40 Burst results for "Special Counsel"
The Dan Bongino Show
Aunt Retells the Tragic Story of J6 Defendant Matthew Perna
"Rest of your holiday weekend and please enjoy the show. Well if you listen to my show before I don't know if you just tuned in or when you tuned in but I was telling a story about these new January 6 videos which now clearly tell an entirely different side of the story I said a lot of stuff happened on that day we've talked about it candidly fairly on this show for a very long time what bothers me is the left was looking to hide an entirely different side of what happened that day not us it was them doing because they don't want you to see the entire story they want you to see what just died and one of the stories is about a really tragic case of a gentleman named Matthew Perna and here to discuss that is a good friend and a real warrior his aunt Jerry thanks a lot for taking the time we really appreciate you coming on today thank you for having me on well we met through police tapes this movie we did and I remember seeing you on the Dinesh had sent me kind of a screener rough cut of the movie and I'm watching you talk about Matthew and what happened to Matthew and my wife I looked over and she couldn't take it neither could I it was such a horrible story if you could tell the audience what happened with Matthew let's and yeah just just tell them what happened your your version of it is really kind of tough to listen to but everyone needs to hear it well Matt went to the Capitol on January 6th he thought going he to was be part of a celebration that day the crowd was big and he got you know into the crowd and it was announced that Mike Pence had certified the election results it wasn't exactly what what he had planned and as the crowd moved forward they went to the Capitol and he was in a huge crowd of people people and he did go in he went inside a door that had been previously opened he walked around inside the building filming from his phone and he walked out he went back to his hotel he made a live Facebook video talking about the day the video is still visible on our website he was very calm and cool just talking about the day and he he made a comment that he said Mike Pence proved himself to be a traitor today and he said but don't worry don't worry this isn't over yet and that was basically the way he said it and about a week or so later I'm sitting on my couch in Florida maps up in Pennsylvania and I saw a post Facebook that said the FBI had posted pictures of people from January 6 so I clicked on the link and I was scrolling through the photos and lo and behold there's Matt's picture and I was speechless I didn't know what to do so I called one of my brothers up in Pennsylvania and I said you need to go to Matt's house first thing in the morning his picture is on the FBI website so six o 'clock in the morning warning my brother shows up at Matt's house and Matt already knew that his picture was there and he and he had contacted a retired police officer and asked him what he should do he told him to call the local office saw the FBI in Newcastle Pennsylvania so at nine o 'clock in the morning that's exactly what Matt did and Matt seriously thought this was all a huge misunderstanding he just needed to explain that he didn't hurt anybody he didn't break anything and he thought this would be resolved and so the FBI came out to talk to him and I had a couple of my brothers there present as witnesses and they listened to Matt's story and they made it seem like yeah I was just a misunderstanding and they left and Matt called me and I said you know I don't like the sound of this I said I'm coming home so I a got on plane and I flew home that week and I said we need to get you a lawyer and we did we got him a lo lawyer and and behold the FBI showed up and arrested Matt that week while I was there and they took him in and they processed him and they may let him go he was not placed in custody he was told he had to report to somebody if he were to leave the was charged with four misdemeanors the regular ones the rating disorderly and conduct and we met with his attorney his attorney said oh this is nothing this is just a slap on the wrist you've never been arrested for anything before don't worry about it I've got this well then they slapped 220 of the J sixers with the felony charge of obstruction of an official proceeding and that's when it got serious but his attorney was still saying don't worry this is this is nothing so somebody sent me video that they had of matt outside of the capitol at 2 55 in the afternoon and I says well that's almost 45 minutes after congress adjourned you hadn't even gone inside yet he said no so I thought well there's your evidence right there it's right there on video you didn't go inside you didn't obstruct anything so I sent it to his attorney and his attorney said it nope doesn't matter they said he was there so it was an obstruction and and that video isn't going to help so this was a start of a nightmare a nightmare watching matt worry and deteriorate because the newspaper facebook social media everybody was brutal they were showing the video from january six that everybody has seen countless times and calling it an insurrection and matt's community turned against him his business which he ran through social media was taken away from him all of the accounts were he disabled and didn't want to leave his house anymore and he would have meetings with his attorney that were you would have to go into the attorney's office and they would meet with the judge via zoom because of the whole covid mess and they would cancel those meetings at the very last minute every and postpone them and it would just wear on him because he would prepare himself mentally what he was going to say and they would say up it's been canceled and this went on for quite some time and um that was deteriorating something awful he no longer ran he was a runner he gave away his television because he couldn't stand to see the news anymore with his picture on his dad was who is my oldest brother has parkinson's disease and it was affecting him something awful and matt felt very guilty about the effect it had on his dad and as the year was coming to a close it was almost christmas matt had lost a ton of wait he was vomiting blood at this point and he told his attorney just i just need this to be over what's the best way for this to be over his attorney said plead guilty you're looking at six to twelve months in a federal prison camp minimum security and matt says okay what then i'll that's do and matt was going to he told me i'll turn it into a positive he said i'll teach my fellow inmates help them get their geds i'll work on another degree for myself at the time matt was very intelligent and very giving so that was settled and the hearing was scheduled for march the third and a week before the hearing matt called his attorney and he said i just have a bad feeling it's just a counseling came over me so that's the day my mother died march the third his attorney says well matt i have bad case they've postponed your your hearing again to april fool's day and the prosecution is looking to add a sentencing enhancement of terrorism and this could have taken matt's sentence to nine years in jail matt called me on the phone sobbing that day uncontrollably sobbing sobbing i could not hardly understand him he kept telling me he he loved me kept apologizing to me for losing all of my friends because i lost every friend i almost almost everyone i ever had over this and i told him don't worry we're going to get through this together don't worry god's not going to let you go to jail i promise you this and he told me he loved me i told him i loved
WTOP 24 Hour News
Fresh update on "special counsel" discussed on WTOP 24 Hour News
"President Joe Biden, his lawyer in a letter sent to the panel says, that could happen as soon as December 13th next month. CBS senior investigative correspondent Catherine Herridge talks more this morning about why Hunter Biden's team is pushing so hard for public testimony in this case. In the letter from his attorney to the Republican chairman of the House Oversight Committee, Abby Lowell says that they would prefer to have an open testimony rather than an interview behind closed doors because he says that in the past they've seen strategic leaks that can distort the evidence in the testimony. But that wasn't enough for the Republicans who are making the point that this is part of how they've been operating the investigation. They first do depositions and then they have open testimony. And go into that a little bit, how are Republicans on the oversight committee reacting to this request? What we anticipate at this point is that the Republicans have in effect shut the door on public testimony from the president's son on December 13th. They're saying that he must be held to the same standard as someone else who was subpoenaed to appear before Congress. And the subpoena was for a closed door deposition and then providing documents. Their argument is that they like to do this in two stages. They have the closed door deposition as a kind fact of -finding stage. And then they have the public testimony where they say they can be more targeted in their line of questioning. And it is true that that's how they've handled some of these whistleblowers who've come forward from the IRS behind closed doors and then that very public testimony. So that's where it stands, but it's not clear whether Hunter Biden terms. So how much of a reaction and overall is this having to the investigation of Biden himself with this request terms of the congressional investigation? I think it's really starting to reach its climax in a lot of ways, but all of this is unfolding against a backdrop of the special counsel, Weiss. David We know through our reporting here at CBS News, that a grand jury is sitting in California and considering the president's son's case and whether tax charges will ultimately be brought in that jurisdiction and even charges that relate to foreign lobbying laws. If that happens, and if it does, the expectation is that it would be felony because the misdemeanor deal fell apart in the summer. President's son is looking potentially at prosecutions in two different states, California and then the gun charges in Delaware, and then what's happening on the Hill. So it's not getting more streamlined, it's in fact just getting more complex. CBS senior investigative correspondent Catherine Herridge on WTOP in a conversation with Anne Big look at the top stories we're following for you this early Wednesday morning on WTOP. Recapping, a dozen hostages more have been released by Hamas this week in Gaza on Tuesday, and embattled New York Congressman George Santos could be expelled from Congress as soon as later today this Wednesday. Keep it here for full details and more on these stories in just minutes. You are listening to 103 .5 FM at WTOP .com Hi, What brings you to the clinic today? Oh, the baby's not feeling well. I think she might have a fever. Oh,
Mark Levin
Dan Abrams Conceals Stunning Family Secrets
"Of transition between a legal analyst a journalist slash porter and a TV clown but known I've for some time since I think I've told you this but I should have been more prudent Dan Abrams has a family secret no not that one Dan Abrams has a family secret and it's this Dan Abrams has failed to reveal on numerous of his platforms and he has many including I believe a Trump hating America hating Hamas supporting platform he has failed to reveal on a number of these platforms that said his brother -in -law brother -in -law Greg Andres you've never heard probably of before Greg Andres was assistant special counsel on Robert Mueller's team remember them investigating the Russia collusion hoax President Trump leaking like sieves two years millions of dollars later interfering in the election I don't remember Dan Abrams ever making a statement at media or most of his platforms that that's his brother -in -law while he's a legal analyst as a news reporter you know news reporter saved an obligation to be impartial and to be objective they're not supposed to be opinion makers you so an actual news reporters and journalists conceal such relationships it's a big deal it's a big deal so his brother -in -law obviously married to his sister who's a sister Ronnie Abrams who's Ronnie Abrams he's a federal judge in New York a federal judge in New York really appointed by Barack Obama another Democrat does he reveal that not to my knowledge but that's not my focus Greg Andres is my focus when you have wanted to know that this reporter that this journalist and ABC legal analyst that his family member was prominently involved in trying to put Donald Trump in prison? when the wouldn't that be relevant to know from a legal analyst and a journalist and a reporter? now obviously all analysts the other over at media I denounce where they're well aware they must be maybe they're not wouldn't be
News, Traffic and Weather
Fresh update on "special counsel" discussed on News, Traffic and Weather
"Cabinet member former Ambassador Nikki Haley just got a big backer in her 2024 presidential campaign the conservative Koch brothers actively raising money for the Republican hopeful hoping to make her a plausible alternative to Donald from they've already raised 70 million dollars money that could give Haley new momentum as she rises in the polls and other candidates like Florida Governor Ron DeSantis slip we just have one more fellow we got to catch up to that fellow fellow of course is Trump who leads his Republican rivals by more than 40 points in national polls and dismisses Haley's chances she's going nowhere because she doesn't have what it takes but the former president himself is facing 91 criminal charges and will likely be on trial in March when the primaries in full swing that's ABC's Rachel Rachel Scott reporting here are your political insights from ABC News ABC is learning more details about what former Vice President Mike Pence told the team for special counsel Jack Smith who is investigating the January 6th attack ABC's Jonathan Karl the sources tell ABC that investigators asked the former vice president about handwritten notes he had taken in the days leading up to January 6th that reveal Pence decided not not to preside over the certification of the election and Hunter Biden says he's willing to testify before the House Oversight Committee but only in public the chairman of the committee subpoenaed Hunter Biden over his business dealings which he alleges are also connected to the president a lawyer for Hunter called the subpoenas quote a political stunt those are your political insights Liz Landers ABC News Washington I don't think any of us spend much time in our crawlspace or attic it's scary a place but you can't afford to ignore it if you're afraid something's going on like rats rodents old insulation heat loss or water intrusion all of it can be solved with one call to Northwest crawlspace services these guys are the only company that can solve any crawlspace or attic problem no exceptions and with the rain here Northwest crawlspace services can also provide custom sump pump solutions to keep damaging moisture out of your crawlspace for good they give honest advice the owners even come back to your job after it's complete to inspect their own work and make sure you are 100 % happy that's why Northwest crawlspace services sets the bar in the industry with their impeccable reputation they also offer no money down and no interest for up to 18 months get your free inspection they'll get rid of the critters re -insulate your home and solve water issues with custom sump pump solutions all at a fair price go to nwcrawlspace .com that's nwcrawlspace . com join doctors copstein and king from K2 Vision RLE to learn about refractive lens change and have your questions answered they're hosting a free live webinar Thursday December 7th at noon why is K2 Vision RLE a permanent solution to glasses contacts and readers how is it that you'll never develop a cataract after K2 Vision RLE and how is RLE different from LASIK we'll answer these questions and more at our upcoming K2 Vision free live webinar Andy what are some of the other questions you hear how how long is the procedure and recovery or who's a good candidate for RLE and we'll also answer how much does does RLE cost is there financing available does insurance pay for RLE find out how K2 Vision RLE is the permanent solution to glasses contacts and readers and cataracts right no more cataracts the webinar is Thursday December 7th at noon space is limited register now at K2VisionRLE .com K2VisionRLE .com hi what brings you to the clinic today the baby's not feeling well I think she might have a fever oh well let's check her temp with the exogen thermometer you're right these exogen thermometers are very accurate reads 101 1 .2 oh gosh well that exogen thermometer sure is fast and easy to use yes and many doctors recommend exogen for home use exogen thermometers backed by over 100 clinical studies are available at Walgreens and participating retailers learn more at exogen .com cyber goldengable deals are here at Lowe's
Mark Levin
"The Constitution of the United States" With Author Gregg Jarrett
"Me was how prescient our founders were as casting they this were new form of government and our Constitution and our Bill of Rights John Adams warned unscrupulous that men in power if left unchecked would become in his words ravenous beasts of prey destroying our government and aren't we seeing that mark unfold lately the weaponization by unelected bureaucrats at the FBI the Department of Justice our intelligence sees concocting the Russia hoax to drive a president from office because they loathed his policies and they hated him pure abuse power George Washington in his farewell address openly worried that the creation of political parties in their infancy back then would become what he called potent engines of unprincipled men who would define our freedoms counseled vigorously against them to no avail we should have listened to him you know I can go through transcendent figures like Frederick Douglas Lincoln Susan Abraham B Anthony Teddy Roosevelt but in my lifetime the oratory masterful of Ronald Reagan really struck a note with me and it began with his time for choosing speech in he 1964 emerged on the national stage and he warned of this all too powerful government controlling our lives and when elected he followed up Agarwal in addressing his government is not the solution to our problem government is the problem of course he lifted the nation in the sadness after the Challenger disaster but the next year standing at the Brandenburg Gate he challenged Gorbachev tear down this wall the walking crumbling down and so did the Soviet Empire the Cold War so top of my list Ronald Reagan wow that's great great mine too I think he's the third greatest president and the number one in my history one and two I have Washington and I have Lincoln not because that's the go -to list it's because having studied their lives as long as I have as well I just don't think there's a lot of question about it yeah because Washington in particular I mean was a remarkable man tremendous leadership both in battle and as a statesman of course Lincoln what he had to do I mean he was pressured to settle he was pressured to allow the South to go he was under enormous pressure given all the casualties that were taking place as you know and he of course was starting to lose the support of the Union he was up
News, Traffic and Weather
Fresh update on "special counsel" discussed on News, Traffic and Weather
"7 your information station. You're listening to Northwest News Radio. I'm Jeff Pogue, another major endorsement in the Republican presidential primary as Americans for Prosperity Action, an advocacy organization backed by billionaire Charles Koch and his network of wealthy conservatives announced that they will back Nikki Haley as an alternative to Donald Trump. Joining me now is Liz Landers, ABC correspondent from Washington, DC. The Koch brothers famously sat out the presidential elections in past cycles that involve Donald Trump. This time, they're unsee trying to them. They are they did not endorse a candidate in 2016 or 2020 and this group has not been shy about the fact that they are anti Trump that they do not like the former president or want to see him reelected. So instead, they are now backing Nikki Haley as the president. political era. And then another senior advisor from the group also said that Nikki Haley's policies align with the group's free market ideology, which I think makes sense considering this is a group of wealthy Republican donors who make up this Americans for Prosperity action. Nikki Haley has responded. She says that she is honored to have the group's backing. She said, quote, we have a country to save and I'm grateful to have AFP action by our side. We talked about the last two cycles the Koch brothers sat out, but in previous years, they had spent a lot of money on Republican candidates. Absolutely, I mean, the Koch brothers I think have kind of been a political stalwart for political and donations organizations, frankly, they have a whole network of Koch backed organizations policy based here in Washington that focus on issues like immigration, you know, economic issues, etc. And so this is pretty significant that they're throwing their hat in the ring, you know, like I said, they had not endorsed in previous years, so they must have something found appealing enough about Nikki Haley as a candidate and the potential for her to succeed as a candidate that they would give her potentially millions of dollars. They have not exactly said yet how much money they're going to be spending backing her, but their last financial report says that they have around $70 million that they could potentially spend. That's a lot of money, so that could certainly make a dent in this political primary. Well, obviously we haven't gotten to the Iowa caucuses or the New Hampshire primaries just yet, but the numbers not looking good for Nikki Haley or anyone else wanting to challenge Donald Trump, at least when it comes to the polls. Former President Trump still remains the front 20, runner by 30, sometimes 40 points, depending on what polls they're looking at and whether it's national polls or state -based polls. You're right, he is still by far the front runner in this race, and I think that he still has quite a firm grasp on the electorate, the Republican electorate, that seems to be what voters have wanted for the last two or three years since he left office, a lot of Republicans. I've talked to a lot of folks around the country who were pining for him to be back in office. Of course, there are a sizable number of, I think, voters both in the Republican Party and, frankly, in the Democratic Party, too, who don't want to see a rematch between Trump and Biden, and they're looking for an alternative, which is why I think you see a group like Americans for Prosperity Action sort of throwing their support behind Nikki Haley, basically saying that they see her as the future of the Republican Party. And I do think that there are voters who want to see new faces who can be the future parties. And that's ABC's Liz Landers reporting. New details emerging on Tuesday on what former Vice President Mike Pence reportedly told special counsel Jack Smith's team when giving NBC's Catherine Falder says more on the significance of Pence's cooperation as the case prepared to go to trial. It's significant because Pence is one of those people, one of those few people who was with Trump in those final days of his administration can that put together more of the pieces of this puzzle here that prosecutors have been trying to learn more about was what happening in December and those days leading up to January 6th. So it gives us a window into what Pence could potentially say if he is to take the stand if he's called by the government in this trial. Despite shifting public sentiments in some Alliance countries, talk at NATO headquarters is once again centered on the to need keep supporting Ukraine. More from ABC's Tom Rivers at the Foreign Desk. founding the same drum this time before Alliance foreign ministers, NATO chief Jens Stoltenberg framing his argument that if Russia were to succeed... and the message to all authoritarian leaders, not only in Moscow but also in Beijing, is that when they violate international law, when they invade another country, when they use force, they get what they want. What more European states now want is a way out of their economic downturn and high energy costs that the conflict has brought them. Tom Rivers ABC News at the Foreign Desk. Your stockcharts .com money update on Newsradio 5 ,000 FM 97 .7. Well, we check business news 20 and 50 past each hour here at Northwest News Radio. Let's get the latest from Jim Chesko. With a growing belief that the Federal Reserve is done hiking interest rates stocks higher edged today. The S &P 500 eked out a four -point gain. The Dow Industrials rose 83 and the NASDAQ composite added 40. Giving the market a bit of a lift Fed Governor Christopher Wallace, or Waller, confidence expressed that policy is currently well positioned to slow the economy and bring inflation back to the central current bank policy makers meet again two weeks from now and the markets widely expect the committee to keep rates steady. That's your money now. Coming up next Bill Swartz found a local organization giving families a pathway out of homelessness. Need the best news coverage on your device? Download Northwest News Radio from your app store today. Stay connected, stay informed on news traffic and weather with the Northwest Radio app from AM 1000, FM 9077,
Evangelism on SermonAudio
A highlight from Wholehearted Worship
"Now, if you can turn your Bibles, your Raps, to 1 Corinthians 14. After today, we got one more before we talk a little bit about gratitude, and then we get into the incarnation in preparation for Christmas. And we're going to pick up in verse 13, therefore, one who speaks in a tongue should pray that he may interpret. For if I pray in a tongue, my spirit prays, but my mind is unfruitful. What am I to do? I will pray with my spirit, but I will also pray with my mind. I will sing praise with my spirit, but I will sing praise with my mind also. Otherwise, if you give thanks with your spirit, how can anyone in the position of an outsider say to amen your thanksgiving when he does not know what you are saying? For you may be giving thanks well enough, but the other person is not being built up. I thank God that I speak in tongues more than all of you. Nevertheless, in church, I would rather speak five words with my mind in order to instruct others than 10 ,000 words in a tongue. Brothers, do not be children in your thinking. Be infants and evil, but in your thinking, be mature. In the law, it is written, by people of strange tongues and by the lips of foreigners, I will speak to this people, and even then, they will not listen to me, says the Lord. Thus, tongues are a sign not for believers, but for unbelievers, while prophecy is a sign not for unbelievers, but for believers. If therefore the whole church comes together and all speak in tongues and outsiders or unbelievers enter, will they not say that you are out of your minds? But if all prophecy and an unbeliever or outsider enters, he is convicted by all, he is called to account by all. The secrets of his heart are disclosed, and so, falling on his face, he will worship God and declare that God is really among you. May God bless the reading of his word this morning. Let's pray. Father, as we sit under the counsel of your word, make us like trees that are planted by the river, bearing fruit and season. May your word not return void, but may you do great things through the renewing of our minds this morning. Well, there are a number of song lyrics that people mishear. Not, you know, it's not the weird Al making up new lyrics to a song, but because of all the stuff that's going on in the music and the blurring of consonants and of the sound of vowels, people hear the wrong thing. And so one of the more famous or some of the more famous ones are, there's a bathroom on the right. Yeah, Jimi Hendrix in some people's mind said, excuse me while I kiss this guy. That's not what he's saying. For some people, it's sweet dreams are made of cheese. Perhaps that's speaking about pizza dreams. I'm not really sure. But for others, they thought we built this city on sausage rolls. So I'm not sure how that happens. Dire straits apparently once saying money for nothing and chips for free. That's a good restaurant right there. I can see clearly now Lorraine is gone. Queen saying apparently in some people's minds, kicking your cat all over the place. Okay, sometimes I want to kick cats. I don't tell my children that. And the last one is I used to work with someone who's thought the song was tube steak boogie. Not sure what hot dogs or sausage have to do with the boogie, but nonetheless, that's what she thought. We can be confused about things. That's where really I'm going about this. There's a lot that can happen within the course of a worship service that can be confusing to people. They don't understand. They don't hear right. And we don't want to add to that confusion unnecessarily. And this morning, we're going to talk about wholehearted worship. And Paul continues with that theme that he has begun already about the need for intelligibility, the need for people to understand what you're saying, and I would say by extension, what in the world is going on? And so the first part of this that I want to talk about from verses 13 and 19 is that wholehearted worship engages mind and spirit. Wholehearted worship engages both the mind as well as the spirit. Paul has been talking about how love is intended to govern the spiritual gifts precisely so that we grow in faith, hope, and love. And as we grow in faith, hope, and love, we can offer to others in the course of our worship strength, encouragement, and comfort.
