11-25-25 - 11 am - Burn Bags

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:00):
A Clinton judge has I'm sure you've heard by now,
has dismissed the federal indictments against James Comy and Latitia James.
It's a pair of hasty, snarky opinions by Judge Cameron
Curry once again that illustrate an out of control judiciary,

(00:20):
increasingly seizing executive authority to sabotage the will of the people.
Describing the acting US attorney that was handling the cases,
Lindsay Halligan, as a quote former White House aide with
no prior prosecutorial experience, the judge dropped the criminal case

(00:41):
against James and Comy that was pending in the Eastern
District of Virginia. Quote. I agree with Miss James that
the Attorney General's attempt to install Miss Halligan as interim
US attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia was Invalidjudge
was writing, and because Miss Halligan had no lawful authority

(01:04):
to present the indictment, I will grant Miss James's motion
and dismissed the indictment without prejudice. Now, the judge wrote
essentially the same passage in her order that dismissed the
charges against James Comy. Now, for those of you not
steeped in the law, when the indictment is dismissed without prejudice,

(01:28):
it means that the indictment can be filed again. So
it does not mean as many people like to old
claim that James Comy and Letitia James have been acquitted
or found not guilty, or that the charges didn't have
any you know, the charges were invalid, or that they

(01:50):
didn't do anything wrong. This these two cases were dismissed
solely on procedural grounds, and quite frank I don't think
this is a major setback. Let's go to Laura Ingram
last night talking to David shown well for their unlawful conduct.

Speaker 2 (02:09):
Here is Guss David shown former Trump impeachment lawyer David.

Speaker 3 (02:13):
Some of the procedural stuff here is in question.

Speaker 1 (02:17):
But you say this was avoidable.

Speaker 2 (02:20):
How so it was avoidable because quite frankly, the Justice
Department should have just put somebody in the room with
Lindsay Halligan and would have taken away all of the
arguments for dismissal. Quite frankly, based on all the decisions
around the country, I still don't think the decision is right.

Speaker 1 (02:35):
But it was avoidable in that sense.

Speaker 2 (02:37):
I give Lindsay Halligan great credit, and she showed great
courage here. She looked at the facts and the evidence,
she saw that it was there was a wrong committed,
and she got an indictment. She was put in this
position and she should have had.

Speaker 1 (02:49):
I shouldn't let that gloss over. She got an indictment,
meaning the grand jury are the ones that made the
decision to indict. They simply presented the evidence. So you've
got to give Lindsay Holligan, and I agree if you
have no prosecutorial experience, which we can argue about, if

(03:09):
you have no prosecutorial experience, going to a grand jury
and getting an indictment is actually a pretty darn amazing
thing to have done, and more support than she was given.

Speaker 2 (03:20):
But it's not a major setback for the Trump administration
or anything like that.

Speaker 1 (03:24):
It was all Now you'd expect him to say this,
right because he was the Trump impeachment lawyer, So you'd
expect David Shoan to say it. But I'll give you
some reasons why to believe him in just a minute.
Obviously it was going to happen.

Speaker 2 (03:40):
But I think they're wrong in the arguments for a
couple of reasons. There's some pretty esteemed scholars, Steve Calabrizi
Paul Cassel, who.

Speaker 1 (03:47):
Have explained why the courts just have it wrong with this.

Speaker 2 (03:51):
Professor Calibriezy says this section of the law five point
forty six is unconstitutional. It invades the executive power, and
he cites a couple of recent cases that talk about
the exclusive executive power and here to a point a
representative of the executive branch. Cassell says it's constitutional, but
that the president has the right to appoint successive inter

(04:12):
US attorneys or in this case, you could act as
acting US attorney. We see in the case in California
with Bill Alas Saley that he continued to go on
as first assistant.

Speaker 1 (04:21):
So I give great credit to miss Halligan.

Speaker 2 (04:24):
But the other point I would make here is this,
these are public figures. First of all, the hypocrisy of
the argument, now given the position these folks took with
Jack Smith, but in any of it putting that aside, these.

Speaker 1 (04:35):
Are public figures.

Speaker 2 (04:36):
Why not deal with these cases on the merits they're
going to have to sooner or later because they will.

