OA275: Yes, Bill Barr Perjured Himself

Automatic TRANSCRIPT

The fans invariably guilty. Chicken salad on Brill's bond to be guilty of been to lure show. What's searching, the constitutions in breach. There is no one section just the vibe of things. Objection your honor what leading the witness. Brequet bullets lawyers. Welcome to opening arguments. The podcast that pairs inquisitive interviewer with the real life. Lawyer this podcast is sponsored by the law offices of p Andrew Torres LLC for entertainment purposes, is not intended as legal advice does not form attorney client relationship. Don't take legal advice from podcast. Hello. And welcome to opening arguments. This episode two hundred seventy five what a good number. I you know, what is the last episode? That's a good. You know, it maybe I should discuss this with Andrew before making these decisions, you know, what the heck I feel like you'll agree state. Stay tuned for solo arguments new podcast for mandatory. Right. Everybody's fantasies. Okay. How's it going? Andrew. It is killing fantastic. How are you? Permanently enraged is that a that? You're not. I'm definitely that. Because I don't use off. But fair thing to be Donald Trump's hype man was testified before congress. I don't know. If you saw it was interesting. I don't know why they got to do that. But I guess you get you get like one free hype. Man testimony is present is that how it works it in. You know, we have talked about this a lot. We're gonna talk about this allotted this episode. I think I hashtag it victory lap on on Twitter. I have never seen a public official embarrass himself. As thoroughly as as William boarded did did yesterday. It was just a performance that again, you know, you've got to step outside the shirts and skins. I I I like I like the way you put it on your SIM episode, and and briefly on here, which was a screen. Teaming fit about you know, Obama's attorney general meeting with Bill Clinton on the tarmac of of you know, out side of Air Force One for eighteen seconds versus Bill Barr who has obliterated the light. Right. Like you. You have to explain to people now to to Trump supporters that the attorney general is not the president. I wear. Here's somebody literally the attorney general in the. Ten the name. He's not the attorney president attorney for the president. Yeah. No that that's absolutely right. And it's an embarrassment. And you know, you you and I differ on this. I think but I it I think Bill bars career is done. I think there's gonna be consequences. I think he's going to resign. I think he's going to be forced out. I think it's I think that's that's gonna built and good luck. You'll have fun in that reality Andrews in some other dream world. That's fun. So that must be nice, but over here on planet earth where there's no adults left. I'm I'm thinking, I mean, the only way I think he would possibly be done is if they decide like his mission is over like, he's. You've done your duty. You may now retaliating like he's a undercover agent, and then he just gets to explode the the process of Justice and then leave like just walk away. Like a like a suicide bomber almost but one that gets away with it that kind of thing. The opposite of that. And not. I think it's just bombs. I guess the suicide part is his career's over. But like he did the job. He did what he needed to do. So that's that's the only way I see him leaving. But I don't think there's enough adults left. You know, because the Republicans had a hearing about why Hillary was not investigated more in also who's going to investigate the investigators investigate the investigators of the estimators. That's what they're hearing was. So all right, but we'll get all to to that and more. I am excited that you know, it sounds like you definitely think bar embarrassing himself. And I can't wait to hear an actual sober opinion. Based on what the position attorney general used to be you know, and talk about it from that angle and I'm excited for that historical trip down memory lane. But we'll see what the real world holds for us. I we need to make a couple of nouncement. We are going to do the patriot QNA it is time again, it's gonna be may as the memes. All say, it is may and that'll be this Sunday. That's the fifth at six PM eastern three PM Pacific time. So that's when we'll do the live Q and A as a reminder because those are the only two time zones that matter if you fly over country, this is a liberal elite assed snob show, you can figure out when it I mean, we it's really at any time if you incorporate all time zone. So it said every single time at that. We could tell I have not yet seen avengers and game. But we can tell you've seen a movie involving gay time a time traveling space wizard recently, so. So that just reminded that's on YouTube. Everybody can come watch. You can come in the chat and participate, but only our patrons get to ask the questions on patriot dot com slash law. That is that thread, I think is already up right because Andrews incredibly posting that and if not it'll be up as we speak that threat is only it's up it's out because Andrew never forgets, and you can ask questions there and also make sure to up both the questions that you like our heart them, I guess is the patriot lingo for that. And that way, it tells us like which questions you guys would most prefer to be answered. Because inevitably we do not have enough time to answer them all or even half of them because Andrew cannot do lightning rounds. Just I promised to do at least one lightning round on the next cue and a zoo. Lander can't turn left without turning all the way, right leg. It's that for lightning rounds for injuries. Like, yeah. I can do a lighting around. And then he talks for an hour. And you're like that you called it a lightning round. But it wasn't fast that that zoo Lander comparison is dead on. And and I have three of those suits in my closet. All right. Well, so that's we are going to try to we're actually gonna put off a lot of movies for a little bit. Because the problem is we've got too much stuff at the end of the month and one of us, I'm gonna tell you one of us is actually a real lawyer who has to do business. He stuff at the end of the beginnings of the month. And it's been adding up too much for that person. Again, it could be me could be could be anyone on the show. And I think having the lot off movies be more in the middle of the month will be will be better for schedule availability. So we'll also be nice to break it up so loud, the QNA will leave it where it is kind of right around the end of the month or the very beginning of the next month. And then the lot awful movies will be more toward the middle. And we'll we'll make sure that that doesn't leak toward the end of the he'll actually catch up and lap the Q. And you know, we'll make sure to stay consistent. So look for a lot of movies in a week or two at our lot awful movies is like me in gym class running like, you're on lap number. Three. And. Yeah. Oh, yeah. All right. Well, let's I was not a fast kid little. I was not. I was smaller than I am now. But it's still out still not speedy. That's okay. We'll we'll get. We'll get to when we get to it. And we've got to start this episode. People wanna dying to know all the things you think about the bar testimony. But first, we've got some quick Andrews was rights and wrongs us. So we've got my favorite Andrew was wrong ever. Which if you follow us on Twitter at open are not open arcs follows on Twitter. You would have seen this someone a amazing listener. Well, do you have this ready to go to you have acute up? Yeah. I do go to it is listener, Chris least famous rock, which by the way, that's an a plus Twitter name to at Mougel at Google Google at Mughal mogul, Chris did a great Andrew was wrong where 'cause Andrew said that the you like. The supreme court the fulcrum gets moved to the right Rio. Once once Scalia died and was replaced and all that are now. I