Latest / Serious Trouble / RICO Freak-Off (feat. Sean 'Puffy' Combs)

Transcript

RICO Freak-Off (feat. Sean 'Puffy' Combs) · Serious Trouble

0:08
SPEAKER_00: Hi, it's Ken White.
0:10
SPEAKER_00: And it's Josh Barrow.
0:11
SPEAKER_00: And this is Serious Trouble.
0:12
SPEAKER_00: Ken, something happened this week that had been sort of expected out there in the ether.
0:18
SPEAKER_00: And it's not something we've covered yet on this show,
0:20
SPEAKER_00: but there have been these indications that something like this might be coming down
0:24
SPEAKER_00: the pike.
0:25
SPEAKER_00: And this week,
0:26
SPEAKER_00: Sean Combs,
0:27
SPEAKER_00: also known as Puff Daddy and P.
0:29
SPEAKER_00: Diddy and several other aliases that are listed at the top of the indictment that
0:34
SPEAKER_00: came down for him,
0:34
SPEAKER_00: was federally indicted.
0:37
SPEAKER_00: And we knew that this would have something to do with sexual misconduct and
0:41
SPEAKER_00: misconduct in his personal relationships.
0:43
SPEAKER_00: There was that video of him assaulting his longtime girlfriend,
0:47
SPEAKER_00: the singer Cassie,
0:48
SPEAKER_00: in a hotel in Los Angeles in 2016.
0:50
SPEAKER_00: And that shows up in this indictment.
0:52
SPEAKER_00: But the marquee count in this indictment
0:55
SPEAKER_00: is Rico.
0:56
SPEAKER_00: And that is one thing that I had not been expecting.
0:59
SPEAKER_00: Ken, were you expecting that it was going to be the Rico with Puff Daddy?
1:03
SPEAKER_01: I was not expecting that Puff Daddy did the Rico or that even if he did,
1:07
SPEAKER_01: that they would charge him with it.
1:09
SPEAKER_01: And, you know, as usual, I awake to 10,000 messages asking me if P. Diddy did the Rico.
1:16
SPEAKER_01: Right.
1:16
SPEAKER_01: So, you
1:18
SPEAKER_01: Yes,
1:18
SPEAKER_01: this is a very aggressive federal indictment against Sean Combs,
1:24
SPEAKER_01: and the lead count is racketeering.
1:26
SPEAKER_01: It's specifically a racketeering enterprise allegedly stretching back many years
1:32
SPEAKER_01: and continuing up to the present.
1:34
SPEAKER_01: Then there is also a count for sex trafficking through force or coercion.
1:40
SPEAKER_01: and one for the good old Mann Act.
1:43
SPEAKER_01: Don't get a lot of Mann Act anymore.
1:44
SPEAKER_01: A transportation of people to engage in prostitution.
1:49
SPEAKER_00: Right.
1:50
SPEAKER_00: Some Eliot Spitzer-type concerns there.
1:52
SPEAKER_01: Exactly.
1:53
SPEAKER_01: The heart of it all,
1:54
SPEAKER_01: there's a lot of allegations that Sean Combs does a lot of illegal shit,
1:58
SPEAKER_01: that he lives kind of like the stereotypical rapper lifestyle of guns and drugs and
2:04
SPEAKER_01: setting things on fire and,
2:06
SPEAKER_01: you know...
2:07
SPEAKER_01: putting down opponents and all this type of thing.
2:09
SPEAKER_01: But the heart of this is an allegation that he had these things called freak offs
2:16
SPEAKER_01: where he would coerce women to participate in them and then have hired male
2:23
SPEAKER_01: prostitutes or male performers hired to have sexual performances with them that he
2:29
SPEAKER_01: would then watch.
2:30
SPEAKER_00: And that that was illegal because he in some manner coerced or threatened those women into that.
2:36
SPEAKER_00: And I mean,
2:37
SPEAKER_00: obviously,
2:37
SPEAKER_00: the prostitution aspect of it itself is illegal,
2:40
SPEAKER_00: although would not be normally thought of as a marquee federal crime that you would
2:44
SPEAKER_00: see the SDNY focusing on.
2:46
SPEAKER_00: This is what I was confused about when I saw this indictment.
2:48
SPEAKER_00: And I would note this indictment's only 14 pages.
2:51
SPEAKER_00: It doesn't speak in the way that some of the other indictments that we talk about
2:54
SPEAKER_00: on this show do,
2:55
SPEAKER_00: where you'll get 80 pages of exposition of evidence that the government is going to
2:59
SPEAKER_00: bring forward.
3:00
SPEAKER_00: So there's a number of allegations in here that are not fully fleshed out.
3:03
SPEAKER_00: Like,
3:03
SPEAKER_00: for example,
3:04
SPEAKER_00: as you alluded to,
3:05
SPEAKER_00: it says that Sean Combs engaged in arson as part of his RICO activities.
3:09
SPEAKER_00: It doesn't explain what he lit on fire, what the circumstances of the arson were, but
3:14
SPEAKER_00: Presumably, the government has evidence about that that will come out later at trial, perhaps.
3:19
SPEAKER_00: But when I look at this,
3:21
SPEAKER_00: it's surprising to me that this adds up to racketeering because you have all these
3:26
SPEAKER_00: individual crimes.
3:27
SPEAKER_00: You have purchase and possession of drugs.
3:29
SPEAKER_00: You have the assaults.
3:31
SPEAKER_00: You have prostitution and interstate transportation of prostitutes.
3:35
SPEAKER_00: You have some allegation that there was some sort of fraud or deceit that he
3:40
SPEAKER_00: engaged in in order to have sex with certain victims.
3:42
SPEAKER_00: And we did more detail on that to explain exactly why that was a criminal fraud
3:47
SPEAKER_00: because not every kind of deceit one might engage in leading up to sex is a crime.
3:52
SPEAKER_00: But basically, you have that description there.
3:54
SPEAKER_00: But normally,
3:55
SPEAKER_00: I feel like RICO is for like the mob and things that are like the mob,
3:58
SPEAKER_00: things that are like,
3:58
SPEAKER_00: you know,
3:59
SPEAKER_00: the alleged street gang surrounding Young Thug that is subject to one of those RICO
4:03
SPEAKER_00: prosecutions down in Atlanta,
4:05
SPEAKER_00: where the purpose of the organization is in order to engage in crime.
4:10
SPEAKER_00: Maybe the federal government has that here because they obviously have a lot more
4:14
SPEAKER_00: evidence than they've shown us.
