2:00

to address

2:03

this question. None of

2:05

them did. In

2:10

a live recording on June 27th,

2:13

we talked about the Monday and

2:16

Tuesday hearings in the classified documents

2:18

case, the Georgia Court

2:20

of Appeals pausing all

2:22

trial proceedings in Fulton

2:25

County and much more.

2:30

The food is still way better

2:32

in lower Manhattan and like the

2:34

general, the general like just everything

2:36

in lower Manhattan is still probably

2:38

preferable and it's still really hard

2:40

to get to Fort Pierce, but

2:42

once you are there. It's

2:45

not that bad. Not that bad. Hey

2:49

folks, Ben Wittes here. Welcome

2:52

to this week's Trump's

2:54

trials and tribulations, which

2:57

this week have been highly concentrated

2:59

in a single court down

3:02

here in South Florida.

3:05

So I'm coming to you from the Mar-a-Lago

3:09

auditorium and

3:11

I'm joined today, of course,

3:14

by Anna Bauer who has

3:16

gone to the Mar-a-Lago bathroom

3:18

studio. And the only

3:20

one of us who isn't at Mar-a-Lago

3:23

is Roger Parloff who summers

3:25

in France and so he

3:27

is joining us from the Jura studio

3:30

somewhere in the Jura. We

3:33

got a lot to cover today. It's

3:35

almost all in South Florida. Before we

3:37

do that, however, we're gonna take a

3:39

quick hop to

3:42

our other three courts, courts

3:44

of call, courts of call, you might call

3:47

them. So Anna, let's

3:49

start at the Georgia Court of Appeals,

3:52

which took the Georgia case

3:54

from the state of deep

3:56

freeze that it

3:59

was in to like liquor.

4:01

nitrogen level frozen. Tell

4:03

us what happened. Yeah,

4:05

so if people remember the

4:07

Georgia Court of Appeals currently

4:09

has a pending decision before

4:11

it regarding the effort to

4:13

remove Fonnie Willis from the

4:15

Trump prosecution, there

4:18

were nine defendants who

4:20

originally joined that motion.

4:23

And as a part of that,

4:27

Misty Hampton, who is

4:29

the former Coffey County election supervisor, did

4:31

not ever join the motion. So when

4:34

it went up on appeal, there was

4:36

a state that was issued by the

4:38

Court of Appeals only as

4:40

to those defendants who were parties

4:42

to the appeal. So Trump and

4:44

those other defendants, Misty Hampton

4:47

was not included in that. So there

4:49

was some suggestion. I pointed

4:51

this out on a previous Trump trials episode

4:54

in which there was a

4:56

potential scenario in which Misty Hampton, maybe

4:59

some of these other defendants, could

5:01

proceed to trial at some point,

5:04

even before the Court of Appeals

5:06

issues its decision. We think that that decision is

5:09

likely to come sometime in the spring of 2025.

5:13

But Misty Hampton went ahead

5:15

and applied to the Court of

5:17

Appeals for a stay. She

5:19

argued that if the Court of Appeals

5:22

ultimately does disqualify Fonnie Willis, then even

5:24

though she didn't join the motion, it

5:26

would affect the entire case. She has

5:29

not been severed from that case, that

5:31

kind of thing. And

5:33

the Court of Appeals we heard yesterday

5:36

did grant that motion

5:38

for a stay. So it indicates,

5:41

I think, to the other defendants

5:43

whose cases are not stayed, that

5:46

if they did apply for a stay in

5:48

the way that Misty Hampton did, that the

5:50

Court of Appeals would also stay their cases

5:52

as well. I also

5:54

wonder, and I'm curious, Fannin Rodgers, if

5:57

you have thoughts on this, If

6:00

there's anything that we can

6:02

maybe guess at in terms

6:04

of any indications from the

6:06

Court of Appeals as to

6:09

what they're thinking, I think it

6:11

doesn't really tell us anything about the

6:13

merits of what they will ultimately decide.

6:16

But I do think, again, that it

6:18

may indicate that they would ultimately

6:21

potentially decide that yes, those other

6:23

defendants who didn't join the motion

6:25

would also have Fawny Willis

6:29

removed from the case, even though

6:31

ostensibly you would think that the

6:34

motion would be waived because they

6:36

didn't join. So any

6:38

thoughts on that from either of you? Yeah,

6:40

I have. So like the

6:43

Georgia Court of Appeals is a respectable court

6:45

and I don't want to like cast

6:49

aspersions. But

6:51

when every interstitial judgment goes

6:54

the same direction, it does

6:57

begin to look like the court

6:59

is hostile to the

7:01

side that it's consistently ruling against

7:03

or sympathetic to the other side. Now,

7:06

in this case, there's lots of potentially

7:08

good reason for that. In

7:12

remember that the district court

7:14

order that is under appeal

7:17

by Fawny Willis contains

7:20

the phrase about her

7:22

testimony and that it

7:24

is accompanied by an

7:26

odor of mendacity. And

7:28

so you are starting

7:31

from a position in

7:33

which her position is

7:35

subject to reasonable suspicion

7:37

and the district court

7:39

itself harbors some suspicion about

7:42

it. And so I

7:44

don't mean to sound like I'm

7:47

sort of condemning the Georgia Court

7:49

of Appeals, but I do think

7:51

as these incremental judgments rack up

7:54

that all go against her, you

7:56

have to start wondering, is

7:59

this setting up? a reversal

8:01

and a disqualification? Yeah,

8:04

and I should say for people who

8:06

haven't seen the order, it's a very,

8:08

it's just very summarily kind of applies

8:11

this day. There's no reasoning in the

8:13

way that you would usually see in

8:16

other, maybe in federal courts when

8:18

there's a stay that is not,

8:21

you know, just kind of

8:23

really short-term administrative stay.

8:26

It's here

8:28

is just kind of, we don't really

8:30

have any reasoning, so we don't know

8:32

exactly what the court of appeals is

8:34

thinking or why exactly they think that

8:36

there's good reason for Misty Hampton's case

8:38

to be stayed. But again, I do

8:41

think that it indicates at the very least

8:43

that one, other defendants who want to have

8:45

their cases stayed by the court of appeals

8:47

would be able to do so. And then

8:50

two, that maybe the court of

8:52

appeals is thinking that if Fonnie Willis is

8:54

disqualified, then all of the

8:57

defendants would have her disqualified from

8:59

their cases as well, even if they didn't

9:01

join that original motion. All

9:04

right. So we

9:06

can now just in time for

9:08

the Washington case to presumably come

9:11

out of deep frees, which will

9:14

happen either tomorrow or Monday,

9:16

barring a more extreme Supreme

9:19

Court opinion that at least I'm

9:21

expecting. The

9:24

Georgia court is now, there will be

9:27

nothing happening in Fulton

9:29

County until the

9:32

case is argued at and decided at

9:34

the Georgia Supreme Court, right? That's

9:37

right in terms of the actual

9:40

substance of the pretrial proceedings themselves,

9:42

but I will point out two

9:45

things. One, Mark Meadows, who previously

9:47

was litigating his appeal of the

9:49

effort to remove the federal court,

9:52

the 11th circuit rejected that appeal.

9:54

He has been in the

9:57

kind of in stages of he's either got

10:00

to go to the Supreme Court or give

10:02

up his litigation at this point. And

10:04

he last month applied to justice Thomas,

10:06

who is the justice assigned to the

10:09

11th circuit, uh, to

10:12

get an extension on his

10:14

petition for a writ of cert. Uh,

10:17

justice Thomas granted that. And so his new

10:19

deadline was supposed to be June 27th that's

10:21

today. But, uh, yesterday we

10:23

got a notification on the docket

10:25

that Mark Meadows had applied again

10:28

for a 30 day increment. That's

10:30

usually how it goes in terms

10:32

of extensions. And, uh, he

10:34

now has a, I believe it's July

10:36

27th deadline. I

10:38

do expect that he will appeal that 11th

10:41

circuit decision. And I will point out that

10:43

one of the reasons that he included

10:45

in his application to get

10:47

an extension is that

10:50

he wanted the benefit of seeing

10:52

the Supreme Court's, uh,

10:54

opinion in the presidential immunity

10:56

case, because they're very closely

10:58

related types of analysis,

11:01

uh, that is at work here. The

11:04

issue, the issue isn't closely related, but

11:06

the mode of inquiry as, well,

11:08

right. Cause it's supremacy clause immunity

11:10

versus presidential immunity. And there's these

11:12

questions about official acts and acting

11:15

within the school of duties, that

11:17

kind of thing. Uh, and

11:19

so, you know, we will see

11:21

probably some movement with Mark Meadows at

11:24

the Supreme Court. And then

11:26

also with Meadows case, he has

11:28

an ongoing, uh, Politico,

11:30

Kyle Cheney just published a piece about this

11:32

that folks should read if they're interested. But,

11:34

uh, Mark Meadows

11:36

also has an ongoing dispute

11:39

with the national archives about

11:41

basically things that relate to what

11:44

he was doing while he

11:46

was at the white house. He's been

11:48

trying to get certain communications and things

11:50

that are in the possession of the

11:52

national archives because he thinks it helps

11:54

support his supremacy clause immunity and some

11:56

of his defenses. So, um, there,

11:59

some ongoing stuff with that that

12:02

is more not necessarily

12:04

the exact substance of the pretrial

12:06

proceedings, but these kind of things

12:09

that are on the periphery that

12:11

we'll be watching. Yeah.

12:13

And just in the spirit

12:15

of always commenting on council

12:18

performance and quality of council,

12:21

Mark Meadows is represented on

12:23

the appellate level by Paul Clement,

12:26

the former Solicitor General, who

12:28

is one of the

12:30

very, very finest appellate lawyers

12:32

in the country, and somebody

12:35

who has a real rapport

12:37

with the justices. And Meadows,

12:39

unlike Trump, has been pretty

12:41

consistently represented by

12:44

first rate counsel. I

12:47

think Maguire Woods handled

12:50

the litigation at the Supremacy

12:52

Clause litigation or the removal

12:54

litigation, and now Clement

12:57

has taken it over for appellate

12:59

purposes. So the

13:01

Supreme Court will have, don't be

13:03

surprised if the Supreme Court agrees

13:05

to hear this question. I

13:08

think both the district court and

13:10

the 11th Circuit did a

13:12

less than ideal job in

13:14

concealing the 11th Circuit's adjudication

13:16

was a little bit nutty.