guess it would be when Kennedy sorry when Kennedy retired. I think you were talking about in that move the fulcrum to the right, and then our physics friend. Chris Druce, a very helpful diagram official physics diagram. Go ahead and do you want to describe it? Yeah. So here's Chris point. Which is a dull for anybody. Who's taken physics in the past? However, slightly longer than it's been for me to have taken physics last the center of gravity of the court has shifted to the when that happens, the fulcrum switches to the left which like that's how fulcrum 's work or the lever is there, and there's just more weight on the right or left. But it depends on how you're talking about. But if you move the fulcrum to the right it actually makes the whole thing shift left. I think is the point. So so I guess someone left, but it's sort of like saying, oh, that's below par. You know that that was subpar. It's like, wait. That's good. It's sort of like that where if you say now, it has the wrong. Meaning if I if you were to say, oh, he moved the focus left. I think everyone would think the wrong thing. So I'm going to kind of defend you on this. However, the picture is hilarious. And I love it. It's the best injury was wrong. He Troy he drew up before. And after on the supreme court and look like you have to go, right? So I will include the link in the show notes. You should follow us on Twitter. You should follow muga mogul. And you should definitely check out the graphic. But but I was wrong. I should have said center of gravity. I said are you from those are not synonyms. There you go. That's we want to be physically accurate on the absolutely. All right. And then I guess we have another. I don't know if you're right or wrong. You don't have it listed here. So you'll just have to tell us veto, please answer. The question does the defense case hold water and drill is wrong. Are you? Sure. This is another thing I was wrong about. So that's probably why don't ever list it episode two seventy three which I really really enjoy it. We got some good good feedback on the storytelling of the the decline and and and assisted murder of Sears. Yeah. But in that I was talking about how after the K mart merger the new team came in and under eddy's directions sold off all of Sears is assets. And in my defense, the graph in the complaint was mislabeled along the Ying's, right? So the units were wrong, and what I said was combining both the narrative in the graph. That Sears went from eleven billion dollars in assets at the time of the takeover to four hundred thousand today and. At stupid, goalie Twitter, our buddy, Chris wrote to say, I it can't be four hundred thousand right. Like, it's it's it's Sears. They have to have more than four hundred thousand dollars and assets. That's like, you know, a an above average income in New York City, right? Yeah. And and and look that didn't trip my writer because it's entirely possible. That Sears, you know, all of the things that. Desperate. Yeah. Right. That you know, that that everything like on the shelves is depreciated, you know, that that the stores are now all leased so so that didn't strike me as impossible. But in fact, the axes were mislabeled they were labeled in millions. But they should have been labeled in billions. In four hundred thousand billion. I know no it the the little tics were labeled in millions and should have been able to be in the billions. And so it looked like it was, you know, four tenths of the way up to one million and it's four tenths of the way up to go yet. So Sears has four hundred million dollars in assets. Look that is still write a sell off of ninety seven percent of their assets in ten years. Right. It is the point is still made. But but no, they did not go from eleven billion two to four hundred thousand and that correct wonder splits hairs better William Barr when defending Trump or Andrew when talking about an Andrew with non just kidding. I'm. Slander. I shouldn't have I thought it was funny. Like the comparison of you defending your Andrews writes in Ron's like, no. A wrapping with the word asset and I had food poisoning over the weekend. So like, I've been violently sick to my stomach, and I don't know what hurt more way I felt this weekend or punch to the gut that I just I was just kidding Joe. All you know, what it was. It was a desire for a puzzle. A thunderstorm sketch is what it was. I want them to write a sketch where like you're defense. You're splitting hairs and defending. All right. You got one more. I think and this was this was Andrew was right. Yeah. So this goes back to episode to seventy two we responded to a listener question, a listener who wanted to defend Glenn Greenwald and also pointed us in the direction of a Byron York article in the Washington Examiner that said no that that bit about Trump trying to soften up the language in the GOP platform. I'm related to Russia and Ukraine that that that's all been debunked and only Glenn Greenwald had the courage to point that out. So we thoroughly debunked that debunking in two seventy two I will point out. Boy, this is not a good week to be Glenn Greenwald. Who said, you know, I can't believe MSNBC has gotten away with you know, suggesting that Bill bar lied about the contents of the Muller. Fino Glenn Greenwald. I'm sure he's come out with a heartfelt apology. Stay he doesn't lend was wrong segment, right constantly, so. Constantly. So I just want to point out in addition to all of the evidence that we put forth in episode two seventy two I went back and checked the molar report because the Muller report itself talks about there's a subsection on events at the Republican national convention, and Jay Dee Gordon who was a senior campaign adviser on policy in national security, testified to Muller's investigators. Right. So they have his testimony as to what actually happened. Here's how the Muller report summarizes it. I and again, we should point out. Just how narrow this is. It says the investigation did not establish that one campaign officials efforts to dilute a portion of the Republican party platform on providing assistance to Ukraine were undertaken at the behest of candidate Trump or Russia. And that is based on Gordon's testimony that being said if you go this is page, one twenty four of volume one, the Muller report in detail explains that in preparation for the twenty sixteen convention foreign policy advisers to the Trump campaign working with the R N C reviewed the twenty twelve conventions foreign policy platform to identified divergence between the earlier platform and candidate trumps positions. And then unambiguous statement the campaign team disgust toning down language from the twenty twelve platform that identified Russia as the country's number one threat. Given the candidates belief that there needed to be better US relations with Russia. That's from Gordon's testimony the RNC platform committee sent the twenty sixteen draft. So that that was not even the scandal that that occurred and this platfo. Mhm was drafted differently than you know, we told you in twenty twelve right Mitt Romney was right and Barack Obama owed him an apology right that identified Russia's the number one foreign policy threat right off the bat. Trump's Trump's team came in and said, we're not going to say that anymore. And then one twenty five describes the process exactly as we described it on an episode to seventy two and the person who flagged Denman's amendment was JD Gort, a member of the Trump campaign team. So we now know exactly what happened, and it is as close to accurate as you can get right. So it it even goes kind of a step before. Right. Like, I said, if the original Washington Post headline had just had the word historical in it. There would be no argument. I mean now, I I'm not sure that it even needs that right? Like, the the Trump team came in looked at twenty twelve and said, you know, we're going to be different from twenty twelve we're gonna