D (2:55)

Well, think about this in this context. So Ms. Maxwell was convicted in a jury trial and sentenced to 20 years in prison. The Supreme Court recently denied the writ of certiorari that they applied for an appeal. So she's got no appeals pending. So what does she have to offer President Trump? Why in the world would the deputy Attorney General, Todd Blanche, meet with her personally without any of his assistance present last summer for two days? What incentive do they have to do that? And who honestly thinks that Donald Trump, who rationally thinks Donald Trump really wants Ms. Maxwell to be truthful and that he's really seeking the truth here? I mean, and what does Ms. Maxwell have to offer? Nothing. She's been convicted. She has no appeal left. What could she possibly give Donald Trump? Well, the answer to that is she could possibly exonerate him. She could possibly come forward and say, I know nothing about Donald Trump. I never saw him do this, I never saw him do that. We know that her lawyer leaked transcript excerpts from transcripts from Mr. Blanche's interview of Ms. Maxwell, which sort of exonerated Donald Trump. But that would be the only incentive that, that, that Donald Trump would have to want to give her clemency is that she would offer him something in return. So what could she offer him in return? She could say he had nothing to do with Jeffrey Epstein or any of these sex crimes or any of these things that she's aware of. But then that comes at a price for Donald Trump because then to grant her clemency, you're going to have his base and various people within his base go crazy, go bananas. So which does he want more? Does he want this juicy piece of her exonerating him saying, I did nothing wrong, or does he want to fade the heat and give her clemency?

B (4:54)

I mean, don't you think it's more he would be asking her to lie and say that some evidence that exists potentially she would say, oh, no, that's not the way it was.

D (5:04)

I think that's implied that whatever he wants from her isn't truthful. It would be some sort of a narrative that that meets his end game of I did nothing wrong here.

B (5:15)

Let's talk about the relationship that Ghisain Maxwell's lawyer has with Todd Blanch and Donald Trump.

D (5:25)

I think it's interesting in the Politico report, it talks about actually Mr. Markham meets with Donald Trump at Doral Country Club and Todd Blanch in 2023 to discuss Mr. Markham representing Donald Trump.

B (5:41)

So let's Ghis Maxwell's attorney, according to met with Trump, to potentially be Donald

D (5:48)

Trump's attorney, according to the Politico article. That is correct. So I think what we're seeing here is that everybody is somewhat interconnected. We also know that Mr. Markham has a podcast in which Mr. Blanche has appeared twice, I believe, in 2023, 2024. And we know, according to reports, they're friends there. And anyone that knows the hierarchy of the Department of Justice knows that. It was odd last summer when Todd Blanche, the Deputy Attorney General, set aside everything else he was doing and traveled to interview Ms. Maxwell. None of the line attorneys that were involved in her trial or involved in her appeal were present. It was only the deputy Attorney general. That's odd. That's weird. Anyone that knows anything about a criminal

B (6:37)

case after that, she's transferred to.

D (6:39)

She's transferred to better prison. A better prison. But think about it in terms like, Ms. Maxwell has nothing to give. She's lost all of her appellate rights. She's been convicted. She's looking at 20 years. She's got nothing to give that would catch the attention of the deputy Attorney General and cause him to give up everything he's doing to go and meet with her. Unless she knows something that they don't want her to say or reveal, and she's using that as leverage to try to get clemency. Bingo.

B (7:14)

So I want to go back to 2008, when Jeffrey Epstein received a sweetheart deal from Alex Acosta. Obama was president. There was a complete barrier between Obama's executive branch and the doj. So I just want to say that if anybody wants to, like, you know, blame Obama for this, there was a legitimate, like, no colluding whatsoever. But you, as a criminal defense attorney, you represent, you know, potentially a Ghislaine Maxwell or Jeffrey Epstein, and you're up against US Attorneys like Alex Acosta. And when this happened, at the time when Jeffrey Epstein should have gone to prison, they had this incredible case built against him. What was your take on that at the time, and what is your take on it now, considering how every single way this case has been passed on and on up the Justice Department, different administrations, different political parties, it seems like they're always currying favor to the pedophiles.

