Lawfare Daily: The Trials of the Trump Administration, Nov. 7

Summary

---

The Lawfare Podcast: Lawfare Daily – The Trials of the Trump Administration, Nov. 7

Date: November 10, 2025
Host: Benjamin Wittes (Editor in Chief, Lawfare)
Guests: Lawfare Senior Editors Anna Bauer, Molly Roberts, Roger Parloff, and Eric Columbus

---

Episode Overview

This episode, recorded November 7, 2025, delivers an energetic, nuanced breakdown of legal developments stemming from, and surrounding, the Trump administration. The Lawfare senior editors dive deep into headline-grabbing criminal trials (including the so-called “Sandwich Guy” case), the criminal case against James Comey, legal challenges related to SNAP benefits during a government shutdown, troubling immigration detention conditions, and more. The tone is thoughtful, often witty—true to Lawfare’s commitment to “doubling down on seriousness” and unpacking complexity for a national security law audience.

---

Key Discussion Points and Insights

1. The “Sandwich Guy” Trial: A Minor Incident, Major Implications

Time Segment: [06:35]–[30:56]

Overview:
The editors open with the colorful, nationally hyped trial of “Sandwich Guy”—Sean Charles Dunn, a former DOJ paralegal who threw a sandwich at a federal CBP officer during a high-visibility patrol in D.C. The case, prosecuted as misdemeanor assault under 18 U.S.C. §111(a), took on outsized meaning as both sides tried to make it a referendum on protest, law enforcement, and executive power.

Why Was the Case So Complex?

• Narrative Inflation by Both Sides:
  • “The government wanted to make an example of Sandwich Guy as sort of this menace to society… The prosecution wanted to make [him] into an example of a courageous dissident…” (Molly Roberts, [07:11])
• Protracted Debate on Legal Definitions:
  • Extended arguments over “forcibly assault,” “injury,” and “bodily harm” led to unexpected trial length.

Judge Carl Nichols’ Role & Judicial Decisions

• Unusual Procedures:
  • Closed voir dire led to a defense motion for a public trial ([11:01]–[11:38])
• Jury Instructions Favored Prosecution:
  • Broad definitions of “injury” and “bodily harm”—including “offensive touching”—were adopted ([11:50]–[14:07])

Who Was Sandwich Guy?

• “His name is Sean Charles Dunn. He was a paralegal at the Justice Department when this happened. He's 37 years old…” ([14:33], Molly Roberts)
• The incident stemmed from a misunderstanding that CBP was raiding an LGBTQ club hosting Latin night. Dunn’s protest was animated by a defense of immigrants and opposition to enforcement raids ([15:11])

The Officer’s Testimony and Prosecution’s Case

• Attempted Menace:

  • Prosecution described the sandwich as thrown at “point-blank range”—language more fitting for violent crime ([18:48])
  • The CBP officer claimed to feel the sandwich through his ballistic vest: “I could smell the onions and the mustard.” ([18:50])

• Humor Underneath:

  • Evidence the officer received gag gifts from colleagues—a “plushie sandwich,” a “felony footlong” patch on his lunchbox—undermined claims of seriousness ([19:18])

Turning Point: The Not-So-“Assaultive” Sandwich

• Defense showed video of the sandwich “intact on the ground, in its wrapper.” Laughter among all present, jurors included ([21:49])
  • “You cannot not laugh… The officer almost could not not laugh. The jurors were barely keeping it in.” (Molly Roberts)

Broader Significance

• Chilling Effect on Dissent:

  • “This statute… is used against many of the January 6th offenders and is now a statute that the Trump administration has been using against protesters… The willingness with which the government will bring… a felony assault charge against you… it absolutely could [deter protests].” (Molly Roberts, [25:12])

• Potential Selective Prosecution:

  • “If you throw a sandwich at the immigrant, I wouldn't expect a case to be brought for that.” ([28:34])
  • Defense’s selective/vindictive prosecution claim was raised but not ruled upon ([28:34]–[29:48])

Jury Verdict and Nullification?

• The acquittal, per Molly Roberts, might have been “dancing along that line” between jury nullification and strict adherence to jury instructions ([30:01]–[30:56])

Notable Quotes:

• “If you're thinking of going to a protest… this could deter you… The government said, you should worry about that. Jeanine Pirro said, if you mess with us, we'll mess with you.” (Molly Roberts, [26:48])
• “Having a little mustard on your uniform isn't harm.” (Molly Roberts, [31:13])

---

2. The James Comey Criminal Case: Evidence, Privilege, and Prosecutorial Overreach

Time Segment: [34:13]–[70:02]

Latest Procedural Drama: Privileged Documents and Grand Jury Material

• Filter Protocol/Hearing:
  • Dispute over whether privileged material was wrongly reviewed by prosecutors, and how privileged content was filtered before grand jury presentation ([35:35])
• Magistrate Judge Fitzpatrick’s Rebuke:
  • Criticized the government: “This is procedurally… highly unusual. It has the feeling of indict first, investigate later.” ([39:00])
• Grand Jury Minutes:
  • Judicial orders for disclosure of grand jury materials are at issue; the government’s efforts to delay/appeal are seen as bureaucratic confusion ([46:08]–[48:30])

Completeness and Timing of Grand Jury Transcripts

• Judge Curry Finds Missing Transcripts:
  • Halligan (acting U.S. Attorney) referred to exchanges not found in produced minutes; only after formal requests did all records get transcribed and produced ([51:47]–[55:49])

Attempt to Retroactively Fix Prosecutorial Standing

• AG Bondi tries to “ratify” Halligan’s role after the fact, but without having reviewed all the grand jury minutes—a procedural stretch ([53:37]–[56:31])

Firing of the Federal Housing Administration IG

• DOJ fires IG reportedly for attempting to turn over potentially exculpatory (Brady) material to prosecutors; signals executive resistance to internal oversight ([57:11])

What Did Comey Allegedly Lie About?

• The prosecution claims Comey falsely denied authorizing any FBI staff to serve as anonymous sources about the Clinton investigation.

  • Most evidence points to Dan Richmond (Columbia law professor, SGE at FBI), but charges rest on ambiguous timelines and technical employment status ([61:29]–[71:10])

• Critical analysis:

  • Anna Bauer: “It really just does not even come close to showing that there is a lie in Comey's testimony… Where is the lie? Because it's not in the brief.” ([65:57])
  • Ben Wittes: “We’ve all been sort of scratching our heads saying, what is the lie he is supposed to have told?” ([61:29])

Was Richmond “At” the FBI?

• Documentary evidence shows he may not have been even a special government employee at the relevant times—key legal ambiguity ([71:10]–[74:44])

Notable Quotes:

• “Where is the lie? Because it’s not in the brief.” (Anna Bauer, [65:57])
• “It has the feeling of indict first, investigate later.” (Magistrate Judge Fitzpatrick, paraphrased by Roger Parloff, [40:00])

---

3. SNAP Benefits Litigation Amid Government Shutdown

Time Segment: [75:40]–[82:26]

The Legal and Political Standoff

• Challenges over the administration’s partial or delayed payment of food assistance funds (SNAP) during the government shutdown.
• Plaintiffs won injunctions forcing partial payments; confusion reigns as the administration takes contradictory public and legal positions.
• District judge: “If you couldn't deal with these issues, then you should have supplemented it with the money from the other funds… Your decision not to do so is arbitrary and capricious…” ([78:02])
• Politics loom: “Many felt the government would not appeal… They may feel that the politics are on their side… or legitimately that the law is on their side. That's kind of the closer question.” (Eric Columbus, [82:26])

---

4. Immigration Detention and Protest Litigation

Time Segments:

• Conditions at Broadview Detention: [82:26]–[85:52]
• Use of Force Against Journalists/Protesters: [85:52]–[89:39]

Broadview Detention TRO

• “Plaintiffs claim that they're crammed 100 people at a time into a small holding cell… dirty floor near an open toilet smells like excrement… ironically, they claim that they are given a piece of a Subway sandwich with one slice of lettuce and one slice of ham for breakfast, lunch and dinner.” (Eric Columbus, [82:57])
• Court requires: “adequate space to sleep, clean bedding… three full meals, waters, telephone services for attorney client protected conversations” ([85:24])

Use of Force by ICE/CBP

• TRO restricts CBP/ICE from using force against journalists and protesters; high-level officials caught lying in court
  • Judge Ellis finds CBP official Gregory Bovino lied under oath: “She demonstrated that he had not in fact been hit with a rock.” ([86:13])
• “The judge… recited a Carl Sandberg poem by the City of Chicago in its totality.” ([89:39])—tonal color underscoring judicial activism.

---

5. Audience Q&A - Notable Exchanges

Time Segment: [91:20]–[109:35]

• Is the vague Comey indictment an argument for turning over grand jury materials?
  • “There’s two things going on. The defendant has to be on notice of what the charges are, but the grand jury also has to have indicted for the same thing that the government is charging.” (Roger Parloff, [93:37])
• Perjury by CBP officials?
  • “People lie on the stand and lie in trials all the time and it is typically not much that is done about it… does the fact that Bovino is a sworn agent change his liability for perjury? Not as a legal matter.” (Eric Columbus, [98:52], [103:02])
• Grand Jury Secrecy & Public Disclosure:
  • "Rule 6e does not bind the defense… Their main purpose for this stuff is going to be litigation purposes. And I think they’re going to have… a lot to talk about. And there’s no way that Judge Nachmanoff is going to keep that stuff out of court." (Ben Wittes, [104:40])

---

Notable Quotes and Light Moments

• On the spectacle of the sandwich:
  • “He cocks it back, you know, so it sounds like you’re talking about a gun.” (Molly Roberts, [18:48])
• On the jury’s reaction:
  • “The jurors were barely keeping it in. One of them was covering her face with her notebook. And that’s the moment.” (Molly Roberts, [21:49])
• On prosecutorial discretion:
  • “Not all sandwich throwing is going to be prosecuted under this law.” (Ben Wittes, [28:34])
• On the strong-arm approach to SNAP:
  • “Trump said, I don’t want Americans to go hungry… If we get the appropriate legal direction by the court, it will be my honor, all caps, to provide the funding.” (Eric Columbus, [77:06])

---

Important Timestamps

• Introduction / Table Setting: [05:55]–[06:54]
• Sandwich Guy case overview: [06:54]–[30:56]
• Comey case – filter protocol and grand jury mishaps: [34:13]–[70:02]
• SNAP/Shutdown litigation: [75:40]–[82:26]
• Immigration conditions & protests: [82:26]–[89:39]
• Deep-dive audience Q&A: [91:20]–[109:35]

---

Flow, Tone, and Final Notes

The episode is a lively, erudite roundtable with illustrative, often humorous banter that complements its rigorous legal analysis. The hosts know their audience: legal experts, court-watchers, and anyone tracking the intersection of law, national security, and U.S. governance.

