He's Staying on the Ballot

Speaker 1 California has millions of homes that could be damaged in a strong earthquake. Older homes are especially vulnerable to quake damage, so you may need to take steps to strengthen yours.

Speaker 7 Visit strengthenyourhouse.com to learn how to strengthen your home and help protect it from damage.

Speaker 5 The work may cost less than you think and can often be done in just a few days.

Speaker 10 Strengthen your home and help protect your family.

Speaker 11 Get prepared today and worry less tomorrow.

Speaker 7 Visit strengthenyourhouse.com.

Speaker 12 Dude, this new bacon, egg, and chicken biscuit from AMPM, total winner, winner chicken breakfast. Chicken breakfast? Come on, I think you mean chicken dinner, bro.
Nah, brother.

Speaker 12 Crispy bacon, fluffy eggs, juicy chicken, and a buttery biscuit? That's the perfect breakfast. All right, let me try it.
Hmm, okay, yeah. Totally winner, winner chicken breakfast.

Speaker 12 I'm gonna have to keep this right here.

Speaker 12 Make sure every breakfast is a winner with the delicious new bacon, egg, and chicken biscuit from AMPM. AMPM, too much good stuff.

Speaker 13 Well, I just want you to know, Ben, that I put my going to the Supreme Court time suit on today just as an act of respect.

Speaker 13 I felt I needed to get dressed up to listen to oral arguments of the United States Supreme Court about the Constitution.

Speaker 12 I mean, this shows the difference between the two of us.

Speaker 12 I put on a dog shirt with wearing sunglasses and showing the victory sign and listened to the oral argument while walking from my house to Brookings.

Speaker 13 Okay, so I was able to catch most of it. I had some other things.

Speaker 13 I had to multitask, but I have to say that bottom line, could just like cut to the chase here, spoiler alert, because I just received a text message here on my phone. So it must be true.

Speaker 13 Text message from you, Ben.

Speaker 13 Total vindication for Charlie Sykes' position at oral arguments.

Speaker 12 Yes, I think it was.

Speaker 13 Okay, I wouldn't have claimed that for myself, but

Speaker 13 feel free to,

Speaker 13 expostulate on that.

Speaker 12 Yeah, well, I understand it would be something that you would want to explore.

Speaker 12 But as I understood the Charlie Sykes position, your view has been this is an excellent theoretical legal argument, something that I understand why.

Speaker 12 law professors of the left and right would be very interested in, and I can totally understand

Speaker 12 why it makes for great law review articles and even op-eds and historical exegesises in magazine articles and whatnot about all kinds of things.

Speaker 12 But if you actually put it in front of the Supreme Court, you're going to get something like a nine-to-nothing opinion that says Trump wins, he gets to be on the ballot.

Speaker 13 I didn't say nine, zero. I'm not going to claim that I ever said that.

Speaker 12 But you clearly said it wasn't going to be a close thing.

Speaker 13 And there's just no way. I mean, I feel like I'm like the lone guy on some of these shows.
It's like, well, you know, this brief is so airtight and this is going to happen.

Speaker 13 And there's no way that Kavanaugh is going to be, I'm saying, guys, seriously, everybody deep breath. This court is not going to throw Donald Trump off.

Speaker 13 It is just not going to happen in any known universe. So tell me how it went that made you feel compelled to write me a tweet saying that my position was totally vindicated.
How bad was it?

Speaker 12 I mean, if you are the Anderson petitioners, the Republican voters in Colorado Colorado who are trying to keep Trump off the ballot.

Speaker 12 I think the technical term would be a total shellacking at oral argument. They may have one vote in

Speaker 12 Judge Justice Sotomayor. I'm not sure.
They certainly don't appear to have Katanji Brown Jackson. They don't appear to have Elena Kagan.
They don't appear to have any of the conservatives.

Speaker 12 And so I think you are looking at a

Speaker 12 they may disagree about the reasons. You may have a lot of split about the rationale.

Speaker 12 And there doesn't seem to be anybody on the court who is going to argue that this is not an insurrection or Trump didn't engage in it. It doesn't seem like they're even going to reach that question.

