Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
I know you guys are talking about eating beaver, but
what do you think about licking beaver. One of my
friends left his ball cap here and it says beaver.
He got it at Beaver Creek up in Colorado Mountains
and it says Beaver liquors. Oh wait, there's small print,
(00:21):
it's beaver, and then in small print Creek liquor, and
then again in small print store.
Speaker 2 (00:27):
Never mind, some people never grow up, and some people
can't take a serious story like eating beaver's in Minnesota,
and they turn it into something that I just don't,
you know, so juvenile.
Speaker 3 (00:41):
I'm just glad that eating beaver is legal again.
Speaker 2 (00:44):
Absolutely absolutely, And in as far as licking beaver, you know,
if there are there are certain foods that you kind
of you know, like a popsicle, you kind of you
kind of lick. First, have to check the temperature right
exactly exactly. I mean, who what a hot beaver? How
(01:14):
do you swear from that into back into J six?
Speaker 3 (01:18):
No seg best segue?
Speaker 2 (01:19):
There you go, got it. So CNN is reporting that
some five thousand or more, we don't really know the
actual number yet, out of thirty six thousand FBI employees.
So some five six thousand. One of the number turns
out to be is kind of immaterial to me, but
mostly agents and investigators somehow, in one way or another
(01:42):
touched the January sixth cases. I find that astonishing. In fact,
the I would say the one thing agreed that the
number is probably very likely underrepresented, and probably by a
(02:04):
large margin, because the FBI employees who were involved in
a four year long investigation and prosecution which was the
largest ever in the Department of Justice or FBI's history,
probably involved a lot more. Considering that there were almost
sixteen hundred defendants some two thousand, four hundred cases, So
(02:29):
maybe the numbers were actually much larger than evens being
reported by CNN. But then CNN also goes on, after
Pam Bondi has sworn as the Attorney General, Caitlyn Collins
has Eli Haneigon, a DC lawyer, to talk about what
(02:50):
they're doing in terms of this questionnaire. There we go.
Speaker 4 (02:57):
We saw her in her first full day today, first
a mostly full day. I guess I should say, Ellie,
what are you watching for in terms of what the
DJ looks like under Attorney General Pambondi.
Speaker 5 (03:10):
Well, the thing that jumped out to me today, Caitlin
is essentially Pambondi's first act in office is to order
an investigation of the January six and the classified documents
prosecution of Donald Trump. That is an outrageous thing to
do on your first day. If you're trying to restore
DOJ's equilibrium and establish this is a non political place.
That is an overtly political quest.
Speaker 2 (03:30):
And by the way, I find sometimes I honestly don't
think well, first of like, they don't care, and two
I don't think they really listen to what they're saying.
The cognitive dissonance is always fascinating to me. So he's
really upset. Pam Bondi gets sworn in and her first
thing to do is to order an investigation of January sixth,
(03:55):
and this lawyer says, and that is a blatant political
thing to do. Well, wait a minute, she's investigating what
the Democrats did under their regime, which was and appears,
at least to this individual, to be a purely political prosecution,
(04:19):
not even touching on the idea that there were agents
provocateur in the crowd, that we apparently have facial recognition
of the pipe bomber, not the pipe bomber, but the
guy that planted the pipe bombs, and we have no
arrest about that, Ray Epps skates free for a long time.
(04:42):
And then finally there's enough political pressure. Captain what's his
name that shot Ashley babbittt gets pardoned, the J six
committee members get pardoned preemptively, and so all of this
(05:02):
political prosecution of persecution or both. The Attorney General wants
to find out who is behind it. Did they do
anything illegal, did they violate federal law? Did they violate
federal law in terms of violating the rights of those individuals,
(05:24):
And she wants to find out the truth of that,
and they're saying that's political. I just find that utterly astonishing.
You know, if if I walked in well, and in fact,
one of the things that I did when I first
went to d C, this was before I became the Undersecretary,
(05:45):
when I was the General Counsel, I walked into the
General Council's office and you know, did all the typical
you know, meet and greet and get to know everybody,
explain to me. You know. Now, obviously I had done
my homework before I went in, because I wanted to
see what they say but I checked out the org chart.
I kind of dug around a little bit as far
(06:05):
as I could to find out from the transition team
what were the big controversial issues. But I sat down
with them, I said, so, what's going on that you
think might be a controversial political issue that might be
a problem that we have with Congress, or we might
have with you know, the administration, with the you know,
with the White House. Tell me all of this stuff,
(06:27):
or do we have any problems out there with governors
or some of the states. Tell me what those cases are.
Give me a rundown of the litigation, Give me a
rundown of the investigations. Tell me what's going on with
the inspector general that you're working on right now. Because
I wanted to know one of the political what's the
political mindfield? Like what are the land mines out there?
(06:51):
Ye if stupid little o' me does that, why wouldn't
Pam Bondy, the freaking Attorney General of the United States
of America and the former Attorney General of Florida, Why
wouldn't she.
Speaker 5 (07:00):
Let me spoil a secret, tell you how it's going
to come.
Speaker 2 (07:02):
Out someday, six eight, ten months.
Speaker 5 (07:04):
For now, We're going to get a report and they're
going to say those prosecutions of Donald Trump were wildly
corrupt and political and improper. It won't come out any
other way. Keep in mind that many of the bosses
of DJ represented Donald Trump in those very same criminal cases. Look,
donald Trump won the election, those cases were dismissed.
Speaker 3 (07:20):
They won.
Speaker 5 (07:21):
They should leave well alone. And I do not think
it's good for morale.
Speaker 2 (07:26):
Oh, you won, the cases were dismissed, so you should
just shut up and go away. Wow. So you see,
for someone like me, if someone told me now, he's
obviously not saying that to Pam Bondi's face, although I
guess you could argue in some ways he is because
(07:47):
he's on national television with whatever CNN's audience is and saying, oh,
you know, you should just be happy you won and
just shut up and sit down and go away. A
guy like me would hear that and go, hmmm, what
are you hiding? What do you what do you want
me to not find?