Speaker 1 (04:40):
Another excellent point. That's why I point out that these
cases were dismissed without prejudice, meaning there is nothing to
prevent the cases from being filed again. So if I
were Letitia James and James Comy, I wouldn't be doing
the happy dance. I'd still be lawyered up. Because if
if and I actually buy the argument that they this

(05:03):
judge impeded on the executive authority. But I'll get to
that in a minute, they'll just go about appointing a
new US attorney, or maybe they'll hire someone within the
DOJ and assign them to prosecute the cases will be
re indicted.

Speaker 2 (05:21):
And if you read the James indictment carefully, and of
course everyone's entire of the presumption of innocence, if you
read it carefully, they have her coming and going if
they can prove the allegations in the indictment. First, she
claimed a secondary home, which means she has to have
certain personal use days fourteen days a year. But in
her tax schedule, according to the indictment, at least she

(05:41):
said zero personal days in the home. I would ask
questions like does she have an insurance policy?

Speaker 1 (05:46):
What does she put on her application?

Speaker 4 (05:48):
Does she make it?

Speaker 1 (05:49):
Yeah, it was a Direnor's policy. Was it a an
occupied property. Yeah, lots of questions remain, but that's for that.
They goes to the substance the merits of the case.
I want to focus for a minute on how this
judge reached her conclusion that these cases should be dismissed

(06:09):
because of procedural matters. Next, if you got rid of
my head, I'd weigh one hundred and seventy pounds like so,
this judge, who's seventy seven years old, as if that
makes any difference, was appointed by Bilkman back in nineteen
ninety four. The Chief Judge of the Fourth Circuit asked

(06:31):
this judge, Judge Curry, who is based in South Carolina,
to handle Komi's motion to disqualify, and then Chief Judge
Diez said in an October twenty first order that the
transfer was necessary for quote limited purposes in the interests
of maintaining public confidence in the impartial administration of justice.

(06:55):
And then boom, boom boom. The same thing happened with
emotion by Letitia James, and that motion for her her
motion to dismiss based on disqualification also landed with Judge
Curry for the same reason so it was just like
boom boom, boom boom. Now you can read both orders

(07:17):
online if you want to, but let me just tell
you about them in start. Contrast to Judge Eileen Cannon's
five month deliberations where she spent Judge Judge Eileen Cannon,
I should back up. Judge Eileen Cannon is the judge
down in Florida that is dealing with the Jack Smith
appointment on the classified documents case based on that rate

(07:42):
of mar Lago. Judge Eileen Cannon is the judge in Florida,
the federal district judge in Florida that spent five months
understanding whether it was constitutional or lawful for Jack Smith
to be appointed as a quote special Council. And in

(08:03):
that case, Trump's lawyers filed a motion to dismiss that
document's case based on Smith's unconstitutional appointment in February of
last year, and Federal District Judge Aileen Cannon agreed with
Trump in the matter and dismissed the document's case back
in July of twenty twenty four. So she took five

(08:27):
months studying before she issued her order claiming that or
her finding that Jack Smith was unconstitutionally appointed. Judge Curry
took less than a month to kick special Council or
I shouldn't say Special Council Assistant US Attorney Halligan off

(08:48):
both those cases. She held a hearing today I'm broadcasting
Live Today on Tuesday, November twenty five. She held a
hearing back on November thirteen, when, among other things, Curry
accused Halligan of intentionally withholding part of a grand jury
transcript from the day of the indictment the judges. Judge

(09:13):
Curry claims that Halligan's appointment violates federal law and the
appointment's clause of the Constitution, while at the same time
making a really stunning argument that judges, not the President
or the Attorney General, bear the primary responsibility of appointing

(09:34):
interim US attorneys. I find that astonishing if you listen
to me yesterday and my discussion about this Judge Brown
down in Texas who decided on his own that he
didn't like what the Texas legislature was doing about reapportionment
and decided that they were all racist, and so he

(09:56):
just summarily dismissed the case and didn't give the dissenting
judge time. Ah I mean, I thought that was crazy,
But when I went back after yesterday's program and was
getting ready to do this part today, I find this
equally stunning. Where in the hell do judges think that

(10:17):
they have the power or the responsibility to appoint US attorneys?
Just find this it's so freaking unbelievable. It's hilarious. Consider
ramifications of this quote. Sub Section D then provides a
single option for how subsequent interim appointments may be made.