Speaker 12 It seems like they are very interested in questions of whether Congress has to pass some kind of legislation in order for states.

Speaker 12 Well, either a kind of enabling legislation or create its own process for adjudicating these things or permit states to do it.

Speaker 12 And they seem to have a very, like, very different arguments for that, but they all do seem to be crowded around that position.

Speaker 12 And some of them, including Justice Katanji Brown Jackson, seem very attracted to this question of whether the president is covered by it at all.

Speaker 12 We don't know how unanimous it will be or whether they will find a joint rationale here, but I think it's very clear that there is not going to be anything like a majority for removing Donald Trump from the ballot in Colorado.

Speaker 13 The main headline is that Donald Trump is going to win this case.

Speaker 13 We don't know absolutely what the grounds are, but that it's not going to simply be the conservative justices who are running cover for him. It's going to be across ideological lines.

Speaker 13 So let's just break down from the point of view of the, let's call it the Colorado case, the people who want to, who say that the plain language of the 14th Amendment should be applied to disqualify Donald Trump.

Speaker 13 Where did it run off the rails? What really went wrong for them?

Speaker 12 I want to stress that I don't think that they failed in arguing that there was an insurrection and Trump engaged in it.

Speaker 12 I don't think the the court is going to find that either of those things is false, although they won't affirm them.

Speaker 13 So we wanted the headline, Trump not insurrectionist court rules. So that's not where we're going.
It's going to be bad, but.

Speaker 12 That's not what we're going to get. I'm sure it's how he's going to

Speaker 12 frame it, but it's not what they're going to rule. There are two giant threshold questions here.

Speaker 12 One is, and this question is so dumb that, I mean, I will only go into the details of it if you want to discuss it, but it's a deeply uninteresting question, which is whether the phrase officer of the United States in Section 3 and the phrase office under the United States in Section 3 include the president.

Speaker 12 And it's a really dumb question, and everybody agrees that it should include the president, but it's not really clear that it does, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.

Speaker 13 Well, it's the easiest off-ramp, right? If you want to do a Jedi judicial mind trick, that would be the easiest way of getting them off this, right?

Speaker 12 Well, one of them. Okay.

Speaker 12 I mean, it has some disadvantages, like it has implications for other provisions of the Constitution, particularly the Emoluments Clause, which, you know, we have to think about with respect to Trump.

Speaker 12 But the other one, which is the one that I think they're most focused on, or at least the largest number of them are most focused on, is this question of,

Speaker 12 okay, so the states ratify the 14th Amendment, including Section 3. And the question is:

Speaker 12 can a state enforce Section 3 through its ballot provisions against a federal official, or does Congress have to enforce it? And it's a much more complicated issue. It's a much more interesting issue.

Speaker 12 And that is where I think the most justices are the most focused, albeit with slightly different shades. But I think you can see that's where Clarence Thomas is focused.

Speaker 12 It's definitely where Brett Kavanaugh is focused. It's where Elena Kagan is focused.
I think it's what the chief is thinking about. Alito is thinking about something similar.

Speaker 12 So you can kind of count five votes who are thinking about that problem,

Speaker 12 albeit with slightly different inflections.

Speaker 13 As I was listening, it was an interesting argument because they're talking about the history of the 14th Amendment and the historical context, and that this was designed to limit the state's ability to do certain things.

Speaker 13 So, to uphold Colorado would be, in effect, to turn things upside down, right? It would allow a state to affect a federal election in ways that were not envisioned. Am I getting this right?

Speaker 12 Yes. So, there are several distinct components of this problem.
And

Speaker 12 let me tick them off in no particular order with the justices who were dealing with them.

Speaker 12 Kagan and Alito are both from different points of view saying, hey, wait a minute, if we let Colorado do this, then you're letting basically one state disproportionately determine who's president, the first actor, right?

Speaker 12 And what if it's not Colorado? What if it's

Speaker 12 Michigan or a state that's actually a swing state, right?

Speaker 13 Which, by the way, is obviously not what the authors of the 14th Amendment intended in the years after the Civil War, where they did not want states to go their own way.