4:15
SPEAKER_00: But it seems like a weird set of evidence so far to bring forward and say this is RICO.
4:19
SPEAKER_01: Well,
4:20
SPEAKER_01: as you pointed out,
4:21
SPEAKER_01: Josh,
4:22
SPEAKER_01: the indictment itself charges that some of the goals of this enterprise,
4:28
SPEAKER_01: the Sean Combs enterprise,
4:29
SPEAKER_01: are legal.
4:30
SPEAKER_01: They're to, you know, sell merch and promote P. Diddy.
4:34
SPEAKER_01: And make music.
4:35
SPEAKER_01: Right.
4:35
SPEAKER_01: Those are legal aims.
4:36
SPEAKER_01: But it has a bunch of other illegal aims.
4:40
SPEAKER_01: And this is sort of like always been an argument about whether Rico is now used and
4:45
SPEAKER_01: construed too broadly,
4:46
SPEAKER_01: whether it's
4:47
SPEAKER_01: taken from its classic form,
4:49
SPEAKER_01: which is going after the mafia,
4:52
SPEAKER_01: going after something that is explicitly a criminal gang,
4:55
SPEAKER_01: and applying it against people who have legit business and also do some crimes.
5:02
SPEAKER_01: So far, Congress has not seen fit
5:05
SPEAKER_01: to pull that back or to make that limitation.
5:07
SPEAKER_01: Courts haven't either.
5:08
SPEAKER_01: It is very difficult to plead RICO correctly,
5:12
SPEAKER_01: but it's much easier for prosecutors because the standards for prosecutors are much lower.
5:17
SPEAKER_01: And this is along with arguably the RICO claim against former President Trump in
5:22
SPEAKER_01: Georgia and a few other cases like this.
5:25
SPEAKER_01: This is kind of an illustration of how it can be used very widely.
5:31
SPEAKER_01: The effect of using it here, Josh, I think is to solve
5:34
SPEAKER_01: all sorts of statute of limitations problems because you can go back to crimes,
5:38
SPEAKER_01: you know,
5:39
SPEAKER_01: back to 2008 or something like that and have it all be a part of the pattern and of
5:43
SPEAKER_01: the enterprise and that type of thing and throw it into the mix,
5:46
SPEAKER_01: which you couldn't do if you were charging those crimes separately.
5:50
SPEAKER_01: It also lets you
5:52
SPEAKER_01: pull together a whole lot of disparate activity into a single theme and charge it.
5:58
SPEAKER_01: So we have seen RICO cases against prominent entertainers engaged in trafficking or
6:07
SPEAKER_01: sex-related misconduct.
6:09
SPEAKER_01: It's something that's been effective sometimes for the Justice Department.
6:11
SPEAKER_01: It also has unfortunate historical echoes in that the Justice Department in the
6:16
SPEAKER_01: past has misused the Mann Act to go after Black
6:20
SPEAKER_01: entertainers in the past, basically for taking their girlfriends across state lines.
6:24
SPEAKER_01: This is different in that it's really accusing a system of coercion of women to
6:31
SPEAKER_01: participate in these things.
6:33
SPEAKER_01: But it remains to be seen,
6:34
SPEAKER_01: and this is a question you asked me,
6:36
SPEAKER_01: why at the hearing were the lawyers for Combs so focused on one particular victim?
6:43
SPEAKER_00: Right.
6:44
SPEAKER_00: Well, there's only one victim listed in the indictment.
6:47
SPEAKER_00: The indictment refers to victims, but in terms of individuals it discusses, there's only victim one.
6:51
SPEAKER_01: Right.
6:52
SPEAKER_01: And I think they think if they can show that the victim one is lying or discredit
6:56
SPEAKER_01: victim one in that scenario,
6:58
SPEAKER_01: they think that they can—
7:00
SPEAKER_01: make the rest of it go away or that it will be a lot less convincing if they can't
7:06
SPEAKER_01: prove the lead example in their case.
7:09
SPEAKER_00: Sean Combs' attorney has been doing the media rounds,
7:12
SPEAKER_00: did a live interview on CNN with Caitlin Collins this week.
7:17
SPEAKER_00: And spoke very confidently and in quite a bit of detail about their view of the
7:21
SPEAKER_00: evidence in this case and the defense they're going to offer,
7:24
SPEAKER_00: which seems to be basically that these were consensual activities and that there's
7:29
SPEAKER_00: nothing illegal about having a gross sex party in a hotel.
7:34
SPEAKER_00: And that, you know, the Combs obviously did assault Cassie.
7:38
SPEAKER_00: It's on video.
7:39
SPEAKER_00: And the attorney kept referring to that as a misdemeanor assault.
7:43
SPEAKER_00: But,
7:43
SPEAKER_00: you know,
7:43
SPEAKER_00: that's that in itself is not a federal crime and basically characterized them as
7:47
SPEAKER_00: having a long and tumultuous,
7:49
SPEAKER_00: mutually tumultuous relationship that the federal government is blowing up into
7:54
SPEAKER_00: this RICO conspiracy.
7:56
SPEAKER_00: And he also made this claim that,
7:57
SPEAKER_00: you know,
7:57
SPEAKER_00: well,
7:58
SPEAKER_00: the,
7:58
SPEAKER_00: you know,
7:58
SPEAKER_00: Kalen Collins is asking about,
7:59
SPEAKER_00: you know,
8:00
SPEAKER_00: what about all the other victims?
8:01
SPEAKER_00: And again, the indictment does say victims, plural.
8:04
SPEAKER_00: Right.
8:04
SPEAKER_00: And the attorney kept going back to, well, they only have one victim, only victim one.
8:08
SPEAKER_00: And he said, you know, if they had more, they would have put it in the indictment.
8:11
SPEAKER_00: But that last part seems clearly not true to me.
8:13
SPEAKER_00: There definitely has to be more evidence than is in this indictment because the
8:16
SPEAKER_00: indictment is so limited in its scope.
8:19
SPEAKER_00: Can you talk a little about how the government makes those decisions about what
8:23
SPEAKER_00: evidence to disclose at this stage and what to hold back?
8:26
SPEAKER_00: Because it strikes me as fairly reckless for his attorney to basically be claiming
8:30
SPEAKER_00: that the government doesn't have more evidence here that they didn't put in the indictment.
