Automated Transcript
Sam:
[0:02]
| Hello.
|
Ivan:
[0:04]
| Hello.
|
Sam:
[0:07]
| Okay, talk again. I'm having audio problems. Can I hear you talk?
|
Ivan:
[0:11]
| Can you hear me?
|
Sam:
[0:14]
| Like the... I can hear this, though.
|
Ivan:
[0:19]
| Can you hear me?
|
Sam:
[0:20]
| Yeah, no, I can hear... I can hear the computer.
|
Ivan:
[0:24]
| Oh, baby. Oh, baby. oh sing singing in the rain we're singing in the rain, oh
|
Sam:
[0:39]
| That's that's a lovely song uh you you know because you are so out.
|
Ivan:
[0:44]
| Of focus i.
|
Sam:
[0:45]
| Know i don't know why what's going on the autofocus like that i got home and i i rebooted and i started to set Then I go to like set up my microphone and I usually do wired via the Yeti so I can hear myself because I can't stand not hearing myself. And the adapter cord that I use to be able to plug it into these is not here. And so, and Alex is downstairs. I'm sure he had something to do with it. It's gone. So I'm sure he was messing with it at some point because like nobody else has used it. And then I bring up the stupid camera and it's blurry and I'm like why is it blurry and I'm like trying to like really blurry, I don't know what it's trying to focus on or what's going on it's like me not wearing glasses yeah exactly I've been like, the autofocus isn't doing whatever let's go I'm.
|
Ivan:
[1:45]
| In a hotel I'm tired let's go.
|
Sam:
[1:47]
| Okay you know Yeah.
|
Ivan:
[1:51]
| Whatever. Just start recording.
|
Sam:
[1:56]
| We're recording.
|
Ivan:
[1:57]
| Oh, look, you're back. Wait.
|
Sam:
[2:00]
| Oh, yeah, I'm in focus now. Look at that. Of course, your picture froze for me, but you know, whatever. Oh, you're back.
|
Ivan:
[2:08]
| Yeah, I'm back, but you're back in focus.
|
Sam:
[2:11]
| Okay. A usual plan, let's go. Okay, here we go. Welcome to Curmudgeon's Corner for Friday, May 17th, 2024. 2024 it's 212 utc as we're starting to record i'm san monterey von bow is here yvonne bow is looking very sleepy.
|
Ivan:
[2:52]
| I am hello hello.
|
Sam:
[2:56]
| Mr bow so are you feeling better than last week though.
|
Ivan:
[3:00]
| I'm not feeling sick i'm feeling fine that's not the thing the thing is i had to wake up very early today i got on a plane i went to okay one of the things i did today, I was, this wasn't part of my original plan. Okay. Yes. When I landed, instead of, I had a couple of different plans. I was supposed to meet certain people. They, they, they didn't, they didn't cancel. I was expecting, and I had been expecting an email response from somebody that is here where I am in Puerto Rico. But they weren't answering. And I needed an answer. so knowing that these people work from the office i said fuck this i'm going to that office, okay and i am going to go to the reception and i'm going to ask for them you know back like how we used to do this you know many decades ago not even that many decades like you know but but but you know not that long you know sometime in the past and hey i need to talk to you please meet me okay so i i went and i did that and the person was there and actually came down and met with me and gave me the information i need okay.
|
Ivan:
[4:23]
| But then I proceeded to go to our office here. I was supposed to meet with somebody who didn't show. We were supposed to have a dinner. So I went to the restaurant anyway. I've been planning for this. And I go there, and I see that there's an event. And I swear to God, I thought, you know what? Well, no, you don't know. So sometimes you go to some more expensive restaurants. Like Ruth Chris or something, whatever. And there is some kind of like seminar. Somebody is selling something.
|
Sam:
[5:00]
| Okay. Yeah.
