← The Daily Beans
The Daily Beans
Refried Beans | Special Counsel 2.0 | 11/21/2022
00:44:37
Monday, November 21st, 2022 In the Hot Notes; Attorney General Merrick Garland has appointed Jack Smith special counsel to investigate Donald Trump; a shooting at an LGBTQ+ club in Colorado Springs with an assault weapon leaves five dead and 18 injured; a GOP operative is convicted of funneling money to Donald Trump; a Florida judge blocks Desantis anti woke law for colleges; and evidence shows Justice Alito leaked the Hobby Lobby decision before it was released; plus Allison delivers your Good News.
Loading summary
Transcript39 lines
- [00:00]
A
MSW Media. Hey, everybody, it's Ag. And welcome to Refried Beans, where we play an episode of the Daily Beans podcast from the same week either one, two or three years ago, so we can see how far we've come. So please enjoy this episode from days gone by and note the date in the intro.
- [00:22]
B
Refried beans. I like refried beans. That's why I want to try fried beans, because maybe they're just as good and we're wasting time. Jelly beans. Jelly beans. Jelly beans. J be.
- [00:45]
A
Hello and welcome to the Daily beans for Monday, November 21, 2022. Today, Attorney General Merrick Garland has appointed Jack Smith special counsel to investigate Donald Trump. A shooting at an LGBTQ plus club in Colorado Springs with an assault weapon leaves five dead and 18 injured. A GOP operative is convicted funneling money to Donald Trump. A Florida judge blocks Desantis anti woke law for colleges. And evidence shows Justice Alito leaked the Hobby Lobby decision before it was released. I'm your host, Alison Gill. Boy, we couldn't have had a busier weekend of news that began on Friday and just kept going, including this really, really terrifying and disturbing story about the Supreme Court and Justice Alito that dropped on a Saturday and it just kept going throughout the weekend. Later in this show today, I'm going to be talking with the author of Where Law Ends, Andrew Weissman, who has co authored a model prosecution memo for the Documents case alongside other brilliant legal minds like Joyce Vance, Norm Eisen, and Ryan Goodman of Just Security. And with the news of the appointment of a special counsel, I will not be starting a podcast called Jack Smith, she Wrote. But you can get all things special counsel right here on the Beans with appropriate profanity. And we have yet another shooting with an assault rifle targeting the LGBTQ community. There are five dead and 18 injured at a nightclub in Colorado Springs. This is a direct result of violent political rhetoric coming from the MAGA side. The suspect is in custody. Apparently a patron of the club took his handgun away from him and hit him in the head with it, and that's what ended the shooting spree. Now, I'm not going to repeat his name, he's in custody, but we'll keep you up to speed as to motive as details become available, but it seems pretty obvious. I'm hoping there will be hate crimes charges, federal charges. I hope they throw the book at the kid and then we need to ban assault weapons in the United States, which Joe Biden is calling for. So this is absolutely tragic. Of course, all of my thoughts and my love Go out to the community of Colorado Springs, the LGBTQ community there as well, family and friends and everyone who was impacted by this absolutely disgusting attack on peaceful people. So very sad by that news today. We do have a lot to get to. Let's hit the hot notes. Hot notes. All right. Friday, Merrick Garland appointed a special counsel to investigate Donald Trump and two of the criminal probes currently underway, including the fraudulent elector scheme to obstruct the peaceful transfer of power and the Mar A Lago documents case. His name is Jack Smith. He's a former Hague war crimes prosecutor, former ausa, worked at EDNY for a while, former chief of Public Integrity unit at the Department of Justice. Oddly enough, he worked there alongside Donald's lawyer, Jim Trustee. But I think he was in a different unit. I think he was in the crimes unit. Now, a lot of people are bafflingly upset by this appointment, but I've been calling for a special counsel for a long time. Back in October of 2021, in fact, over a year ago. And here's why. First, the power. A special counsel has prosecutorial powers. They can grant all their team members the full power of a U.S. attorney. They can indict. And their subpoenas are toothy because they're grand jury subpoenas. And if you flout a grand jury subpoena, you can go to jail or be fined or both. Second, speed. I know you feel like Mueller and Durham took forever, and it did take two years for them to wind down. Well, three years for Durham and write a report. But it only took five months before Mueller started making Iran indictments on the likes of Manafort and Gates, for example. It would be their only focus. By the way, these two investigations, unlike a U.S. attorney in D.C. or the FBI without a special counsel, they have a ton of things that they have to investigate. And both Jack Smith and Merrick Garland say speed and urgency are of the utmost importance to them. Third, transparency. Unlike the DOJ or Congress, a special counsel is required to disclose who and why they did or