8:34
SPEAKER_01: Well,
8:34
SPEAKER_01: Josh,
8:35
SPEAKER_01: indictments involving sex and violence from the feds generally are more bare bones
8:40
SPEAKER_01: and are less likely to be the speaking indictments we've talked about before,
8:43
SPEAKER_01: like the ones against Trump,
8:45
SPEAKER_01: the ones that sort of tell the story in gory detail and kind of identify things
8:50
SPEAKER_01: that you might say they're arguing about evidence almost saying what their evidence is.
8:54
SPEAKER_01: They don't do that in violent crimes.
8:57
SPEAKER_01: Those tend to be pretty bare bones by tradition and because the pleading standards just don't require it.
9:03
SPEAKER_01: So I think it is potentially reckless in that it does suggest the DOJ's
9:09
SPEAKER_01: Press releases and statements do suggest that they have multiple victims who will testify,
9:14
SPEAKER_01: multiple people who will testify to this stuff.
9:17
SPEAKER_01: And if it's all in there,
9:18
SPEAKER_01: I suspect they had,
9:19
SPEAKER_01: I mean,
9:20
SPEAKER_01: maybe they just did it all by summary in front of the federal grand jury.
9:23
SPEAKER_01: In other words,
9:23
SPEAKER_01: just had the case agent get in there and say,
9:25
SPEAKER_01: oh,
9:25
SPEAKER_01: yeah,
9:26
SPEAKER_01: I've talked to this person and this person.
9:28
SPEAKER_01: But usually on a case this big, they're pretty careful to grand jury those witnesses to lock them in.
9:33
SPEAKER_01: And so I would be very surprised if it's true,
9:36
SPEAKER_01: as Combs' attorney suggests,
9:38
SPEAKER_01: that they just don't have anyone else.
9:40
SPEAKER_00: Combs is being held without bail.
9:43
SPEAKER_00: That was the first thing the government and his attorneys were fighting over in court this week.
9:47
SPEAKER_00: His attorneys had a proposal about how he could be released on a $50 million bond
9:52
SPEAKER_00: secured by his mansion in Miami Beach and that they had various ways to have
9:57
SPEAKER_00: security that would both prevent him from fleeing and prevent him from being a
10:00
SPEAKER_00: danger to the community.
10:02
SPEAKER_00: And the answer was essentially summarily no.
10:04
SPEAKER_00: Twice.
10:05
SPEAKER_00: Right.
10:06
SPEAKER_00: The presumption is that you are entitled to bail unless there are no available bail
10:09
SPEAKER_00: conditions that can protect the public and ensure your parents at trial.
10:12
SPEAKER_00: Why was that not possible here?
10:14
SPEAKER_01: Josh, I'm touched.
10:15
SPEAKER_01: You actually listened to me.
10:17
SPEAKER_01: Yes, that is the correct standard for federal bail.
10:20
SPEAKER_01: There's a presumption you're entitled to bail unless there's no combination of
10:23
SPEAKER_01: conditions that will assure the safety of the public and that you will return for trial.
10:28
SPEAKER_01: However, there are sometimes contrary presumptions and
10:33
SPEAKER_01: There is one in this case related to the sex trafficking count.
10:36
SPEAKER_01: It's a rebuttable presumption.
10:37
SPEAKER_01: So, you know, Combs can bring up evidence to push back.
10:41
SPEAKER_01: But ultimately,
10:42
SPEAKER_01: the magistrate judge and then the district court judge who reviewed it both found
10:47
SPEAKER_01: that there were no apparent set of conditions involved.
10:51
SPEAKER_01: that would make sure that he would come back and make sure he would not be a danger to the community.
10:56
SPEAKER_01: He offered, yeah, $50 million backed by real estate, including his house and his mom's house.
11:02
SPEAKER_01: Now, there's a call you would prefer not to make.
11:05
SPEAKER_01: It's now going to be appealed to the Second Circuit, but the standard is extremely unfavorable.
11:10
SPEAKER_01: for Sean Combs.
11:12
SPEAKER_01: By the way,
11:13
SPEAKER_01: a friend of the show who we frequently quote here,
11:16
SPEAKER_01: Mitch Eppner,
11:17
SPEAKER_01: was a federal prosecutor who handled sex trafficking cases,
11:21
SPEAKER_01: and he's offering a lot of useful commentary on this.
11:25
SPEAKER_01: He pointed out that DOJ very rarely charges the Mann Act as they did here without
11:31
SPEAKER_01: it being connected to something else,
11:32
SPEAKER_01: probably because of those historical residences.
11:36
SPEAKER_01: So that's an issue.
11:38
SPEAKER_00: And I should note,
11:39
SPEAKER_00: by the way,
11:39
SPEAKER_00: count two,
11:40
SPEAKER_00: that sex trafficking count,
11:41
SPEAKER_00: because there's prostitution involved here,
11:43
SPEAKER_00: I sort of assumed that the sex trafficking count referred to the prostitutes,
11:47
SPEAKER_00: the male prostitutes.
11:48
SPEAKER_00: That's not the case.
11:49
SPEAKER_00: Count three, the Mann Act count, that's about the male prostitutes.
11:52
SPEAKER_00: Count two is an allegation that Sean Combs trafficked victim one.
11:56
SPEAKER_00: which I believe we believe is Cassie,
11:58
SPEAKER_00: although she's not identified by name in the indictment,
12:01
SPEAKER_00: that through coercion,
12:03
SPEAKER_00: violence,
12:04
SPEAKER_00: or some other efforts that Combs had caused her to participate in these so-called
12:10
SPEAKER_00: freak-offs under duress.
12:12
SPEAKER_00: And so that's what that trafficking count is.
12:14
SPEAKER_00: That's not a prostitution count.
12:15
SPEAKER_00: That's about specifically whatever he did to victim one.
12:19
SPEAKER_01: That's right, Josh.
12:20
SPEAKER_01: Count two specifies it's related to victim one there in the caption.
12:25
SPEAKER_01: And it also specifies that it went from 2009 up to 2018.
12:31
SPEAKER_01: So it's pretty old.
12:32
SPEAKER_01: But the sex trafficking statute,
12:35
SPEAKER_01: section 1591,
12:38
SPEAKER_01: doesn't have a statute of limitations,
12:40
SPEAKER_01: thanks to some enhancements Congress passed.
12:43
SPEAKER_01: And so it would apply either to coercing
12:48
SPEAKER_01: people or to minors.
12:49
SPEAKER_01: There's no allegation here of minors.
12:51
SPEAKER_01: And it appears to apply only to that victim one.