Speaker 5 (08:05):
Or for the independence of DJ for Pambondi to come
in on day one and order that.
Speaker 4 (08:10):
Yeah, and this comes as Trump is asking for everything
that was seized during the classified documents to search at
mar Lago to get that back. We'll see what that
looks like. Eleoni is always thank you for for your insights.
Speaker 2 (08:22):
So there are up because Pam Bondi comes in and
Pam Bondi wants to find out exactly what took place
and who was involved in it. So I know most
of you don't work in law firms, but I want
(08:42):
you to just think about these numbers. How how is
it possible that you have five thousand investigators, lawyers, prosecutors,
the whole gamut that would be on the government side.
How would they touch two thousand, four hundred cases that
resulted in one thousand, six hundred or so arrests and prosecutions.
(09:08):
I just find that number incredulous. And that doesn't even
include the people who were not subjected to a raid
or to a prosecution, but were nonetheless being surveilled and
then interrogated by FBI agents. FBI agents who then went
on to interview even family members. So we don't even
(09:29):
know the real number of You know, what does the
entire horizon look like of what the FBI was doing
and what were those resources taken away from other cases?
And don't forget this at the same time that we're
(09:50):
talking about family members or some J six defendants themselves,
the FBI was also collecting information from the big tech giants,
from Amazon, from Bank of America, from the airline carriers.
It was an incredibly detailed and involved investigation using the
(10:11):
most invasive of investigative techniques that they used and had
available to them in order to create cases against the
January sixth defendants. So again I point out that I
don't think the number is correct. I think there's something
else going on the FBI itself, including the acting director
(10:35):
Brian Driscoll possibly or the supervising the agents in charge
of the fifty six field offices who have not yet
been fired. Of course, several of them were in Washington, Miami,
some in New York. They're all over the place, Normans
Las Vegas. So they are they just trying to tamp
down the number? Are they trying to both again in
(10:56):
concert with the cabal, trying to paint this numbers being
outrageous or is it actually even worse than we think
it is and they're trying to minimize the number At
the same time that all of this is going on,
You've got to go back to January sixth of twenty
(11:19):
twenty one. You've got to think about everything going on
at that time, when we went through this latest transition
and the inauguration and everything else. There was a day
when I talked about, from my perspective having been involved
in inaugurations, what a dangerous time period that is that
(11:43):
other governments, both allies and enemies see us, you know,
changing power, transfer of power. Everybody's distracted by everything. What
was the FBI doing about Chinese nationals in this country?
What were they doing about the cartels in this country?
(12:03):
Were they what were they doing for the four years
of the Biden administration? Well, I think they were just
fixated on January six, remember that. And it wasn't just
January six. You know, the grandmother that's praying and singing
and others. They were praying and singing outside abortion clinics.
(12:26):
And the FBI is busy trying to make sure that
they get convicted, that they get labeled as domestic terrorists.
So that's that's what was going on. If you go
to the questionnaire question number twelve, what was your employee
(12:46):
role in the investigation, investigations or prosecution prosecutions relating to
events that occurred at or near the US Capitol on
January sixth, twenty twenty one. All that apply, and then
there's a dropdown menu, and this is all they're asking.
(13:07):
Were you involved? And let me just read what the
topics are. Analytical Analytical support approved the approval of documents
for a case file, arrest led an operation, or participated
in an operation, Acted as a case agent for an investigation,
(13:32):
assigned as a cold case agent for an investigation, conducting
baseline database checks for case operations, conducting surveillance of subjects, discovery,
evidence collection and or disposition, grand jury subpoenas, or submissionary
(13:53):
renewals of subpoenas. Program management support, which in of itself
has dropped down menus by don't have access to that intervened,
I'm sorry, I interviewed evidence subjects, or other complaints, respond
to leaks sent by another office, search warrants, supervise interrogations,
(14:19):
and supervised can't quite read this one. Supervised anyway. In
the course of conducting investigations, you testified at a trial
or the responses that you've been asked in a survey
are provided elsewhere. What was the appropriate date of your
(14:40):
or your employees last activity relating to the interrogations or
prosecutions relating to events that occurred at or near the
US Capitol in January SINXT twenty twenty one. So did
you come in new were you reassigned? Did you were
you already in headqu orders but you were doing something
(15:01):
else and you got reassigned from this case to another case.
All of those are absolutely legitimate questions for Pam Bondi
to be asking, and the fact that people are upset
that she's asking about it shows that, hmm, there may
be something going on here. Now. Pam Bondi is the
(15:22):
Attorney General Ken Walkin's you gun at the same time,
she can she can hold more than you know, one
assignment in her mind at one time. She's the freaking
Attorney General. So she's not the one conducting this investigation.
She's having her own people conduct that investigation. And that's
(15:43):
pretty important to understand because she is the lead, she's
the manager. She's the CEO of the Department of Justice,
so she can assign different things to be done simultaneously.
There's nothing wrong, nor is there anything unusual about that occurring.
(16:07):
So if you are somehow think that there's something nefarious
going on. Put yourself in the shoes of people who
may have been involved in something nefarious going on. Wouldn't
you be outraged by this investigation? Wouldn't you be outraged
(16:28):
by this questionnaire? Wouldn't you be worried about, Oh, what
was I doing? What did I do? Because sometimes, you know,
maybe you got called in to do something that seemed
innocuous to you, and you and you did whatever that
assignment was, and then you find out later that, oh,
they were using the materials that I produced, or that
(16:48):
I was able to discover, they were using it for
over here, for a political purpose, not a true legal
investigative purpose. I'd be if I were no shoes, I'd
be worried about that. The whole point of this is
that as we continue to move forward with this paradigm
(17:12):
shift that Trump is engaged in with everything going on,
He's going to be ugly and the cabal is going
to do everything they can to convince you that Trump
is overreaching and doing something that he's not supposed to
be doing. I would say he's doing precisely what we elected.
Speaker 6 (17:33):
Him to do.