(10:42):
If an appointment expires under subsection C two, the District
Court for such district. If an appointment expires under sub
Section C two, the district Court for such district and
only that district, may appoint a US attorney to serve
until the vacancy is filled. Now, the text and even

(11:06):
the structure of that section, in particular, that sub section
may clear the appointment power shifts to the district court
after there's been a one hundred and twenty day period,
and two does not revert to the Attorney General if
a court appointed US attorney leaves office before a Senate

(11:30):
confirmed US attorney is installed. It's crazy talk. Both James
and Komi Koky announced can quote return to the status
they occupied before being indicted. What both James and Komy
can return to the status they occupied before being indicted.

(11:54):
Now the Department of Justice is obviously going to appeal.
But further both indictments were dropped without prejudice, as I said,
which means the government can seek new indictments, although the
Comy case might be trickier given the expired statue limitations.
Caroline Levitt, White House spokesperson, reacted to the judge's decision,

(12:15):
which is next. I know you've noticed it too, Grant,
because even you said something about it. He can't resist
come up and see you and me because even though
he's on holiday. What he's got a broken middle finger?
What was that about? He just can't leave you alone.
You're so entertaining. But he comes in on his off

(12:37):
day just to give me the finger.

Speaker 4 (12:39):
Like I said earlier, I've tried to call off today.
I had to work with you Roy to come in
on his day's office.

Speaker 1 (12:46):
So you don't think that I don't understand this. I
don't appreciate it. You know the fact that I the
fact that I'm happy to have you instead of him,
is only measured in, like you know, minuscule measure it's
not like any great thing to write home about. It'll
make your holiday happier. You get done with me and

(13:07):
you go home. That's a great way to look at
Is it north or south? Where are you going?

Speaker 4 (13:11):
I'm from Ohio, but my brother lives in South Carolina.

Speaker 1 (13:14):
Thank you said you're going to South Carolina. That threw
me off.

Speaker 4 (13:17):
Ye, south Carolina for Thanksgiving? Then he's getting married oh
this weekend?

Speaker 1 (13:21):
Oh over Thanksgiving? Yeah?

Speaker 4 (13:23):
Bold choice.

Speaker 1 (13:23):
I told you it is bold and odd. But I
guess everyone has brother, right, so I guess she didn't
expect anything different. Odd?

Speaker 4 (13:31):
Right, Yes, yeah, if you see me, just think like
ten times odd and bold?

Speaker 1 (13:36):
Is he older? Younger? Older? Oh? Is he the oldest?
He is? Just me and him? Oh, just the two
of you.

Speaker 4 (13:42):
Yep, he's three and a half years. So you're you're
the second child, the forgotten child, the.

Speaker 1 (13:46):
Forgotten child, and you're obviously the loser in the family. Correct.
And your parents did you know they have it? They
have ten million pictures of your older brother, and they
have five pictures of youth.

Speaker 4 (13:57):
You know that is so true? Not even fuddy like
I was, like it was I adopted. There's like three
pictures of me as a kid, and they're all with
my older brother, and there's a million of him.

Speaker 1 (14:08):
Of him by himself, right, yes, I mean you got
did you get hand me downs? Of course? What's the
age of difference? Three years? Oh so yeah, of course
mom could save stuff and then you could wear it,
you know three years later everyone cares if it's out
of style. Who cares?

Speaker 4 (14:21):
It doesn't matter.

Speaker 1 (14:22):
Right, saved her fifty cents. So of course she put
in a hole on the shoe. No big deal. Grant'll
be fine. I'll learn how to walk with it. That's
why you walk. Funny, they got a limp still. Well,
you know, you could be the redhead step child, you know.

Speaker 4 (14:39):
Right like dragon and he does have to grow out
some weird beard to stand out.

Speaker 1 (14:45):
So you mind me asked, what do your parents do?
They're both love. Yeah.

Speaker 4 (14:50):
My dad is a CPA, has his own firm, and
my mother runs the front office for him.

Speaker 1 (14:55):
Oh really wow, And they've been married all this time
and they and they work together too. Yes see that
that's to me, that's a major accomplishment. Yeah. Either Cam
and I were like if I were practicing law and
she was running my front desk, my front office. It
wouldn't last, or you and missus Redbeard met in our situation,

(15:15):
this would never last a New York minute.

Speaker 4 (15:17):
Well, that's why I love my usual schedule so much.

Speaker 1 (15:20):
I just come home.

