guy did the forensic analysis of what was extracted from Dayolivera's phone, that

SSA Ha extracted. Special Agent Koki will explain how certain text communications, images, and call records were found on the digital device and how he documented the geolocation information and other metadata for certain images, right? Like where was this photo taken, for example. Then we have Jonathan Hoyt, and this guy is interesting. He's an FBI special agent, certified member of the Cellular Analysis Survey Team.

Yeah. So go ahead, yeah. You tell us an FBI language. That's a different one. An FBI language, the Cellular Analysis Survey team is known as the CAST team, not to be confused with the CART team. It's two different things. What these agents and analysts and folks do is they are trained in obtaining and analyzing

cellular tower information. This is something that's become super important probably in the last 10 years. Cell tower information is used to locate devices and sometimes track them, indicate their movement from one tower to another. And so this can be very important in determining where a device was at any given moment and where it might've been moving,

and therefore who might've been in control of it. It's used a lot now even in like violent crimes and things like that where like if you find a body, you'll look at the cells, all of the cell phones that were hitting the towers in the area of that crime, that murder and you'll try to devise lists of people, devices that you then track back to human beings with the use of subpoenas and search warrants.

So that's basically what those guys do. Yeah. So if you have Tavares, who's going to come and testify on the stand that Naoda was in Bedminster and then flew to Mar-a-Lago on this day and met with him on the Met with Day-Lover on this know, then now you will have hard evidence from the cast, the cellular analysis survey team to back up that testimony. Right? Yeah, they'll be able to say, well, the phone that we know he was using, it was in bedminster,

and then it stopped pinging the towers sometime somewhere near, you know, Newark airport. And then it reacquired tower access in Fort Lauderdale or wherever he went to get to Fort. And that's exactly what's in this filing. Because they say Hoyt created three reports that detailed all historical cell site analysis of the call detail records for two cell phones, ending in 1691 and 8611, which the government has said belonged to Walt Nauta here and after Nauta's cell phones.

And one cell phone ending in 8426, which belonged to De La Vera. The government anticipates Special Agent Hoyt will testify using cell tower latitude-longitude coordinates obtained from Nauta and De La Vera cell phone service providers pursuant to a court authorized search warrant, he mapped cell site data into mapping software that plotted cell tower locations and the cell sector, including the general direction of the radio frequency signal that's serviced the cell phone activity. So all that, you have to get all that information.

Yeah. Special Agent Hoyt is also expected to testify about his analysis of the cell site and location data for Nata and Dale O'Vara's phones contained in his three reports and the data produced for the defense. For example, Special Agent Hoyt will explain that the location data on Saturday, June 25, 2022 shows Nata's cell phone ending in 6091 moving from the area of Bedminster, New Jersey to LaGuardia Airport in New York, Logan Airport in Boston, and finally Palm Beach International Airport in West Palm Beach at 10 16 a.m. that day. So he, I have, how many times have I flown from JFK through Boston? I can't tell

you. But he did that day. And when a call was made to Day Olivares cell phone number ending in 8426, which connected with the cell tower closest to Mar-a-Lago. The cell tower closest to Mar-a-Lago provided network coverage for a call made from Nauta's cell phone ending in 6091 to Day Olivares cell phone, which also connected with the cell tower closest to Mar-a-Lago. The location data will also show Nata's cell phone location is in South Florida until it returned to the area of Bedminster, New Jersey, June 28. For example, on Monday, June 27, at 10.15 am, Dayolivera's cell phone, connecting with

the cell tower at Mar-a-Lago, made a call to Nata's cell phone, which connected with the cell tower located near Nata's home in West Palm Beach at 129. When a call was made from Nata's cell phone ending in 6091 to Dayol Rivera's phone. And again, at 1.46 PM, when a call was made from Dayol Rivera's phone to Nata's phone, both phones connected at Mar-a-Lago. So there is evidence that he called him at his house, and then he came to Mar-a-Lago. So there is evidence that he called him at his house and then he came to Mar-a-Lago and he called him when he got there. Like, this is how you map out their movements, right? Totally. And you know, you are trying to present a story to these jurors. And so the more detailed