13:19

And the district courts

13:21

was not the inquiry

13:23

that I expected, to be honest. And so

13:25

I wouldn't be at all surprised if the

13:28

Supreme Court decided to take this.

13:30

And I'm sure there will be howls of

13:33

rage from a lot

13:35

of commentators if that happens, but you won't

13:37

hear one from me. I think there's a

13:40

pretty decent case for the Supreme Court

13:42

to take a look at this

13:44

removal question. All right, next

13:47

stop, back to New York.

13:49

We have a sentencing coming up. We have

13:51

a debate tonight. This is the only reference

13:53

to the debate you're going to hear on

13:56

Trump trials and tribulations. And

13:58

the reason we have we're

14:00

mentioning the debate is that Trump

14:02

is very excited about the loosening

14:05

of the gag order, which happened

14:07

the other day in light

14:10

of the fact that as he

14:12

put it, it happened just in

14:14

time for the debate with Crooked

14:17

Joe. That's in mostly all caps

14:20

on Truth Social. So

14:23

do either of you want to describe

14:25

what happened in New York or should I

14:27

do that? Well, Judge Cannon, as folks will

14:30

remember, scheduled over three business days worth of

14:32

hearings, but because it was a Friday, and

14:34

then went into the next week, I have

14:37

been in Florida for or I had been

14:39

in Florida for almost a week. Yeah, you're

14:41

stuck in the bathroom at Mar-a-Lago. I'm still

14:43

stuck in the bathroom at Mar-a-Lago. So Ben,

14:46

why don't you tell me what happened while

14:48

I was stuck in federal court without my

14:50

phone? Okay, so as you

14:52

may know, Anna Bauer, there is

14:55

a debate tonight between Donald Trump

14:57

and Crooked Joe Biden, as we

14:59

call him. And there was

15:01

a problem for the former

15:03

president, which was that there was

15:06

this gag order that prevented him

15:08

from doing something that presidential

15:10

candidates traditionally do at

15:13

debates, which is attacking

15:15

witnesses and the

15:18

other components of the justice system

15:20

from their criminal trials. That's normally

15:22

what you do, you know,

15:25

at a debate, you attack the

15:27

witnesses who testify against you, and

15:29

the jurors as well, and the,

15:31

you know, the court staff, you

15:35

wouldn't want a debate in which the

15:37

president wasn't able really to go after

15:40

Stormy Daniels and Michael Cohen

15:42

adequately. So Trump moved

15:44

to get rid of the gag

15:46

order, and to

15:49

nobody's particular surprise, Judge

15:51

Murchand loosened it

15:53

significantly. He is now allowed to

15:55

talk about witnesses. I think

15:59

he is not still allowed

16:01

to talk about jurors, but

16:03

I haven't actually read the

16:05

order. The entire order

16:07

will lapse at the time of his

16:09

sentencing, however, which is only a couple

16:12

weeks from now. So

16:16

he is very excited about this. He's,

16:20

as I say, crowing about it on Truth

16:22

Social. I

16:24

think, you know, really does come

16:26

right in time for the

16:28

debate. So expect him tonight, you know, if

16:30

he attacks Michael Cohen

16:33

and says that he should be

16:35

shot and Stormy Daniels should, you

16:37

know, face trial for treason, she

16:40

will not, he will not be

16:42

sanctioned as a result. I've

16:45

said all that sort of tongue in cheek,

16:47

but that's the long and short

16:49

of it. We you

16:51

mentioned witnesses, you mentioned jurors. What's

16:53

the rule now regarding the prosecution

16:55

team? Well, they're never covered the

16:58

well, I think he's allowed to

17:00

he was always allowed to talk

17:02

about Alvin Bragg. I think it

17:04

is now loosened as to the

17:06

prosecution team. But it's, you know,

17:10

I think he's also allowed to attack

17:13

the jury in a very general

17:15

way. Right. He's allowed

17:17

to talk about how awful the

17:19

jury was. But we're

17:22

we're not naming specific people

17:24

is basically the the

17:27

construction here. Okay,

17:29

and anything else with respect

17:31

to sentencing that is coming

17:33

up? It's on the horizon

17:35

on July 11. Is there

17:38

any further developments there?

17:41

Well, the only major

17:43

one and is

17:45

that our Brookings colleague, Norm Eisen,

17:47

and some of his staff wrote

17:51

in just security, let it not

17:53

be said that I am not

17:55

willing to talk

17:58

about material published

18:00

in that other publication.

18:03

They produced a substantial study

18:05

of sentencing under the creation

18:09

of false records statute in

18:12

New York. And it's

18:14

a fairly detailed analysis of

18:16

a large number of cases

18:19

under the same statute, which

18:22

found that it's

18:24

a little bit equivocal. It

18:26

found that a custodial sentence

18:28

in their judgment would be

18:30

warranted or would be within bounds,

18:33

but a noncustodial sentence

18:35

would also be within the

18:38

reasonable discretion of the judge

18:40

given the previous sentencing

18:42

history under the particular statute. So

18:45

it's a little bit equivocal, but

18:47

it's a, and I

18:49

have not read the entire thing carefully.

18:51

That's, it's on my weekend reading list,

18:53

but it's a, it's a, the most

18:56

substantial thing that I've seen yet on

18:58

what sentencing under the statute looks like.

19:01

Great. Well, law fair will be

19:03

covering the sentencing. So we will

19:05

be there. We will be back

19:07

in New York. But

19:10

I think that if that's all on New York,

19:12

we can move on to the classified

19:14

documents. Well, we've got to make a

19:16

quick stop in Washington for

19:19

what's basically an administrative announcement,

19:22

which is that based on the

19:24

Supreme Court's normal schedule,

19:26

we are expecting a decision

19:29

in both Fisher, that's

19:31

the 1512 C obstruction

19:34

case and the immunity

19:36

matter either tomorrow or

19:38

Monday, whichever day

19:42

it happens, we will have a

19:44

live stream later in

19:46

the day at some point, depending

19:48

on schedules. If the

19:50

two opinions come out at two different

19:52

times, we will have live streams each

19:54

day. And so

19:57

keep your eye on the social media feed.

20:00

Keep your eye for material supporters.

20:02

And if you're listening to this

20:04

on YouTube, you should become a

20:07

material supporter. Keep an eye on

20:09

the Patreon and your

20:11

email for times. We

20:13

have to keep this fluid because we

20:15

don't know which day these are coming.

20:18

We also expect that, or

20:20

at least I expect that

20:22

in the event that this

20:24

matter is remanded to Judge

20:26

Chutkin, which I think it

20:28

will be, there will be

20:30

relatively quick movement in

20:33

the case. I just say

20:35

that because she has signaled

20:38

at every stage that she has

20:40

a sense of urgency about this

20:42

case, even if her higher

20:44

ups at the Supreme Court do not.

20:47

And so I expect that

20:49

whatever latitude she has, she

20:51

will employ. And

20:54

so I think

20:57

there will be a lot of movement

21:01

next week or the week after at the

21:04

district court level, which we will try

21:06

to be all over. So

21:08

just keep your eye on our feeds.

21:10

I can't announce anything in advance because

21:12

I don't know when stuff is going

21:14

to happen. But we will be as

21:16

active as we need to be, including

21:18

over the July 4th

21:20

week. Okay. And if I

21:22

can just add my periodic bummer

21:26

announcement, if

21:29

the Supreme Court

21:31

had denied cert on

21:34

the day it granted cert, or

21:36

if it had denied a stay even, I guess, we

21:39

would be halfway through the DC trial

21:42

right now with the

21:44

jury likely to start deliberating

21:48

on July 22nd. And

21:51

if Judge Chutkin takes, if

21:53

the opinion comes down tomorrow

21:55

and Judge Chutkin gives Trump

21:57

the 88 days that she promised, him

22:00

for reasons that we will not repeat this

22:02

evening. When would a

22:04

trial begin? Jury

22:06

selection could begin around September

22:09

23rd. That means that you

22:12

would get a trial, I

22:14

think, starting October 7th, and

22:16

you might get a verdict

22:19

by November 22nd. So pretty

22:23

well after the election. All

22:26

right. On

22:28

to South Florida. Anna, you

22:30

have spent a lot of time in

22:32

court the last few days, but

22:36

we've already covered one of those days.

22:38

In last week's Trump trials

22:40

and tribulations, we talked about your

22:44

day-long discussion of the

22:46

appointments clause and accompanying

22:49

statutes with Judge Cannon. So

22:51

for those, we're not

22:53

going to spend time on that, but

22:55

just so that people understand the sequence

22:57

of events, give us a one

23:00

to two minute overview of

23:03

the appointments clause discussion so

23:05

that it situates the

23:07

Monday and Tuesday discussions. So this

23:09

happened a week ago

23:11

tomorrow. Right. And we

23:14

do have a long discussion about

23:16

that on our previous episode, but

23:19

for those who didn't listen, the

23:21

appointments clause issue is a part

23:23

one half of one motion that

23:27

Trump filed to dismiss his charges

23:29

based on the appointments clause of

23:31

the constitution, as well as the

23:33

appropriations clause. And

23:35

Judge Cannon both scheduled a

23:37

morning session to hear from the

23:40

prosecution and the defense, but also

23:42

heard from three non-parties called Amici.

