Andrew Weissmann: Is Trump Going To Raid Fort Knox Next?

Now the package is ready. The best way to test a gratis test.

“The people who have been in cheese, cheese, cheese, cheese.”

Now to the gratis test. Time for 18 years. The coffee and the coffee and the coffee are ready. The volume is now ready. Only so long the preparation is ready. Let's take a look at the production package and the cheese minus action. Hello and welcome to the board of podcasts. Time your host Tim Miller.

It couldn't be more delighted to welcome back to the show professor of practice that NYU Law School. He served as lead counsel in Bob Mueller's investigation in the 2016 election. He's also in general counselor for the FBI. He's on MSNL with me quite often. He's a frequent guest on our own illegal news podcasts with Sarah Longwell. Sarah's stolen him from me. And now he's the author of a new book.

Myers kingdom how to stop Trump's deceit and save America, which will be released on Tuesday. Go pre-order it right now. Pause the podcast. Go pre-order it and we're going to give you a good show.

“It's me and Andrew Weissman. How are you doing Andrew?”

It is really nice to see you. I mean, you're totally right. I actually, I make you before Sarah. You're in the show. You know, I think I think you've been. You think so? But it's my loss. We'll see. New legal news plan is go check it out. They're doing a great job. I've listened to this last week's, I got about 30 minutes in before dosing off.

So I thought that was pretty good. You know, I've kind of, I've, I've a lot happened in my life. You know, I'm going to hard to stay locked in my, my good friends say, You know, I listened to, I listened to you on your podcast because I did this podcast in my record. I'm like, oh, that's great. They go, yeah, when I can't get to sleep, it's really, really nice to listen to. Well, that won't be this podcast because you have a lot of exciting news to discuss.

And at the very end, I get the sense that you're a little, are you a little bit of a hypocondriac? You little, no, not really. No, no, I'm not. Okay, that's surprising. Why? Why do you say that? Good. Well, I don't know. I just give it a lot of contact energy. You know, I have a lot of folk years that I have a lot of, I have a lot of issues.

But I have somehow managed to not have that one. All right. Well, we'll learn a little bit more. We'll go a little bit deeper on that on the end. Wait, are you, you know, you do not seem. No, I'm not. I'm not. I'm not at all. No, I'm not an opposite. No, Sarah gets mad at me for not watching my hands enough. But it might be, it might be something we'll need to do more.

That's a little teaser for the very end of the show, though, be something I'll implant the discussion. We'll just stick around for the end. But first, we have some serious. I'm like really actually genuinely genuinely fucking pissed about this story that I want to start with you on.

This is ABC News last night. Reports that Trump is poised to drop his $10 billion lawsuit against the IRS.

You know, he had this emotional distress that his tax returns being leaked. Every other presidential candidate voluntarily released their tax returns. He's got leaked and this caused him such emotional distress that he felt like he deserved $10 billion. Yeah, that's fair enough. Yes, yeah, Billion Bubba.

And the report from ABC is that the settlement between Trump and Trump is going to be taking $1.7 billion with a B of our dollars. And putting it into a slush fund that will be given out to allies who are quote unquote targeted by the Biden administration. $1.7 billion of people who are out there working their ass off and giving some of the money to the government. Trump is just going to hand it out to Mike Flynn and the shaman and his kids and whoever he wants. $1.7 billion.

So Mike Flynn has already reportedly gotten his what is it $1.2 million but that's actually just a draw on the bucket.

Give it right. But this means, you know, there's a lawsuit by Jay Sixers that so you can see the writing on the wall is to what's going to happen there. But what is the difference between this and theft? I mean, one that just go into Fort Knox take the gold and give it out. There's no difference, right?

Yeah. None. I mean, it's just it is unbelievable. So, you know, to put it in a legal frame, when he's lawsuit, the judge who oversaw it had a really good point. She said, before we continue, I don't know that you're properly in court because to have a court battle,

there has to be adversity between the plaintiff and the defendant. There has to be what's called the case or controversy. And she said, I need the parties to brief this because I don't see a case or controversy necessarily year. I need you to tell me why.

“And I could see the Trump administration going, you know what?”

We don't even need the case. Like, let's just get rid of it because the judge is not playing ball. And who needs it, we can just settle our on our own without ever involving the court, which is just another way saying we're just going to write ourselves a check on taxpayer money.

And this is a corruption at a scale that we've never even contemplated in the country.

I forget. Like, I'm sure I can resign over like, like 20 grand and a brown paper bag or something. 1.7 billion. The thing that's so remarkable is, I couldn't even think of this as a possibility. It's like, you couldn't have had a law of regulation to prevent this.

Like, you who would have thought, like, we need to pass a lot through Congress. You know, that somebody in the 1960, you know, Tip O'Neill and Rani Reagan came together in 83.

And you know, we need to make a deal here just to make sure that no future president can sue the government and then settle with himself and give himself one billion dollars.

How would you have even conceived that?

“What does it need to just give the money to his campaign?”

Or to his children? I guess it's an emollumant kind of no. Emollumants are, I mean, to me, I mean, to me. And it is a law. Still, we don't have a lot.

But it is a law. Yeah, but we really don't follow it. And it's also something that Congress can improve. And I think that is closer to think of this as theft that there because there is no good faith. For the dispute and certainly the amount of money, even if there, even if there were good faith for some kind of dispute.

“Anyway, you know, it's sort of, I think that Jamie Raskin has made this point, which is he's giving himself over a billion dollars to use as he sees fit.”