Speaker 12 Exactly. And Kagan definitely did it with actually with the inflection that you're describing, which is, wait a minute, the whole point of the 14th Amendment is to take power away from states.

Speaker 12 That doesn't seem very democratic. And by the way, states have completely different procedures.

Speaker 12 That's one flavor of the argument. A second flavor of the argument is the one that Brett Kavanaugh pushed.
I think Kavanaugh was the most explicit about where he's coming from on this. He said, look,

Speaker 12 you know, in the non-binding case from the period, which is one year after

Speaker 12 the 14th Amendment is incorporated into the Constitution, Chief Justice Chase writes this opinion that is called Griffin's case.

Speaker 12 And it's not binding because it's not a Supreme Court opinion, but it is a good reflection of how people understood it at the time, he says.

Speaker 12 And Congress, Griffin's case says basically that Congress needs to pass enabling legislation to implement Section 3.

Speaker 12 And so Congress responds by doing that. And that legislation remains in effect until 1948.

Speaker 12 And nobody between then and now has suggested, until now, has suggested that that process was not meaningfully required.

Speaker 12 And so his argument by a different means is: hey, if you look at the history here, you need implementing legislation.

Speaker 12 Whereas Kagan and Alito more seem to be saying without some congressional uniformity, you're going to have states flying all over the place or else exercising way too much authority over the national election.

Speaker 13 This struck me, and this is a point that I heard because I was trying to gather people's reaction. Like, what do people think of this? Because I thought it went pretty badly.

Speaker 13 And I wanted to say it's just me because I've been saying this. And turned on SiriusXM listening to the MSNBC feed.
And Andrew Weissman is there. And a lot of respect for Andrew.

Speaker 13 He agreed with your analysis, by the way, about how it went.

Speaker 12 Oh, I don't think anybody's going to disagree.

Speaker 13 He made the point that the attorneys and the justices were focused much more on the dangers, the danger.

Speaker 13 of upholding the Colorado ruling and much less concerned about the danger of not implementing the 14th Amendment.

Speaker 13 So, you know, in the think tanks and op-ed pieces, you know, people have been talking about, you know, how dangerous it is not to apply the 14th Amendment to Donald Trump.

Speaker 13 But in court today, the danger was really on the other side.

Speaker 13 And I think that's probably going to take some people by surprise, people who haven't made the distinction between what you can say in a think tank and what you can say in a courtroom with that kind of breakdown of justices.

Speaker 12 What do you think? I think that's right.

Speaker 12 And I also think that the fact that the, again, with the possible exception of Justice Sotomayor, the liberal justices didn't sound all that different from the conservative justices here.

Speaker 13 That was really striking. That has got to have come as a surprise to some people who are watching this.

Speaker 12 Particularly, Justice Katanji Brown Jackson, I thought was

Speaker 12 like her view

Speaker 12 surprised me, to be honest.

Speaker 13 Which view surprised you? Because this is really interesting.

Speaker 12 She seemed quite attracted to the Josh Blackman, Seth Barrett, Tillman, officer of the United States rabbit hole, which I don't think is the appropriate disposition of the case, but it's also

Speaker 12 clearly suggests to me somebody looking for an off-ramp rather than looking for, you know, okay, what was this provision designed to do?

Speaker 12 Well, my takeaway from this, first of all, there are not five votes to affirm the Colorado Supreme Court in removing Trump from the ballot. There may be eight or nine votes for reversing that.

Speaker 12 That's takeaway number one.

Speaker 12 Takeaway number two, that holding will not answer the question of whether Trump is an insurrectionist who is disqualified under the 14th Amendment from holding the office of presidency again.

Speaker 12 It will be on procedural grounds that will leave it to probably leave it to Congress if it wants to, which it won't given the composition of the House of Representatives,

Speaker 12 to create a procedure for adjudicating questions like this, which is to say it will punt it to a part of the field that is unoccupied.

Speaker 12 So that means as a functional matter that Trump will be on the ballot, assuming he is nominated by the Republican Party, and that the combination of the electoral process and the criminal process are the mechanisms by which his return to the presidency will be encumbered, which is kind of what we knew anyway.