23:45

And it included a law

23:48

professor. It included counsel for

23:50

former attorney general, Edwin Meece

23:53

and others. And then it

23:55

also included Matthew

23:57

Seligman, who was representing parties. who

23:59

were up in opposition to Trump's

24:02

motion to dismiss. So

24:05

we had this all day hearing on

24:07

that issue. The basic gist of it

24:09

is that it's this question about

24:11

whether or not the attorney general

24:14

has statutory authorization to

24:16

appoint special counsel Jack

24:19

Smith. Trump says

24:21

no for a variety

24:24

of reasons that deal

24:26

with statutory interpretation issues

24:28

and then also makes the

24:30

argument as well that

24:33

Jack Smith as the special

24:35

counsel is what's called a

24:38

principal officer. And

24:40

under the Constitution, if you're a

24:42

principal officer, then you must be

24:45

generally the general rule

24:47

is that you must be nominated by

24:50

the president and basically

24:53

put into your officer position

24:55

with the advice and consent

24:57

of the Senate. The argument

24:59

is that because Jack Smith

25:01

is in Trump's view a

25:03

principal officer and he was not

25:05

confirmed by the Senate, then therefore

25:08

his appointment was unlawful

25:10

and that the prosecution must

25:12

be dismissed. Ben,

25:15

Roger, is that a pretty decent

25:17

summary of what the issue is?

25:19

Yeah, and for

25:21

more on that, if your

25:23

interests run in the appointments

25:26

clause direction as mine do,

25:29

because literally

25:31

this issue of special

25:33

prosecutors appointed under various

25:35

mechanisms and the subject

25:38

of their constitution resulting

25:40

constitutionality or unconstitutionality has

25:43

literally followed me my

25:46

entire adult life. There

25:48

has never been three years of

25:50

my life where I did

25:52

not have to think about appointments

25:55

clause questions and special prosecutors. So

25:59

my interest run that

26:01

direction if yours do too, or

26:03

if you want to get in touch with

26:06

my inner spiritual being. Anna

26:09

has a dispatch on the subject

26:12

on Friday's hearing, and you can

26:14

tune in to last week's Trump's

26:16

trials and tribulations and hear Marty

26:19

Lederman's thoughts on it and Lee

26:22

Kowarski's thoughts on it. So we

26:24

have a lot of material for

26:26

you on that

26:28

argument, just not today. And then,

26:31

but that argument actually though is

26:33

quite important because it relates

26:36

to this second argument. Wait, wait, wait,

26:38

wait. I had a great setup. Oh,

26:40

sorry. Okay. Um, you know, you, you,

26:43

you, you messed it up, you messed

26:45

it up, but we're

26:47

going to leave that subject because that

26:49

was so Friday and we then had

26:53

a whole weekend and

26:55

during that weekend we went from talking about

26:57

whether you were, whether

27:00

Jack Smith was unconstitutional as special

27:03

counsel because of his appointment

27:05

or whether he's unconstitutional because

27:07

of the way he is

27:09

funded. Uh,

27:12

and Anna, did that take

27:14

all day on Monday or just half

27:16

of the day? Uh,

27:18

so it, it, it took up a

27:21

good portion of the day, but it

27:23

was the morning session in the afternoon

27:25

session. We also had a hearing on

27:27

the government's motion to modify Trump's

27:30

bond conditions

27:32

such that he would be

27:34

restricted from talking about law

27:36

enforcement officers in a way

27:38

that brought significant and imminent

27:40

and foreseeable harm to

27:42

them. All right. So let's wait, let's

27:44

break this up. And Roger, you should

27:46

jump in anytime cause this is going

27:49

to devolve into me interviewing Anna

27:51

about two and a half days of

27:53

testimony and you should a participate in

27:55

the interview

27:58

and B uh, insert

28:01

comments as necessary

28:03

and useful and interesting. So

28:06

let's start with the

28:09

funding question. Normally,

28:12

when the

28:14

Justice Department conducts an investigation,

28:16

the court

28:19

overseeing a prosecution resulting

28:23

from that investigation doesn't

28:26

really inquire about which

28:29

tax dollars from which account

28:31

funded, did

28:34

your postage stamp on this letter

28:36

fund this motion

28:39

in the litigation? How did, where

28:41

did the money come from is

28:43

not really a question we tend

28:46

to ask about federal prosecutions. Why

28:49

does how Jack Smith pays

28:51

his staff, why

28:54

is that an issue in the litigation?

28:57

Yeah, it's so this, this argument

28:59

is one it takes a little

29:02

bit of explaining. So bear with

29:04

me, but keep in mind this

29:06

argument that Trump is making about

29:08

Jack Smith's appointment being unlawful that

29:11

relates to this appropriations argument. There

29:13

is a clause in the constitution,

29:16

the appropriations clause that basically says

29:18

that any monies that are paid

29:20

out by the United States Treasury

29:22

have to be authorized by law.

29:24

So by a statute

29:27

that's enacted by Congress and

29:31

Trump's team has pointed to

29:33

the appropriations clause to

29:35

then say, oh, well

29:38

actually, because Jack Smith

29:40

wasn't lawfully appointed, then

29:43

that means that he

29:45

cannot under the appropriation

29:47

statute that DOJ, the

29:49

bucket of funds that DOJ is

29:51

drawing from, which is called the

29:53

permanent indefinite appropriation. It was

29:56

created by Congress under the statute

29:59

to basically fund the

30:01

investigations and prosecutions of special

30:04

counsels, either who were appointed under

30:06

the old Independent Counsel Act that

30:09

no longer exists or by

30:11

other law. And so you

30:13

would think Jack Smith falls underneath

30:15

that statute because he was appointed

30:18

by other law, by the attorney

30:20

general. But again, it goes back

30:22

to this appointments argument where they

30:24

say Jack Smith

30:26

wasn't lawfully appointed. So

30:28

therefore he wasn't statutorily

30:30

authorized to use these

30:33

funds to prosecute Trump. And

30:35

therefore that violates the appropriations

30:37

clause, which says that you

30:39

have to have some kind

30:41

of statutory authorization. So

30:44

therefore the whole prosecution is unconstitutional

30:46

and the charges should be dismissed.

30:48

Okay, but I don't understand that

30:50

because if the matter

30:52

is entirely derivative of the

30:54

appointments clause question, then

30:57

what added work

30:59

is it doing for the

31:01

defense? If the

31:03

appropriations clause matter rises and

31:05

falls on the strength of the appointments

31:07

clause matter, then what work

31:10

is it doing? So

31:12

they did admit that part of

31:15

their argument relies on the appointments

31:17

clause argument, but there's a separate

31:19

alternative argument that they're making as

31:22

well, Ben, that relies on this

31:24

language underneath the appropriations statute that

31:26

creates the fund that Jack Smith

31:29

has been drawing from. And

31:31

in that statute, it uses the

31:33

term independent counsel

31:36

appointed pursuant to other law. So

31:39

the big focus is on this

31:41

freight term, other law. That's where

31:43

the appointments clause argument comes in.

31:45

But they also focus on the

31:47

meaning of independent counsel in that

31:49

statute. And they're trying to

31:52

say that these days,

31:55

the special

31:57

counsel basically, And

32:00

it's kind of intention to some

32:02

of their other arguments, right? Because

32:05

they were saying on Friday that, oh, Jack

32:07

Smith is answerable to no one, and this

32:09

is such a problem because he has no

32:11

oversight. But then on

32:13

Monday, they're arguing he's not truly

32:16

independent because he's, you know, has

32:18

all this oversight from the attorney

32:20

general. And there are these regulations

32:22

that say that the attorney general

32:25

can do this and that to

32:27

basically, you know, tell

32:30

the special counsel what to do.

32:32

So he's not independent in the

32:34

real meaning of the statute. This is

32:36

so but hang on a second.

32:38

I'm burdened here by knowing

32:40

the history of this with

32:44

an unnerving degree of

32:46

precision. The term

32:48

independent counsel in this rule

32:50

is a reference to independent

32:53

counsels appointed under the Ethics

32:55

and Government Act, the so-called

32:57

independent counsel statute. He's

33:00

not one of them, but it

33:02

is or other law. Right.

33:04

And it's a lowercase, I and

33:06

C. Yeah. And or other

33:08

law refers plausibly

33:12

refers to the regs under which

33:14

he was appointed. Why

33:16

is this even hard? So

33:19

they're reading it to be

33:21

that there's two necessary conditions.

33:23

Like, it has to be

33:25

under other law, but then you also

33:28

have to be sufficiently independent. And so

33:30

they're reading that clause to kind of

33:32

mean, you know, either

33:34

it's under the Independent Counsel Act

33:36

or it's an independent counsel appointed

33:38

pursuant to other law. So there's

33:40

two conditions within that latter phrase.

33:43

Right. But of course, then you

33:45

run smack into the appointments clause

33:48

problem because there arguing for appointments

33:50

clause purposes that he's too independent

33:52

already. So now if you demand

33:54

that he be more independent, not

33:57

to, you know, to draw on

33:59

this. particular

34:01

fund, then you're kind

34:03

of creating a mousetrap. Yeah, Ben, it

34:05

was actually kind of crazy because one

34:07

of Emil Bovee's main point when he

34:10

stood up to argue this is that

34:12

there's an irreconcilable tension within the government's

34:14

because remember, the government is kind of

34:16

doing the same thing but I think

34:19

and to a much lesser extent, they're

34:21

saying, well, yes,

34:23

it is an independent counsel. They say this

34:26

on Friday with the appointments clause. He

34:28

is an independent counsel, but he has

34:31

all this oversight. And so he's not

34:33

a principal officer, he's an inferior officer,

34:35

and that that is consistent with the

34:37

appointments clause. And then on Monday, the

34:40

government is saying, well, no, the special

34:42

counsel is sufficiently independent. So it goes

34:44

a little bit both ways. But Emil

34:47

Bovee really just was kind of ignoring

34:49

the fact that the same tension that

34:51

he's pointing out in the government's argument

34:54

is to much greater extent, actually, in

34:56

his argument. Yeah, the government has a

34:58

nomenclature tension, where they're trying

35:01

to use a statute that was

35:03

created during the old independent counsel

35:06

era to fund one

35:09

appointed under the special counsel era.

35:12

Bovee has a substantive tension,

35:14

not a nomenclature tension. Can

35:17

I butt in for a moment? By all means. I

35:20

think it's been a little bit of

35:22

a moving target also, because I think

35:24

the original brief, they said, we're

35:27

raising an appropriations clause issue.