You know, who else has had personal information leaked the whole series of absteen victims who the Department of Justice, you know, smeared that they're not getting any money? I mean, if you're going to do this, how about people who are actually victims who had their bank account, social security numbers, photos released by the Department of Justice, because they were careless at the very least careless. I know you're the legal guy, and I didn't go to law school here. So just, and I'm Googling this, I'm just being fully transparent with everybody.

I'm live Googling this. Yeah, domestic and multi-dimensional is Article 2 section one, called seven, prohibits U.S. president for receiving any of them all even beyond their fixed salary from the federal government or any state. The president cannot receive any other em all even from the United States federal government or state government according to Alexander Hamilton Federal 73, this prevents Congress from using financial incentives to corrupt the president's integrity. Is that not this?

Yeah, the problem is, you know, this came up in Trump 1.0 with a post office, and that fizzled as a lawsuit.

Maybe we should unfizzle it, maybe we should fizzle it back up. Yeah, look, I'm sure there will be a lawsuit here, but I can't remember why the post office case fizzled. But one of the things that Congress can do is in em alluments, they actually have the power to approve it, and that it's even if it were an em allument. I don't know if they have the power to unwind it. In other words, where they could say about this, this is not going forward.

Yeah, exactly, or take it away from something. In other words, like if you want this, you know, this is a little bit like what Congress did to protect the federal reserve in Trump power, which is, they actually have levers to use that they just, you know, rarely rarely use, but they could do that. They could say, you know what, you want these people approved, you have people you're nominating, you have judges, you have people who are sort of sub cabinet level people. We're stopping, you want to strip prove funding of things, you like your war in Iran, and you're asking us for, you know, tens of billions of dollars for that.

That's a lot of leverage. I want to get dark on this for one second.

“Do you know Andrew Paul Johnson, does that name ring a bell for you?”

No. It's guy, uh, pled guilty for climbing into the capital through a broken window on January 6th, uh, at a bull horn, he was shouting with a fucking job to finish. Prosecutors pointed out during his sentence that he called himself an American terrorist and a proud J. Sixer on his social media, he was sentenced to life in prison in March. After he was pardoned by Trump, uh, he reoffended and he repeatedly sexually abused two children. Here's how it ties to the story. Please report to the Johnson, try to keep the children quiet by telling them that he would share the millions of dollars in restitution money he expected to receive from the Trump administration and connection with the January 6th case.

I mean, Matt, just enriching. Okay, so the people, the agents and prosecutors who worked on the case, they're fired and vilified. The people who were charged, tried before a jury found guilty or pleaded guilty, meaning they confessed out of their own amous.

This sort of, this is the back of the blue party. Again, this falls into the, you can't even conceive of the idea that, that this is going to happen.

But I think it's just part of the process of whitewashing history. Like, I am going to tell you what the facts are. Literally reality is what I tell you it is. And even that we all saw January 6th on our TVs, on our computers, on our phones. It's like that did not happen. The people who were assaulting are the victims and the people who were trying to stop them are the bad guys. And that's why we're paying this money. Or to pay them. Me and you. Yeah. Yeah. Listen, exactly. We're all paying guys like this. I mean, not this guy under Paul Johnson, because he got re-convicted, but other, but his buddies, the people that were breaking down the windows with them, that were attacking phenomenon, they're going to, they're going to get a pay out.

This guy could get, I mean, he, if it turns out they structure the paths because it's just going to be for people. The child sex predator could get, yeah. And just be clear, he is not the only person who is re-offended.

“Oh my god, no, it's been like three dozen. Exactly. And that's what you're expecting.”

It's just particularly interesting in his case, the idea that he was using the idea that this money was coming as like a weapon. Yeah, it was a weapon. A weapon to intimidate kids, they was abusing horrible. This is what I don't get. Let's assume you're in Maga Republican and you are struggling to have ends meet. You're seeing the economy go into the tank. You're seeing a spend billions of dollars on a war that has not been explained to you. And now you learn that they're thinking of giving criminals money.

And the president of the United States has given himself over a billion dollars of taxpayer money.

Like, at what point do you just say, I've had enough? We're seeing some of it and he's at his lowest approval rating and that he's ever been. So I think that there's some of it. We should not ignore that. I think a lot of people aren't getting this news though.

“You know, I think that's why the Iran war is so, it's so important.”

I mean, it's horrifying all this, but for a political standpoint, just talking with us from raw politics. Like, Fox News isn't really going to tell them about the 1.7 billion, you know, or if they do, it's going to be framed up in a way of like, this is needed retribution for the victims of the Biden, the justice part and politicization. You should be happy that they're getting their restitution. They're not going to be like reminding people, this is your money, actually. You're, it's not just the lives that are paying them. It's you, this fight. They're not going to do that, right?

So, but with the war, it's like, even if they aren't following the straight of harm moves in his day to day, they're seeing the gas price. Right, they're seeing the gas prices every day. And I do think that is why that has has penetrated somewhat. Not as much as I think some of us have hoped, but that that's my take on it. I don't think that they're hearing that much about this, that's the corruption.

“Sarah had a point about Alex Pretty, which is similar that she said, that's one where everyone could just watch it on their phone and make their own judgment.”

And it could break through because, you know, it was just as horrific as Renee good, but, but it was, it was sort of simpler to see all the camera angles. Yeah, exactly. It was down. Right. And so, whatever people were telling you, it's like, I could get in the video tape. I could see it. And you didn't have the sort of problem of filtered media where, you know, it's like everything's fake news. Well, you know what, here you could see it and make a judgment.

This episode of the board podcast is brought to you by Wildgreen Wildgreen is the first big from frozen subscription box for sourdough bread.

