1-31-25 - 8am - Obstruction of an Official Proceeding

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:00):
I don't think seven o'clock listeners should get a pass.
For example, you're listening in Denver, Tennessee at seven o'clock,
you could have stopped that cackle. I think seven o'clock
listeners are slackers. Fight fight fight, fight, Fight, fight, fight Fight.

Speaker 2 (00:21):
Who's your favorite listener? Six, seven, eight or nine o'clock? Dragon?

Speaker 3 (00:27):
Either six or seven? You know. Eight o'clock the talkbacks
and text message seemed to dwindle, and then nine o'clock
there's hardly anything ever there. So unfortunately, I hate to
say it, but nine o'clock you need to step up
your game. I mean there's you're not you're not participating.

Speaker 2 (00:45):
See I see the nine o'clock listeners as they're they're
sitting on the beach in a in a lounge chair,
and they're you know, they're let's just say, in their
eighties or nineties. You know, they're kind of saggy and
old and wrinkled, and they got bikinis and speedos on.
They got cigarettes hanging out their mouths, and you know it.

(01:07):
Instead of you know, like a little you know, fancy
umbrella drink, they've got like a cours like kind of
or a PBR kind of stuck in the sand, you know,
not sitting on a table, just kind of screwed down
into the sand. And then there's you know, they just
split the cigarette butts off to the side, and they've
got kind of cracked sunglasses and they're just kind of
laying there and they're burning. They don't realize they're burning

(01:30):
because the skin's old and wrinkly, and they just they
just don't care. And they're sitting there listening on a
transistor radio. They don't they don't have a smartphone. They're
not listening, you know, they wouldn't how to touch the
button anyway to leave a talk back. So that that's
kind of my group right there. That's kind of the
group that I favor. And they're just kind of half
ass listening too, because they're kind of dozing off and
they're waking back up and hoping they could have a

(01:52):
bowel movement, not really sure whether they can or not.
And then all the men are like, gee, I got
to get up and pee, but when I just you know,
I got my depends on, you know, and they're wearing
the speedo over the depends, so it looks really stupid,
but they don't really They just don't care. Backwards. Yeah,
they just don't care. And that's kind of where I'm
at today, based in our earlier conversation this morning, that's

(02:13):
just kind of where I'm at today. I just don't care.
It's amazing. We've got any listeners. Sure you got a
fresh diet cochure. Hang on a second. As long as
we're having law school today, let's talk about Title eighteen,

(02:37):
which is the US Criminal Code, Section fifteen twelve C. Two.
If you have listened to this program at all, which
we don't understand why you do, but we're glad that
you do, you'll know that that is the obstruction statute.
That's the run statute. That's the statute that says it is.

(02:59):
It is obstruct of. It makes it illegal to obstruct
an official proceeding, and it's an evidence tampering statue, and
it's punishable by up to twenty years in federal prison.
It was enacted in two thousand and two. It's part

(03:19):
of the Sarbin's Oxley Act, all because of the Enron scandal,
and it says this, whoever corruptly alters, destroys, mutilates, or
conceals a record, a document, or any other object, or
attempts to do so with the intent to impair the

(03:40):
object's integrity or availability for use in an official proceeding,
or otherwise obstructs, influences, or impedes any official proceeding, or
attempts to do so. So it's pretty clear here. Mean
the elements are. One has to be an official proceeding,

(04:02):
and then you have to actually do something. You've got
to ultra destroy, mutilate, or conceal a record, a document
or some sort of object, or you have to try
to do that, and you have to do that in
an attempt to destroy, mulate, or you know, impair the
object's integrity. It's a document, it's a floppy disc, go

(04:25):
back to the end run days. It's a floppy disc
and you want to take it, or it's a hard
drive and you want to take a hammer to it.
And you're doing that because you don't want investigators, you know,
or accountants or forensic experts or anybody else to be
able to see what's on the document or the hard
drive or whatever. It's twenty three years old. Now let

(04:52):
me tell you about somebody I want you to hear about.
Paul Hodgkins. You ever heard that name. He's a Jay sixer.
He's thirty eight years old. He lives in a blue
collar neighborhood of Tampa, Florida. He operates a crane. He's
a crane operator. He went by himself to d C

(05:18):
to attend Trump's speech on January sixth. He went by bus.
He didn't go to Tampa International and get on you
know a United or you know, a Delta flight and
fly up to National or Doulas. He took a bus.