35:29

And then they never

35:32

really explained, they

35:34

jumped immediately to a statutory

35:36

issue about this question

35:39

of, can you use the permanent

35:42

indefinite fund for

35:45

something that isn't technically the

35:48

independent counsel of the Independent Counsel

35:50

Act. And meanwhile, if there

35:53

was a constitutional question, there is,

35:55

you know, there,

35:57

there is an appropriations clause question

35:59

about whether you can or there

36:02

was before when this was filed

36:04

about whether this

36:07

indefinite fund is not

36:10

re-upped every year and approved

36:12

by Congress. It's sort

36:14

of you've diminished Congress's power of the

36:17

purse. They can't at the

36:19

end of this year say we want

36:21

to defund this guy. And

36:23

but just

36:26

you know shortly after he filed

36:28

the motion the Supreme Court decided

36:30

another case that sort of said

36:32

no that's that's not a constitutional

36:35

problem if Congress authorizes

36:37

a fund that's

36:39

available for many years that's

36:41

fine. And so that sort of vanished

36:44

and I think that they've been trying

36:47

to puff it up with

36:49

some constitutional basis since then

36:51

and because this

36:54

the pure statutory question there's

36:56

also just a standing question

36:59

why does Trump get to why

37:02

does it matter to him which pile of

37:04

money this thing is being funded

37:07

by. The DOJ has the

37:09

budget to fund this. If

37:12

that's what you want he can do it

37:15

but what's it to you? Well I think

37:17

the answer to that is if

37:19

you were constitutionally funded you

37:21

wouldn't exist and then you

37:24

wouldn't have been able to indict me. Well

37:26

no because the

37:29

DOJ has said we have other

37:32

we have other sources of budget

37:34

that would have covered this and we have

37:36

the money. And then just

37:38

one last point is that to

37:41

give you an idea of how weak this

37:44

argument was Judge

37:47

Cannon invited the three

37:50

amici to address

37:54

this question the appropriations

37:56

question because they had only

37:58

addressed the appointment

38:01

clause question. None

38:03

of them did. One

38:05

of them, the Meese-Calabresi group

38:07

represented by Cher filed a

38:10

supplemental brief, but it addressed

38:12

none of the questions it

38:14

was supposed to. It was

38:17

just sort of a rebuttal.

38:19

And then Josh Blackman and

38:21

Tillman filed nothing. And

38:23

you know how rare it is for them

38:26

not to weigh in. I mean,

38:29

that's sort of a sign in itself.

38:31

That's just a weak argument. But she

38:33

is apparently into this. Well, I mean,

38:36

I'm judging from what Anna wrote. Let

38:38

me say a few things in response

38:40

to what you guys were raising about

38:43

whether it's a constitutional issue and whether

38:45

they're standing. Those are two things that

38:47

did come up during the hearing that

38:50

Judge Cannon specifically asked about. And

38:52

she ultimately seems to be of

38:54

the idea that there is a

38:56

constitutional issue because even

38:58

though DOJ represented at this hearing

39:00

that they would have, they would

39:03

have had alternative sources of funding

39:05

and that even if they

39:07

do not continue to fund Jack

39:10

Smith from the permanent appropriation, that DOJ

39:12

was fully prepared to continue to fund

39:14

Jack Smith's work through

39:17

other appropriations that are just within

39:19

the department itself, as opposed to

39:21

this kind of special fund for

39:23

special counsel work. But she was

39:25

very, so she was very interested,

39:27

though, in this question of whether

39:29

it really did raise an appropriations

39:31

clause issue. And she had a

39:33

back and forth with James Pearson,

39:36

which she was like, well, you

39:38

know, she was getting very frustrated

39:40

with him because he kept saying,

39:42

well, Judge, this is just a

39:44

pure statutory interpretation question. There actually

39:46

is no constitutional issue implicated with

39:48

the appropriations clause. She over

39:50

and over again pressed him to try to

39:53

explain that. And ultimately he had to stop

39:55

and say, Judge, you know what, this isn't

39:57

a hill that I'm inclined to die on

39:59

that. was his exact term. And so,

40:03

you know, if it is how your

40:05

honor is inclined to think, basically, then

40:07

then that's not something that we're going

40:09

to, you know, really fight. So

40:13

that was the constitutional issue, the

40:16

standing issue. Trump has both

40:18

of you, by the way, wouldn't die on any

40:20

hill, because he's already dead. And since

40:23

he's the undead, it's actually

40:26

he's uniquely positioned to see that ground.

40:28

Okay, Ben, you have to explain that

40:31

now. You can't just say that

40:33

and not explain it. Yeah,

40:35

so we have a joke

40:37

internally, that Bovee has a

40:40

vaguely vampiric, sepal-crawl

40:43

demeanor. And I

40:46

say that with love. He's a superb

40:48

lawyer. But he does sometimes look like

40:50

he crawled out of the crypt in

40:52

order to make an argument. Okay,

40:55

well, anyway, so the

41:00

standing issue though, Judge Cannon also

41:02

asked about Bovee cited this Ninth

41:04

Circuit case called McIntosh. And

41:08

that I don't need to go into

41:10

and that was not in the same

41:12

posture that this is or dealt with

41:15

the same type of, you know, statutory

41:17

framework. But he cited that case as

41:19

a way of saying, well, the harm,

41:21

the injury here is that

41:23

there's an imminent threat to liberty.

41:25

And so

41:28

he's trying to frame it in that

41:30

way, as opposed to saying, you know,

41:33

that there's already been some

41:35

kind of injury, it was almost

41:37

this kind of perspective reference to

41:39

this imminent threat to Trump's

41:42

liberty. So that's the way

41:44

that the defense is dealing

41:46

with the standing issue. Ultimately,

41:48

the Justice Department

41:52

kind of walked back to the

41:54

idea that they wanted to even

41:56

refer to it as standing, they

41:58

were saying more so at the

42:00

end that it's more about the

42:03

point that there's not really any

42:05

prejudice here to the defendant because

42:07

ultimately there nothing about the fact

42:09

that the fund, whether you had

42:11

the correct fund doesn't

42:16

really kind of matter because either way

42:18

the prosecution would have been funded in

42:20

some way. So

42:23

that's, yeah, Roger, go ahead. You got something to

42:25

add to that? Just

42:27

one other but in point I

42:29

wanted to make was that

42:33

I think in both

42:35

the appropriations clause hearing

42:37

and both and the appointments

42:41

clause, she has been

42:44

really angling for additional

42:46

factual evidence. She

42:50

wants to know, did

42:53

Attorney General Garland approve

42:56

the indictment? She wants to get

42:59

inside and she,

43:02

it's not clear, to

43:04

me at least I sounded like she

43:07

is still considering will

43:09

she send interrogatories or

43:11

something to the DOJ? And

43:15

same with the appropriations clause.

43:17

She wanted more factual and

43:19

nobody but her, this

43:22

is all her. Nobody wanted

43:24

and asked for an evidentiary hearing on

43:26

either of these issues. And

43:30

so she on her own invited the

43:32

amici and everybody, should this

43:34

do I need? And of course by

43:37

then Trump begins to get the

43:39

under, say, well, yeah, you might

43:41

need one but this is her

43:44

driving the car again

43:47

and this investigating the

43:49

investigators. And I do think

43:52

that one hill they might be, I

43:56

mean, one thing I don't think the

43:58

government wants to start with.

44:00

getting into, did

44:04

Attorney General Garland approve this? Did

44:06

he approve, you know, that is

44:08

really... They will not

44:10

talk about that. Yeah. And this

44:12

was a very contentious point in the Friday

44:15

hearing when she was pressing James Pierce on

44:17

this. He over and over again said, I'm

44:19

not going to get into the department's internal

44:21

deliberations. She said, why

44:23

would there be any heartburn about answering

44:25

whether the Attorney General approved the indictment?

44:28

She was very unhappy with them about

44:30

that. But Roger, to your point, on

44:33

the issue of this, the

44:35

impact of the Consumer Financial

44:37

Protection Bureau case, she

44:40

was actually like really focused on that

44:42

in a way that the parties didn't

44:44

even argue. She's

44:46

focused on this issue of separations,

44:48

a separation of powers that is,

44:52

might be implicated by the fact

44:54

that there is an uncapped permanent

44:58

indefinite appropriation for the special counsel.

45:01

So she was asking these questions that

45:03

were, you know, do you

45:05

know of any cases where there

45:07

are constitutional separation of

45:09

powers issues implicated

45:11

by an unlimited spending?

45:15

And then she went kind of line

45:17

by... This is, again, one of the

45:19

more remarkable aspects of what was going

45:21

on is that she

45:23

was going, you know, line by

45:26

line in the expenditures of the

45:28

report of the special counsel's expenses

45:31

saying, oh, well, what's this?

45:33

And is this what

45:35

I think it means? And that kind

45:38

of thing. So again, to your point,

45:40

just really focused on getting additional factual

45:42

information that no one had even

45:44

raised. Even

45:48

when we're on a budget, we still deserve nice things. Quince is

45:50

a place to scoop up stunning high-end

45:52

goods for 50 to 80% less in similar brands. They

45:57

have buttery soft cashmere sweaters starting at 50%. $50,

46:01

luxurious Italian leather bags, and so much more.

46:04

Plus, Quince only works with factories

46:06

that use safe, ethical, and responsible manufacturing.

46:09

Get the high-end goods you'll love without the high

46:11

price tag with Quince. Go

46:13

to quince.com/style for free shipping and

46:15

365-day returns. Life

46:18

is full of awesome what-ifs and

46:21

some not so much, like unexpected

46:23

medical costs. That's why UnitedHealthcare provides

46:25

health protector guard fixed indemnity insurance

46:27

plans to supplement your primary plan

46:29

and help manage out-of-fauca costs. Learn

46:31

more at uh1.com. So

46:36

we're going to play a little

46:38

game, which is to try to figure out

46:41

what the chances that Judge Cannon

46:43

slips up and gets something

46:45

sent to the 11th Circuit. And

46:47

so for each of these motions, which would

46:50

produce a

46:52

dismissal, if granted, I'm going to

46:54

ask each of you to assign

46:56

a probability that she grants it.