There are seasonal pastries in fresh pastries unlike many store bought options. Wildgreen uses simple ingredients. You can pronounce it a slow fermentation process. It could be easier on your belly and return nutrients and antioxidants. Plus, all items could be nearly break in 25 minutes or less with no throwing required. Wildgreen's boxes are fully customizable in addition to the variety box they have a vegan and a new protein box, if you're weightlifting. We love wildgreen, breakfast foods in our house. We got them quiz songs. They got that bakery quality bread. And, you know, it just takes me back to the childhood, you know.

When this could just get up on a Saturday or Sunday morning and know that it was my mom was down there making something yummy for me. So how much birthday about a lot of happy birthday, mom. We love you. And you can do this yourself right there. It's in the freezer to worry about going down to Starbucks, waiting in line or doing whatever. You know, you can have it. If you're a mom, you're a grandma, you can stick those croissants in the oven, stick some of those yummy pastries in the oven.

So imagine having that fresh bakery quality bread, pastry and pasta at home without any trips to the store and don't just take my word for it. They've over 40,000 five star views have been voted best food subscription box by USA today for three years in a row. Relimited time while green is offering our listeners 35 bucks up your first box plus frequent sounds for life when you get a wild green dot com slash the bull work to start your subscription today. That's 30 bucks up your first box and frequent sounds for life when you visit wildgreen dot com slash the bull work or you can use promo code the bull work at checkout happy birthday mom and happy mother's day.

Post mother's day, tell other moms out there.

Watching history, they also have the voting rights act decision. We've been obviously talking about it, Nazium. This should not dampen anyone's rage or determination for action at all. What I'm about to say, and I should just know it actually tomorrow is the national day of action for voting right now. Yeah, and their events in a lot of places, especially in the south, so to take good summer and Montgomery. But yes, you can participate in two things everywhere virtually, but there is a fiscal rally in the next two cities.

And so I hope and expect that it will be met big turnout for that. I do think that like just on the pure politics of this.

“It did happen late enough that I think that a lot of these southern states like don't have their shit together in time to do the maximum damage.”

There was like a moment last week and I was talking about this with Adam Cerwerr where it looked like I mean, they might eliminate every majority minority district in the south outside of Georgia. And for this midterm and and that would have impact on the chances of the Democrats winning the midterm. There's some horrific things happening. We've discussed Tennessee and Louisiana here a bunch. And there's happening in not some other states, but I they've hit some political hurdles. I think there's that it's going to minimize the damage a little bit just for this cycle.

But I'm wondering what your what your kind of take is on the legal side of it. Like whether there's any path forward or if it's the only path forward, it's like maximum race to the bottom and Democrats trying to kill 51 to 1 California. If there's any legal path forward.

“So I think there is no legal path forward given what the Supreme Court did.”

And in many ways, they are really doubling down. I mean, they did sort of smearly vacate a case, which was not based on the voting rights act where they said, we're getting rid of your finding of intentional discrimination based on the 14th amendment. It is possible that in that district that the judge maintains. What happened in Alabama finding there was there was intentional discrimination and basing it not on the vetting where I'd say act, but as they originally did on the constitution.

Meaning the leasing anecdote first, Kelley decision was horrendous, but if you actually can find intentional discrimination, there is a small window.

It's not clear that this Supreme Court was going to allow that because they could easily say we disagree with your finding it's intentional discrimination. We find that it was based on politics, not on race. In the Tennessee thing, it's just like, for example, it's like, how could you not look at that and see intentional discrimination and they divide it evenly into three districts divided the black voters and Memphis evenly into three different districts. But that's sure. Yeah, look, I agree to Lito has already sort of said his view on this, which is, yeah, that is nothing to do with race that has to do with with Republicans wanting to win.

And so even though there's a complete ones of proxy for the other, in other words, it's like a two for it's like, I get to increase the Republicans chances and I get to discriminate. And as far as this Supreme Court seems to be ruling, that doesn't matter. So, I mean, the voting rights act is so completely gutted, except for white people who want to sue over what they view as racial discrimination by trying to rectify past discrimination. I mean, that's a whole theory of this, which is that it's kind of like, I'll only wipe out African refugees, can get here.

Yeah, exactly. So I have a political question for you because I don't, I think that the answer is in voting and having an enormous turnout.

“And I mean, obviously what's happening is not going to affect the Senate in the same way that's obviously going to affect the House because that's what's being gerrymandered.”

But I have a question for you, do what extent do Republicans have enough time to do this smartly because if there are districts now that are purple ish. And you do this where you, you are separating out, instead of putting all of the Democratic votes in one district, right, solidly Democratic votes there, you separate them out. Don't you risk tipping some of those other districts?

That is definitely a risk in specific Republican members. I think they're going to be more at risk, or you look at the Tennessee thing, for example, they're good at this. They're not dumb and they carved up the state in such a way.

“They're like there's one district that goes from Memphis all the way to Exervant Nashville, and there's not really any district that Trump won by less than 20. I don't think maybe 19 or something.”

So they can afford to do this right that said, you know, and they're like two particularly horrible candidates in Tennessee, just off top of my heads got days are laying in the ogles who like in a wave here.

A really bad Republican candidate, you know, like that going from plus 30 or whatever it was before to plus 19.

I, it's in play and that's possible. I think in Florida, in particular, if you look at what DeSantis did, Florida's much bigger state, much more, you know, many more urban areas, right? So it's a little harder to Jeremy under the Tennessee where every all the votes are in two places. And, you know, I think that the Florida map to my eye was Ron DeSantis kind of being like, I don't actually really care that much about Donald Trump's 26, but I would maximize future. You know, like, if this is going to be a democratic wave here, we might let the Democrats take a couple of districts to like shore up.