12:54
SPEAKER_01: So that is one instance where if the defense thinks that they can thoroughly
13:00
SPEAKER_01: discredit that one person that they you can see why they're pushing that.
13:05
SPEAKER_00: So because of that presumption related to that sex trafficking count,
13:08
SPEAKER_00: Sean Combs is being held without bail at the MDC in New York.
13:13
SPEAKER_00: So I guess, first of all, can I have a venue question?
13:15
SPEAKER_00: Do you mind if I ask you a venue question?
13:17
SPEAKER_01: I mean, we're already talking about Wariko.
13:19
SPEAKER_01: Knock yourself out.
13:20
SPEAKER_00: So Sean Combs lives in Miami and Los Angeles.
13:24
SPEAKER_00: The hotel incident that was caught on video where he assaulted Cassie,
13:28
SPEAKER_00: which is going to be a key piece of evidence in this case,
13:30
SPEAKER_00: that occurred in Los Angeles.
13:31
SPEAKER_00: Why is this trial happening in New York?
13:34
SPEAKER_01: Well, their theory is probably that some of the activities of the RICO enterprise happened in New York.
13:43
SPEAKER_01: Maybe there was transit through New York at some time with victim one.
13:49
SPEAKER_01: Remember,
13:50
SPEAKER_01: the feds get a lot of discretion with venue in criminal cases as long as there's,
13:54
SPEAKER_01: you know,
13:55
SPEAKER_01: as long as they can show some of the activity happening there or something like that.
13:58
SPEAKER_01: That said, it wouldn't surprise me if Combs' lawyers try to move it somewhere else.
14:03
SPEAKER_01: But
14:04
SPEAKER_01: You know,
14:04
SPEAKER_01: one of the real reasons is,
14:05
SPEAKER_01: you know,
14:05
SPEAKER_01: it was Southern District of New York that investigated this.
14:09
SPEAKER_01: They're hungry for it.
14:10
SPEAKER_01: They're not going to let anyone else do it.
14:12
SPEAKER_00: And so he's being held at the MDC,
14:14
SPEAKER_00: which is an especially nasty federal detention facility,
14:18
SPEAKER_00: is my understanding,
14:19
SPEAKER_00: in New York.
14:19
SPEAKER_00: His attorneys actually asked if he could be held in Essex County.
14:22
SPEAKER_00: I assume they meant Essex County, New Jersey, right across the river in Newark.
14:26
SPEAKER_00: But they actually asked if he could be held in Essex County, New York.
14:30
SPEAKER_00: which is a four-hour drive north of the city, and they didn't get that, at least so far.
14:34
SPEAKER_00: But that's,
14:35
SPEAKER_00: I guess,
14:36
SPEAKER_00: an indication of how bad the MDC is,
14:38
SPEAKER_00: that they were asked,
14:38
SPEAKER_00: you know,
14:38
SPEAKER_00: please hold me,
14:39
SPEAKER_00: you know,
14:39
SPEAKER_00: all the way across the state.
14:41
SPEAKER_01: Right.
14:41
SPEAKER_01: So first of all,
14:42
SPEAKER_01: yeah,
14:43
SPEAKER_01: Essex County's jail is one of very many that the federal government contracts with
14:49
SPEAKER_01: to hold some federal detainees.
14:51
SPEAKER_01: So that's not unusual.
14:53
SPEAKER_01: MDC is horrific,
14:54
SPEAKER_01: and its horror has featured in the news frequently recently,
14:58
SPEAKER_01: and they went all out with that news in their brief.
15:01
SPEAKER_01: And the pitch was more or less, you might not be able to fix MDC, which is a horror show.
15:06
SPEAKER_01: There's all suicides and murders and all this stuff, but at least you cannot put this guy there.
15:10
SPEAKER_01: So the judge did not go with that, although many judges have been very critical of MDC.
15:16
SPEAKER_01: And just a slightly dissent from something you said earlier,
15:18
SPEAKER_01: Josh,
15:19
SPEAKER_01: the judges were careful not to make the detention order premised on
15:23
SPEAKER_01: on the presumption in this case.
15:24
SPEAKER_01: They made a record that no matter what I found,
15:26
SPEAKER_01: you know,
15:27
SPEAKER_01: they went further to weigh the evidence because that's the way to make a
15:30
SPEAKER_01: bulletproof on appeal.
15:33
SPEAKER_00: Another major federal indictment that came down this week was of Ryan Wesley Routh,
15:37
SPEAKER_00: who appears to have attempted to kill presidential candidate Donald Trump,
15:41
SPEAKER_00: was laying in wait near his golf course in Florida,
15:45
SPEAKER_00: was found by the Secret Service and was arrested after he ran away from there.
15:51
SPEAKER_00: He was there with a with a rifle.
15:54
SPEAKER_00: And so he's been arrested and he's been federally charged with possession of a
15:57
SPEAKER_00: firearm by a felon and possession of a weapon with an obliterated serial number.
16:01
SPEAKER_00: So he had that gun.
16:02
SPEAKER_00: He wasn't supposed to have the gun.
16:03
SPEAKER_00: It was supposed to have a serial number,
16:04
SPEAKER_00: notably not charged with anything specifically having to do with trying to kill a
16:08
SPEAKER_00: presidential candidate.
16:10
SPEAKER_00: And so is that just,
16:10
SPEAKER_00: you know,
16:11
SPEAKER_00: you file the charges as soon as you can with whatever is easiest and then they'll
16:15
SPEAKER_00: come back later with something else?
16:16
SPEAKER_01: Exactly.
16:17
SPEAKER_01: Those were pretty easy because he is a felon.
16:19
SPEAKER_01: They can trace him to the gun pretty easily.
16:21
SPEAKER_01: The gun does have an obliterated sidereal number.
16:25
SPEAKER_01: It's the easiest, quickest charge to do.
16:28
SPEAKER_01: And it's kind of a placeholder while they figure out if there's anything else.
16:31
SPEAKER_01: You know,
16:31
SPEAKER_01: as we talked before,
16:33
SPEAKER_01: after the last attempted assassination of Donald Trump,
16:37
SPEAKER_01: there isn't really a broad federal law that applies to attempting to assassinate
16:42
SPEAKER_01: presidential candidates.
16:45
SPEAKER_01: You can do things like,
16:46
SPEAKER_01: as some people pointed out,
16:48
SPEAKER_01: improperly intruding into an area controlled by the Secret Service,
16:51
SPEAKER_01: but there's no federal law against assassinating a presidential candidate per se.