(05:39):
When Trump finished his speech that day, along with thousands
of others, he walked from the ellipse to the grounds
of the Capitol. Now, according to all of the film,
all of the evidence that the US Attorney's Office has,
he at two fifty Now, that is, to make sure

(06:03):
you have the right perspective, two point fifty pm is
more than thirty five minutes after the first breach of
the Capitol. So at two point fifty pm, Paul Hodgkins
walks into the Capitol building. He's carrying a Trump twenty
twenty flag. All right, he didn't break in. He may

(06:31):
have for the sake of just to be to lay
out all the options here. He may have trespassed, although
I disagree because once the door is open and there's
no one to stop you, there are no signs that
say no trespassing. For example, we're having a few problems

(06:54):
down at the indisclosed location where people are starting to
trespass on private property, and so a lot of the homeowners.
In fact, I need to do that next time I
go down. Under New Mexico law, we need to put
up a sign. So I need to put up a
sign on the river bank and on up on where

(07:16):
you get off the dirt road to come into the
undisclosed location. I need to put no trespassing signs to
put people on notice that even though I'm not there,
I'm not giving you permission to come onto the land.
I'm not inviting you onto my land. So I would
even argue that I don't think mister Hodgkins even trespassed.

(07:40):
No cops stopped him. Many cops were opening the doors.
They weren't wanding anybody, they were just letting people walk through.
So he walks in, got he walked to the Senate floor,
and he took a selfie. He took his own phone

(08:01):
and he took a picture of himself. He took the
flag that he was carrying, held the flag up, and
then he peacefully with He never touched anything, He didn't
sit down, he didn't do anything. He walked in to
the Senate chambers. He took a selfie, he took his flag,

(08:24):
and he walked out the building at three point fifteen pm,
twenty five minutes, twenty five minutes from me time. He
entered the Capitol, wandered around. I'm sure he looked at
the rotunda, maybe walked around the rotunda a little bit,
looked at the statues, looked up at the ceiling, saw

(08:47):
a hallway, and continued down the hallway and then realized, oh,
here are the Senate chambers. He walked in, looked around.
I'm sure you know, if you've never been in the
Senate chambers, it's it's pretty ornate. And you look around,
and he took a selfie, didn't sit down, he didn't
take a podium, he didn't do anything. He took a selfie,

(09:09):
and then he walked out a total of twenty total
of the see, yeah, twenty five minutes. He didn't assault
the cop, he didn't vandalize, touch or do anything with
the government property. Mister Hodgkins was arrested by the FBI
on February sixteen, twenty twenty one, on his way to work,

(09:33):
armed agents of the FBI raided his home seized all
of his electronic devices. Then a magistrate in DC placed Hodgkins, who,
by the way, happens to be an eagle scout. He
has no criminal record at all. He doesn't have anything.
He didn't have any speeding tickets parking. He has no
record whatsoever. But the magistrate judge put mister Hodgkins on

(09:57):
a high intensity monitoring program, required him to wear an
ankle bracelet, required him to abide by a curfew, and
only allowed him to go to and from work, and
he was forbidden even if work required him. So while
he could work, he could not travel outside a defined
area of Tampa, Florida. And because he was charged with

(10:23):
the felony, he also had to surrender his passport and
was prohibited from possessing any firearms. And his crime was
that crime that I just described to you eighteen USC.
Fifteen twelve c two, punishable by up to twenty years
in federal prison. Now let's go back to the statute.