Other is more of like a long-term play. We're like in a media near where it's not a democratic wave here. This will be great for us because we moved, we spread everybody around, but in a wave here at my cost is one or two.

That's kind of how I looked at the Florida Gerry Mandor. I will see how it turns out. So, you know, I think it's a mixed bag. I think the reality is like they can successfully eliminate

Memphis for having representative, which is bad. They also might, you know, cost a couple of their members who would have been in safe districts. And they end up getting caught in the blue way. I think both of those things can happen. I should just say since we mentioned earlier, the website, I forgot the name of the website.

“So it's all redsly to the south. That's the group that's organizing the day of action on this tomorrow. If you want to get involved, if anyone's getting involved. So I don't know.”

That's pretty rough there. The Virginia thing, just as a quick legal matter, this is more of an illegal news question, but like that's done, right? Like there's they don't have any remedy for a appeal. Yeah, well, the governor hasn't she announced that it's sort of like everything's staying with the whole. Yeah, and all maps are staying. You mean just to be clear, there is this application to this Supreme Court. I don't think it's going to go anywhere, but you know, the governor is saying essentially it's all too late.

We have a rule that we wouldn't be able to put these maps into place.

It's crazy. It's happening. I have to go vote, Louisiana tomorrow. It's our original primary day. And like there will be a house thing on the ballot that is that's been nullified. Like ballots were printed. People invoked it. I had somebody message me that was like my daughter, a listener of the show. Like my daughter is one of the people who voted. She got absentee because I don't know if you know if I forget if she was living overseas or something that affect, but she'd already voted. Like vote got nullified by saying.

“No, absolutely. But the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court sort of actively pushed the case out to be as fast as possible and just as leader when just Jackson was accusing him of like what are you doing?”

This is not the normal rules. You're speeding this along. Why are we taking normal? I'm doing the normal course. And the Supreme Court has a case called Purcell which is all about essentially not doing something too close to an election so that it sort of saves the court potentially from being appearing to mess with an election and also just not cause the chaos here. It's going to affect during the election. During, during. It's like not too close. It's during. So that sort of the credential I think the ideas that animated this case called Purcell are gone.

We're going to see if we can get a call from the police. We're going to see if we can get a call from the police. We're going to see if we can get a call from the police. We're going to see if we can get a call from the police. We're going to see if we can get a call from the police. We're going to see if we can get a call from the police.

We're going to see if we can get a call from the police. We're going to see if we can get a call from the police. We're going to see if we can get a call from the police. We're going to see if we can get a call from the police. We're going to see if we can get a call from the police.

We're going to see if we can get a call from the police. We're going to see if we can get a call from the police. We're going to see if we can get a call from the police. We're going to see if we can get a call from the police.

We're going to see if we can get a call from the police.

“We're going to see if we can get a call from the police.”

We're going to see if we can get a call from the police. We're going to see if we can get a call from the police. We're going to see if we can get a call from the police. We're going to see if we can get a call from the police. We're going to see if we can get a call from the police.

We're going to see if we can get a call from the police. We're going to see if we can get a call from the police. We're going to see if we can get a call from the police. We're going to see if we can get a call from the police. We're going to see if we can get a call from the police.

We're going to see if we can get a call from the police. We're going to see if we can get a call from the police. We're going to see if we can get a call from the police. We're going to see if we can get a call from the police. We're going to see if we can get a call from the police.

We're going to see if we can get a call from the police. We're going to see if we can get a call from the police. We're going to see if we can get a call from the police.

We're going to see if we can get a call from the police.

We're going to see if we can get a call from the police. We're going to see if we can get a call from the police. We're going to see if we can get a call from the police. We're going to see if we can get a call from the police.

“We're going to see if we can get a call from the police.”

We're going to see if we can get a call from the police. We're going to see if we can get a call from the police. We're going to see if we can get a call from the police. We're going to see if we can get a call from the police. We're going to see if we can get a call from the police.

We're going to see if we can get a call from the police. We're going to see if we can get a call from the police. We're going to see if we can get a call from the police. We're going to see if we can get a call from the police. We're going to see if we can get a call from the police.

We're going to see if we can get a call from the police. We're going to see if we can get a call from the police. We're going to see if we can get a call from the police. We're going to see if we can get a call from the police.

We're going to see if we can get a call from the police.

We're going to see if we can get a call from the police. We're going to see if we can get a call from the police. We're going to see if we can get a call from the police. We're going to see if we can get a call from the police. We're going to see if we can get a call from the police.

We're going to see if we can get a call from the police. We're going to see if we can get a call from the police. We're going to see if we can get a call from the police.

“We're going to see if we can get a call from the police.”

We're going to see if we can get a call from the police. We're going to see if we can get a call from the police. We're going to see if we can get a call from the police. We're going to see if we can get a call from the police. We're going to see if we can get a call from the police.

We're going to see if we can get a call from the police. We're going to see if we can get a call from the police. We're going to see if we can get a call from the police. We're going to see if we can get a call from the police. We're going to see if we can get a call from the police.

We're going to see if we can get a call from the police. We're going to see if we can get a call from the police. We're going to see if we can get a call from the police. We're going to see if we can get a call from the police. We're going to see if we can get a call from the police.

We're going to see if we can get a call from the police. We're going to see if we can get a call from the police. We're going to see if we can get a call from the police. We're going to see if we can get a call from the police. We're going to see if we can get a call from the police.

We're going to see if we can get a call from the police. We're going to see if we can get a call from the police. We're going to see if we can get a call from the police. We're going to see if we can get a call from the police. We're going to see if we can get a call from the police.