D (8:20)

Think about it like this. Like most prosecutors love to beat their chest about sending pedophiles, people who molest children, sending those People to prison. They loved to be able to say that because honestly, everybody in society feels that way. And this case is different. This goes back to 2008. You've got this sweetheart deal that Mr. Acosta makes with Jeffrey Epstein. And it's interesting because that sweetheart deal reared its head again in Ms. Maxwell's appeal with Mr. Markham. He says in the appeal, he's trying to argue that the deal that Mr. Acosta made to Ms. Maxwell was binding to all other districts and she shouldn't have been tried in the Southern District of New York in 2022. And that was part of his appeal, which was denied. The Supreme Court refused to accept that and hear that. But it's interesting, along the way, everybody, everybody has given Jeffrey Epstein a pass. And you don't see that with law enforcement. You don't see that in these kinds of cases involving traffic, sex trafficking of children. And so in 2008, when Mr. Acosta makes that deal, no one can explain that. It has to be that there are higher powers, there's money involved. It has to be that there's something bigger going on that's causing them to make those types of decisions. And then this thing goes all the way up until 2019. Then you just recently, last summer, you've got the deputy AG going to see Ms. Maxwell. You've got them now considering granting clemency to hers. To keep in mind, her alone, she's been convicted of trafficking children, sex trafficking, and she's been sentenced to 20 years. So. And we're going to grant clemency to her.

B (10:09)

And it just seems like this cover up has just been going on for so long, it's really, really disturbing. And we need to keep it at the top of the news cycle. But I want to now shift gears a little bit to the Supreme Court, which has been an abject disappointment to say the least. And no one is more disappointing on the Supreme Court than Clarence Thom. This and pop up this post, Kylie. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas on Wednesday. This is last Wednesday, you guys delivered a televised broadside against progressivism, a political philosophy he described as an existential threat to America and the principles that founded it 250 years ago. Here is a video of Clarence Thomas railing against progressivism. Play the clip.

C (10:57)

Progressivism seeks to replace the basic premises of the Declaration of Independence and hence our form of government. It holds that our rights and our dignities come not from God, but from government. It requires of the people a subservience and weakness.

B (11:18)

Okay, I've heard enough. I've heard Enough. Does this man not realize the irony of the argument that he is making because of progressive politics? This man has a white wife. I think it's Loving versus Virginia is the case where Clarence Thomas has a, a wife who was able to plan an insurrection against the United States of America. This guy is just unbelievable. In other parts of the speech, speech, he blamed progressive politics for Hitler, Stalin, Mussolini, racial segregation in eugenics. He personally thanked Harlan Crow, who is his billionaire benef benefactor, who collects Nazi dishes as a side hustle. Josh, what is your take on Justice Thomas?

D (12:09)

Well, I mean, where do we start here? So I believe it was in 1971 he was admitted to Yale based on affirmative action, and he admits that like he said that. So just knowing that he has the right to be a Supreme Court justice and a federal judge based on the Voting Rights act of 191865 is what even allows him to be sitting where he's sitting. So, I mean, I don't even know where to begin with all this. I mean, how do you, how do you masquerade Just complete and utter ignorance for Clarence Thomas? You don't do it very well.

B (12:49)

And I think Clarence Thomas, when he makes speeches like this, I think it's something more insidious is going on. The Clarence Thomas provides a permission structure for crusty white Republican people to feel like, oh, I get to oppose progressive politics and I can oppose equality for all, and I can oppose all of these things because this black successful Supreme Court justice did it. Therefore I'm not a racist because I'm just echoing what he says.

D (13:24)

Yeah, we need to make Clarence Thomas go to all of these kid rock concerts. He needs to walk around in the, in the concert with all of the people that go there. He needs to go to Walmart four or five times a week.

B (13:38)

Agree. Shop around rural diners.

D (13:40)

That's right. Get in there and, and, and see it and feel it and, and let's hear what you got to say. I, I think he likes to speak down to these people, hoping that they're as ignorant as he thinks they are, because the things that he says makes no sense.