be softer on Russia. And and the the Muller investigation has said now, look we can't prove that's because they got a giant sack of money and Intel from the Russians, but by the way, they got Intel from the Russians and maybe giant sack bunny? We don't know I those are not hard dots to connect. So there we go not giving up on the story. This administration is soft on Russia. That is an objective. Fact this administration has taken numerous policy positions to weaken the United States with respect to Russia. And as we talk about in the bar hearing, it is a Pauling the degree to which now to become a Trump defender. You have to not care about the security of the nation vis-a-vis a hostile foreign power. But I. Guess that's where Trump defenders are these days. And your the optimistic one thinks there's gonna be consequences for bar after after you just say, you know, well. Was to believe yet. There we go. Okay. We'll get to get to bought with. Let's finally everybody. We're going to get to the main subject today, which is the bar testimony. I just want to check with something. So by way of introduction. What I learned from watching this testimony is Andrew I believe it's illegal to tamper with investigation. Yeah. That's called obstruction with Justice unless you pinky swear that it's a witch hunt. And then you it's fine game on right? Is that that's what I gather from from bar. It bars answers were nonsensical have resulted in the most vociferiously pro-trump circles. Right. The institutional defenders the sycophants and flax on Fox News. And and folks who right for the national review to retreat to this argument. Okay. And and this is a near direct quote that I have seen on Fox News and written in the national review. And that is well, you know, sure Bill bar probably shouldn't have written that ridiculous memo. But like everybody's got the full Muller report now. So what does it matter that that is literally the positions that they have been forced to retreat to because it because bars actions are indefensible and and look. There's an easy way to determine whether bars actions are are indefensible, and that is just looked to see if all of a sudden now you're Cathy is a big fan of Bill bar, right? The guy with the mega hat, and the, you know pickup truck with the decal of Donald Trump peeing on liberals, which by the way is parked down the street from my house got it is I'm not I'm not that is not a disparagement of pickup truck owners describing an actual pickup truck at my neighborhood. That makes me vomit every time. I jog by. If it had a lot of vomiting lately decide side now look into that. Okay. On the Eli Bosnich diet. No, look, the fact that those guys are now out on Twitter, Bill are greatest attorney general tells you everything you need to know. Right tells you that bar is a flag waving hat wearing member of the team. Now, that's not the job of the attorney general, and and again, right there are folks who out of self-interest do not want that to be the job of the attorney general there are Republicans who care about that. I I have to believe now. Lindsey Graham, right? Like, I agree with that not not the Trump hijacked wing of the party. But, but, but this is you know, it's an embarrassment. So yeah. So one of the questions is whether or not bar perjured himself by giving this kind of inaccurate answer. Now once this letter was leaked this molar. Let. Her which I'm sure you're going to talk about it kind of put lie to some of bars previous testimony when he said something along the lines that he didn't know whether or not Muller agreed with a summary that kind of thing. So I wanna wanna hear all about that from your angle whether or not he perjured himself, if I were to take a guess, it would be that. Because you can never prove without a doubt that he said in his heart forty five times in a row, I want to perjure myself, and then Roni mail saying I would like to perjure myself, and then send it to everybody like unless you have that level of intent evidence I've learned as you can never prove this. But what do you think too pessimistic? I think you're too pessimistic. So I'm gonna say this Bill bar perjured himself and poli moly. Yeah. It it's it's odd to me. I'm gonna link right? Because I know what you're talking about. I'm gonna Lincoln example, right from the New York magazine. But there are lots of sources on the left that I think are sort of weirdly. Like buying into kinda the Greenwald narrative allow L, you know, since there don't seem to be any consequences for anything. You know? Let's get law professors and say, well, this is probably perjury. But who knows it's super hard to poll on hold. Okay. This is not a. This is an opening arguments that this is like the bribery bribery. Hold on. Sorry. Like, the rivalry laws that you know, are nothing like you cannot you have to prove like intent to an insane degree this. This is I'm getting this from opening arguments history. Like there was I think back during the cavenaugh hearings. I think it was where we talked about the possibility of someone of him having perjured himself in it sounded if I remember, right? It seems like the bar is set pretty high. But now, I'm very curious to hear us zagging when I thought you were going to zig, so let's hear it. So so look as a as kind of a top line matter. Right. If you wanna get on a lawyer or law, professor to say, hey, it's really really hard to prove perjury. And it's really really hard to prove specific intent that that's all true. Right. Like that that you can you can say. That. And that's what a lot of these articles are saying, right? So for example, you know, the, the New York magazine piece is entitled Bill bar didn't commit perjury, but still misled congress, right? And and I'm just using this one is example, I've read a dozen articles that yeah. That that come to the same the come to the same conclusion. Here's what I think. They're not getting right? That is look. It is it is certainly the case that it is difficult to prove that a statement is false. But here's the statement that is false. Okay. During so bar. I testified as as any general regarding the the mullahs report to congress on April ninth and tenth on April tenth, my Senator, Maryland, Senator Chris van Holland asked bar if Muller supported the four page summary letter that he disseminated and bars answer was I don't know whether Bob Muller supported my conclusion. Now. Let sidebar for a minute and talk about how hard it is to prove. We've talked about how the standard in perjury is to give him a vase of answer one. That is literally true but not responsive, right? Yeah. Gaulish with right. Yeah. With that woman. Well, you know, I did have sex with the woman outside of wedlock, right? Like, and and you don't answer the question and a bad lawyers like, okay? Well, now, I'm gonna move on. Right. And and what the supreme court has said is that the onus is on the lawyer to ask the question the right way. Right. And that's how people get out of perjury. They don't answer the question. And then when called upon to answer the question, they give an evasive answer until you give up. There's there's a couple of examples of that. Right. Like when we talk about the specific testimony. We talk about comma Harris, for example, at at the very beginning. Right. Like bar sort of wriggles his way out of of Kama Harris asking whether anybody in the administration suggested that they open up an investigation and eventually because she's only got five minutes. She sort of gets, you know. She's gotten all she's gonna get and she gives up and moves on which which is fine. That's an example of being evasive and not answering. But the I don't know I think people are used to. I don't recall, right. As a as an evasive answer. But but notice this is a specific question. Right. Do you know if Bob Muller supports your decision answer? I do not know, right? Right. That is an affirmative assertion of fact. Right. I I do not know now