16:57
SPEAKER_01: So likely,
16:59
SPEAKER_01: the locals are going to see whether or not they can put together that type of case,
17:04
SPEAKER_01: which would be more serious.
17:05
SPEAKER_01: Although the feds can hit them with years and years of time for a felon in
17:09
SPEAKER_01: possession charge if that's what they decide to do.
17:12
SPEAKER_01: And if the
17:13
SPEAKER_01: You know,
17:14
SPEAKER_01: his argument is probably going to be that he's crazy and that he didn't really have
17:18
SPEAKER_01: the intent to assassinate Trump.
17:20
SPEAKER_01: He was just going to, you know, whatever it is.
17:22
SPEAKER_00: Well, but what does that have to do with his defense in a gun possession case?
17:26
SPEAKER_01: No, I mean, that would be his defense if Florida tries to charge him with attempted murder of Trump.
17:33
SPEAKER_01: There's no hint that anyone else is involved, so they don't have a conspiracy.
17:36
SPEAKER_01: So but attempted murder, they have to show you the specific intent to go in and kill Trump.
17:40
SPEAKER_00: Maybe they'll find diary entries or something that'll be useful evidence.
17:44
SPEAKER_00: But maybe they won't.
17:46
SPEAKER_00: Is this a situation where, you know, suppose he hadn't been a felon?
17:49
SPEAKER_00: Suppose he had a legally purchased firearm that had a serial number and he wasn't a
17:53
SPEAKER_00: felon and there wasn't any writing or,
17:56
SPEAKER_00: you know,
17:56
SPEAKER_00: other record that indicated his intent here and he didn't conspire with anybody else.
18:01
SPEAKER_00: Is it possible that he would be getting off?
18:04
SPEAKER_01: You know,
18:04
SPEAKER_01: the Secret Service shot at him and when the cops or the feds shoot at you,
18:09
SPEAKER_01: you can usually count on them finding some excuse to do so and coming up with some charge.
18:13
SPEAKER_01: I'm confident they would have found something to do.
18:18
SPEAKER_01: Probably something like, you know, attempt to enter a control area controlled by the Secret Service.
18:24
SPEAKER_01: Something like that.
18:25
SPEAKER_01: But his background is of great concern and demonstrates sort of long-term mental health issues.
18:32
SPEAKER_01: And those may complicate anything that requires proving his intent somewhat.
18:39
SPEAKER_01: So we'll have to see.
18:48
SPEAKER_00: We have a number of defamation cases to discuss this week.
18:51
SPEAKER_00: And it's like when it rains, it pours, Ken.
18:52
SPEAKER_00: There's so much defamation for us to talk about these days.
18:57
SPEAKER_01: It's nothing but Rico and defamation, Josh.
18:59
SPEAKER_01: Just Rico and defamation.
19:01
SPEAKER_00: Let's start with Gary Shapley and Joseph Ziegler.
19:03
SPEAKER_00: These are the IRS investigators who,
19:06
SPEAKER_00: you know,
19:07
SPEAKER_00: the whistleblowers who came forward and said the feds are going easy on Hunter Biden.
19:12
SPEAKER_00: And they were testifying before Congress and various things like that.
19:16
SPEAKER_00: But it seemed to have successfully derailed what was going to be a plea agreement
19:19
SPEAKER_00: that Hunter Biden was going to take on.
19:21
SPEAKER_00: in the gun case and the tax case that were concerning him.
19:24
SPEAKER_00: Biden represented by prominent criminal defense attorney,
19:27
SPEAKER_00: Abby Lowell,
19:29
SPEAKER_00: who made a number of public statements about Shapely and Ziegler and accused them
19:33
SPEAKER_00: of leaking certain information.
19:34
SPEAKER_00: Now they're suing Lowell for defamation saying they didn't leak this stuff and that
19:38
SPEAKER_00: Lowell lied about them.
19:40
SPEAKER_00: And furthermore,
19:40
SPEAKER_00: he lied about them,
19:41
SPEAKER_00: not just in,
19:42
SPEAKER_00: you know,
19:43
SPEAKER_00: proceedings where he,
19:44
SPEAKER_00: you know,
19:45
SPEAKER_00: he might be immune from lawsuit over,
19:46
SPEAKER_00: you know,
19:47
SPEAKER_00: what you say about,
19:48
SPEAKER_00: perhaps to Congress, but they made various public statements that were defamatory.
19:51
SPEAKER_00: They're suing him over that.
19:52
SPEAKER_01: Right.
19:52
SPEAKER_01: So this is all about various things that Abby Lowell gave to Congress in response
20:00
SPEAKER_01: to congressional investigation,
20:02
SPEAKER_01: but crucially also released to the press.
20:05
SPEAKER_01: That's important because,
20:06
SPEAKER_01: as you know,
20:06
SPEAKER_01: many jurisdictions have something that's generally called a litigation privilege,
20:10
SPEAKER_01: that if you give something to Congress publicly,
20:13
SPEAKER_01: In a congressional proceeding, that can't be defamation.
20:15
SPEAKER_01: It's protected any more than it can be defamation if you file a brief in a case.
20:20
SPEAKER_01: But by,
20:20
SPEAKER_01: you know,
20:21
SPEAKER_01: that ends,
20:23
SPEAKER_01: the saying is on the courthouse steps or on the steps of Congress in this case.
20:27
SPEAKER_01: So their point is that he released a lot of this stuff accusing these guys of being
20:32
SPEAKER_01: the source of leaks,
20:33
SPEAKER_01: of breaking the law,
20:35
SPEAKER_01: all this type of thing.
20:37
SPEAKER_01: Their argument is that,
20:38
SPEAKER_01: in fact,
20:39
SPEAKER_01: he knew this wasn't true,
20:40
SPEAKER_01: that all this stuff had been released by Congress,
20:44
SPEAKER_01: that it was public,
20:45
SPEAKER_01: that he should have known or knew or should have known that they were not the
20:48
SPEAKER_01: source of it and that these are unprivileged false statements that caused all sorts
20:53
SPEAKER_01: of damages.
20:54
SPEAKER_00: Shapely and Siegler are public figures for this purpose?
20:57
SPEAKER_01: That's a good question.
20:59
SPEAKER_01: They may be limited purpose public figures for this,
21:03
SPEAKER_01: you know,
21:04
SPEAKER_01: just in this,
21:05
SPEAKER_01: that they somehow interjected themselves in it.