We're going to see if we can get a call from the police. We're going to see if we can get a call from the police. We're going to see if we can get a call from the police. We're going to see if we can get a call from the police. We're going to see if we can get a call from the police.

We're going to see if we can get a call from the police. We're going to see if we can get a call from the police. We're going to see if we can get a call from the police. We're going to see if we can get a call from the police. We're going to see if we can get a call from the police.

We're going to see if we can get a call from the police. We're going to see if we can get a call from the police. We're going to see if we can get a call from the police. We're going to see if we can get a call from the police. We're going to see if we can get a call from the police.

We're going to see if we can get a call from the police. We're going to see if we can get a call from the police. We're going to see if we can get a call from the police. We're going to see if we can get a call from the police. We're going to see if we can get a call from the police.

We're going to see if we can get a call from the police. We're going to see if we can get a call from the police. We're going to see if we can get a call from the police. We're going to see if we can get a call from the police. We're going to see if we can get a call from the police.

We're going to see if we can get a call from the police. We're going to see if we can get a call from the police. We're going to see if we can get a call from the police. We're going to see if we can get a call from the police. We're going to see if we can get a call from the police.

We're going to see if we can get a call from the police. We're going to see if we can get a call from the police. We're going to see if we can get a call from the police. We're going to see if we can get a call from the police. We're going to see if we can get a call from the police.

We're going to see if we can get a call from the police. We're going to see if we can get a call from the police. We're going to see if we can get a call from the police. We're going to see if we can get a call from the police. We're going to see if we can get a call from the police.

We're going to see if we can get a call from the police. We're going to see if we can get a call from the police. We're going to see if we can get a call from the police. That's the way it rolls. Everything is what's the business purpose when it's being used. If a spouse was going, there was a reimbursement scheme.

It was not the taxpayer who was putting the bill. Remember, famously, at Justice Alito said, "Oh, there was a free seat so I could take it."

That's interesting. It makes sense, obviously.

But I feel like it's important to go through what the actual SOP was just to show the distance from that that we are now. I doubt that the plane is going through that same protocol. I don't see how anybody would sign off on it. They even have a general counsel.

They have to have a general counsel on what he's doing would be interesting to know.

“So you can polygraph, but you have to polygraph for a legitimate good faith investigation.”

If the information that is being disseminated is not classified information, it's not about some ongoing criminal investigation. What's your authority to do this? And especially if it's true and the only reason you're doing this is because you don't want

embarrassing stories to get out.

That to me is completely misunderstanding that you, when you work in the government, work for the public. And the idea is not, I need to make sure that there are no negative stories that get out about me. It would be totally different if what we were talking about was a leak of classified information or a leak in an ongoing criminal investigation. I'm enough of a sort of former law enforcement person that I would take that very seriously.

I would understand why there's an investigation, but this is just self-protection. Speaking of self-protection, you did something that upset me recently. When I do? Well, as I mentioned, I was listening to the illegal news several long ago. Before I fell asleep, you guys were discussing you being in France.

And you're in France, and you're in a monastery, and you were looking out at the sea.

You're trying to meditate and separate yourself in the news.

And what you claim to have seen, maybe it was kind of like a saintly vision. But what you claim to have seen is the seashells that said 8647 in the sand there on the shores of France. And you thought about taking a picture of that and posting it. But you did not do that. You obeyed in advance.

You did not do that because you were worried that that is criminalizing now. And I wanted to say to you, Andrew Weissman, it's time to fall back a little bit. Post the picture. Don't let them in advance. So that is what this is what I will say.

So I'm going to take your comments seriously and say, I'm only a little. I'm not actually mad at you. I think you should post it though. Well, it's too late because they didn't take the photo. You don't have to check I might have you've come back through customs don't delete that picture.

Andrew Weissman don't come through customs and delete that picture. Okay. I will not. That by the way, you know that that is what's happening with like all sorts of people, which is when they're being screened for stuff.

“You have to give all of your sort of socials and your phone.”

They say they can sort of do a pathology exam on you not for sort of criminality, but for your views. Yeah, so something mean about Trump or baby. So the eight six four seven, just to be clear, I don't think what James Komi did is crime. I think it's just all preposterous. It came down at the same time.

The southern property lost center case, which I think it's hard to know which one is more frivolous. But it's still serious because these are criminal indictments. But my only point is, I've had not one but two executive orders aimed at me. So it's kind of like an easy for you to say podcaster. All right, like I have two executive orders targeting me.

I have too, how many you know Tim? Yeah, zero zero. I'm just out here eight six four seven eight. I don't know. I'm wondering if Todd Blanche is watching the show.

So Tim, I, you know, come back to me when you have the two executive orders. That's better than that. That's pretty good. That's fine. I'll give it to you.

“And I still like you should have posted it, but I'll give it to you.”

I know. It's a much stronger. It's a much stronger case once you've had it. It's like guilty with an explanation. Right. The other thing that you said, I showed really to cash that Pete my interest was that you had

some thoughts about how the Atlantic should handle the civil suit that they are on filing against you. I wanted to hear the full pitch from Andrew on how you went here from the the Andrew Weissman horse. Yeah, like you have Jeff Goldberg called you right now. What would you say to him about how to handle it?

I'd say this. Look, Jeff. Your outside council is going to tell you to do the safe thing.

they have an obligation to tell you the safe thing.

“That's going to be safe for them too, which is we're going to file motions to dismiss.”

We're going to say that it's not adequately pled that they haven't been able to show that there's what's called actual malice, which is that it was done sort of knowing or in reckless disregard of truth. That we have a variety of ways to get rid of this case on the papers. That's one strategy.