didn't prosecute. And if the AG narrows the scope or blocks an indictment, they must tell Congress. DOJ doesn't have to tell us shit. And finally, independents, special counsel has full power of a U.S. attorney and insulates the attorney General and the FBI from things they probably don't want to be involved in. Sure, the select committee is bipartisan, but a special counsel is nonpartisan. And sure, the GOP will hem and haw about politicization, but appointing a special counsel isn't about silencing them. It's about doing the right thing in the eyes of history and for the independence of the department. Now, some say what took so long to appoint a special counsel, well, we probably won't know that, but Merrick Garland, I think, wanted to hold this probe close to his chest for as long as he could. But once Donald announced for president, the conflict of interest presented by an appointee of Donald's political opponent became apparent, especially when Biden said he intends to run for president again. And this is not Garland working out of fear or favor. If he feared prosecution or favored Donald, he would have kept the probe himself and shut it down via an internal memo that we would never see because it would be protected by the deliberative process, privilege. Now, others are saying this will be another Mueller investigation, but let me tell you how it's not. First, Jack Smith will not be working under the constant threat of being fired or having his investigation curtailed. Also, Mueller knew from the outset of his investigation he would not charge a sitting president because of an LLC memo. But he continued his work in the hopes that it would prompt Congress to act. He wanted to get all the facts and testimony while it was fresh in people's minds. But now there is no Office of Legal Counsel memo that restricts Jack Smith as Donald is no longer president and there's no OLC memo that says you can't indict a candidate for president. And finally, the one OLC memo that Meadows and Bannon tried to cite that would give them blanket immunity from testifying has already been debunked by this Department of Justice in a filing in the Meadows case. Remember how we said that was really important? DOJ has said the memo Meadows was referring to does not give him absolute immunity and as a result, he can be called to testify, he can be indicted, et cetera, et cetera. And Meadows has been ordered to respond to the 16 subpoena. That battle has been settled as this special counsel comes into office. Also, no one can use privilege claims any longer as the Department of Justice has already won those battles in the courts with Amy Berman Jackson ordering folks like the Pats, Pat Philbin, Pat Cipollone, Greg Jacob, Mark Short ordered them all to testify, probably Eric Hirschman. The executive privilege belongs to Joe Biden. And time and again, Joe Biden has refused to invoke it for Donald Trump. Also, there is no Rosenstein to land the plane, nor is there a Bill Barr to spin the findings of this special counsel. Never forget, Rod Rosenstein wrote an exceedingly narrow scope for Mueller. And not only did Barr sit on the findings for three weeks and lie about them to the point Mueller made calls and wrote letters. But the Department of Justice will not write privileged internal memos outlining why Donald shouldn't be charged with crimes. Those people don't exist in the department anymore. And time wise, I don't think this is going to cause a delay. And most experts agree Jack Smith won't have to assemble a whole new team. Most of his team will include prosecutors and agents that have already been working on the case. And that was mostly true for Mueller. But he did take a few weeks to stand up that office. And this one, I think will take days. And don't forget, so many people have already testified or have been subpoenaed, including the aforementioned Pats, Greg Jacob, Mark Short, Kash Patel has testified already in the documents case. And the Department of justice issued like 40 or 50 subpoenas for testimony before that 60 day election blackout period that happened in early September, started in September. Jack Smith also has the benefit of the entirety of the January 6th committee work product, which they began handing over months ago. And they'll release all their evidence to special counsel in the coming weeks. Not so Jack Smith can rely on it instead of doing his own work, but so he can compare the transcripts to those from the grand jury and look for inconsistencies that might impeach his witnesses at trial and remedy that. Fix them. And finally, not only is Jack Smith closer to his real world practical experience than Mueller was, and not only does he have the entire Mueller investigation as a very recent example of best practices and what not to do, but he's low profile. Mueller spent 12 years as the FBI director, but Jack Smith a little less well known. I do not believe Garland would have appointed a special counsel if he weren't okay with prosecuting Donald. So I look forward to this investigation. And as with Garland himself, if this prosecutor declines to prosecute on anything other than the facts in the law, meaning if he uses prosecutorial discretion to say, well, I have all the facts in the law on my side, but I just