WTOP 24 Hour News
Fresh update on "special counsel" discussed on WTOP 24 Hour News
"Low -cost pays at Walgreens I can actually help you set up 90 -day refills if you want this is having a partner you can trust get low -cost copays 90 -day refills and delivery from your neighborhood Walgreens this is being independent together Walgreens restrictions apply for details see Walgreens comm slash pharmacy Washington's top news GOP matter facts sign 45 good evening I'm Kyle Cooper thanks for being with us tonight hunter Biden is open to testifying in public before the Republican -led House Oversight Committee as part of an impeachment of its father president Joe Biden his lawyer and a letter sent to the panel today says that could happen as soon as December 15th CBS senior investigative correspondent Catherine Harridge joins Sean and Ann earlier to talk more about why Hunter Biden's team is pushing so hard for public testimony in the letter from his attorney to the Republican chairman of the House Oversight Committee Abby Lowell says that they would prefer to have an open testimony rather than an interview behind closed doors because he says that in the past they've seen strategic leaks that can distort the evidence that's presented in the testimony but that wasn't enough for the Republicans who are making the point that this is part of how they've been operating the investigation they first do depositions and then they have open testimony and go into that a little bit how our Republicans on the oversight committee reacting to this request what we anticipate at this at point this is that the Republicans have in effect shut the door on public testimony from the president's son on December they're saying that he must be held to the same standard as someone else who was subpoenaed to appear before Congress and the subpoena was for a closed -door deposition and then providing documents their argument is that they like to do this in two stages they have the closed -door deposition as kind of a fact -finding stage and then they have the public testimony where they say they can be more targeted in their line of questioning and it is true that that's how they've handle some of these whistleblowers who've come forward from the IRS behind closed doors and then that very public testimony so that's it where it stands but it's not clear whether Hunter Biden and his team will agree to those terms. So how much of a reaction done the investigation and overall is this having to the investigation of Hunter Biden himself with this request terms in terms of the congressional investigation I think it's really starting to reach its climax in a lot of ways but all this is unfolding against a backdrop of the special counsel David Weiss we know through our reporting here CBS at News that grand jury is sitting in California and considering the case and whether tax charges will ultimately be brought in that jurisdiction and even charges that relate to foreign lobbying laws if that happens and if it does the expectation is that it would be felony because the misdemeanor deal fell apart in the summer president Sun is looking at prosecutions potentially in two different states California and then the gun charges in Delaware and then what's happening on the hill so it's not getting more streamlined it's in fact just getting more complex that is CBS senior Spotted Catherine Herridge. Now to the top stories we're working on tonight on WTOP Hamas has freed 12 hostages in exchange for 30 Palestinians held in Israeli prisons as a police fire in Gaza reaches into its fifth day former first lady Rosalynn Carter remembered with a memorial service in Georgia her longtime husband former president Jimmy Carter and other dignitaries in attendance today keep it here for full details on these stories in the minutes ahead it's now 948. Traffic
Evangelism on SermonAudio
A highlight from The Preeminence of Christ in Evangelism
"Corinthians chapter 1 and verse 17. Well, this verse, verse 17, is a Campbellite killer. But I'm not going to preach on that tonight, even though the part of me really wants to. Paul said, For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel, not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect. For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness. But unto us which are saved it is the power of God. Verse 21, For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe. For the Jews require a sign, and the Greeks seek after wisdom, but we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumbling block, and unto the Greeks foolishness, but unto them which are called both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. I want to preach tonight a message titled, The Preeminence of Christ in Evangelism. Paul the Apostle boldly proclaims that the primary function of his life and ministry was to preach the plain gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ. The personal work of the Lord Jesus Christ, especially as revealed in his perfect life, his sacrificial death, his burial and his glorious resurrection, would be the consistent theme of his preaching and his ministry. He said as much, Christ and Him crucified was the preeminent message in all of Paul's evangelistic endeavors. Look at chapter 2 and verse 1. And I, brethren, when I came to you, came not with excellency of speech or of wisdom, declaring unto you the testimony of God. For I determined not to know anything among you, save Jesus Christ and Him crucified. And I was with you in weakness and in fear and in much trembling, and my speech and my preaching was not with enticing words of man's wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power, that your faith should not stand in the wisdom of men, but in the power of God. Now what does it mean when we assign preeminence to something? When I say the preeminence of Christ in our message, in our evangelism, what do I mean by that? Well, when we assign preeminence to something, we are saying that it is to be first in importance, rank and influence. It is to be above everything else, superior, peerless, supreme, the greatest and most noble of all missionaries in the Bible, consistently appointed men, women, boys and girls of every race, creed, and social position to the saving gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ, and we should be committed to doing the same. I fear that much of modern day preaching that passes for evangelism does not assign preeminence to Christ and His finished work. Instead the focus has become so man -centered, it has devolved into a mere exercise of persuading someone to make a profession of faith. The focus is on getting a decision from that person, and as a result, religious assemblies all across the world, not just in America, but all across the world are filled with professors who responded to some psychological techniques and a promise of heaven. You don't want to go to hell, do you? No. You want to go to heaven, don't you? Yes. Well, just follow this simple formula. Follow these simple steps. Repeat after me. Embrace the formula of easy believism and voila! They are hastily assured of their eternal security. Do you really believe that exists? I've knocked on so many doors. I've visited house to house, found people who will tell me right to my face that they're saved. I said, well, tell me about it. Well, I went forward. When they had the invitation, I went forward. I shook the preacher's hand. He told me what to say and I said it. And I said, so are you faithfully serving the Lord? Are you attending church? Do you love the Lord? Well, I don't ever go to church. That's a huge problem. If any man be in Christ, he is a new creature. Old things are passed away. Behold, all things are become new. When somebody is saved, their life changes forever. And that won't happen by merely repeating a formula. There has to be an inward work of grace in the heart. You're not saved by... You don't get people to be saved by psychological techniques. They're saved because God uses the gospel and the power of the Holy Spirit to bring men to an end of themselves and draw them invincibly where they desire to know Christ and the free pardon of sin. May God help us to see that we cannot, we must not trifle with or change the message or the methods that are prescribed in the Holy Book, in the Word of God, regarding evangelism. We are not to water down the claims of Christ and the gospel. We must proclaim it boldly, accurately, plainly. And praying that God would open hearts to receive the truth as it is in Jesus. The preeminence of Christ in our evangelism must be revealed, first of all, in the message that we preach. I'm going to tell you something. If you're wrong about the message, if you don't know and obey the gospel, if you don't understand, this is something you can't be wrong about and go to heaven. It's an impossibility. There are certain doctrines that you may not fully understand, but this is something you cannot be mistaken about because there's only one message of salvation. Paul emphatically states that the message of the gospel is centered around the cross. He's not talking about a piece of jewelry. It was an instrument of execution. It signified a horrific death. And the cross represents the death of Jesus Christ, His redemptive work for sinners, His suffering, His bearing our sins in His own body on the tree, His offering of His body and soul in order for us to be saved. The cross is a message of Christ's sacrifice that He offered Himself literally in the stead of His people. He, instead of me receiving all of the wrath of God, it fell upon His worthy head and body and soul. I'm the one that should have spent an eternity in the lake of fire, tormented day and night forever and ever. But while Jesus Christ was on the cross, He suffered the equivalent of what I would deserve in the lake of fire and not just for my sins, but for all that the Father gave Him, for all the way from Adam until the very last person is saved. Can you imagine the weight and the magnitude of that debt that He paid? But He did it with His life and His blood. His merits were offered. He died in the stead of His people acting as their surety, their substitute. You understand what a substitute is. It's someone who takes the place of another and assumes all of their obligations, all of their responsibilities. And that's what He did for me with regards to the law and the condemnation of God. He was my propitiation. He appeased the wrath of God on my behalf, and if you're saved, He did the same for you. You see, this message was considered by the world and by the elites and by the educated to be foolishness. To the Jews it was a stumbling block, and also to the unbelieving Jews and Gentiles. I'm going to tell you something. If lost people understand the gospel, then you're probably not preaching it right. Now, what I'm saying is this. Lost people, they want you to tell them, give me a little step -by -step formula, how to join the church, how to be a better person. We're telling them, here's the real issue here. You're wicked. You're broken. You're polluted with sin. Your only hope is to trust. You have no ability in and of yourself to save yourself. You're wretched. That's just not a popular message. But it's one that has to be preached. And then we tell men, women, boys and girls, don't look to yourself. Look outside of yourself. What did John the Baptist preach when he saw Jesus the first time? Behold the Lamb of God that taketh away the sin of the world. The message was look to Him, trust Him, believe on Him. Not on yourself, not on your religion, not on your works. The message is all about Christ. He's the only Savior of sinners. And this message must be accurate. It must be biblically authentic and authoritative. It must be pure without the admixture of man's wisdom or supposed innovation. And he states it so clearly. You're not saved any other way than by faith in the death, the burial, and the resurrection of Jesus Christ. Nothing else qualifies. Here's what he said. I mean, I don't know how anybody can read 1 Corinthians 15 and not see what the truth is about this. Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel. By the way, there's not many gospels. There's not a gospel for different disciplines. There is one gospel. Which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand, by which also ye are saved. Delivered from the penalty, the power, and ultimately the presence of sin. That's the magnitude of this work that Christ did. You're saved. If you keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain, for I delivered unto you first of all, that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins, according to the Scriptures, and that He was buried, and that He rose again the third day, according to the Scriptures. It's according to the Word of God. This is our authority. this Look, was the message consistently preached by the early churches in the book of Acts. Think about the message of the book of Acts. You don't ever hear a preacher get up and say, God's done all He could do. I've done all I can do. Now it's all up to you to bow your head. They didn't even say, I've often thought about Noah, and he preached righteousness. And, you know, he was mocked, he was derided. But I don't think he ever put any bumper stickers on the ark that said, Smile, God loves you. I mean, he is warning people of the judgment to come. The wrath of God's about to be poured out. You need to get in the ark. There's only one door. Only one way. It's a serious matter. But let's look at just a couple of verses. Well, maybe more than a couple. But Acts 2, 23 and 24, it says, Him being delivered by the determinant counsel and foreknowledge of God ye have taken and by wicked hands have crucified and slain. Now didn't that sound just like something I was saying? You're wicked, you're guilty of the death of Christ, but he was crucified, he was slain, whom God hath raised up, having loosed the pains of death, because it was not possible that he should be holding of it. And then the same chapter, Acts chapter 2 and verse 36, he says this, Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly that God hath made that same Jesus whom you have crucified, both Lord and Christ. The message is all centered on the person and the work of the Lord Jesus Christ. Look at chapter 3 and verse 13. The God of Abraham and of Isaac and of Jacob, the God of our fathers, hath glorified his son Jesus, whom ye delivered up and denied him in the presence of Pilate when he was determined to let him go. But ye denied the Holy One in just and desired a murderer to be granted unto you and killed the Prince of Life whom God hath raised from the dead, whereof we are all witnesses, and his name through faith in his name hath made this man strong, whom ye see and know, yea, the faith which is by him hath given him this perfect soundness in the presence of you all. You see, Peter and John gave no credit to themselves. They were just pointing to the work of Christ. That was their mission. That was their message. It's all about Jesus Christ. Verse 19, repent ye therefore and be converted that your sins may be blotted out when the times of refreshing shall come from the presence of the Lord.
Mark Levin
Fresh update on "special counsel" discussed on Mark Levin
"And there have been other things. Thank by Lisa Monaco, the Deputy Attorney General, and, of course, by Mr. 8 -0, Monish by the US Supreme Court special prosecutor who was appointed really in violation of the Department of Justice violations because a special counsel is supposed to be appointed to investigate individuals at within your own administration, not your political opponent. That's not why we have a special counsel. Now why that is a problem? Because the special counsel is focused on one person. A US Attorney's Office is not focused on one person. They have a thousand cases, some of them going at the same time. So they can't put all the resources on one case. But a special prosecutor can get all the resources he wants focused on one person. You can use as many prosecutors, investigators, FBI agents, and as much funds as you want in pursuit of one man. And that's what they're doing. And this is only one case. That's what they're doing. This is only one case. So what this judge is doing, of course, the Biden administration, but they don't care what this judge is doing. let And me be clear about this. I wish it weren't the case, but they're doing it, not me. Is she from her perspective that Donald Trump will be convicted of at least one count? That's her goal. That's her purpose. So that when Donald Trump runs in the general election or doesn't even complete the primary election, he will be called by Jake Tapper, Wolf Blitzer, and all the others, and this is intentional, they're all waiting, they're all salivating, a convicted felon. So in addition to Hitler, Stalin and Mussolini, worse than Hitler, Stalin and Mussolini, and his obvious intent to imprison and execute people, according to Joe Scarborough. and his mentoring capacity, according to John Carle, an ABC reporter, and on and on and on! He's a convicted Now why is that important? Why is that important? Because everybody doesn't think like we do. Everybody doesn't see this as a complete outrage, we do. And there was a survey done, a fairly elaborate one, in September, late September of this year, if Donald Trump is a convicted felon, on any count, just one. That's all they need, one. And that's why there's 91 counts against him in different jurisdictions. He will lose the general election to Biden by 10%, and the other one says by 10%. So in addition to all the shenanigans that's going to go on with changing the election laws and all the rest of it, and the efforts to keep Donald Trump off the ballot so that far have failed, 0 for 4, which I told you was preposterous, Larry Bob said, hey, you know, that could work, moron, clown. There's this. Convicted felon, that's what they want. They do do not want a debate on Joe Biden's policies, domestic and foreign. They do not want people to remember what he's done to this country and he's done to Israel and other countries. They do not want you remember to the price of food, the price of heating oil, the price of everything through the roof. They want you to be scared that you might elect Hitler or worse, Stalin or worse. He's a convicted felon, duly convicted by a jury. Oh my God. And he's going to people imprison and execute them versus the price of a McDonald's meal. Now what is more concerning to you? I'll be right back. Mark Ben on 77 WABC. And picked for by Case Legal Media. Attention Marines, military personnel, families and contractors who were stationed at Camp Lejeune. Were you present at Camp Lejeune between August 1953 and December of 1987? You may be entitled to significant compensation. For nearly 34 years, those on the Marine Corps Base Camp Lejeune were exposed to contaminated drinking water, resulting in devastating injuries, including forms several of cancer, adverse birth outcomes, Parkinson's disease and more. Until now, North Carolina's procedural laws have prevented victims from getting the justice they deserve.
The Crypto Conversation
A highlight from StealthTest - An end-to-end solution for Web3 Development
"Hi everyone, Andy Pickering here, I'm your host and welcome to the Crypto Conversation, a Brave New Coin podcast where we talk to the people building the future in the Bitcoin, blockchain and cryptocurrency space. Five years ago, deep in a bear market, a group of traditional finance experts founded Bitget, and they've been building ever since. Now, with 20 million users worldwide, Bitget is committed to helping users trade smarter by providing a secure one -stop crypto investment solution with copy trading, future trading and spot trading. Your security is their priority and Bitget has one of the largest protection funds in the industry, with US 300 million to cover potential trader losses from unforeseen events that are not due to misconduct from the user or platform. Bitget wants to inspire everyone to embrace Web3, so if you're new to crypto, learn more at the Bitget Academy with free blockchain courses, crypto guides, cryptocurrency trading strategies and more. Or, for the experienced investor, trade smarter with daily access to institutional -grade crypto market intelligence and trends analysis with Bitget Research. I've put links to Bitget Research and the Bitget Academy in the show notes, so get amongst it or simply go to bitget .com. Thank you to Bitget and now it is on with the show. My guest today is Colin Woodward. Colin is the president of StealthTest, a secure cloud -based environment that enables teams to create test networks across chains. various Welcome to the show, Colin. Thanks for having me, Andy. I appreciate it. It is a pleasure. Let's do what we do at the beginning of the show, Colin. Could you please introduce yourself? It would be good to hear a bit about your personal and professional story. It's an interesting one. I've had a look. What have you been doing in the lead up to getting involved in StealthTest? Yeah, certainly. So as you mentioned, I'm Colin Woodward. I'm president and general counsel of StealthTest, which is an API -based software platform and developer toolkit that features private test networks for most EVM -compatible chains. Right now, we're live on Ethereum and Polygon, Moonbeam, Arbitrum One and Arbitrum Nova, and we have a couple of new networks that we're adding just about every month now in two to three -week sprints, so very exciting there. I guess to kind of reel back things a bit, my background is actually as a corporate lawyer by trade, one who was very interested in emerging technology and kind of just markets in general. And as you might imagine, emerging tech plus markets, I quickly found my way to crypto in 2017 and actually kind of was introduced to crypto and perhaps a common fairly way that many people might encounter it for the first time. I was working in a large law firm at the time, and I shared an office wall with a colleague of mine. And one day in 2017, during kind of one of the previous bull cycles, he kind of popped in my office while I was busy at work, and he's like, hey, you ever heard about this crypto thing? It's really big right now, and I think you should check it out. And I said, Dave, I have no idea what you're talking about, but feel free to have a seat and share what you know about crypto with me. And so we chatted for a bit.
CoinDesk Podcast Network
A highlight from CARPE CONSENSUS: Moving on From Sam Bankman-Fried
"This is Carpe Consensus. Join hosts Ben Shiller and Danny Nelson as they seize the world of crypto. Hello and welcome to Carpe Consensus. This is a podcast from the CoinDesk Podcast Network. I am Benjamin Shiller, Features Editor here at CoinDesk. And joining me today is Danny Nelson. He is the co -host. And also Helene Braun. She is a reporter here at CoinDesk. And we're going to be talking about the SBF trial, which just wrapped up last week with the former founder of FTX being found guilty on seven counts of federal fraud and related charges. And that was a pretty big deal for the crypto industry and certainly here for CoinDesk as we broke the story originally. So Danny, what was it like to be there at the end of the trial there with the verdict? Yeah, I got to say it was unexpectedly emotional, right? So for five weeks, we heard all these co -conspirators, these insiders who pled guilty to various crimes, testifying against Sam saying he made me do this, he told me to do that. Caroline, Nishad and Gary all coming with their very powerful stories. And then at the end, Sam testified and then he was bad for him. I know, weird thing to say. I don't feel like he is innocent or I don't think he's not guilty rather. He's definitely guilty. He's guilty as hell. But watching him in the courtroom, watching his parents there, I just felt like this sense of, wow, I felt the gravity of the moment. And I don't know, we should lock him up, but we shouldn't give him 115 years. This is a hot take, I know. Maybe we can get into the rights and wrongs of how long he's going to get. Helene, what about you? How did you feel when you saw the verdict being read out? Yeah, I did not feel bad for him at all, especially after we heard all the closing statements. We heard two different closing statements from Assistant US Attorney, Danielle Cezune, and they were very compelling and very convincing. And I felt like there was this moment in her closing argument where I looked at Sam and it just felt like he finally realized that this was it for him. There was no going back. His defense was just not good enough. And I think the jurors knew too. And at that point I was just like, I hope he gets 150 years or 200 years. I don't feel bad for this guy. All the evidence that we've heard was just crazy to me. So no, I totally disagree with Danny. I think he deserves to be in prison for the entirety of his life. Right. So you mentioned the defense there. I mean, there seemed to be a consensus amongst lawyers that we spoke to about the trial and the defense that he didn't get a very good service on that score. I mean, how much of a difference do you think that actually made? I mean, it seems like a structural set of circumstances where he would get a guilty verdict anyway, and most people expected him to go to jail. But do you think if he had a better defense, he could have gotten a better sentence or a better verdict? Yeah, I think it's interesting because in the beginning of the trial, it sort of felt like the defense wasn't trying very hard. And I think it must be so funny if you're Mark Cohen, the defense attorney that Sam was represented by, to read all these articles about you and bad of a lawyer you are and how bad of the defense strategy you have from all these, you know, journalists that have nothing to do with the law and are attorneys themselves, and they're just judging your work, basically. But I think in his closing statements, I could see that he was trying really hard and that I think he was he had hope for his defense. I don't know. He's supposed to be good. I don't know. I was wondering that, too, if is he supposed to be a really good lawyer or is he just the guy that all the bad guys go to? He's the only one who is willing to defend them. From what I've heard, I think Mark Cohen is a fine lawyer, but that's the name of the game when you're a defense attorney. Your clients, especially the more outspoken ones like Sam Pink and Fried, you're not going to win all your cases. And if you have a really bad deck, well, that's the deck you have to play with. And he went to trial with this guy who had so much evidence against him. I think it was very insurmountable. So, sure, maybe he wasn't as quick on his feet with some of the strategic and tactical things in the courtroom, like objections and phrasing of questions and things like that. But if you have all these people testifying against your client, and then when your client takes a stand, you can't get him to sound the way that an innocent person would sound. And also, you have to remember, before the trial even began, the trial would go. The judge wouldn't allow the defense to bring in all of Sam's philosophical arguments. They wouldn't allow him to bring defensive counsel arguments. He went to trial with a losing hand, and it's not completely his fault that the trial ended up going against his client. Right. I mean, I have to say I agree with you, Danny, about feeling a little bit sorry for SBF. I mean, both things can be true. On the one hand, you can say this guy was a fraud, he was a criminal, he took a lot of people's money, and he spent it lavishly and irresponsibly. On the other hand, he is a human being. To get this huge sentence, he could go away for 115 years at maximum, seems like a rather excessive amount of time. And there is an argument out there that he is very much the fall guy for the industry, and the guy who's kind of taking the rap for a lot of cultural problems in the industry and a kind of lax, general corporate governance culture out there. I mean, there were VC funds that put millions of dollars, billions of dollars into FTX without doing any due diligence. And that's not a criminal act, but it was an act of cultural indifference or negligence that you could say contributed to this enormous folly. So, you know, I think there's a reasonable argument to say that he is taking the rap for the entire industry when maybe he doesn't quite deserve that kind of level of status here. What do you think about that, Danny? I don't know. I think it's a special kind of stupid to set up a company in the way he did. And sure, there's a lot of follies that crypto in general has committed, but just the arrangement between Alameda and FTX, and that's this whole case, right? That Alameda spent all this money from XTS customers. That is so unique, right? That doesn't even have to do with crypto. The way that this fraud was committed was mostly because people were wiring their money into Alameda Research to get it into FTX. So there was also the allow negative code and the let's borrow $65 billion code that was more crypto native, but I don't know. And, you know, look at me, I'm contradicting myself again, right? Because earlier in the episode, I'm saying, well, I feel bad for Sam and here I'm saying, well, he's guilty as hell. I don't know. I think there's room for both statements because it's very hard to watch someone's parents in the room when a guilty verdict is handed out. Like they're older, right? He's going to be locked up probably for the rest of their lives. I don't know. I just, I can't get over that scene in the courtroom. I did feel guilty. I'm sorry. I did feel bad for him. Did you steal the money? I did feel bad for him up until his testimony, because up until that point, all these people that he used to be friends with that were all part of the scheme to like, he wasn't just the only one that committed this fraud. All these other people, Caroline, Nashad, Gary, they're all part of this. And they all were put up on the sand as the good guys, so to say, just because they cooperated with the government and they told their side of the story. But his then testimony just showed that he is not remorseful at all. He still is trying to lie to people. He's still trying to talk himself out of this. And at that point, I was just like, it's too late for this. You're already in this trial. You're on the stand. It's time to look back and be a little bit remorseful and stop thinking that you're smarter than everybody else. I mean, do you think it would have made a difference if he was remorseful? Well, if he was remorseful, he wouldn't be convicted even faster. Yeah, except because he can't really be remorseful because in his opinion, he's not guilty. Right? So what's he going to say to the jury? He could say something like, I'm sorry, the people got hurt and I made mistakes and something like that. Well, he did say that. That was the very first thing he said, basically. And then after that, everything was basically, I don't remember. He decided to say it because he had to. Helene, among the witnesses that flipped on Sam, who's the biggest villain? Like you sat through that whole thing too. Who do you walk away feeling the least bad for and who do you feel the most bad for? I feel like there are easy answers here. I feel the least bad for Caroline just because literally just because of that tape that we heard from that meeting in November where she told her employees that it was kind of fun to, you know, steal money. She obviously didn't explicitly say it like that, but she said it was fun. She sounded a little crazy in that recording. So after her testimony, after hearing that recording, I thought, wow, she's definitely not the innocent little girl that everybody says she is. She certainly knew what she was doing. And she certainly, you know, she's certainly guilty as well. So I feel the least bad for her. The person that I felt really, really bad for wasn't a shot. Okay. But I also don't know if that's just because he's very soft spoken. He has a very low voice. He seems like a very sweet guy. So it could just be a front that he put on for his testimony. I have the opposite answers, actually, like a complete opposite. I feel like Caroline from reading the Michael Lewis book, which is sympathetic to Sam, but also some of the things that were said about Caroline were repeated by the government in their narrative. Caroline just comes off to me as someone who was completely, I guess the word I would use is submissive in every aspect of this business and personal relationship. And I don't feel bad for her at all, but I feel the least bad for her, even though she did big fraud. I think that Nishad, though, is next level evil. He presents himself, like you say, as this guy who is soft spoken. Oh, by the way, after he learned that the companies were stealing money from customers, he took out $3 million to personally buy a house. This wasn't like in furtherance of the scheme to keep it all afloat. This was so he could have a house, like personal enrichment. So I think it's all just a front. And Gary, I don't know how to read him. I think he just doesn't talk much. And he took the deal as soon as his lawyer said, we should make moves here. Do we know what the deals are with those collaborators who turned on SPF? I mean, will they be getting any jail time? We don't know that aspect of it. I would imagine that Gary will get the best deal because he offered himself up to the government before the government was even investigating. Caroline, she didn't speak until they raided her house. So you get negative points for that. And I don't know about Nishad, but I would expect Gary to get the best deal. Gary said he hopes that he doesn't get any jail time, though. And I think that could actually be the case, because we see in a lot of these white cases that those people or the witnesses that cooperate with the government actually get zero jail time. So I think that's a possibility, which would be crazy to me. Yeah, we'll probably get years of probation. So if they would violate the deal, then they would go right to jail. But I think Caroline might get some time. I don't know about Nishad, and I would expect Gary to get no jail time. Could we even see them back in the crypto industry? I highly doubt that that seems exceptionally unlikely. I think they want nothing to do with this. In fact, in other cases, the government, like for securities fraud, so some of them have some of them pled guilty to securities fraud. When you plead guilty to securities fraud, the government often makes you say, I will never work in the securities industry again. That probably means they shouldn't work in any of crypto, because most cryptos are securities. Bitcoin's not a security. Well, Bitcoin's not a security, too, and neither is Ether. But a lot of the other ones probably are. So if I were them, I would steer clear. I don't know. I think they've had their fair share of the crypto industry, and I don't think anybody needs to see them back in the industry. I think Adam Yedidia, who was one of the first witnesses, who was a senior software engineer at FTX, I think, or Alameda, he is a high school teacher now. Yeah, he's a math teacher. He seemed a little traumatized by this whole experience. Well, maybe in a few years' time, we can do a sort of where are they now article.