what we now have is documentary evidence that in fact, he did know that Bob Muller did not support his decision. You can't say I don't know when somebody has written you a letter. Yeah. We now have a letter dated March twenty seventh from Bob Muller to Bill bar, and it recites the following facts. I it says, hey, look, you know, we prepared summaries for you that could be released to the public that clearly don't violate rule federal criminal procedure sixty they don't contain grain jury test. There. Don't concern about reductions you could release these to the public. We asked you to released to the public. And then here's this paragraph three here's what it says. As we stated in our meeting of March fifth and reiterated to the department early in the afternoon of March twenty fourth that's right before that is Sunday immediately before bar releases letter. Yeah, the introductions and executive summaries of our two volume report accurately summarized this office working conclusions. Then it says, and at this is the unambiguous part the summary letter that department sent to congress and released to the public late in the afternoon of March twenty fourth did not fully capture the context, nature and. Substance of this offices work and conclusions. We communicated that concern to the department on the morning of March twenty fifth. So look, and I could you know, this whole letter is only page an couple of lines the only in the show notes, you should read it if you haven't already. There is no way know if intent means anything, right? And and and again, our argument on the show has not been intent means there's not a crime. It means in tempings, it's tough. But when somebody communicates to you three weeks before you do it immediately before you do it immediately after you do it. And then the two days after that, it is really really hard for you to step up on the stand and go. Yeah. I have no idea. I do not know if he supports my conclusion, you did know that and to me that is unambiguous we autumn everybody. It's over. I I I really really do look like as we know through all of this, right? Like, remember, how you felt the first two days after bars letter came out regarding the Muller report, the I we came on here. And and told you that letter was deliberately misleading and hang on the narrative is going to change. And and the narrative changed when the evidence came out. It was even worse than we could have possibly thought. I it I think like I am tempted. The show notes may be Bill Barr show title may be Bill bar maybe out of a job by the time. You get this. I believe that. I look I'm not, and I don't think he will be out of a job by the time this this show drops. But I do think that we are headed to a critical juncture, I who is the mysterious deity that you think is going to make this happen. Like, I get that on substance. It sounds. I totally agree. Like, I it was never a doubt that he actually totally lied and stuff. I just thought it was going to be some, you know, weasel words that get him out of it. But like even putting that aside and saying, okay, it's not he's can't weasels way out of this. He definitely perjured himself who is the person that's going to make some consequences happen because I that frankly, I don't see that in our world anymore. So what how does that work? Yeah. Let's process depends. So I I'm glad you asked step one. We get a letter from God that says this right? Like what it depends on somebody who is independent of Trump? Right. So so here's what needs to be. And I'm going to talk about a positive sign from the hearing that that I'm curious about your commentary on it. It needs to be the opposite of Lindsey Graham, right? Like, we're we're all watching what Lindsey Graham is doing. Here is somebody who called Trump a Kook and unfit to be president in two thousand sixteen right? And is now turned into Trump's fullest deepest throated defender. And and the reason for that is stunningly obvious, right? Lindsey Graham is standing for re-election in South Carolina in twenty twenty and he estimates that his likelihood of losing a primary to a. Stronger. Trump supporter is greater than his likelihood of losing a general election to a democrat. So he's become a howler monkey turned into the mouth of sarin. I get it. Yeah. Yep. Exactly. Right. So who's good who's good AMT tie, Lindsey Graham, right? Well, we already talked about Mitt Romney on on the Senate Judiciary committee a really really good candidate. And somebody who asked really good questions. The only Republican who asked was Ben Sasse from Nebraska. Right. And again, Ben Sasse is in no danger of losing his job. Right. Ben Sasse is no liberal. He's no friend of the show. But I believe right watching and listening to his questions. Right. I believe Ben's as who also is on the Senate intelligence committee that he's. Concerned about an atmosphere in which in order to be a Trump supporter. You now have to say, you know, I'm being hostile foreign powers bankrolled by billions of dollars are going to hijack our elections. Like what you going to do about it? Right. And SAS asked the question right of Bill bar. He said what imagine he said, I won't clarity here. If if China is hacking elections, right? Can a foreign government pay to have Democratic Party operatives on its payroll? And and what was not right. And he did not let that right? And and bars answer was like everything Barr says unbelievably evasive, right? Like bars answer, I went I get the transcript on this one. Because I wanted to make sure I I was recording it accurately bar said. Well, it depends upon the specific. Circumstances. The nature of the agreement who the person is representing are they representing the interests of foreign government. Are they foreign agent? It's a slippery area. This is not a slippery area. Right. I and and you could see in SAS troubled by that answer. Right. Ben Sasse turned and said, look, I want clarity. I'm this is when he said, I'm on the intelligence committee. We know there will be efforts to disrupt our elections in twenty twenty and I want to know I want the the nation's highest law enforcement official to to give directives to campaigns as to what they can. And can't do. So that we're not in this place and bar wouldn't do it. And I don't know if they collaborated I don't know if Koons changed his line of questioning, but he was followed by Chris coons from Delaware who who picked up on exactly that line of questioning and said, look what if North Korea offers a presidential candidate dirt. On a competitor in twenty twenty. Do you agree with me that that candidate should immediately contact the FBI and again bar gave a bar answer? Right. He says, well, you know, if if a foreign intelligence service does yes, right? Which is of course, exactly. The kind of hairline distinction you need to make in order to defend the Trump Tower. But isn't that not even true because the law is just a a doesn't the law doesn't say they have to be foreign intelligence? Does it? That you are one hundred percent like so a it is not a correct statement of the law the law. We've we've been through this dozen times, right? The relevant campaign law says that it's a violation of the election law for any party to solicit or receive or you know, in any way, anything of value from a foreign person party government agent. It's it's bilateral. It is similarly violation of the law for foreign agent to offer or attempt to offer anything of value to any campaign. Right. Like, the campaign laws unsurprisingly are super clear. Right. Foreign governments don't get to meddle in our elections. And and so a, you know, you have the attorney general summarizing the law incorrectly. That's kind of troubling. And and be you know, you have. The position where he's summarizing the law incorrectly and giving these hairline distinctions right in order to exonerate the Trump Tower meeting, right? And and you can see Ben Sasse going luck. If China wants