you can get with things like, okay, it's such and such he was at his house and then he moved to Mar-a-Lago. Then he made a call from Mar-a-Lago to the other guy who was also Mar-a-Lago. You're painting a picture in the minds of these juries of exactly what happened. You can't show, you don't have a video, you weren't like following these guys in real time. But with this sort of data, you can just lay out exactly how they did it, where they were, when they talked, how they moved, when they met together, where they were when they met, all that kind of stuff is super important. Yeah, it's really, really important and it's pretty devastating. It's unassailable. These are records that the service providers maintain.

They're accessed by the Bureau only with a search warrant. So this is not like, you don't have to worry like the FBI is tracking everybody's movement on cell towers. No, it's only after you've, you know, you've gone to a judge. There's probable cause of evidence of a crime. Probable cause of believe evidence of a crime is on these devices and went through these cell towers. So, yeah, it's very powerful evidence. Yeah. And as long as you didn't steal classified documents and lie about it and then hide that you lied about it and then try to destroy video of you lying about it, don't worry,

they're not spying on you. Nobody's listening to your calls. Next up, David Loveall II. He's a senior computer scientist, Operational Technology Division, FBI. What's the O.T, operational technology division FBI. What's the O.T.D.? Is that what it's called? Yes. Okay. So the O.T.D. is exactly what it's called. Well done. Thank you. Yeah. You're a minor in FBI speak now. O.T.D. is a division that's from in the science and technology branch. They're down at Quantico. And that's basically the place where all of the FBI's like most cutting edge technology solutions are developed, whether that's software

to do different sort of data analysis, or its actual devices to help us get into phones or recording device or whatever it is that we need when there's a technological solution, we rely on OTD. They're also kind of, they control, they figure out like how we connect to private sector entities that are the recipients of big search warrants and then have to provide us a lot of data in response to those warrants. The transfer of that data is very complicated and getting it in a timely manner in a way that you can work with it. So that's basically all OTT stuff. Got it. And in this particular case, the government says that Mr. Loveall will testify if needed,

only if necessary, as to the authenticity of certain publicly available videos, images, and social media posts captured from the internet to include some of Defendant Trump's speeches, media interviews, and truth social posts that the government intends to offer into evidence during its case in chief at trial. So here is conclusive proof that Jack Smith intends to use Trump's own words against him. So totally. We've seen it over and over again. That shouldn't come

as a surprise, but this is just sort of backs that theory up. Right. And this witness is lined up to defend against the defendants claims that that's not true, it wasn't really me, I didn't say that, that's been altered, it's a deep fake, whatever, whatever. This person is someone who can say no, this recording does not bear any of the indices of tampering or editing or whatever. Or editing or whatever.

Or that sort of stuff, yeah. Word, yeah, so maybe that's why if necessary, maybe he's a rebuttal witness. Yeah, yeah, yeah, for sure. Very cool. All right. So we learned what CART is and CAST. And we're going to, you know, in 100 years when this trial begins, we'll be able to know who these folks are.

Do you know any of them personally? I do not. No, I do not recognize any of the names. Awesome. All right. Well, we have one more quick story from Florida, but we do have to take another break. And by the way, Andy, $83.3 million for Egington. Yikes. Ouchie. Okay. I'm going to want to Week Bad Week. Bad Week because he just ended it on a Friday afternoon, $83 million poorer than he was at lunchtime on Friday. What a bummer for him.

But this is, you know, I have so much emotion about this because I feel like this is for everyone who has experienced sexual trauma and defamation and was never able to get justice. This is what I call Andy justice by proxy that my friend just earned, not earned, but got 80, was awarded $83.3 million for what he did to her. So that is the quick bit of breaking news, but also again, still check pacer, no DC circuit ruling. So we'll be right back with one more story and some questions. Stick around. All right, everybody, welcome back.