Speaker 12 For anybody who was laboring under the illusion that the Supreme Court was going to save us, dispense with the illusion.

Speaker 1 California has millions of homes that could be damaged in a strong earthquake. Older homes are especially vulnerable to quake damage, so you may need to take steps to strengthen yours.

Speaker 7 Visit strengthenyourhouse.com to learn how to strengthen your home and help protect it from damage.

Speaker 5 The work may cost less than you think and can often be done in just a few days.

Speaker 10 Strengthen your home and help protect your family.

Speaker 11 Get prepared today and worry less tomorrow.

Speaker 7 Visit strengthenyourhouse.com.

Speaker 14 If you're a custodial supervisor at a local high school, you know that cleanliness is key and that the best place to get cleaning supplies is from Granger.

Speaker 14 Granger helps you stay fully stocked on the products you trust from paper towels and disinfectants to floor scrubbers.

Speaker 14 Plus, you can rely on Granger for easy reordering so you never run out of what you need. Call 1-800GRANGER, clickgraanger.com or just stop by.
Granger for the ones who get it done.

Speaker 13 Okay, so. Part of my skepticism about this is that, look, the justices are, you know, legal players, but they also are political players.
And this is not a great revelation.

Speaker 13 I mean, they are aware of questions about legitimacy and the controversies. The 1930s, the great story about how the court will sometimes follow election results.

Speaker 13 And again, this is purely speculative, so I'm almost hesitant to do this. The other big case is the immunity case.
And you and I, I think, agree on this one, that that's always been the main event.

Speaker 13 The main event is the question of presidential immunity and the timing on that.

Speaker 13 The justices know that they can hand Donald Trump a victory on this, but they also know that they are also then gives them a little bit of wiggle room to go hard on the immunity case.

Speaker 13 I'm not articulating this well, but I'm thinking that they can split the baby. I mean, because there's no way that Donald Trump wins the presidential immunity case, especially after the D.C.
circuit.

Speaker 13 But in many ways, knowing that they're going to take this position, does it make it easier for them to slam dunk that case too? Like, not even take it up?

Speaker 12 Right. So, this is a really really interesting question and it requires a collective psychoanalysis of nine people of very different psyches.
I'm looking for it, really.

Speaker 12 You know, and so, but I think the answer to your question is yes, that it makes it easier.

Speaker 12 In my view, the proper disposition of the cert petition that's coming from the DC Circuit or from Trump over the DC Circuit opinion, and more particularly, the petition for a stay of the DC Circuit opinion is no stay and cert denied.

Speaker 12 So you can resolve it in two very brief orders. And then Judge Chutkin, the district court judge who has that case, gets to set a trial date, right?

Speaker 12 And so, you know, if you were to, as a court, issue a nine-nothing opinion in Trump's favor on section three and then quietly not take up the other thing.

Speaker 12 He might, you know, cheer and bleat his whole way to trial. My sense is that it probably does create a little bit of latitude.
That said, the real question

Speaker 12 with the DC Circuit CERT petition, and this is, I'm going to reflect a certain cynicism about the justices here, although not the political cynicism that a lot of people have, is whether they're willing to let the last word on this subject until the end of time be the word of the DC Circuit, because these questions almost never come up.

Speaker 12 It's, you know, in 200 plus years of the Republic, we've never prosecuted a former president.

Speaker 12 So if you're a justice of the Supreme Court, do you want Judges Childs, Henderson, and Hann to you know, have the final statement on this very big and important, or do you want your stamp on it?

Speaker 12 And so the question is are four of them arrogant enough to say because it only takes four to grant cert are four of them arrogant enough to say well of course the dc circuit's right in the big picture but we should really be writing this opinion so grant cert so that it's an opinion of the supreme court i have not heard anyone else other than you make this point that there's a certain ego there that this is the big case but maybe they've had their fill of big cases now walk me through this because i think I understand this.

Speaker 13 You need four votes to grant cert, which is basically, okay, we are now going to decide this question. But it takes five votes to stay the order.
I mean, because the DC Circuit, am I right about this?