As Ben Wittes quips near the end:
“We’re going to leave it there because I am either right or I’m wrong. But I’ve made my point and, you know, we’re going to find out whether I’m right or wrong and I don’t need to make it at any further length.” ([109:35])

The episode closes promising *more live analysis next week as the Trump administration’s legal sagas—and their broader implications—continue to unfold.

---

For the Lawfare Podcast and transcripted live episodes, visit lawfareblog.com.

---

Transcript

[A]

Hi, I'm Darina, co founder of Quo.

[B]

You might know us as openphone.

[A]

My dad is a business owner and growing up he always kept his ringtone super loud so he'd never miss a customer call. That stuck with me. When we started quo, our mission was to help businesses not just stay in.

[B]

Touch, but make every customer feel valued.

[A]

No matter when they might call. Quo gives your team business phone numbers to call and text on your phone or computer.

[B]

Your calls, messages and contacts live in.

[A]

One workspace so your team can stay fully aligned and reply faster.

[B]

And with our AI agent answering 24.

[A]

Seven, you'll really never miss a customer. Over 90,000 businesses use Quo. Get 20% [e-mail] tech that's Q U O.com tech and we can port your existing numbers over for free. No missed calls, no missed customers.

[C]

There's just something about fall cooking. That first cool night when you throw on a hoodie, fire up the grill and the smell of sizzling steak fills the air. Lately I've been all about convenience on busy weeknights and Omaha Steaks has totally changed the game for me. I ordered their butcher's favorite box, Juicy filet mignons, burgers and even some comfort meal sides like potatoes au gratin. Every cut was tender, flavorful and easy to prepare. I just seasoned, seared and in minutes we were eating like it was a steakhouse dinner. It's honestly the best of both worlds convenience and that handcrafted heartland flavor Omaha Steaks is known for. Bring home the legendary flavor and everyday convenience of omaha steaks. Visit OmahaSteaks.com for 50% off site wide during their semi annual sale and for an extra $35 off use promo code HOLIDAY at checkout. That's 50% [e-mail] and an extra $35 off with promo code holiday at checkout. Terms apply. See site for details. Deleteme makes it easy, quick and safe to remove your personal data online at a time when surveillance and data breaches are common enough to make everyone vulnerable. Deleteme does all the hard work of wiping your and your family's personal information from data broker websites. And I've said it before and I said it again. I was a Delete Me customer before they ever started advertising on the Lawfare podcast. And let me tell you why. Because it isn't just a one time service. Delete Me is always working for you, constantly monitoring and removing the personal information you don't want on the Internet. It sends me regular personalized privacy reports showing what information they found, where they found it and what they found removed. And every time they send me one of these reports, the data brokers have put stuff about me back and they've taken it down again. You know, this is a continuous service. I have an active online presence. I'm pretty exposed. I do things that, you know, other people don't do, whether it's taunting the Russians or taking political positions that people find objectionable. And yet my privacy is important to me. And Delete me is an important part for me of protecting that. Have you been the victim of identity theft? I have. Harassment? Yup. Doxing? Not yet, but I assume it'll happen eventually. And if you haven't yet, you probably know someone who has and it may be you next. Delete Me can help. So take control of your data and keep your private life private by signing up for Delete Me now at a special discount for our listeners. Get 20% off your DeleteMe plan when you go to JoinDeleteMe.com lawfare20 and use the promo code lawfare20 at checkout. The only way to get 20% off is to go to JoinDeleteMe.com Lawfare20 and enter code lawfare20 at checkout. That's join DeleteMe join.com lawfare20 code lawfare20 it's the Lawfare Podcast. I'm Benjamin Whittes, editor in chief of lawfare, with lawfare senior editors Anna Bauer, Molly Roberts, Roger Parloff and Eric Columbus in the November 7 episode of the trials of the Trump administration. Administration. We talked about the criminal trial of the man who threw a sandwich at a federal immigration Officer in Washington, D.C. we talked about a hearing in the prosecution of James Comey, litigation over conditions at an immigration detention center in Illinois, and so much more. It is Friday the 7th of November 2025. It is 4:00pm Washington time, and you are watching Lawfare Live. I'm Benjamin Wittes, editor in chief of Lawfare, and watch this. This is easy because all my guests are lawfare senior editors. And so I can just say. And I'm here with lawfare senior editors Molly Roberts, Eric Columbus and Roger Parloff. Folks, good to see you all. We have a relatively light week this week and the reason we have a light week is that the perhaps the biggest event of the week, depending on how you weigh a Supreme Court argument on a major case against the sandwich guy trial. We already did an entire Lawfare live just on the Supreme Court's tariffs argument. So we're not talking about the tariffs argument. Today, there's a whole Lawfare live for you. It's on today's Lawfare podcast. You want an hour dedicated discussion by four serious tariffs case experts? We got you covered, but not here, because here we're going to start with Sandwich Guy, and we might not get much further than Sandwich Guy because there is so much to talk about and that trial was so awesome. So let me start. Molly, you were there the whole time. The world's simplest case. It was only going to take a few hours and you were there for four days. And I want to start with the question, why was this more complicated than everybody expected it be to.

[D]

Yeah, Well, I should begin by saying that I really relished the opportunity to be there. I hope that satisfies everyone because I know people want puns and I honestly, it's you guys. It's you guys who have the puns. It wasn't even, it wasn't even me who had the best puns, but there you go. I'll go for the lowest hanging fruit, which is not intended to be a sort, I don't know about salami sandwiches. So I think it became more complicated because both sides saw it as more important than you would think a case that silly would be. The government wanted to make an example of Sandwich Guy as sort of this menace to society because he was interfering with the brave law enforcement officers deployed in D.C. seeking to enforce President Trump's agenda. And the prosecution wanted to make him into an example of a courageous dissident who was being targeted unfairly for his deeply held convictions. And so he was a lot more to both sides than just some dude who got apparently drunk on a Sunday night and tossed a sandwich at a cop. And then it became more complicated on the substance because of that kind of bigger picture. There was just a lot, a lot, a lot of debate about the definitions of forcibly assault and all the other verbs that were in the statute under which Sandwich Guy was charged.

[C]

All right, so I want to start with a nerdy question that goes back to sort of early post January 6th lawfare coverage of these trials, which is that the name U.S. district Judge Carl Nichols is not unfamiliar to people who have followed post January 6th stuff. Judge Nichols was, of course, the Trump appointed judge who, unlike all the other judges on the district court, he heard a lot of January 6th cases. So he was not an outlier in that respect. All the district judges did. But he did rule that he was one of, out of 14, I believe, who ruled that the obstruction of a congressional proceeding Statute could not be used as the government was trying to use it to refer to indict insurrectionary activity on January 6, and that that was much ridiculed at the lower court level. And then as it got higher and higher, eventually, of course, it gets adopted by the Supreme Court. And so he is a judge who is prescient as to the Supreme Court's instincts about certain things. He is also rather disliked by a lot of people in Washington who were wanted active prosecutions of a bunch of those people. How did he do as a judge in this case? Well, like what's. If we're trying to fill out our picture of Carl Nichols, is he. Did he have it in for Sandwich Guy because he's the wrong kind of insurrectionist? Was he. Was he fair? Was he. You know, would you know that he was the guy behind the. The original ruling in the. Remind me what the name of that case ended up being at the Supreme Court level. Roger Fisher. Right. That he was the original mind behind the Fisher decision. How should we understand how his. How he performed?

[D]

Yeah, well, it's very empowering to get to judge the judges, so I'm happy to try to answer that. I think from the beginning, things felt a little weird, at least to us in the press, because he conducted all of individualized voir dire with a husher on, so we just couldn't hear anything. And that immediately led to the defense filing a motion for a public trial. The idea was that it was a Sixth Amendment violation, which the D.C. circuit is found is not true if the transcript is available after the fact, but even if you have to pay for it. But that already, I think, felt weird and felt weird to the defense in particular.

[C]

And by the way, at Trump's trial in New York, they did the same thing under New York State law. So it's not an outrageous position.

[D]

Yep. Yeah, exactly. Not an outrageous position. But I think the feeling was, here's this case where the Justice Department has tried really hard to make an example of Sandwich Guy, Pam Bondi explained, explicitly said Sandwich Guy is an example. He's an example of the deep state we're up against. So that's kind of as public as can be. And then what we're not getting, you know, a public ability to hear what the makeup of the jury is ultimately going to be. So I think people felt bad about that going forward in the case. There were a lot of other instances in which the defense seemed pretty frustrated, too. I would say that the jury instructions ended up being being quite favorable to the prosecution the defense wanted forcibly an assault to require essentially a risk of real, meaningful physical harm. And what they didn't want on assault was for injury to be defined, including touching, offensive to a person of reasonable sensibilities. And that ended up in the jury instructions. And there was even an.

[C]

Why is that even germane? I mean, he threw a sandwich. He didn't fondle the guy.