Also down in Florida, there is a back and forth going on where Trump wants to unseal some classified supplements to his motion to compel, right? He filed a full public motion to compel and then some classified, I guess, supplements they're called to compel Jack Smith to hand over what he thinks is being hidden from him. Now as we discussed last week, Jack Smith only objected to two of those filings being unsealed because they contain individuals' personal information and uncharged conduct. And Andy, before we jump into the new filing on this issue, can you explain why DOJ does not want uncharged conduct or uncharged individuals to be revealed to the

public? Yeah, sure. So this really goes back to one of the core principles of federal prosecution, which is kind of like, it's actually a manual, you can access it on the interwebs. But principle 9-27.760, for those of you keeping track, states, in all public filings and proceedings, federal prosecutors should remain sensitive to the privacy and reputation interests of uncharged third parties. In the context of public plea and sentencing proceedings, this means that in the absence of some significant justification, it is not appropriate to identify either by name or unnecessarily specific description or to cause a defendant to identify a third party wrongdoer unless

that party's been charged. So it just goes to this idea that you don't talk about uncharged or identify someone who is engaged in criminal conduct that has not been charged. You aren't supposed to do that? I could have sworn somebody did that. Who was it? Ancient, ancient history. Yeah.

So in response to the Department of Justice's ceiling application, that's the motion that Jack Smith filed saying, hey, can we keep supplements A and B under seal? The rest we have no objection to. But this has uncharged individuals, uncharged behavior and conduct. It's got personal information, government email address.

We don't want these out there. So they actually were really, Jack Smith was really reasonable. He could have come forth and said, no, seal or keep it all sealed. It all has to be sealed. He said, just these two. Trump writes in his opposition to that, President Trump takes no position on any particular request for a redaction by special counsel. However, the office made no effort, Jack Smith made no effort to substantiate its vague claims concerning, quote, witness safety and, quote, national security as they

relate to the requested redactions. Many of the, quote, potential witnesses, I don't know why they're putting these in quotes, referenced in Trump's motions to compel have been disclosed in public reports relating to the case in some instances based on apparent leaks by prosecutors. And in the FOIA releases discussed in Trump's motions, which reveal some of the witnesses government email addresses. So wow, he's just coming out and saying, first of all, you leaked it, it's public, and so we should be able to unseal it. First of all, it doesn't

really work that way, right? That's correct. No, it doesn't work that way at all. Yeah. First of all, public stories on CNN or other places is not the same as the government identifying someone. The government doesn't consider something to no longer be sensitive just because it got talked about on the news. That doesn't affect us at all.

We think that someone's identity should be protected. We protect it even if other people don't. And this whole, this side shot of like, oh, you leaked it. That's just nonsensical. They don't know that. There's no evidence of that. So that's also, I think, totally. He likes to get that in every chance he gets. You leaked it, your leaker and a liar. Yeah. And he then says DOJ failed to cite the First Amendment or any case, quote, supporting their position that materials subject to the Janks Act are categorically subject to sealing as well.

That's not the law. Moreover, there is notable dissonance between the breadth of the prosecutor's views about what constitutes Janks Act's material for the purpose of their sealing argument when compared to the exceedingly narrow scope they have attributed. So, here, basically, Trump is saying he didn't make any very good fights and I don't like his definition of Jank's material anyway, so it doesn't apply. That's kind of basically what he's talking about there. Yeah. I mean, this is just like picking a fight for the sake of picking a fight. As you pointed out, Jack Smith agreed to most of what he wanted unsealed, except for these very two small categories of protecting witnesses and respecting the prohibition on disclosing

uncharged criminal conduct. I was confused by the Jankx references. I think it's probably always helpful to our listeners to remind them. Jankx requires the government to produce any prior statement of a witness if the prior statement relates to the substance of the witness's testimony on the stand. So Jank stuff isn't actually required to be turned over until after the witness actually testifies. It's more of a trial discovery requirement that the government has.

Giglio, of course, is a requirement that the government produced to the defendant any evidence at all, statements or anything else that calls into question the credibility of a witness. So that stuff has to be turned over. And of course, the final one is Brady. Brady requires that the government produce to the defendant any exculpatory evidence or information. So those are generally the government produced to the defendant any exculpatory evidence or information.