Speaker 12 Yes.

Speaker 13 Okay, so because the D.C. Circuit actually did something very interesting in the way that they that they issued this ruling.
And you folks at Law Fair nailed it right out of the box.

Speaker 13 And I'm not sure that everybody has fully understood how significant the way they came down with that ruling was for speeding up the trial. Explain.

Speaker 12 Right. So this is really interesting because it's not in the opinion.
Yeah. It's only in the judgment, this one-page order.
And what they did was they said,

Speaker 12 and this was an effort to basically say, don't play games with the timing of this, Mr. Trump, defendant Trump.
Number one, we're going to issue the mandate on February 13th.

Speaker 12 So that means unless something happens,

Speaker 12 Judge Chutkin on Tuesday, the 13th is getting the mandate and can schedule a trial. Number two,

Speaker 12 we will stay the mandate

Speaker 12 if you notify us that you are seeking a cert petition, but not if you notify us that you're asking the full D.C. Circuit.
to review the case.

Speaker 12 You don't get to do a second step with looking for en banc review here.

Speaker 12 But if you go to the Supreme Court, we will grant you a stay for as long as it takes the Supreme Court to decide whether to grant you a stay.

Speaker 12 And

Speaker 12 in other words, another week or so, right? So you have a stay while you ask the Supreme Court to stay the mandate so that they can consider a cert petition.

Speaker 12 And then either they'll grant the stay, in which case five of them have to vote to grant a stay, or

Speaker 12 Judge Chutkin gets to set a trial date, and then they can decide whether they want to hear the case in the meantime. So it's basically the DC circuit saying, we're not going to

Speaker 12 help you play games with delaying the trial.

Speaker 13 Exactly, which I thought was really interesting because there had been some hand-wringing about what's taking so long.

Speaker 13 I've been assured that, guys, you understand that courts don't work at the same space as journalism. This really was pretty fast.
It was pretty quick. They really weren't dragging their feet.

Speaker 13 And particularly the way they came down with that judgment. Yeah.

Speaker 12 I am not a fan of Judge Henderson as a general matter. I've often been critical of her work.
And I will confess that I did have some moments where I was thinking, what is she up to here? Yeah.

Speaker 12 I thought this opinion amply justified the time that the D.C. Circuit took to issue it.

Speaker 12 And I think all three of those judges did a superb job, given the time constraints, taking the president's argument seriously.

Speaker 12 I think this is a much better opinion than the district court opinion that it reviewed. I am very confident that there are not five votes on the Supreme Court.
Oh, you are.

Speaker 12 To reverse it, there's no chance.

Speaker 13 But to stay. Can we just focus it on this?

Speaker 12 Whether they will hear it and whether they will stay the mandate while they hear it, that I don't know. But this is going to stand up.

Speaker 13 Okay, but this is the key question. I mean, let's focus on this monumental decision that may be determined by one justice, the difference between four and five.

Speaker 13 If, in fact, they do not grant a stay, Judge Chutkin is going to go ahead with the trial. It's not going to be on March 4th, but there's going to be a trial.

Speaker 13 There's definitely going to be a trial, right?

Speaker 12 Yeah, I mean, it could be as early as mid-May.

Speaker 13 Exactly. If the court, however, does grant the stay, this thing could drag on and on and maybe pass the election because they might put it off to the next term.

Speaker 13 So, I mean, one justice deciding stay or not stay could, in fact, determine the outcome, I mean, the future of the American presidency, right?

Speaker 13 I mean, it's like, you know, goes one way, we have a trial, goes another way, Donald Trump may go all the way to November. without a trial or a conviction.

Speaker 12 Theoretically possible. I think, in fact, unlikely.
The justices are very savvy political players. The Chief Justice is no,

Speaker 12 I don't think would want the court to be seen as wrapped up in Donald Trump's electoral machinations.

Speaker 12 And

Speaker 12 they are also aware of clearly, we know from today, they are looking for ways to be unanimous and to not meddle in the election.