46:59

So Anna, Appointments Clause, what

47:01

do you think the chances are that she

47:04

dismisses the case on grounds that

47:07

Jack Smith was unlawfully appointed? Oh,

47:10

Ben, I don't know. Give

47:12

me a number. The

47:16

Appointments Clause issue, she did come back. I

47:18

just need to reason this out a little

47:20

bit. I don't like just the number. The

47:23

Appointments Clause issue, I said

47:25

initially on Friday, I thought she was going to

47:27

pull a cannon, which is write like a 20-page

47:30

opinion explaining why she thought Trump's arguments were so

47:32

good and then write one paragraph at the end

47:34

saying, but I know. I

47:37

thought on Monday, though, she came back

47:39

to the Appointments Clause issue

47:42

again and again as

47:44

it related to these Appropriations Clause

47:46

arguments. And I got more of a

47:48

sense that maybe she's really

47:51

seriously considering that Jack Smith

47:53

is a principal officer and

47:55

that he was unconstitutionally appointed.

47:57

And so I mean. It's

48:00

50-50 to me. I feel a little bit

48:02

like I did coming out of the special

48:04

master hearing last, or gosh, what was it,

48:07

2022 now. And I

48:09

wasn't really sure what she was going to do,

48:11

but was pretty concerned by some of her questioning.

48:13

And I feel a little bit the same here.

48:15

I think she's really unpredictable. All

48:17

right, Roger, what probability do you

48:19

assign to a grant of a

48:22

dismissal on basis of the appointments

48:24

clause? Well, I

48:26

wasn't there like Anna, but

48:29

I have always thought that

48:33

given who she is and who she wants

48:35

to be, that

48:37

this is something she might grant.

48:41

And I don't think

48:44

it's the thing that

48:46

would get her reassigned,

48:49

because I think she has

48:51

support on the Supreme Court. But

48:53

it would be ripe for appeal. That's

48:55

all I'm calculating. I mean, oh, it'd have

48:58

to be appealed. So you think it would

49:00

be reversed. But still,

49:02

I think given who

49:04

she is, I think it's

49:06

possible. So 50-50? Yeah. All

49:10

right. What about the appropriations clause,

49:13

Anna? What are the chances she

49:15

says, you know,

49:17

you're lawfully appointed, maybe you're

49:19

lawfully appointed, or maybe

49:21

you're not, but in any event,

49:23

you're unlawfully funded. So I'm dismissing

49:26

the case. I

49:28

don't think she dismisses on

49:32

the issue of the

49:34

appropriations. But

49:37

she's really concerned about

49:39

the special counsel spending.

49:41

Again, I

49:43

don't think she's going to dismiss though. So

49:45

I don't know, 15%. All

49:47

right. All right, let's

49:50

move on. We will do a calculation at the

49:52

end of the thing of

49:56

the probability that something ends up in front

49:58

of the 11th circuit among these. motions.

50:01

But on that one,

50:04

if she does, I think the

50:06

chance of reassignment is higher, because

50:08

I think it's wackier. And I

50:10

think it's her, it's just so

50:12

driven by her, you know,

50:15

and it's there, there

50:18

people, judges are not supposed to

50:20

be litigants. And they're not supposed

50:22

to, if they do, you know,

50:24

sometimes it makes sense for a

50:26

judge to say, well, wait a

50:28

minute, I think there's a constitutional

50:30

issue. But if every single frickin

50:32

time they do that, it favors

50:34

one side, it begins to look

50:37

like something else is happening. And

50:39

that's what this is. Over

50:41

and over, she brings things up. She

50:44

wants last August, she

50:46

decided she got a B in her

50:48

bonnet, that there was something suspicious about

50:50

the way they kept it in the

50:52

DC grand jury for so long. And

50:55

at the only at the last minute

50:57

brought it here, they were trying to

50:59

do something tricky. And she's still investigating

51:01

that. And she was the first one

51:03

that wanted to find out what what

51:06

really did happen with Stan Woodward and

51:08

and Jay Bratt back in 2022, which

51:10

she still hasn't ruled on. Right.

51:13

And, and so she's got

51:15

all these bees in her bonnet,

51:17

all these things she wants to

51:19

know, this appropriations clause, shouldn't we

51:21

have an evidentiary hearing? No, not

51:24

really. We waved it. In fact,

51:27

no, she wants it. So that's

51:30

that's the sort of thing that could

51:32

get her reassigned. Yeah,

51:34

I actually think the appointments

51:36

clause stuff could get her

51:38

reassigned too. Because I

51:41

think once the government goes up

51:43

on something, they have this huge

51:45

record, you know, and they can

51:47

ask for a reassignment

51:49

based on the totality of of

51:52

her performance. All right,

51:54

so now

51:57

we move to the afternoon session, we

51:59

still got one whole. day to go

52:01

after the afternoon session. We moved to

52:03

the afternoon session and

52:05

we are talking about gag-order-y

52:09

kind of things. Tell

52:11

us about what happened at the

52:14

afternoon session on Monday. Well,

52:18

it did not go well

52:20

for the government. She

52:23

was very skeptical of

52:25

the idea, I think, that there

52:28

was anything that needed to be dealt with

52:31

at this juncture,

52:33

at least. She

52:36

was focused on the fact that

52:39

under the Bail Reform Act, there's

52:41

a focus on safety

52:45

concerns, but also that

52:47

whatever action is

52:50

taken must be

52:53

the thing that is the most minimally

52:56

or least reasonably necessary action

52:58

that the court could take.

53:01

She was focused on in that inquiry

53:06

why it's not sufficient that law

53:08

enforcement officers, witnesses in the case,

53:10

have had their names redacted in

53:14

the public filings. Roger,

53:16

as you are well aware, she

53:18

has felt very aggrieved by the

53:20

ongoing litigation over the redactions. It's

53:23

something she's been very annoyed by.

53:25

She said, we had all the

53:27

things that had happened with the

53:29

fight over whether

53:34

or not these witness names

53:36

should be redacted. She said

53:38

the court did redact these

53:40

names. Why isn't it sufficient

53:42

that these names aren't

53:44

public? The government said, well, Your

53:46

Honor, there are some of these

53:48

names that are public because there

53:50

were law enforcement officers who were

53:52

involved in the case who were

53:54

doxxed. She wanted

53:57

to know, well, when were they doxxed? It

53:59

was in 20. 2022 and what

54:01

does that have anything to do with

54:03

the present motion? And

54:06

she wasn't quite really connecting the

54:08

fact that the point was that

54:11

because these names are now public,

54:14

if there is speech that is,

54:16

you know, in some way putting

54:18

officers in danger, then those people

54:20

could very well be targets because

54:23

their names are public. They aren't

54:25

protected by these redactions that she

54:27

was pointing out. But

54:29

she was really focused on this

54:31

idea that, well, did the

54:34

defense have anything to do with

54:36

doxing these names earlier? She

54:38

didn't quite grasp like what it

54:40

is that was the issue

54:42

here. And it kind

54:45

of got her into a really

54:47

tense exchange with David Harbock. And

54:49

for the second time now, she

54:51

ultimately ended up reprimanding him saying,

54:54

Mr. Harbock, I don't appreciate your

54:56

tone. If you can't be collegial

54:59

and professional, then

55:01

I'm sure one of your colleagues would be

55:03

willing to take over. This is what I

55:05

often have to say to you, Anna. And

55:08

you never listen to me. And so I

55:10

end up wagging my finger at you. Yeah,

55:13

exactly. So

55:15

that happened. That wasn't great

55:18

for them. And

55:20

she also was focused on the fact that- He

55:23

just asked, was his tone

55:25

rude? I mean, did it strike you that

55:27

his tone was off? So

55:30

his tone, it's hard to describe. His

55:33

tone was one in which

55:35

you are trying to explain to someone and you're

55:37

a bit befuddled by

55:41

the fact that they don't understand what

55:43

you are arguing. And

55:47

you could tell he was frustrated, but

55:49

he wasn't, in my view, he wasn't

55:51

being rude. But his

55:54

tone did have an air of,

55:57

you know, he was a bit, again,

56:00

frustrated and puzzled by the fact

56:02

that she couldn't grasp that she

56:05

had just asked about the redactions.

56:07

And then he was trying to explain to her

56:10

why it didn't matter. And she

56:12

was going on these tangents that were kind

56:14

of irrelevant. And so, you know,

56:17

it was that kind of tone of, it

56:19

was maybe a little bit condescending, I don't

56:21

know if it was quite there, but it

56:23

was, you know, a little

56:26

bit kind of to to that. But

56:30

it wasn't something that I thought was

56:35

like so egregious that it

56:37

kind of required her to

56:39

stop and say, you

56:42

know, your tone is so terrible. And what

56:44

maybe let one of your colleagues take over

56:46

if you can't pull it together. He

56:49

immediately I will say, you know,

56:52

apologize did pull it together.

56:54

And and from then on,

56:56

things were things were fine

56:59

in terms of at least the tone, the

57:01

substance of the arguments still did not go

57:03

very well for the government. And

57:05

then at the end, Harbach did apologize to her

57:07

and she, you know, accepted

57:10

the apology seemed to be fine with

57:12

it. And so, you

57:14

know, it was just

57:17

a moment, though, that I thought was remarkable,

57:19

because Roger, at the hearing that you

57:21

went to the previous month,

57:23

I believe there was a very

57:25

similar kind of exchange, right? Yeah,

57:27

yeah, there was. Yeah.

57:29

And so and so the rest of the

57:32

argument, Ben, you know, she's focused on this

57:34

idea that it's not at

57:36

this time that there's any kind of

57:38

real reason to think that

57:42

there is a, you know, threat to

57:44

law enforcement safety.