(10:46):
What did he destroy? What did he mutilate? What record
did he conceal what document or other object? Did he
have any intent to do in of those things? Do
an e those objects? I don't think so. He obstruct anything?
Did he try to influence anything? Did he stop anybody

(11:06):
from doing anything? Did he walk in on the Senate
floor when the senators were there and do anything, you know,
like they would try to do in these hearings this
week yell and scream and shout and you know, throw
a fit and you have to pause to hear. Did
he do any of that? No, he did he even
try to do any of that. No, he didn't do
any of that. None of that, the just you know

(11:40):
the other I'm trying to think about to tell you
about him next. I want to do this in a
particular order. He cooperated, He made a quick decision to
take a plea agreement. Here, here's an eagle scout, never
been in trouble, probably never even been in a courtroom before,

(12:01):
and suddenly he's facing twenty years in prison for doing
what I describe as completely innocent behavior. You know, many
many people when I've when I've told this story, many
people have said, well, he should have known that he
shouldn't be in there. Why do you say that there

(12:28):
were no signs that said senators only. There are parts
there are parts of the Capitol that you know, elevators
for senator's use only, But inside the US Capital there
are very very few places that say for senators only
or for members only. He saw none of those signs

(12:50):
as he made his way through, and no one tried
to stop him. There were cops, but nobody tried to
stop him. Nobody said anything. So you're facing twenty years
in prison. He decides to take a plea agreement. They
wanted him to spend eighteen months in federal prison. So

(13:12):
as part of the plea agreement, they tell you, this
is what you have to agree to. So he agreed
that he would admit that he corruptly obstructed and that
he impeded an official proceeding, and that was the certification
of the Electoral College vote count. And he said, or
agreed to say, that he did so by unlawfully entering

(13:33):
the US Capital alongside hundreds of other rioters. That was
the word. Using the plea agreement, with whom he shared
a unified goal to block Congress from completing the certification.
All of that was written in the US attorney's sentencing recommendation,

(13:55):
in which she the Mona Saidke also described January sixth
as an active domestic terrorism and then she made the
case that mister Hodgkins was should serve a long prisoner.
She wanted more than eighteen months because that was necessary
to deter others from committing similar acts of terrorism. Terrorism. Now,

(14:21):
during the sentencing hearing before Judge Randolph Moss, Hodgkins explains
that going to prison and result in He's gonna lose
his job, probably lose a potential apprenticeship. He's gonna lose
his rental home. He's gonna lose his two cats. He
also spent what he described as his life savings of
twenty thousand dollars on defense lawyers. He said, quote, without

(14:47):
a shadow of doubt, I am truly regretful, regretful for
my actions and the way this country I love has
been hurt. But then became a problem in determining what
the sentence should be from mister Hodgkins, the judge ran
into a problem. Between twenty fourteen and twenty twenty, only

(15:09):
nine people had ever been sentenced to prison on a
fifteen twelve c to conviction, and none of those cases
were in Washington, d C. Now, why do I point
that out because that underscores how the Department of Justice's
unprecedented use of that statute trying to tie political demonstrations

(15:31):
to a financial crimes statute. So the judge didn't have
any comparison that he could use to make his sentencing decision.
So the judge just decided, Hey, I'll give you eight
months in prison and two years of supervisor release. The
judge also insisted that he's doing that because democracy is

(15:52):
in trouble, claiming that January sixth cause quote damage that
will persist in this country for decades. This is I'm
not laughing at mister Hodgkins. I'm laughing at the stupid judge.
The judge said that when you raised your flag, you
were staking a claim on the Senate floor and declaring

(16:13):
your loyalty as an individual over your country. Wow, that's
really trying to rationalize your sentencing decision. But here's what's
wonderful about this. His case, along with other January sixth defendants,

(16:34):
is currently now because of Trump, the subject of an
internal Department of Justice inquiry. The acting US Attorney for
the District of Columbia the acting US Attorney for the
District of Columbia. I mentioned him before. His name is
Ed Martin, that the office that handled the j six
prosecutions until it was shuddered send an email to office

(16:58):
employees wanting all documents, notes, emails, and other information related
to all fifteen twelve C two charging decision, and he
sided the Supreme Court's decision last June that the application
of that statute by the Department of Justice is a
great failure of our office and pledged to get to

(17:18):
the bottom of it now that investigation has been to
be wide ranging and complex.

Speaker 4 (17:29):
Michael, I'm a nine o'clock listener. The only difference between
me and your description is I'm in my sixties.

Speaker 2 (17:35):
I ain't no eighty year old.

Speaker 3 (17:38):
The talkback was left in the eight o'clock hour just saying.