don't feel like it's the right thing to do for political reasons or because we have to look ahead or whatever, I would consider that a death knell for the rule of law in America. And I just don't see it going that way. And from what I gather from my conversation with Andrew Weissman, which you'll hear a little bit later in the show, Jack Smith doesn't shy away from difficult cases. He's very aggressive. So welcome. Special Counsel Jack Smith. Up next from the Times, an absolutely disturbing story about conservative influence on the Supreme Court. As SCOTUS investigates the extraordinary leak this spring on a draft opinion of the decision that overturned Roe. A former anti abortion leader has come forward claiming that another breach occurred in 2014 in a landmark case involving contraception and religious rights. In a letter to Chief Justice John Roberts and in interviews with the New York Times, the Rev. Bob Schenck said he was told the outcome of the 2014 Hobby Lobby case weeks before it was announced. He used that information to prepare a public relations push, according to records. And he said that the last minute he tipped off the president of Hobby Lobby, the craft store chain owned by Christian evangelicals that was the winning party in the case. At the last minute, he tipped off the president of Hobby Lobby. Mr. Schenck's allegation creates an unusual, contentious situation. A minister who spent years at the center of anti abortion movements now turned whistleblower. A denial by a sitting Justice Alito and an institution that shows little outward sign of getting to the bottom of the recent leak of the abortion ruling or following up on Schenck's allegation. Now Schenck, who used to lead an evangelical nonprofit in Washington, said he learned about the Hobby Lobby opinion because he had worked for years, years to exploit the court's permeability. He gained access through faith, through favors traded with gatekeepers and through wealthy donors to his organization, abortion opponents whom he called stealth missionaries. And that's the buried lead here. Not only that Alito leaked the Hobby Lobby decision, but that the stealth missionaries were working for years to exploit the court. They go on to tell you a little bit about the story. In early June 2014, an Ohio couple who were the Shanks star donors shared a meal with Alito and his wife, Martha Ann. A day later, Gail Wright, one of the pair, contacted Schenck, according to an email that the Times saw. Rob, if you want some interesting news, please call. No emails. Schenck said Mrs. Wright told him that the decision would be favorable to Hobby Lobby and that Justice Alito had written the majority opinion. Three weeks later, that's exactly what happened. The court ruled in a 54 vote that requiring family owned corporations to pay for insurance covering contraception violated their religious freedoms. Now Alito has denied the allegation, but in interviews and thousands of emails and other records that Schenck shared with the Times, he provided details of the effort and he called the ministry of emboldenment. Mr. Schenck recruited wealthy donors like Mrs. Wright and her husband, encouraging them to invite some of the justices to meals, to their vacation homes or to private clubs. He advised allies to contribute money to the Supreme Court Historical Society and then mingle with justices at its functions. He ingratiated himself with court officials who could help give him access, according to records and emails. I really recommend reading this full article by Jodi Cantor and Joe Becker at the Times. It's very, very disturbing. There needs to be a Senate Judiciary investigation into this and into the leak of the Hobbs decision, in my opinion. And a Republican political strategist was convicted of illegally helping a Russian businessman contribute to Donald Trump's presidential campaign in 2016. Jesse Benton, 44, was pardoned by Trump in 2020 for a different campaign finance crime, months before, he was indicted again on six counts relating to facilitating an illegal foreign campaign donation. He was found guilty Thursday on all six counts. Elections, quote, reflect the values and the priorities and the beliefs of American citizens. That's Assistant U.S. attorney Michelle Parikh in her closing argument. Jesse Benton, quote, by his actions did damage to those principles. The evidence at trial showed Benton bought a $25,000 ticket to a September 2016 RNC event on behalf of Roman Vasilenko, a Russian naval officer turned multi level marketer. Vasilenko is under investigation in Russia for allegedly running a pyramid scheme, according to the Commersant newspaper. He could not be reached for comment. The donation got Vasilenko a picture with Trump, an entrance to a business roundtable with the future President. Basilenko connected with Benton through Doug Weed, an evangelical ally of the Bush family who was also involved in a multi level marketing scheme. Basilenko sent $100,000 to Benton, who was working for a pro Trump super PAC at the time, supposedly for consulting services. Benton subsequently donated $25,000 to the RNC by credit card to cover the ticket, so no collusion. And finally, a federal judge on Thursday halted a key piece of the Stop Woke act touted by