That's the safe strategy. You are a news organization. You have said publicly that you are fully 100% sure that like this is was well, well, sourced. Why don't you call cash cash is bluff?

He's going to continue doing this. It's a little like you saying why don't you post the 8647. Why don't you call this bluff? And just say you want an immediate trial. Or you'll suppose him.

He'll suppose your reporter. Then you'll have an immediate trial.

First, let's see if he caves.

Because if you are right, if this is now going to all spell out in the public and his audience of one,

“Donald Trump is going to see all of this,”

and it's going to be an unbelievable embarrassment. But you will be helping not just the Atlantic, but everyone in the media as a strategy to deal with this kind of lawsuit that you say is bullshit. So that's my pitch to you. I know it's not the safest course,

but we're not talking about a criminal indictment. We're talking about something that you know. It's in Washington, D.C. Before a reputable judge, you are not going to be found liable if you're right.

And so you know that you're right. So let's go. We're even if you had reasonable belief that you're right. Right. Like you said,

sources that said this, right?

Like even if it turns out that one of the elements of the story was not true, but you have documentation that you had two sources that told you it was true. That's what it was. In Britain, that's different. That's what it meant by right.

Anything that you did not have. They cannot make the showing that they have to show, not just that the story was inaccurate, but that you knew it or were reckless as to its inaccuracy. And, you know, that just, you know,

what I see from the Atlantic, that's not possible. I don't think that a jury or this judge is going to believe that. So why not do a huge favor for yourself and the country.

And also expose cash betel for, and this lawsuit for what it is. It will really will help put an end to this tactic. And probably cash, because your point, Trump doesn't want all these stories about everything that cash is doing.

Trump doesn't mind stories about him. You know what I mean? I got it right. Totally. But this is not, so maybe it may be a get cash out of there,

which would be a plus. And also look at the timing, which is this, you do this now before they midterms. And you say you want this trial. I like that suggestion.

I concur. One other legal thing from yesterday. I wanted to just to get your take on really quick. Let's go to some Thursday state. The fifth circuit ruling blocking the mailing and prescribing a myth of

prison. The hotel health services. While there will be Santa once again. My people because it's damaged. So he's in the case against the FDA proceeds.

Yeah. That means just practically speaking, the drug will continue to be available for the time being. Thomas and Alito, though, were sharp and dissent. Thomas referred to the drug makers as committing crimes.

Alito called the mail order abortions. So that's the state of play. I don't know what if you have anything on that case. So the one is the irony of Justice Alito saying. Oh, we're not applying the standard for stays.

We're not applying that the law as it's supposed to be applied. This is a guy who's who's done that like day in and day out. I mean, the idea that he could put that pen to paper. And chastise the majority for the way it's interpreting or kind of loosely interpreting. When you get a stay is just shocking because it's.

I mean, does he, does he not look at himself in the mirror and have any sort of view that he has to have some principle or integrity? No. Thomas. I don't think he does.

Right. Yes. That was exactly. And then the Thomas. What you quoted is a little bit of the tip of the iceberg.

“He basically said, well, I mean, what he might have just said, why are you not in dating?”

These companies because they're criminal actors engaging in a criminal scheme under the

It's I thought it was a good sign that he was only one person.

One of the just is saying that because it means that I really don't think he's going to have. Five people saying that the Comstock Act from the 19th century is somehow going to be applicable. But, you know, here's my secret theory on this, Tim, which is. Donald Trump, one of the only things that has not happened so far from the sort of grand plan that we all heard about and Donald Trump was saying, oh, don't you know, I have nothing to do with that.

Don't worry, I'm not going to implement any of that. That's not me. And then he gets into office and all of these things get implemented, accept. We have not seen what I would say is overt implementation of an anti-embortion scheme yet.

“And I think post midterms, it's going to be like, you know, the lids off on that.”

But I do think that that's one where I think, if you were the Trump administration, you wanted this method for Christians, stuff to come up, not now. It's like an extra, exactly. You just don't want anything that's going to cause people to vote on that. And so it's for the same reason, I think that Alito and Thomas are not.

People are always speculating, are they stepping down? Are they stepping down?

And I'm like, that's not going to happen until like a week after the midterms. If it's going to happen, it's not going to be beforehand. It's a risk though. It's a risk of the Democrats take back the Senate. It Democrats could pull the merit garland rule and just sit on that retirement for two years. It is a risk. You're absolutely right. But at this point though, I mean, right now,

“it's like it'd be tricky to sort of rush that off through.”

Just while we're a couple of guys talking about guys making decisions on behalf of women, I did want to flag one of the thing, this was the managing director of the IMF posted this picture. And she highlighted, she called this, we'll put up in the screen. So you two people are painting of the end of the meritocracy, meeting of the two largest economies and not one woman at the table. It is a crazy fucking picture. And it is two dozen people.

It's not like it was, she has two, you know, closest advisors and Trump and whatever Marko. It's like, it's 24 people at this very long table. All dudes, all wearing ill-fitting suits, former weekend talk show co-hosts. And for all of the backlash to me too and woke this and meritocracy and DEI, this is a picture of what they want.

Okay, so we started by talking about racism. And now we're talking about sexism. I mean, like, this is like, you know, let's get the big crayons out as to what we're talking about, which is, this is this idea that it's like the 1950s white male America with, you know, not black and brown communities, not women, nobody from overseas who's come here.

We have a Cuban, and I don't know, one gay. It's got best and was there. That's it. That's what we got.

So it's, you know, it actually looked worse than my first day, you know, going into the FBI

and you sit for them down for the morning meeting and you look around the table. And even the FBI was more diverse than that photo. 2026, and her husband's really, it's really something. Let's talk about the book, and then we'll get back to the... Okay.