21:07
SPEAKER_01: Although the argument,
21:08
SPEAKER_01: the question is,
21:08
SPEAKER_01: if you're anonymous whistleblower,
21:09
SPEAKER_01: are you really a public figure?
21:12
SPEAKER_01: if anyone figures out who you are.
21:14
SPEAKER_01: I think they're probably limited purpose public figures for this whole mess.
21:18
SPEAKER_01: This is filed in federal court in DC.
21:21
SPEAKER_01: DC does have an anti-slap statute, although not an ideal one.
21:25
SPEAKER_01: I expect it to be a big fight over the free speech issues,
21:29
SPEAKER_01: although again,
21:31
SPEAKER_01: not as good of a stance as they could have been in had he only sent things to
21:35
SPEAKER_01: Congress and not released it to the press.
21:37
SPEAKER_00: Is this a matter for anti-SLAPP?
21:39
SPEAKER_00: I mean, are the statements that Lowell made necessarily constitutionally protected?
21:44
SPEAKER_00: Or is that a fact question about, you know, did they in fact leak non-public material?
21:49
SPEAKER_00: Is there any way to resolve this without actually getting into that fact finding?
21:53
SPEAKER_01: Well, anti-SLAPP statutes work, Josh.
21:55
SPEAKER_01: The first step is that the defendant has to say this falls under the SLAPP statute.
22:00
SPEAKER_01: And the SLAPP statute generally applies to usually statements made to legislative
22:07
SPEAKER_01: bodies or courts or statement made in public forums on issues of public interest.
22:12
SPEAKER_01: So most anti-SLAPP statutes of any worth would apply to something saying that you
22:17
SPEAKER_01: leaked this to the press,
22:18
SPEAKER_01: which is a public forum.
22:20
SPEAKER_01: Then the burden shifts to the plaintiff to show they have a probability of prevailing.
22:25
SPEAKER_01: And that's when the question comes in.
22:27
SPEAKER_01: Are these statements actually protected?
22:29
SPEAKER_01: Can they at least present evidence that the statements were false and that they
22:34
SPEAKER_01: weren't privileged in any way?
22:36
SPEAKER_00: Well, so we will continue watching that.
22:38
SPEAKER_00: Rudy Giuliani is not going to be continuing in court on a defamation claim that he
22:42
SPEAKER_00: brought against Joe Biden for statements that Biden made in a presidential debate
22:45
SPEAKER_00: back in 2020,
22:47
SPEAKER_00: where he referred to Rudy Giuliani as a Russian pawn.
22:50
SPEAKER_00: Giuliani did not take kindly to this.
22:53
SPEAKER_00: He sued Biden.
22:54
SPEAKER_00: He sued him in New Hampshire.
22:56
SPEAKER_00: And I guess the reason for this is that New Hampshire has a longer statute of
22:59
SPEAKER_00: limitations on defamation than certain other states.
23:01
SPEAKER_00: So it was he was out of time to sue in a more relevant place.
23:05
SPEAKER_00: So he filed in New Hampshire.
23:06
SPEAKER_00: But then the court in New Hampshire said, what are you doing here?
23:08
SPEAKER_00: This isn't a New Hampshire matter and dismissed it.
23:10
SPEAKER_01: So he did sue there over these Joe Biden 2020 debate statements saying that,
23:16
SPEAKER_01: you know,
23:16
SPEAKER_01: he was a dupe of the Russians and that type of thing relating to really relating to
23:21
SPEAKER_01: Hunter Biden's laptop and stuff like that.
23:24
SPEAKER_01: And yes,
23:25
SPEAKER_01: he went to New Hampshire,
23:26
SPEAKER_01: which has for some reason that I don't understand a three year statute of limitations.
23:29
SPEAKER_01: I guess they just think like if you're offended by something someone said for you,
23:33
SPEAKER_01: it sticks for a really long time in New Hampshire or something.
23:36
SPEAKER_00: Live free or die, Ken.
23:38
SPEAKER_01: I guess that could be.
23:39
SPEAKER_01: But live free or die within the next three years.
23:42
SPEAKER_01: I think that's the longest one in America.
23:44
SPEAKER_01: But he did not explain why it was being brought in New Hampshire and why crucially
23:50
SPEAKER_01: the court had personal jurisdiction over all the defendants including Joe Biden.
23:54
SPEAKER_01: So there are two types of personal jurisdiction.
23:57
SPEAKER_01: That is the court's authority to exercise power over you, the defendant.
24:02
SPEAKER_01: It can be general that you have such routine connection in the forum that,
24:07
SPEAKER_01: you know,
24:07
SPEAKER_01: like you live there,
24:08
SPEAKER_01: you have a business there,
24:09
SPEAKER_01: that the court can take power over you,
24:11
SPEAKER_01: or specific in that,
24:13
SPEAKER_01: you know,
24:13
SPEAKER_01: this thing they're suing you for is something you did to or about New Hampshire.
24:17
SPEAKER_01: And the court says is,
24:19
SPEAKER_01: they didn't even answer this motion.
24:21
SPEAKER_01: That's because he was claiming, oh, actually, I'm in bankruptcy.
24:24
SPEAKER_01: I can't answer.
24:25
SPEAKER_01: Then even when the bankruptcy was dismissed, he didn't answer.
24:29
SPEAKER_01: By the way,
24:29
SPEAKER_01: if you're the plaintiff in a case,
24:31
SPEAKER_01: that doesn't mean you can stop responding to motions and things like that,
24:34
SPEAKER_01: even if you are in bankruptcy.
24:36
SPEAKER_01: So he just basically abandoned the case.
24:38
SPEAKER_01: And the judge said,
24:39
SPEAKER_01: you've offered absolutely nothing to show that there's personal jurisdiction over
24:44
SPEAKER_01: Joe Biden or these entities.
24:46
SPEAKER_01: Now,
24:46
SPEAKER_01: I think if he had responded to the motion,
24:49
SPEAKER_01: it could have been interesting because,
24:51
SPEAKER_01: I mean,
24:51
SPEAKER_01: Joe Biden has spent,
24:52
SPEAKER_01: like many presidential candidates,
24:54
SPEAKER_01: plenty of time in New Hampshire over the years.
24:56
SPEAKER_00: Right.
25:03
SPEAKER_01: All the times he's campaigned for president and the times he's visited as president.
25:07
SPEAKER_01: Is that enough for general jurisdiction?
25:09
SPEAKER_01: I don't think that's a completely ridiculous proposition that it might be.