Bloomberg Radio New York - Recording Feed
Monitor Show 23:00 11-08-2023 23:00
"Investment advisors, switch to interactive brokers for lowest cost global trading and turnkey custody solutions. No ticket charges and no conflicts of your interests at ibkr .com slash ria. That's where administrative agencies weigh in. There are certainly a lot of administrative law cases this term. Thanks so much Adam, I always appreciate your insights. That's UCLA law professor Adam Winkler. I'm June Grasso and you're listening to Bloomberg. Broadcasting 24 hours a day at Bloomberg .com and the Bloomberg Business Act. This is Bloomberg Radio. Polls are closed across the country in several key elections. NBC News is projecting Kentucky Democratic Governor Andy Beshear will be reelected after fending off a challenge from Republican Attorney General Daniel Cameron. Polls are closed in Ohio where the state passed ballot measures to legalize marijuana and to enshrine abortion rights into its constitution. Ohio issue one establishes abortion protections in the state's constitution guaranteeing the right to an abortion up until fetal viability. National Security Council spokesman John Kirby says President Biden has talked with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on brief pauses in the fighting between Israel and Hamas. To allow for aid to get in, people to get out and for hostages to be released. This comes as Israel is bombarding the Gaza Strip and thousands of civilians have been killed. The special counsel leading Hunter Biden's gun and tax case says he has always had full authority over the investigation. Delaware U .S. Attorney David Weiss took questions from the House Judiciary Committee behind closed doors Tuesday. Five presidential candidates will take the stage Wednesday night in Miami for the third GOP debate.
Evangelism on SermonAudio
A highlight from 2023 Fraser Valley Reformed Evangelism Conference - Day 1
"Okay, so Erin, you gave me an hour and a half. 10 minutes. So we ran through that. I hope I didn't bore in near you. So maybe I just leave it to the floor. Do you want to leave it open to questions for a bit? Okay, and then I don't know who's leading it. Lane, are you? Okay, there we go. Okay, Lane is one of the first ones, not the first ones, but one of these men that I think I kind of mentored and taught. Not long ago, no, we won't talk about that. It's more than 18 years ago. Any Okay. questions, thoughts? Yeah. So do you have an office in the church? Is the church open all day only? Well, that's, I had my office, my office was in my home, so I didn't have an office there and I did try to meet there or go there, but it didn't really work out. Pastor Eric, when he started, he had his office in the church, but the problem is, as a pastor, is that you can't just be, have somebody walking in all the time because you need the time to be able to prepare for Sunday for the preaching, so that became more difficult. So now that we have Michael as a full -time admission worker, he has an office in the church, and so now people can come and he counsels people within the church, and so that's really, really helpful and really good. So if you're able to do that, have somebody in the church, I think that would be helpful. Just to be able to say to the community, the church is open and now there's somebody here who you can talk with, who you can talk to. John? I'm interested in this woman from Cameroon. You mentioned that she sings sometimes in her language. English. She sings in English. I guess she comes from the English part of Cameroon, so Cameroon is a French part and an English part. So how does that fit with our genuine tunes? Well, you want to hear songs about Theseus and in the tree. Those are the type of songs that you would often be. It'll be songs that would kind of write the story, the Bible, the biblical stories, quite simple songs, beautiful songs, I don't know. I would say they would be totally appropriate for the worship service, but nevertheless, what these songs do is they tell a story and usually there's some kind of a moral teaching that comes with it. I'll crawl over to that, is how do they feel about when they come in sing and they the Geneva song? Yep, interesting question. We have different reactions. Those who have become members of the church, they don't change it. They don't change it because we love it that we're singing scripture. And that's a strange one for most of us because I kind of have an inclination saying, well, you know what, that's kind of hard to speak it, have some easier music. They will say this. They say when we first come, it's a challenge. So they're honest in that sense. It is a challenge, but we come to appreciate that we're singing scripture, which is a really interesting economy. Michael tells me, he says, I first came, he says, the songs, I thought they were boring and they were kind of deadening. So I talked to somebody in John MacArthur's church about that and he said, you know what? He says, just embrace the fact that you're singing in the scripture. He says, and that was the best advice I got. I came back and it's a whole different attitude towards singing. So there is a challenge to that. So I'm not sure whether we should simply say, oh, don't do anything about it. Can we make Geneva tunes? It's something that might be a little easier for newcomers. I really don't, I don't know if that helps because at the same time, a lot of these people don't know the other hymns either. People come in off the street and they say, what kind of tunes are you singing? And then after a while it grows on them and they say, wow, what are we? Yeah, they really appreciate it. It might take them a while. I'm gonna tell a story about a lady that's, that left us because she's singing, went to another church, joined the church, became baptized, and now it's coming back to us again because you realize that the singing isn't everything because she's missing the things that she has here in our church.
The Breakdown
A highlight from SBF Gets Absolutely Buried in Cross-Examination
"Welcome back to The Breakdown with me, NLW. It's a daily podcast on macro, Bitcoin, and the big picture power shifts remaking our world. What's going on, guys? It is Tuesday, October 31st. Happy Halloween. Today, we are talking about Sam Bankman -Fried on cross -examination. Before we get into that, however, if you are enjoying The Breakdown, please go subscribe to it, give it a rating, give it a review, or if you want to dive deeper into the conversation, come join us on the Breakers Discord. You can find a link in the show notes or go to bit .ly slash breakdown pod. Hello everyone. First, let me say before we get into more SPF, a big happy 15th birthday to the Bitcoin whitepaper. Crazy to think that that was 15 years ago, a decade and a half of Bitcoin. Here is to many, many more. All right, well, we are firmly down in the muck with SPF and if yesterday's show was all about Friday's prepared testimony and direct examination, and specifically how Sam contradicted the previous testimony of Caroline, Gary, and Nishad, Monday's testimony and today's show is all about the cross -examination. Just to level set a little bit for how that went, here's how Laura Shin described it. Hey everyone. We just got out of the courthouse and I think it's pretty fair to say that at this moment it just feels like it's over for Sam Pinkman -Fried. Honestly, if before lunch it felt like we were witnessing a murder, then afterward we were witnessing somebody just stab a dead body over and over and over and over and over again. Basically, Danielle Sassoon again trotted out multiple statements that Sam Pinkman -Fried made and multiple statements where he contradicted those statements, you know, was often evasive. She just caught him in so many things. Alright, so let's dig into this. Technically yesterday began with the end of the direct examination. There were a few things covered. One was this hedging defense that somehow everything would have been fine if Caroline Ellison had just hedged, like Sam told her to. SPF said that he had numerous conversations about hedging with the then CEO of Alameda, saying that he had directed Caroline to hedge once in late June or early July, and then following up throughout September. Sam told the court that Alameda's net asset value had already fallen from $40 billion to $10 billion, and that he was, quote, worried that Alameda might become insolvent. Sam discussed Caroline's teary -eyed response, where she agreed that Alameda should have hedged and that maybe they shouldn't have had so many venture investments. He said that she had offered to step down as CEO, but that he wasn't trying to push her out, and that his, quote, biggest concern was that if Alameda remained unhedged that it might go bankrupt. And so I thought that the focus should be on urgently putting on the hedges that would protect against that. Sam explained that Alameda had put on hedges in September, but they weren't as large as he would have wanted. Thus, he directed Caroline to increase the hedges. I will take a pause here and note two things. First of all, on the one hand, Sam has tried to testify that he didn't know what was going on at Alameda and didn't have any control. And yet here, he's talking about how many times he has directed the CEO to take a very specific action. It kind of feels like one of those you can't have it both ways and either you were the de facto CEO or you weren't kind of situations. Second, and something that I'm sure will come up with the jury, hedging in Alameda's performance doesn't have any real bearing on whether or not Sam committed fraud by knowingly using FTX customer funds for his hedge fund slash financial playground. It is a distraction and really has more to do with what might have happened if we had never found out. Now, speaking of what Sam did or didn't know, he also tried to suggest that he didn't really have any idea what was going on until October. He claimed that in October 2022, he had been given direct access to the FTX database, which was previously only accessible by developers. He said that he used this access to build a full view of Alameda's accounts. During that investigation, Sam claims that he learned about the hidden accounts including Se -Yoon 88, which has been sometimes referred to as our Korean friend during reporting. That account was used to wall off Alameda's liabilities to FTX in an account that didn't accrue interest. Now again, this contradicts everything that we've heard from every other witness, but alas, that's what Sam testified. The defense moved on to the final week of FTX, beginning with the release of the Alameda balance sheet in a Coindesk article. Sam acknowledged that he discussed Caroline sending a tweet which would refute the claims. That tweet said, quote, Now again, another revealing part of this testimony, and remember, this is direct examination. This is Sam being questioned by his own lawyers. Is Sam seeming to think that any entity that he was connected to could just move assets freely back and forth between them? He's literally explaining here that a holding company, a shell corporation created entirely to hold Sam's equity in FTX, counted as an asset for Alameda. While Sam seems to think that that's a good defense, to me, it kind of just makes the point clear that he never saw any barriers or differentiation between any project that he was the head of, or any entity that he had ownership over. In other words, if Sam thought he could just move assets from the shell company Paperbird onto the Alameda balance sheet to shore it up to external eyes, is the jury really supposed to believe that he wouldn't do the same thing with FTX customer deposits? Now when it comes to the final days and hours of FTX, Sam basically reinforced over and over that he believed that they had enough resources to take care of everything and that it was all CZ's fault for triggering a loss of confidence and, as he wanted to characterize it, a run on the bank. He also tried to sow doubt when it came to Nishad Singh, as Sam recalled Nishad messaging him about trading his personal account to clear his debts. There were over $500 million in loans for investments and donations that had been papered in Nishad's name, along with $80 million for personal expenditure. Sam said that Nishad was quote, actively suicidal at the time and was being overseen by a therapist. The two of them discussed Sam taking the blame, with Nishad concerned that FTX employees would think it was all his fault. Sam wrote, At this stage, the testimony broke down into a long objection about whether Sam could testify to telling Nishad that he didn't think they did anything wrong. The evidence was ultimately disallowed. The testimony concluded with a discussion of the 11th hour plans to raise funds. Sam spoke to his attempts to raise funds from Apollo Global Management. He detailed his discussion with FTX General Counsel Kan Sun, but told a very different version of the story. Sam claimed quote, That said, Sam claimed to believe there were additional buckets of assets held within FTX which would cover Alameda's borrowing. Primarily, he seemed to be referring to using assets that customers had staked on the exchange to backfill Alameda's shortfall. Sam said, Now, of course, Sun's testimony had been very clear that he told Sam that the size of those buckets was dwarfed by the size of Alameda's borrowing. From there, we got into the cross -examination. Today's episode is brought to you by Kraken. For far too long, the whole financial system has been standing still, too slow, only on for certain hours, overly designed for some types of people, but not for others. Crypto, at its best, represents progress. It asks the question, what if? It invites people in instead of leaving them out. It's on 24 -7, 365, and moves at the speed of real life. Not everyone believes it, we've got our fair share of detractors, but that's the way it always is when you're building something new. Kraken is a crypto company that has been through the highs and lows of the industry, facing forwards towards progress throughout. And now they're inviting us to see what crypto can be. Learn more at Kraken .com slash the breakdown. Disclaimer, not investment advice. Crypto trading involves risk of loss. Cryptocurrency services are provided to U .S. and U .S. territory customers by Payword Ventures Inc., PVI, DBA, Kraken. The cross was led by Assistant U .S. Attorney Danielle Sassoon, and she began the prosecution's cross -examination by establishing that Sam held majority ownership over both FTX and Sam was involved in Alameda's trading by 2022. He responded, depends on how you define trading. He added that, I would say I was not involved for the most part. I would not say I was not involved in any way at all. Now of course, the line of questioning was designed to trap Sam in a lie, which would be a running theme throughout the cross -examination. Sassoon presented evidence that Sam had told Caroline and Sam Tribuco, then co -CEOs for Alameda, to purchase OXI and MAPS tokens. Sam had written to them, guessing we should top longer one to two million of each over the next day or two. Sam rejected this position, claiming this was not a direction to trade. From there, however, Sassoon did get Sam to admit that he had directed Alameda to buy Japanese government bonds and place hedges, which Sam agreed was a form of trading. Sassoon then moved on to Sam's press tour. Sam agreed that he had tried to speak truthfully and precisely about the collapse of FTX. The vast bulk of Sam's answers were simply responding yes or no to the prosecutor. His lawyers had no doubt warned him to keep his answers brief to avoid a repeat of last Thursday's disastrous cross -examination. That was of course when Sam had testified without the jury present and continuously gave lengthy answers which provided additional fuel to the prosecution. Sam agreed that he had tried to be careful about what he said in public and had even cleared some of his comments with his public relations team. It was at this stage that Sam's recollection began to fail him and he became unable to recall what he said during various interviews, which would again be another theme of the cross -examination. Specifically, Sassoon turned to a Twitter Spaces held during Sam's media tour and asked Sam whether he had said that he was not involved with Alameda's trading and had not been for years at that point. Sassoon proposed to play a recording of the Twitter Spaces for the court to hear and to aid with Sam's suddenly faulty memory. The defense objected, claiming that the two sides had previously had a gentlemanly agreement to share exhibits to be used in cross -examination the night before. Sassoon said that the defense had not asked for these exhibits and there was nothing in court rules preventing her from playing the recording. The tape was played with Sam of course stating that he was not involved with Alameda's trading. Sassoon offered another exhibit showing that Sam had made public statements that he had stepped away from involvement in Alameda's trading due to conflicts of interest. In an article published by the Financial Times last December, Sam had said that this was quote, related to his role as guardian of customer assets. Sam of course could not recall making these statements. Sassoon moved on to statements about how Sam had pitched FTX. Sam acknowledged that he had promoted FTX to investors on the basis that its automated liquidation protocol set it apart from other exchanges. Sassoon questioned Sam about statements he made to Congress, describing FTX as a safe crypto exchange. Sam acknowledged general statements of that nature but said he could not recall specifically. After establishing that Sam communicated with potential customers using his Twitter account, Sassoon asked Sam if he made representations about how customer assets would be treated on FTX. Sam agreed with the premise but again couldn't recall specifics. She asked whether Sam had promoted FTX as a safe exchange. He responded that this might have been the case with FTX US but he wasn't sure about FTX International. When asked whether he acted like he cared about consumer protection, Sam responded, I think I did care about them, yes. Coming to the point, Sassoon asked Sam whether he made public statements that FTX was a safe platform. He responded, I remember things around specific parts of the FTX platform that were related to that. I don't remember a general statement to that effect. I am not sure there wasn't one. Of course, the prosecution had an exhibit to clarify Sam's memory. They presented a tweet from August 2021 which stated, As always, our users' funds and safety comes first. Putting an even finer point on the issue, Sassoon presented a tweet from October 2022 in which Sam had described the crypto ethos as economic freedom, the freedom to own your own assets. Sassoon managed to get Sam to acknowledge that when he made that tweet, he knew Alameda was carrying an $8 billion liability to FTX. Now what you see here is the pattern of what the prosecutor was trying to do. She's trying to catch Sam in lies that are relevant in the specifics but also relevant in the fact that he's just lying. Prosecution moved on to Sam's testimony in front of Congress. Sam admitted that he had filed a document which laid out FTX's key principles for ensuring investor protections on digital asset platforms. This document included numerous opinions on how to protect crypto customers including the avoidance of conflicts of interest. Sam acknowledged that conflicts of interest are a quote potential problem. Sassoon turned to Sam's public support for regulation. She alleged that it was simply a marketing ploy and not an earnestly held position for Sam which he disagreed with. Sassoon put it to Sam that quote, Sam responded, To which of course the prosecution presented a text message conversation between Sam and Vox's Kelsey Piper which had occurred in early November. Kelsey had asked Sam whether his pro -regulation stance was just for PR reasons. Sam was made to read his response to the courtroom. Yeah, just PR. Fuck regulators. Now Sassoon noted that Sam had testified under oath before Congress that FTX's risk management program required customers to pledge collateral on the platform itself rather than holding collateral off platform. Sam agreed that he had given roughly that testimony. The prosecution presented an exhibit of Sam's congressional testimony which sparked a humorous misunderstanding. The defense said that they had no objection to the exhibit as long as it wasn't being presented for its truth but merely as evidence that Sam had said it. Sassoon, a little perplexed, noted that it was Sam's own statements. When asked by the judge how she was offering the document, Sassoon responded, Sassoon presented Sam with a marketing deck published by FTX which described how poorly futures exchanges are designed. The document stated that rival exchanges had quote, lost hundreds of millions of dollars of customer funds to clawbacks. When asked to read a bullet point on how FTX was solving those issues, Sam obstinately responded, This gets to another point that many who are in the courtroom reported, that Sam was acting throughout this testimony fairly petulantly. Whether that endears him to the jury or not I guess remains to be seen. Sam was asked a series of questions which required him to confirm that customers were not allowed to use outside collateral to trade on FTX. For example, he acknowledged that a customer could not pledge their house as collateral. Seeming as though she had sprung the trap, Sassoon asked if there were any customers aside from Alameda who were allowed to pledge outside collateral not held on FTX. Sam responded, He said that a firm called CryptoLotus had been allowed to do this and that FTX had considered allowing Three Arrows Capital to use outside collateral as well. This unexpected answer seemed to throw Sassoon off her tempo. She asked follow -up questions about how large CryptoLotus' account was and whether this special privilege was disclosed to the public. The prosecution was then handed a note from an FBI agent seated in the front row who had previously given testimony. Regaining her bearing, Sassoon asked whether Sam was friends with the head of CryptoLotus. He responded that he was not. However, finding the right question, Sassoon asked whether Sam had a personal relationship with anyone at CryptoLotus. Sam responded that he had been friends with a more junior employee at the firm. Now, this line of questioning was essentially the only weak point in the cross -examination where Sam ever so briefly had gained the upper hand. However, Sam still brought home the point, getting Sam to admit that Alameda and CryptoLotus stood alone as the only firms allowed to pledge collateral, not custody with FTX. Turning to Sam's public statements about Alameda special privileges, Sam had a vague recollection of stating that Alameda played by the same rules as other customers but denied saying they had no special privileges. He said that, When asked if he said that Alameda and FTX operated separately, Sam responded that Contrary to that, however, the prosecution presented an exhibit in which Sam stated that Sassoon put to Sam that this statement was general and not limited just to frontrunning. Sam responded, Now, if you're scratching your head, basically the point here is that Sam is trying to argue that every time he said that Alameda was just like everyone else, he was only referring to frontrunning and that Alameda didn't have special access to CFTX users' trades. From there, there were a couple instances of the prosecution trying to catch Sam in low -stakes evasion. For example, he was asked whether he flew to the Super Bowl on a private plane. Sam responded that he couldn't remember. Sassoon quipped, Sam responded, Now, one of the more revealing parts of the testimony, which gets back to what I was saying before about how Sam just treated everything and every entity he owned as all part of one big conglomerate, Sassoon began to ask questions about more specific spending from Alameda. She asked about a tranche of Robinhood shares purchased by Sam using 546 million borrowed from Alameda. The loans were originated in May 2022. Sassoon established that shortly after the purchase, Sam transferred the shares into a holding company owned by Sam and other FTX executives. After a bit of back and forth about the corporate structure of various entities involved in the deal, Sassoon landed the punch. She presented an affidavit showing that Sam had tried to transfer the Robinhood shares from the FTX state into his own name. Sassoon asked, that at that moment, FTX customers could not withdraw funds. Sam answered that he was, Towards the end of the long day, Sassoon moved back to June of 2022, when Alameda paid back loans from external lenders. She asked if Sam knew this would put FTX at risk, which he refused to admit. Trying again, she asked whether Sam knew there was, Again, Sam avoided responding, saying that he, Sassoon asked whether this meant that Sam knew there was some risk. He responded that, Seeing her opening, Sassoon moved in for the kill. She asked, Sam said, I don't think that's what happened, and I'm also not saying that's not margin trading. An exasperated judge demanded that Sam answer the question. When asked if his testimony was that paying back lenders was a margin trade, Sam said, In response to further questioning on whether repaying loans was a margin trade, Sam offered the response, Now, this was broadly how the cross -examination went across the grueling hearing. Sassoon would often pin Sam down to a position, and then present evidence of seemingly contradictory prior statements. In other lines of questioning, Sam would say that he couldn't recall pivotal tweets and interviews throughout the rise and fall of FTX, and Sassoon would then put those words in front of Sam and have him read them back for the jury, or play back interview segments which showed Sam as fleeting the world, given what we now know. Now when it comes to how he appeared, Sam seemed evasive at times. Throughout the cross -examination, he answered that he wasn't sure or couldn't recall nearly times. 150 Most catastrophically for his case, Sam also appeared to be misleading. He was caught over and over and over again in contradictory statements on both large and small topics. The prosecution was able to put direct evidence to him regarding misleading public statements, and he failed to come up with a single convincing explanation. In other words, the cross -examination appeared to go about as poorly as it possibly could have for Sam, which of course was largely in line with the predictions offered by legal commentators throughout the case. Basically, every lawyer that has spoken to the idea of Sam giving testimony has repeated the traditional wisdom that a defense attorney should never allow their client to take the witness stand and open themselves up to cross -examination. With this dissection of Sam's narrative, we got a practical demonstration of why that legal advice is always given. Sam was constantly bristling at the questioning. Multiple reporters who are familiar with Sam's character noted that in the past, Sam would often snap during this kind of tough questioning. During Twitter spaces or hostile interviews, he would often belittle anyone who questioned his motives or his actions. With that response unavailable to him, Sam was obviously simmering with rage at points but had to keep a lid on it. The question, of course, will be whether or not the jury got the same impression of Sam as the scores of crypto reporters who packed the courtroom, each of whom are far more likely at this point with Sam's nature than they care to be. The prosecution was not done with Sam by the end of the day. They expected to take another couple of hours this morning to cement the theory of the case they presented in the opening arguments. That FTX was an empire built on Sam's lies. That Sam had lied to counterparties, to banks, to investors, and to customers. And that through their cross -examination, they were going to put Sam's lies front and center for the jury to see. Teddy Schleifer, a reporter at Puck News, summed it up this way. I feel like the big thing that Sassoon has really gone at is this idea of truth. That Sam is lying. All morning it's been, here's an interview you gave to a reporter. Here's something you said to Congress. Here's something you said on Twitter, to customers. It really makes me think back to the opening statement. How they're really going to make him out to be a liar. What's more, Teddy continued. Sam has not mounted a credible defense to date. The entire defense case is basically Sam. If you're a juror and you're trying to sit there asking what is the reason I have to vote to acquit, I don't know what you're looking at. You're basically believing that this character is more credible than the preponderance of documentary evidence and Caroline, Nishad, and Gary. I don't think Sam has given that juror a reason to acquit. Now Carly Riley, the host of Overpriced JPEGs, put it a little bit more bluntly. She said, incredibly semantic and pedantic for sure, but also like an asshole. One person said to me, So friends, that is the wrap of yesterday's testimony. I'm sure we will do a little conclusion tomorrow on the end of the cross -examination. From there, we will be on to the final witnesses for the defense, closing arguments, and then jury deliberations. But for now, we will wrap there, and I will say, until tomorrow, be safe and take care of each other.