Speaker 7 (17:42):
Michael, the Democrat Party tried to kill Trump breaking financially
and jail him. If Trump doesn't get to the bottom
of this, the next Democrat that runs this nation will
succeed in doing one of those three.
Speaker 2 (18:05):
I said that Michael Bird was pardoned by Trump. That
may not be true. I have no way of proving
that he was or he was not. I rapidly. First
of all, he doesn't appear on the list of pardons.
But two, there is also a pardon that lists all
(18:29):
of the Capitol Police officers and any of the Metropolitan
Police Department officers or any other witnesses who testify before
the January sixth committee. But you can't find that list,
or at least I couldn't find it in the very
short few seconds I had, because I think some of
those documents were destroyed, So I don't really know whether
(18:51):
he was ever on the witness list or not, so
he may or may not have been pardoned. And then
somebody asked, is there anything that anybody can do about
those pempty pardons that was issued by Joe Biden? And
the answer is no, there is not anything you can do.
Let me just explain one more time. The power of
(19:13):
the pardon under the Constitution is an absolute power of
the president. I don't know, and I don't recall any
constitutional cases that well, they may have addressed it, but
no Supreme Court case that limits that power. It is
(19:36):
an unequivocal power, and it's the only one that I
really know of that the president has. But I don't
have a problem with that. I think it's been abused.
I think it's been done for purely selfish personal interests.
(19:56):
But Founding fathers saw fit that the executive should have
because they thought that there would be times, as there
always has been and always will be miscarriages of justice,
or there will be situations where the right thing to
do is that someone should be pardoned. I can imagine
(20:19):
situations where if I had that power, there are probably
instances where I might pardon people even though they may
have been convicted of some crime. You know, they murdered
a spouse. I'm just trying to think of something that
would be ridiculous. They murdered a spouse, and they've been
in prison, they were sentenced to life in prison, and
(20:41):
they are dying of they're dying of incurable prostate cancer,
and they've got six months to live. I might commute
the sentence of that individual and let them go home
to die at home. Yeah, So that's that. So let's
(21:03):
go back to this paradigm shift that I keep talking about.
This is the real test that Trump is setting up
by defining what he believes to be executive power. And
(21:24):
to consider this paradigm shift, we have to remember that
there are a couple of essential distinctions in the executive power,
and you need to think about the power of the
president in two different contexts, in two different categories. In
relation to the executive branch over which he is, over
(21:49):
which he presides, he's the CEO, he's the commander in chief,
he is the chief executive of Article two of the
US Constitution. But then he also plays a part in
the larger constitutional system in which he just plays a
part the executive branch, the legislative branch, the judicial branch,
(22:13):
and then the enumerated powers, the limitations. All of those
are part of a larger constitutional framework in which the
president operates. So it's two contexts. His I would say,
almost unlimited power over the executive branch, except where it
(22:37):
may be limited by Article one that establishes the Congress.
But insofar as exerting his authority over the executive branch.
I would say that's pretty broad, pretty wide, almost unlimited.
I mean there's some exceptions, of course, but generally speaking,
(23:01):
think about this way. The president commands the executive branch,
but the executive branch doesn't command the entirety of the government.
That's why you have three separate branches of government. They
are separate but equal, and they all have their constitutional duties.
(23:24):
But when it comes to the work of say the
executive branch, I think his authority is supreme. Article two
of the Constitution begins with a pretty stark, definitive statement, quote,
the executive Power shall be vested in a President of
(23:44):
the United States of America. That's the complete sentence right there.
I think that means that the executive branch is essentially
a single individual, and he has all of these people
who worked for him. Everyone else who exercises any form
(24:06):
of executive authority in our government does so. As I
have said recently in a lot of television interviews about
this whole idea about FEMA, and that is what I did.
I did on behalf of the president, and anybody who
(24:27):
works in the executive branch works at the will of
the president, either with his implicit or his explicit authorization.
The Constitution doesn't trust anybody else with truly unrestrained power,
So executive authority is on purpose by the founders, entangled
(24:47):
with the other branches, and in marginal ways. This even
extends to the president's command over his underlings. Congress can
create executive agencies, but the employees work for the president.
An appointment to a senior executive office has to be
approved by the Senate with the advice and consent of
(25:07):
the Senate. But once they are confirmed, they work for
the president. They don't work for the committee. Or they
may be subject to oversight. They may have to go
testify about hey, what are you doing, but they don't
answer to that committee. Now, the courts, the third branch,
(25:27):
can review the legal and the constitutional validity of some
of the president's use of this executive power and those
who work for him. But ultimately, in thinking about just
the everyday operation of the government, the administrator, you know
what we call it, the administration in the everyday practice
of administering the executive branch within the bounds of whatever
(25:49):
the law says. The President is in charge of the
executive branch, but he's not in charge of the government
as a whole in relation to the larger constitutional system.
President's role is constrained, is and is in many respects
or shadowed by Congress. So his core function is to
see that this is in the oath, to see that
(26:11):
the laws are faithfully executed. So he's accountable to the law,
not necessarily to Congress, but to what Congress passes as laws.
And he's bound by the strictures of the law, but
the resources at his disposal those are determined by Congress.
The founders were brilliant in setting this up, all these
(26:32):
checks and balances. But that's why I want you think
about it into contexts. The first context is he is
the chief executive officer of the executive branch. And remember
go back to that one sentence, the executive power shall
be vested in a president of the United States of America.
(26:55):
So Congress, if they wanted to can effect let's talk.
Let's use USAID for an example. So the US Agency
of International Development John F. Kennedy in nineteen sixty one
established that by executive order, which he has the authority
to do as the chief executive of the executive branch
(27:18):
of the government. And then a couple of decades later,
Congress steps in and establishes the US Agency for International
Development as a department or an agency within the executive branch.