Speaker 4 (15:21):
My wife's about ready for debt, for bed, got dinner
waiting for me, say a couple of words, and then
she's off to bed and I get my alone time.
And I can say that on this show because I
know she's.

Speaker 1 (15:31):
Not listening to this at all. Right, there's no there's
no way in hell she'ld be listening to it, no way,
right right, Oh, I understand, I understand. Yeah, it is
what it is. Can I have that microphone on my chance?
Can I have that? Bay? Thank you? Thank you, so,
Caroline Lovett is Adres. Let's let's first go to MSNBC

(15:52):
because MSNBC gives you a great perspective on how they
perceive the disqualification of Lindsay Halligan. Shouldn't surprise you. These
two individuals cut peace.

Speaker 2 (16:03):
It doesn't matter which judge as they're talking about.

Speaker 3 (16:05):
They could be talking about a Trumple point of judge.
They've had trumpet point of judges who have ruled against them,
and these same talking points come out to play because
they know what is.

Speaker 1 (16:13):
All they have. Yeah, that's exactly right.

Speaker 3 (16:15):
So the appointment of Lindsay Halligan was a desperation acted
by the Justice departman. Nobody wanted an inexperienced insurance lawyer
going into the grand jury.

Speaker 1 (16:24):
Bye gone and Liza Applayment. Nobody wanted an inexperienced insurance
lawyer going before the grand jury. Yet somehow this inexperienced
insurance lawyer went before a grand jury and got an indictment,
and not just any indictment, but she got two indictments.
An indictment against James call Me, the former director of

(16:47):
the freaking Federal Bureau of Investigation, and an indictment against
the sitting US or not US attorney, the city Attorney
General for the State of New York. I actually feel
a lot of empathy and sympathy for Lindsey Halligan. And
to David Shoon's point, the administration did not support her

(17:11):
the way they should have. And I put that not
on Donald Trump. I put that on ag Pam BONDI.
She knew going in she needed somebody, but she could
have she could have made the appointment. She could have
sent her in as second chair and given her somebody
from the DOJ headquarters to come in and prosecute the cases.

(17:35):
They could have done any number of things, as David shown,
as David Shoan pointed out, but regardless of what could
have been, should have been, may have been. Nonetheless, these
cases have been dismissed, but just being dismissed. If I
were James Comy, I'd be a little careful about, you know,

(17:56):
claiming that I'm.

Speaker 5 (17:58):
Grateful at the court end a case against me which
was a prosecution based on malevolence.

Speaker 1 (18:04):
And inconfidence and a reflection of what the Department of.

Speaker 5 (18:07):
Justice has become under Donald Trump, which is heartbreaking that
I was also inspired by the example of the career
people who refused to be part of this travesty. It
costs some of them more jobs, which is painful, but
to preserve their integrity which is beyond price, and I
know they will serve again.

Speaker 1 (18:26):
Oh, let's go back, because here's where he I mean,
I understand he's going to make a public statement and
he's going to say whatever he needs to say because
he knows that the cabal will repeat his story ad
nauseum and his talking points ad nauseum as a lawyer

(18:46):
James Comy, not me obviously me too, but particularly him
as a lawyer. If I had a criminal indictment against
me from the Department of Justice handed down by a
grand jury, and all the judge had done was dismiss
it on a procedural technicality without prejudice, meaning that if

(19:07):
and when the Attorney General gets her act together, gets
her thesis together, and actually gets somebody appointed properly and
refiles the case, I would not be saying this.

Speaker 5 (19:19):
I'm grateful that the court ended the case against me,
which was a prosecution based on malevolence, and in confidence.

Speaker 1 (19:27):
There is nothing in the record on the judge's order
or otherwise that this case is, you know, malicious, or
that it was without justification or anything else. And considering
that you still face the potential of the indictment being refiled,

(19:48):
I think I'd be a little more careful about what
I was saying. But then I'm James Comy and I
like to walk the beach with my wife and put
up eighty six forty seven as if nobody would know
what the means eighty six forty seven. The stupidity of
some of the people just continue to amaze me. But

(20:08):
here's Caroline Levett reacting to the judge's decision on Fox News.

Speaker 2 (20:13):
That's Wayne House response to that, and what can we
expect will happen next?