to give Liz Warren, you know, dirt on Donald Trump in twenty twenty. I don't want her to get that. Right. And I don't want her to get like, he's I want there to be a bright line rule that says American political campaigns can't get assistance or offers of assistance from four it from ASTA foreign powers, and you know, what there is a bright line were whole it's called the election laws. And so really what that means is I want you to be consistent about how our election laws to be enforced, and the fact that Bill bar, isn't right. The fact that you have to be in that position in order to defend Trump like this is just one of the many tensions, right? And and look maybe it mattered, right? Maybe it matters. Nothing. Maybe it goes to the mad and bar sticks around and he's a laughing stock and Republican senators privately try and get the White House to dismiss him. And and it goes nowhere bars. Already said he's not going to testify today did not shift to testify just didn't show where the house I just didn't show. Just nounce are not going to appear before the house because I'm scared of it. And and look that the the house can seek contempt. They can get a bench warrant for his arrest. The the attorney general is not the president. There is no that it does not pose the same kinds of problems that you know, that trying to compel the testimony of the president does. And you know, there's a little bit of a game of chicken they're going on. And right now. Bar is sort of feeling like, you know, he's driving the more aggressive tractor. But I love that is the best seen in all of American cinema. I fight me on this. The the tractor chicken sequence from fort Lewis seen in American settle. I hadn't seen this. Anyway, we need to we need it entire episode on that. I'm sorry. But okay. So there's there's this tractor chicken going on. And you know, it's it's slow and it's going to be but I think bar will swerve. So that. Yeah. Definitely put the prediction down. Opening arguments is brought to you by hymns. Listen, folks, it can be embarrassing to go to the doctor for certain stuff. Sometimes I may just is because you gotta go in there, and I felt a form, and then the nurse Alaska about the stuff you just wrote. Oh, it's about a hair loss, be it sexual wellness. Oh, okay. And then they have clarify. And then the doctor comes in the till the doctor, and that's embarrassing, but hymns allows you to avoid all that time and potential embarrassment and extra money because four hymns dot com is the one stop shop for hair loss, skin care and sexual wellness for men, and they connect you with real doctors and medical grade solutions to things like hair loss, you know, people try gas station, supplements and other weird. Which Dr stuff that doesn't even work when there's actual science and actual prescription medication that could help hims uses well known generic quivalent to help you keep your hair, and they spare you that waiting room that awkward doctor. Visit they spare you hours of time potentially trying to get off work or something to go into the doctor pay a co pay. They they spare you all that go to four hymns dot com. You answer a few questions and a doctor will review it and can prescribe you what you need the products are then shipped directly to your door and the very same service exists for women's products as well at four hers dot com. Our listeners get a free trial month of hymns for just five dollars today right now while supplies last see website for full details and safety information. This would cost hundreds of dollars. If you went to the doctor or pharmacy. Go to four hymns dot com slash oh, that's F O R H I M S dot com slash oh. A four hymns dot com slash. Oh, a whether it's for hair loss or sexual wellness, or whatever it may be spare that awkward doctor visit checkout for him dot com. So just to just get you on record. I have to say before I impugn your character. Here. I have to say that the your episode on the bar memo being misleading, you know, was so right on and and so prescient and exactly right. And you predicted pretty much all this. And it was we should never stop doing Andrews was rights on that. Because you nailed it. However, the idea that Ben Sasse is going to come to our rescue and like slam the cuffs on barn. Get him at like, I just don't I don't understand the process by which this happens. Like, I get he might even send a Romney tweet. That's like very concerned. That's that's all I see happening. I'm concerned about some of the things going on cool. You're concerned. Awesome. That's what will happen same same as Romney. But so. There's our predictions. We can feel free to Wicky team feel free to hold us to these. I want to be held to it. I think Bill bar is done. I do not think you can continue in the job of attorney general when every Republican privately knows that you're a laughing stock and ever Republican privately knows that Trump is a laughingstock. Yeah. I agree. But but the president is not going to resign. The president can't be replaced with you know, some other flunky like a Bill bar, Ken and. Yeah. And and I think he will be Pence anyway. Yeah. No, I disagree. Okay. What else do you wanna talk about regarding bar? There's there's a lot. I was really impressed with commonly Harris's questions. I know you mentioned it already, but just the Cy DEA that she said has any has anybody in the White House as the president or anyone the White House recommended an investigation, or or you know, that kind of thing. And then I like how bar spent a few minutes trying to avoid it for you know, trying to split here. Oh, what's what's recommend was? That mean or what was the word? He he homed in just suggested. Yes, I'm stuck on the word suggested. And then she's just like, okay, cool. How about hinted did you gave him every synonym in the book just to get an answer? And then he went. I love it cared enough to travel. I'm trying to get a precise definition here on this word, and then he's like. Just made like a walrus noise. And then she's like, so. Well, he's he looks like a walrus in a video game who's gonna give I don't know. Like you're gonna help his glasses. I don't that's what he looks like to me anyway. And then he just he just decides he's just like kids video game. You know, like you're gonna help this walrus fight pollution or something. I don't know. That's what he looks like. Any just gives like a wise. And then she's like is that a yes, walrus or? No. And he's like, I don't care what who's gonna make me do anything. And she's like, you're right. I can't no one can make you anyone do anything now. And then he's like, okay, then and then it was over. I. I know. So yes, I. Official hitter physicians. Yes. To all of that. Yes. Watching Bill bar testifies like playing the water level in an in any you know, any s game from the nineteen nineties. I'm with you on that one in terms of frustration. And and you know, every time every five minutes, you gotta go back to the beginning. And there's like pointless obstacles being put in your path and things that are I love someone said something effective. Like, isn't it amazing that whenever Kamala Harris starts talking? Nobody can understand her. And hearing like this all the sudden it's what oh louder. Oh, oh, what's this word? Like all of a sudden magically just she's just incomprehensible. Yeah. She's she's we've talked about this before it in in particular. She came on my radar at the Jeff session confirmation hearings at a time in which. You know, my my position was boy, lots of senators use this time to grandstand, and you know, sort of make political points, but ask stupid questions, and she does the opposite. Right. Like, she asks very very pointed questions and doesn't give up until and again, this sort of illustrates the the weakness of the, you know, five minute at a time approach, right? Like, I she also kinda knows when like, okay, I got I gotta go now. Right. And and bar, you know, as as we pointed