So now Congress has taken an executive order and has
(27:42):
placed that into law. So when you hear, for example,
that Trump wants to eliminate USAID, he can't just take
an ORG chart and wind out USAID and just say
it no longer exists. He could, however, say that I'm
(28:04):
going to stop you from spending any money. I'm not
going to allow you to spend any money. I'm going
to terminate with whatever process is allowed. I'm going to
terminate the employees, or I'm going to appoint a new
director to head this agency, and I'm going to empower
them to put their own people in. But if you
(28:26):
wanted to just literally erase USAID, I would make the
argument he doesn't have the power to do that, But
he can effect the same thing by putting his own
people in and then telling them, here's what I want
you to do. I don't want you to spend this money.
I don't want you to spend that money. You can
do this, and you can do that, but you can't
(28:47):
do this. That's his power So the point is these
powers are always tested, they have been forever. Democrats are
out there right now screwing about how it's a constitutional crisis.
It's not a constitutional crisis. It's a difference of opinion,
(29:09):
and it's an argument about can you do what you're
doing with USAID? And I would argue that he can.
Now he talks about I want to get rid of it,
and must talks about we want to eliminate it. Well, okay,
then you would have to go to Congress and actually
ask them to lawfully abolish USAID. It's not a constitutional crisis.
(29:35):
It's an argument. It's a political debate. And I think
that the courts and the founders recognize that. And I
think that the originalist Supreme Court that exists today recognizes
that too, because a majority of the justice sitting on
the Supreme Court today understand this. You and I have talked
(29:59):
about it unit executive. Well, they believe in that, and
that idea of a unitary executive treats the president as
supreme within his domain, but also toward limits on the
executive power in the inner branch struggle that goes on
between the different branches of government. Think about Chuck Schumer. Yeah,
(30:24):
I'll think about taking a break. Think about Chuck Schumer
going out and saying we're not going to Joe Biden's
a better example. Think about Joe Biden saying, I don't
care what the Supreme Court said about student loans. I'm
going to do this anyway. I think that's unlawful. That's
outside his power. The Supreme Court ruled that what he
(30:45):
was doing was unlawful, so therefore he must stop.
Speaker 6 (30:48):
Michael. This whole thing about the eggs and the chickens,
they're just destroying the food supply. Remember Klaus Schwab said,
we will be eating insects and eggs are a cheap,
perfect nutritional source. But they're destroying that for us. It's
awful what they are doing.
Speaker 2 (31:10):
Cal farts and chicken eggs. What's next? You're touching my.
Speaker 3 (31:16):
Hamburger Beaver's apparently.
Speaker 2 (31:18):
Steak beaver And now scrambled eggs or a good fried egg?
Speaker 3 (31:24):
No, what's better scrambled or over easy or fried or
sunny side?
Speaker 2 (31:30):
I scrambles my favorite.
Speaker 3 (31:31):
Yeah, you can throw in cheese in there, and yeah,
you can do anything.
Speaker 2 (31:34):
Thank alm. Let's do all sorts of things with scramble. Yeah,
but a good Friday egg over hard Okay, yeah, yep.
So you know, it's Black History Month, and so I'm
kind of keeping my eye out for ways to celebrate
Black History Month because I think racism against blacks is
the ultimate faux paul in American culture because just when
(31:58):
we are told, like with the election of Barack Obama,
that we live in a post racial society and that
you know, racism had gone away, then you got some
dim witted jackass that shrieks that hiring people who are
most qualified means you don't hire black people. Stephen Smith
Bill was ESPN.
Speaker 3 (32:18):
He came from ESPN.
Speaker 2 (32:19):
Yeah, yeah, Stephen Smith, listen to this.
Speaker 8 (32:23):
Cover your ears, because when you handle it the way
that the Trump administration is handling it, we want the
most qualified, we want the smartest, we want this, we
want that.
Speaker 3 (32:34):
What you're really saying is.
Speaker 2 (32:37):
We want white dominance. Again, Really, where do you get that?
Speaker 3 (32:41):
That sounds racist?
Speaker 2 (32:42):
That sounds kind of racist to me too.
Speaker 8 (32:45):
That's what you're really saying, you want white dominance because
if you're pointing the DEI, and that's usually pointing towards
quote unquote unqualified minorities because you're always using the word qualified, qualified, qualified.
Everybody they got a position through DEI is not qualified.
We know what you're implying, We know what you're insinuating.
Speaker 2 (33:07):
Women. If you diget your position through DEI, and if
you really are not qualified, if you did not meet
the standards and or they had to change the standards
in order for you to meet, then then I would
say you're not qualified, regardless of it you're black or
anything else.
Speaker 7 (33:20):
Poor kids are just as bright and just as town
as white kids.
Speaker 8 (33:25):
And you got folks in the adminstrations, and Pete hegsays,
Oh my god, the nerve of him to.
Speaker 3 (33:30):
Just join into the frame and give.
Speaker 8 (33:32):
His quote about making sure qualified.
Speaker 3 (33:34):
People have these jobs.
Speaker 8 (33:36):
You're the Defense secretary who's only job prior to this
was as a weekend host on Fox News.
Speaker 2 (33:46):
Oh that was his only job. Hm, he never served
in the armed forces. Oh okay. Well, so I don't
know how you want to celebrate Black History Month. But
here's how I'd like to celebrate it. I'd like to
get rid of all of these celebrations or or or
(34:07):
as an alternative, if if you're offended by that, then
we can have a Black History Day. We can have
you know, an American Chinese Day. We can have an
American you know, German day, we can have an American
Irish Day. Well, I guess we got that. You know,
we got that sumwhere Saint Patti's Day. Well, I guess
we have an American Mexican Day because we got single
to my own, we got all the you know, stop it,
just stop it. Nobody who really is a decent human being,
(34:34):
which probably eliminates a lot of people. Uh, doesn't give
a rat's house about race. No, we've kind of reached
the point where character does count. Yeah, I think so.
I know you guys are talking about eating beaver, but
what do you think about licking beaver. One of my
friends left his ball cap here and it says beaver.
He got it at Beaver Creek up in Colorado Mountains
and it says Beaver liquors. Oh wait, there's small print,
(00:21):
it's beaver, and then in small print Creek liquor, and
then again in small print store.