|
Ivan:
[5:01]
| Okay. You know, it's not like, it's not like when you get to the restaurant, people are, it's not like a timeshare seminar where if you go to the timeshare hotel, hotel, they're trying to like, you know, reel you in or they'll call you to go. And I made the mistake like one time in the past decade of like there was this Hilton Hotel that I was part of Timeshare, but they sold hotel rooms there. So I got there. And since we got there, well, I wasn't paying attention. They almost talked my wife into going to a Timeshare seminar. And I am like, just just OK. I'm like, you beautiful. I'm like, listen, I was very my wife's like, what are you doing? I'm like, look, the guy. I just said no. Let's go to the room right right she's like what are you doing i'm like you don't know what, okay and then i explained to her why she's like oh so so that's yes so no that's why okay so when i got to this restaurant i swear that it seemed like some multi-level marketing some horse i'm just like whatever and i'm just trying to make sure okay i'm not part of this group.
|
Sam:
[6:15]
| I just want some food.
|
Ivan:
[6:17]
| Yeah. I hadn't eaten lunch. I mean, I woke up at six in the morning. I flew today. I went to a meeting. I've been like bouncing around. I haven't even checked into my hotel. I just want food. Okay. And I'm like, I'm not here for the, you know, whatever they're selling. Okay. So it's like to my table. And all of a sudden somebody I know says, Hey, hey, are you at so-and-so for a restaurant? And I'm like, well, yes. The hell are you? And I realized that what I thought was a multi-level marketing seminar was actually some kind of like, It wasn't the lunch. It was like an early dinner snack event that one of our partners was having for customers. Okay. Some of them, which were my customers. Okay.
|
Sam:
[7:12]
| At the restaurant.
|
Ivan:
[7:14]
| And I had no idea. And so they recognized it. I walked in. I'm like, because in part, because the president of that company went to high school with me. And so he was there with all of his staff. And so they're like, what the fuck? I just saw Ivan walk into the restaurant and go over there. So it's like, what the hell is he doing? And I'm like, well, no, it's not. I didn't know you guys were having this seminar. So anyway, so the other thing that I realized with that is that this island's too small. Because...
|
Sam:
[7:45]
| Oh, I got a too small story in a second.
|
Ivan:
[7:48]
| I mean, because I just, I mean, I'm expecting, you know, like me being like, one of the reasons, I will admit that I liked about not living in Puerto Rico. I like Puerto Rico, but there's a whole bunch of things about it that I don't like. One of them is that you basically couldn't go anywhere without fucking bumping into anybody that you knew. And I've realized I just don't like that. I want to go. Maybe if it's like the server, for example, that's going to get me my food, yes. But me having to bump into all these people that I knew, and I had to wind up schmoozing for two hours. And I'm okay with usually schmoozing, but not when I was exhausted already. And I'm like, oh, fuck me. It actually wasn't that bad, but it wasn't what I had planned originally. I thought I was going to be done pretty quick. And, well, the conversation did start getting interesting. We started talking or whatever, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. And so it wound up dragging on. And so I'm thinking I'm going to be done by 630. I wasn't done until like 830. Okay but yeah but this island's too small I mean it's like I had something already like this happen to me a couple of months ago where I woke up and was like hey, and I'm like I haven't lived here for 25 years, But I haven't lived here for 25 years and I just go around the places. All of a sudden just bump into fucking people like that.
|
Sam:
[9:18]
| Oh yeah. Yeah.
|
Ivan:
[9:19]
| I mean, so imagine I had lived here. Imagine if I lived here in those 25 years. Shit. I mean, I mean, I couldn't go anywhere without anybody saying hi. So I do like the anonymity.
|
Sam:
[9:32]
| Okay. So for, for anyone who hasn't guessed, we're doing our usual thing. We're doing a, but first where we both sort of chat about like things like this and then we'll do more serious topics later on in the show that that's our plan it's always our plan and so was that your topic you want to just make that your topic okay so i i was prepared to do my book you were prepared and this time it's a book instead of a movie but i am going wow i am going to wait and do the book next week.
|
Ivan:
[10:05]
| Why?
|
Sam:
[10:06]
| Because, you know, you were talking about just bumping into somebody from high school. And I have a story like that from this week, too.
|
Ivan:
[10:14]
| Okay, go. All right. So what happened?
|
Sam:
[10:16]
| So here, here's what happened. So first of all, you know, I don't know if you got a chance to listen to show but Matt was the one who co hosted the show last week, who I knew from when I worked at Merrill Lynch 20 some years ago and who has is the, as far as I know, the only person other than myself to have listened to every single one of our shows.
|
Ivan:
[10:39]
| That's right.