57:47

She talked about how if there when there's

57:49

a trial, you know, if there are some

57:51

kind of threats, then at that juncture, she

57:53

would deal with it. You

57:56

tell her. Talk

57:58

about thatading issue again,ittle my community republican

58:00

emission was Bolden. got mad about is

58:02

that the government suggested that she incorporate

58:05

by reference fact finding

58:07

in other jurisdictions that relate to

58:09

people who had done things in

58:13

response to or around the time that

58:15

Trump had made statements about things. People

58:17

had gone and attacked people or made

58:19

threats and that kind of thing. The

58:22

government said, all these other jurisdictions,

58:25

there's this and that. And she got

58:27

very upset that the

58:29

government wanted her to just

58:32

take other judicial opinions or

58:34

decisions and incorporate

58:36

it into her ruling. She

58:39

was really, again, focused on, this

58:42

is a factual proceeding and you

58:44

have to develop your factual record.

58:46

Which, I mean, it is

58:49

true that the government does have

58:54

to do that, but it was

58:56

another example of some of the

58:59

ways in which she's very, very

59:01

particular about the

59:03

way that things are happening. And

59:06

so anyway, that ultimately

59:09

is where we left off, where

59:13

it just seems like she was

59:15

not totally convinced. I

59:17

very much think that it is

59:20

going to be a denial

59:24

for the government on this issue. And I

59:26

will say that there were also moments where

59:28

it didn't feel totally like the government's heart

59:31

was in it. They

59:35

did have moments where it seems

59:38

like a misstep because, for example,

59:40

they had additional things they wanted

59:42

to put into the record, but

59:44

they didn't really have them prepared.

59:49

And they had to make requests to maybe

59:51

supplement the record. And of course, she gets

59:53

very frustrated with that kind of thing. So

59:56

there were just moments that it seemed like

59:58

it wasn't the government. best performance,

1:00:01

and Judge Cannon

1:00:04

was very frustrated with that. All

1:00:07

right. On

1:00:10

to Tuesday. So

1:00:12

Tuesday, we have

1:00:14

a secret hearing in the morning.

1:00:16

What do we know about the

1:00:18

secret hearing? What was it about?

1:00:21

And did you sneak in, in

1:00:24

your just fly on the wall disguise and

1:00:27

land on Judge Cannon's shoulder and listen to

1:00:29

the whole thing? No,

1:00:31

I wish, but I think that would have been a

1:00:33

really interesting hearing. It was on the attorney-client

1:00:36

privilege issue. Trump has a

1:00:39

motion to dismiss or suppress

1:00:41

evidence based on the quote,

1:00:43

unlawful piercing of attorney-client privilege.

1:00:45

That relates to the dispute

1:00:47

that existed

1:00:50

up in the

1:00:52

District of Columbia during the

1:00:54

grand jury proceedings when the

1:00:56

Department of

1:00:58

Justice basically was trying to get Trump's

1:01:01

then attorney, Evan Corcoran's notes that

1:01:03

related to some of his communications

1:01:05

with Trump about the

1:01:08

movement of the boxes and the

1:01:11

response to various subpoenas.

1:01:15

And the District of Columbia judge,

1:01:18

Beryl Howell, ultimately said, yes, this

1:01:20

is the crime fraud exception applies

1:01:23

here, and the

1:01:25

government was able to obtain those notes.

1:01:29

And so Trump is now

1:01:31

arguing that the crime fraud

1:01:33

exception should not have applied.

1:01:36

So Judge Cannon held this

1:01:38

hearing on what

1:01:40

she calls presumptively privileged

1:01:43

materials. And

1:01:45

she also, I believe, Roger, correct me if I'm

1:01:47

wrong, but it was

1:01:49

also on this grand jury materials

1:01:51

dispute that

1:01:54

has been ongoing between

1:01:58

the prosecution and the defense. And maybe you want to talk about

1:02:00

that a little bit because I know that's something that you've focused

1:02:02

on. I

1:02:06

think that's right. And I'm

1:02:09

a little unclear on it too. It

1:02:12

has to do with Nauta,

1:02:17

Nauta's counsel Woodward was

1:02:19

trying to get the full record on

1:02:22

the attorney client privilege

1:02:24

question. Yeah,

1:02:26

it's kind of unclear. And again, we

1:02:29

weren't there. And so I don't know

1:02:31

exactly what was discussed. So we're just

1:02:33

kind of talking about these things based

1:02:35

on what we know from the hearings

1:02:37

and the filings. But there has been

1:02:40

a dispute over the grand jury material,

1:02:42

some of the grand jury materials in

1:02:44

DC. And there

1:02:46

was at one point, again, Roger, correct me

1:02:48

if I'm wrong, there was at one point

1:02:50

an effort to get

1:02:52

those materials transferred down to,

1:02:55

from the District of Columbia down

1:02:58

to the Southern District of Florida

1:03:00

before Judge Cannon. And I think

1:03:02

that Judge Boseburg maybe denied

1:03:05

that request. Is that right? Yeah,

1:03:07

that's right. James Boseburg and that

1:03:10

was, he just denied that, I

1:03:13

think in May. And

1:03:15

he said, well, it's a

1:03:17

fishing expedition. And

1:03:21

I think the request came

1:03:24

from Woodward. And

1:03:28

it seems like

1:03:30

judging from, I guess, spoiler alert,

1:03:34

there was an order today that we're gonna

1:03:36

get to eventually that discusses

1:03:38

this too. Yeah,

1:03:41

so let's get there. We don't know what

1:03:43

happened in Judge Cannon's. We

1:03:45

don't know what happened in Judge Cannon's courtroom,

1:03:48

but she did issue an order following that

1:03:50

hearing. Roger, what does the

1:03:52

order do? Well,

1:03:56

it ordered, and

1:03:58

I think it shows considerable. that

1:04:00

she's considerably pissed by

1:04:02

what James Boesperg did.

1:04:06

But let me say first

1:04:08

on this attorney client question,

1:04:11

Beryl Howell made this ruling,

1:04:14

and I believe the

1:04:16

government has said that everything

1:04:18

the government has on

1:04:21

the attorney client question, Judge Cannon

1:04:23

now has. The

1:04:28

government itself doesn't have certain

1:04:31

ex-party presentations that

1:04:33

Evan Corcoran was allowed

1:04:35

to give, Beryl Howell,

1:04:38

and I think that Trump's

1:04:41

then lawyers were allowed to give.

1:04:44

That was James Trusty, Lindsay

1:04:47

Halligan, and

1:04:50

Tim Parlatory. Parlatory. Yeah,

1:04:54

so I thought, but she

1:04:57

thinks something important is

1:05:02

being kept from her still. And

1:05:05

anyway, so today she denied part

1:05:08

of, I

1:05:13

guess we haven't, part of emotion we

1:05:15

haven't discussed yet, but

1:05:19

she ordered an evidentiary hearing

1:05:22

on this attorney client privilege

1:05:24

stuff. And I

1:05:27

don't know if it's a way to force the

1:05:29

government to

1:05:32

go back itself to

1:05:34

James Boesperg, Judge, Chief

1:05:37

Judge Boesperg in DC

1:05:39

and say, look, if

1:05:42

there's anything remaining that she doesn't

1:05:44

have, let's get it to her.

1:05:46

But she feels there's

1:05:48

some outstanding factual

1:05:53

issues and I don't know

1:05:55

what they are. They

1:05:57

are saying that relate to whether

1:06:01

whether Trump was using the

1:06:03

magic language to pierce the

1:06:05

privilege, whether Trump was using

1:06:08

his relationship with Corcoran

1:06:10

to further a crime

1:06:13

or a fraud. And so

1:06:16

she's contemplating a hearing with

1:06:21

exhibit lists and witness lists.

1:06:25

And the government obviously

1:06:27

was very upset about this. She

1:06:29

refers to the fact that the

1:06:33

government does not want a mini

1:06:35

trial beforehand, does not want its

1:06:38

witnesses being, have to testify. And

1:06:40

of course these would mainly be

1:06:43

FBI agents. And

1:06:45

as you just said, well,

1:06:47

those who haven't been doxxed will

1:06:52

be doxxed at this evidentiary hearing.

1:06:54

You can't keep their identities secret

1:06:57

unless the whole hearing will

1:07:00

be closed, which it might

1:07:02

be because she closed this

1:07:04

other hearing, because she's taking

1:07:06

this attorney-client privilege so seriously,

1:07:08

this is an attorney-client privilege

1:07:10

that's already been pierced. We

1:07:13

know what the Corcoran, we know

1:07:15

the gist. We know what

1:07:17

the notes say. Well, yeah. And

1:07:20

yet she's also

1:07:22

considering, remember, striking

1:07:25

these paragraphs from

1:07:27

the indictment. And

1:07:29

these would be crucial paragraph because

1:07:32

without the information about Corcoran,

1:07:36

all of the counts relating to

1:07:40

withheld documents, a

1:07:43

number of them, there

1:07:45

are willful retention counts that deal

1:07:47

with documents that were seized on

1:07:50

August 8th in the search. But

1:07:52

there are also about 10. I

1:07:55

think one through 21 were seized. Yeah,

1:07:59

but a bunch of... them are after the fact. 21 through 31

1:08:01

were turned over on June 28. So if you

1:08:03

don't know the

1:08:10

lengths to which Trump

1:08:12

took to avoid turning

1:08:14

those over on the 28th, which is

1:08:17

what Evan Corcoran tells

1:08:19

us, you know, Corcoran

1:08:21

tells us he asked Corcoran

1:08:23

to pick those out

1:08:25

and to get rid of them and

1:08:27

implied he should destroy them. And,

1:08:30

you know, without that,

1:08:32

he can just

1:08:35

say, well, I turned them over, what's

1:08:37

the problem? So it's

1:08:40

exceedingly important. Many of the counts

1:08:42

of the indictment hinge on whether

1:08:44

the Corcoran notes come in. All right.