So those are generally the government's three disclosure requirements. In this case, you know, he's citing janks, but I really don't think the whole thing is very persuasive. No, and I think he's responding to what, you know, DOJ was saying and he's just getting it wrong. This is my favorite part, Andy. This, check this out. Trump says, the special counsel's office chose to bring this case and has taken unprecedented steps to fuel biased press coverage and public interest in the proceedings in order to interfere with President Trump's leading campaign for the presidency.

Okay, so there. But check this out. These steps have included seeking the unsealing of the warrant used to raid Mar-a-Lago in August of 2022. Okay, so pause here. Trump demanded that the warrant be released. And we all thought DOJ is not going to release the warrant. Right. And they did. They called his bluff. If anything, they waited too long because they let him rant about it for like three, four days before they did it.

So this is one of those Barry Louder milks, right? Yeah. Where he's like, release the warrant because he figures the DOJ is not going to. And then he can say, you're hiding things. But the DOJ was like, actually, all right, here, here's the really, here's a redacted affidavit and here's the warrant, released it. So he is actually now saying that by unsealing that warrant, the DOJ is trying to bias the press coverage.

Yeah, a politically motivated effort to stymie his wonderful campaign. He asked for it, and I really hope in a response that Jack Smith points that out. I really hope he does. Like you wanted that. Also numerous public statements about the office's politically motivated prosecutions of President Trump, including conspicuously timed and tellingly defensive public statements by A.G. Merrick Garland, released by CNN, January 19th of 2024, in which he inappropriately sought to place DOJ's imprimatur behind the office's untenable demand for a speedy trial in this case and on the lawless charges filed in the District of Columbia. So this is where Merrick Garland came out, did an interview on January 19th and said, yeah, we need a speedy trial here. It's in the public interest. Speedy Trial Act in 1974, 84. We need a speedy

trial here. The public has a right to a speedy trial just like a defendant does, right? And so when he did that interview, of course, Trump is very upset about that. He doesn't want a speedy trial. So he's very mad. Slowey trial, sloey. Everybody who's like all the conspiracy theorists that are like, Trump loves Merrick Garland. No, he doesn't. He's attacking him here in this. And also by the way, I should mention the press coalition joined Trump in trying to get

these documents unsealed saying these records. Of course they did. I mean, that's just what they do. I mean, they want more and more information. That's their job. That's their job. That's what they do. But they don't say it because it's biased, stupid media.

Jack Smith is a leaker. They say these records are presumptively public and that the government must carry a heavy burden to justify sealing them so it moves to support the unsealing. We'll see what Judge Cannon decides. We'll see. I mean, these things are really just an opportunity for him to throw more of his like political conclusions out. Yeah. He's not really fighting for... There's no... There's really... There's nothing to win here,

really. It's not a material gain, even. It's just like, oh, if I file another... You know, if I oppose... You oppose everything they say and you look at every opposition as an opportunity to layer in there. It's not fair. That's all If I file another, you know, if I oppose, you oppose everything they say and you look at every opposition as an opportunity to layer in there. It's not fair. That's all politically motivated. It's just like tiresome. You never see this in any other case. Like this is like, you don't, lawyers typically would never put this kind of crap into legal filings in a criminal case. this kind of crap into legal filings in a criminal case. But this is not an average case. Yeah, no, not even in the slightest. All right, let's get to some listener questions. If you have questions, we've got a link for you in the show notes to click on, and that's where you can

send us all of your questions. So what do we have this week? So this is kind of an interesting one, I thought, because of what Dustin is getting at here. And it kind of, I thought it's also an opportunity for me to talk a little bit about how we thought about this during the Mueller special counsel team. So Dustin writes in, I really have been enjoying the podcast and I think it is my favorite of all the podcasts that you do. I think he of course means you. He also then goes on to say that you are a hard worker and consume all of this stuff like a sponge, which is true. You're right about that, Dustin.