B (13:54)

Completely agree. Okay. And then we're also learning more about Chief Justice John Roberts. And I think that it's really important to note that long before Trump, the Roberts court is the one that has really, jet fuel accelerated this march into fascism. The decision Citizens United and allowing all of this money into politics and then every other decision after that has been on Chief Justice John Roberts court. And David Sirota has some analysis on this. Pop. This up documents show John Roberts proudly casting himself as a leader of the opposition to activist judges. Now, newly revealed memos show he led the charge to wield unprecedented judicial activist power to make sure corporations would never be forced to reduce pollution. And so this is a really important part because I think there's a thirst for all of us to learn more when we are living in the luxury of a superpower and politics are not affecting us. You know, we're interested in, you know, our own, you know, our pets, our lives, our kids. But we need to learn more about this. And you have to understand that this Supreme Court works for the oligarchs. They want to service corporations. The aforementioned Clarence Thomas, he is bought and purchased by a Nazi billionaire and he gets a lot of perks from that. All of these Supreme Court justices are prostitutes that are purchased in the same way that Donald Trump is purchased in the same way that America's top whore, Vice President J.D. vance, the most purchased man in American politics. All of this, the Supreme Court, the Republican Party, maga, is all about stealing money from working class Americans and shifting it to these evil, corrupt oligarchs.

D (16:06)

Well, how do I follow that up?

B (16:08)

By saying, great speech, darling.

D (16:10)

Great speech, sweetheart. So this was an interesting piece in the New York Times talking about the Supreme Court. And it, and it sort of talks about the birth of where the shadow docket came from in 2016. It stem from an Obama case that involved the coal industry and the epa and it became a vehicle for the court over the past four or five years. I think they've used it 25 times or so, the shadow docket. And I think 20 of those 25 times have been in Trump's favor. Those are rough numbers. But what you see in just a general concept is what you see is that Trump passes some law or administrative rule or he takes some action, a lower court deems it unconstitutional, the appellate court deems it unconstitutional. They then appeal it to the Supreme Court and they say, nope, sorry, we're not going to go with the lower courts. We're going to, on the shadow docket, issue a three sentence opinion saying, no, we're going to stay that order and allow them to continue doing what they're doing. And so that's the pattern and that's the court's way of taking immediate action, which goes against everything the court has said that they like, which is full briefing. I like to hear everything from the lawyers. They like to be methodical, they like to be intellectual, blah, blah, blah. All that's they're making these decisions, like you said, for financial and, or improper reasons. And they're siding with Trump most of the time, if not all.

B (17:36)

And just last question, Josh. As a criminal defense attorney, you're in federal courthouses a lot and you read about this extensively, and you have a lot of Trump appointed, George W. Bush appointed, even Reagan appointed federal court judges that are pulling their hair out at the actions of the Supreme Court. And the shadow docket, I'm talking conservative, conservative federal judges, because it creates chaos,

D (18:03)

because when you have a two or three sentence order from the shadow docket that overturns years of precedent and you have no rationale or reason for lower courts to follow why, this is the law now. And so it throws this whole a concept of stare decisis or precedence into chaos because the lower courts don't know how to interpret a two or three sentence order. And, and, and in law, like previous decisions guide everything. Like it's a very important concept. And, and so, yeah, and another thing, too is that you have a lot of federal judges right now, and a lot of them are conservative federal judges, but they're also rule of law federal judges that are seeing that this administration is turning the rule of law upside down. And it's an interesting dichotomy because these judges are conservative, a lot of them appointed by conservative presidents, but they also are losing or seeing the slow deterioration of the rule of law by this president with his policies and the rules and regulations he's attempting to pass. And so you see this dichotomy with them. They don't like this. They do support conservative policies, but they don't like the rule of law being disturbed. It's interesting to watch it play out.

B (19:24)

All right, that's all we have for today. Please like and subscribe and we'll be back later with more news.

E (19:39)

At vrbo, we understand that even the best of plans sometimes need a little support. So we plan for the plot twists. Every booking is automatically backed by our VRBO Care guarantee, giving you confidence from the very start. Whenever you need help, it's ready before your stay, through the moments in between, and after your trip. Because a great trip starts with peace of mind and maybe a good playlist, but we've got the peace of mind part covered.