DeSantis, blocking state officials from enforcing what he called a positively dystopian policy restricting how lessons on race and gender can be taught in colleges and universities. The 138 page order from Chief US District Judge Mark Walker is being heralded as a major win for campus free speech by the groups who challenged the state. The temporary injunction granted by Walker over the anti woke law has significant implications for policies in Florida, including a pending university tenure review rule that requires professors to abide by Was a bright cold day in April and The clocks were striking 13 and the powers in charge of Florida's public university system have declared the state has unfettered authority to muzzle its professors in the name of freedom. That's what the judge wrote, citing 1984. Walker was appointed by Obama, by the way. Florida's Republican led legislature approved the anti woke legislation, Florida House Bill 7, or the individual Freedom act earlier this year. The law, directly inspired by DeSantis, expands Florida Anti discrimination laws to prohibit schools and companies from leveling guilt or blame to students and employees based on race or sex. It takes aim at lessons over issues like white privilege by creating new protections for students and workers, including that a person should not be instructed to feel guilt, anguish or any other form of psychological distress due to their race, color, sex or national origin. Brian Griffin, a spokesperson for the governor, said the administration will appeal. All right, we'll be right back with Andrew Weissman, followed by the good news. Stay with us. Hey, everybody, welcome back. Happy and honored to be joined today by former Mueller prosecutor, a friend of mine and the author of the book Where Law Ends, which you need to pick up now more than ever. If you haven't read it before, please welcome Andrew Weissman. Hi, Andrew.
- [16:53]
B
Hi, how are you? It is actually I really hate plugging a book and let alone my book. But actually now that we're going to have it be under another special counsel, it wouldn't be bad for people to read about upsides and downsides of the current rules, which I definitely address.
- [17:16]
A
Yeah, agree, agree 100%. And a lot of people are already likening this to possibly the Manafort investigation, which you were the lead on Team M, which you write about extensively in your book about how that went down. Although I think from what the experts are saying, by the way, everyone, breaking news. Merrick Garland has appointed a special counsel. It's Jack Smith.
- [17:38]
B
Yeah, so, yeah, that, yeah.
- [17:39]
A
To investigate.
- [17:40]
B
Allison, that's so five minutes ago.
- [17:42]
A
I know, I know. I'm like, I'm talking like everyone already knows everything, but they probably do, folks who listen to this program. So his name is Jack Smith. He's a former prosecutor from the Hague. He was chief of the Public Integrity Unit, Department of Justice. He's an ausa, worked at the Eastern District of New York, among other places. And so now it would be his baby. You know, I kind of assume that this is, you know, per his statement that came out, he wants to do this expeditiously and there won't be any slowdown or flag of this. And Renato Marioti is saying this is not really an indication that Merrick Garland wants to wind down these investigations, but he's going to be looking at the, you know, the fraudulent elector scheme January 6, but not the boots on the ground. And he's going to be looking at the Mar A Lago documents case that those are his two and any other things that arose or will arise out of those two, according to the press release that I just a second ago got through reading, because this is very fresh news. But your book is, I think, and you know, if we talk about the Manafort case, a lot of folks are like, oh, this is going to take years now. But I really don't see it that way. What do you think? What are your thoughts on the timeline?
- [18:50]
B
Well, I think one thing that is useful for people to know is that Jack Smith is an extremely experienced prosecutor. I know him from my EDNY days. We overlapped for a considerable amount of time. We also overlapped when I was at the fraud section because he, I believe he was the number two in one of the U.S. attorney's offices. And he's extremely aggressive. He's handled a whole series of cases. I don't think anything about the purview that's been given to him is going to in any way be a challenge. I think the sort of huge public nature of it is going to be new for anyone. But he's also I think the other thing is he's an extremely aggressive prosecutor. In other words, he is not a timid choice. He is not going to be concerned if he thinks that it is the right thing to do to bring a case and it is consistent with Department of Justice policy and precedent. He is going to do it. He is not somebody who's concerned that he might lose for some extraneous reason and is not going to bring a case for that reason. He is not going to be concerned about his next job and how this affects it. He is going to he is sort of in that sense, he is the best of the department. He's going to be doing it, making decisions for the right reasons, consistent with the department policy.