Speaker 12 And so so delaying his trial until after the election would be like a really bad move. And so I think if they were to hear it, they would hear it quickly and do what they did in this case, which is

Speaker 12 say, hey, we owe this our review, but we are not going to treat it on the usual regular docket. I think that's what they would do.

Speaker 12 And I think as long as they took less than two or three months to do it, you would still have a trial before November 5th. That said, your point is it's certainly possible.

Speaker 13 Well, as you point out, I mean, you know, Justice Roberts is a savvy political operator.

Speaker 13 And the nightmare scenario for the Supreme Court is you throw out the 14th Amendment case, and then you follow that up by basically destroying the criminal cases against Donald Trump.

Speaker 12 Two words, cert denied.

Speaker 13 That's it. See, this is what it comes down to.
I know when you and I write the screenplay for the movie, this is going going to be the moment. It's all going to turn on that one justice deciding.

Speaker 12 It could be the title.

Speaker 13 It could be the title. It could be cert denied or cert.
Just maybe just make it cert.

Speaker 13 Who plays the justice?

Speaker 13 We have to work on that.

Speaker 1 California has millions of homes that could be damaged in a strong earthquake.

Speaker 5 Older homes are especially vulnerable to quake damage, so you may need to take steps to strengthen yours.

Speaker 7 Visit strengthenyourhouse.com to learn how to strengthen your home and help protect it from from damage.

Speaker 5 The work may cost less than you think and can often be done in just a few days.

Speaker 10 Strengthen your home and help protect your family.

Speaker 11 Get prepared today and worry less tomorrow.

Speaker 7 Visit strengthenyourhouse.com.

Speaker 15 There's nothing like sinking into luxury. Anibay sofas combine ultimate comfort and design at an affordable price.

Speaker 15 Anibay has designed the only fully machine washable sofa from top to bottom. The stain-resistant performance fabric slip covers and cloud-like frame duvet can go straight into your wash.

Speaker 15 Perfect for anyone with kids, pets, or anyone who loves an easy-to-clean, spotless sofa. With a modular design and changeable slip covers, you can customize your sofa to fit any space and style.

Speaker 15 Whether you need a single chair, love seat, or a luxuriously large sectional, Annabe has you covered. Visit washable sofas.com to upgrade your home.

Speaker 15 Sofas start at just $699 and right now, get early access to Black Friday savings up to 60% off store-wide with a 30-day money-back guarantee. Shop now at washable sofas.com.

Speaker 12 Add a little

Speaker 15 to your life. Offers are subject to change and certain restrictions may apply.

Speaker 13 Okay, so this seems less significant, but

Speaker 13 Donald Trump continues to celebrate what's going on down in Georgia. Fonnie Willis has acknowledged he had a personal relationship, answered the charges, lengthy, lengthy.
Brief about that.

Speaker 12 I just want to say, Charlie, this is the first time in the history of the Bulwark podcast that you have gone from Supreme Court oral arguments and cert consideration straight to divorce court in Georgia County.

Speaker 12 And I just want to take note of that because it's going to be your second to last day hosting the podcast, and we're still doing posts here.

Speaker 13 And COI is able to do that. So what do you make of all this? You know, we've been sort of tap dancing around this.

Speaker 12 We wanted to hear Fonnie Willis's story, wanted to hear the response now we got it where are we at where are we at then so i gotta say after reading phonie willis's response i am offended on her behalf by this particular turn in the litigation the allegations that were made against her were that now i feel much more comfortable talking about them because she's had a chance to respond and she has responded and I think very effectively.

Speaker 12 The allegations against her are: A, that she was secretly having an affair with this guy, Nathan Wade, whom she then hired as her special prosecutor, overpaid because he was quite unqualified for the position, and then he kicked back money to her in the form of lavish vacations, and that that thereby created a conflict of interest in which they both had an incentive to keep this money train going because they could go to Napa Valley and on cruises and to Aruba and the like.

Speaker 12 In her response, which includes a sworn affidavit from Nathan Wade, she basically attacks every component of this story.