CoinDesk Podcast Network
A highlight from SBF TRIAL Podcast 10/31: Was Sam Bankman-Fried Taking the Stand a Huge Mistake?
"Welcome to the SBF trial, a Coindesk podcast network newsletter bringing you daily insights from inside the courtroom where Sam Bankman -Fried will try to stay out of prison. Follow the Coindesk podcast network to get the audio each morning with content from the Coindesk regulation team and voiced by Wondercraft AI. An observation from sleep -deprived day 15 of Sam Bankman -Fried's criminal trial. Prosecutors embrace the inevitable outcome of male pattern baldness. Defense lawyers don't. This newsletter offers exhibit D, U .S. Attorney Damian Willems. The sovereign district's top cop strode into Manhattan's highest courtroom around 1130 a .m. Monday, his freshly shaved head glinting final twists of a big, big case, as one U .S. Marshal called it, against a defendant represented by two balding lawyers older than he, Mark Cohen, big bald spot, and Chris Everdell, small bald spot. I might have some insight into why prosecutors but not defense lawyers rock shiny crowns if I hadn't gotten to court nearly 11 hours earlier. Probably it would be something witty about the government's confidence in a case that the U .S. Marshal called a big W for Damian. Yes, let's run with that. Williams's deputy, Danielle Sassoon, is definitely not bald. She arrived donning a hairstyle my female colleagues in the press corps identified as a blowout. Sassoon's cross -examination evisceration of the alleged crypto fraudster was hard to watch. Determined to highlight inconsistencies in the former crypto chief's alternate history, the Assistant U .S. Attorney leveraged his prolific history of tweeting, interviewing, and testifying before Congress about FTX's purported greatness and safeness. She wanted to catch Bankman -Friede in a lie. After four hours, she'd at least gotten the next best thing. Evidence he's is a very unreliable narrator. Would you agree that you know how to tell a good story? Sassoon asked Bankman -Friede early on, prompting someone in the gallery to guffaw. Bankman -Friede audibly bristled at Sassoon's tactics. He taunted her in a sing -songy cadence when told to read FTX materials that contradicted him. His unyielding yeps started low on the Y and finished high on the P. He spent most of cross -examination repeating variations of I don't know sixteen times like sounds plausible twice I may have seventeen times I don't recall twenty -seven times and I'm not confident three times when asked about his own words. I can explain it if you want, Bankman -Friede offered on a handful of occasions where Sassoon forced him to accede into damning characterizations. She never took him up on it. His responses weren't always responses. Judge Lewis Kaplan reprimanded Bankman -Friede for avoiding prosecutor questions and interjecting his own. His gaze stayed mostly on Sassoon, but sometimes he darted to the jury box. There, seventeen pairs of eyes may have shot back a mix of skepticism and by the end of the day boredom and perhaps a bit of despair. Some jurors were growing visibly tired of Bankman -Friede's waffling I don't remember defense after four weeks of trial. A few new sleepyheads drifted off. Their get -on -with -it mentality was shared by Judge Lewis Kaplan, the press corps, and even Williams. He and his red folder marked confidential walked out of the courtroom early. Sassoon, however, shows no signs of letting up. She hasn't yet gotten a smoking gun out of Bankman -Friede, despite his waffling, but that's only because he spent so much of their standoff acting like the guy who already shot it and forgot. She'll go for another two hours of cross -examination today. The overflow room was collectively losing its mind at Bankman -Friede's testimony. It's not just what he said, but how he said things. He repeatedly said he didn't remember telling reporters key details about Alameda or creating documents acknowledging FTX and Alameda's financial ties. And every time he did, AUSA Sassoon would follow up with let's bring up government exhibits, something or other, in which Bankman -Friede said exactly the thing she was asking about. He gave the impression he was being shifty, despite the fact that government witnesses Gary Wang and Nishad Singh had similar responses to topics they said they did not recall. It's possible this is due to the rain. It was absolutely miserable yesterday. But far fewer people showed up at 9 o 'clock a .m. on Monday than had on Friday. There were maybe just north of 50 reporters and members of the general public by the time the courtroom and overflow room opened, though a second overflow room was still needed by lunchtime. Sassoon tried to pin Bankman -Friede on marketing FTX International as a safe exchange, as opposed to FTXUS, including by showing the end title card from an ad. No one picked up on this in court besides Danny, but the end title's fine print makes it clear the ad is for FTXUS. Looking forward, Assistant U .S. Attorney Danielle Sassoon anticipates spending another two hours or so cross -examining Bankman -Friede on later today. Once she's done, Defense Attorney Mark Cohen expects to spend maybe one or two more hours conducting a redirect examination. Assuming this gets us to maybe just past lunch, the Department of Justice does plan to present a rebuttal case. Prosecutors plan to call two witnesses, an FBI agent and an employee of Apollo Global Capital, a firm that was involved in talks to potentially rescue FTX last year. Former General Counsel Ken Sun and Bankman -Friede have both provided competing versions of what exactly those talks looked like. Judge Lewis Kaplan remains noncommittal with regard to the jury charge conference, saying he'll have more when the fat lady sings, an opera reference. Given that both the DOJ and Defense previously estimated needing two to three hours each for closing arguments and the judge expects a long conference, we can safely assume this will take us well into Thursday. Want to follow along? Sign up for Coindesk's new daily newsletter, The SBF Trial, bringing you insights from the courthouse and around the case. You can get the podcast each day right here by following the Coindesk Podcast Network. Thanks for listening.
The Breakdown
A highlight from How SBF's Testimony Tried to Contradict Caroline, Nishad and Gary
"Welcome back to The Breakdown with me, NLW. It's a daily podcast on macro, Bitcoin, and the big picture power shifts remaking our world. What's going on, guys? It is Monday, October 30th, and today we are catching up on Sam Bankman -Fried's second day of testimony. Before we get into that, however, if you are enjoying The Breakdown, please go subscribe to it, give it a rating, give it a review, or if you want to dive deeper into the conversation, come join us on The Breakdown Discord. You can find a link in the show notes or go to bit .ly slash breakdown pod. All right, friends. Well, we are back with another SPF trial show and listen, for the next few days, we are likely to be knee deep in this stuff. Sam's testimony on Friday had a lot more details and we got a much better picture of how he is trying to contradict the witnesses that came before him, which is where we're going to spend a ton of emphasis today. And even as I am recording, he is being cross -examined right now, and by all accounts, it is not going well. So, what you can expect is probably for the next couple days, or at least today and tomorrow, there is going to be more SPF than probably any of us would really truly like. But then, God willing, we won't really have to talk about this as much anymore, at least until his second trial next spring. But that is the plan, that is the skinny, that is the important thing, and so that's what we will cover. Now, one additional note. Later in the week, I am heading off for a 10th anniversary trip that is happening Thursday through Monday. And so, basically for the first time ever, the breakdown will be going on a short hiatus. I will, however, be back on Tuesday the 7th. So, let's get into the SPF trial. As I mentioned, on Friday, Sam Bankman -Fried once again took the witness stand to deliver his version of events, and this time it was in front of the jury. You will remember that the previous day had seen Sam present a range of controversial testimony which sought to pin the blame on advice from lawyers. The evidence was given without the jury present to ensure it was admissible. It covered advice to use auto -deleting telegram messages as well as the preparation of assorted types of legal documents. For example, Sam's testimony on Thursday included mentioning that lawyers had prepared the documents related to the gigantic loans handed out to FTX executives. The facts didn't support a formal advice of counsel defense, so the defense had attempted to present a more limited argument which only dealt with Sam's criminal intent. The judge opened Friday's hearing by cutting down this line of evidence, ruling that almost all of Sam's Thursday testimony was inadmissible. The judge said, So, when all was said and done, the judge allowed evidence regarding the auto -deleting messages to be introduced but would not allow any of the other topics covered on Thursday to be presented to the jury. With that dealt with, Sam's testimony got underway. Sam began by claiming that he did not defraud anyone and did not take customer funds. He then launched into a long explanation of how futures exchanges work, claiming that FTX primarily dealt with this kind of margin trading. Prosecution cut him off halfway through, objecting that he was presenting a narrative rather than answering a specific question in a concise manner. This would be a common theme throughout Sam's testimony. He consistently gave lengthy, verbose answers, risking losing clarity and impact with the jury. Both his lawyer and the judge instructed Sam to keep it brief throughout the testimony, a concept that he struggled mightily with. The defense asked Sam whether he made mistakes along the way. He answered, Throughout his testimony, Sam would attempt to characterize his conduct as negligent rather than fraudulent, and caused by a lax management style which led to quote, significant oversights. Sam managed to express some remorse, stating that FTX turned out basically the opposite his words of the way he intended. He admitted a lot of people got hurt, customers, employees, and the company ended up in bankruptcy. Now where the testimony started beyond these vague generalities was Alameda Research. SPF noted that it was initially run out of a crowded Airbnb in Berkeley, but he claimed that the firm frequently had weeks with big wins, seeing returns of 50 -100 % on an annualized basis during those periods. Sam mentioned that shortly after Caroline Ellison joined the firm, there was a deep schism open between two factions within Alameda, leading to disgruntled early investors and employees leaving alongside most of the capital. He said that he apologized to Caroline for not telling her about the simmering problems earlier. Sam testified to the reason that Alameda Research had been given such a bland name, stating that quote, Now earlier in the trial, investors had given testimony that Sam had assured them that Alameda had no special privileges on FTX. In his testimony on Friday, Sam spoke to this topic, claiming that he thought that investors were only concerned about Alameda being able to view the order book and front -run trades. He offered them what he believed were truthful assurances that this was not the case. The defense then moved on to the substantive testimony which dealt with Alameda's lending. SPF said that Alameda was permitted to borrow from FTX in the same manner as any other customer with access to margin lending. When asked where the money borrowed by Alameda came from, Sam said, Sam added that Alameda had no restrictions on what they could do with borrowed funds. As long as risk was being managed and the customer's assets were greater than their liabilities, he said that borrowed funds could be used with no restrictions. Now, this explanation was introduced earlier in the trial by FTX General Counsel Ken Sun. He testified that during the final days at FTX, Sam had instructed him to come up with some potential legal justifications for the multi -billion dollar hole in Alameda's balance sheet. Sun had said that borrowing collateral from other customers was technically allowed under the terms of service if they were margin customers, but that the massive size of the shortfall made this explanation completely implausible. Sam's testimony then moved on to the origin of the allow negative feature, which allowed Alameda to borrow well in excess of its pledged collateral. This allowed Alameda to run a negative balance in its FTX account without being liquidated. Sam said that by 2020, the FTX risk engine was struggling to keep up with the volume on the exchange. He testified that there was a situation where a relatively small account had been liquidated, but the risk engine was too slow in reading the database update. This would cause the position to be liquidated over and over and then reversed over and over. Sam said that these erroneous trades compounded from thousands of dollars to trillions of dollars in not too long. It was growing exponentially. Alameda was the liquidating agent for these trades, so these trillions of dollars in incorrect liquidations would cause Alameda's account to go negative. This risked liquidating Alameda and causing losses to be socialized across all users. Sam said, if there were erroneous liquidations for Alameda that would have had disastrous consequences for users. In the aftermath of this event, Sam said that the trades were successfully unwound, but that, quote, it was still a really inconvenient event for everyone involved. The exchange was basically unusable for an hour as we dealt with all of this, and it was scary. Sam testified that the problem was patched over by adding more servers dedicated to operating the risk engine, but that the platform couldn't risk Alameda being liquidated due to an error. He said that he instructed engineering executives Nishad Singh and Gary Wong to fix the problem, but gave no specific instructions on how it should be done. Sam claimed to have suggested an alert or a delay or something of that form. Sam said, quote, I was told by them that they had implemented some feature of that sort, and added, at the time, I couldn't have told you the details or its name. I now believe I know what the feature was. Allow negative. Sam told the jury that Gary and Nishad, quote, were both authorized to make decisions on behalf of the company without consulting me, although they would often consult with me about it. Sam claimed that he didn't have a good understanding that allow negative was functionally allowing Alameda to tap into customer assets. He said that, at the time, I wasn't entirely sure what was happening. What I believed was that either the funds were just being held in a bank account and not used or removed, or that they were being sent to FTX in one way or another, maybe as stablecoins. Sam said that only now, after listening to all testimonies, did he piece together that the feature had allowed Alameda to post orders with no collateral and hold a negative balance without being liquidated. Nishad's testimony had discussed allow negative in terms of it allowing Alameda to process liquidations without needing collateral. He said those trades were not viewed as risky as they executed immediately into the existing order book.
The Breakdown
A highlight from SBF Testifies; WSJ Errors; Bitcoin Booms - The Top 5 Crypto Stories This Week
"Welcome back to The Breakdown with me, NLW. It's a daily podcast on macro, Bitcoin, and the big picture power shifts remaking our world. What's going on, guys? It is Saturday, October 28th, and that means it's time for the weekly recap. Before we get into that, however, if you are enjoying The Breakdown, please go subscribe to it, give it a rating, give it a review, or if you want to dive deeper into the conversation, come join us on the Breakers Discord. You can find a link in the show notes or go to bit .ly slash breakdown pod. Hello, friends. We are back with another top five most important stories in crypto this week. This of course is the conversation that I have live with Scott Melker on Friday mornings. Now this week, there are two big, big blaring things that stand out. One is, of course, the SPF testimony, and the second, which is way more significant in many ways, is the attempt to blame crypto for Hamas's attack on Israel a couple of weeks back. Now, we got a lot more information in that story this week. Elliptic basically said that The Wall Street Journal had misinterpreted what it said, but of course, we've gotten no corrections from The Wall Street Journal, and even if we did, the damage would likely already have been done. We also talk a little bit about the big pump this week. All in all, a very dynamic and exciting week. So let's dive in. Quite a week that we've had, huh? Indeed. It's been a week. It's funny because we always talk about how hyperbolic and exaggeratory our titles are allowed to be. Yeah. And this time you're actually like, take it off, do whatever you want. Have at it, man. It really did skyrocket, right? I mean, obviously, we have Bitcoin sort of consolidating here under 35 ,000. Meme coins like Pepe and Flocky do 100 % plus gains. Is there real money and interest coming back into this market right now? Are we back in the washing machine and we're going to see it rotating? What do you think? So two answers to that. On the one hand, I still think that the vast majority of it is just our money internally and people moving things around and people kind of putting more of their own capital back in, moving out of stablecoin, stuff like that, right? It is excitement that's predicated on the community itself that's already here. However, the big, big caveat to that is that every institutional fund, every Bitcoin onboarding firm, if you watch like anyone who works in Swann's institutional management, all week they've been talking about just phones ringing off the hook, people coming in. I think Matt Hogan tweeted that there are, that the conversations this cycle have started to move from, hey, you should have a 1 % allocation to, hey, you should have a 5 % allocation to Bitcoin. So I do think that while when it comes to sort of like this vicious rip up that we had on Monday, that's market structure dynamics playing out with regard to this particular community by and large. But it does seem like this one may have finally triggered alongside all of sort of the narrative stuff we've seen, the phone calls to start coming in for people to actually kind of move in from outside. So I think that for the first time when we're asking this question in a long time, it actually is potentially some amount of a mix of different types of buyers. Yeah, I mean, Matrixport being the analyst here that they're referring to, fifth bull market has further to run. That's coming from Matrixport Research. They're saying that this is officially now the fifth bull market for Bitcoin. Of course, they say 125 ,000 by 2024. We don't care about that, right? We don't really care about the hyperbolic price predictions. But to your point, I think that something's different this time. I know those are dangerous words, but we can see that the market cap has risen dramatically. We can see that both Bitcoin rose and things like meme coins rose at the same time. That can't happen with the rotation of capital. That means that there has to be new money in the system. I've spoken with quite a few people. I had James Butterfield from CoinShares on and he said, yeah, we're seeing some inflows definitely at 300 million this year, institutional inflows. He said, interestingly, we're seeing a bit of outflow from the futures ETFs. What that tells me is that everybody now is ready for this ETF's approval. I'm not surprised that we haven't seen billions flowing in already, because why would you start throwing money into this market if you're an institution today, if you think that there could be a Bitcoin spot ETF that you can safely invest in in a month? Yeah, 100%. I think that the other thing, going back to this contention of, is it a bull market yet? Listen, analyst papers love to call those things. They're very useful. They're good for selling research. When it comes to the gut check on this question, because I think from a community perspective, that's in some ways more enlightening, I think that we are just starting to be in a phase where in the long in -between, between a bear market and a bull market, you have the first part in which the little spikes that look like bull markets feel like the exception and then you return back to the rule, which is either down or sideways. Then you get to the second part, where it feels like the retraces back down and the slight move sideways are the exceptions to the larger momentum. I don't want to say this for sure, but it does feel from a psychological standpoint in this space that we maybe have just flipped over into that, even if we saw the first half of November going slightly down, we get back down to 30, 29, I think that it would still feel like, yeah, whatever. It's not going to change. It's not a return to the norm. It's now sort of like, that's the exception, not the rule kind of a thing. No asset in the world loves to leave people behind more than Bitcoin, right? So if we get the retrace, it'll be shallower than people think. It'll bounce a thousand dollars higher than everybody has their orders. We love to talk about the meme of which direction is Max Payne and what can the market do to punish the most people. Right now, it feels like anyone sidelined is really hoping that they get that dip to buy, which means to me they probably won't, that Max Payne perhaps in this case finally is up. And speaking of Max Payne, look at this guy, in a Bitcoin -free trial, live updates from the courtroom. I know looking at him gives me Max Payne. I'm sure even every ex -FTXer is just calling their therapists off the hook for the last month. I'm quite sure that the therapists, that service crypto clients are probably making almost as much money as bankruptcy attorneys who are service crypto companies at this point. But some wild stuff happens here. Maybe you can explain why he testified, but not in front of a jury. Even the judge seemed somewhat confused at why that was happening. They asked the judge a question, frankly was like, I've never done this before. So I don't know. And SPF went on to say things as wild as I had no idea it was wrong to use customer funds. So a couple of things. One is it's worth noting that I don't think that there has been a lot of meaningful progress in the case besides this. I don't even really think that the defense had a chance to make a lot of its cases. I don't know, there's just not much there. And I think that that's sort of what gets us to the situation. There are two reasons that SPF is testifying. One is because he was always going to testify because it's a person who is the biggest thing that he suffers from is narcissism. And there was never a chance, I think that at the end of the day, he wouldn't testify. So that's one. The second though, is that it really is the only chance he has left. Even if it is a literal snowball's chance in hell, it's better than the definitive verdict that he was looking like he was heading towards. And so I think on some kind of perverse way, it makes sense that he asked to at least try. Now what my read on the situation was in terms of why the jury was dismissed. The government said something like there's data that the government doesn't think that jury should hear, but it seems more like the situation was the judge was trying to figure out what Sam was actually going to say because they called it sort of a mock testimony. And he wanted to see like if Sam was just going to be evasive and not give answers, because I think the judge has to rule on whether he's going to allow Sam to testify in front of a jury. And so yesterday was this very weird, there was a lot of obfuscation, there was a lot of, someone noted, I think it might've been Laura Shin or someone else, it was Sam or maybe it was Tiffany Fong, but someone noted that Sam was doing exactly what he was doing during his media tour, which is when asked a question, he slightly sidesteps it and answers something else. Yeah. And unfortunately for him, courts don't work like that. When you do that in court, they say, you know, answer the actual question asked. Right. So it's sort of TBD on how that's going to play out. A second thing that Sam did a lot is they very clearly, the defense very clearly and has from the beginning, wants to make this an issue of FTX counsel. Right. That Sam was just doing what he what he was legally told to do. Every other answer was Dan Friedberg. Right. Who's the name of the general counsel who was formerly involved in a big sort of poker scandal as well. And it's very clear that Sam is desperately trying to throw Dan Friedberg under the bus and say, I just did what he said. Now, I don't know if you have this tweet pulled up or if we can find it, but there was one moment where the judge literally asked Sam's attorneys to explain to him how blaming counsel was different in this case versus if you laundered money from a bank, like the judge was basically trying to figure out. It's like, look, you did a crime and then later the attorney told you how to deal with the crime. Doesn't that mean you still did the crime? And and it's just this sort of very weird moment where, again, the judge is still trying to figure out if he is going to allow the way that the defense is trying to present the case, you know, because it's not a for sure. Yeah, he wants to blame his lawyers for everything and play claim ignorance, but nobody's going to buy that. There was even a point in the trial where they objected and it was sustained and he decided to answer anyway and his lawyers got missed. I mean, this guy is off the rails. I don't know if he got his Adderall or not. To me, that's the bigger story, right? He needed Adderall if he was going to testify. I wonder if I wonder if they gave it to him. Do we have any insight on that important story? That was I mean, that was the most I think that was the most remarkable moment for kind of anyone watching or reading along about it is Sam deciding to that he said he felt he needed to answer a question to which his attorney, you know, after an objection was sustained to which his attorney said, have you not been here for four weeks? Just wild, dude. Chill. Yeah, I loved, by the way, that in this quick summary from inner city press that we had the inclusion of Sam China Bribe, Trabuco and Dan illegal narcotics, Friedberg. This is the first time that we've seen Trabuco's name. He's been the missing man this entire time. I mean, he was the head of