- [20:27]
A
Well, that's good news. That's very good to hear because a lot of us are now just learning who he is. But you know him from experience, from working alongside of him, overlapping at EDNY and whatnot. Now, something that as the special counsel, he would be tasked with doing is to either make a prosecution memo or a declination decision. And speaking of that, you along with several other just experts in the field, Ryan Goodman, Joyce Vance, Norm Eisen, the whole there's just A whole long list here of folks you got together and you wrote 175, almost 175 page model prosecution memoirs for the Mar A Lago documents case. And of course, we know Barb McQuaid back in February did a model prosecution memo for the January 6th fraudulent elector scheme. So can you talk a little bit about what, how much work went into this? How long have you been working on this memo?
- [21:26]
B
Quite a long time. You know, it started out where we were going to do something a little bit shorter and sweeter. We looked at Barb's model, which was terrific. Then as we were doing it, and we thought about the topic and what the department would be doing, we just decided we would just do as thorough a job as possible. Our main audience really wasn't the Department of Justice to have them read it and to get ideas or help them think through it. Our main audience is the public. And that because the public doesn't see a Department of justice prosecution memo. And this was sort of a way of saying, you know, this is the kind of memo that is prepared every single day at the department before an indictment is brought. Maybe not as detailed as this one because of the nature of the case. So we just thought it would be very useful to lay out the facts as known the law that could apply. And we identified a number of other statutes that had not been flagged as potential crimes, application of the facts to the law, and then going through defenses. And then finally we looked at, I think, a really important issue. And in many ways, this is always my favorite part of this, which is we looked at the Department of Justice precedent for cases that were comparable because we knew that Merrick Garland and now Jack Smith will be really governed by making sure that Donald Trump is treated no better or worse than other people in similar situations. And so we really did a deep, deep dive into that topic.
- [23:20]
A
Yeah. And that, honestly, that was. I mean, the whole thing is incredible. That was my favorite part too, was reading all the prosecutions that are similar, starting with Kingsbury, I believe, and listing just so many of them and then also some declinations that similarly situated, but not enough for them to be prosecuted. And I thought that that was, you know, that was likewise. That's when I started asking, who's this for? Is this for the public or is this for the Department of Justice to read? Yeah.
- [23:50]
B
And, you know, this could be an. It's not A, A or B. It can be A and B.
- [23:57]
A
Right, Exactly.
- [23:57]
B
But I do think that when I was at least thinking about it, I was thinking about it as something for the public. I obviously thought that the department might be interested in read it, but you never know if that's going to happen.
- [24:09]
A
Oh, I'm sure they will. I'm sure they will. And I also wanted to talk about. You said that there were a couple other statutes in here that hadn't been addressed previously in the search warrant affidavit or anything like that. And that is 18 US code 641 and 18 US code 402. Can you talk a little bit about those?
- [24:29]
B
Sure. So first, those statutes were not listed as one of the three crimes in the search warrant. But it's important for listeners to know that the government isn't limited in bringing charges to just those three that was the basis for doing the search. But in deciding what to charge, any facts that support any particular appropriate legal theory can be included. So with that in mind, and this is where I do think we have something to add to the department because at least at the time of the search, the people who are on the case were sort of national security folks. And641 is a sort of sort of standard fare for criminal folks like me. I think of myself as like an AUSA who is, you know, very steeped in normal criminal law and then only afterwards became a national security lawyer. So641 is just theft of government property, really simple case. And we talk about how that is really the core of what happened here. And it avoids a lot of potential downsides. It doesn't matter if the documents are classified or not classified. It doesn't matter about the president's intent at the moment they were taken from the White House to Mar a Lago. It's a question of did he convert them thereafter to his own use without returning them. It doesn't raise all these issues about if there's really sensitive information in there. That's not something that would have to be used at trial. It is simply a question of did he take government property? So it's a nice, clean, easy thing. And I think it's, you know, when you're a prosecutor, you look for things that are very sort of just the things that fit really closely with the facts so that it's just an easy story to tell to a jury. And jurors tend to have a lot of common sense. So this is just, you know, when you leave your job, don't take your employers things.
- [26:45]
A
And something that I'm really glad that you explained in detail because I was having a little bit of some nightmares from the Trump 2016 Trump Tower meeting, where Mueller said that they would have a hard time assigning value to that dirt, which really surprised me, because why? I mean, there's a whole industry and a market that assigns value to OPPA Research. But you spelled it out in there because I think if it's less than $1,000, it's a misdemeanor. If it's more than $1,000, it'S felony. And you said this would be more than $1,000. And here's why. Can you talk about why we shouldn't worry about somebody saying we had a hard time assigning value to these documents?