Speaker 12 So, yes, they have a romantic relationship, or at least they did at one point, but it began after she hired him. So she didn't hire somebody she was having an affair with.

Speaker 12 It's basically a workplace romance, which, you know, know, it's not best practices, I'm sure, for Fulton County, but it's perfectly ordinary. Number two, he is quite qualified.

Speaker 12 And one of the things the brief does is kind of lays out his history and qualifications. But number three, and importantly, she was not his first choice as special prosecutor for this.

Speaker 12 And in fact, he helped her try to find other people who then turned her down because of the security issues associated with taking this case, which he has done at a fraction of his regular billing rate.

Speaker 12 So it's not a lavish sinecure for him by any means.

Speaker 12 Number four, when they have traveled together, sometimes he is paid, sometimes she is paid, and they're sort of roughly even, like they seem to have rebutted the kind of kickback scheme allegation.

Speaker 12 And so I was left after reading her response, thinking that this attack on her

Speaker 12 was,

Speaker 12 first of all, not supported by the factual record. And secondly, kind of reckless and personal.

Speaker 12 And while I don't really approve of the speech she gave in church where she sort of suggested that it was racially motivated, I do think it is the kind of thing that, you know, if you're going to accuse a prosecutor as a public official of engaging in a kickback scheme, you better have a damn good factual record for that.

Speaker 12 And I do think this was made

Speaker 12 with a very thin record. It does not establish a conflict of interest.

Speaker 12 And if I were Judge Scott McAfee, who has this case, I would be annoyed at the degree to which these defense counsel have created a media circus around a very thin factual record.

Speaker 13 It's personally messy, but clearly not dispositive toward the case. So what happens now?

Speaker 13 How does it play out? There's going to be a hearing and the judge is going to decide what.

Speaker 12 Right. So Judge McAfee has a hearing scheduled for the 15th.

Speaker 12 The defense lawyers have tried to subpoena both Nathan Wade and Fonnie Willis to get them to testify about their relationship and the money.

Speaker 12 She has moved to quash these subpoenas as well as subpoenas to other people on her staff and has argued that the

Speaker 12 factual predicate for the motion is inadequate to justify any of this and that Judge McAfee should reject the motion without a hearing.

Speaker 12 And so the first question is, does he feel the need to develop the facts further? in which case there will be a hearing.

Speaker 12 Second question is, if he holds a hearing, what testimony or information will he require?

Speaker 12 And then the third question, which I think is the answer to which is no, is, does he find that there's a conflict of interest here that gives rise to relief in any way for any of the defendants or disqualification of the DA or Nathan Wade?

Speaker 12 And I think the answer to that is pretty clear. Okay.

Speaker 13 Very briefly. Where are we at with Eileen Cannon? It does seem as if things are coming to a head.
She has been, you know, dragging her feet on all of this.

Speaker 13 It's getting to the point where now there's discussion about emergency action by Jack Smith to prevent the release of sensitive information. Okay, let me remember I'll just cut right to the chair.

Speaker 13 Is there just a breaking point where

Speaker 13 they decide that we actually have to challenge her sitting on this case, or are we just stuck with Eileen Cannon? I know we've discussed this in the past, but I mean, my sense is we're stuck with her.

Speaker 13 But what is the breaking point?

Speaker 12 Well, so you're stuck with her until she does something.

Speaker 12 Well, one of two things. Either she does something in the context of the Classified Information Procedures Act, which is a specific statute for managing classified information in criminal cases.

Speaker 12 And one thing that is interesting about this law, which is abbreviated as SEPA, is that rulings under it are appealable on an interlocutory basis.

Speaker 12 That is, you don't have to wait till the end of the case to appeal them.

Speaker 12 So, once she makes a substantial SEPA ruling, if it is

Speaker 12 nuts, you can take her up to the 11th Circuit on that. And once you're up at the 11th Circuit, you can say, and by the way, this judge is really biased against us.

Speaker 12 Can you help us and do something about it?

Speaker 13 Well, and they're not fans of her up there, are they? I mean, the 11th Circuit has smacked her down in the past. So, this is not a fan gallery for Eileen Cannon up there.