Speaker 3 (20:17):
Caroline, Well, what I will say is that everybody knows
that James Comy lied to Congress. It's as clear as day.
And this judge took an unprecedented action to throw these
cases out to shield James Comy and Letitia James from
accountability based on a technical ruling, and the administration disagrees
with that technical ruling. We believe the attorney in this case,

(20:39):
Lindsay Halligan, is not only extremely qualified for this position,
but she was in fact legally appointed. And I know
the Department of Justice will be appealing this in very
short order. So maybe James Comy should pump the brakes
on his victory lap.

Speaker 1 (20:52):
Yeah, I would agree. And by the way, I haven't commented,
but let me comment on my attitude toward the statute.
I think the statute is unconstitutional. I don't think there's
any interpretation that would say that at you know, a
US attorney dies, resigns, gets fired, whatever, And there is

(21:15):
a period of time in which the judicial branch has
any authority whatsoever to appoint someone in the executive branch.
That's a complete misreading of the of the of the
Unified Executive, of the powers of the Presidency, of the
powers of the Presidency. To think that a federal district judge,

(21:38):
because somebody appearing in front of her in her court
she thinks doesn't wasn't appointed properly or whatever, that she
has the power to appoint someone I think is just
absolutely absurd, totally absurd, because you don't live in California. Well,
unless you do live in California, of course, in which case, well,

(21:59):
my sympathies. Well, you know, I can say he's party's
true for Colorado too. But if you don't live in
the Golden State, well then you have exactly the same
residency status as the newest candidate for the state's governor's office.
That would be the very gaseous dimwit who is possibly
the dumbest member of the US House of Representatives, Congressmyrick Swalwell.

(22:22):
I would say he's the dumbest member in the either
House of Congress. You know, you've got the House in
the Senate, but then you've got Masiehrano, You've got the
purple haired lady. I forget her name. I think she's
from Connecticut. I know she's a graduate of either Yale
or Harvard. But I guess shocking news for you. Being
a graduate of Yale or Harvard doesn't necessarily make you smart.

(22:44):
And you've got people like Sheldon white House, You've got
Old Bloomenthal, the guy that about his service in Vietnam. Yeah,
you got a really bunch of gas bags in Congress.
But gas bags in Congress that might be redundant too.
But back to Swalwell. Mister Schwallwell not only lists his
official residence, his official residence as being a really fabulous

(23:07):
one point two million dollars townhouse in the district at Columbia.
But guess what if that's not good enough for you.
He has no legal visitence whatsoever anywhere in state of California.
He owns no property, he doesn't claim any residents in
the state of California whatsoever. He has moved his legal

(23:28):
residence to the district of Columbia, not even the state,
and he's running for the governor of California. Carbet bagging.
I think that's taking carbet bagging to the extreme. Yet,
how has he or he has served, I should say,
as a member of Congress, representing first the state's fifteenth
district between twenty thirteen and twenty three twenty twenty three,

(23:49):
and now he represents the fourteenth Congressional district from twenty
twenty three through today, despite undeniably standing in violation of
California's residence he requirements. But yeah, that just puts him
the same status as oh, Maxine Waters. Maxine Waters has
not resided in her nominal congressional district for decades now,

(24:12):
So apparently residency in California is what I would suggest
is well, is a suggestion, not an actual rule. So
add the terminally dumb Congressman Swallwell to the monstrously abusive
former Congressman Katie Porter as the two leading Democrats who
are now wanting to succeed Gavin Newsom as the governor

(24:34):
of California. The Dems, I don't think are sending their best.
Speaking about the case against James Comy, you you should
also ignore claims by his sick ephants like Fox News
contributor Annie McCarthy, that the case against him is somehow weak.

(24:56):
It is, in fact, I think an open and shutcase
in which I think Comby, if it ever gets to
a trial, will be found guilty if the Department of
Justice ever manages to get it to a trial. Catherine Herridge,
who I think does excellent reporting, who was frankly too
good at her job to remain employed by the CBS
News propaganda machine, has doggedly investigated the ins and outs

(25:20):
of the Komby case. She has conducted dozens of interviews
with experts and likely witnesses in the process. Yesterday she
posted a trify you have to be a subscriber, I think,
but a really good seventeen minute video on her x
feed detailing the case. Let me just give you a summary.