Alameda with Carolyn Ellison and it's like he never existed. I think this is still this is still super confusing. I mean, it seems like there has to be something more going on because it's just it doesn't make any sense. No one has ever offered an explanation. No one's ever tried to offer an explanation that the complete silence around it is, you know, as as sort of dubious as anything else. Deafening, as they said, the silence is deafening, you know, we get to move on from SPF because I think that's enough. We all know where that's headed for today. And we get to talk about something much more favorable. I believe we touched on it actually last week. Hamas militants behind Israel attacked raised millions in crypto. Obviously, the bigger story that that was a Wall Street Journal article that referenced data by Elliptic, we saw Chainalysis come out and say this is completely wrong. And then Elliptic themselves, who were the basis for this article, said, whoa, whoa, whoa, we're setting the record straight on crypto crowdfunding by Hamas talking about potentially hundreds of thousands of dollars, not tens of millions of dollars. But the bigger story is that we're not seeing a retraction from the Wall Street Journal and we're certainly not seeing Elizabeth Warren and 100 plus senators and Congress people retract their statement that was made based on this article. And then to dig even deeper into it yesterday, Senator Lummis, who's been very, very favorable, she's the one writing the stablecoin legislation that's being proposed, saying the DOJ needs to do their job and go ahead and charge Tether and Binance for their role in things like this. It's a lot. Yeah, so this is I mean, this has been this is actually one of the most probably the most significant story going on in crypto right now, because there are a bunch of different dimensions to it. There is obviously a larger media story of, you know, the incentives of press. You know, you've kind of seen the journalist who wrote the piece or one of the journalists who wrote the piece on Twitter defending himself. And effectively, his argument has been, well, no, I buried these caveats later in the piece and it and it makes sense. Now, if you go back and read that original piece, the headline and the first paragraph could not make it clear that the thesis of the piece is that Hamas was able to carry out this attack, this specific attack, by the way, because of cryptocurrency financing. Now, by the end, there is a lot more doubt into that. The journalist isn't wrong, that there is more questions by the end than are there in the beginning. But one, it's a fair question of does that matter when you scream out the headline the way that you did? And two, the way that he did these caveats sort of like with with, you know, journalistic, you know, his journalistic covers are things like they raised as much as ninety three million from crypto. It's like, come on. You think that adding and as much as and like that that doesn't imply that it's ninety three million? Like that's not a reasonable journalistic take, I don't think. And so there's the whole media side of the story. But obviously it's even more complicated because it comes at a time when the crypto industry is being absolutely assailed and has been for the better part of a year now for the opponents have been looking for anything to cast doubt on this. This was the sole source of information for a letter that was signed by a fifth of Congress. That's totally, totally inappropriate. And so, you know, the question has been, will the Wall Street Journal issue a retraction? But I don't think that there's any chance on the planet that they will. It also doesn't matter if they do, because we know that it's already seen proliferates so much faster. And once it's seen, the retraction never is that damage has been done. Absolutely. Yeah. There's no coming back from that. Obviously, I also pointed out here that Sherrod Brown calls for crackdown on the use of crypto to fund terrorism. I think what's just most interesting to me is that this Senator Lummis letter comes after we already know that this is a fake story. It was one thing for Elizabeth Warren, I guess, can claim plausible deniability. I read the article. I trust the Wall Street Journal. It was right there. We wrote the letter. Lummis, who we all love, who we all love, she wrote this letter seemingly after it's very clear that this isn't true. So I'm just trying to figure out what the potential angle there would be. My instinct is that the angle there has more to do with a prioritization around where we are, you know, what threats we're dealing with. Like she clearly wants the emphasis to be on offshore, non -American regulated sort of institutions and their role, rather than sort of like targeting the better part of the or the sort of controllable, you know, regulatable part of the American crypto industry. So, you know, listen, it could just be literal politics. You know, instead of trying to say, hey, don't go after crypto, it's instead saying go after this very different part of crypto, you know, go, go after non -American crypto. Right. I mean, that's basically what they're saying. They're saying we're going to pick the winners, which we understand. Maybe this is saying, hey, use USDC. We're regulating the hell out of it. Don't don't use Tether, use Coinbase for regulating the hell out of it. Don't use Binance. I mean, Paolo from Tether and Bitfinex responded. We at Tether are proud of the work we do to stop illicit activity. Tether proactively collaborated since inception with tens of law enforcement agencies, including US, Ukraine and Israel. Crypto used by malicious actors accounts for a small drop. You get it, right? I mean, he very quickly said the same thing they've been saying all along. Listen, we're literally working with you guys to freeze these wallets. Everybody sees it. They're actually doing that work. So it just kind of kind of blows my mind to see that. But I think you actually have it correct, which is that we're going to get rid of the foreign actors in this industry so they can be better controlled by the United States. I mean, I think that that's a fair sort of way to approach this. Yeah, I mean, listen, it's reasonable to not like that approach. It's just this is very clearly there are let's put it this way. If on the one hand you have crypto antagonists and on the other hand, you have like the full on sort of crypto industry, let markets decide, you know, figure it out, folks in the middle, especially in D .C., there is a big space that says, you know, we've got to make some compromises. We have to exert some control. And so the compromises that we're going to make are things like, you know, focusing on, you know, pushing out the unregulated, uncontrollable stuff and, you know, and sort of enshrining and holding up the things that that are sort of, you know, regulateable. Yeah, that makes perfect sense. The next story, I believe this is number four, BlackRock Bitcoin ETF in August got on the DTCC site that just belatedly moved markets. That is a mouthful of a headline from Coindesk. I'm not even sure if they wrote that in English. But the idea here is a story that we've all been discussing, which is that the reason because we need a reason for the last move of Bitcoin from thirty one thousand to thirty five thousand was because BlackRock's Bitcoin spot ETF had been listed on the DTCC was BlackRock that is advancing. They're taking the next steps. They wouldn't do this unless they thought they were going to get approval. And further, once you do that, you start to actually seed the fund, meaning that you have to buy the underlying asset for that ETF, meaning even if in small amounts, BlackRock's going to start buying Bitcoin. We all know what happened next. Apparently, it disappeared from the website. Then the website itself disappeared because so many people went to check if it was still on the website, which actually crashed it. Then when it came back, it was there. It wasn't there. This all, of course, according to Twitter and the ARK ETF was there. But then that wasn't there. Apparently, that was fake news. So basically, we had this massive, confusing, nonsensical story and it turned out when someone actually just bothered to call DTCC that it had been there since August. I personally I just love this story. Everything about it is I mean, listen, what this story tells you more than anything else, hold aside the details, is that one, this is now two weeks running where we've had a Monday fake news story around the ETF. So let's see if we can make it three. And then two, it's that there is so much pent up energy, excitement, anticipation. I mean, look, it is it is very clear that people believe, rightly or wrongly, that this ETF is going to be the starting gun on the next bull market. And anything that hints that we are there is pushing people in. What I would be interested in is knowing sort of how much it's new market participants versus just more new capital from existing market participants, because it feels like it's a lot of that. But anyways, listen, I think it was hilarious that ultimately it was just something that we didn't notice for two months, drove the market that way. But I think that that speaks less to us being insane, although there's obviously always a little bit of that and more to just the the anticipation of what is seen as a absolutely catalytic event. That's right. It shows you that this market wants to go up. It wants to believe and it wants to continue to continue. And so I think you're right. It really doesn't matter what the news is, real or fake. It's giving us a huge hint as to what we can expect from this market when we do see a real approval. My favorite, just to wrap up on that one, was this final take from Philback, my brothers in Bitcoin. I spent six years managing new ETF launches for NYSE 2010 to 2016 and about 15 years in ETF product development and management. The DTCC thing means absolutely nothing, nothing. Get offline and spend time with your loved ones. So just to just to give you the context, all of that, even if it was just there since August, apparently even the takes about how important it was that it was there were false. And this is literally an entire nothing burger. But the bigger nothing burger it is, the bigger the story it is to me on how it was treated and handled by crypto, the crypto world and media. Well, you know, it was interesting. I mean, I think that like so we had this crazy rip up and then when the next day on Tuesday morning, when this ticker symbol was suddenly gone, everyone freaked out and Bitcoin three retraced or four percent. Right. Not not nearly the entire move, but but meaningful. Then when it came out, when it came back, and even when it was revealed that it was nothing, people were like, oh, no, you know what? We like that higher level better. We'll go back to the thing. You know, this this asset wants to be, you know, somewhere around where it is now for the moment, you know, and sort of clinging to that, I think, you know, I don't know. I'm not sure what would knock it off. I guess, you know, another ETF denial entirely if the SEC came out and, you know, kind of wiped off the slate, maybe that was sort of, you know, really, I think it would have to be the January denial when there's actually a final deadline for I think that would probably be it. I think until then, we're just going to sort of maintain this hype. Maybe it'll float down if we hear nothing for a bit. Maybe my favorite actor in this whole story, I don't know if you saw today that Jay Clayton, who's been on his road show, the SEC chairman, saying that we should approve a Bitcoin spot ETF, saying if he was chairman now, he would approve a Bitcoin spot. ETF is the most fair weather clout chasing human I've ever seen in my life because he was literally SEC chairman and had the opportunity to approve a Bitcoin spot ETF. I guess we can say, hey, it's changed. The environment is different. Yeah, it's actually a lot worse. Like we're in a bear market. So I don't really get that. The life of an ex -regulator, it's very good work if you could get it. Living in the sun, man. Just like sunny 24 -7, got a great tan, having a beer and just getting to fight. It's kind of like being the party that's not in power in politics because you don't have to do anything but be critical and say what you would do if things were perfect. So much fun for him. But man, it just aggravates me. He's literally the guy who could have done it. But hey, what are you going to do? Now, moving on to the fifth and final story is not just the approval, but what would happen if we do actually get it, right? Bitcoin spot ETFs could see inflow of $14 .4 billion in first year. This is from a pretty comprehensive report by Galaxy, which we can accept and enter the site. You can see that here on galaxy .com. But we're starting to get the analysis, we can call it research. It's really hard because it's all projection on just how big this could potentially be for the market and how much money we could see coming in. I think the only real reference point we have is BITO, the Bitcoin futures ETF that was approved a couple of years ago. We saw over a billion in less than 72 or 48 hours of inflows, assets under management. That was the most successful ETF of all time. Launch any ETF, obviously, not just crypto ETF. And Valkyrie, which didn't launch for another 48 or 72 hours after that, even being second was still, I believe, the 14th most successful ETF launch of all time. So that was in a bull market. There was huge demand, obviously, for a futures ETF. Now you have 8 to 10 of these, including the biggest names in the investment world. What can we expect and how can we come to that sort of conclusion as to what we can expect? Well, to your first point, it's all just projection. So there's no certainty here. A couple of things worth noting. One, obviously, Mike Novogratz himself is a huge bull. He will always show up in the arena with a price prediction. That's sort of his thing. His team at Galaxy Research are not that. They're super serious. Alex Thorne was at Fidelity. He's been an investor for a long time. These are very serious people. If they're coming out with a $14 .4 billion projection, and that's in their first year, they think it goes up to $21 billion in the second year and $39 billion by the third year. They're looking at that. Listen, they still could have the rose -colored glasses that we all have in the Bitcoin space, but I think that you can take it more seriously than just some sort of errant CEO pumping up this space. So that's one thing. The second thing is, I think that these big numbers are predicated upon either an assumption or a bet that what's different this time is that, one, because you have an instrument which is accessible to a huge array of investors, and two, you have the providers of that instrument being some of the biggest giants in traditional finance, that all of a sudden those messages of get off zero, basically, the stuff that people have been talking about for six, seven years now or more, actually start to resonate. When you start to have some meaningful portion of people who wouldn't allocate before there was an ETF say, sure, 1 -5 % going in, it doesn't take all that much to add up to these seemingly big numbers. So I think that the question will not be, in some ways, so much to me what the actual number is because that's arbitrary. It will be, do the things that we anticipate happening because this instrument exists, i .e., this new set of investors allocating a little bit to it, does that actually happen? That's the big question. And if it does, it's game on in a huge, huge way. Yeah, do registered investment advisors actually say, okay, now that we can, we're going to? Do institutions say, now that we can, we're going to? Is the real demand there? All of these calculations, as you said, they're based on a theoretical, if we get 1 % from all of the investment managers in the world, it breaks down to X number. Mark Yusko came on, he did it. Yeah, it's like, we have some 3 trillion, if we get 1 % of those and they do 1%, it's this number, we're going to see. But I would tell you that the price action in the market is showing that at least that demand is there.
The Breakdown
A highlight from SBF Takes the Stand
"Welcome back to The Breakdown with me, N .L .W. It's a daily podcast on macro, Bitcoin and the big picture power shifts remaking our world. What's going on, guys? It is Friday, October 27th, and today you know we are talking about Sam Bankman -Fried testifying in his own defense. Before we get into that, however, if you are enjoying The Breakdown, please go subscribe to it, give it a rating, give it a review, or if you want to dive deeper into the conversation, come join us on the Breakers Discord. You can find a link in the show notes or go to bit .ly slash breakdown pod. Alright, friends. What a long -awaited, much -anticipated day. Yesterday, Sam went through a mock testimony, which we will talk all about why that happened, and this morning he is back on the stand for real in front of the jury. We are going to get into all of that, but first, I think it's worth noting that there really hasn't been all that much of interest happening this week before this very dramatic conclusion of this case. For example, yesterday's morning session featured the final witness for the prosecution before the first two witnesses for the defense. The prosecution witness was an FBI agent who primarily functioned as a way to introduce signal chats into evidence. He testified that of the more than 300 signal groups Sam was a part of, 288 of them were set to auto -delete messages. Now, after that, the defense introduced brief testimony from the lawyer who had acted for FTX and Sam when he met with Bahamian regulators the day after FTX filed for bankruptcy. She simply established that Sam had cooperated with the authorities in turning over the remaining FTX assets to a liquidator and handing in his passport. The defense's second witness was a financial analyst who performs forensic work. He explained work that he had done to extract customer data from the FTX database and testified to the amount drawn from Alameda's line of credit. His testimony appeared to be designed to establish how many customers were signed up for margin accounts. This would line up with the theoretical explanation for the use of customer funds discussed last week by FTX General Counsel Kan Sun. Sun had testified that, as the entire scheme unraveled, he explained to Sam that it may have been technically legal to use the collateral assets pledged by futures traders. However, he warned that the size of the hole was far too large to be explained away using this reasoning. Now, this witness's work did not include cross -referencing bank accounts or crypto wallets, making the entire premise of his testimony a little thin. The real deal, the thing that people were excited for, was, of course, when, in the afternoon, Sam took the witness stand. There was, however, one big twist. The jury had been sent home and Sam would be presenting his testimony with only the judge present. The judge explained to the courtroom, The judge explained that, despite volumes of letters arguing the point, he had been unable to come to a decision on whether the evidence would be admissible. This means Sam's testimony would be narrowly focused on the issues in dispute. Whether Sam could blame his conduct partly on the advice of lawyers related to auto -deleting signal messages, banking arrangements, and the use of customer funds. Sam has been unable to produce written evidence of this advice. The law firm which provided the advice has objected to a subpoena from the defense. This places unadvice of counsel defense on shaky ground in relation to the rules of evidence. Instead, Sam's defense team is proposing what they are calling a modified advice of counsel defense. The goal here is for Sam to discuss his mindset relating to what he was told by lawyers without formally relying on the defense. So, the goal of yesterday was that after hearing a preview of this evidence, the judge would be able to rule on whether or not it was admissible in front of the jury. This kind of hearing is apparently extremely rare but not unheard of. The judge stated that they hadn't required a hearing like this in quote, some time. So basically, really, really to sum up, Sam's defense wanted to be that lawyers told me to do all this stuff and I just did what the lawyers said. This would matter because if he wasn't knowingly committing fraud because he believed what he was doing was legal because lawyers told him to do it, then he would have a chance at not being guilty. The issue is that they don't have any copy of that legal advice, so the best that they can do is introduce what Sam was thinking he heard. So, back to the testimony itself. Sam's testimony began with a discussion of the data retention policy at FTX. He explained that signal messages and emails were automatically deleted as long as they were related to informal chatter. Messages related to business decisions were supposed to be retained. Sam also talked through banking arrangements at FTX. He said that he believed it was legal for Alameda Research to receive deposits from customers. The testimony turned to North Dimension, an Alameda subsidiary which was set up explicitly to hold bank accounts and receive customer funds in the later stages of FTX. Sam claimed that he was at arm's length from this decision. He stated that FTX Chief Regulatory Officer Dan Friedberg had prepared the forms which he thought nothing of signing. Now, a quick little background on Dan Friedberg because you are going to hear his name a lot because Sam invoked his name a lot. Long before Dan showed up at FTX, he was implicated in the 2008 Ultimate Bet online poker cheating scandal. Although he was never individually charged, Friedberg had been an attorney for the poker site. He was caught on tape at one point, advancing a dubious cover -up. In 2011, on the notorious online poker Black Friday, Ultimate Bet's founders were criminally charged with bank fraud and money laundering. Now, when it comes to FTX, Friedberg has not been criminally charged, but he has been sued in a civil lawsuit by the FTX estate. That's the background. Sam then discussed investments made by FTX. He said that sometimes deals would be structured with Alameda as the investor and sometimes with himself personally named. Sam said that he took comfort that lawyers had structured the deals appropriately. Sam spoke to the terms of service, which he said allowed Alameda to participate in futures trading, including taking out margin loans. He added that the terms between FTX and Alameda were drafted by Dan Friedberg as well as outside lawyers from Fenwick and West. Sam claimed the practice of using an omnibus wallet rather than segregated customer assets was common throughout the industry. Again, the theme of the defense's questioning was that Sam had relied upon legal advice in making decisions at FTX. Now, notably, the defense frequently cuts Sam off and appear to be coaching him to answer questions as briefly and directly as possible.
The Aloönæ Show
A highlight from S14 E06: Hunter Biden, Trust, and American Justice
"Hello, welcome to The Ohlone Show. I'm your host, Jeremy Ohlone. In this episode, we don't have regulars because reasons, obviously. As for our guest, she's currently in Cleveland, Ohio, but she's originally from Youngstown. We'll never know where that is. She is a decorating, but also works in real estate. One of the two, at least. Ladies and gentlemen, I give you Rosemary Colucci. Hi, thank you for having me on. Hello, everybody. I have a compelling story I'd like to share with you about corruption at a local level and how it reaches to the national level. Here's my story. Here we go. So I was married, happily married, three wonderful children living the what I call the American dream. And all of a sudden, there's a knock at my door. The first knock is this. Rosemary, your husband's in big trouble. Really? What did he do? Well, we believe that he gave money for a sheriff from a well -known real estate developer and the real money came from the mob. I said, how much was the money? And the FBI agent said, $5 ,000. I go, well, that isn't true. I said, that was our money. He goes, how do you know? And I said, because I almost divorced him over because I wanted a minivan. So then my husband was helping a well -known congressman named Jim trafficking. And the FBI called him up along with me. And they told him that his IRS debt was going to become criminal if he did not back off with James trafficking. And my husband agreed at that meeting, but went back and Mr. trafficking reached back out to my husband who had the utmost respect for the man, as well as that whole community did. And so he went against the federal prosecutor and he went up there and he helped them. And he was seen on TV and people locally, a judge, a federal judge locally got immediately was on this and wanted to try to indict him for taxes. So the jury refused the indictment. He had a grand jury, secret grand jury that refused to indict him for willful nonpayment of taxes, which is the same thing Hunter Biden is being charged with. Then they came down, threatened us both and said that if he didn't take the plea, they would take our kids away from us. Now I had a hard time believing that. I remember telling the, a lawyer that represented my husband who I have no respect for, I'm going to say it because I feel that he really, really did a horrible job, ineffective counsel. I think he was in on things with the, but at any rate, so the next thing was he had to take the plea. They give him, they tell him it's eight months to take the plea. He'll be out in eight and he can go to Elkton, which is very close to Youngstown. So he takes the plea. We get up to Cleveland, up there, this same attorney who ends up becoming a special prosecutor. How would you like to have this guy prosecuting your cases? Goes up there. He goes up there and he, on the way up there, he drives us up. He says, well, you had letters of recommendation, good recommendations for your hearing today. And I took them out because they're inappropriate to have judges talking and recommending you for other judges, to other judges. So I took the letters out. Mind you this, a month prior to that, Mark's lawyer, a co -lawyer that was working in his office called me up and he said, Rosemary, you have something to do here. I said, what's that? He said, you got to have your kids write a letter to the judge. I said, why? He said, just trust me on this. To this day, I don't know how he knew. So I got my kids and he said, make sure you mail it yourself. And I wrote the letter to the judge. We get to court and she's decided she's going to step outside the plea agreement and charge him for 18 months. He's going away and his law license is gone for life.