She definitely does and she's a super hard worker. He says also that I am a likeable guy, which I don't know how he would know that, but I appreciate it anyway. I concur. You're a likeable guy. There you go. On to the question. I have a question regarding special

councils. It seems we are headed towards a somewhat similar scenario to 2016, but with a few distinct differences. And then he opines that Russia is more determined to interfere on Trump's behalf and that Trump is more willing to accept it. We don't know that, but I guess we'll see how this goes. Given the problems that Mueller experienced in Crossfire Hurricane and how much of that got dumped into a CI investigation that doesn't seem like it went anywhere, what approach could a special counsel take to complete an investigation? I am particularly interested in what steps a special counsel could take to insulate his work against a bill bar deep-sixing of the results.

What could be done better? Thank you both for the great work you're doing. Thank you, Dustin. Good question. It raises a couple of issues. I think the first thing to point out is that this is a very different situation for a bunch of reasons than the one that Mueller was saddled with in 2017. And the first is that Jack Smith's mandate has not been so closely trimmed and monitored, right? He's been given very broad authority to take

these investigations in whatever way that he thinks he needs to go, whereas the Mueller team was not. They were given a fairly broad mandate initially where that was publicly disclosed. And then of course, that was trimmed back significantly by the then Deputy Attorney General and overseer of this work, Rod Rosenstein. Of course, that was all kept from the public. We didn't learn that until much later. So, there is that. But I will tell you that when we were very concerned about this, when I worked with my team to convince Rod to appoint a special counsel. And then I worked with my team to figure out how we could best position that special counsel

team to be truly independent, not only from... We wanted them to be independent of the FBI. We didn't want people on the team to be calling back to their field offices and their supervisors and different offices and telling them what was going on. But we also wanted them to be independent from DOJ and the off chance that somebody came in and tried to shut this whole thing down, which of course we now know Trump was ordering people to fire Mueller and shut the whole thing down. And Bill Barr sat on the findings for weeks while he went out and told everybody it was

totally, it totally not right. It was different. Yeah. So we were worried that Mueller would get fired in the middle of the night and that the information would be vulnerable, the data, the results of interviews and transcripts and legal filings and all their notes and things like that. So we put them in an office that we controlled, but it was not part of... It was not in an FBI building and it was not in DOJ. And we helped set up a computer

system for them that was independent of both the Bureau and DOJ so that they would have total control over their own data. And we came up with a protocol where we thought if we learned that Mueller had been fired, we were prepared to deploy agents to that space, to that building, to basically seize it and prevent anyone from going in there and accessing the data after Mueller had been fired. So we were very concerned that whatever they managed to accumulate and create before they were fired, that that should be preserved.

It should come back to the FBI ultimately for investigative follow-up if necessary, but it should also be available to the National Archives. And so we were prepared to kind of have that standoff if necessary. Fortunately, it never happened. But I would expect that Jack Smith's team has probably thought through some of the same challenges. Yeah. I would assume so. I mean, that was something that we, I think we brought up in

the very first episode of the Jack podcast was lessons learned from the Mueller investigation. That can be brought forth and applied here with the Jack Smith Special Counsel investigation. For sure, for sure. Cool, great question. Thank you so much. And again, the link for questions is in the show notes. So if you have a question, just shoot it to us. Do you have any last thoughts

before we get out of here today? No, I think next week's it. I think next Friday we're talking about the decision. You think? That's my prediction. Yeah, I'm not betting, but because I haven't already won, why bet? I mean, I'm good. But I think by the end of next week we'll have something to talk about.

Yeah, and it's past the closing hour of the courts, and I've just looked at Pacer and it's still not there. So I don't think that we're going to get it this weekend. So we're back on Watch on Monday and of course we'll bring it to you when it comes out and hopefully that is next Friday. I think so too. I think we'll have it by Friday and we'll be able to discuss it on the next episode. Thank you so much everybody for listening.

We really appreciate it and everybody will be back next week. I've been Alice and Gil and I'm Andy McCabe.