|
Sam:
[10:40]
| And, and frankly, he's listened to them in a way I haven't. Like I, I can say I'm at a hundred percent just because I edit the damn things together, but I have not. Yeah.
|
Ivan:
[10:50]
| I've been like, right. You haven't downloaded and listened to.
|
Sam:
[10:52]
| To all of them. I mean, I try, but I'm way, way behind. so he's way ahead of me on that front and has actually listened to all the shows anyway he worked with me at Merrill Lynch way back like 20 some years ago meanwhile you know, at my current, at my current job. And, you know, without too many details, uh, as of about a month ago, my duties have changed somewhat because, you know, a whole bunch of people left and I basically got stuck with make sure nothing they did like breaks because we lost so many people. Okay. And so, and so in addition to the kinds of things I normally do, I am now having to coordinate, I'm like our contact with several vendors we work with. And this is something I have not had to deal with in any way, shape, or form ever at my current company. I kind of did a little bit when I was at Merrill Lynch. And so one of the vendors that I work with, I got an email just this Monday from the person that is our contact at that vendor. And I.
|
Sam:
[12:15]
| Let's see, what's the best way to tell this story without giving away the ending before the end? And anyway, they were like, hey, this other person is leaving. They told me you're the new contact. Can we get together? Blah, blah, blah. And in their signature, I saw the name of their company. And I'm like, I recognize that name.
|
Sam:
[12:36]
| Like I, I, I know somebody who works there. Cause like I had done the thing at, they worked with us at Merrill Lynch 20 plus years ago. Oh, and that same company, it's a, it's like a, a vendor that provides like sort of temporary consultant folks of, and you know, when they say temporary, it's like, okay, a year more. It's like, yeah, you know, it's, it's like, as long as you can legally keep them and not classify them as employees, right? Anyway, so I recognize the name and I'm like, okay, I have not talked to this person in over 20 years, but about a year ago, I got a LinkedIn message from them mentioning that they had gotten an accountant in the Seattle area and we're going going to be in Seattle more often. And could we do lunch or something? And at the time I was like, sure, let's do lunch. But we, we never actually got together. We never did it. And this was the guy that's at this company. So I sent him a LinkedIn message back and said, Hey, this person just emailed me. Do you work with them? And like an hour later, they mail back and they're like, Like, that person works for me.
|
Sam:
[14:00]
| And so it turns out, you know, this person who 20 plus years ago was the primary rep, like, you know, selling their services into Merrill Lynch is now doing the same thing with our current company in Seattle. I guess he's got more responsibilities than that because, like, he introduced me to somebody who's only got my company. So he's, like, moved up the chain. I guess we didn't talk about details, but anyway, so he's like, Oh my God, Sam. Yes. She works for me. And then it turns out he's in Seattle. And so, and so like, I found out that we were working with this company on Monday, on Tuesday, I met this guy for coffee.
|
Ivan:
[14:47]
| Oh, you actually met him.
|
Sam:
[14:49]
| I actually met him for coffee. We like had a good 90 minute conversation. We talked about the podcast. So he might be listening. Hi, Mike, if you're listening. And he worked with me. He worked with Matt, who was on the show last week. He worked with John, who's also on our Commodions Corner Slack, has co-hosted once or twice, and whose father-in-law is Ed, who co-hosts more often. And he also worked with the woman at Merrill Lynch who set me up with my wife. And so he's like, and I had not seen this guy in 20 plus years. And like, boom, now he's like the boss's boss's boss or whatever. I don't know how many levels of boss of the person who is now in charge with interfacing with me for this one set of people that we have on as consultants for a specific purpose. And and so it was like like you were saying small world like you know i hadn't i hadn't talked to this guy for 20 years and boom there he is like i'm working with him and so it was cool we had a we had a good conversation we talked about like the people that we both knew from way back when and all of that kind of stuff and sort of just caught up and you know it was fun it was fun it It was cool.
|
Ivan:
[16:12]
| Did you drink coffee? What did you drink?
|
Sam:
[16:16]
| I had a tea. We went to Starbucks, but I had a tea.
|
Ivan:
[16:24]
| Okay.
|
Sam:
[16:25]
| Yeah. Sorry. So, yeah. So, anyways, small world. So, if you are listening, welcome, Mike.