The fun at the end. There's a book to be fun to. I should mention, I should mention the top. We have a discount code for bulwark listeners because, you know, you're such a loyal partner with us at the bulwark. And we want everybody.

It's getting expensive out there. I don't know if you noticed, prices are going up. So for bulwark listeners, there's a discount. It's in the show notes. Bookers, liars, kingdom.

Give us the little elevator pitch.

“So I think as you know, I've was a prosecutor for many, many, many, many years.”

And I was really thinking about the problem that we, or the discordancy that we have. Because I was thinking, look at all of the people that either I have personally prosecuted or that I supervised prosecutions of who lied.

It could be organized crime figures.

“It could be Roger Stone to Congress, Paul Manafort to the Department of Justice into banks.”

You have all of these ways in which lies in this country are criminalized. And then I started thinking about defamation suits. So Rudy Giuliani was sued for lying about creepy freemen and shame-offs as just one example. So you just have so many ways in which when people lie, there is civil and/or criminal accountability. And then I was thinking about our current president.

And I was thinking about what the Washington Post and the first term reported that they'd counted over 30,000 lies,

which they did the math, which I don't usually do in public, but they did it for me, which came to over 20 lies per day.

“I think Sarah said that seems a little low.”

That seems a little low. So yeah, but maybe Washington Post isn't going to do it anymore for obvious reasons, but maybe the current administration would be doubled. And I just thought, why is it that we do not in the United States,

at least at the federal level, have any sanctioned civil or criminal for candidates or politicians who lied to us?

That was sort of the genesis of it. And I was thinking, because we have free speech, because this is Marika, because this is Marika, Andrew and I can say whatever I want. So most of my book is sort of walking through our free speech doctrines. And then I look at what our states do.

“I looked at a few other countries to get examples of what they do.”

The problem with the argument that, oh, this is that we have free speech in America. And I'm not pooping it. And there's some validity to how it affects this is that's not applied when Roger Stone lied to Congress, and he was convicted for it. It doesn't apply when Ken lay in Jeff Skilling, who are the leaders of Enron lied about the internal health of the Enron corporation. Or false marketing laws. Exactly. And it didn't prevent Rudy Giuliani being found libel for tens and tens of millions of dollars for the lies he told.

And it was found to have told about Ruby Freeman and Sheamus. And it turns out the answer to the sort of like, oh, it's free speech is that false speech is not protected in and of itself. And so it doesn't really, it's not really an answer to say, oh, we just don't do anything with respect to speech at all. We do in lots of different contexts. And the thing that it was sort of fascinating to me is not just that France, Brazil, England, deal with this issue in various ways in their country.

But so did the states in the United States. So there are various ways that come from New York. There are various ways that New York has laws to deal with politicians who are found to have committed not just a lie, but fraud or any sort of crime. There are sort of two types of laws they have. One is if you're in office, you were automatically removed like that. And the other for other types of crimes is you are, this was a little shocking to me permanently prohibited for running for a truck for office.

So just to be clear, there are lots and lots of permutations I'm not going to bore you with because this is this is one where it's sort of fraught with lots of issues. There are issues about abuse, but I was trying to figure out how do we get out of a situation where we have so much lying going on. And the only answer we seem to have is, oh, well, the public will sort of know that and vote correctly. And to go to your point that when we were starting to him, as you were saying, well, when you're listening to Fox News, they're not going to tell you that the one point to billion dollars is in this sort of

Collusive settlement, they're not going to point this out. They're not going to point out that the money came from you. And so the media bubbles that we have only exacerbates the concern that it's like, oh, don't worry. It'll all come out in the wash because we have a marketplace of ideas where everyone is exposed to the truth. And it can be revealed to them and enough of the people who would have come to a reason. Yeah, the Walter Conchide model exactly.

You could send out a newsletter to lied, but the truth would be in the actual news and people aren't getting that.

“That's tough to fix that part, the information bubbles. We talked with that a lot on here.”

I assume that's not, you know, where your focus is. So I'm wondering, what are the, what are the potential legal remedies or things that could be part of a broader reform package is, you know, all the stuff is going to be bounced around. If assuming we ever take that power from the fascist. Yeah, so, you know, it's interesting that you say, because I didn't have and I don't have a way of figuring out what to do with the media bubble problem.

And I actually just think it is with us. It's not that there can't be some regulation in ways to sort of help it.

But it's, you're fighting, you know, you're fighting, you know, the wind.

“Yeah, it's kind of an ocean of, you know, there's being an avalanche.”

Any of these nature things where you're just one person trying to shovel the snow out and it's like, it's just you can't control it. There's too much. It reminds me, I'm at law school and we've had these discussions about AI and, you know, the consensus is like, you don't just sit there and say, like, oh, just prohibit it. People are going to use it. So you have to sort of figure out how you're going to deal with that and how you're going to incorporate it into your teaching as opposed to saying, like, you know, people shouldn't use, I'm old enough to remember when it's like people shouldn't use calculators.

I mean, it's like really, it's going to happen. So there are various things that can be done. First of all, at the state level, there's a, there's a lot fewer things to have to worry about that you can do than at the federal level, but at both the state and federal level, you can actually criminalize lying. And just to be clear, the current laws for lying, which is, you know, you set a false statement to the Department of Justice or to Congress, we're not talking about a mistake. This is, you have to be able to show beyond a reasonable doubt that you intentionally relied.