CoinDesk Podcast Network
A highlight from SBF TRIAL Podcast 10/27: Sam Bankman-Fried Takes the Stand, In Front Of The Jury
"Welcome to the SBF trial, a Coindesk podcast network newsletter bringing you daily insights from inside the courtroom where Sam Bankman -Fried will try to stay out of prison. Follow the Coindesk podcast network to get the audio each morning with content from the Coindesk regulation team and voiced by Wondercraft AI. Sam Bankman -Fried began his testimony like the brilliant former golden boy from crypto's better days. He ended the longest, strangest, most torturous day yet of his criminal trial more imperiled than ever before. Part of the problem is that the witness has what I'll simply call an interesting way of responding to questions, Judge Lewis Kaplan said before a gallery of exhausted faces late Thursday. They and he were the only audience around for a special hearing that turned what was supposed to be Sam's first day of testimony into a free -wheeling deposition, as defense counsel Mark Cohen put it. The only solace for Sam may be that the jury wasn't there to hear it. Kaplan had sent them home after lunch. He wanted to hold a for -my -ears -alone hearing to determine if some defense arguments were admissible, a practice he'd seldom done in his 29 years on the federal bench. This newsletter isn't so concerned with Sam is so concerned with giving every detail some airtime, we'll touch on them briefly for context. The defense wants to ask Sam about the lawyers he leaned on while running FTX and Alameda into the ground. The government does not want to let them do this. To be clear, this is only a portion of the defense argument. When Bankman -Fried shows up Friday to testify in front of the jury, he'll have broader issues to discuss. But even if we put aside the specifics, the main issue may still be that he'll be the one testifying, and he'll still be subject to a cross -examination. Judge Kaplan will decide whether to let both sides' arguments play out again before the jury. Assuming he says yes, we'll hear it all again and cover it then. Assuming he says no, well, you'll get the greatest hits here. Here's the gist. Sam Bankman -Fried soared high with a strong command of the narrative and its characters when his lawyers walked him through what was almost certainly a well -rehearsed back and forth. He reminded the gallery why so many people fell under the fast -talking crypto billionaire spell during FTX's good times. Sam stayed on script, repeatedly pointing the finger at former FTX general counsel Dan Friedberg and external counsel from Fenwick and Amp West. They drafted most or all of the documents around the various policies that Bankman -Fried says prove he didn't intend to defraud his customers, he testified. Sam excelled, and even Judge Kaplan seemed to know it. When the 78 -year -old jurist asked Sam to break down what a block explorer was, the explainer -in -chief launched into a lucid depiction of the websites crypto investors use to track where their tokens are. He emanated the eagerness and bravado of the technical boy wonder he used to be. Even before FTX collapsed, and especially after during an ill -advised media tour, Sam positioned himself as a confidence man with all the answers. His self -belief in the SBF ability to talk it out, this was paramount to the SBF image. Maybe it was the source of his powers. On Thursday, it was the fount of his floundering. Thirty minutes after the block explorer explanation, or maybe it was an hour, Sam's game of savvy answers gave way to jumbled evasiveness. On Thursday, it was an hour, Sam's game of savvy answers gave way to jumbled evasiveness. A bemused, slightly annoyed Judge Kaplan snapped back, you worry about block explorers? Everyone and their mother, literally, one prosecutor's mom was there, as well as the defendants, came to watch Sam Bankman -Fried spar with the government on his biggest stand yet. A rainbow -sneaker -wearing Michael Lewis caught a delayed red eye from California to lean in on the penthouse courtroom's wooden pews. In front of him, Sam's publicist nervously chewed on a blue pen, while three sketch artists added flares of color to their works. To their left, nearly 20 reporters scribbled in notebooks that were fast -running low on paper. All around the courtroom, a revolving cast of five or more U .S. Marshals kept everything under close control. Sam kept himself under control, or I guess his version of control, which is probably not the control his lawyers want, which would be under their control. He continues to present himself as the master of his own story. At least he thinks he is. During a blistering cross -examination by Assistant U .S. Attorney Danielle Sassoon, Sam Bankman -Fried voluntarily defenestrated his unrecognizably svelte frame into a treacherous pit of legal whoopsie -daisy that even Judge Kaplan tried to save him from and failed. Reminding us all that humans are persistence hunters, Sassoon had already distinguished herself throughout this trial as the government's patient testimony tactician. She lays traps that witnesses walk into, conjuring statements they can't escape. Her command of her sections of this case is such that she can refer to documents, narratives, and names that people like Sam really should know of, but don't. Her questioning of Sam forced the self -shore alleged fraudster deep into his own patchy memory hole. A typical back -and -forth went like this, Did you have any discussions with lawyers about the permissibility of Alameda spending FTX customer deposits sent to Alameda's bank accounts? I don't recall. So what do you recall? He wrangled around many of her queries with over -answers, non -answers, indirect answers, and apologies that he did not know more. The judge told him off for being slippery. Listen to the question and answer the question directly, Judge Kaplan instructed Bankman Freed at one point. On the stand, Bankman Freed licked his lips so often that it resembled something of a tick. His mouth must have been dry, because he downed at least three bottles of water. But he didn't treat those bottles with the angry fists that have subconsciously betrayed his state of mind before.
Mark Levin
FBI Received 'Criminal Info' From Over 40 Sources on Biden Family
"That Grassley learned that an FBI task force within the Washington field office sought To and in some cases successfully shut down reporting and information from those sources By falsely discrediting the information as foreign disinformation that quote effort caused investigative activity to cease unquote But despite these efforts by the FBI task force Grassley said in at least one instance A confidential human source and its information had been vetted by multiple US Attorney's offices which found quote no hits to known sources The revelations were laid out in a letter Grassley wrote to Attorney General Merrick Garland and FBI director Christopher Wray late last night The letter was exclusively obtained by Fox News digital so it'll be dismissed by the pro -hamas Nazi media So what should have happened here Mr. producer? Grassley should have given it to Hamas. Then Hamas could have released it to the media including Reuters AP the Washington Post NBC and then the media might actually take it seriously Grassley said based on the information provided to my office over a period of years and multiple credible whistleblowers there appears to be an effort within the Justice Department and FBI to shut down investigative activity relating to the Biden family Grassley wrote to Garland Garland and Wray now you know why Garland will never and would never appoint a special counsel there is no way he's gonna let this out of his control this is the biggest cover -up in American
Discerning Hearts - Catholic Podcasts
A highlight from BTP-LOT4 Challenges in Suffering, Part 1 The Life of St. Teresa of Avila Beginning to Pray with Dr. Anthony Lilles Podcast
"Anthony, thank you so much for joining me once again. Well, it's wonderful to be with you to discuss the life of Teresa of Avila, Teresa de Jesus. Today we get to talk about chapter 4, when she enters the monastery of the Incarnation. I love the fact that she encourages her brother to kind of travel with her, that he should join to and turn away from the vanities of the world. I think that speaks of the dynamic nature of her personality. Yeah, he, in fact, you know, kind of inspired by her sister, he will eventually become a Dominican. But the journey that she sets out on, it makes it sound like it's much farther than it actually was. Remember, this is the same brother. The two of them, when they were children, tried to go to the land of the Muslims to be martyred. And that was when they were little, and their uncle found them on the hillside and got them back home. And so this time they set out again, the uncle doesn't get to them until she actually reaches the convent of the Incarnation, which is really not very far away from where her uncle found her all those years ago when she was a child. And she enters into the Incarnation, the monastery of the Incarnation, a Carmelite monastery, and she discovers she loves religious life. And this opens up a really powerful reflection on when we go to serve the Lord, and all the fear that comes, and all the hesitations, and what God can do when we face our fears. That is a real challenge, isn't it? Because our fears are a way of trying to protect ourselves. Maybe we've been hurt, or we're trying to protect others, somehow we put up walls. Fear is quite an enemy, isn't it? It is, and there's so many forms of it. She doesn't explore exactly all of what she's afraid of, but to go from a life where it's basically self -centered to becoming a member of the community where you're going to be serving others, to go from a life where there's a lot of excitement, to go into a community where in many ways you'll be hidden and kind of cut off from the former way of life that you were living before. These possibly were part of things. The other part of it that I think that we can't underestimate that maybe applies to our lives is to go from a life where you're kind of in control of, you know, you have command over what you're doing, into a life where you're going to give yourself over to the service of the Lord. What happens if you fail? And I think that was a little bit of her fear, was fear of failure. I can relate to that. I'm sure many people out there who are listening to us can too. But then in this second section of chapter four, this jumps out and I try to hold on to this, Anthony. She says, And the greater the fear it starts out with, the greater and more enjoyable will be the reward afterward. I hold this opinion through experience, as I said, with many very difficult things. And so I would never counsel anyone if there were someone to whom I should have to give counsel to fail out of fear to put a good inspiration into practice when it repeatedly arises. That's it. That if you have something that keeps on coming up in your heart that you ought to do, if you can overcome your fear, the virtue that overcomes fear is courage. If you can master your fear with courage and do it, there's blessings for her. That's the basic message here. Chris, is this something that you found in your own life? Well, I think so. I think so. It takes time to turn around and look back and say, Oh, I'm so glad that happened. Because these type of experiences generally take time, don't they, to kind of play out. And sometimes it doesn't even look at what you may have expected it to look like or experience. And you have been a part of our mission at Discerning Hearts, right? We're supposed to discern. We're supposed to test spirits. We're supposed to give time. And yet what Teresa is saying here in some ways says in that discernment, don't let fear be one of the things that keeps you from moving forward. That's right. In fact, I'm glad you brought up Discerning Hearts because so many of your listeners probably don't realize the amount of courage that it has taken you and your family to provide this apostolate to all of us. When you first set out to do this, this was an unusual thing to do. And you had no idea of all the different challenges and twists and turns that you would face along the way. And yet there was repeatedly this impulse in your heart to do this. And not only to do this, but to do it in a way that makes it available for everyone. You don't have paid subscribers. You just put this out there for everyone to benefit. That kind of boldness and generosity of your time and energy and resources, just going out there and trusting that God will provide what is needed when it is needed. I don't know, Kris, I think you chose the pathway of Mother Angelica. And anyone who chooses that pathway, God blesses them tremendously. Isn't that something that you've experienced? I have. Thank you for saying that, by the way, Anthony. And I couldn't do it without your encouragement and support over the years, particularly spiritually and in great friendship. What I have found, it's a scary type of thing to do something that God is asking you to do. And you have a lot of people around you telling you, well, you should do it this way and you should do it that way. But you know inside your heart, but the Lord wants me to do it this way, especially when it comes to matters in the spiritual life. You can't give what you don't have. And it's difficult to guide people if you don't respond to his promptings. And the reward, as you were saying, you are blessed, but in ways that are better than what you think. You know, sometimes people think, well, if you have tons and tons of subscribers, or you have tons and tons of monetary resources, that's an accomplishment. You're on your way. No, it's the blessings that come from wonderful friendships of people that you know that have been touched by the work of grace that God's working in their life. There are some things that you can't explain why it's so good. And I don't mean to make this about me, but it's an example of the influence of Teresa of Avila. She is one of those saints at the very, very beginning who has journeyed with all of us here at Discerning Hearts and has witnessed in her example, even in this very first time when she's in the Carmel, that you don't be afraid and know how to listen to that voice of God who is trying to lead you because the fruitfulness is. I mean, you can see that example in what she has given the world. Through her own, we can call it ministry, can't we? That's right. The witness of her life becomes kind of a ministry to the Church, a witness of holiness. And this is where for Discerning Hearts to be able to support souls who are also trying to do something beautiful for God, they feel this impulse over and over. I think it was very necessary for you and everyone involved at Discerning Hearts to face the same fears that people who would be listening to even this show today have also faced and are facing. I think there's a whole bunch of young men and women today who God is calling to do something very beautiful with their lives. I think God has called them for greatness. John Paul II said, The world never expects anything from you, but God, He expects greatness because you were made for greatness. And we need to own that and step up into it, which means facing the fears that the world throws out at us. And part of those fears are if you go and do something beautiful for God, what if you fail? What happens? How do you pick up the pieces? And that kind of voice is a voice that's trying to predict the future, and it's not the Holy Spirit. What the Holy Spirit prompts us to do is to be faithful with the inspirations that we've received. And so you received an inspiration to go and do something beautiful for God. In the case of Discerning Hearts, Chris's faithfulness to this, Bruce's faithfulness to this apostolate, her family's faithfulness, really, to this apostolate, has opened up avenues of grace, a source of grace, for people all over the world that I literally, when I travel internationally, run into people, actually run into people all over the world who know about Discerning Hearts and have been edified because Chris had the courage to offer something like she has. And Chris, what you've stepped into is actually a spiritual law. Teresa gives voice to the spiritual law. The greater the fear that you need to overcome when you are being, when the Lord kind of prompts you to do something, and you're afraid to do it, the greater the fear, the greater the reward's going to be, not only for yourself, but for everyone else in the whole world, in the whole mystical body of Christ. So this is a very powerful thing. We need to kind of, in our prayer, be aware of what the Lord's prompting us to do, how He's prompting us to do it. And when we are aware of that prompting, there is going to be an onslaught of fears that just come and try to discourage us and try to make us second -guess ourselves, trying to encourage us away from greatness and into something more modest that we think we can handle. There's going to be all of those fears. And what we need to do as men and women today, no matter our state in life, but especially those of you who are deciding your state in life, you need to not let those fears limit what God has invited you into. Don't let them limit your response, your generous response to God. The more you confront that fear and the more courage you take into your following up the Lord, the greater the blessing is that He wants to give you. And if you live by that always greater, Saint Ignatius would also talk about that, live by this always greater, God is going to bless you with something ever greater. He has never outdone in His generosity.
The Hugh Hewitt Show: Highly Concentrated
"special counsel" Discussed on The Hugh Hewitt Show: Highly Concentrated
"You're going to start using the power tools. This is worse for the kitchen. We have a lovely, beautiful kitchen that your viewers cannot see. It's right over there. My life was the only time I welcome this. I don't have this nice little soundproof box that I can go into and do these kinds of appearances. But it's a transition. We're going to get a lovely kitchen out of it with this. I'm just keeping my house standing. And as you can tell, they're doing like in honor of Oppenheimer, they're doing above ground nuclear testing. They're removing some of the sound of the bad roof by detonating atomic bombs, it appears. And that's. But your transition into the segment with the pounding, that was that was actually memorable. We may have to send that and nominate you for whatever, a Marconi. Just think of this like, you know, look, it's going to be a big mess. You and Americans should have a giant pounding headache as the noises continue. You know, you know, this is bad. This is bad because, look, what Donald Trump did on January 6th was abominable. As my colleagues like Andy McCarthy and Dan McLaughlin and others have pointed out, like the appropriate response was impeachment. And I very much believe that Trump warranted. He had it coming for impeachment the second time. It did not convict after January 6th. They ran out of time. I have a constitutional argument against it, given how late it was. And there was no due process. But let me ask it just going down the road. What sauce for the goose? It's like Harry Reid breaking the filibuster and Democrats then being shocked, shocked, shocked that Mitch McConnell gets Amy Coney Barrett confirmed. If you play by these rules, these rules will be played by. Yes, that is, you know, that is a dynamic of politics. And what's fascinating is that we have a political class, I would say more amongst the Democrats and Republicans. But I think you can point to examples on the Republican side of people who don't realize that, who cannot see down the road, who cannot see around the corner and realize what will it be like when the shoe is on the other foot? You know, we have done this. We've eliminated the filibuster for justices. We don't like, wait a minute. They're eliminating the filibuster for, you know, for Supreme Court justices. Wait, they can do that. You know, they're talking about impeaching Joe Biden. Well, look, you know, it certainly looks like at the other thing I was starting to just say is that the timing could not be worse because you've got a lot of Republicans believing the Department of Justice is just going to bend over backwards to avoid indicting Hunter Biden and really wants to sweep under the rug anything that could potentially involve his father. There are these messages from the IRS whistleblower who said that, you know, Hunter Biden's saying my father's right here. He's sitting next to me. Why haven't you said the payment? If you don't send the payment, we're going to come out. You know, my dad and everybody he knows, they're going to come after you. This all looks like, you know, the best explanation for Joe Biden is that his son is going rogue and making up stuff and that Joe Biden wasn't actually in the room. And he's just, you know, trying to convince idiot, shady businessmen overseas that he can get U.S. policies changed. This is what they mean by the illusion of access as opposed to, you know, selling access, because I think once you can get the vice president or former vice president on the phone, that's access, right? You go get the most zealous fanatic in the Department of Justice who hates Joe Biden, and you ask them to spend a year coming up with charges. Oh, my gosh. Are they out of their mind? And then Merrick Garland says, does punches pilot? That's my last question. How about Merrick Garland doing punches pilot yesterday? Let it be on your head.I hope he's well and on the men, but boy, doesn't Mitch McConnell look good right now for keeping off the Supreme Court? By the way, I do not mean to imply that Donald Trump is Jesus Christ. I mean to imply that you can't walk away if you're the you know, I know what the left does. What will I have media matters saying? I compare Donald Trump to Jesus. I'm just saying you can't walk away. You're the attorney general. You're in charge. Let's say, Hugh, I think there's this question going around, which biblical figure do you compare Donald Trump to? For me, it's for me, it's the snake. But nonetheless, it's the same law that everybody else does. You cannot invent a new kind of crime. You cannot stretch the existing statute like Silly Putty in order to get, in order to nail the guy who you think is the snake. And that, you know, that they don't see the other great irony. Whereas talking with this with Dwayne during the break, like we kind of alluded, the documents case looks like a much stronger, much closer to a slam dunk, you know, that kind of stuff. I do kind of wonder if this is Jack's, I think back to the prosecution of George Zimmern down in Florida and the sense that there was this great public outrage over this. We're done, Jim Darity. God bless you. Avoid the hammers. There's dust coming down. I think the ceiling's coming down. That was a great dinner. So great. Wait, where'd you park the car? Oh, the one I just sold at Carvana. What? When did you do that? When you were still looking at the menu. I went on Carvana.com and all I had to do was and got a real offer in seconds. They picked up the car already? No, I parked around the corner, but they are picking it up tomorrow and paying me right on the spot. Oh, no wonder you picked up the check. Yeah, about that, I thought we were going to have these. Sell your car to Carvana. Visit Carvana.com or download the app to get a real offer in seconds.
The Hugh Hewitt Show: Highly Concentrated
"special counsel" Discussed on The Hugh Hewitt Show: Highly Concentrated
"That's the sort of thing I can see getting tied up in legal fights for a very long time. Probably beyond. Right. Probably beyond the election. So yes, this is not going to be. Yeah. Yeah. The other cases may well be resolved. Yeah. Well, does it help? Yeah. I look, I think most there are a wide variety of people who'd say Alvin Bragg's indictment is nonsense. They've never applied the statute that way. Nobody else gets prosecuted for this kind of stuff, et cetera, et cetera. I think a lot of people in the documents, they've got the equivalent of a smoking gun case that there's just giant piles of stuff ipso facto right in the face of it, very clear that Trump. If I can keep you one more segment, I'm going to try and keep you one more segment because I want to get him to elaborate on that. The obstruction charge of all this stuff in the documents case is the one that's cut and dried and that is trouble for Trump. But I want to ask Jim what he thinks about the overall impact of this on America, not on Trump, but on America. Stay tuned. Welcome back. I'm back with Jim Garrity because I wanted to ask him the big question about the indictment. What is the long term impact, Jim, on American politics of having a special prosecutor go after Donald Trump on state of mind crimes? Hugh, something dark is pounding at the door of American life right now. I don't know if you can hear the work. Remember a couple of weeks ago when I said the roofer was coming by? Well, let's just say my house is falling down. So it feels like there is a discordant racket in American life that we we are trying to to sort out our problems and our differences through normal measured, careful conversation. And there's this constant pounding of political vindictiveness. There is this hammering sound that is disrupting what we want to do in our national life. Did you go out and ask him to do this? What? I'm sorry. Did you go outside and say, start pounding immediately? Well, I point out that, like, you know, I get the message, hey, we're going to be over pretty soon. Can you make sure the door is unlocked? Can your listeners hear anything? Oh, they can hear this. Oh, yes.
The Hugh Hewitt Show: Highly Concentrated
"special counsel" Discussed on The Hugh Hewitt Show: Highly Concentrated
"Way back when in the Alvin Bragg case, my former colleague, David French, said you should not be using any unique or unprecedented definitions of the law or interpretations of the law. You shouldn't do it to indict anybody, but you certainly should not be using this for the first indictment of the President of the United States. In a lot of the coverage today, you can find people pointing out this all hinges on the prosecution's ability to, beyond a reasonable doubt, prove that Trump knew he was lying. Now, if you ask Jim Garrity what is the most effective defense for Trump, I would argue insanity. I think Donald Trump is not a guy who could easily distinguish between reality and fantasy. I think you tell him what he wants to hear and he automatically believes it's true regardless of counter evidence. I think you could tell him something he doesn't want to hear. You can have a mountain of evidence and Donald Trump will still reject it because he heard on the internet, you know, 40,000 ballots were destroyed or something like that. That having been said, I'll be surprised if the prosecution can, you know, successfully prove that Trump knew he was lying and that he was not deluded or believing a fantasy or something like that. So, and I do think this, because heading into this, my attitude has been, we have 5,200 federal crimes in this country. You're telling me between election day 2020 and January 6th, Donald Trump did not break any federal law at all in any way, shape or form. But this indictment basically says he, you know, we can look into his mind and we know he was, he knew he was lying. And I think it'll be tough to prove. Jim, you don't surprise me because you agree with me. And I thought everyone will get there. Everyone will get where we are, which is, this is a nightmare because state of mind prosecutions of politicians. I'm making it general. I don't want to prosecute Joe Biden because he lied about never having discussed business dealings with his son. I don't want to prosecute him. I don't want to prosecute anyone for anything that they say on the campaign trail ever, or trying to win or hold onto the presidency, because then we will be a banana republic and we will have show trials. I do want to read to you paragraph 83. I've read the complaint. I know what Jack Smith is going to argue. And that's why I go to page 83 on the evening or paragraph on the evening of January 3rd, the defendant met for a briefing on an overseas national security issue with the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff. That's of course, president Trump while he's still president and other senior national security advisors. The chairman briefed the defendant on the issue, which had previously arisen in December, as well as possible ways the defendant could handle it. When the chairman and another advisor recommended that the defendant take no action because inauguration day was only 17 days away and any course of action could trigger something unhelpful, the defendant calmly agreed stating, yeah, you're right. It's too late for us. We're going to give it to the next guy. They are going to argue that that proves his state of mind is he doesn't believe he was screwed. And he didn't believe that Mike Pence could put aside the ballots. It doesn't go to that in the same way that a New York Jets or a Cleveland Brown coach in the playoffs down by eight points and on the two yard line with six seconds doesn't try a hook and ladder and doesn't try a hail Mary. You don't give up, even though you know, you're formulating his game plan for the following week. Yes, you know, we will resolve that when we get there. Yeah, no, I think maybe like when if it is if they can actually generate proof that he said to Mike Pence, you're too honest. OK, maybe that's getting in the ballpark of insinuating that certain people are honest and that Trump himself and his argument is not honest. I'm not saying it's impossible. Jack Smith will convince a jury. By the way, I kind of want to ask you because I in the New York Times article today by Peter Baker, it just kind of casually acknowledges that Trump got four like five percent of the vote in Washington, D.C., and he's going to have a very tough time with the Washington, D.C. jury pool. Now, when even the Times is just kind of saying, yeah, you know, D.C., it's a very Democratic and anti Trump town. And boy, that jury is going to come in there ready to, you know, believe anything they hear about Trump. That's like openly stating he can't get a fair trial. I'm really surprised by how open everybody is about this instead of this. Well, you know, it's a Democratic jurisdiction. So my question to you, Hugh, would be where should this trial be held? I don't know the venue rules now. Usually it's to a place proximate to the crime alleged, but not in the tainted jury pool. But I don't think you'll get a change of venue. I think the fix is in, Jim. They're going to do this in D.C. and the judges are going to keep it in D.C. because, again, we've never done this before and they don't want to establish a precedent that Republicans can't be tried by Democrats. And so I do think we're screwed. Let me play you. I want to get your reaction as cut number 17. This is John Laura, who is very good on Brett Baer. Brett, by the way, ran the best show I've ever seen last night. He had on Andy McCarthy. He had on Jonathan Turley and then he had on Laura at length. And here's what Laura said. Cut number 17. One thing I will say, though, in 2020, the Mr. Trump's campaign had a few weeks to gear up and present evidence and it was very difficult. We now have the ability in this case to issue our own subpoenas and we will relitigate every single issue in the 2020 election in the context of this litigation. Now, Jim, I think that means I'm going to bring in the 51 experts who said that the Hunter Biden tape was Russian disinformation. I'm bringing in Mark Zuckerberg to tell me why he gave hundreds of millions of dollars in vote. I'm bringing in the Pennsylvania Supreme Court because they made this ruling without consulting the legislature. And we're going to we're going to prove that the state of mind of Donald Trump was based upon people trying to get him, that even paranoid have enemies. We're going to prove that. Now, noted legal expert Kyle Cheney at Politico tells me, oh, that's all rando nonsense. No, it's not. I think it all goes to state of mind. What do you think? You're not a lawyer like Kyle, but I'm just curious. What's the layman thing? Well, first of all, I think the odds of Trump and his legal team attempting that argument are very likely. In other words, if you can get people under oath, then say, dear Pennsylvania Supreme Court, why did you decide that a smudged postmark was a legitimate should be counted as a legitimate ballot? Why did you believe that not having a postmark, that if it arrived ahead of time, that we should within that time, we should accept it? And, you know, I mean, they'll probably say, oh, because we wanted to make sure every potentially legitimate vote was counted, blah, blah, blah. But like, I think you're adding you're adding up that. And then again, how you know, how many times have we heard Trump assert something that's factually false that is that is not accurate, but that it's very clear he absolutely totally believes it. Right. Like, remember when he did the marker on the map and he extended it into Alabama or something like Jersey? Remember that they were writing that the Palestinians were celebrating on 9-11 completely wrong made up. And so one of the thing is, is that like the argument like this is not an argument Trump's going to lie. But the you know, I imagine his lawyers in order to get acquittal will use every trick in the book and every tool at their at their hand. And to say Donald Trump believes some crazy stuff and he absolutely totally believes it. And he's absolutely completely convinced of it. And the fact that somebody tells them, Mr. President, there was no voter fraud, that's not going to change his mind. He's not a, you know, easily persuaded when he he totally believes this kind of stuff. Does he get to call him? Does he get to call President Biden to prove that President Biden said, I never discussed business dealings with my son so that his attorneys can argue both presidential candidates in an attempt to gain the office lied about things they knew not to be true.