1:08:46

And so the Corcoran

1:08:48

note suppression motion, Anna, Roger,

1:08:51

what percentage chance does she

1:08:53

grant it? I

1:08:55

think she mainly, this is another

1:08:58

run out the clock thing. It's also

1:09:01

in case if there is a trial it gives the

1:09:05

the Trump a ton of

1:09:07

discovery. It's always

1:09:09

bad to have your witnesses

1:09:11

have to testify twice

1:09:14

or multiple times. But she

1:09:17

also, you know, does seem

1:09:21

convinced that something sinister happened

1:09:23

up in DC. That's

1:09:25

why they did all this stuff

1:09:27

in DC instead of coming down

1:09:29

to South Florida, where it

1:09:31

would have done been done properly. And

1:09:34

so maybe she's going to

1:09:36

try to find some distinction

1:09:39

and and grant this. Anna,

1:09:42

what do you think? Yeah,

1:09:44

I mean, it's really hard to tell on this

1:09:46

one, just because we haven't been present for the

1:09:48

hearing. But I,

1:09:52

I'm inclined to think that she

1:09:54

is very that hasn't stopped me

1:09:56

on anything this evening. I am

1:09:58

very inclined to think that she

1:10:00

is very, she would be very

1:10:02

interested in potentially

1:10:05

doing something with this

1:10:07

motion. I'm not entirely

1:10:10

sure what but, you

1:10:14

know, maybe suppressing some evidence or

1:10:16

something like to that effect. Maybe

1:10:18

not dismissing the charge because they've

1:10:20

kind of styled it as a

1:10:22

motion to suppress and dismiss. But

1:10:28

I think the dismissal was the

1:10:30

idea that the attorney-client privilege is

1:10:33

so sacred that it's a due process

1:10:35

violation and you have to dismiss the

1:10:37

whole thing. But if

1:10:40

she suppresses a substantial amount of

1:10:42

information, they can go up to

1:10:44

the 11th circuit on that. So it's

1:10:46

the order, the order itself says, I'm

1:10:48

reserving decision

1:10:50

on the motion

1:10:53

to suppress. I don't think she's

1:10:55

seriously still considering

1:10:57

dismissal. And

1:10:59

the question is, to what extent though, the

1:11:02

what she suppresses is tantamount, as you

1:11:04

said, for at least some of these

1:11:06

counts to a

1:11:08

dismissal, because it

1:11:11

would take away a big part of the case.

1:11:14

But yes, Ben, I can't put a

1:11:16

percentage on this one. I

1:11:18

just don't know. But I would not be

1:11:21

surprised if she, to some extent, grants the

1:11:23

motion. All right. Incidentally, I also left

1:11:25

out this evidentiary

1:11:27

hearing will also be on

1:11:30

another issue, which is on

1:11:32

the particularity requirements

1:11:35

of the warrant. And this has to do

1:11:38

with, you know, parts of it were very

1:11:40

clear, you're supposed to seize, you

1:11:43

know, documents with classified markings. And

1:11:45

that's basically what they did. But

1:11:47

apparently, it also said there was

1:11:49

also language like national defense

1:11:51

information, which is sort of a term

1:11:54

of art. And it wasn't defined,

1:11:57

it was defined in the

1:11:59

affidavit. but not in the attachment

1:12:01

and it's unlikely that all

1:12:03

the agents read the affidavit. It's

1:12:06

totally unclear to me what

1:12:09

she would learn at an

1:12:11

evidentiary hearing that would clarify

1:12:13

to her, I

1:12:16

mean, is she going to interview

1:12:18

the agents and say, what

1:12:20

were you looking for? How did you interpret

1:12:23

that? I mean, what does

1:12:25

she need? All right, so we need

1:12:27

to move on because we got to go

1:12:29

to audience questions, but Anna, I want to

1:12:31

ask you very briefly, what was

1:12:33

the afternoon session on Tuesday? Yeah,

1:12:35

so it was on this very

1:12:38

subject, which was the validity and

1:12:40

sufficiency of the warrant. There

1:12:42

were two issues. One is this question

1:12:44

of whether there should be a Frank's

1:12:46

hearing, which is a hearing that is

1:12:49

held regarding allegations

1:12:52

of false statements or omissions

1:12:54

in the affidavit that is

1:12:56

used to seek

1:12:58

a warrant. And

1:13:01

I think that one, Judge

1:13:04

Cannon did not grant the Frank's hearing.

1:13:06

She denied that in this motion that

1:13:08

was, or this order that was released

1:13:10

earlier today. I got the

1:13:13

sense that she was not particularly

1:13:15

interested in this argument regarding

1:13:18

the omissions. I'm actually

1:13:20

really surprised though that she

1:13:22

granted this evidentiary hearing on

1:13:24

the second part of

1:13:26

the hearing, which related to whether

1:13:29

the language in the warrant

1:13:31

was sufficiently particular to meet

1:13:33

the particularity requirement of the

1:13:36

Fourth Amendment. Because at one

1:13:38

point, as the hearing was about to end,

1:13:41

she said to Emil

1:13:44

Bovee, the

1:13:47

question that the court has to decide is

1:13:49

whether the language is sufficiently

1:13:51

particular, because he was trying to make

1:13:53

all these other arguments about getting inside

1:13:55

the heads of the agents and all

1:13:58

this kind of stuff. and

1:14:00

trying to get to into issues that are

1:14:03

raised in their motion to compel and their

1:14:05

motion for selective prosecution. But she

1:14:07

said to him, no, the question is, I

1:14:09

look at the language and I decide whether

1:14:11

or not, it's sufficiently particular. And

1:14:14

then she said, and it seems

1:14:16

like it is. And so I

1:14:18

left the hearing thinking, oh yeah, she's

1:14:21

definitely gonna just deny this motion. And

1:14:24

then today we get this order

1:14:26

in which she says the court

1:14:28

agrees with defendant Trump that there

1:14:30

are sufficient ambiguities in this language

1:14:32

in attachment B, which just before

1:14:35

we wrap up, I'll read you

1:14:37

the part she's concerned about is,

1:14:42

this is about property to be

1:14:44

seized in under

1:14:46

attachment B, information including communications

1:14:48

in a form regarding the

1:14:51

retrieval storage or transmission of

1:14:53

national defense information or classified

1:14:55

material. She's focused on

1:14:57

national defense information. And then

1:14:59

in the next sentence, any government and

1:15:01

slash or presidential records created between January

1:15:04

20th, 2017 and January 20th, 2021, she's

1:15:09

focused on the ambiguity of

1:15:11

presidential records in the warrant.

1:15:14

I don't know what this evidentiary hearing

1:15:17

will look like on those matters, but

1:15:19

it is very interesting and surprising based

1:15:21

on what she said in the hearing

1:15:23

that she granted this evidentiary hearing. All

1:15:26

right, we have six audience questions.

1:15:28

We're gonna get through them all. Michael

1:15:31

asks, in the

1:15:34

gag order session, did Judge

1:15:36

Cannon express even one iota of

1:15:38

concern for the safety of the

1:15:40

FBI agents or the nature of

1:15:42

Trump's lie about the FBI? I

1:15:46

mean, look, I think at one point she

1:15:48

did say that, of course

1:15:50

safety is important or something to that

1:15:53

effect. I would need

1:15:55

to look back at my notes

1:15:57

and slash or a transcript to

1:15:59

get the... language. But her main

1:16:02

thing is just that she was

1:16:04

focused on the legal kind of

1:16:07

inquiries. And she really

1:16:10

was very resistant to that

1:16:12

because David Harbach kept

1:16:14

making the argument that we all

1:16:16

he kept saying we all know

1:16:18

the environment that Trump has created.

1:16:21

And kind of, you know, trying

1:16:23

to articulate

1:16:27

the idea that this is a guy

1:16:29

who he says things and then people

1:16:31

do things and he knows it. And

1:16:35

that's kind of the theme of what David Harbach

1:16:37

kept saying over and over again. And she

1:16:40

was just seemed to be very resistant

1:16:42

to the idea that there's just this

1:16:44

environment that everyone kind of knows about,

1:16:47

you know, again, she's so

1:16:49

particular about you've got to develop the

1:16:51

factual record and you've got to have

1:16:53

this in evidence and, and

1:16:56

it's got to be an exhibit and you

1:16:58

can supplement the record or you

1:17:00

can't supplement the record or you can and, you

1:17:02

know, so she that was the kind of

1:17:04

thing that I think she's just very resistant to

1:17:06

is just representations

1:17:09

being made without some kind of,

1:17:11

you know, paper to put into

1:17:13

evidence about it. All

1:17:16

right, Michael asks, I've heard

1:17:18

some commentary that

1:17:20

DOJ's aggressive prosecution of January

1:17:23

6th defenders has helped to

1:17:25

limit organized group efforts to

1:17:28

engage in organized violence around

1:17:30

elections because people who

1:17:32

engage in that know DOJ will

1:17:35

prosecute. But if Skodis

1:17:37

and Fisher hands down a

1:17:39

ruling that is very favorable

1:17:41

to the January 6th defendants,

1:17:43

will that risk removing the

1:17:45

disincentive and tempting groups like

1:17:47

the Proud Boys to engage

1:17:50

in election related violence? Roger,

1:17:53

how big a boon to the violence

1:17:56

engaged community would it be to

1:17:58

have a

1:18:02

favorable Fisher ruling. It

1:18:05

would be a moral, it would

1:18:07

be a big victory for everybody

1:18:10

that hates

1:18:12

Merrick Garland, you

1:18:14

know, a symbolic victory. And

1:18:17

it would be a blow that,

1:18:20

you know, we

1:18:22

see the way Trump uses, he

1:18:25

talks about the Russia hoax, the Russia

1:18:27

hoax. You know, there never was

1:18:29

a finding of a Russia

1:18:31

hoax, but the

1:18:34

Mueller report and the way that Attorney

1:18:36

General Barr handled

1:18:38

it gave those

1:18:42

forces a win.

1:18:46

And the nuance of it is

1:18:49

all lost. And this would be a

1:18:51

big win for all

1:18:53

of those forces, regardless

1:18:55

of the nuance and

1:18:58

how moderate in

1:19:01

actual impact, you know, it is

1:19:04

likely to have. That's sort

1:19:06

of the best I can do.