Speaker 2 (00:27):
Never mind, some people never grow up, and some people
can't take a serious story like eating beaver's in Minnesota,
and they turn it into something that I just don't,
you know, so juvenile.
Speaker 3 (00:41):
I'm just glad that eating beaver is legal again.
Speaker 2 (00:44):
Absolutely absolutely, And in as far as licking beaver, you know,
if there are there are certain foods that you kind
of you know, like a popsicle, you kind of you
kind of lick. First, have to check the temperature right
exactly exactly. I mean, who what a hot beaver? How
(01:14):
do you swear from that into back into J six?
Speaker 3 (01:18):
No seg best segue?
Speaker 2 (01:19):
There you go, got it. So CNN is reporting that
some five thousand or more, we don't really know the
actual number yet, out of thirty six thousand FBI employees.
So some five six thousand. One of the number turns
out to be is kind of immaterial to me, but
mostly agents and investigators somehow, in one way or another
(01:42):
touched the January sixth cases. I find that astonishing. In fact,
the I would say the one thing agreed that the
number is probably very likely underrepresented, and probably by a
(02:04):
large margin, because the FBI employees who were involved in
a four year long investigation and prosecution which was the
largest ever in the Department of Justice or FBI's history,
probably involved a lot more. Considering that there were almost
sixteen hundred defendants some two thousand, four hundred cases, So
(02:29):
maybe the numbers were actually much larger than evens being
reported by CNN. But then CNN also goes on, after
Pam Bondi has sworn as the Attorney General, Caitlyn Collins
has Eli Haneigon, a DC lawyer, to talk about what
(02:50):
they're doing in terms of this questionnaire. There we go.
Speaker 4 (02:57):
We saw her in her first full day today, first
a mostly full day. I guess I should say, Ellie,
what are you watching for in terms of what the
DJ looks like under Attorney General Pambondi.
Speaker 5 (03:10):
Well, the thing that jumped out to me today, Caitlin
is essentially Pambondi's first act in office is to order
an investigation of the January six and the classified documents
prosecution of Donald Trump. That is an outrageous thing to
do on your first day. If you're trying to restore
DOJ's equilibrium and establish this is a non political place.
That is an overtly political quest.
Speaker 2 (03:30):
And by the way, I find sometimes I honestly don't
think well, first of like, they don't care, and two
I don't think they really listen to what they're saying.
The cognitive dissonance is always fascinating to me. So he's
really upset. Pam Bondi gets sworn in and her first
thing to do is to order an investigation of January sixth,
(03:55):
and this lawyer says, and that is a blatant political
thing to do. Well, wait a minute, she's investigating what
the Democrats did under their regime, which was and appears,
at least to this individual, to be a purely political prosecution,
(04:19):
not even touching on the idea that there were agents
provocateur in the crowd, that we apparently have facial recognition
of the pipe bomber, not the pipe bomber, but the
guy that planted the pipe bombs, and we have no
arrest about that, Ray Epps skates free for a long time.
(04:42):
And then finally there's enough political pressure. Captain what's his
name that shot Ashley babbittt gets pardoned, the J six
committee members get pardoned preemptively, and so all of this
(05:02):
political prosecution of persecution or both. The Attorney General wants
to find out who is behind it. Did they do
anything illegal, did they violate federal law? Did they violate
federal law in terms of violating the rights of those individuals,
(05:24):
And she wants to find out the truth of that,
and they're saying that's political. I just find that utterly astonishing.
You know, if if I walked in well, and in fact,
one of the things that I did when I first
went to d C, this was before I became the Undersecretary,
(05:45):
when I was the General Counsel, I walked into the
General Council's office and you know, did all the typical
you know, meet and greet and get to know everybody,
explain to me. You know. Now, obviously I had done
my homework before I went in, because I wanted to
see what they say but I checked out the org chart.
I kind of dug around a little bit as far
(06:05):
as I could to find out from the transition team
what were the big controversial issues. But I sat down
with them, I said, so, what's going on that you
think might be a controversial political issue that might be
a problem that we have with Congress, or we might
have with you know, the administration, with the you know,
with the White House. Tell me all of this stuff,
(06:27):
or do we have any problems out there with governors
or some of the states. Tell me what those cases are.
Give me a rundown of the litigation, Give me a
rundown of the investigations. Tell me what's going on with
the inspector general that you're working on right now. Because
I wanted to know one of the political what's the
political mindfield? Like what are the land mines out there?
(06:51):
Ye if stupid little o' me does that, why wouldn't
Pam Bondy, the freaking Attorney General of the United States
of America and the former Attorney General of Florida, Why
wouldn't she.
Speaker 5 (07:00):
Let me spoil a secret, tell you how it's going
to come.
Speaker 2 (07:02):
Out someday, six eight, ten months.
Speaker 5 (07:04):
For now, We're going to get a report and they're
going to say those prosecutions of Donald Trump were wildly
corrupt and political and improper. It won't come out any
other way. Keep in mind that many of the bosses
of DJ represented Donald Trump in those very same criminal cases. Look,
donald Trump won the election, those cases were dismissed.
Speaker 3 (07:20):
They won.
Speaker 5 (07:21):
They should leave well alone. And I do not think
it's good for morale.
Speaker 2 (07:26):
Oh, you won, the cases were dismissed, so you should
just shut up and go away. Wow. So you see,
for someone like me, if someone told me now, he's
obviously not saying that to Pam Bondi's face, although I
guess you could argue in some ways he is because
(07:47):
he's on national television with whatever CNN's audience is and saying, oh,
you know, you should just be happy you won and
just shut up and sit down and go away. A
guy like me would hear that and go, hmmm, what
are you hiding? What do you what do you want
me to not find?
Speaker 5 (08:05):
Or for the independence of DJ for Pambondi to come
in on day one and order that.
Speaker 4 (08:10):
Yeah, and this comes as Trump is asking for everything
that was seized during the classified documents to search at
mar Lago to get that back. We'll see what that
looks like. Eleoni is always thank you for for your insights.