- [27:27]
B
Sure. By the way, the Trump Tower meeting had other issues related to that because they never gave the dirt. So it was hard to assign a value because nothing sort of came out of it. So it was a more complicated situation. So here's the simplest, which is the classified documents are the kind of thing that you're entitled to sort of ask what would the thieves market be for that? So for some of these, we're not talking about over $1,000. We could be talking about substantially more than $1 million. This is one where the government doesn't have to worry about that. It just has to be $1,000 plus, you know, plus a nickel. So one easy way is, is just that, what would somebody pay for this? And the other is there's value in terms of that you can infer from, like, what the government has to do to get the stuff back. If it was really not worth a lot to them, it would also be something that the court and the jury can consider in determining a value. So I just think that's going to be the least of it. It's also, given this, it's also in the aggregate. So if you had each thing worth a dollar and you took 1,000 things, you're at $1,000. And so, you know, just ask yourself, if somebody was putting up for auction the Kim Jong Un love letters, would somebody bid over $1,000 in the aggregate for those letters? All of those are ways. And just to. By going through the various things with you, you see how this is not even a speed bump. And just to be clear, the worst case scenario is it would be a misdemeanor, and somebody can do up to a year in jail for.
- [29:23]
A
For a misdemeanor and then tell us about 402.
- [29:29]
B
Yeah. So 402 is also a very simple or seemingly simple case, which is if you get a subpoena, whether it's a grand Jury subpoena or a trial subpoena, and you intentionally disobey it. That's a violation of 402. It's just, it's failure to comply with a subpoena. So again, it's like a nice, simple, clear basic construct. I do think that the 1519 obstruction charge is also a good one and is strong, and it goes to sort of the overarching obstruction of not just the department, but the archives, but 402 would go to the disobeying of the grand jury subpoena. We do flag something that I, I do think it's worth people noting, and it's a little in the weeds, which is the department did something that I still find a little inexplicable, and there may be facts that help explain it, but the grand jury subpoena was not issued to Donald Trump personally. The grand jury subpoena was directed to the office of Donald J. Trump. And so that means that the only entity that had to comply was that office. And that meant they only had to produce documents that were in the possession custody control of the office of Donald J. Trump. So if you were trying to bring a charge based on a failure, an intentional failure to comply with that, you would have to show that the documents at issue that were not returned were in the custody of that office and that Donald Trump knew that as well, that he didn't believe they were in his personal custody and to the exclusion of the office. And I actually think that may, depending on what additional facts the government may have, that could make this not a good charge. Because it's not clear to me why the government didn't issue two grand jury subpoenas, one to the former president personally and one to the office. So that's a wrinkle that we identify. And one of the things we do in this memo is do just that. We want to flesh out potential issues that could be raised that the government would need to consider so that its case is meritorious.
- [31:59]
A
Yeah. Now, of course, the question of the year that I'm sure will be asked of you a million times. Have you gotten any phone calls to be on this team?
- [32:10]
B
Oh, I'm. I'm not going back to the government. I'm not going back to the government. And high five.
- [32:17]
A
Me neither, dude. Me neither.
- [32:20]
B
And I mean, I love the department. I was there for 21 years. It is nothing about the department or its current people. Also, I would be, you know, I was, you know, I just think they don't want, and they shouldn't want people who are on the Mueller special counsel, there'll be a whole fresh crew of people to be attacked by Donald Trump, Right?
- [32:42]
A
Yeah. All new. Yeah. New punching bags. So I'm assuming that folks like David Raskin, who was brought over from Kansas City, Mo. And Windom, who was brought in, will probably be on that team since they've been working these investigations themselves.
- [32:56]
B
Oh, yeah. I can't imagine that they would be. They would be. I can't imagine they'd be taken off. I mean, there's, you know, even, even with Mueller, the, the couple people who had actually, maybe it's just one who had been working on the matter transitioned to us. So here, where there's so much work that had been done and they can't imagine that's not going to be the case.
- [33:24]
A
Yeah. All right. Well, I appreciate your time today and I really encourage, I've shared this on all my social medias. This document, it's fascinating to read through it and to sort of see how the statutes apply, the elements of the statutes that need to be met. But again, that whole section on the comparison of, like, cases I think is so important to understand. It gives you a really solid idea of, boy, if Garland or, well, now John Smith, Jack Smith doesn't indict here he is not, you know, seemingly going by the history of, of these typical kinds of cases. So it'd be interesting to see how this plays out. But also, I mean, you know, with David Raskin, who was a very knowledgeable prosecutor who has gone to trial for these kinds of, you know, he's sipa, well known, you know, and that from my understanding. Is it true that because it's a SIPA case, it could take longer to get on the docket. Is that, do you know anything about that?