Speaker 2 (17:46):
And then some of the text lines that your description
of the nine o'clock listeners is just a description of
you and Tamra, and I had to clarify that it
was a description of me, but it was certainly not
of Tamra.

Speaker 3 (17:58):
No, she's not listening, right, Yah, you're fine.

Speaker 2 (18:01):
Yeah, she's already at work. And then somebody pointed out
that no, we don't wear it the pens. We just
walk out waist deep into the water and let it
go and then come back and get back on the
hammock because well it's wet anyways. So nobody a lot
of the difference. I can see that g people are perverts.

(18:23):
So let's go back this this case of mister Hodgkins
and now the acting US Attorney starting to investigate the
wrongdoing of the Department of Justice. You know, if I
were a liberal commentator, I would say, this is Donald
Trump exacting retribution. No, this is Donald Trump cleaning out

(18:46):
the swamp. This is exactly and there's nothing untoward, illegal, immoral,
unethical anything about this acting US Attorney saying, wait a minute,
all you yahoo's that were involved in these prosecuts, you
need to preserve all of your documents, records, and everything.
By the way, in failure to do so would be

(19:07):
in of itself a violation of fifteen twelve C. Two.
I mean, that's that's the ironic part. If they failed
to do what the US Acting US Attorney is telling
them to do, they themselves would be engaged in obstructing
and official proceeding by you know, altering, destroying, mutilating whatever documents, records,
hard drives, or whatever. But what we need to remember

(19:35):
is that over the course of three years, the Department
of Justice charged about three hundred and fifty j six
ers with fifteen twelve C two charges. About out of
that three fifty one hundred and seventy were convicted, he
had found guilty at trial, plagued guilty, and about one

(19:55):
hundred of them got prison sentences from everything from several
months to several years, none of which But as far
as I can dig into it, there's no consistency at
all about it. But this isn't the first time that
US attorneys are prosecutors have received and gotten pre trialed
attention for these defendants where the most serious offense, the

(20:18):
only serious offense in their indictments, was this stupid fifteen
twelve sea obstruction count. Remember the Shaman, the k Long guy.
He was denied pre trial release. He spent ten months
in prison, mostly in solitary confinement, until what he finally

(20:40):
accepted a plea deal on the fifteen twelve C two charge.
You don't think that wasn't an attempt to force him
into a plea deal. Of course it was, Do you remember,
probably not why I'm here to remind you Bob Muller
decide when he you know, the former Special Council, the
former director of the FBI. He determined that fifteen twelve

(21:04):
to C two was the most readily applicable statute related
to his investigation investigation of Trump's alleged collusion with Russia
before the twenty sixteen election. And Muller argued in his
report that fifteen twelve C two covers a range of
obstructive acts directed at pending or even contemplated official proceedings.

(21:26):
So he took the statue and said, oh, what does
he have to be a proceeding? It can even be
a projected or contemplated or we're thinking about having proceeding.
But Muller failed. Now, the j six prosecutors largely relied
on arguments made in that Muller report to broaden this

(21:46):
statute as much as they could. In the January sixth cases,
the defense lawyers consistently would argue that the government had
erred by claiming the certification of Electoral College votes were
represented or the that represented an official proceeding, because they

(22:07):
insisted the law also required proof of tampering with any
of these documents or records, and none of that happened,
which is exactly what did happen in the Enron cases.
Fifteen judges on the DC District Court disagreed with that defense.

(22:30):
In fact, they agreed with the argument that it could
apply to almost anything. Only one judge, Carl Nichols, who
happen to be appointed by Trump, dismissed the count in
three January sixth cases. They appealed his decision. The matter
was taken up by the d C Circuit and back
in April of twenty twenty three, had a razor thin

(22:53):
decision in favor of the government. So then they took
the case to the Supreme Court, and that's where the
court granted in the Fisher case. In that case originated
in the same judge's courtroom, which would determine the fate
of the fifteen twelve c to two charges. Granty sert

(23:13):
meant that at least four justices wanted to review the matter,
but that did not stop Matthew Graves, who was the
predecessor the then US Attorney, the Biden appointee who accelerated
these investigations when he took offus in November twenty one