[D]

Yeah, right. Well, I mean, it's your def. Is your definition. Exactly. And it's hard not to look at that and think that's where that's coming from. And then if you keep touching and you mean offensive, like, the person could be pissed off by it. Then, like, what if you blow bubbles in my face? Can I say, like, you know, I can reasonably be offended by that because that's super annoying. And, like, maybe could plausibly sting my eye a bit. But, you know, so, yeah, it seemed weird. And there was even a dispute on the final day when the jury sent a note to the judge and everyone thought, ah, a verdict in the simplest case in the world. And it wasn't. It was a note that said, can you define bodily harm and how's it different from injury? And ultimately the judge said, oh, they're interchangeable. And that was not what the defense wanted to happen because that meant that bodily harm would then take on the same person of reasonable sensibilities definition. So, you know, I. I don't know that he was in the bag for sandwich guy or not for sandwich guy, for the government anti sandwich guy. But I think that if you looked at the decisions that he made over the course of the trial, they definitely tended to favor the prosecution more than the defense.

[C]

All right, so we have referred to this as sandwich guy. And Roger points out to me in the chat that we should name him at least once. I mean, it's an iconic case. He's always gonna be known as Sam. Which guy? But who is this guy and how? Like, what do we know about him? I know he used to work for the Justice Department.

[D]

Yes. His name is Sean Charles Dunn. He was a paralegal at the Justice Department when this happened. He's 37 years old, which, I don't know. I was. Funny, there was a friend of his in the courtroom who was kind of chatting and saying that when this happened, everybody said, oh, this is some Georgetown frat, bro. And then it turns out He's 37 years old. And that actually sandwich guy was a little pleased because everybody thought he was in college. Right, Right. I guess by the time you're 37 you want to have people think you're younger than you.

[C]

Oh, I mean, I'm totally down with that. You know, people. You know, I sort of feel like if people confuse me with a teenager, I'm doing it right.

[D]

Yeah, I'm not sure I'm at that point yet. I'm always kind of offended when I get carded, but what can you do? I go, I'm 32 then. I sound like more of a child. But anyway, so that's who he is. He's just a. I mean, he's a gay guy, which is part of what was going on here. He was at a LGBT club on U Street, and they were having a Latin night. And he thought. And he says this in video that ends up surfacing in the trial. And he said it afterward in the press conference, too. He thought that these agents were there to do an immigration raid on the club, and it's Latin night. And so when he started yelling shame, shame, shame, and said, you're fascist, et cetera, he was saying that. And when he threw the sandwich, he was doing all of that because he was trying, he says, to help immigrants to stop this immigration raid from happening.

[C]

And what were they doing there?

[D]

Well, you would learn from the trial that what they were doing was high visibility. Crime Patrol and Prevention. You heard that, like, dozens of times during the trial. So that was their mission. It was a mix of D.C. metro transit, police and CBP. The officer who had the sandwich thrown at him, the one who said he could feel it through his ballistic vest and that he could smell the onions and the mustard, he was a CBP officer. So essentially this was part of the deployment of federal troops throughout federal law enforcement throughout D.C. and they were joining up with local forces, too, to walk around and sort of send the message of don't do crime because we're here watching you.

[C]

And so what is the officer's account of it? I understand that there was some comedy and. But, you know, you can't get up on the witness stand and say, I never felt threatened. It was kind of like having a marshmallow thrown at you. And, you know, it was like a pillow fight. What. What was the CBP's officer's account of it? Such that this falls into the realm of criminality rather than mischief or.

[D]

Yep.

[C]

Like, walk us through the prosecution's case for a minute.

[D]

Yeah, it's funny that you say a pillow fight, because in closing, the defense compared the throwing of the Sandwich to an 8 year old having a temper tantrum and throwing a stuffed animal at his parent not wanting to go to sleep. Honestly, I cannot say to you that the prosecution, via the witness, made it sound all that threatening ever at all. He talked a lot about the speech that accompanied the sandwich throw to sort of establish this environment of menace. He was cussing, he was screaming. He was right up in my face. And I mean, you can't punish speech as assault, obviously, first amendment. And the judge had to, in fact, remind the jury after closing again that you can't do that because the prosecution kept mentioning the cussing and the screaming. You can use it to give context for his mens rea, but you can't. It's not what you're going to punish. So they definitely did that. They definitely talked about how loud he was, how angry he was a lot. And then when they talked about the sandwich itself. Yeah, it came through in kind of what I was describing. They used language that made it sound a lot more violent than it was. So they had a filing where they described the sandwich as being thrown at point blank range at one point in the prosecution, in its opening statement.

[C]

I love that phrase, by the way.

[D]

He cocks it back, you know, so it sounds like a. Sounds like you're talking about a gun. And then they asked the witness, what did the impact feel like? And that's when the witness says, I could feel it through my ballistic vest. I could smell the onions and the mustard, which, you know.

[C]

And did the witness, who the government is portraying as the victim here, did the witness have a sense of humor about it? Because I would. I have to say, I would have trouble not cracking up.

[D]

Yeah, I think the witness was trying really hard not to have a sense of humor about it in front of the jury. But did he have a sense of humor about it? Yeah, we know he did. Not only was he about to crack up, but we know from what the prosecution brought into its case. Sorry, what the defense brought into its case, that he got gag gifts from his colleagues at cbp, one of which was like a plushie sandwich. And he put that right up on his shelf. And one of which was a patch bought from a vendor in D.C. that says felony footlong. And you can see what this infant, it looks like online. They're very much around. And he put that on his lunchbox. You can't get cuter about this whole thing than that. And that's kind of what the prosecution was saying. Has something terrible happened to you and you carried around a memento after.

[C]

You mean the defense.

[D]

Yes, I keep saying that. Switching it, but yes, that's what the defense was saying. That would be foolish for the prosecution to have said. But the prosecution said, oh, you know, why are you smiling? Because he was smiling. He was almost laughing. And he said essentially that he was smiling at the idea of the defenses, that he was BSing a little. The defense was suggesting. You said that you could smell the onions and the mustard, but here's a sandwich. Here's. Here's a video of the sandwich on Instagram with. Soundtracked by this song Money Talks, for whatever reason. And with the caption, the sandwich is going up in history and it is intact. It's wrapped. So what do you mean, Agent Larimore, that you could smell the onions and the mustard? And the prosecution says, oh, the reason that he was sort of laughing, because that's when he sort of starts to laugh, is basically that the idea that he couldn't smell the onions and the mustard was ridiculous to him because he had mustard on his uniform and he had a ring of onion on his radio antenna. So they were trying to say the sandwich exploded. They were trying to say, basically, this was thrown really hard. This was thrown really close. And they were using language with violent connotations to do that. But, I mean, how. How well is that gonna work? It's. When it comes down to it, it's a sandwich.

[C]

When did you know that there was no way they were getting a conviction? I mean, whether there's one holdout for conviction and the jury hangs or whether there's an acquittal, obviously you don't know until the jury comes back. But there's a point in watching every case where that results in an acquittal, where a sharp observer says, there's no way you're getting a conviction here. When was it with this?

[D]

So after that moment where the defense shows the video of the sandwich intact on the ground, and she's cross examining the witness, she says, that sandwich looks like it's in its wrapper. Can you tell what's on it? And he says, no, ma'. Am. And she says, can you tell if there's mustard? He says, no. And she says, can you tell if there's ketchup? No. Mayonnaise, lettuce, tomato? And he's going, no, no, no. And she goes, in fact, the sandwich hasn't exploded at all. And you kids, you cannot not laugh. I could not not laugh. The officer almost could not not laugh. The jurors were barely keeping it in. One of them was covering her face with her notebook. And that's the moment.

[C]

All right. So in your piece about this, which I refer to everybody, you talk about the sort of comparative sense of menace that the prosecution is trying to make menacing the conduct of Mr. Dunn and the defense is trying to make menacing the fact of the prosecution, although make amusing the conduct of Mr. Dunn, which is hard actually to create a sense of menace or while doing comedy. That's actually a pretty significant bit of trial advocacy skill, I think. Did the defense, in your judgment, make a compelling argument that this is not merely a funny case that got overcharged, but that there is something scary going on on the government side?

[D]

I think so. I'm going to say yes. I think at moments it really was just funny. I think at other times when the defense and the defense made a big point of talking about dissent and talking about his ideological views. So I think that if you just read the text of what they were saying, it's a compelling argument. I guess the reason I hesitate is it's just hard to see. You watch the video and it's hard to see it as anything but amusing. And I think you have to be able to step back from the hahaha, which is hard to do. I had trouble stepping back from the HAHAHA and think about the context of everything that's happening in the country right now to sort of stop laughing, get your straight face back on, and realize that it actually is menacing.

[C]

Sorry, I was in a different window. Greeting the people in the. You two are joining us by YouTube. So talk about the menace. What is the, you know, no harm, no foul. Sandwich guy throws a sandwich, nobody gets hurt. Sandwich guy gets indicted, jury sees through it. What's the problem? Where's the menace?

[D]

I mean, first of all, I mean, is it no harm? Is it no foul? He had a SWAT team sent to his apartment, and he had to. He got fired from his job. Obviously, that's separate from the prosecution, but he did. He had to go to court for not only two days, like the judge said, but for. And so did these jurors. So did these 12 citizens of the United States doing their civic duty, leaving the actual jobs that they have to do. I mean, not that jury duty isn't a job, but leaving the regular jobs that they have to do for this. I mean, so I think there's some degree of harm there. But then second, this Statute, which is 111A, is a statute that is used against many of the January 6th offenders and is now a statute that the Trump administration has been using against other protesters and wants to continue using against other protesters. And it's a statute that one of the president's executive orders on that subject is recommending that law enforcement look at first when it comes to bringing cases against domestic terrorists. And so I think that the definitions of assault forcibly, I think that the likelihood that the government uses this statute to punish people matter in a much broader context than Sandwich Guy. And, of course, there's also just a massive chilling effect. This isn't just going to chill you when you're thinking about throwing a sandwich at a cop, which, to be clear, I don't believe you should throw a sandwich at a cop.

[C]

We're against that.

[D]

I come down hard. Well, you know, hard against that, at.

[C]

Least soft against that.