(25:42):
This week, former FBI Director Kombe's legal team took their
best shot at getting his criminal indictment dismissed. The evidence
released by the FBI director includes FBI burn bags. A
burn bag is I used to have burn bags next
to my office in DC, I mean next to my
desk in DC. So if I were reading a top
secret document and I was finished with the document and

(26:05):
I wanted the document destroyed, I would put it in
a burn bag and every day me and because my
office was secure, it was okay to put it in
the burn bag, because you cou you couldn't just willingly
walk into my office. So he would remain in the
burn bag. And it was very distinctly marked as a
burn bag. It looked like the cover sheet for a
top secret document. And at the end of the day,

(26:27):
the security personnel, maybe actually sometimes twice a day, security
personnel would come into my office and they would pick
up the burn bag, leave a new burn bag, take
the the owen down and literally burn it or they
would shred it according to the security standards, such that
there was no way, I mean, it would be in

(26:49):
little tiny bits of paper that you could even make
a paper wad to shoot through a straw where there
was totally destroyed. That's what a burn bag is. Catherine
Herridge points that she's talked about the FBI burn bags
containing sensitive records about the Donald Trump probes, the Donald
Trump indictments. Well, the evidence is credible and could prove

(27:12):
hard to overcome if Comy's case does go to trial.
She spoke with six former FBI agents. Remember Comey says, oh,
these people gave up their jobs and blah blah blah. Well,
between them, they have more than ninety nine decades, ninety
years of law enforcement experience. They said the FBI Trump
probes were not done by the book, and she lists

(27:37):
a couple of reasons. The burn bags that were discovered
that the FBI headquarters contained sensitive and classified records, including
mar al Lago January sixth and the russiacclusion probes. A
former FBI agent called it nefarious that these burn bags
weren't immediately destroyed. Classified CIA referrals about alleged Clinton plans

(28:00):
found in a storage closet adjacent to James Comey's office.
Classified CIA referrals about the alleged Clinton plan in that closet,
FBI leaked investigations code named artie K's. We've talked about
that before. Alleg's investigator level briefings to press about Comey's

(28:21):
handling the Clinton email probe. Former FBI special agent quote,
if it's not illegal, I don't know what it is.
As an example, Columbia law professor acted as Comey's de
facto of personal pr rep. Remember that he's the one
that went to that Columbia professor had them leaked the
information about the Steele dossier. In fact, they've got evidence

(28:41):
of that connecting the dots Susans Rice January twenty seventeen
email claiming that the FBI and the Intelligence wrote Russian
probes were quote done by the book news reports wrongly
used to justify surveillance warrants for Trump's campaign aides. For
a he just said that deviated from FBI investigating standards.

(29:03):
I mean, she has done Yeoman's work. Again, you can
view the video if if you subscribe to her on
her ex account. I recommend that you do it. But
in another bit of glorious news, it also looks like
the Department of Justice has a grand jury convened to

(29:24):
investigate and I hope indict Adam Schiff on mortgage fraud
and other charges. I think these people believe that they
you'll go back to the person's point about ego. I
really think that most people inside the Beltway, their egos
are so big that they believe that the rules don't
apply to them, and they're very adept at enacting rules, laws, regulations, statues. However,

(29:50):
you want to classify them that you have to comply with,
but they don't have to it.

Speaker 5 (29:55):
Truly.

Speaker 1 (29:55):
That's why I refer to it as a ruling class.
They really are part of a class of people that
they think they're better than the rest of us. Well,
some of you may have seen a report last week
by a reporter for the Washington Post. Her name is
Carol Lenni, that the US Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche
had a Maryland grand jury convened to investigate the pardon

(30:15):
Attorney Ed Martin and the Director of the Federal Housing
Agency Bill Pulty. In fact, she writes, federal grand jury
and Maryland is now investigating whether Trump allies Bill Pulti
and DOJ official Ed Martin improperly assigned unauthorized people to
help investigate mortgage fraud of Trump critics. Well, guess what

(30:36):
turns out the report is false? Yeah, oh, I'm sure,
I know you're shocked. Washington Post filed and printed a
false report. Yes, the Maryland grand jury was actually convened
to investigate Adam Shift over Pulty's allegations that the California
senator has for years engaged in multiple counts of mortgage fraud.
It's not to investigate Trump allies, it's to investigate Adam Shift. Now,

(31:02):
when former chief of staff at the Department of Justice
during Trump's first term Chad Maizelle posted this response to
Linux false post free advice. He writes, don't listen to
folks who have no clue how the Department of Justice works.
Ed Martin and Bill Pultier Fine, Adam Shift, he needs
to lawyer up Amen