out, I mean, he he wriggles off the hook of the suggested question at the end, right? She, you know, he's like, I guess, I don't know. And she's like, okay. So your your answer is I don't know moving. Yeah. You don't know if someone in the White House suggested that you do an investigation that how how do you not know that and somebody just be like, so are you an idiot. The kids cannot be a follow up question. Oh. Question. Are you a more on that? Like, you just don't even know do, you know, what human sounds are do, you know, like? Am I wrong goes another note that this goes back to the reason you don't have to ask that question is goes back to what I said at the very beginning of the of the segment, right? I don't know is a definitive answer in in legal terms. Right. So saying if you get the proof later on yes, we won't get look again. It's really really hard to to prove perjury. But yeah, if there's an Email out there, if there's somebody who's willing to testify like, yeah. You know, Jerry. And we know Trump does not use use emails. Jared Kushner uses Email, right? I've talked to government employees who've said, yeah, we get we get emails from unsecured phone. That's like on still on his a separate. Yeah. It's you know, he's definitely still on his parents Verizon plan and using Kush sixty nine at AOL dot com. But. Got a little like logo down at the bottom. It. It's it. I mean. Greer's into my parents on limited data plan. I'm not leaving. Yeah. I've six well. I guess that makes sense that that she accepted the, I don't know. Well, Rasoun doesn't answer. So that later that can be like pleased play back the lawless noises. He made in this particular question answer. And I wanna I wanna compliment comma, Harris again in the sense that. Has anybody who listens to the show knows? I would be terrible in a five minute question. Yes. Origin of that. Who decides that why is it five minutes again because so that's just set by the Senate rules, and it's because in in general, these are not meant to be, you know, prosecutorial proceedings. The the house has already said or they've already said that they are considering when bar does testify using the cavenaugh, you know, delegate all of time. Why he's so scared. Absolutely. It is right. Because that's that's the only way to get anything done in a in a legal setting is to have, you know, two uninterrupted hours as as a block of time because you lay the foundational question. Then you EMMY, we we talked about this at great length when we were breaking down the the Alex Jones deposition, right Yele the foundational questions. You ask them. Open ended stuff you pin them down on a question. And then you show the contradiction. Right. It's the only way you can possibly get anything useful out of questioning somebody who's a lawyer. Right. And so obviously, you know, you there's no such thing as a as a as a legal. Gotcha question. Right. Like that is the, you know make way for a series of surprise witnesses each surprising than the last. Right. Like, there's no magic bullet. There's just kind of doing the hard work in laying the foundation, and you know, and so right. I mean, look at the reason we were able to lead this off with here's where bar definitely perjured himself was because Kris van Allen esta very specific question with a specific answer. And and you know wasn't. Didn't ask a question that allowed you to give, you know, an evasive, or in my opinion, kind of response, or you know, like contrast that with the responses that bar gave on you know? Well, so would any campaign candidate, you know, would any campaign have to turn over information got from a hostile foreign power? Well, if it came from a foreign intelligence service, right? Well, you know, that's classic. How you evade perjury. Non-answer answer. So so yes, my advice to members of the Senate Judiciary committee to anybody in congress who gets to ask a question of a hostile witness is ask a specific question that calls for a specific answer. Right. Yes. Or no eve the better. And and don't settle for anything other than an answer to that question. When you hear clarifiers ask the question be like, okay. I get that you said before what about an ask it without the clarifier. And you know, that's that's good. Good cross examination technique. Yeah. All in all. I mean, this is just like I said the meeting the show permanently enraged at this. Because it's it's watching the two realities. It's the weirdest thing. You know, you did it wasn't always this way. You're you're slightly older than I am was this. How it always was where you have a hearing and two sides. Dhs compete to have their reality. Be the reality. Like what it's era reminds me like when you're a kid, and you do the thing with your siblings. Like you pretend they're they're invisible. And you can't hear them. You know, like, oh do does anyone know where Thomas's whereas Tom it's like, that's what the Republicans do for their time. And you're like, no, I'm look, I know the fat like, for example, for example, Lindsey Graham off the bat says well Muller left, the decision to bar well as to whether or not to to build our weather's whether or not to charge Trump or whatever it's like, no he's specifically didn't like there's no am. I nuts. So one side can just make a new reality. And then the other side has to try to be like, no, this the reality is this is that how it always was it it absolutely was not always this way. And look the clearest proof that it was not always this way is in a sort of mini controv-. Versi in the democratic primary field right now the way in which Joe Biden conducted himself in the Clarence Thomas confirmation hearings. Right. It was the norm in which Joe Biden attacked and attempted to discredit Anita hill in favor of the Republican. Setting that up as the alternative like this the good old days. The never I'm not saying that that's obviously, right? I I've used the language indicate like I didn't support what Biden did at the time. And and I don't you know, I don't support it now. But but what I'm telling you you want. I've I've long talked about Bob Dole taking to the Senate floor to break the Jesse Helms filibuster on Martin Luther King day. Right. Like it. I wanted to come up with I wanna come up with an additional piece of evidence. But but no, right. It it. It was not like this the blame for this is in two components. It begins in the nineteen nineties with Newt Gingrich being elected to congress, and then ascending to the speakership. Newt Gingrich taught a class on literally taught a class on messaging on how to oppose president. Entin? And then a generation of idiots grew up listening to the Newt Gingrich class and then implemented that full scale with the Mitch McConnell. We are going to destroy the Obama presidency. We are going to prevent him from having any meaningful accomplishments. And now that's where we are. And it it. I'm sure we will get folks writing in you know, what about 'isms I it. I'm I am very confident on this assessment that while while partisanship has been with us since the eighteenth century, the the idea that you have competing world views that are, you know, artificially constructed reality is very very new. So no, it wasn't always like this. And yes, we have to find some way to get back to where we were. Back when congress could pass laws, but but we're not there. Oh can can. I do thirty seconds on rule sixty. Yeah. Thirty seconds. Sure. Thirty seconds everybody. Yeah. Such timers. Yep. Start the timers. I don't wanna leave without talking about Bill bars opening statement, which is everything you would expect from Bill bar, which is to say there's nothing in there that is perjury question, Mark. But there is everything in there that is ridiculously misleading. The key. Takeaway, the thing you need to know is that Barr says over and over again that that the primary reason he is not released. The unredacted report is grand jury information the disclosure of which