[D]

It's a soft object, the role, I suppose. Yeah, exactly. But, yeah, I mean, if you're thinking of going to a protest, if you're thinking of joining a crowd of people that a administration official might plausibly characterize as threatening, this could deter you from doing that. The willingness with which the government will bring first a felony assault charge against you and then when the grand jury won't indict on that, drop it to a misdemeanor, it absolutely could. And the government said, you should worry about that. Jeanine Pirro said, if you mess with us, we'll mess with you. Effectively, she said, he thought it was funny, so there we charged him with a felony. It's not so funny now.

[C]

All right, so I want to ask one other question about the menace quality, which is that this is the same office that fired all the prosecutors that brought those January 6th cases.

[D]

And.

[C]

And you have a feeling that if you throw a sandwich at, say, an illegal migrant while ICE is doing arrests, they're not going to bring a felony assault charge or even a misdemeanor assault charge. That there's something one might say, selective or even vindictive, although probably not in the term of art sense of those terms. About the way Jeanine Pirro is talking about using statutes like this, I'm wondering how that plays in. It seems like not all sandwich throwing is going to be prosecuted under this law.

[D]

Nope. I think you basically said it. The idea is, when you're throwing the sandwich, are you trying to interfere with the enforcement of President Trump's agenda? So I think that it's pretty clear that if you throw the sandwich at the immigrant, you're not. I wouldn't expect a case to be brought for that. And the defense had filed a selective and vindictive prosecution motion and had said that the class of people to which sandwich Guy belongs is basically throwers of soft objects, and that generally you don't prosecute them under this statute. And the judge said he was going to do deferred ruling on it and then never formally addressed it in open court. Court. It's nowhere on the docket either. He brought up at one point in the trial, I think the defense might want to talk about this. And then they didn't say anything about it. So I guess that was just the end of that. And my understanding is that it's quite hard to get cases dropped for selective and vindictive prosecution. But I think it's true. A, throwers of soft objects usually aren't charged, and B, the other class they say he's similarly situated to is these January 6th offenders. And here they all are pardoned when they did more than throwing a salami sandwich from Subway at a CBP officer in a ballistic vest.

[A]

Molly, I have a question for you. Do you think that what the jury did yesterday in acquitting sandwich guy was that jury nullification?

[D]

You know, it would depend on the juror, and there's obviously no way of knowing how many people thought that this was unjust. So even if, according to the judge's definition of assault, this qualified as assault, they didn't want to convict the guy. I can imagine there were some jurors who felt that way. I can also imagine there were some jurors who heard that definition of assault and heard the words bodily harm, even though bodily harm was eventually defined the same as injury, and said, okay, under these instructions, that's not assault. There couldn't have been any reasonable apprehension of harm here. Having a little mustard on your uniform isn't harm. So I could see it going either way. And I think it was a toss up throughout. When you listen to the arguments that the defense was making, they were making it pretty clear that this was ridiculous, that it was even a case. So I think it was kind of dancing along that line of sort of asking the jury to look at it exactly the way you're describing.

[A]

So did the. In order to convict, did the jury need to find that the officer reasonably at a reasonable apprehension of harm and that the touching was offensive to a person of reasonable sensibilities. Is that right?

[D]

Yeah, basically. So you had to prove both forcibly and one of the verbs, and forcibly had to do with the reasonable apprehension of bodily harm, and then assault had this question of injury, and injury was the reasonable sensibilities.

[C]

Roger, you have a thought?

[E]

Yeah, it is more of a thought than a question. I just Wanted to mention on the menace front, this was 111A. I don't believe 111A was ever charged as a misdemeanor in the January 6th cases. If there was something that was less than actual assault, like some sort of pushing or even with contact. And sometimes I wondered why they charged a lesser felony, civil disorder. The here they tried to get felony assault, which is an eight year minimum. I mean, not minimum. It's an eight year maximum. Sorry. But you know, and this is obvious, the pardons. You know, the guy who caused Caroline Edwards to. To fall back and hit her head on the concrete and she's still suffering the consequences of it. He was pardoned. You know, somebody with, I think, 38 priors. The guy who injured Agalino gonel. So that to the point where he can't perform, that he had to quit his calling. He could no longer be a police officer. He was the guy that sprayed Brian Sicknick in the face and he collapsed later the evening. And the next day he died at the age of 42 of strokes. Obviously the coroner or whatever called it natural cause. Jeffrey Smith, who committed suicide, he was hit in the head with a pipe thrown by. Well, I guess we don't know if that guy was pardoned or not. Anyway, there's just a disconnect and everyone recognizes. But I thought I'd say it.

[C]

Yeah, I'm not sure that requires much of a response. It is clearly right. And it is a reminder of the fact that prosecutorial discretion with statutes like this is a remarkably powerful instrument. All right.

[E]

We.

[C]

If you have questions for Molly, please put them in the Q and A and we will be back for them a little later on. But there were some other important developments this week other than sandwich guy, and we're going to. We're going to tick through them. Let's do our criminal trials matter first. In the Comey criminal trial, Roger, we had a hearing on the filter protocol, which kind of crept up on us. I did not think this was a very substantial matter when it first arose. And then all of a sudden it gets more and more substantial because there's clearly privileged information in the grand jury. And then all of a sudden the judge turns around and on his own motion, orders all the grand jury materials disclosed to the judge. Defense bring us up to speed here. What's the issue that they're fighting about? And, and how big a problem is this for the government's case?

[E]

Yeah, this was sort of a sleeper hearing. I wasn't expecting much and neither was anyone else. In fact, when I got there, I wondered if I had the wrong day because there were no satellite trucks, there was nothing out front. I went in and I could think there was one tripod. I went up to the sixth floor and there was nobody there. I asked a court guard if this was a hearing today and he said there was. And then the sniffer dogs came out. But it was partly that it was a side issue and partly that it was the same day as the tariffs and the same day probably more important of sandwich guys, the final day. But it turned out to be quite.

[C]

The press has its priorities.

[E]

Yeah. And. And by the way, I just did a. If there's a dispatch that we just posted online that if you want to hear what happened at the hearing. But basically this was. There are turned out there were four search warrants that were issued to Dan Richmond, Professor Dan Richmond, back in 2019 and 2020. And the prosecutors have those and they had asked to do a filter protocol because there was a danger that some of these would be attorney client privilege.

[C]

Because Richmond was at the. Immediately after Comey's firing, retained as one of Comey's lawyers.

[E]

Exactly. And Comey's lawyers responded that we weren't at the protocol stage because first the government needed to explain, had some explaining to do about whether they were violating, whether there should be a suppression motion. And I guess the way it works out is that these came out of the Articulation Hayes investigation, which related to in part at least the. An article that the New York Times published in April of 2020 of 2017 that allegedly included a classified. Had access to a classified document. And, and so. But the exact. Exactly whether there had been filter. There were two issues. One was that Richmond had his lawyer go through these, at least with respect to 3 of the search warrants and he could assert privilege and then it was returned to the government with a privilege log. But Comey never went through and Comey's lawyers never went through. So that's one issue. Another is that when Richmond's lawyers returned it, that was for privilege. But there was never a. According to the government, according to the defense, what's called a responsiveness review. Were the documents responsive to the enumerated categories of the search warrant, what they were looking for. So what the government seems to now be doing is going back and looking at documents that may include non responsive documents which would never have been properly seized and going through. And that would be unconstitutional. That would be a Fourth Amendment violation. There's also a question that somehow an FBI agent This time around in 2025, while going through these, and it's unclear whether he was unaware of which documents Richmond and his lawyers had previously marked as privileged or not. But he went through and he started to read something and at some point it kicked in and he realized this looks like an attorney client privilege conversation. And he, according to the government, he did the right thing and he brought in a supervisor. But the defense doesn't know how did that happen and were there other taints? And that agent apparently did present the case to the grand jury. So all of these things angered the thing that they angered the magistrate, Magistrate Judge Fitzpatrick, William Fitzpatrick, because the trial is starting in two months and there's no time to, it's very hard to impose on the defendant the obligation to go through all this stuff. And he was saying this, you know, this is procedurally, this is highly unusual. It has the feeling of indict first, investigate later. And so he was saying, you know, defense, you're going to get everything you want because, but you're going to have to work like the devil to get it to, you know, for us to meet the deadlines. And in that, in that context, he said he's going to turn over the grand jury minutes too. And now Comey wasn't asking for the grand jury minutes.

[C]

Hey folks, Ben Whittis here. Fall it always feels like a reset. The air is fresh, you got your back to school, you go back to your routines and the days are getting shorter. Finding time to cook can be tough and that's why I love Factor. They're chef prepared, dietitian approved meals and they make it really easy to stay on track and enjoy something comforting and delicious no matter how hectic the season gets. They got a lot of variety. You can choose from a wider selection of weekly meal options including seafood choices like salmon and shrimp at no extra cost. They'll work with you on your wellness goals. You can get the GLP1 friendly meals and the Mediterranean diet options that are packed with protein and good for you fats. And there's a lot of global flavors going on here. You can try Asian inspired meals with flavors influenced by China, Thailand and more. And it's partly because of the number of choices to better Nutrition. Why 97% of customers say that factor helped them to live a healthier life. Feel the difference no matter your routine. I have used factor, I have eaten factor, I have enjoyed factor and I think you should try it. So eat [e-mail] LawFair 50 off and use the code LawFair 50 off to get 50% off your first box plus free breakfast for one year. That's code Lawfare50OFF@Factor Meals.com for 50% off the first box plus free breakfast for a year. Get delicious ready to eat meals delivered with Factor Offer is only valid for new Factor customers with a code and qualifying auto renewing subscription purchases. Did I talk too much? Can't I just let it go? I wish I would stop thinking so much.

[D]

Take a breath. You're not alone. Let's talk about what's going on. Counseling helps you sort through the noise with qualified professionals and online therapy makes it convenient. See if it's for you. Visit betterhelp.com randompodcast for 10% off your first month of online therapy and let life feel better.

[C]

Change isn't coming.

[E]

It's already here.

[C]

Commerce is going digital and tax complexity is multiplying.