(23:33):
from continuing to bring the charges against J six ers,
and there are all sorts of examples of where he
did that. But his last dish effort to save the
JA six prosecution's most common felony ultimately failed because in
that Fisher case, in a sixty three decision, they sided

(23:55):
with the majority and overturned the use of that statute
in January sixth cases. Now, the pro the Supreme Court's
decision didn't reverse the human cost of those wrongful prosecutions.
The defenders who spent time in prison, they can't get

(24:16):
that time back. Mister Hodgkins, who spent twenty thousand dollars
of his life savings on defense lawyers, he can't get
that money back. They wreaked havoc on American citizens on
a case that the Supreme Court said on a sixty
three decision that statute has nothing to do with these cases. Now,

(24:42):
Paul Hodgkins is one of the ones that's been pardoned
by President Trump, but if you ask him, he still
wants the Department of Justice to do an inquiry into
his case and others. He said this US Attorney Martin's
investigation dreamly encouraging and it gives me sense of hope

(25:02):
that we may repair a justice system that has been
damaged and abused. I am confident that the investigation will
likely find examples of prosecutorial misconduct, and I hope that
this will be brought to light for the American people.
This is exactly what Trump promised to do. And I

(25:23):
find it interesting that this story you'll have a hard
time finding it in the cabal because and when you do,
it'll be, Oh, this is an example of Trump's retribution. No,
this is an example of Trump trying to do justice
and find out where prosecutors abuse their power and hold

(25:45):
them accountable. And he'll hold them accountable by Oh, I
don't know, any range of things, firing their asses, maybe
prosecuting them if they were found to really violate some statute.
I think we ought to be happy about this. I'll

(26:06):
give you another example. Thomas Caldwell, Navy veteran decorated disabled VET.
His farm in Virginia was raided by armed FBI agents
in late twenty twenty one, and he was charged with
the same fifteen twelve C to obstruction. He was denied
release for fifty three days following his arrest. Then a

(26:30):
jury founding guilty of obstruction in November of twenty twenty two,
but then his conviction was vacated following the Supreme Court ruling.
He said, prior to January sixth, this statue was never
used to prosecute protesters exercising the right to free speech
and to peacefully assemble. The Department of Justice says their

(26:52):
use of this statue was not political. I don't think
many people believe that. And of course, my question, even
as a lawyer, is is why was his case vacated
and others weren't. Now. I know it's immaterial now because
they've been pardoned, but if their cases had been vacated,

(27:13):
they probably wouldn't have needed a pardon. But guess what,
Jamie Raskin, Remember the j sixth Committee is opposed to
this investigation. He still calls Martin and Hodgkins and the
rest of them criminals. And he calls the US attorney

(27:36):
who's look the acting US attorney who's looking into it.
He calls him a criminal because he's simply looking into
a botched prosecution. He says, it's nothing more than a
wild goose chase. We didn't do anything wrong. We did
our jobs as one attorney that was involved in these prosecutions.

(27:57):
One of them went on to Jim Saki's program them
and said, we know we didn't do anything wrong and
know we did our job, and that the communications related
to fifteen twelve C to two charting decisions could consist
of tens of thousands of files and documents, to which
I say, so what. Lawyers are accustomed to doing discovery

(28:18):
and getting hundreds, if not thousands of bankers boxes of
documents and records. They're doing everything they can to stop
and obstruct this investigation, including members of Congress. When the

(28:39):
pleminary report from the Acting US Attorney, mister Martin comes out, oh,
I'll be sure and tell you about it, but I
would just encourage you to watch this because the Democrats
are going to howl and screen because their prosecutorial misconduct
and the misconduct on the J six committee, even though
you know they've all been parted. Congress can still bring

(29:02):
it to light, and if Republicans are two week need
to do it. I think this Acting US Attorney Ed Martin,
I think he's got the cajones to do it, and
I'm glad. Good morning, Michael and Dragon your fairy Groper salons. Hey,
so I listened to your show for all four hours. Well,

(29:26):
sometimes the legs doze off right to this are four hours?
What an act that is? And I'll just fight fight fight,
kind I think we can't. We just like to stir
stuff up. We just we just like to cause problems.
That's that's why. And if we can get a fight going,

(29:48):
we won't get a fight going.