Speaker 2 (08:22):
So there are up because Pam Bondi comes in and
Pam Bondi wants to find out exactly what took place
and who was involved in it. So I know most
of you don't work in law firms, but I want
(08:42):
you to just think about these numbers. How how is
it possible that you have five thousand investigators, lawyers, prosecutors,
the whole gamut that would be on the government side.
How would they touch two thousand, four hundred cases that
resulted in one thousand, six hundred or so arrests and prosecutions.
(09:08):
I just find that number incredulous. And that doesn't even
include the people who were not subjected to a raid
or to a prosecution, but were nonetheless being surveilled and
then interrogated by FBI agents. FBI agents who then went
on to interview even family members. So we don't even
(09:29):
know the real number of You know, what does the
entire horizon look like of what the FBI was doing
and what were those resources taken away from other cases?
And don't forget this at the same time that we're
(09:50):
talking about family members or some J six defendants themselves,
the FBI was also collecting information from the big tech giants,
from Amazon, from Bank of America, from the airline carriers.
It was an incredibly detailed and involved investigation using the
(10:11):
most invasive of investigative techniques that they used and had
available to them in order to create cases against the
January sixth defendants. So again I point out that I
don't think the number is correct. I think there's something
else going on the FBI itself, including the acting director
(10:35):
Brian Driscoll possibly or the supervising the agents in charge
of the fifty six field offices who have not yet
been fired. Of course, several of them were in Washington, Miami,
some in New York. They're all over the place, Normans
Las Vegas. So they are they just trying to tamp
down the number? Are they trying to both again in
(10:56):
concert with the cabal, trying to paint this numbers being
outrageous or is it actually even worse than we think
it is and they're trying to minimize the number At
the same time that all of this is going on,
You've got to go back to January sixth of twenty
(11:19):
twenty one. You've got to think about everything going on
at that time, when we went through this latest transition
and the inauguration and everything else. There was a day
when I talked about, from my perspective having been involved
in inaugurations, what a dangerous time period that is that
(11:43):
other governments, both allies and enemies see us, you know,
changing power, transfer of power. Everybody's distracted by everything. What
was the FBI doing about Chinese nationals in this country?
What were they doing about the cartels in this country?
(12:03):
Were they what were they doing for the four years
of the Biden administration? Well, I think they were just
fixated on January six, remember that. And it wasn't just
January six. You know, the grandmother that's praying and singing
and others. They were praying and singing outside abortion clinics.
(12:26):
And the FBI is busy trying to make sure that
they get convicted, that they get labeled as domestic terrorists.
So that's that's what was going on. If you go
to the questionnaire question number twelve, what was your employee
(12:46):
role in the investigation, investigations or prosecution prosecutions relating to
events that occurred at or near the US Capitol on
January sixth, twenty twenty one. All that apply, and then
there's a dropdown menu, and this is all they're asking.
(13:07):
Were you involved? And let me just read what the
topics are. Analytical Analytical support approved the approval of documents
for a case file, arrest led an operation, or participated
in an operation, Acted as a case agent for an investigation,
(13:32):
assigned as a cold case agent for an investigation, conducting
baseline database checks for case operations, conducting surveillance of subjects, discovery,
evidence collection and or disposition, grand jury subpoenas, or submissionary
(13:53):
renewals of subpoenas. Program management support, which in of itself
has dropped down menus by don't have access to that intervened,
I'm sorry, I interviewed evidence subjects, or other complaints, respond
to leaks sent by another office, search warrants, supervise interrogations,
(14:19):
and supervised can't quite read this one. Supervised anyway. In
the course of conducting investigations, you testified at a trial
or the responses that you've been asked in a survey
are provided elsewhere. What was the appropriate date of your
(14:40):
or your employees last activity relating to the interrogations or
prosecutions relating to events that occurred at or near the
US Capitol in January SINXT twenty twenty one. So did
you come in new were you reassigned? Did you were
you already in headqu orders but you were doing something
(15:01):
else and you got reassigned from this case to another case.
All of those are absolutely legitimate questions for Pam Bondi
to be asking, and the fact that people are upset
that she's asking about it shows that, hmm, there may
be something going on here. Now. Pam Bondi is the
(15:22):
Attorney General Ken Walkin's you gun at the same time,
she can she can hold more than you know, one
assignment in her mind at one time. She's the freaking
Attorney General. So she's not the one conducting this investigation.
She's having her own people conduct that investigation. And that's
(15:43):
pretty important to understand because she is the lead, she's
the manager. She's the CEO of the Department of Justice,
so she can assign different things to be done simultaneously.
There's nothing wrong, nor is there anything unusual about that occurring.
(16:07):
So if you are somehow think that there's something nefarious
going on. Put yourself in the shoes of people who
may have been involved in something nefarious going on. Wouldn't
you be outraged by this investigation? Wouldn't you be outraged
(16:28):
by this questionnaire? Wouldn't you be worried about, Oh, what
was I doing? What did I do? Because sometimes, you know,
maybe you got called in to do something that seemed
innocuous to you, and you and you did whatever that
assignment was, and then you find out later that, oh,
they were using the materials that I produced, or that
(16:48):
I was able to discover, they were using it for
over here, for a political purpose, not a true legal
investigative purpose. I'd be if I were no shoes, I'd
be worried about that. The whole point of this is
that as we continue to move forward with this paradigm
(17:12):
shift that Trump is engaged in with everything going on,
He's going to be ugly and the cabal is going
to do everything they can to convince you that Trump
is overreaching and doing something that he's not supposed to
be doing. I would say he's doing precisely what we elected.
Speaker 6 (17:33):
Him to do.
Speaker 7 (17:42):
Michael, the Democrat Party tried to kill Trump breaking financially
and jail him. If Trump doesn't get to the bottom
of this, the next Democrat that runs this nation will
succeed in doing one of those three.
Speaker 2 (18:05):
I said that Michael Bird was pardoned by Trump. That
may not be true. I have no way of proving
that he was or he was not. I rapidly. First
of all, he doesn't appear on the list of pardons.