25:13
SPEAKER_00: But wait,
25:14
SPEAKER_00: it would be about generally whether he directs his commentary toward New Hampshire
25:19
SPEAKER_00: or visits New Hampshire?
25:20
SPEAKER_00: Because that statement made in a national presidential debate,
25:23
SPEAKER_00: it seems to me,
25:24
SPEAKER_00: has nothing more to do with New Hampshire than with any of the other 50 states.
25:27
SPEAKER_01: Right, but that's specific jurisdiction.
25:29
SPEAKER_01: I'm talking about general.
25:30
SPEAKER_01: So at some point,
25:31
SPEAKER_01: you visit a forum enough and do business in the forum enough and take advantage of
25:36
SPEAKER_01: the forum enough,
25:37
SPEAKER_01: the forum gets to exercise jurisdiction over you.
25:39
SPEAKER_01: And I would think there's a plausible argument that someone who has campaigned in
25:44
SPEAKER_01: New Hampshire however many times maybe has enough systematic connections with the
25:52
SPEAKER_01: forum to have general jurisdiction.
25:54
SPEAKER_00: Does it matter how recently you campaigned there?
25:56
SPEAKER_00: New Hampshire isn't the swing state it once was.
25:59
SPEAKER_00: Biden, I believe, won it by seven points in 2020.
26:01
SPEAKER_00: And I doubt that he went there late in the campaign.
26:05
SPEAKER_01: Yeah, that would be a factor.
26:07
SPEAKER_01: I'm just saying that if Rudy had bothered to respond,
26:10
SPEAKER_01: I wouldn't think it's a completely frivolous argument.
26:13
SPEAKER_00: And then I guess meanwhile, there had been a lawsuit from Hunter Biden against Giuliani over the laptop.
26:19
SPEAKER_01: Yeah, we missed this over the summer.
26:20
SPEAKER_01: Hunter Biden had sued Giuliani,
26:23
SPEAKER_01: one of his many aggressive cases that we talked about that were sort of out there
26:28
SPEAKER_01: stirring things up,
26:30
SPEAKER_01: saying that he improperly released some of the materials taken from the infamous laptop.
26:36
SPEAKER_01: He just agreed to dismiss that earlier in the summer,
26:41
SPEAKER_01: probably reflecting sort of a shift in priorities and strategies.
26:45
SPEAKER_01: It was never going to be a moneymaker thing.
26:48
SPEAKER_01: I think it was always to something as a wedge to get in the door and get discovery
26:53
SPEAKER_01: into things that would be helpful in the criminal cases,
26:55
SPEAKER_01: stuff like that.
26:57
SPEAKER_00: And then Tim Pool has a defamation suit.
27:00
SPEAKER_00: This one is amusing.
27:01
SPEAKER_00: Tim Pool,
27:02
SPEAKER_00: who's one of those right-wing YouTubers who was one of the dupes in the Russian
27:07
SPEAKER_00: FARA case who thought that he was getting money from some Belgian financier rather
27:12
SPEAKER_00: than from the Russians.
27:13
SPEAKER_00: He is suing Kamala Harris's campaign,
27:16
SPEAKER_00: and he's suing them because of a Twitter post that they made that included a clip
27:21
SPEAKER_00: from his podcast where he was interviewing Laura Loomer,
27:24
SPEAKER_00: this complete wackadoodle
27:27
SPEAKER_00: who has been spending increasing amounts of time around Donald Trump,
27:32
SPEAKER_00: flying on his plane,
27:33
SPEAKER_00: helping him prepare for debates,
27:34
SPEAKER_00: much to the irritation of certain Republican operatives.
27:36
SPEAKER_00: Anyway,
27:36
SPEAKER_00: Laura Loomer appears on Tim Pool's podcast and is talking about who should be
27:41
SPEAKER_00: executed once Donald Trump is president.
27:44
SPEAKER_00: Harris campaign tweets this out and says that Trump operatives are coming up with a
27:48
SPEAKER_00: plan to liquidate political opponents,
27:51
SPEAKER_00: that they support Project 2025 and blah,
27:52
SPEAKER_00: blah,
27:52
SPEAKER_00: blah.
27:53
SPEAKER_00: They're going to execute people.
27:55
SPEAKER_00: And so Tim Pool sues saying, I oppose the death penalty and I'm not a Trump operative.
28:00
SPEAKER_00: And they falsely accused me of holding positions that I do not hold.
28:05
SPEAKER_01: Yeah.
28:06
SPEAKER_01: The whole complaint is very badly done,
28:08
SPEAKER_01: and I'll let him find that out in the motion to dismiss exactly why.
28:11
SPEAKER_01: But it's riddled with errors.
28:15
SPEAKER_01: The most basic error,
28:16
SPEAKER_01: though,
28:16
SPEAKER_01: is it's not clear even from this tweet from the Harris campaign that they're saying
28:21
SPEAKER_01: that he is a Trump operative or that he is the one who's supporting 2025.
28:26
SPEAKER_01: I read it as
28:28
SPEAKER_01: referring to Laura Loomer,
28:29
SPEAKER_01: who clearly is a Trump operative and clearly does support 2025 and explicitly is in
28:35
SPEAKER_01: favor of executing Democrats.
28:37
SPEAKER_01: And the funny part is,
28:38
SPEAKER_01: to me,
28:38
SPEAKER_01: Tim Pool's big defense is,
28:40
SPEAKER_01: you know,
28:40
SPEAKER_01: he tries to style himself as like a classic liberal.
28:44
SPEAKER_01: Oh, actually, I'm in favor of all these broad liberal principles.
28:47
SPEAKER_00: The party left me.
28:49
SPEAKER_01: Yeah.
28:49
SPEAKER_01: The fact that I hang out with lots of people like Laura Loomer is just, you know,
28:53
SPEAKER_01: my open-mindedness and my commitment to open debate.
28:58
SPEAKER_01: But his pushback against Laura Loomer is really quite mild.
29:03
SPEAKER_01: And the proposition that he's some sort of crusader against the things that Trump
29:08
SPEAKER_01: and the 2025 Project want to do is pretty dubious.
29:11
SPEAKER_01: So I think this is really a sort of attention grab.
29:16
SPEAKER_01: It's lawfare.
29:18
SPEAKER_01: It's look at me taking on
29:21
SPEAKER_01: Kamala Harris,
29:21
SPEAKER_01: please forget that I was effectively a dupe of the Russians and too dumb to know I
29:26
SPEAKER_01: was getting paid indirectly by them.