Speaker 1 (29:50):
True.

Speaker 2 (29:50):
So before we get to taxpayer relief shots, was that today?
What what is today? I wouldn't know it's today Friday,
because you know, in my life, every day is a Friday.
You know, just every day. I get up on Monday morning,
I think, thank god it's Friday. I get up on Tuesday,
I think, thank God it's Friday. And then on Wednesday,

(30:11):
I think, why is it not Friday? And then I
come in and see you, and I'm like, oh my god,
I gotta do three more days of this. Some of
the hearings yesterday were absolutely marvelous. They were fantastic, and

(30:31):
there was one exchange in particular where Bobby Kennedy Junior
is having it out with what's his name, Bernie Sanders.
Bernie Sanders is one of the highest recipients of big
farm of money of all us senators. Listen to this exchange.

Speaker 4 (30:52):
I'm going to make America healthier in other countries in
the world. Right now, will you guarantee do what every
other major country?

Speaker 2 (31:00):
A simple question?

Speaker 4 (31:02):
And by the way, Bernie, the you know that the
problem of corruption is not just in the federal agents,
is in Congress to.

Speaker 2 (31:12):
Just that alone? You know, Bernie callsing Bernie. Now I
understand they know each other personally, but still I just
think the fact he callsing Bernie is pretty damn good. Uh,
because they love to be called senator general. Would you
do me a favor, please just call me senator. I
worked hard for that title. Okay, yes, ma'am.

Speaker 4 (31:36):
Uh.

Speaker 2 (31:39):
Not is the corruption is not just in the bureaucracy,
It's also in Congress. Simple question.

Speaker 4 (31:46):
And by the way, Bernie, the you know the problem
of corruption is not just in the federal agents, is
in Congress. To almost all the members of this panel
are accepting, including yourself, are accepting millions dollars from the
pharmaceutical Oh.

Speaker 2 (32:02):
No, oh, no, no, no no oh, Bernie's not gonna
have any of that.

Speaker 4 (32:07):
Don't you dare call me outcepting, including yourself, or accepting
millions of dollars from the pharmaceutical Oh no.

Speaker 2 (32:14):
Not teching their interests. Oh I thought that that would come. No,
I ran for president like you.

Speaker 4 (32:22):
I got millions, millions of contributions. They did not come
from the executives, not one nickel of pack money from
the pharmaceutical that they came to twenty This.

Speaker 2 (32:34):
Is such a blatant lie. And whether it came from
the employees of big pharma, or it came from the executives,
or it came from their policy collax committees, nonetheless, it
came from big Pharma.

Speaker 4 (32:47):
In twenty twenty. You were the single largest because I
received a pharmacut from nations from workers all over this
country workers.

Speaker 2 (32:56):
You were not a nickel from corporate with.

Speaker 4 (33:00):
The single largest pharmaceutical dollars for work is in five million.

Speaker 2 (33:06):
Yeah, out of two hundred million. All right, but you
have not answered last what I love it? I absolutely
love it. This is most of these hearings have been
nothing but a bunch of bull crap. Honestly, But then.

Speaker 4 (33:29):
Americans don't buy and larger don't do. Not like the
Affordable Care Act, people are on it, they don't like Medicaid,
they like Medicare, and they like private insurance. We need
to listen to what people they would prefer to.

Speaker 2 (33:43):
Be on private assurance.

Speaker 4 (33:45):
Most Americans, if they can afford to be, will be
on private assurance. We need to figure out ways to
improve care, particularly for elderly, from veterans, for poor in
this country, and Medicaid. The current model is not doing that.
I would ask you know, any of the Democrats who
are chuckling just now, do you think all that money,

(34:08):
the nine hundred billion dollars that we're sending to medicaid
every year has made Americans healthy?

Speaker 2 (34:13):
Do we think it's working for anybody? Are the premiums
low enough? Great question. Tulca Gabbert did a fantastic job too.
By the way, if you would hear about Tulsa Gabbert,
join in tomorrow from ten to one for the program
over the weekend of Michael Brown or from Freedom ninety
three seven, Bill News, Bill Talk