- [34:24]
B
If they indict, if there's an indictment, there's a provision that the government can use to, to protect highly classified information from being disseminated. Yes, it does take a little bit longer when you're invoking that in terms of filings that need to be made, there does usually need to be at least one person on the defense team who has appropriate clearance for some of those discussions, not all. So it can take a little bit longer, but it shouldn't have any effect on the issue of whether and when a charge occurs.
- [35:08]
A
Yeah. And I think you had mentioned in your document in this prosecution memo that Kingsbury, even though she had tons of documents, they only used like 20 of them at trial. Like, you don't have to use them. All right.
- [35:20]
B
Yeah, absolutely. I Mean, this is one where the things that you're most concerned about, you don't have to charge. And here it appears by all accounts that there will be quite a large choice of things to rely on. And one of the reasons, again, to go Back to the 641 theft of government property case is, you know, you don't have to. For that charge. You wouldn't have to even use any classified documents. You could, but you don't have to.
- [35:47]
A
Yeah. And I think we're about. We're only a few weeks away from them getting the rest of the unclassified stuff back from Judge Deary. Whether it be finishing that review or the 11th Circuit tossing it out, I think we'll. I think they'll have everything in their hands that they need. So thank you so much.
- [36:02]
B
You're welcome. Thanks. Thank you.
- [36:05]
A
Yeah. And everybody, you really should. If you haven't read Where Law Ends by Andrew, you need to pick it up. It's gonna be a great refresher. And with this new appointment of this special counsel, there's a lot of things that are in there that are gonna really help you understand and navigate your way through the news as it happens with this. With regard to this appointment. Thank you so much, Andrew Weissman. Thank you, everybody. Welcome back. It's time for the good news. Who likes good news?
- [36:31]
B
Everyone?
- [36:32]
A
Then good news, everyone. Good news, good news. And if you have any good news or confessions or corrections or you want to send me a shout out to somebody you love or you want to tell me about your small business or what you're creating or Halloween photos, holiday pictures, show me your Thanksgiving spread. I want to see it. Send it all to us@dailybeanspod.com and click on contact. First up from Erica Pronouns, she and her hi beans Queens. I heard your request for more what the mutt submissions and I'm happy to oblige. Quick backstory, which is also a bit of good news. My husband had never had a pet when I met him, so it took a little convincing before he would consider the possibility. Enter the COVID pandemic and a sudden abundance of downtime at home. And I finally had my opportunity to get him to the local shelter where we met five month old Trace. Within weeks, he had turned my main man into a full fledged dog dad and proponent of the adopt, don't shop mentality. These two can frequently be spotted snuggling on the couch, and Trace has become an expert at convincing my husband to surrender a few scraps from his dinner plate. I'm attaching a picture of trace, who's about 35 pounds for reference. Perhaps that'll help you guess. I've also attached his DNA test results. To say that we were surprised is an understatement. Thank you for giving me the news I'm not hearing on TV or seeing in the daily headlines. Your information and insights are so valuable and the daily dose of humor is much appreciated. Okay. All right, Pitbull staffy. I'm gonna say Pitbull staffy and Jack Russell. And then of course we ought to put a chow chow in there. All right, let's see what we've got. We have Pitbull, Chihuahua, Treeing Walker, Coonhound, Happy on American Eskimo, Staffordshire Terrier. There's the Staffy and supermount. All right, I got two. I got two of the 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 mixes. What a beautiful baby. Hi, Trace. Looks like a good dog. Congratulations. Next up, proud grand auntie. Hello, beans Queens. Some good news sprinkled in with some things kids say wrapped into a burrito of joy. My 8 year old grandniece modeled my refashioned size small crimes and crimes T shirt. One of those received an error over top a coincidental justice bathing suit. You can see part of the U and the S peeking through. I briefly explained what the numbers meant to her Canadian grandparents, one of which is my brother who had been raising her since she was three months old. She instantly broke into a little song and dance, chanting, I'm a Trump. Uh huh. I'm a Trump. Later, she went on to win the photography competition for her age at the modeling conference where we all attended and placed third in Sports Runway. Third. Awesome. A huge confidence booster for this young girl. But her precious realization was the