is prohibited by federal rule of criminal procedure six e even congress has not received the unredacted the full unredacted Muller report, including the quote, six immaterial. I I want to tell you I will link rule. Sixty in the show notes, you you can read it rule. Six e sub three has exceptions. And the exceptions say that disclosure of grand jury matter may be made to an attorney for government for use in performing that attorney's duty to any government personnel, including those of St. state subdivision Indian tribe or foreign government than an attorney for the government considers necessary to assist in performing that attorney's duty to enforce federal criminal law or any person authorized by statute, it it further provides that you may petition the court to disclose grand jury material. So if Bill Barr were remotely, honest, if he were remotely interested in getting an unredacted copied, a congress he could have gone to any court. You could have gone to DC file. All day motion to release redacted material to to release unredacted material that would otherwise be subject to rule sixty and every court on the planet would have granted him that that request. He did not do. So there are numerous exceptions. This is a. It's as close to ally as you can get which is kind of we need to define that. That's what a bar is right. Something that is as close to ally as you can possibly XM you start this off with saying he actually did perjure himself. So it's not not in this opening statement. He did not perjure himself in that one. Boy, did is there, you know. And if we had a two hour show, I had a long I'm gonna have to cut pages had pages of by notes here. I had a long fiscally of this opening statement because it's just it is high octane nonsense. But, but that's the takeaway wants to know, if if you have maga- hat wearing friends out there who were so, you know, grand jury sixty tell them to read sixty and yeah. Who would Andrew the world you live in love it? Tell Trump supporters about six e. Yeah, everybody tell them to read that that that. That's how that goes say, look, what have you're saying that this material that can't be disclosed under rule sixty the federal criminal procedure. Have you read rule sixty? They don't even get that far. They just say which hunt and total exoneration. There's nothing now they don't even clan anyway. Okay. In Andrews world, everyone is smarter. And I do a like that. And I appreciate that about you that that's the world you live in the world for building. It's not it's not the world. I live in. But that's okay. That's yeah. I li-. I appreciate your your optimism as always. But Wicky team definitely write down those predictions that. I can be right. Andrew can be wrong. I mean, I'm rooting for you don't get me wrong. I'm rooting for you to be right. The bar will face some consequences. But I don't really think that's going to have an okay it is time to thank our. Patrons over a patriot dot com slash law. Our top patrons are hall of famers and reminder, patrons get those questions in for the QNA. That's happening Sunday on remind you again Sunday at six AM eastern. Three PM Pacific will be live on YouTube get over there and ask the questions on patriot dot com slash law and enter once you start us off with thanking our hall famers. Yeah. Thank you to stuff in polls to Sherry autistic. People aren't puzzles stop with the puzzle pieces that's a reference to. But I I support the idea that autistic people are definitely not puzzles to mount Shasta atheist has reached yoga mountain base camp. Yes. To Darth, Mandy pants. John Richards well-deserved patriot number two thirty nine Amon home brewing. And and boy how was that. How was that beer? Me had one thirteenth century sex and gravel truck lawyer impeachment brand laxative capable of handling the worst strategy, Adam Kosta, two bar prep, buddy dot com coming soon. Yeah. To Clarence Thomas the tank engine. Jailed and wall to Jennifer crock, and Jennifer, I apologize that. Apparently, we've been mispronouncing your name the whole time. But you know, minus pronunciations are all one hundred percent my fault. Thomas mispronunciation are part of what your also your fault. Bb PB b. To the cure for all tra- virus? Cut maps, we're gonna build a desktop MC. Outer on pay for it. GS V eccentric, contact each nature and substance listening to away while training for the poten- memorial death March Stephen Baltic tie Sandoval. Impeach Bill bar. Yes. Impeach Bill bar, the Muller files. I want to believe the truth is redacted guerilla skepticism Wikipedia is recruiting at G S O W team dot org to v Frank to. Hey, Alexa, turn off all the lights. God, I hope that works. If your ongoing matter persist for more than four hours lawyer, John builder BAC civil politics radio dot com. Fridays at seven pm eastern on valley. Free radio registry matters podcast, the difference between oral and rectal thermometers taste incorrectly. Pronouncing Latin to avoid the accidental summoning of demons to. Yes, Honey, buns to data heck dot. Com. Business automation, making the menial automak. Hold us in the team twenty twenty Eric Altman Thomas. Smith is my favorite attorney, injuries, a close second metoo, Michael Sampson. Chris Rowden love with your heart. Use your head for everything else to chemo valley exports for Australian red meat and craft beer. Michael Cohen is a no talent ask clown. Let me be totally clear like being totally clear getting off podcast Milo meed song hassling barred sl. Three L to redacted karaoke legend, Cosmo redacted blues. Redacted redacted Sam buck, Mike the intact divest. Join your labor union together. We bargained alone, we beg. And to imagine being Trump's secret service guard would you take bullet alley that one out there and Thomas took away the secondhand right maker of things out of other things? Hey, Lucy the Kiwi. Lawyer are you enjoying my OA recommendation, the fighting mongooses Andrews epitaph will link all his sources in the tone. Sources in the stone nuts. Andrew is my favorite lawyer Kim Kardashian is a distant last. No not last. There's lots lots before her like say Bill Maher, David in Brooklyn, Devin Nunes is as the arch nemesis of the taint team has Ken now, right? Anonymous butter cups legal services sent Bill bar hiss and growl letter eight three one cat law one incoming transmission from junior missions operations manager Nermin bundle weird Trump rolled his stats and got all natural ones. Monica Miller is if my favorite guest, Andrew Seidel is a close second. Oh, wow. That is I kind of maybe agree with you. That's a club. Both great. But that Monica Miller was accepted and all we're gonna get an angry emails from Randolph license supporters to. Oh, yeah. I mean, they're all great. Chris christoph? Go has fans. I mean, we've had let's be honest. We've had some great guests on the show we have. But Monica Miller was amazing. I I love that. And she was the most recent. So we can say she's. Favorite of all of our guests. She was recent willful, Ian with Melissa forethought weren't origins dot org. Your guide to legal terms from thirteenth centuries accident chug chug chug a Batman we need to talk about Bill bars. Sharpie huffing addiction. Derek Eddie, George. Duke of Earl Warren Jeffs Beck. Hansen. Brothers johnson. That does Batman death March is just called the DC cinematic universe. Barack Obama wrote about change of you dot com on Facebook. I saw that. I totally saw that. That's crazy. He he did he put it in his recommendations overturn citizens United to unseat, Michael. Big easy blasphemy a string of mostly unpronounceable characters. Brandon Smith when life gives you a lemon test make lemonade v American Legion. Time is my favorite Infinity stone realities a close second. Rhonda apple howler monkeys doing shots at the Kumi bar Malaika. Chandler advocates flinch volunteer with camp quest this summer camp quest dot org, saggy pants Sam, Dino, Greg Sullivan. I went oh. For eight in