29:30
SPEAKER_01: I actually think that Tim Pool may be too much of an idiot to be a Trump operative.
29:34
SPEAKER_00: Well, so I guess, I mean, the tweet said that Trump operatives, plural, were seeking to do this.
29:39
SPEAKER_00: So it has to have been referring to Loomer and at least one other person.
29:44
SPEAKER_00: Now,
29:44
SPEAKER_00: I guess that doesn't,
29:45
SPEAKER_00: you know,
29:45
SPEAKER_00: you could post a clip of one person saying this and talk about how that's something
29:49
SPEAKER_00: that that person and other people in her category are proposing to do.
29:52
SPEAKER_00: It doesn't mean you're referring to the interviewer.
29:54
SPEAKER_00: It also seems to me that it undermines Pool's own argument when he says,
29:58
SPEAKER_00: you know,
29:59
SPEAKER_00: they said Trump operatives are saying this,
30:00
SPEAKER_00: but I'm not a Trump operative and I don't say that.
30:03
SPEAKER_00: And it seems that goes to the idea that the tweet was never referring to him in the first place.
30:08
SPEAKER_01: Right.
30:08
SPEAKER_01: And also, I mean, Trump operative is a term of art.
30:13
SPEAKER_01: It doesn't have a specific definition.
30:15
SPEAKER_01: It's opinion based.
30:17
SPEAKER_00: Well, but it's ordinarily supposed to refer to someone who's in the employ of the campaign.
30:20
SPEAKER_00: It's not merely,
30:21
SPEAKER_00: you know,
30:21
SPEAKER_00: a sycophantic journalist is not an operative for the campaign,
30:25
SPEAKER_00: even if they,
30:26
SPEAKER_00: you know,
30:26
SPEAKER_00: act as though they were on the payroll.
30:28
SPEAKER_01: But,
30:28
SPEAKER_01: I mean,
30:28
SPEAKER_01: it's common in political debate,
30:30
SPEAKER_01: particularly on places like Twitter,
30:33
SPEAKER_01: to call anyone who favors a candidate an operative or a hack or a supporter or
30:37
SPEAKER_01: whatever it is.
30:39
SPEAKER_01: It's not a precise term.
30:41
SPEAKER_01: It's not like employee.
30:42
SPEAKER_01: So it's a tough case for him to do.
30:45
SPEAKER_01: And I think he's mostly doing it to disrupt, maybe to try to get discovery and to get headlines.
30:51
SPEAKER_01: And I'm sure he'll get the headlines.
30:53
SPEAKER_01: But I suspect the campaign will smack it down pretty hard.
30:57
SPEAKER_00: He won't get discovery.
30:58
SPEAKER_00: This will go on a motion to dismiss.
31:00
SPEAKER_01: I suspect it'll get hit very hard at the motion to dismiss stage.
31:04
SPEAKER_01: It's in West Virginia federal court.
31:06
SPEAKER_01: I don't believe there's a usable slap.
31:07
SPEAKER_01: But, you know, there are plenty of other issues that are ripe for adjudication on a motion to dismiss.
31:14
SPEAKER_00: Finally,
31:14
SPEAKER_00: this week,
31:15
SPEAKER_00: I would be remiss if we did not discuss Alina Haba,
31:17
SPEAKER_00: perhaps the most incompetent of Donald Trump's attorneys.
31:21
SPEAKER_00: Don't commit me to that.
31:22
SPEAKER_00: There's so many of them and so many of them are very stupid.
31:25
SPEAKER_00: It's hard for me off the top of my head to think of one of his attorneys who is worse than Alina Haba.
31:29
SPEAKER_01: Yeah, I mean, that is coming out ahead in a very hotly contested race right there.
31:35
SPEAKER_01: But she's sort of the archetype of the attorney who's Trump's attorney because she
31:39
SPEAKER_01: says or does whatever Trump wants.
31:42
SPEAKER_01: One of the things you might remember we talked about before is that when a staff
31:47
SPEAKER_01: member at the Bedminster Golf Resort was claiming sexual harassment there,
31:53
SPEAKER_01: she,
31:54
SPEAKER_01: while Trump's lawyer,
31:57
SPEAKER_01: went to this person
31:59
SPEAKER_01: That's not ethical, right?
32:01
SPEAKER_01: You're not supposed to do that.
32:02
SPEAKER_01: Right.
32:23
SPEAKER_01: Then,
32:24
SPEAKER_01: when she found out about this,
32:25
SPEAKER_01: the staffer,
32:27
SPEAKER_01: she brought this suit against them all,
32:30
SPEAKER_01: saying basically she was defrauded and coerced and all that.
32:33
SPEAKER_01: This past week, Alina Haba settled that for undisclosed terms.
32:39
SPEAKER_01: It would not surprise me if this still results in some sort of bar action.
32:43
SPEAKER_01: against Habba,
32:44
SPEAKER_01: if any of the facts that this former waitress at Bedminster says are true,
32:50
SPEAKER_01: then it absolutely should result in bar discipline.
32:54
SPEAKER_00: And then finally, before we go, I have a correction from last week.
32:56
SPEAKER_00: We killed someone.
32:57
SPEAKER_00: Rafael Cruz, Ted Cruz's father, is not dead like we said he was last week.
33:02
SPEAKER_00: He's 85.
33:04
SPEAKER_00: God, it was so long ago that he killed JFK.
33:07
SPEAKER_00: But he is still among the living.
33:09
SPEAKER_00: And so, Rafael Cruz, if you're listening out there, I want to apologize for killing you off.
33:12
SPEAKER_00: We want to welcome you back among the living.
33:14
SPEAKER_01: Although, I mean, Ted Cruz is his son.
33:16
SPEAKER_01: He probably wishes he were dead.
33:20
SPEAKER_00: Okay, Ken, I think we can leave it there.
33:22
SPEAKER_00: Thank you for speaking with me as always.
33:23
SPEAKER_01: Thank you as always, Josh.
33:25
SPEAKER_00: Serious Trouble is created and produced by Very Serious Media.
33:27
SPEAKER_00: That's me and Sarah Faye.
33:28
SPEAKER_00: Jennifer Swadik mixed this episode.
33:30
SPEAKER_00: Our theme music is by Joshua Mosier.
33:31
SPEAKER_00: Thanks for listening.
33:32
SPEAKER_00: We'll be back with more soon.
33:33
SPEAKER_01: See you next time.