|
Ivan:
[16:34]
| I will say that one of the things is that a little bit like in the, it seems that in certain, like, industries, things, you know, some people come around. I mean, you keep seeing people. Oh, no, you're that person who worked with that person and so forth and so on. So there's more like connections and easier. It's like bumping the people that you, you know.
|
Sam:
[17:03]
| Yeah, I took a selfie with them and then started.
|
Ivan:
[17:05]
| I did not take any selfies.
|
Sam:
[17:07]
| Yeah, I took a group.
|
Ivan:
[17:07]
| I did not take any selfies.
|
Sam:
[17:08]
| Yeah, yeah. I took the selfie and then I started a group chat with him plus a bunch of the folks that we knew from 20 years ago that I still keep in touch.
|
Ivan:
[17:16]
| Oh, wow. I mean, you went that far.
|
Sam:
[17:17]
| I went that far, and everybody had a cute little conversation for like an hour.
|
Ivan:
[17:24]
| Oh, these guys. Well, the thing is, you haven't talked to these guys in how long?
|
Sam:
[17:27]
| Well, I hadn't talked to Mike in just about 20 years. Oh, and in fact, the last time I had seen him was on one of my random trips, and there's a picture of him on my website from that last moment I met him. So I can tell you exactly. Hold on, give me one second.
|
Ivan:
[17:50]
| Give me, give me.
|
Sam:
[17:51]
| Give me, give me, give me, give me. Owlsmay.com, Then go to the random trips section. And it was the Q1 2003 random trip day zero. So that would be. Oh, man, does it not? Does it not say what day is day zero? It's just day zero. Like, what day did I today? What did I day? I actually left.
|
Ivan:
[18:20]
| Oh, doesn't have the day of the calendar year.
|
Sam:
[18:23]
| Year well i thought i thought it did because i remember saying it but like now i i don't know anymore because i don't i i don't see it anything with the with the day i think it was february february 2023 anyway so yeah it was uh so uh one thing oh the other people the other people in the chat i'd spoken to most recently because obviously matt matt was co-hosting the show last week john's co-hosted the show within the last few years and he's on the curmudgeons corner slack the other person kelly my wife talks to occasionally and so i've talked to her a few times because of that so yeah and i even saw her a couple years back so yeah but he him i had no things aside from a linkedin message i hadn't talked to him in 20 plus years well.
|
Ivan:
[19:14]
| But these well different these guys i had seen in the last couple of years.
|
Sam:
[19:18]
| Okay it.
|
Ivan:
[19:19]
| Just happened to be a coincidence that we went to the same restaurant, but, but I've talked to these guys, both of them in the last couple of years. So, so that's, yeah, you're somebody that you haven't talked to in 20 years.
|
Sam:
[19:32]
| A couple more examples of things like that, that from, uh, at various points in my life, one, well, one for me and then one for my wife. One time back when I did work for Merrill Lynch, like I, I went on a trip to London, And I randomly bumped into one of my Merrill Lynch co-workers in London.
|
Ivan:
[19:55]
| No.
|
Sam:
[19:55]
| And I was like, what the hell are you doing here? I know you from New Jersey.
|
Ivan:
[20:00]
| Well, I thought, you know, so funny. I still remember that it happened more than once that I bumped to a high school classmate of mine in Buenos Aires and in Sao Paulo of all places. He was on a work trip. we don't even work together it's i had this guy i hadn't seen in like a decade plus all of a sudden in the lobby in a hotel i'm like the fuck are you doing here so yeah it's kind of weird where that happens yeah my the one the.
|
Sam:
[20:35]
| One that i was going to say about my wife is a few years back she was just she was at the space needle actually and like like you bumped into somebody from her high school in Philadelphia. And it's like, and it turns out not only does he live here now, he's now a constituent in, in her district that she represents.
|
Ivan:
[20:53]
| Oh, there you go. And her district and her. That she is unopposed.
|
Sam:
[20:58]
| Oh, I'll have an update on that too. And then we can end this segment.
|
Ivan:
[21:01]
| Yeah.