And so you're not going to be able to say about a politician, oh, I don't like that they are prohibition or anti-abortion. That's not what they said that their tax cuts will lead to greater revenues because of the laugh or turf. It's like, okay, well, that's not a, that's not a provable lie. We might know that that's not happening, but like that's not what you're talking about. Exactly. So a provable lie, the one that I use is sort of the, because we're unfortunately in that world, because normally you'd be going, is this really a problem?

And my view is it is, is that it's like there was fraud in the election in 2020. And it is, what's crazy is that is a current lie. And that is a current lie that is a required prerequisite to entry into that world. Like, you want to become a federal judge, you need, you cannot under oath respond to Democrats asking you questions saying, you know, there's, there's no provable material fraud in the 2020 election.

“And nobody says that, like you have to tow the line on that lie. And that's one where it's gone to court. So we have sort of the, the record that shares that. So one idea is that you can criminalize it.”

Another is that you could require politicians to certify as part of their filings that they have not made a material lie that that filing itself is something that can be prosecuted. Sarah asked me about this, which is that I think that Donald Trump is keenly aware of the fact of where it is not a crime and where it could be a crime.

Like my example of that is the impeachment proceedings where he not only did not testify, but he never submitted anything like it didn't submit a letter.

He didn't submit a declaration and after David nothing in that proceeding. A false filing, false testimony is all something that is covered by a criminal statute. And there's an open issue about whether president can self pardon. So he has to be thinking, I may not be able to get out of this for all for all times and purposes. But he was willing to just simply say, which he's been very successful at is, I don't have to worry about the courts. I don't have to worry about the department, just as if I just do the lying in public.

There is no there's absolutely no way that I can do anything about it other than you know politics somehow having it come back and and hot me, but he is he has solved that you know that that not.

While I was writing this, I was, I think I heard this live while I was sitting at my computer.

Donald Trump, as at a side in the White House, said, oh, and I've heard Weissmanns all over those Epstein files.

“Yes, that's true. I think we've talked about this. You should sue him. You should take your own advice to the Atlantic and bring him to court.”

So it's to be continued. It's obviously false. Just in case anyone is sitting there, even though I have friends, she said, hey Andrew, what was the island? And I'm like, and I'm like, just too soon. It's just like, you know, a little absteen wiseman, you know, living red free in that head. That's a, there's a, there's a lie that's a little person.

Well, we had Congressman Garcia on yesterday's pod, and we were talking about how half of the Epstein files are still yet to come out.

So maybe we need to wait for all of them before you can sue just like just in case the case you forgot that time that you're patting on an email.

You know, looped into an MIT conference email or something, looping in a lifespan. This is like something that you should, the same advice to the Atlantic, which is, I know it's not true. It's nothing. I'm not, I'm not worried about the, the other half of them. I don't worry about it. By the way, if there were a lawsuit, I would get discovery. Well, I'm sure that we have some listeners who'd be happy to support that fund.

But legal fund. You see, you see, you get the idea, which is, in other words, they would have to say, oh, you know, I want to say it's not true. In order to show that, I'd have to see all of the files.

I am confident we could scrounge up some scratch for the legal fund for that effort.

So to be continued, indeed. This, this podcast is just, so I'm making everybody else do things. Jeffrey Goldberg, can go after cash. You can go after Trump. And all I get to do is just sit in my hole in the lab. The final person I want to raise is a man named Brian Christine.

Now, for reasons that are about to become clear, I was not familiar with this person because no problems there for me. But maybe others might be familiar with his work. Brian Christine is the health official who led the public response to the hand-to-virus outbreak. He might expect that it's not, you know, he's not at the top of his game.

“So, that's why I was beginning a few were hyper-kondriac, because this is led to be a little more concerned that I was previously about the hand-to-virus.”

His background was as a penal implant specialist. Where he hosted a podcast, where he questioned the 2020 election and compared the Biden administration to Nazi Germany. So, you know, I'm just wondering how that, how that sits with you. That sounds like a wonderful, wonderful educational and work experience to bring to the table for this. By the way, I am giving myself, I was raised by two parents who told puns non-stop.

It was a grown, grown, grown. And I am very proud of myself for not jumping in with, there were so many like pinnile puns. But I decided I'd give this at a high level. Let's not. I didn't know. I didn't know. I didn't know. I didn't know. I didn't know.

I was just saying that's a hard act to follow. You know, I let's shy leave it. So, grow or not a show or no, don't leave it there. You've been the others. Either way.

So, it's so annoying because you know, this is one where we lived through COVID. This is like, I mean, this is fits with a cash-partial story. It's like you're putting people in place to handle these things that are incredibly serious and they are not serious. It seems to me like Brian was doing more of a public service when he was doing the P&L in plants.

“You know, and maybe you should just go back to that.”

I just, I'd feel much better at picking up for that. It's a great industry. Yeah. He's expertise, you know, where he's providing something for people who need a little bit of a picking up to help with their confidence. That's important. And that's where we need him over there, not pandemic.

I don't, there's not a big overlap between P&L and plant expertise and pandemic expertise.

Because in one, you want inflation and in the other and the government, you don't.

That's the end of the podcast. Thank you so much. Dangerous Life's Men. Go get his book.

“It's about lying in liars and the liars that tell the lies.”

It's called Liars Kingdom.

How to stop Trump's deceit and save America. Big task.

Appreciate you very much.

“Sarah, and I do hope, though, that the exclusive announcement of the lawsuit against Donald Trump will happen right here on the floor podcast.”

We'll leave it all there. Thanks, everybody.

“We'll see you on Monday at Bill Crystal.”

Go buy the book. Bye, Andrew. The board podcast is brought to you thanks to the work of lead producer Katie Cooper, associate producer Ansley Skipper and with video editing by Katie Lutz and audio engineering in editing by Jason Brown. this is the intersection.