[A]

Tax rules evolve, rates shift.

[C]

Data floods in. Vertex connects it all.

[A]

A global tax compliance platform powered by.

[C]

Tax ready data and intelligent systems. Smarter tech Continuous tax compliance built in confidence. Learn [e-mail] why choose a Sleep Number.

[D]

Smart Bed Can I make my site softer?

[C]

Can I make my site firmer? Can we sleep cooler?

[A]

Sleepnumber does that cools up to eight times faster and lets you choose your ideal comfort on either side your Sleep Number setting. Enjoy personalized comfort for better sleep night after night.

[C]

It's our Black Friday sale recharge this season with a bundle of cozy, soothing comfort. Now only $17.99 for our C2 mattress.

[A]

And base plus free premium delivery price.

[C]

Is higher in Alaska and Hawaii. Check it out at a Sleep number store or sleepnumber.com today.

[E]

At this hearing he had already asked for them from Nachmanov, the presiding judge, in the connection with a different motion, which was broader and which had to do with a lot of potential wrongdoing going on. But one of the pieces of wrongdoing that he mentioned was this piece, the taint. So it's not unrelated. And so he issued those orders on Wednesday and there was actually no discussion at the time. Then this morning the government appealed the grand jury portion of that order.

[C]

Yeah, knocked off. Wait, let's talk about how that happened because that was supposed to be delivered by the end of the day yesterday. Yeah, and they did not comply with it and then appealed it after the fact. How does that work?

[E]

The it seems it looks like the right hand doesn't know what the left hand is doing or when. When they filed that motion, they said they invoked the they didn't put it this way, but they sort of invoked the Emil Bovey rule that there was only an oral order, but there was no written order. And that didn't happen to be true. There was a written order, and it was filed late November 5th and arrived early November 6th. And they might not have seen it because it was part of the. If they didn't go through, it was part of the other order about the subpoena stuff. So it was just a paragraph, and maybe they overlooked it, expecting a separate order, I don't know. But it's a written order. And I don't know what their theory was, but they raised it for the first time this morning, which is November 7th. And then a few hours later, Nachmanov said it was based on a lack of delegated authority. They were saying this issue was delegated to the magistrate judge for, you know, limited purposes, and this wasn't one of them. And Nachmanoff rejected that, said, no, this is within. Within the scope. And then the other was under 6e something or other. If you're going to disclose something, you're supposed to make a specific finding of particularized fact. And so he remanded it to the magistrate and said, make that particularized finding a fact. But it sounds to me almost ministerial. I mean, it sounds like he'll just put into writing what he said during the hearing. To me. That's my impression. I don't think it's going to be hard to get those minutes turned over and.

[C]

What happens. This obviously asks for a level of speculation on your part, but my impression there's a separate motion from the Comey people for access to the grand jury material, because their theory is that Lindsey Halligan engaged in significant misbehavior in front of the grand jury, knowingly or unknowingly. Yeah. And if I were the government, I would be nervous about Pat Fitzgerald having access to that material, particularly because you haven't even filed yet your response to the motion for access to that material.

[E]

So.

[C]

Am I wrong to think that the moment Fitzgerald and company get their hands on that document or that set of minutes and transcripts, you're going to see a flurry of new motions about what she did in there?

[E]

Yeah, I mean, that is. Obviously, it's speculative for me, but. But, yeah, I mean, I think the only thing that could, you know, the question here is timing how soon they'll get those minutes. I think it's in the cards. They're going to get those minutes. You know, the Nachmanoff had set A schedule on that motion you're describing, which is the broader motion, which does include privilege taint as one of several things. And I will, I want to credit Marcy Wheeler for pointing this out to me because I was overlooking this because it's sort of a minor part of a very big motion. But empty wheel is Marcy Wheeler. But so, and so they will eventually get it. I don't know if they will get it as instantly as the magistrate wanted, but I think they may will. He has an ample reason himself for ordering it.

[C]

All right, let us move on to the next thing thing in this saga, which is that Judge Curry finds that the transcripts provided by the government of the grand jury process are not complete. What's going on there? I got to say, I didn't even know about this, Roger, until I read it on the agenda, which gives you an idea of how hard it is to keep up with the pace of events in these cases. What's going on here?

[E]

And I think this is another thing where almost anyone who gets in judge who gets involved in the case wants to immediately read the grand jury minutes. You know, that something is so odd here. And so Curry, you know, Judge Cameron McGowan Curry from South Carolina, the designated out of district judge who's deciding the unlawful appointment issue was the indictment signer, Lindsey Halligan, properly appointed as interim U.S. attorney.

[C]

And just to be clear, this is a completely different motion, completely different judge in a completely different state. Right?

[E]

Yeah. Yeah. And. And so she wants to see the grand jury minutes in order initially in order to see what role Halligan played where there are other, I think, you know, she didn't explain it to us, but to see if other AUSA AUSAs were presenting and so on. And they, so they. And she wants it the next day by end of business, they send it to her. We've complied. And she starts reading. And she sees that Halligan in her questions is referring to. To things she told the grand jury earlier that aren't in the transcripts. And apparently she. And they also don't include what happened after the presentation of evidence, the instructions to the jury and the stuff relating to the no true bill. And so she demands on, I think October 28th, she demanded, I think the rest of the minutes. No, I might have the wrong. No. Okay. I think it's. She noticed this November 14th, now November 4th. The interesting thing is that in the meantime on Halloween, something else has happened which is that Pam Bondi is trying to shore up the case that Lindsey Halligan is doing.

[C]

Oh, man, you just jump shifted the next item on the agenda, Roger.

[E]

They are interlaced as I'll. I'll prove it up.

[C]

Okay.

[E]

Okay, so. And again, I need to credit Marcy Wheeler on this one, so. So on October 31, Pam Bondi appoints her in a second way through as a special attorney, I think. Special. I think that's what it's called. Under 509, 510, I think 515, and I think also a 518, but I don't know. And then she also says, and I read the min. I reviewed the minutes, and don't worry, everything's fine. I retroactively ratify everything that Halligan did, including the signature. And she does that about a month after the statute of limitation has passed. So anyway, then, like I say, on November 4th. So that's four days. Five days later, Curry notices that the grand jury minutes are not complete, and she demands the complete minutes. And then the next day, AUSA Lemons responds and said he's complied. He's now filed all of the transcripts. The problem was that they hadn't previously been all transcribed and he didn't possess the recordings. They were with the transcription service, and nobody had ordered those. So he ordered the recordings and then he had them transcribed. So it's inconceivable that Pam Bondi had everything she needed in order to ratify what. What. What Halligan had done. But. So those are. Those are why I'm treating those two together.

[C]

All right, so is there more to say about that as an issue of its own at this point, or should we consider the Bondi attempt to retroactively make Kosher the Pork in this case a fully treated issue.

[E]

I think that's a strategic question. If she wants to. If she thinks it will help her to make yet another retroactive filing and say, now I really have reviewed the. The minutes.

[C]

Right.

[E]

And now I really ratify what she did. So we'll see.

[C]

All right. Meanwhile, Reuters reports that the White House has fired the IG of the Federal Housing Administration, which has got to have played the biggest, biggest role in this administration of any Federal Housing Administration ever, because he was trying to turn over some information to the Eastern District of Virginia about what Mr. Pulte has been up to. What do we know?

[E]

Yeah, all I know certainly is what I read in a Reuters article on November 3, which I thought was a very explosive article, and I thought we ought to mention it's by Sarah Lynch, Chris Prentice, Marissa Taylor. Yeah. The White House fired Joe Allen, the inspector general, this makes, you know, I think we're up to almost two dozen of the IGs. And, yeah, he was. The FHFA is, you know, it typically regulated Fannie Mae. It wasn't something, you know, don't let your eyes glaze over. I'm not going to talk about Fannie Mae, but, you know, it's not the center of, usually of an administration. But Bill Pulte, the current head of it, has been fishing out, you know, he's been going through mortgage documents to try to make cases against Letitia James and Lisa Cook and Adam Schiff, and suddenly he was fired. And according to the article, he was fired. I mean, not Pulte, the ig, the inspector general after he, quote, after he made efforts to provide key information to prosecutors in that office, meaning the Eastern District of Virginia. According to four sources, the information he turned over was constitutional, institutionally required, two of them said, while a third described it as being potentially relevant in discovery. That makes it sound like it might be Brady material, but I'm, you know, I'm, I'm sort of speculating. And then it continues. His ouster also came about as he was preparing to send a letter to Congress notifying lawmakers that the FHFA was not cooperating with the inspector general's office. Three of the sources said these individuals said that the FHFA director would typically have been notified of such a letter. So that sounds like a very big deal to me.

[C]

And firing. Am I wrong here or firing the IG does not really solve your problem if you're the government, because if this is Brady material, it's discoverable whether or not you've fired the ig, Right.

[E]

Well, he was trying to notify the prosecutors, so I don't know if the prosecutors yet know about it.

[C]

Right. But presumably now that Reuters has reported it, the defense knows about it. Right?

[E]

Some prosecutors somewhere know about it.

[C]

Right.

[E]

I don't know that. The one other thing is. Oh, yeah, the. There is no inspection Inspector General, at least at the moment, for the, for the fhfa. The. According to its website, the position is currently vacant.

[C]

Well, I am happy to serve in that role if nominated. All right, let us turn to the fourth senior editor who has joined us on Lawfare Live today, Anna Bauer. Anna, in the Comey case as well, the defense has now, or the prosecution has now filed its response to the defense motion to dismiss based on selective and vindictive prosecution. You and I wrote a lengthy discussion of the, of that motion and its contents and specifically looking at what it had to say about the substance of the prosecution's case that it means to present. So walk us through what. What is the. You know, ever since Jim Comey was indicted, we've all been sort of scratching our heads saying, what is the lie he is supposed to have told? Does this motion answer the question? And what is the lie?