But two, there is also a pardon that lists all
(18:29):
of the Capitol Police officers and any of the Metropolitan
Police Department officers or any other witnesses who testify before
the January sixth committee. But you can't find that list,
or at least I couldn't find it in the very
short few seconds I had, because I think some of
those documents were destroyed, So I don't really know whether
(18:51):
he was ever on the witness list or not, so
he may or may not have been pardoned. And then
somebody asked, is there anything that anybody can do about
those pempty pardons that was issued by Joe Biden? And
the answer is no, there is not anything you can do.
Let me just explain one more time. The power of
(19:13):
the pardon under the Constitution is an absolute power of
the president. I don't know, and I don't recall any
constitutional cases that well, they may have addressed it, but
no Supreme Court case that limits that power. It is
(19:36):
an unequivocal power, and it's the only one that I
really know of that the president has. But I don't
have a problem with that. I think it's been abused.
I think it's been done for purely selfish personal interests.
(19:56):
But Founding fathers saw fit that the executive should have
because they thought that there would be times, as there
always has been and always will be miscarriages of justice,
or there will be situations where the right thing to
do is that someone should be pardoned. I can imagine
(20:19):
situations where if I had that power, there are probably
instances where I might pardon people even though they may
have been convicted of some crime. You know, they murdered
a spouse. I'm just trying to think of something that
would be ridiculous. They murdered a spouse, and they've been
in prison, they were sentenced to life in prison, and
(20:41):
they are dying of they're dying of incurable prostate cancer,
and they've got six months to live. I might commute
the sentence of that individual and let them go home
to die at home. Yeah, So that's that. So let's
(21:03):
go back to this paradigm shift that I keep talking about.
This is the real test that Trump is setting up
by defining what he believes to be executive power. And
(21:24):
to consider this paradigm shift, we have to remember that
there are a couple of essential distinctions in the executive power,
and you need to think about the power of the
president in two different contexts, in two different categories. In
relation to the executive branch over which he is, over
(21:49):
which he presides, he's the CEO, he's the commander in chief,
he is the chief executive of Article two of the
US Constitution. But then he also plays a part in
the larger constitutional system in which he just plays a
part the executive branch, the legislative branch, the judicial branch,
(22:13):
and then the enumerated powers, the limitations. All of those
are part of a larger constitutional framework in which the
president operates. So it's two contexts. His I would say,
almost unlimited power over the executive branch, except where it
(22:37):
may be limited by Article one that establishes the Congress.
But insofar as exerting his authority over the executive branch.
I would say that's pretty broad, pretty wide, almost unlimited.
I mean there's some exceptions, of course, but generally speaking,
(23:01):
think about this way. The president commands the executive branch,
but the executive branch doesn't command the entirety of the government.
That's why you have three separate branches of government. They
are separate but equal, and they all have their constitutional duties.
(23:24):
But when it comes to the work of say the
executive branch, I think his authority is supreme. Article two
of the Constitution begins with a pretty stark, definitive statement, quote,
the executive Power shall be vested in a President of
(23:44):
the United States of America. That's the complete sentence right there.
I think that means that the executive branch is essentially
a single individual, and he has all of these people
who worked for him. Everyone else who exercises any form
(24:06):
of executive authority in our government does so. As I
have said recently in a lot of television interviews about
this whole idea about FEMA, and that is what I did.
I did on behalf of the president, and anybody who
(24:27):
works in the executive branch works at the will of
the president, either with his implicit or his explicit authorization.
The Constitution doesn't trust anybody else with truly unrestrained power,
So executive authority is on purpose by the founders, entangled
(24:47):
with the other branches, and in marginal ways. This even
extends to the president's command over his underlings. Congress can
create executive agencies, but the employees work for the president.
An appointment to a senior executive office has to be
approved by the Senate with the advice and consent of
(25:07):
the Senate. But once they are confirmed, they work for
the president. They don't work for the committee. Or they
may be subject to oversight. They may have to go
testify about hey, what are you doing, but they don't
answer to that committee. Now, the courts, the third branch,
(25:27):
can review the legal and the constitutional validity of some
of the president's use of this executive power and those
who work for him. But ultimately, in thinking about just
the everyday operation of the government, the administrator, you know
what we call it, the administration in the everyday practice
of administering the executive branch within the bounds of whatever
(25:49):
the law says. The President is in charge of the
executive branch, but he's not in charge of the government
as a whole in relation to the larger constitutional system.
President's role is constrained, is and is in many respects
or shadowed by Congress. So his core function is to
see that this is in the oath, to see that
(26:11):
the laws are faithfully executed. So he's accountable to the law,
not necessarily to Congress, but to what Congress passes as laws.
And he's bound by the strictures of the law, but
the resources at his disposal those are determined by Congress.
The founders were brilliant in setting this up, all these
(26:32):
checks and balances. But that's why I want you think
about it into contexts. The first context is he is
the chief executive officer of the executive branch. And remember
go back to that one sentence, the executive power shall
be vested in a president of the United States of America.
(26:55):
So Congress, if they wanted to can effect let's talk.
Let's use USAID for an example. So the US Agency
of International Development John F. Kennedy in nineteen sixty one
established that by executive order, which he has the authority
to do as the chief executive of the executive branch
(27:18):
of the government. And then a couple of decades later,
Congress steps in and establishes the US Agency for International
Development as a department or an agency within the executive branch.
So now Congress has taken an executive order and has
(27:42):
placed that into law. So when you hear, for example,
that Trump wants to eliminate USAID, he can't just take
an ORG chart and wind out USAID and just say
it no longer exists. He could, however, say that I'm
(28:04):
going to stop you from spending any money. I'm not
going to allow you to spend any money. I'm going
to terminate with whatever process is allowed. I'm going to
terminate the employees, or I'm going to appoint a new
director to head this agency, and I'm going to empower
them to put their own people in. But if you
(28:26):
wanted to just literally erase USAID, I would make the
argument he doesn't have the power to do that, But
he can effect the same thing by putting his own
people in and then telling them, here's what I want
you to do. I don't want you to spend this money.