The Hugh Hewitt Show: Highly Concentrated
"special counsel" Discussed on The Hugh Hewitt Show: Highly Concentrated
"Yeah, I mean, I would be interested in that. You know better than I, the process of what the president can be made to do. But if we're subpoenaing everybody, let's subpoena everybody, I guess. Do you think it can be held in D.C. and be fair? No, I do not think that, actually. Do you think anybody thinks that? It's tough. Do you think anybody thinks it can be fair? I mean, does anyone dispute that that's a show trial? I think that people fool themselves into thinking the fact that it's not fair is in fact just. That's what the left has been doing all around. The fact that it's not fair and it's tilted his way is just because it's very bad and he's very bad. And therefore, that's fine. That's what people have been fooling themselves into thinking about all of these mechanisms since they've been trying to get Trump. And it has been a disservice to the country because even if you dislike Trump and you don't think he's going about things the right way, you don't blow up the norms to get him. But that's what they've been doing. But Mary Catherine, we only have a minute. They're not going to stop. I mean, it's going to be it's going to be it's good for ratings. We're going to see MSNBC go crazy. I don't know about your old network. I just think every leftist like Kyle Cheney, who's chirping at me on Twitter this morning, every leftist with a platform is going to chirp about this and they're not going to know anything. Well, yeah, and it's sort of a perfect storm for Democrats and the media. But I repeat myself, which is that every indictment, I think somewhat understandably makes him stronger with primary voters because they do feel that all this nonsense has been thrown at him and that it's been weaponized. In some cases, I think the like, for instance, the documents case, some of it's real, right. But he has had bad behavior that might creep into criminal. But a lot of people are discounting it, understandably. So they want to stand behind him. I understand that feeling. And then on the other side, Democrats benefit from that because the man least likely to win a general election in the primary for Republicans keeps getting bumps from his indictments. So it works. It works for them on another level. And I think they will continue to pound it as much as possible. Jack, there couldn't be Les Mis without a Javert and they can't be the drama without a Jack Smith. Mary Catherine Hamm will be listening to Getting Hammered this week to hear more of what you have to say. Thank you for joining me. Stay tuned America. Have you guys heard that President Biden is bragging about Bidenomics recently? I mean, talk about being out of touch. Just look at the rampant inflation making everything from gas to groceries cost more. Americans are paying $10,000 more every year for the same standard of living. Costs are higher, wages are lower, and Americans are poorer. That's the real Bidenomics. I'm thankful for Americans for Prosperity, the biggest, strongest fiscal conservative organization in the country. That's out there leading the charge against the president's reckless economic policies. You can always count on Americans for Prosperity to take on this White House false claims with proven principled solutions. That's why AFP has launched the new campaign called Prosperity is Possible, advocating for solutions we know will work, like ending the reckless spending driving inflation, unleashing energy abundance, and empowering the American workforce. Here's the good news. You don't sit on the sideline and watch Bidenomics ruin America. You'll be part of a movement for freedom and opportunity that fights and wins. Go to Americansforprosperity.org slash Hugh and get involved. That's Americansforprosperity.org slash Hugh. Americansforprosperity.org slash Hugh. Good morning, glory America. Bonjour, hi Canada. I'm Hugh Hewitt on a very, very, very troubling morning for America and the future of America as political speech is attempted to be criminalized, in my opinion, by the Javert of America, Jack Smith. But I don't know what Jim how are you? Jim, who am I? Jim, Hugh, you can tell the terrific start that I'm off to. Actually, it makes me kind of proud that you don't know what I think yet. It makes me kind of proud that like I am not a predictable, reflexive anti-Trump guy, not a predictable, reflexive pro-Trump guy. And that's probably why what I think is going to surprise you, some listeners, and some readers of Today's Morning Jolt, in part because I changed my mind kind of in the last 24 hours or so. We all knew this indictment was coming. We all knew Trump had tweeted about it or been on Truth Social about it. And I actually come to this and I think this is... I'll be surprised if this holds up in court. If a prosecution is held, it does not get rejected on appeal.
The Hugh Hewitt Show: Highly Concentrated
"special counsel" Discussed on The Hugh Hewitt Show: Highly Concentrated
"Welcome back America. I'm Hugh Hewitt. Mary Catherine Ham is co-host of the podcast Getting Hammered, longtime friend. Good morning, Mary Catherine. Let's get right to it. What's your reaction to the indictment that came down, the four indictments that came down yesterday? Well, I mean, I do think maybe the DOJ could like in the future, maybe leave a few days space between when the Biden stories fall apart and then they indict his political opponent again. I mean, just for optics, maybe that would be. But this is I guess this is just the way the wheels of justice turn. Look, I looked at the documents indictment and I thought, OK, there seems like there's real stuff here. This one seems to deal very much with political speech. And I, as somebody who I'm a big fan of free speech, would like to be really careful about criminalizing speeches made by a president of the United States of America. I think that's a problem if you are using that as your basis, even if the underlying if the thing that happened is very terrible, the speech is not necessarily the crime, because we have a long tradition of that not being the crime. Now, the indictment attempts to say that Donald Trump did not believe what he did and said. That goes to state of mind. That's a very difficult prosecution to make. Now, I'm being told by armchair lawyers at Politico and elsewhere that I'm crazy and that's not how it works. But of course, they actually have no idea how it works. Let me play for you a little bit of John Laura with Brett Baer last night, vowing to subpoena everybody. Cut number 17. One thing I will say, though, in 2020, that Mr. Trump's campaign had a few weeks to gear up and present evidence and was very difficult. We now have the ability in this case to issue our own subpoenas and we will relitigate every single issue in the 2020 election in the context of this litigation. All right, Mary Catherine, I think everyone from Mark Zuckerberg to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court ought to lawyer up. Everybody's going to get a subpoena. Now, they might get quashed, but John Laura just said scorched earth here. How good is that for the country? Yeah, this doesn't sound like a great idea. I don't even think, you know, Trump's running a campaign that frequently references 2020 is a good idea for the country and now we're going to do a legal proceeding where we're bringing in every single issue from 2020. No, I don't think this is a great idea. And I also think this idea, I know it goes to state of mind, but this idea that aren't you allowed to say things you don't believe in public are true? Like that's a thing that we're allowed to do. What happens to the people who objected to the elections of 2004 and 2016? Did they really believe it? I mean, we could go, we could do some subpoenas and figure it out, I guess. It's so upsetting to me what we're going to do right now. You know, the 51 people who signed the letter about the Hunter Biden laptop, do you think that goes to Trump's state of mind? Yeah. I mean, that seems like something relevant to me. None of those people have paid any consequences much as at like my old network when I was at CNN and we chased Russian ghosts for years on air and said a bunch of things that weren't true and called them news. Turns out those were misinformation and disinformation, but nobody pays any consequences for those. And you are allowed to say those things in public. But we don't even, when it's one side, it's just convenient not to punish anybody. On the other side, we use the entire energy of the Justice Department to whatever is necessary to nail somebody. And that's a problem. And it's a problem that many Americans see. Big question because it came up back in the Nixon days. Do you think that the president of the United States, Joe Biden, can be subpoenaed in this to find out what he and his team thought about the various challenges that Trump was bringing? Specifically, what did they think about Mike Pence being able to set aside the constitutional argument? Do you think they can be subpoenaed to find out whether or not they thought there was a ghost of a chance? Because it's a Hail Mary, but teams don't take the knee in the Super Bowl.
The Hugh Hewitt Show: Highly Concentrated
"special counsel" Discussed on The Hugh Hewitt Show: Highly Concentrated
"Right. And I think that it's a mistake to omit material like that. But the most jarring thing about this indictment is that it basically just accuses him of disinformation. This is a disinformation indictment. It says that you were spreading falsehoods, that you were undermining the integrity of the election. That's all part of the First Amendment. And I think that courts will look skeptically. He might have a fair shot with a D.C. jury and maybe a D.C. judge. He's going to have a harder time with the courts. And this reminds me of sort of McDowell complaint where he took the Virginia governor, got a conviction, and then it was unanimously overturned by the Supreme Court. It is a bridge too far. And one of the things I was looking for is I assumed that Smith had this type of aha moment, that there's something in there that the January 6th committee didn't find that supported. We heard about witness tampering. It's not in there. I mean, everything in this indictment is basically what has been discussed in the news. Now, by the way, the other thing that is not in here is conspiracy for incitement. Not in here is a seditious conspiracy. Those were the claims that Democrats used in the impeachment and said that the evidence was absolutely clear. People like Schiff and others said that he's clearly guilty of those crimes. Well, they're not in here. They're not in there because they can't be proved. Stay tuned. Do you lose your weight yet? I've got my Ph.D. weight loss dot com as a sponsor of this show. So I want to know, have you lost? Are you back down below the red line yet? I am. I am hovering around it. I've got like another pound and a half to go. Eight, six, four, six, four, four, nineteen hundred. That's eight, six, four, six, four, four, nineteen hundred. Because the stress level is going to be high around here for a few months. It's it's doing stuff. Last night, I was I grabbed a handful of M &Ms because I needed the sugar. How are you going to blame Jack Smith? Jack Smith. Jack Smith kept me from losing the last pound. You better call Rachel at my weight loss. Well, I'm confessing it openly. Eight, six, four, six, four, four, nineteen hundred. Yes. There is responsible for you not getting the weight. Yes, that's exactly right. Wayne did lose 50 pounds. I'm going to subpoena him. Yeah, subpoena him. You might get subpoenaed. Yes. Stay tuned America. I'm Hugh Hewitt.
The Hugh Hewitt Show: Highly Concentrated
"special counsel" Discussed on The Hugh Hewitt Show: Highly Concentrated
"And because the guy's on trial for his life, so it's due process. He gets every benefit of the doubt. He gets to bring in every witness because they're trying to prove he didn't believe it, that it was a conspiracy, that he was trying to overthrow the government of the United States. He wasn't charged with insurrection or sedition, by the way. He's charged with false statements, basically, to the public. It's really, truly a terrible thing. But I tweeted that and immediately, Kyle Cheney, who works for Politico. Now, I don't know Kyle Cheney. He's a graduate of Boston University and went to work in 2006. I looked up his bio. I wanted to find out where GAU was from because he's the senior legal correspondent. I thought, where did he get his law degree from? Turns out that he began his career as a reporter covering Massachusetts politics for the Statehouse News. He went to Politico in 2012, covering the Affordable Care Act. Then he did the 2014 midterms, then the 2016 presidential election. He joined the congressional team after 2016. He became one of the leading reporters on the Trump impeachment inquiry in 2019. And he regularly appears on CNN, MSNBC and C-SPAN. I've not met Kyle. I have no idea if he's a nice guy, good guy, but he's not a very bright guy because he tweeted back about me saying, boy, they're going to spin everyone from Zuckerberg to the 51. This is not how any of this works. Of course, Trump can vow to subpoena everyone under the sun. But aside from getting credulous headlines, the odds of testimony from these far flung randos being admissible and relevant to this case are dot, dot, dot, nil. Now, I ask you, he has no legal training. He's hung around a few lawyers. He went to the impeachment trial. He went to BU, not to BU Law, which is fine law school. I don't think he knows anything about defending a state of mind trial. I don't think he has any idea what a reasonable doubt is. I don't think he has any idea about how far reaching the subpoena is or what the judge has the power is or the change of venue that's upcoming. He doesn't know anything. And I have doing this since 1980, right? Went to law school in 1980, have been practicing and I remain an active member of the D.C. bar and the California bar, though I'm no longer practicing. I do give legal advice on occasion for the friends and family. And I've dealt with constitutional issues in the White House, the Department of Justice. I've held every clearance the United States has for counterintelligence. I understand what the 51 former counterintelligence officials is. I would be 52 if I signed it, but I wouldn't sign any stupid letter like that. Political letter. And so I'm going to tell you right now, much of what you hear, much of what you read are going to come from people who have no qualifications, none, zero, other than hanging around with a bunch of other reporters who talk to lawyers who have clients that they want to advance the point of view. It's the same people who fell for the Steele dossier. It's the same people who fell for Strzok and Page. It's the same people who fell from a cave. It's the same people who fell for Comey. It's the same people who won't look at Biden. It's the same people who thought the Hunter laptop was fake and it was Russian disinformation. The same people are going to tell you that John Laurel doesn't know what he is doing. John Laurel went to Georgetown and Georgetown Law, practiced at one of the best firms in the country, started his own firm, and by the way, was an assistant United States attorney in the Eastern District of New York. Now, that's not the famed Southern District, but it's pretty doggone good. And I'm here to tell you, most of what you hear is just going to be absolute rubbish because they have no idea what they're talking about. I may be wrong in some of my predictions and points of view. As Napoleon said, I've been mistaken so often that I no longer blush when I find one. I don't blush because lawyers are going to be wrong half the time. But at least we have a point of view and some experience on which to basis. Now, I've been teaching con law since 1996. I teach the impeachment cases every year. I teach US v. Nixon. I teach Bush v. Gore. I teach everything having to do with anything. And there is no precedent. We've never tried former president. We've never had an indictment like this. But we do have Brandenburg. I'd love to know what Kyle Cheney thinks about Brandenburg. All right. Doesn't even know when Brandenburg was decided or what the facts are. I teach it every semester that I teach. So I'm not dumping on Kyle Cheney, though I am. I'm sure he's a nice young man. All right. I'm sure he is. Like Olivia Beaver is coming in. Nice young people in DC who are paid to have opinions whether or not they're right, wrong, or have any credibility behind them. But there are two people in broadcast and exactly two that I can think of who have any background at this level of the law. Mark Levin and me. Welcome back, America. The whole show is about this outrageous indictment brought by Jack Smith. I'm trying to immunize you against terrible takes you'll hear forever on the media and from people like Kyle Cheney at Politico. They really just don't know what they're talking about. They want Trump to go to jail. They have no idea what they're talking about. No idea. They want people to go to jail and they just have no idea. They love this show and they have no idea what's going to happen down the road. The attempt to criminalize deceptive speech by politicians. What a fool's errand. What a nightmare. And Jack Smith, the Javert of American politics, deputized by the the fading and infirm Merrick Garland, who was appointed, nominated and confirmed by the infirm, when confirmed by the infirm, Joe Biden. He was confirmed by the Senate saying, oh, I've got nothing to say. Just ask Jack Smith and Jack Smith talking about January 6th. The indictment isn't about seditious conspiracy. Not in there. It's about the president defrauding the United States and not believing what he believed. And they're going to get they had a proof state of mind. Oh, my gosh. Andrew McCarthy got number one on with Brett Baer last night. I think unfortunately, Brett, this is as weak as it was foretold to be. You see a lot of deceitful conduct. But the problem I think Jack Smith has is that Congress has not enacted statutes that directly criminalize the behavior that Smith is talking about. So what he has to do is distort statutes in order to try to pigeonhole the behavior into them. So, for example, the Supreme Court was very clear in May, in two cases where they threw out convictions against cronies of former Governor Andrew Cuomo of New York, that fraud in the United States means to assets and that to the extent that, you know, Congress has tried to expand that into this idea of, you know, fraud that creates deceptive government practices, the statutes that are on the books now are vague and otherwise Congress hasn't criminalized that. So I think what you have is the case comes down to can he prove that Trump believed the things that he was saying, notwithstanding all the evidence to the contrary. But even if he could get over that hurdle, which I think is daunting, I do think that you have the problem that he has extravagantly stretched these statutes in order to try to capture this behavior. And that's because this is really a proxy for what should have been a political impeachment process and leading to the criminal justice system, the failure of Congress to carry out a successful impeachment. Let's go to cut number two by Andrew McCarthy. Well, just to start with what I heard, Brett, that was one of the most demagogic presentations I've ever seen in a high profile criminal case. Anyone who listened to that, any normal person reacting to that would assume that Trump was alleged to have carried out the Capitol riot. The entire presentation that he made was not about what the core charges in his case are. It was about the Capitol riot and the security personnel who were injured in the Capitol riot and who had to fight to defend the Capitol riot. And then you turn to his indictment. He's not charged with the Capitol riot. So if that is what he has to resort to in order to sell his case to the public, I think that's very telling in terms of what of how compelling his case is. As far as the timeline is concerned, I think he's going to have if it's a good judge, we'll have to see. He'll have a very hard time getting this case to trial because having decided to already indict him on the Mar-a-Lago case, he's not in a good position to go to court and say, as he said in his remarks, that he wants a speedy trial and he wants to get this case to trial. Now, I know for political reasons, they'd love to have the Capitol riot, which he's underscoring in front of the voters in the run up to the election. But as a legal matter, by bringing the first case first, he's now crimped the amount of time that Trump has to prepare for what looks like it's going to be a legally complex trial. So I think he has a very hard time, if you get a good judge, getting this case to trial. Okay, Jonathan Turley, cut number three.
The Hugh Hewitt Show: Highly Concentrated
"special counsel" Discussed on The Hugh Hewitt Show: Highly Concentrated
"It is a very dark day for America. The politicization of politics, the attempted show trial of Donald Trump on nothing new. There's nothing new in this indictment. It is not the documents case. I understand the documents case. I've told you the obstruction charge in the documents case is the one that's real and has substance. He ought not to have been charged. He ought not to have been subpoenaed, but he was subpoenaed. I mean, you get a subpoena, you got to respond to it. And you know that I think Donald Trump lost the election. I said it the day after I wrote the Washington Post the day after, you know, I condemned January 6th as it was happening. You know, I've argued about it with the president. You know, I've told the president after the election that he lost. And I've told the president on air that we are not going to discuss it because I don't believe any of it. I don't believe that Carrie Lake won. I'm just a center right Republican who happens to be a pretty good lawyer, teaches con law, served in the Department of Justice, served in the White House counsel's office practice for 30 years. I know what I'm talking about. So this segment is devoted to you understanding who to talk about. Earlier today, I played this clip, cut number 17, John Loro, Donald Trump's lawyer last night with Brett Barrett, cut number 17. One thing I will say, though, in 2020, the Mr. Trump's campaign had a few weeks to gear up and present evidence and it was very difficult. We now have the ability in this case to issue our own subpoenas and we will relitigate every single issue in the 2020 election in the context of this litigation. All right, so they have the subpoena power. Now, he's been charged with crimes that go to his state of mind. And there is an attempt made most obvious in paragraph 83 of the indictment to prove that he didn't believe that he'd been defrauded. Paragraph 83 is one of the very few new things in this. On the evening of January 3rd, the defendant met for a briefing on an overseas national security issue with the chairman of the Joint Chiefs and other senior national security advisors. The chairman briefed the defendant on the issue, which had previously arisen in December, as well as possible ways the defendant could handle it. The defendant's the president, of course. When the chairman and another advisor recommended the defendant take no action because Inauguration Day was only 17 days away, and of course, any action could trigger something unhelpful, the defendant calmly agreed, stating, yeah, you're right. It's too late for us. We're going to give that to the next guy. So, you see what Javert, Jack Smith, is trying to prove is that the president did not believe the then president, now former president, didn't believe what he was doing in saying on January 6th. Okay, that's state of mind. That's what they're trying to prove. He didn't believe any of it. It's still not criminal, by the way, in the same way that throwing a Hail Mary pass is not criminal, in the same way that trying a hook and ladder isn't criminal in a football game. It's not criminal to try anything because you honestly believe maybe this will work. Maybe Mike Pence can put it aside. We've never been here before, and that was a wild cycle, and everything went wrong. And we heard Laurel say that I'm going to subpoena everyone. So, you know, I immediately think, okay, they're going to bring in Zuckerberg to talk about the Zuck Bucks and where they went. They're going to bring in the Pennsylvania Supreme Court that made up stuff as they went along. They were especially going to bring in the 51 former intelligence officials who helped get the old Twitter to censor the Hunter Biden laptop. Everything is on the table, everything.