|
Sam:
[21:02]
| So nobody else filed for that position. She was unopposed. Like we, like we talked about, I did mention that there was always the possibility of a write-in. Now, what, What Washington State does is write-in votes don't get counted individually unless you register as a write-in candidate. And then there's still conditions, but depending on the conditions, you can get counted. If you don't register as a write-in candidate, they're not going to count your ballots. So the week after the official deadline for registering for her race, someone has now registered as a write-in candidate for that race. Now, what that means for the primary, if a write-in candidate gets more than 1% of the vote, then they will move on to the general election. Well, if they're in the top two. So, okay, let me back up. Washington State has a jungle primary. So in the primaries, everybody runs together, all parties, all whatever. And the top two go on to the general election regardless of party.
|
Sam:
[22:20]
| Rather than talk about all the use cases, in Brandy's specific case, there was only one registered candidate. In that case, in that case, If there are write-in candidates who may, if there is one or more write-in candidates that make more than 1%, then they can potentially get counted, but only if they register. Now, I looked into the history of like the 2022 election and unopposed state house races. Okay. Normally, like if you've got a whole bunch of candidates and write-in, the write-in candidates get like way less than a percent, like half a percent, whatever.
|
Sam:
[23:05]
| But in the cases where there's only one, apparently a lot of people do what I used to do and just protest the fact that there's only one candidate by putting in a write-in. So when there's only one candidate, usually around seven or eight, like anywhere from five to ten. Okay, so it is almost certain that there will be enough write-in candidates for them to bother counting write-in candidates, but then they only count the ones who have registered. Registered, and then if this guy who registered as a write-in candidate by himself gets more than 1%, then even though he didn't register for the primaries, he gets to be on the general election ballot. And in which case, she would have opposition in the general if he can pass that 1% threshold as a write-in candidate. Now, as far as we can tell, I don't even know the guy's name, To be honest, but my wife knows and knows a little bit about him, has looked into his history. He is like a person that just almost every year picks some random race to run for. And never gets a significant number of votes for anything that they run for.
|
Sam:
[24:25]
| So we shall see. The only thing is 1% is a relatively low threshold. But the question is, is the guy actually going to spend money to get his name out? Because if you're going to run write-in, the only way you get votes is if somehow you get your name out there. So is this guy going to buy signs? Is he going to be like Jeff Johnson?
|
Ivan:
[24:50]
| The name, you know.
|
Sam:
[24:52]
| Exactly like, is, is he going to like talk to the press? Is he going to do this? Is he going to do that? Apparently he's never like done any significant fundraising. He's never done anything other than be like just a guy who puts his name on the ballot, but he, he did indicate he aligns with the Republicans. So if he gets his name out there, there are a lot of people who'll just, that's all it takes, you know, like, Oh, there's a Democrat running. There's no Republican running. Hey, this guy says he's a Republican vote for him. And so if he gets more, if he gets more than 1% in the primary, then he will be on the ballot for the general. And if he's on the ballot for the general, he's almost guaranteed to get like, you know, 30, 40% just because he's got an R on his name. So she is no longer...
|
Ivan:
[25:44]
| Wait, but would he run as an R?
|
Sam:
[25:48]
| Yeah, he...
|
Ivan:
[25:48]
| I know he said that he said that he's an R, but... I mean, just because he says that, it doesn't mean that he's the candidate for the Republican Party.
|
Sam:
[25:59]
| Oh, well, that doesn't matter. Like, well, it does matter. When you get on the ballot, you self-declare who you are. You self-declare it. The party has nothing to do with what you have next to your name.
|
Ivan:
[26:10]
| Really? Yes.
|
Sam:
[26:11]
| In Washington State.
|
Ivan:
[26:12]
| Washington State?
|
Sam:
[26:13]
| That way?
|
Ivan:
[26:14]
| It's not run by the party?
|
Sam:
[26:15]
| No, no. No, that's the whole thing. It's a jungle primary. Everybody who wants to run throws their name in. They put whatever party identification next to their name they want. So the parties have nothing to do with it and they can't like – so you can be a Democrat and put Republican. You can be a Republican and put Democrat. You can put that my party is the purple flower Nazi party, whatever. I wouldn't recommend that one.
|
Ivan:
[26:46]
| Purple flower Nazi party?
|
Sam:
[26:48]
| I wouldn't recommend that one, but like you can put whatever you want in that slot, basically. Now, there is a separate question of will the party support your candidacy? Will they help you with fundraising? Will they help you with money? Will they like, you know, use their resources?