[B]

Yeah. So, look, the indictment alleges, and there's all. I'm going to try to boil this down to the simplest thing possible. Keep in mind there's like, a lot of complexity to the questions that were posed to Comey in. In the testimony he is alleged to have lied during. But to boil it down to just what is in the indictment, he is alleged to have lied during congressional testimony about whether he ever authorized someone else at the FBI to serve as an anonymous source in news reports about the Clinton investigation. So there's like a number of different necessary conditions there, right? You've got to have someone else at the FBI, you've got to have authorization, you've got to have that it was anonymous, and then you've also got to have that it was about the Clinton investigation. All those things have to be there for the government to prove up its case beyond a reasonable doubt. It was not clear, though, exactly what the factual predicate was because the indictment just says Comey lied about this when in reality he had authorized someone, person three, to actually do these things. We didn't know who person three was when the indictment first came out, and we didn't know what exactly, you know, which news report was it, what was the, you know, underlying conduct here that. That they're talking about. In this vindictive prosecution motion, we get what seems to be the most difficult, detailed version of the government's case yet. We, in the interim period have learned that that person who is authorized, who was supposedly the authorized source in these news reports, is Dan Richmond, a Columbia law professor, a longtime confidant of Comey's, who also at one point served as a special government employee. Employee at the FBI and the government. In its brief, in, by the way, a very strange type of way, because the language is quite odd in that it doesn't fully connect a lot of these facts that it sets out to the precise charges in the indictment. But it sets out at length a number of facts that seems. It seems to suggest are related to the charges in the indictment. And in the main, what it does is set out a series of, like, four different sets of exchanges or communications between Comey and Richmond or between Richmond and others. That it is suggesting shows in some way that Richmond was authorized to anonymously engage with the media about the Clinton investigation. So, for example, it starts in October of 2016 with these email exchanges that occur between Richmond and Comey in which they're talking about a New York Times article that was written by Michael Schmidt and others. It didn't goes forward to February of 2017 where there's an exchange via email between Chuck Rosenberg and Dan Richmond in which they're talking about an article that's being written. There's also an April of 2017 exchange between Comey and Richmond. And then finally a text thread in May of 2017, which is after the time that Comey had already been fired, in which Richmond is texting with Michael Schmidt, the New York Times reporter, about a story that Schmidt is writing. So it has these different buckets of exchanges through a period of time. And it's trying to suggest, it seems that this is kind of, you know, the government's case in the main as it relates to this false statements charge. But Ben, as we write in the.

[D]

Piece.

[B]

If you look at really just does not even come close to showing that there is a lie in Comey's testimony. And for a variety of reasons, I don't think we need to go through them all because people can read the piece. But I will say that one of the threshold issues, which I just published a separate piece about as well, is that three out of the four sets of communications happened after Dan Richmond already resigned from the FBI. And even then the other exchange occurred this October slash November 2016 exchange between Comey and Richmond occurred at a time when, based on public documents that, that we reviewed occurred at a time when Dan Richmond technically may not have even been a special government employee for the FBI. And remember, there's that at the FBI, part of the testimony that has to be there for the predicate. Then you get into all these other things that we discuss in the piece about whether these things show authorization, whether Richmond was being authorized to be an anonymous source. And as we go through one by one, Ben, none of these communications cited in the brief show that. So it really just when you get to the end of it, you have to ask yourself, where is the lie? Because it's not in the brief. And that's not even dimension, by the way. And I'm going to wrap up here, that there's also this other extraneous material that the government includes related to this like allegation that there was a burn bag room that was found in the FBI that Included these handwritten notes. It seems to be that the government is in some way trying to shoehorn in this count that was no billed by the grand jury that related to Comey allegedly lying about the so called Clinton plan about tying Trump to Russia in, in the 2016 election. The grand jury rejected bringing charges against Comey related to that. And the government seems to just throw in this stuff about that in an effort to try to maybe get some of the facts that they wanted to get it get public related to that no bill charge out there. It's really unclear. They might be trying to fit that into count two, which is the obstruction of justice count. I'm not sure, but it's very strange and very much surplus. So Ben, what did you make of this? What am I missing here?

[C]

Well, I am going to seize moderator control here.

[D]

Okay.

[C]

And turn the subject to your latest article.

[D]

All right, cool.

[C]

Which, sorry, Roger, were you trying to get in?

[E]

Yeah, just related to what Anna was just saying. One, one thing that came up at the hearing Wednesday was that because of that motion and the way it seemed to be throwing a lot of spaghetti at the wall, I mean that response, they are now contemplating a new motion relating to their concern is that the government is planning to remember the charge that was no true build that the government is trying to sneak that back into the case.

[C]

Right.

[E]

As evidence of at least count to the, the obstruction count. And so he, they may be working on a motion relating to that.

[C]

All right. So in the meantime, Anna, you have elliptically referred to your latest article which posted I think just a few minutes ago, which relates to the question of whether Dan Richmond was in fact at the FBI at all. And so let's start with the question, why does it matter if Dan Richmond was at the FBI?

[D]

Yeah.

[B]

So as I noted, you know, the indictment alleges in terms of Comey making, it alleges that he made a false statement. That false statement is that he said that he had never authorized someone else at the FBI to be an anonymous source in news reports about the Clinton investigation.

[C]

So it's not a legal question. It's actually a question about the question he was asked. Right. He's said to have lied in response to this question. The question says anybody at the FBI.

[D]

Right.

[B]

And there are legal questions that relate to this. Right. Because it comes up already in the prediction pretrial motions where his, his defense counsel is arguing that the questioning is fatally ambiguous. And so one of the arguments in that motion that the defense makes is, oh, well, you know, any reasonable person wouldn't think that at the FBI means anything other than someone who's a full time employee at the FBI. The person who a Comey is alleged to have in fact authorized at the FBI to be an anonymous source in news reports is a guy, Daniel Richmond, who was a special, had a special government employee status for some time at the FBI. You know, special government employees typically are kind of like outside experts or advisors or consultants who work on a part time or intermittent basis. They're not full time employees. There's restrictions on how much you can work, that kind of thing. Richmond worked on some encryption issues. And in the piece that I just wrote, I reviewed a huge tranche over the course of several weeks of FOIA documents that, that relate to Richmond's appointment and employment as a special government employee at the FBI. The reason being that the timing here really matters in terms of his employment because the government has to prove as a part of its case that Comey authorized someone at the FBI to be this anonymous source. And so when you look through these documents, what you find is that Richmond was first appointed in 202015 to be a special government employee. Like I said, on these encryption issues, there was a one year term that expired in, on, in June of 2016. But actually when you continue to go through the documents, what they indicate is that Richmond's first term as a special government employee expired in June of 2016. And he was not his, his reappointment to a second term was not approved until many months later in, in December of 2016. And even then he didn't complete the paperwork. So it may be that he's not.

[C]

The most organized guy in the world.

[B]

Well, it may be that his appointment was not validly effectuated. And in any event, after that second approval of being reappointed in December of 2016, he then resigned, not, not long after, in February of 2017. And Ben, like I kind of alluded to earlier, this really matters because all of the communications that are set out in the government's brief that form the factual basis of their allegation or seem to form the factual basis of the allegation that Comey authorized someone at the FBI, FBI to engage anonymously with the media, all of those communications take place at a time when it appears that Dan Richmond was technically not an employee of the FBI. So it raises the question, what does the FBI mean and how could this kind of formal status question affect the government's case?

[C]

All right, we are going to move on. If people have questions about this case, about this new Story about sandwich guy. Please leave them in the Q and A. We're going to have time for a bunch of questions today, so load them up and, and I will, as they might say in the sandwich guy case, cock them and fire them at point blank range in a few minutes. In the meantime, Eric, we have impoundment action going on with respect to the SNAP payments during the shutdown. That is going to sound like total gibberish to a lot of people. So what's an impoundment? What's snap? What is going on?

[A]

SNAP is the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program. It used to be known as food stamps, but then it was rebranded. And impoundment is when the government refuses to spend money that has been appropriated. Now, the government here would, I think actually both sides would not say that this is an issue about impoundment so much. Well, maybe the plaintiffs would. It's there. There is not money that has been appropriated for SNAP due to the shutdown, but there are contingency funds that may or may not, the government may or may not be obligated to, to fund. So, so this is, this is actually our second week in a row talking about SNAP where we, you know, back.

[C]

In the day, we wouldn't have called SNAP a lawfare issue. You know, there's guns and butter. And this was, we did the guns. SNAP is part of butter. You know, it's just not like our thing. And all of a sudden SNAP is national security law.

[A]

Well, I mean, to the extent that issues involving clashes between the executive and the legislative separation of powers issues in this day and age trench upon national security issues, it's really at the heart of it, unfortunately. And where we left off last Friday, two district courts in Rhode island and Massachusetts had issued injunctions requiring the administration to make at least partial payments, SNAP payments to the states for the month of November. This is a program that is funded by the feds. They give money to the states, which then disperse them to state citizens. And Friday afternoon, Trump said, I don't want Americans to go hungry. He says, in truth. Social Post I asked the court to clarify how we can legally fund SNAP as soon as possible. If we get the appropriate legal direction by the court, it will be my honor, all caps to provide the funding. So on Saturday, the Rhode island judge puts his oral TRO in writing and says, you can either fund SNAP fully.

[E]

Using.