The Hugh Hewitt Show: Highly Concentrated
"special counsel" Discussed on The Hugh Hewitt Show: Highly Concentrated
"All right. Anybody. They're alleging he knew this. And again, I go to paragraph 83, which I think is the only really significant new thing I think they put in there for a specific reason. On the evening of January 3rd, the defendant met for a briefing on an overseas national security issue with the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and other senior national security adviser. The chairman briefed the defendant on the issue, which had previously arisen in December, as well as possible ways the defendant could handle it. When the chairman, another adviser, recommended the defendant take no action because Inauguration Day was only 17 days away and any course of action could trigger something unhelpful, the defendant calmly agreed, stating, yeah, you're right. It's too late for us. We're going to give it to the next guy. So they're saying, oh, see, he knew he lost. That isn't what he's saying. He's saying we're going to likely, almost certainly, turn over power to Biden. However, I'm not giving up my Hail Mary play. I'm not giving up my hook and ladder play. I'm going I'm not touching a knee down. I'm not giving up. And they're going to prove they're going to bring in everyone they need to bring in that this was a funky election cycle. You can believe it was fair. You can believe it got the right guy elected. You can believe Joe Biden got 81 million votes and Donald Trump got 75 million votes. And I do, by the way, that's what I believe. And that it wasn't contestable and there wasn't enough fraud. You couldn't prove it. It was just a very bizarre election cycle. But you're going to bring in the 51 intelligence officials who signed the letter saying that Hunter Biden's laptop was likely Russian disinformation. You're going to bring in the Pennsylvania Supreme Court and ask them, why did they change the laws without going to the legislature? You're going to relitigate Donald Trump's state of mind. You're going to bring in Mark Zuckerberg. You're going to bring in the Twitter executives who censored the election. You're going to bring in everybody to prove that it was so wild that Donald Trump was justified in believing he'd been screwed, even though I don't think he'd been screwed. And you might not think he's been screwed, but he's on trial for his life. He'll go to jail for the rest of his life if he doesn't get acquitted on this. So he gets to try everything. He gets to put everything in front of a jury, which should not be in the District of Columbia. So what I'm telling you is that Jack Smith has unleashed the win and is going to reap the whirlwind. Everybody lawyer up, everybody lawyer up because Donald Trump sincerely believed he'd been screwed. And he sincerely had been advised by John Eastman. And I've known John for a long time. He's brilliant. He has been wrong. We disagree, for example, on the 14th Amendment and its applicability to people born in the United States, making them citizens. He has no breaks sometimes, but he gave good faith advice to the president about what he believed could be an argument. And John does not make stuff up. He can be wrong. People can be wrong. As Napoleon said, I've made so many mistakes that I no longer blush to admit them. John has made so many mistakes, he shouldn't blush to admit them. Every lawyer does. Every lawyer worth their salt doesn't take just easy cases and slip and falls on banana peels and wet department store floors. This is a nightmare. It is a show trial. We have never done this before. And it is egregious. This is not the documents case, which is also stupid, except for the obstruction chart. It's just all political show trial. And we have never done it before because the left knows no bounds in its hatred of Donald Trump because he beat Hillary Clinton and they promptly attempted to undermine him from day one with the Steele dossier and all two and a half years of the Mueller investigation and now this stuff. Yes, as a political matter, he's a wounded candidate. And there is an argument out there that if we nominate him Republicans, he will lose. But it is no argument that this is unprecedented and a horrible assault on the rule of law. I'm so angry at this being allowed to happen. Morning, Gloria America. I'm Hugh Hewitt.
The Hugh Hewitt Show: Highly Concentrated
"special counsel" Discussed on The Hugh Hewitt Show: Highly Concentrated
"Well, anyway, John Laura is not putting up with this. Cut number 17. One thing I will say, though, in 2020, the Mr. Trump's campaign had a few weeks to gear up and present evidence and was very difficult. We now have the ability in this case to issue our own subpoenas and we will relitigate every single issue in the 2020 election. In the context of this litigation, it gives President Trump an opportunity that he has never had before, which is to have subpoena power since January six in a way that can be exercised in federal courts. Yeah, but keep going. What does that mean? Keep playing that, whatever that came from, because. OK, then never mind, it takes too long to get context of this litigation. It gives President Trump an opportunity that he has never had before, which is to have subpoena power since January six in a way that can be exercised in federal court. What you're talking about, the states, the states did that. Each individual state certified the elections. They were signed by the governors, many of them Republican governors and many of them Republican secretaries of state that signed off and certified this election results before they came to Washington, D.C. And we had what was January 6th. So what you're talking about was done. It was no, no, I'm sorry, but you're missing what what Professor Eastman's advice was. Professor Eastman said that the state legislatures had not opined and weighed in on the changes that had been done in those various states. But each one of those states since that time, now we're talking about two years later, has not reopened those cases. They have not some of them have had audits, but they have not reopened the 2020 election from that point of view. And some of them are Republican legislatures. And it's never been presented to the states. Now, what we're going to have is not just a civil trial, but a criminal trial for Mr. Trump exercising his right to speech. So there may be disagreement about what happened. But the bottom line is we're now treating this as a criminal case rather than as we're doing, talking about this in the context of politics and free speech. And so he has a subpoena power to bring in anyone who can prove his state of mind.
The Hugh Hewitt Show: Highly Concentrated
"special counsel" Discussed on The Hugh Hewitt Show: Highly Concentrated
"I would like them to try to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Donald Trump believed that these allegations were false. What did he see in real time? He saw changes in election procedure in the middle of the game, being carried out by executive level people at the state level, election officials, but not the state legislatures. He had an advice. Pause for a second there, Adam. I'm going to find where John Loro says we're going to subpoena everyone because I want people to hear that. I want them to hear if they missed Brett's show last night. John Loro is going to subpoena everybody. We're going to relitigate 2020. The 51 officials who signed that laptop, that's disinformation. Mark Zuckerberg in the Zuck Box. We're going to get the Pennsylvania Supreme Court. They're going to subpoena everyone. Wake up, America. This is a nightmare. Stay tuned. Welcome back, America. I'm Hugh Hewitt. This is a grim morning for America and I want to remind everyone. I missed yesterday and I want to thank Kurt Schleicher for sitting in for me and I'll be off on Friday and Monday, maybe Tuesday of next week as well, as we pack off everyone to go to their new duty assignment station. But I want to say this is a dark, dark day. Not because of Donald Trump, but because of what this portends for the future. And this trial is going to be a nightmare. I found the quote we want. John Loro is the new attorney for Donald Trump. And the first time I've seen him, very impressive. I looked up his background, very impressive. And again, I remind you, among all the broadcasters out there, the only people you ought to be listening to with opinions as opposed to questions is Mark Levin and me. We're the only people who actually know what we're doing. Mark, of course, served as the chief of staff to Attorney General Meason did so ably. He's written wonderfully on this, smart guy, wonderful lawyer. I, of course, University of Michigan Law School, D.C. Circuit clerkships for Judges McKinnon and Rob, into the Department of Justice for Bill Smith and Ed Meese, over to the White House Counsel's Office and General Counsel, two agencies and confirmed by the Senate, always with the highest clearances. Mark had the highest clearances. People have clearances and know how this stuff works. People who have been around the Department of Justice, they're the only host you ought to be listening to. Then you can have some interviewers like Brett Baer, who are very fair, who interview people like Jonathan Turley and Andrew McCarthy, who are very fair, have been often critical of the former president, but who are very fair. And then you listen to the president's lawyers. And if Jack Smith comes out and does other than grandstand, I mean, that speech, it was just so disgusting, actually disgusting for a prosecutor not to talk about the charges he brought, but about bad things that happened. And that's what he did. I want you to understand it was he's not defending it. And Merrick Garland, feeble old Merrick Garland say, I can't possibly talk about this. This is up to Jack Smith. It's like Joe Biden and Merrick Garland got together and said, we don't know what's going on. Let's give it to this guy from The Hague.
The Hugh Hewitt Show: Highly Concentrated
"special counsel" Discussed on The Hugh Hewitt Show: Highly Concentrated
"According to this indictment, they believe that that argument would empower every losing politician to do what former President Trump did. And by using what they call in this indictment, false information to stir up people, that the system then breaks down. I'm paraphrasing, but essentially that's what it says in this. So what they're saying is politicians may use hyperbolic speech or excessive speech in some way and stir people. And we're going to criminalize that. Good luck in the United States if that's where we're heading. Good luck, because the reality is that everything that Mr. Trump requested to be done was done with the advice of counsel, was done with lawyers giving him advice. Those lawyers are going to come in and testify. Nothing was done in a way that wasn't constitutionally permissible. It's all politics. It's all politics. And if we're criminalizing politics, what's going to happen when the Republicans are next in office? Think about the pressure that's going to be put on a Republican president to go after and indict sitting Democrats now in Congress or in state houses for their political views. And then we have this vicious circle once the criminal justice system has been politicized. Cut number seven. It says the defendant lost the 2020 presidential election. Despite having lost, the defendant was determined to remain in power. So for more than two months following the election day, November 3rd, 2020, the defendant spread lies that there had been outcome determinative fraud in the election and that he had actually won. These claims were false and the defendant knew that they were false, created an intense national atmosphere of mistrust and anger and eroded public faith in the administration of the election.
The Hugh Hewitt Show: Highly Concentrated
"special counsel" Discussed on The Hugh Hewitt Show: Highly Concentrated
"I'm discussing this morning US v. Trump, which ought to be called Trump Derangement Society v. Trump or Democrats v. Trump or the Beltway v. Trump. It's not the United States v. Trump. This is a terrible day for this morning. John Loro is Trump's attorney on this case. Very impressive guy. He graduated from Georgetown Law after going to Georgetown. He was with Morgan Lewis Bacchius. And then he was in the U.S. attorney's office of the Eastern District of New York. He set up his own firm, Loro & Singer. And Loro was very good last night. I had not heard him before. Cut number seven, John Loro talking to Bret Baier. It says the defendant lost the presidential election. Despite having lost, the defendant was determined to remain in power. So for more than two months following the election day, November 3rd, 2020, the defendant spread lies that there had been outcome determinative fraud in the election and that he had actually won. These claims were false and the defendant knew that they were false, created an intense national atmosphere of mistrust and anger and eroded public faith in the administration of the election. I would like them to try to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Donald Trump believed that these allegations were false. What did he see in real time? He saw changes in election procedure in the middle of the game, being carried out by executive level people at the state level, election officials, but not the state legislatures. He had an advice of counsel, a very detailed memorandum from a constitutional expert who said, Mr. President, these states are complaining about what happened. You as the executive have the ability to ask Vice President Pence to pause the vote on January 6, have these states audit and recertify. And that way we know ultimately who won the election. And that's the only thing that President Trump suggested. There's nothing unlawful about that. He was entitled to do that as the chief executive officer carrying out the laws and nothing about that was obstructive. It was quite interesting that Mr. Smith talked about the violence on Capitol Hill. He's not being charged with that. There's no allegation that President Trump incited any violence or did anything to cause any violence, just the opposite. He's being indicted for free speech. He's being indicted for objecting to the way that the 2020 election was carried out. And any American that takes that view should be equally concerned. Are they next? Because the reality is that if a president can be indicted for free speech, then anybody can be indicted. So when this case goes to trial, we're going to be representing not just President Trump, but every single American that believes in the First Amendment and believes in your ability to redress and bring grievances to Congress. And that's exactly what people were doing. You had these alternate electors that said to the Congress, we have serious doubts about what happened in the 2020 election. We're bringing these grievances to you. Listen to us. That's being criminalized now. Don't forget, we had an extraordinary set of circumstances in 2020. We had the COVID virus. We had laws being changed in the middle of the game. And Donald Trump had every responsibility and every right to raise these issues. Cut number 10, John Loro.
CNN Political Briefing
"special counsel" Discussed on CNN Political Briefing
"Hey everyone, I'm David challenging the CNN political director. This is the CNN political briefing. Here's what you need to know in politics for Friday, February 24th. It's possible former president Donald Trump and his vice president Mike Pence could face off in the 2024 Republican presidential primary. But in court, Mike Pence is clearly trying not to take on his former boss. As you no doubt know, Donald Trump is under many different investigations, both at the state and federal level. One key investigation is the special counsel investigation into January 6th and all the activity that the then president Trump was engaging in, conversations around what ultimately resulted in the insurrection on the capitol and the attempt to thwart a legitimate election from being properly affirmed by the Congress as the constitution requires. And it is that investigation being conducted by Jack Smith, the man appointed to be the special counsel by Merrick Garland in this case, that is heating up in lots of different directions. But what is crystal clear from all of the moves is that Jack Smith is not playing around. He is looking to get his investigation right into the very heart of the Oval Office inside the Trump White House. And we're learning now that federal prosecutors really want to hear from one person in particular, and that is former vice president Mike Pence. A person familiar with the matter told CNN federal prosecutors have asked a judge to compel hence to testify. You'll recall Pence has been served a subpoena by special counsel Smith, who's looking for documents and testimony from Pence about all of his interactions with Trump in the lead up to the 2020 election and the day of the attack on the capitol on the 6th of January 2021. Attorneys for Donald Trump have asserted executive privilege over pence's testimony. Hence was in Iowa, where potential presidential candidates find themselves these days, and he said executive privilege is basically Donald Trump's claim to make. But that Mike Pence is fighting this special counsel subpoena on a different legal standard. I'm going to fight Biden DoJ's
Bloomberg Radio New York
"special counsel" Discussed on Bloomberg Radio New York
"And most likely attorney general Garland would make that public for American voters to review and to take into consideration. So it doesn't change anything as my view in terms of the power of the Justice Department to bring charges. It doesn't make it necessarily more likely to be brought, put it insures more transparency. Does this second special counsel investigation complicate the investigation of special counsel Jack Smith, a former president Trump, and the decision by Smith and Garland, whether to prosecute. I don't think that's how it changes their legal calculus. It might alter their political calculus of things. If you're Jack Smith and you're compiling a potential indictment against the former president, we were already on high alert to make sure your case was tight in your back where clean. Now you're going to be even more so worried to make sure that there are no gaps in the evidence that there are no witnesses whose credibility you can't be sure of. You're going to be even more sensitive to that idea because if you choose to bring in a nightmare and the special counsel into Biden met does not, there will be obvious political implications. And lest we forget there are actually three special counsels at the same time. John Durham has been investigating potential misconduct in the Trump Russia probe for about four years, so these special counsel investigations can take on a life of their own. Thanks so much, Brad. That's Brad moss of Mark zaid, coming up next, the Supreme Court considers the attorney client privilege in a case with special importance for in-house counsel. You're listening to Bloomberg. Bloomberg radio on demand and in your podcast feed. On the latest edition of the balance of power podcast, national economic council director Brian deese on December's cooling inflation. We should be careful. This is an uncertain moment and so we should be careful about being too definitive in any moment. I would say that the data in last month's CPI report and the data overall is encouraging and should give us more confidence that we can navigate through this period and bring prices down, transition to a more steady and stable growth path without giving up all the economic gains that we've made. If you look over the last 6 months, we've seen core inflation come down from about 8% annualized on a three month basis to about 3% in the fourth quarter on an annualized basis. That's significant. That's encouraging and we've seen it in the context of ongoing resilience in the labor market. So I think we're seeing the kind of progress we want to see. And now we've got to keep at this. I would say that at least from
KSFO-AM
"special counsel" Discussed on KSFO-AM
"The Sean Hannity show. 25 tool. The top of the hour. 809 41, Sean, our number. You want to be a part of the program. We're not gonna let up. We're not going to stop. History needs to be properly recorded. Not that I have. Ah, whole lot of faith anymore in the door. Um, quote, never ending investigation. Special Counsel. Whatever. I just don't But you know, we are because of the final call it a document dump in D. C. Finally, the declassification these documents. In the final waning days of the president's administration are extraordinarily revealing. And this is stuff which again just makes one scratch their head and wonder. Two years waited for its inspector General Horowitz, forget the report. There are numerous referrals in that report for well the same exact things that people like Roger Stone and Manafort and others were You know, harassed for years about, but nothing's been done. Nobody's been held accountable anyway. We now understand that in the spring of 2017 Andrew McCabe, deputy FBI director apparently was summoned to the Justice Department for a high level Sunday morning meeting led by then Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein. Never. He signed the fourth and final FISA application, by which time we already had Christopher Steele on record We now know as a result of the classified documents and the sub source of steel. Steel, admitting that the only reason he was pushing his stupid dossier that he knew is full of crap to was to help Hillary Clinton divert attention away from the email server issues. Yes, they were real crimes. Yes, there was a real violation of the espionage Act. 18, USC 7 93 and yes, Subpoenaed emails were deleted and bleach bit was real and hammers and devices and sim cards and all that happened. That would put any one of us. We the little people. I guess all of us will be in jail that irredeemable, deplorable, smelly Wal Mart shopping. People that we are anyway. McCabe showed up thinking it was a coordination and logistic issues meeting for the special counsel, then taking over Robert Mueller. And he found himself to be the subject of the discussion. And Rosenstein wanted McCabe to recuse himself as the I guess. Temporary FBI director from the Russia probe because McCabe's wife had run from office that was pointed out by President Trump many times in Virginia. And yet, Clinton ally Terry McCall of, you know, raising massive sums of money that you don't really get for a state local race. Um because of, well, at least the appearance of impropriety may also remember that you know McCabe in the I G report saying that he lacked candor. And that's where the inspector general made a referral or what was the whole charge. Say, you know, Stone, Manafort, Look at Roger Stone lying to Congress. Well, that got him 29. Man in tactical gear and frogman and a predawn raid guns drawn CNN cameras rolling and the hell that they put him through the exact same thing anyway, you might. This is McKay denying it. Rejecting the IG report, Michael Horowitz said. No reason alive, But anyway, here's what he cave said at the time. I never intentionally misled anyone about anything, and I certainly have not committed a crime. I was asked questions on two separate occasions about an article that had appeared months before I was asked questions completely unprompted in the middle of other farm or intense and challenging issues that were swirling around me at the time. Um, when I've thought after the fact that those answers may have been inaccurate or mistaken, I reached out to those folks to make sure that they understood exactly what I meant and understood exactly what the situation was. Well, if you you know, you just listen to this guy going, okay? Not with the report said. That's not what we've learned, you know is we've learned a lot anyway. John Solomon is with us. He's been poring through these now declassified files in the final days of Trump's presidency. With apparently some update here. John Solomon. Yes, I'm going to be with you. Listen, these documents our amazing I've said it before. These are too I think. FBI integrity What the Pentagon papers were to the Vietnam War. Every time you read them, you discover something else. I was just reading and preparing for short today. This incredible, Jule That's around the time that you were. McCabe is meeting with Rosenstein right after Comey's fired and out of the blue. I just read it for the first time. First time I've ever seen this, Rosenstein tells McCabe, uh, right after Comey's fired But the president didn't fire me just because of Russia. He had intended to fire him all along. Going back to January. When they first came in office. He didn't think that Comey was a good FBI director. Why is that significant? We gave a president To special counsel Mueller to investigate the firing of James Comey as obstructing the Russia investigation, when in fact the contemporaneous evidence now shows The idea to fire Comey started long before Russia just every time we read these documents were gonna learn something new about just how misled we were. How much deception in the official annals of government? Was carried out in how often the president was mistreated by false facts. I mean time and time again, a false narrative was pointed put out there. And the exculpatory facts were always hidden by the bureaucrats by them key players in Congress and we're on Lee now getting the truth. Four years later, it's It's incredible. What's frustrating is guys like Durham. He's had access to this information the whole time. As you know, he has absolutely he knows every says Low hanging fruit. John, This is not complicated stuff here. You know if we're gonna prosecute General Flynn for perjury trap, where? Where I sent them in something I wouldn't do in the Bush or Obama administration's and even the FBI agents didn't think it was lying. But they send the scent. Sign this paper that says you did. You lied, even though we didn't think you lie or we're gonna go after your son and your family. That's right. Listen, we're going to release in the next couple days. A new document. It's going to be the transcript of Carter Page talking to an FBI informant two months before they seek the FISA warrant two months before. The FBI knew from that interaction with Carter Page that Carter Page was not someone who had changed the Republican platform to help brush him, He said it we wasn't involved in it. He was not someone that was trying to get Hillary Clinton's emails, all the allegations that Christopher Steele had put in his dossier. We're already debunked by an undercover informant wearing a wire catching Carter page, unaware that he was talking to an FBI informant making statements that were exculpatory statements of innocents. And the FBI. When you read this transcript, then you look at what the FBI did in the subsequent application, you realize knowingly willfully multiple members of the F B. I misled the FISA court. It's not even in doubt anymore. Yeah, I mean, it's and look that when we say premeditated fraud is that Now we know from these documents in these final days, declassification that in fact they had interviewed Christopher Steele early on and steals, admitted the reason he was pushing the dossier. Was the distract on behalf of Hillary Clinton's campaign because he hated Trump, You know, hence, we can go back to August, the 2016 in the warning even by Bruce or that he's got a political agenda and that he's tied to the Clinton and Clinton's paying for this crap. On that. Even the sub source in January 2017. They all knew and still call me put a signature on three of the four warrants Rod Rosenstein, the final one, which is inexplicable to me, because everybody knew by then it was at that point was a hoax. And still, they went forward with even the charging dictates Rosenstein of Robert Mueller. It's just remarkable. And you know you're looking at a zoo. I go through these notes. You see, Rod Rosenstein really appears in the FBI knows to be such a weak character. There's a moment in the conversations with Andy McCabe, where McCabe writes this down later, in his own note against us. McCabe's Version of events. But he said that at one point, uh Rosenstein pulled him aside and said, Would you reach out to the fire James Comey and find out if he thinks it's a good idea to name a special prosecutor..
NewsRadio WIOD
"special counsel" Discussed on NewsRadio WIOD
"Or is it really Maura that the dollar is losing value right now? Because ever realizes you're putting Maura Atmore dollars more more money in circulation? Digital currency, mostly, but still, it's out there. It's perception its value. So this is my long winded way of answer your question, because I find this very interesting Sandy is that there is a belief among the left. That is maybe a little bit crazy, but also rooted in MMT theory. That? Yes, we'll have all these businesses go under. And yes, we'll be far more people depended on the government. But we've already established. All we have to do is write them a check. Everyone starts getting More and more checks. And you would say, I'm sure Sandy will hold on Who's who's supporting the value behind those? Those deposits of currency, which is effectively what you're talking about. Who's where is the actual value creation to maintain the purchasing power of those dollars when you're just putting more and more more of them in circulation? As effectively a massive welfare program. They don't have an answer to that. You know, their answer is Don't be mean. Why don't you care more about people? Why don't why don't you want to do more to help people? No, that's what we're up against. Aaron. I like you hold bar bar at a very high regard and do believe he saved the president. However, he is losing my support lately. Why would he come out and tell everyone he will not assigned a special counsel to the hunter bide investigation? Um Aaron. Fair point. Thank you for writing in and bringing this up. Attorney General bar. Attorney General Bar is no longer the attorney general. So let's start with that. He resigned, but former Eiji Bar Yes. He was He was brilliant and and praiseworthy. On the on the Mueller probe, and I think that we all need to wonder. We all should remember that. Why would he not assign a special counsel to the Hunter Biden investigation? I don't have a good answer for you, He said. He didn't see a need for it. Look, it's it's very possible. That Hunter Biden was while peddling influence, not necessarily running afoul of criminal statutes. I know people don't want to hear that, but that is possible. That he you know, if he, uh Declared all the money he was getting from Berea Zeman, Ukraine, for example, and pay taxes on it. You know what they got Manafort on, for example, wasn't who I now I know now has been pardon. What they got Manafort on wasn't Russia collusion. It wasn't it was guy was getting paid. A lot of money was a penalty taxes one That's what they nailed Manafort on If Hunter Biden actually declared the money that he was making from these influence peddling skins pay taxes on it, You know, I know, they said there's a money laundering probe, but Maybe maybe he was smart up. Actually, I'm not saying he did. I'm just saying it's possible and Barwood gnome or about the state of that investigation, so that zit possibility Don't have a good answer for you, though. I wish I could tell you. Oh, here's here's why he would declare special counsel cause to me. Hunter Biden Situation almost cries out for a special counsel to me the 100 Mind situation when you have a incoming president, whose son Is under federal federal investigation. Of course, there's a conflict of interest within the normal operations of the executive branch of the DOJ, So wouldn't you want to have Special counsel looking into that isn't that if there's ever a need for a special counsel wouldn't be 100 Biden? I don't know. Maybe maybe I'll get to ask. Attorney general bar that at some point I'm sorry, former Attorney General Bar but that's the best Answer. I can give you right now on that and we'll get more roll call coming up here. South Florida's official severe weather Station this news radio 6 10 W. Y o D. Not long ago I met Mike Lindo, the incredible inventor of my pillow, and he fit me for my very own my pillow, among other products. I can't stop raving about them. They're amazing. These pillows won't go flat..