moment after she won and ran back to us sitting in the audience, certificates in hand, and blurted out, all I get is a piece of paper. Thanks for all you do to educate us on both sides of the border about justice and the power of democracy. Let us know when you have a version 2 of the Crimes and crimes and crimes shirt they're building up. Oh my God, she's adorable. How funny. That's incredible. Look at this beautiful family. Thank you so much for sending that in and congrats on the piece of paper. Next up, from Keith, he and him. Hi AG and dg. Longtime listener and patron, I'm writing to express anger and sadness over the mass shooting in Colorado Springs, but also to express love and support for the LGBTQ community. This morning I looked up LGBTQ organizations in Colorado and found one called One Colorado and made a donation. I also donated to the Human Rights Campaign and posted on my socials to encourage friends and family to donate to those groups like PFLAG or GLAAD or the Trevor Project. Over the past year, I've also made donations to orgs in red states where elected officials have been attacking the community, such as Equality Texas, Equality Florida and Equality Ohio. I encourage anyone trying to find ways to help to donate to such organizations, but also post on your socials and offer support and love to those who need it. Our LGBTQ friends and family need to know we love them for good news. My wife and both my children, ages 18 and 20, spent the last few days volunteering for a local veterans organization, assembling bags for Thanksgiving, and moving large boxes of frozen turkeys off a truck for food distribution event. My back is sore, but it was worth it. Thanks to all veterans for your service like my dad who served in the army in 1965 and of course UAG for pet tax. I'm sending along this pic of our 10 year old Beagle Jack Russell Mix Ellie Last week was her Gotcha day and she's here with her rainbow toy that she loves so much. Unlike the other toys, she has not destroyed this one. Look at that. How adorable. Yeah, that looks pretty durable. I gotta get me one of those. What a sweet baby dog. And thank you for that. And thank you for all the amazing, incredible support you're giving to the community. I'm going to make sure that Dana reads this Jen Pronoun she and her Things Kids say hey AG and DG and the entire fabulous world of Leguminati. Love you too Beans Queens, you're the joy of my morning commute. And thanks for all you do. So kids say all sorts of things. My son came home from school today and I actually got him to help me put some groceries away. Shocker. I know. He asked me what these blue and gray cans were in the fridge. I said, that's beer. Is that alcohol? He asked. I replied, yes, it is. Quote Officer Mark came to school today and told me every hour is a good hour to drink alcohol. Yep, that's what he said. Overcoming my snickering, I realized the lesson was actually to limit yourself to one drink an hour. However, my son is in the third grade and I don't think kids need those life lessons just yet for my Pet tax. And since you haven't had some what the mutt lately, I present to you my Woofee pronounced Woo fay. I got it. She's nicknamed Boo Boo for short, but it's the same number of syllables. I digress. What's the mutt? Okay, Old English Sheepdog. This is an interesting mix. Old English sheepdog, Wheaten, Maybe a wheaten and maybe some poodle. And then of course, chow. Chow. Let's see. Old English sheepdog and Irish wolfhound. I was so close. Maybe I just didn't know how big was, but what a beautiful baby. I can't believe I got the Old English Sheepdog. I don't think we've had a mix with an OES before because I was thinking that poodle is what gave her the gray. But anyway, gorgeous pup. Thank you for sharing and everybody, send in your stuff to us. Send in all the good news. We need it now more than ever. You can do that by going to DailyBeansPod.com and clicking on Contact. Thanks to Andrew Weissman. Pick up a copy of Where Law Ends. Read it from COVID to cover. You're gonna need that information for this Special Counsel investigation and I will be covering it all with Dana here on the Beans. Dana will be back tomorrow. Until then, please take care of yourselves. Take care of each other, take care of the planet, take care of your mental health. Vote blue over Q and bring someone with you. I've been ag and them's refried beans.
- [44:05]
B
I like refried beans.
- [44:06]
A
The Daily Bean Beans Executive produced by Allison Gill with additional research and reporting by Dana Goldberg and Amy Carrero. Sound design and editing is by Desiree McFarlane with art and web design by Joelle Reeder with Moxie Design Studios. Music for the Daily Beans is written and performed by they Might Be Giants and the show is a proud member of the MSW Media Network, a collection of creator owned podcasts dedicated to news, politics and justice. For more information please visit mswmedia.com msw media.