[A]

SNAP contingency funds, which had been set basically set aside for this purpose, and a separate pot of money called Section 32 funds, which can be used for a bunch of different things. Or you can do it partially just using the contingency funds, but you got to do it by Wednesday and you got to expeditiously resolve these administrative burdens that you talked about in your briefs. And so Monday says, okay, okay. The government says, okay, okay, we'll do it. We'll do it partially. We'll do just the contingency funds, but it might take weeks or months because we haven't done this before. And we're not going to do the pay the full amount using the additional section 32 funds because there are some restrictions on those funds that we think Congress wouldn't want to be used for this. And it would leave a gap in other programs, other childhood nutrition programs. Tuesday then the plaintiffs file a motion saying, you know, the government's not complying with your order, Judge, you got to make them comply. You said Wednesday, they're not doing it by Wednesday. And they said, and their decision not to pay the full benefits was basically arbitrary and capricious. One hour later, Trump, for reasons unknown, posts something else that says SNAP benefits will be given, which increased by billions and billions during Crooked Joe Biden's disastrous term in office, will be given out only when the radical left Democrats open up government, and not before. I'm leaving out the color there, if you will. The plaintiffs bring it to the court's attention and the government says, no, no, no, pay no attention to the man behind the curtain. We're complying. We gave the states the info that they needed. And so I'm leaving out some steps, but basically it looks like the diff. The government says they're going to pay 65% of the monthly benefits for November. And there's a hearing on Thursday in which the judge basically tears into the government says, look, you didn't comply. You were supposed to make the payments by Wednesday. If they were administrative issues, you should have dealt with them a long time ago. And he puts that in later in the day into an order. And if you, if you, at the, at the latest, you should have dealt with these issues when the shutdown began. And if you couldn't deal with these issues, then you should have supplemented it with the, the money from the other funds and that your decision not to do so is arbitrary and capricious because you fail to consider the impact on the recipient on SNAP recipients. And you were wrong on the law. Your fears that Congress won't replenish the depleted section 32 funds is highly unrealistic in any way. It's protectual because it's really for Political purposes, the government appeals fairly quickly. It tries to take it up to the First Circuit, get a state pending appeal, but then at the same time, or rather today, they file their appeal in the morning at like maybe 10am but at the same time, or roughly the same time, the Department of Agriculture, which administers snap, puts out a memo, says that they're working towards paying full benefits. So it's very confusing. And the First Circuit, which the government asked to rule by 4pm has, has yet to do so. So it's odd, it's not entirely clear. A lot of people felt the government would not appeal this because of, for, just for the political, for political reasons. They may feel that the politics are on their side. I have no view on that. They may also feel like legitimately that the law is on their side. That's kind of the closer question. It's a little bit confusing as to why the government did not appeal the original order by the judge from last week. Why they waited until they were put into this position where they said they would comply with an order that required them to pay money by Wednesday when they plainly had no intention of paying it by Wednesday. So this will probably go to the Supreme Court in short order over the weekend. And it's become a very high profile issue in the shutdown debate.

[C]

All right. Meanwhile, we have in the, we have a, only a very brief immigration roundup this week. We have a TRO in the challenge to conditions at Broadview, which is a major immigration detention facility. What's going on there? And since when have federal courts been particularly interested in conditions in immigration detention?

[A]

Well, they have from time to time. I think this is higher profile than most because Broadview is where they've been calling this operation Midway Blitz in Chicago. And Broadview is the place where they're taking everyone who there are rounding up in Chicago. They're taking them to Broadview, maybe later, sending them to other facilities or kicking them out of the country. But in the first instance, they're sending them to Broadview, which is right outside of Chicago. It's been getting a lot of attention as a result. Plaintiffs claim that they're crammed 100 people at a time into a small holding cell without hot meals, nowhere to sleep, the dirty floor near an open toilet smells like excrement, and that they're not given much food. Somewhat ironically, they claim that they are given a piece of a Subway sandwich with one slice of lettuce and one slice of ham for breakfast, lunch and dinner. And the government in their papers have been somewhat Ominously warning that if you make this too onerous for us in terms of what we have to give, the detainees will just shut the place down and might have to compromise our enforcement activities. In Chicago, the judge issues a TRO that largely gives the plaintiffs what they want, but unlike what they but but he does not specify the consequences of non compliance. The the plaintiffs wanted the government to basically shut it down and, and possibly release people if the government was found to be non compliant. But the district court judge requires them to provide adequate space to sleep, clean bedding, adequate supplies of soap and menstrual products, toothpaste, towels and toothbrushes, three full meals, waters, telephone services for attorney client protected conversations with their lawyers. This afternoon, the government gets back to the judge in a status conference and it says basically we're trying to comply with most of the stuff. The one thing that we don't, that we object to is toothpaste and toothbrushes because that can be used as weapons. We're happy to give people rather the toothpaste can be used as a weapon, the toothbrush rather, not the toothpaste. We're happy to give people toothbrushes if they ask, but if they don't ask, then we're not going to give it to them. The plaintiffs, for their part, are skeptical that this is really being complied with in terms of access to attorneys and even to some degree with conditions. And they demand the right to inspect the facility. So that's where we stand for now.

[C]

All right. And finally we have a request for a preliminary injunction which I understand has now been granted in a Chicago case challenging ICE use of force against journalists and protesters. What is going on here?

[A]

So this is another case we've talked about before. It's like the case we just discussed. It's in Chicago. It involves Operation Midway Blitz and also raises the question of the extent to which judges in both cases raise the question to what extent judges can effectively supervise what's going on in fast moving, fast changing conditions and require the government to law enforcement and correctional officers to take action. Basically what the judge did was more or less extend a temporary restraining order that she had put in place a couple of weeks ago. She did not. She al added a couple of requirements to it, but they were small. She added a requirement that they had to. Officers had to display on like two portions of their uniform, a unique identifier, not necessarily their name, but like a badge number that identify them. What's been most notable for the past week though is that she's basically hauled into court high level CBP and ICE officials who have not really acquitted themselves too well. And she, Judge Ellis, who's an Obama appointee, has made clear her dissatisfaction with him, especially Gregory Bovino, who has become an increasingly high profile CBP officer and has been, you might say, kind of running Border Patrol, running point for them on these issues here, these enforcement issues. And Border Patrol is, if you could believe it, giving ICE a bad name with the aggressiveness of their enforcement actions. The judge went out of her way to claim, apparently correctly, that judge rather that Greg Bovino lied a couple of times. He lied about he told a reporter that he'd been hit in the head with a rock before he deployed tear gas. She demonstrated that he had not in fact been hit with a rock. She also he also apparently lied on the stand by saying that he did not deploy force on a protester, literally after watching a video which he has shown kind of tackling the protester. So for those who have not been following along, the TRO basically restricts their ability to use force against protesters and against journalists. Who are those are the ones who brought the case, challenging the degree to which CBP and ICE were pushing back against these people. Unlike in the conditions of confinement case, DOJ or CBP and DHS appear to be unhappy here and they claim that they're going to appeal. So that would make a somewhat interesting appeal. The judge in her written product was quite measured. She did, however, at her hearing yesterday, recite a Carl Sandberg poem by the City of Chicago in its totality.

[E]

Tonight's meal Tilapia Surprise with boiled cabbage. Begin cooking steps 1 through 50 now.

[D]

Are you kidding me? Making dinner shouldn't feel like doing a thousand piece puzzle. With Blue Apron's new one Pan Assemble and bake meals.

[C]

The hard part's already done.

[D]

Pre chopped ingredients, zero stress. Just assemble, bake and enjoy. No complicated steps. No mountain of dishes.

[E]

Try assemble and Bake today.

[D]

Get 20% off your first two orders with code APRON20. Terms and conditions apply. Visit BlueApron.com terms for more.

[C]

Hey, it's Adam Grant from Ted's podcast Work Life, and this episode is brought to you by ServiceNow. AI is only as powerful as the platform it's built into. That's why it's no surprise that more than 85% of the Fortune 500 companies use the ServiceNow AI platform. While other platforms duct tape tools together, ServiceNow seamlessly unifies people, data workflows and AI connecting every corner of your business. And with AI agents working together autonomously, anyone in any department can focus on the work that matters Most. Learn how ServiceNow puts AI to work for [e-mail] Did I talk too much? Can't I just let it go?

[A]

I wish I would stop.

[C]

Thank you so much.

[D]

Take a breath. You're not alone. Counseling helps you sort through the noise with qualified professionals.

[B]

Get matched with a therapist online based.

[D]

On your unique needs and get help with everyday struggles like anxiety or managing tough emotions. Visit betterhelp.comrandompodcast for 10% off your first month of online therapy and let life feel better.

[C]

Excellent. All right, we are going to get through all of our audience questions today. I am going to decide who they are directed to, but if anybody who they're not directed to wants to jump in on them, feel free. Kit asks I think of Roger does the vagueness of the indictment in the Comey case provide another argument for the defense to get the grand jury material so that they can be sure of what the government is alleging now and that it is the same as what was presented to the grand jury?

[E]

Sir, I don't know. Maybe Anna will have an answer. The the I think this motion that seems to be upcoming about the second count. I mean, the second count, until we get a bill of particulars, we don't know what's being charged at all. The second count talks about misleading statements. We don't know for sure if that's the one mentioned or the ones that relate to the first count, which is false statement, or if they relate to the count that was thrown out by the grand jury, which was a different alleged false statement. So yeah, the vagueness is part of the problem. I'm not sure if that's why the the grand jury minutes will be turned.

[C]

Over, but I do think that I do think that the question is onto something because it's been a week or so since I've looked at the motion for disclosure of the grand jury materials. But part of the argument for it is that they want clarity. The defense wants clarity, that the material that was presented to the grand jury, the allegations to that are presented to the grand jury are the same allegations that they're trying to get out of the government in the bill of particulars. In other words, that he's not they're not trying to get one thing tried and having gotten a different thing indicted.

[E]

Yeah. And it's not just there's two things going on. The the defendant has to be on notice of what the charges are, but the grand jury also has to have indicted for the same thing that the government is charging.

[C]

Right.

[B]

So there's also the issue that we mentioned too, of the potential related to whether there was evidence that was presented to the grand jury that might have been attorney client privilege. Remember, they brought up the question of the potential. The investigator who testified maybe had been been the person who was exposed to potentially attorney client privilege information. I missed the question that you read, Ben, because I was typing my own question in the chat. But the other thing I'll say too is that I think that this grand jury minutes question is potentially related to the selective or vindictive prosecution question as well, in that if there was misconduct before the grand jury, it might inform. Implicate prejudice. Right. Or. Or vindictiveness. So point is that there's like. Is that the question is like, what was the relevance of getting the grand jury minutes or am I misunderstanding?

[C]

Well, is part of the relevance that you're trying to verify, you're trying to pin down exactly what was charged. What are the facts? And I think the answer to that is that is part of it, but it is by no means exclusive.