Speaker 12 Exactly. I think one thing that the government is waiting for is a SEPA ruling that is appealable and that is appealable in a fashion that you can make some broader points about her.

Speaker 12 The second possibility is that she does something so outrageous outside of the context of SEPA that you can bring her up on the basis of what's called a writ of mandamus, which is basically what they did in the...

Speaker 12 in the context of the earlier litigation. But that's an extraordinary remedy, and the judge has to be kind of wildly out of line before you can do that.

Speaker 12 And so I think their posture, which is, I think, the right one, is

Speaker 12 work with her, explain everything really patiently to her, file briefs, and then wait until she does something really nuts and then go up to the 11th Circuit.

Speaker 12 And then maybe then you have a record to have her removed from the case.

Speaker 13 Okay, we're going to have to leave it there because we've got kind of a late start waiting on the justices. We want to get this podcast out today, our penultimate podcast.

Speaker 13 Once again, Ben, it has been great doing this with you. I remember the first time when you and I spoke about this and said, hey, how about doing a special once-a-week podcast on the Trump trials?

Speaker 13 You know, since then, we've never had a dull moment, have we?

Speaker 12 It has been an amazing pleasure, Charlie. And it is with great regret that I do not get to say we'll be back next week and we'll do this all over again.

Speaker 12 I want to echo a lot of the things that Tom Nichols said about you and this podcast yesterday. I wrote some of them on Dog Shirt Daily a few days ago.
Very good. I will leave it at that.

Speaker 12 But Charlie, what an accomplishment this podcast has been.

Speaker 12 And it has been a super honor and pleasure for for me to join you on it on a semi-regular basis and then on a very regular basis on the Trump Trials sub-podcast podcast.

Speaker 13 As I told you before, I can still remember when I was thinking, boy, am I ever going to actually get to meet Ben Wittis, never imagining that we would be doing what we have done or have the relationship we have.

Speaker 13 So sometimes things turn out well. So Ben, I would like to say that we're going to be back next week, but that's all there is.

Speaker 13 Now, I'm going to be back tomorrow, but you and I, you know, I'm going to have to catch under the palm trees.

Speaker 12 It'll happen. And we will, I think the first time we

Speaker 12 actually met was over drinks at a P ⁇ P gathering. And I'm sure we will do that again.

Speaker 13 I am counting on it. And thank you all for listening to this latest episode of the Trump Trials.

Speaker 12 I'm Charlie Sykes.

Speaker 13 I will be back tomorrow for one last episode with some very special guests.

Speaker 13 The Bulwark podcast is produced by Katie Cooper and engineered and edited by Jason Brown.

Speaker 12 I've been out here a while, cast up to cast, and nothing's biting.

Speaker 12 That's fishing for you. And honestly, that's what online fishing is like for hackers, too, when Cisco Duo is on watch.
With Duo's end-to-end fishing resistance, the waters always stay calm.

Speaker 12 No ripples, no splashes, just a hook that never gets a bite.

Speaker 12 Cisco Duo, fishing season is over. Learn more at duo.com.

Speaker 16 We know no one's journey is the same. That's why Delta Sky Miles moves with you.

Speaker 16 From earning miles on reloads for coffee runs, shopping, and things you do every day to connecting you to new experiences.

Speaker 16 A Sky Miles membership fits into your lifestyle, letting you do more of what makes you you. It's more than travel.
It's the membership that flies, dines, streams, rides, and arrives with you.

Speaker 16 Because when you have a membership that's as unique as you are, there's no telling where your journey will take you next. Learn more at delta.com slash skymiles.

Speaker 1 California has millions of homes that could be damaged in a strong earthquake. Older homes are especially vulnerable to quake damage, so you may need to take steps to strengthen yours.

Speaker 7 Visit strengthenyourhouse.com to learn how to strengthen your home and help protect it from damage.

Speaker 5 The work may cost less than you think and can often be done in just a few days.

Speaker 10 Strengthen your home and help protect your family.

Speaker 11 Get prepared today and worry less tomorrow.

Speaker 7 Visit strengthenyourhouse.com.