1:19:08

I don't think, unfortunately, that even

1:19:13

right now, that things are

1:19:16

great as far as having,

1:19:18

you know, taught the

1:19:20

forces of violence, any

1:19:23

sort of lesson, they seem to

1:19:26

be mobilizing, they seem vigorous,

1:19:29

they seem, can't think of the word,

1:19:31

but all

1:19:34

of this seems to have

1:19:38

backfired in some sense that everybody

1:19:41

is just the

1:19:44

forces that that caused

1:19:46

the violence are

1:19:49

fully engaged. I

1:19:53

will just add to that that

1:19:55

the Justice Department has a lot of tools

1:19:57

to prosecute people who engage

1:19:59

in violence. violence. This

1:20:02

one, the most

1:20:04

violent people are not charged with

1:20:06

this crime. The people who

1:20:08

are charged with others as well,

1:20:12

right? These are

1:20:14

not the seditious conspiracy people, right?

1:20:16

These are not the these

1:20:18

are the people who kind of and this

1:20:24

really has application most of

1:20:26

the time, only with

1:20:29

reference to attacks on

1:20:31

things like the Capitol, because most

1:20:33

other proceedings, you're going to be

1:20:35

using a different statute. So,

1:20:37

look, it would be really

1:20:40

bad for January 6 prosecutions,

1:20:42

you'd lose at least

1:20:45

one charge in a couple hundred of

1:20:47

them. But I

1:20:49

don't think it would materially

1:20:52

generally erode the Justice

1:20:55

Department's ability to prosecute

1:20:57

violent political

1:21:00

crimes in other contexts.

1:21:03

Okay, Laura asks, What do you

1:21:05

feel are the most important points

1:21:07

in Norm Eisen and Joshua Kolb's

1:21:09

piece, Prepare for a

1:21:11

2024 mini trial

1:21:14

in Trump's DC prosecution. So this was

1:21:16

a piece we published in Lawfare, I

1:21:19

believe on Monday, the main

1:21:21

gist of which was that we

1:21:25

could expect in the event

1:21:28

that the court were to

1:21:30

rule partially for Trump in

1:21:32

the immunity case, which is

1:21:34

a distinct possibility, a

1:21:36

kind of mini trial, as

1:21:39

Judge Chutkin tries to figure out

1:21:41

how to apply the Supreme Court

1:21:43

ruling and that that mini trial,

1:21:46

if not the trial itself would likely

1:21:48

happen over the summer. I thought

1:21:51

Norman Josh's point was a very interesting

1:21:54

one, which was why we ran the

1:21:56

piece. I don't know

1:21:58

how to handicap the like as opposed

1:22:00

to a full-fledged trial is going to

1:22:02

happen. That

1:22:04

depends entirely on the way the Supreme Court

1:22:06

rules. But I thought

1:22:08

it was an interesting issue to flag, and

1:22:10

I think it's a very likely possibility as

1:22:14

the district court figures out

1:22:17

how to apply whatever the Supreme Court ends up

1:22:19

ordering. Jim

1:22:21

asks, why did Judge Murchand

1:22:24

allow Trump to attach attack

1:22:28

jurors? And the answer is he didn't.

1:22:30

He allowed Trump to attack the jury.

1:22:35

And the reason he did it, first of all,

1:22:38

the entire gag order will lapse with sentencing. You

1:22:42

can't stifle somebody's First Amendment rights

1:22:44

forever. This

1:22:46

is something that he is allowed to impose

1:22:50

for trial management purposes.

1:22:53

When the trial is over, the gag order

1:22:55

is over. The trial is over. The gag

1:22:57

order goes with it. And he seemed to

1:22:59

acknowledge that the other day.

1:23:01

So this is really a question

1:23:03

of how much it diminishes

1:23:06

now that witnesses

1:23:09

are not

1:23:12

at issue anymore, that the

1:23:14

thing isn't live. The jurors

1:23:16

are the most sensitive matter

1:23:18

here. And I

1:23:20

think he actually said that he wished he

1:23:23

could sustain the

1:23:25

protection. But he understands that

1:23:27

he can't. And so he,

1:23:29

and that's going to suck

1:23:31

for them. I

1:23:35

did notice that

1:23:38

unlike Anna's friends

1:23:40

in the Fulton County special

1:23:42

grand jury, none of

1:23:44

these jurors have raced to the

1:23:46

press to talk about their experience.

1:23:49

And I do think that reflects the fact

1:23:52

that Justice Murchand is

1:23:54

almost certainly right that they find

1:23:56

the atmosphere pretty menacing.

1:24:01

Two more questions. Michael asks, here's

1:24:03

a potential disposition in Trump v.

1:24:06

U.S. that I haven't heard anyone

1:24:08

suggest. The court could set the

1:24:11

case for re-argument in the fall.

1:24:13

Do any of you think that this is

1:24:16

a possibility? Yes, it's

1:24:18

a possibility. It's a fairly remote

1:24:20

one, just

1:24:22

because the court doesn't do that very

1:24:25

often, but they do do it sometimes.

1:24:28

Sometimes in very high-profile

1:24:31

cases, if I remember correctly, Brown

1:24:33

v. Board of Ed was held

1:24:36

over for re-argument and was reargued.

1:24:38

I may be misremembering

1:24:40

that, but I don't think so. It

1:24:45

is always possible that

1:24:48

they could do that. It is also

1:24:50

possible, as they did

1:24:52

today in the Emtala

1:24:56

case, the emergency medical care

1:24:58

case, where they, after

1:25:01

full argument and briefing, dismissed it

1:25:03

as the writ as improvidently granted.

1:25:05

That is also always within their

1:25:08

power to do. You

1:25:10

generally don't bet on them doing

1:25:12

those things. Usually, when they take

1:25:14

a case, have it briefed and

1:25:16

fully argued, they tend to mean

1:25:18

to decide it. Do either

1:25:20

of you have thoughts on that? Okay.

1:25:23

Last question. If

1:25:26

Judge Cannon is so concerned with

1:25:28

the appropriations for Smith and company,

1:25:30

would it make sense to point

1:25:33

out the amount of extra funds

1:25:35

that are being spent to

1:25:37

assuage all her fears and answer

1:25:39

all her questions? I

1:25:43

take it that that question is meant

1:25:45

somewhat in jest, but I will just

1:25:47

say in response to it that the

1:25:49

issue is how

1:25:52

much money Jack

1:25:54

Smith has spent, the issue

1:25:57

is whether the source of that

1:25:59

money is lost. available to

1:26:02

him. And along the way,

1:26:04

of course, it's always fun to

1:26:06

point out how expensive investigations have

1:26:08

been. Although that is

1:26:11

often a bad argument because

1:26:14

some investigations, like

1:26:16

the Mueller investigation, I think took

1:26:18

in more in seized assets than

1:26:20

it cost. You kind of live by

1:26:23

that argument, you can die by that

1:26:25

argument too. All of which four minutes

1:26:27

early brings us

1:26:29

to the end of this week's

1:26:32

Trump's trials and tribulations. You will

1:26:34

notice that it has gotten dark

1:26:36

over Roger's right shoulder because

1:26:39

it is evening in France, even if it

1:26:42

is always broad daylight

1:26:45

in the Mar-a-Lago studios.

1:26:48

Folks, become a

1:26:50

material supporter of lawfare.

1:26:52

There are 400 of

1:26:55

you or something watching on YouTube.

1:26:58

And I'm telling you, it's

1:27:00

more fun here in Zoom because

1:27:03

you get your questions answered.

1:27:05

You get to participate in

1:27:07

this glorious chat that we

1:27:10

call the Greek chorus that

1:27:13

comments and greets each other. They have

1:27:15

a great time. You can become part

1:27:17

of that. All you have to do

1:27:19

is go to lawfaremedia.org/support,

1:27:25

become a material supporter. The

1:27:27

option is always available. Remember,

1:27:30

it is a federal crime to

1:27:33

give material supports to designated

1:27:35

foreign terrorist organizations. It

1:27:37

is a virtue to

1:27:39

give material support to lawfare.

1:27:42

We hope you do. From the

1:27:45

Mar-a-Lago bathroom studio, well, Anna has

1:27:48

something to say. I have a

1:27:50

very important announcement for listeners of

1:27:52

Trump trials and tribulations. As

1:27:55

everyone knows, I have spent weeks,

1:27:57

even months, being a part of

1:28:00

this. Fort Pierce, the biggest hater

1:28:02

of Fort Pierce, Florida. After

1:28:06

spending nearly a week there, I

1:28:08

will say I've really come around. Whoa.

1:28:11

Yeah, it's a big. She's a

1:28:14

convert. Yeah, I'm a convert.

1:28:16

Anyway, Fort Pierce is great. It was

1:28:18

really fun to be writing all weekend,

1:28:20

but at least I was writing by

1:28:22

the beach. So that was great. And

1:28:25

yeah, that's all I've got to say.

1:28:28

Just my greatest announcement. I did have

1:28:30

a margarito and some fish tacos. So.

1:28:32

All right. But

1:28:34

the food is still better in lower

1:28:36

Manhattan, right? The food is still way

1:28:38

better in lower Manhattan. And like the

1:28:40

general, the general, like

1:28:43

just everything in lower Manhattan is

1:28:45

still probably preferable. And it's still

1:28:47

really hard to get to Fort

1:28:49

Pierce. But once you are there,

1:28:52

it's not that bad. Not that bad.

1:28:54

All right. On that cheerful note, this

1:28:58

has been Trump trials and

1:29:00

tribulations. Thanks to

1:29:02

the great Anna Hickey

1:29:04

who manages these

1:29:06

live streams. And we will

1:29:09

be back maybe tomorrow,

1:29:11

maybe Monday, maybe both. But

1:29:15

certainly next week. And

1:29:17

until then, be great

1:29:19

Americans. Hey,

1:29:36

everyone. I'm Craig Robinson, co-host of

1:29:38

the Ways to Win podcast, alongside

1:29:40

my good friend, John Calipari. I've

1:29:42

been on the go recently. Phoenix,

1:29:44

Kansas City, Chicago. If you're like

1:29:46

me and have a home but

1:29:48

aren't always at home, you have

1:29:51

an Airbnb. Hosting your home or

1:29:53

a spare room is a very

1:29:55

practical side hustle. If you live

1:29:57

in a big game town. you

1:29:59

can Airbnb your place for fans

1:30:01

to stay in. Your home might

1:30:03

be worth more than you think.

1:30:06

Find out how much

1:30:08

at airbnb.com/ host.