my bracket challenge anti perfect bracket for the win marijuana strain, named Spiro Agnew is some some ditch weed a will there's some cursing in their zebbie Matthew Vernon adopted homeless pet and an opposed decline in your docking Aaron gravity Trump conspired with WikiLeaks, Jeremiah's fancy microwave poor him in Anneli. Theresa gomez. Neal Gorsuch is a clown Horning monster ally Bosnich Mitchell to frustrated to be clever this week. I'm with you. Proven innocent candles the smell of freedom coming to an away merged or near you originalists must wear. Powdered wigs and only right with quilt pens. And finally, the number one all time. Great Conrad Michael's top patriot rage. Kohl's good luck catching him, you should all try and that's our top agents. Okay. It is time for t t t I'm glad that I end fellow lawyer, Monica Miller got the last week's question the same but wrong. That's there you go. Let's I like like if I'm going down in flames of taking everyone around me with me. I didn't did I make Monica Miller. Choose the esteemed lawyer who has argued in front of the supreme court, Monica Miller, choose the wrong answer. No. I did not. Or if I did then I'm amazing. How I made a lawyer who argue in front of the supreme court shoes the wrong answer. Either way looks good for me. So I was happy with last week. Let's see see what we can do this week. Oh, no, social this firm has ever failed the bar exam kidding. All right. Well from the land of food poisoning. I bring you a gross food themed law question. So you you eat six meals a day at McDonald's. This ought to be right up your alley. So here we go. A consumer became physically ill after drinking part of a bottle of soda. The contained a large decomposed snow. The consumer sued the store from which he had bought the soda to recover damages for her injuries. Yeah. The parties agreed that the snail had been put into the bottle during the bottling process over which the store had no control the parties. Also agreed that the snail would have been visible in the bottle before the consumer opened will the consumer be likely to prevail in an action against the store. So totally straightforward question here or your potentially answers, a no because the consumer could have seen the snail in the bottle before she drank out of it. Be no because the store was not responsible for the bottling process. See, yes. Because the consumer was injured by defective product sold to her by the store or d yes. Because the store had exclusive control over the bottle before selling it to the consumer. Wow. This seems hard actually not sure what I mean. There's there are many different plausible answers for this one for me because it's trying to say, oh, this nail would have been visible. So does that mean, you know, like if you drink something that obviously, you should notice his tainted? But you know, but but also the store could have seen it then. But also the store didn't do the bottling. This is a tough one. I see a lot. Okay. Let's just go through the answer. A no because the consumer could have seen the snail in the bottle before she drank out of it. You know? I'm gonna I'm gonna I'm gonna say it's not that. Because I don't think that it would be required that the consumer have that level of like awareness of the I'm just gonna say that that's not going be it, you know, like, maybe for all we know maybe the consumer was seeing impaired or you know, like didn't have their glasses on like, I don't think that should be what gets them out of being liable. I'm gonna I'm gonna go. No on a. Be no because the store was not responsible for the bottling process. I could see that being the answer. I'll leave that one in their see. Yes. Because the consumer was injured by defective product sold to her by the store that seems like the most straightforward one. I gotta leave that in their D. Yes. Because the store had exclusive control over the bottle before selling it to the consumer that that that's the kind of answer that sounds like, okay. They're bringing in the legal terminology from what I'm supposed to remember from law school exclusive control over the bottle before selling to the consumer. So will that be the better? Yes answer. So. Well, okay. Now that I reread the question, I think I was interpreting d- different way. Because I think the fact that question says the parties agreed that the snail had been put into the bottle during the bottling process over which the store had no control. I think that's that's probably means that yes. Because the store exclusive control over the bottle before selling it to the consumer. I was saying that to mean like they they had control of it for a time. But now, they think about it. I think that's contradictory. So I'll go ahead and eliminate d that's gonna be a could be some weird thing where it's right, but between BSE so be no because the sore is not responsible for the bottling or see. Yes. Because the consumer was injured by defective products still sold to buy the store. I don't know. 'cause I could see this going either way. I mean, if you give if you're a vendor, and you give a st- or like, you're a manufacturer rather something, and you give a product to be sold in stores and the products. Has like sealed, you know. And there's no reason for the store like what if what if it's a sealed bottle of Tylenol, but it was tainted in the, you know, in the Tylenol factory or something, you know, I don't is the store liable at it almost doesn't seem like they should be. However, does the fact that this should have been visible. Does that? I mean, I feel like the store would be liable. If there's some obviously spoiled milk, you know, even if it wasn't spoiled when they got it. So I this is tough. I'm gonna go ahead and pick see yes. Because the consumer was injured by defective products sold to her by the store. I'm not happy with it. I'm not like super in love with this answer. But I I'm gonna go with C. And I think if Monica Miller were here, she would probably pick something different. And be right. So I'm not too happy. But that's what I'm going with. All right. And if you'd like to play along with Thomas Yuna had a do that just share out this episode on social media include the hashtag TB include your answer, your reasons therefore, and we will pick a winner and shower. That person with never ending fame and fortune fame and fortune, not guaranteed. All right. Thanks for listening. And again, see us for that QNA and lot off movies will be coming at you in the middle of the month. Thanks for listening. And as always I'm so glad that Andrew lives in a more optimistic world than we do. But we'll find out which is the real world coming up in the next few weeks until Tuesday. Stay fresh cheese. Stay fresh cheese bags. Law. This has been opening arguments with Andrew and Thomas if you love the show and want to support trips oats, please visit our patriarch page at patriot dot com slash off. If you can't support a Spanish -ly, it'd be a big help. If you leave us a five star review on itunes, Stitcher or whatever podcast delivery via choline news. And be sure to tell all your friends about us for questions, suggestions and complaints Email us at open arguments at g mail dot com. The show notes and links on our website at WWW dot open. Argh dot com. Be sure. To like our page on Facebook and follows on Twitter at open arcs until next. This podcast is production of opening arguments. Media LLC all rights reserved. Opening arguments is produced with assistance of our editor. Brian sieg. Our production assistant, Ashley Smith and our researcher Deborah Smith special. Thanks to Theresa Gomez in the entire OA Wicky team, follow them at at a Wicky and a big thank you to our Facebook group, moderators Elisha, cook, Natalie Newell, Emily waters. Eric brewer and Brian check out the opening arguments Facebook community and finally thanks to Thomas Smith for creating the show's theme song, which is used with permission.

Coming up next