I don't want you to spend that money. You can
do this, and you can do that, but you can't
(28:47):
do this. That's his power So the point is these
powers are always tested, they have been forever. Democrats are
out there right now screwing about how it's a constitutional crisis.
It's not a constitutional crisis. It's a difference of opinion,
(29:09):
and it's an argument about can you do what you're
doing with USAID? And I would argue that he can.
Now he talks about I want to get rid of it,
and must talks about we want to eliminate it. Well, okay,
then you would have to go to Congress and actually
ask them to lawfully abolish USAID. It's not a constitutional crisis.
(29:35):
It's an argument. It's a political debate. And I think
that the courts and the founders recognize that. And I
think that the originalist Supreme Court that exists today recognizes
that too, because a majority of the justice sitting on
the Supreme Court today understand this. You and I have talked
(29:59):
about it unit executive. Well, they believe in that, and
that idea of a unitary executive treats the president as
supreme within his domain, but also toward limits on the
executive power in the inner branch struggle that goes on
between the different branches of government. Think about Chuck Schumer. Yeah,
(30:24):
I'll think about taking a break. Think about Chuck Schumer
going out and saying we're not going to Joe Biden's
a better example. Think about Joe Biden saying, I don't
care what the Supreme Court said about student loans. I'm
going to do this anyway. I think that's unlawful. That's
outside his power. The Supreme Court ruled that what he
(30:45):
was doing was unlawful, so therefore he must stop.
Speaker 6 (30:48):
Michael. This whole thing about the eggs and the chickens,
they're just destroying the food supply. Remember Klaus Schwab said,
we will be eating insects and eggs are a cheap,
perfect nutritional source. But they're destroying that for us. It's
awful what they are doing.
Speaker 2 (31:10):
Cal farts and chicken eggs. What's next? You're touching my.
Speaker 3 (31:16):
Hamburger Beaver's apparently.
Speaker 2 (31:18):
Steak beaver And now scrambled eggs or a good fried egg?
Speaker 3 (31:24):
No, what's better scrambled or over easy or fried or
sunny side?
Speaker 2 (31:30):
I scrambles my favorite.
Speaker 3 (31:31):
Yeah, you can throw in cheese in there, and yeah,
you can do anything.
Speaker 2 (31:34):
Thank alm. Let's do all sorts of things with scramble. Yeah,
but a good Friday egg over hard Okay, yeah, yep.
So you know, it's Black History Month, and so I'm
kind of keeping my eye out for ways to celebrate
Black History Month because I think racism against blacks is
the ultimate faux paul in American culture because just when
(31:58):
we are told, like with the election of Barack Obama,
that we live in a post racial society and that
you know, racism had gone away, then you got some
dim witted jackass that shrieks that hiring people who are
most qualified means you don't hire black people. Stephen Smith
Bill was ESPN.
Speaker 3 (32:18):
He came from ESPN.
Speaker 2 (32:19):
Yeah, yeah, Stephen Smith, listen to this.
Speaker 8 (32:23):
Cover your ears, because when you handle it the way
that the Trump administration is handling it, we want the
most qualified, we want the smartest, we want this, we
want that.
Speaker 3 (32:34):
What you're really saying is.
Speaker 2 (32:37):
We want white dominance. Again, Really, where do you get that?
Speaker 3 (32:41):
That sounds racist?
Speaker 2 (32:42):
That sounds kind of racist to me too.
Speaker 8 (32:45):
That's what you're really saying, you want white dominance because
if you're pointing the DEI, and that's usually pointing towards
quote unquote unqualified minorities because you're always using the word qualified, qualified, qualified.
Everybody they got a position through DEI is not qualified.
We know what you're implying, We know what you're insinuating.
Speaker 2 (33:07):
Women. If you diget your position through DEI, and if
you really are not qualified, if you did not meet
the standards and or they had to change the standards
in order for you to meet, then then I would
say you're not qualified, regardless of it you're black or
anything else.
Speaker 7 (33:20):
Poor kids are just as bright and just as town
as white kids.
Speaker 8 (33:25):
And you got folks in the adminstrations, and Pete hegsays,
Oh my god, the nerve of him to.
Speaker 3 (33:30):
Just join into the frame and give.
Speaker 8 (33:32):
His quote about making sure qualified.
Speaker 3 (33:34):
People have these jobs.
Speaker 8 (33:36):
You're the Defense secretary who's only job prior to this
was as a weekend host on Fox News.
Speaker 2 (33:46):
Oh that was his only job. Hm, he never served
in the armed forces. Oh okay. Well, so I don't
know how you want to celebrate Black History Month. But
here's how I'd like to celebrate it. I'd like to
get rid of all of these celebrations or or or
(34:07):
as an alternative, if if you're offended by that, then
we can have a Black History Day. We can have
you know, an American Chinese Day. We can have an
American you know, German day, we can have an American
Irish Day. Well, I guess we got that. You know,
we got that sumwhere Saint Patti's Day. Well, I guess
we have an American Mexican Day because we got single
to my own, we got all the you know, stop it,
just stop it. Nobody who really is a decent human being,
(34:34):
which probably eliminates a lot of people. Uh, doesn't give
a rat's house about race. No, we've kind of reached
the point where character does count. Yeah, I think so.
Popular Podcasts
Crime Junkie
Does hearing about a true crime case always leave you scouring the internet for the truth behind the story? Dive into your next mystery with Crime Junkie. Every Monday, join your host Ashley Flowers as she unravels all the details of infamous and underreported true crime cases with her best friend Brit Prawat. From cold cases to missing persons and heroes in our community who seek justice, Crime Junkie is your destination for theories and stories you won’t hear anywhere else. Whether you're a seasoned true crime enthusiast or new to the genre, you'll find yourself on the edge of your seat awaiting a new episode every Monday. If you can never get enough true crime... Congratulations, you’ve found your people. Follow to join a community of Crime Junkies! Crime Junkie is presented by audiochuck Media Company.
24/7 News: The Latest
The latest news in 4 minutes updated every hour, every day.
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.