[B]

Yeah.

[D]

All right.

[C]

Lawrence asks, does the situation of the Attorney General, having claimed to have reviewed material she seems not to have had available to her, raise the question of emotion to show cause that is a contempt motion. Would such motion be strategically advantageous for Comey? Roger, what do you think?

[E]

Not really. I don't think so. I think they've got plenty on their plate right now, and it just seems like recklessness or, you know, that she negligent. You know, she. It sounds like she didn't look at the minutes very carefully. If she didn't notice that stuff was missing the way that Judge Curry did.

[C]

Yeah. I will just say on this that this is not, you know, a defense of lawyer. Their job is to get their client acquitted, not to, you know, pick a fight between the Attorney General and the judge. But if I were Judge Nachmanoff and I thought that the Attorney General were making factual misrepresentations in my court, that might be an issue that I cared about.

[E]

Right.

[C]

But I. I don't think. I think it's a. It's a capillary from. From Pat Fitzgerald's point of view. Javier asks of our sandwich guy correspondent, is the sandwich guy verdict likely to be precedential at all with respect to any other protesters? For example, if someone starts throwing rotten fruit. Fruit. So I will just say a jury verdict is never precedential in the sense that it binds anything, but it can be guiding to prosecutors in terms of what sort of Stuff they might want to put in front of other juries. What do you think? Molly?

[D]

That and also I think that the jury instructions that the judge settled on because as Roger was mentioning, this statute isn't usually used to charge misdemeanor assault. So a lot of what he was trying to do was kind of figure out how it should be used and what definitions would be appropriate. So I can imagine other judges looking to those jury instructions when they're trying to make similar determinations.

[C]

Jeff asks Judge Ellis said that Bovino Moo lied about being hit with a rock after video evidence showed it wasn't true. Ellis also noted that Bevino denied using force on a man he was filmed obviously tackling to the ground. Is this perjury? What can she do about it given the likelihood that DOJ doesn't care.

[A]

The first one, the first lie was was made to the press, so not perjury. The second lie was made in court or rather I think believe in a deposition. And if he was sworn in, as he probably was, then it would be perjury. However, people lie on the stand and lie in trials all the time and it is typically not much that is done about it. Except here she obviously caught him and found him not to be credible. And to the extent that these distinctions become relevant down the road and at this point the librarian's litigation is ongoing, it may certainly affect how she and possibly reviewing judges gauge his credibility and other matters.

[C]

All right. And Andrew asks what could the Southern District of Florida grand jury subpoenas possibly be about Reporting is that they relate to interference in the 2016 election by Obama administration officials. But what crimes have statutes of limitations that have not lapsed. So the only person on this call other than myself who I know has dabbled in these very dark waters is Anna. So Anna, I'm going to throw this question to you.

[B]

So the look, people who have been clamoring for an investigation for years about related that that kind of is like kind of related to 2016 stuff. But also they're trying to tie it in with the Mar a Lago search warrant. It's, it gets a little bit galaxy brained. So bear with me. But to kind of answer your question, what they've been saying for a long time on the right is that this investigation that they want to bring, which is what they're calling the grand conspiracy charge, everyone on the right who are, who's thinking about this online, that I, you know, I follow this kind of these conversations closely. They're saying that this, this grand jury that is set to be empaneled in January in Florida is going to be the grand jury that they suspect will investigate this so called grand conspiracy. And it relates to a conspiracy against rights charge that they want to bring. You know, I have not looked very closely at exactly how they would do that in terms of bringing a conspiracy against rights charge. But regardless, the kind of gist of it is that they're trying to argue that there was this big conspiracy to do the Crossfire hurricane or the Russia investigation that was orchestrated by the intelligence community and that years later there was an effort to cover it up with the Mar a Lago raid or search warrant. And so that's kind of, I think the gist of what the theory is.

[C]

And the theory of the statute of limitations is that the conspiracy continues to this day and therefore the statute of limitations has never run.

[B]

Yeah. And so the conspiracy and the rights that they're alleging were being infringed are against. I believe the idea is that it was Trump's like First Amendment rights to campaign and that kind of thing.

[C]

And there's also, I suppose, a possibility of a Klein conspiracy under 371 that, you know, fraud against the United States. But look, Andrew's question here is a very pertinent one. And the look for there to be be litigation to quash subpoenas if they are issued on the theory that there is no applicable statute that could authorize them. And I think this is an extravagant theory. And when you have extravagant theories, they tend to produce pre indictment litigation over the investigative techniques. All right, we have one more question before we go to Anna to ask the last question of the day. This is a follow up for Eric from David. Does the fact that Bovino mo is a sworn federal agent change his potential liability for perjury?

[A]

Not as a, as a legal matter. The perjury laws apply even equally to everyone. Whether you think that someone in that position should be held to a higher standard or not is an interesting question. I don't think that law enforcement officers are more likely to be prosecuted for perjury. One may argue it's the opposite. Realistically, very, very few people are prosecuted.

[C]

For perjury at all except James Comey. Anna, you get the last question today.

[D]

Yeah.

[B]

Okay. So typically grand jury materials are not publicly disclosed because mat of Criminal Rule 6E that prohibits the disclosure of matters that occur before a grand jury. I am curious. You know, these judges that are ruling on these really important questions in the Comey case and in the James case are going to have grand jury minutes. There might be things that happen before the grand jury that are relevant to the decision that the judge makes and that a judge might want to put in an order or a ruling on the matter. You know, there are exceptions related to disclosure that occurs in connection to a judicial proceeding, that kind of thing. So is this, what are the circumstances in which we might learn publicly what occurred before the grand jury as a result of these rulings?

[C]

Right. You're going to learn next week is what's going to happen. And here is why. Because first of all, Rule 6e does not bind the defense. And the defense is either has either received this material or will when Judge Nachmanoff presumably affirms the magistrate judge. And at that point, what restricts the grand jury material is no longer 6e. What restricts the grand jury material is the protective order that binds the defense from disclosing discovery materials. Now, I don't know what that protective order says as a general matter, I haven't read the protective order in this case, but normally the rule in a protective order is you can't disclose it willy nilly. You can only disclose it in the context of legal briefs to the court. Well, the reason the defense wants the grand jury material is so that it can make motions saying Lindsey Halligan did XYZ that are wrong. Right. That are inappropriate. So I don't think, and correct me if I'm wrong about this, Roger, I don't think there's anything that prevents them from doing that. And that means that as soon as they find things in the grand jury documents that are, that they believe are supportive of their claims that there have been improprieties, they will be put into documents and there will be exhibits that will be the relevant grand jury information. Am I wrong about that, Roger?

[E]

I think there might be an extra step. I think they might have to first submit the brief in redacted form with respect to, to the protective order stuff and then get the judge's permission to, to release it. And I, I even think that I, I haven't looked at Fitzpatrick's order. Fitzgerald Fitzpatrick, William Fitzpatrick, the magistrate.

[C]

Oh, sorry, sorry, sorry. We have a Fitzpatrick and a Fitzgerald.

[E]

Gerald. I would need to look at it again, but I think he might have even said that he was, they were being provided under seal, which is a little, not even an extra level of protection beyond the protective order. So I'm pretty sure it would require an extra approval by knocking off to.

[C]

Right.

[B]

But yeah, because there's a procedure by which the government can designate something as sensitive or protected and under the, under the protection order. And so there might be some weirdness with that, but.

[C]

Right, but the point is the purpose of the protective order is to allow the material to be used for litigation purposes only, not for, you know, having fun the with press. Right. And so, but their main purpose for this stuff is going to be litigation purposes. And I think they're going to have, just knowing what I know about what Lindsey Halligan did, they're going to have a lot to talk about. And there's no way that Judge Nachman off is going to keep that stuff out of court. That's just one citizen's opinion. But it is.

[B]

Yeah. And there's going, even if it is, if, even if the filings are redacted, I think we're almost certainly going to see some type of media coalition or something like that that intervenes to try to get those things unsealed or unredacted at some point. You know, it. Eventually I think things will come to light if there are things that are included in the litigation about this. It's just a question of when.

[C]

Yeah, I think it's going to be faster than that because I think, you know, we have two months to trial and the, and all the pre trial motions, including everything that Fitzpat Fitzgerald, Patrick Fitzgerald, not William Fitzpatrick, everything that they want to do, they have to do in the next two months. And there's going to be a lot of text of those grand jury minutes that are going to bear on motions. They're going to want to find file or memos they're going to want to file in support of existing motions. And I just don't see how that stuff doesn't end up in open court. Folks, we're going to leave it there because I am either right or I'm wrong. But I've made my point and you know, we're going to find out whether I'm right or wrong and I don't need to make it at any further length. We're going to be back next week.

[E]

And.

[C]

There will be new stuff happens between now and then. And we'll see you then. This podcast is part of lawfare's live stream series, Lawfare Live, the Trials of the Trump administration. Subscribe to Lawfare's YouTube channel to receive an alert the next time we go live. The Lawfare podcast is produced in cooperation with the Brookings Institution. You can get ad free versions. You can get ad free versions of this and other lawfare podcasts. By becoming a Lawfare material supporter at our website, lawfairmedia.org support. You'll also get access to special events and other content available only to our supporters. The podcast is edited by Goat Rodeo and and our audio engineer this episode was Anna Hickey of Lawfare. Our theme music is performed by Alibi Music. As always, thanks for listening. Why choose a Sleep Number?

[D]

Smart bed Can I make my sight softer?

[C]

Can I make my sight firmer? Can we sleep cooler?

[A]

Sleep Number does that cools up to eight times faster and lets you choose your ideal comfort on either side your Sleep Number setting. Enjoy personalized comfort for better sleep night after night. It's our Black Friday sale.

[C]

Recharge this season with a bundle of cozy, soothing comfort. Now only $17.99 for our C2 mattress.

[A]

And base plus free premium delivery price.

[C]

Is higher in Alaska and Hawaii. Check it out at a Sleep number store or sleepnumber.com today.