|
Ivan:
[27:05]
| But the one thing is, yeah, yeah. But the one thing is that it's a small race like this, which obviously that can help. But the reality is, is what you said. You got a whole bunch of people. They're going to see two choices. One's a Democrat, one's a Republican. This one person maybe, you know, just at least will get like 30 percent of people to vote for him just because he's got an R. Yeah.
|
Sam:
[27:33]
| Now that's for the general. In the primary, they have to know to write him in because he's not going to appear on the ballot. And he has to pass that 1% threshold.
|
Ivan:
[27:47]
| Well, that's a lot more difficult. You know, people are really lazy about that.
|
Sam:
[27:52]
| But here's the thing. In a race like this, 1% is three or 400 votes.
|
Ivan:
[27:58]
| Yeah but okay people are lazy.
|
Sam:
[28:01]
| Yeah so.
|
Ivan:
[28:02]
| Unless he's going out there and actively trying to get these three or four hundred people i mean to get people to write a bid they're lazy.
|
Sam:
[28:12]
| Yeah and here's the here's the thing with write-in votes you could you can register right up until election day as a write-in candidate so like but you can't there's a sore loser law so if you are right in on the primary you can't if you're a candidate in the primary right in or not you can't write your you can't do it again for the general you can't be a write-in for the general if you lose in the primary but but yeah you're.
|
Ivan:
[28:39]
| Already yeah right you're already lost.
|
Sam:
[28:41]
| So get out so conceivably what could happen here is this guy goes in right if he gets more than one percent then he's the other candidate in general regardless If he gets less than 1%, there could still be, he would not be on the general, but there could still be some other write-in candidate that pops out of the woodwork for the general election.
|
Ivan:
[29:01]
| Yeah, but whatever.
|
Sam:
[29:02]
| Yeah. So anyway, we'll see. But like, you know, it's all like the plan had been, oh, okay, we're unopposed. Now put all the energy into helping other candidates in competitive races, including her seatmate and others. But with this on the plate okay now you have to take the even though it's a write-in even though you have to take it seriously yeah.
|
Ivan:
[29:29]
| No yeah yeah.
|
Sam:
[29:29]
| So now i it's it's back on that i'm going to be spending weekends putting signs out and all this kind of stuff she's going to be campaigning for herself for between now and august and i mean she'll still help out other people in competitive races but now she has to do stuff for herself seriously as well i mean she would have done on some level of stuff anyway, but it's going to be a more of a big deal because you have to, you have to treat it seriously. Like what if this guy does put resources in blah, blah, blah. Yeah. And we'll know soon enough. I mean, like do his, does the signs for him start popping up all over the area, you know, or not, you know, we'll know soon or not, but you know, so anyway, this weekend, I guess I'm going to start putting out signs again. So, I mean, I was going to do that anyway, just a few, but like now it's going to be, be like okay we really have to do this so whatever yeah okay anyway that's it for this segment.
|
Ivan:
[30:25]
| Okay.
|
Sam:
[30:27]
| Yvonne's going to fall asleep before the end of the show.
|
Ivan:
[30:32]
| We need to do like one segment, like a big segment that'd be done. I don't think I can make it that much longer.
|
Sam:
[30:40]
| Okay. Okay. So we should have one of these things where like I can push a button and give you an electrical shock.
|
Ivan:
[30:46]
| Oh, that would not be great right now.
|
Sam:
[30:49]
| Oh, God. Okay. Well, here we go. Here's our first.
|
Ivan:
[30:52]
| Only if I can have the same. Only if I can do the same with the other direction.
|
Sam:
[30:57]
| Yeah, that would make for an interesting show. Like, every time the other person says something annoying. Bam! Bam!
|
Ivan:
[31:07]
| Bam! Bam!
|
Sam:
[31:11]
| We'll have to set that up.
|
Ivan:
[31:13]
| We're not saffering each other with electric socks during an entire show.
|
Sam:
[31:20]
| Excellent.
|
Ivan:
[31:20]
| Well, I think that, you know, No, that's a terrible position. I think they should deliver arms to Andrea.
|
Sam:
[31:28]
| God. Okay. First break coming up, and then maybe we'll only have one. We'll pick a topic and go for it. We'll be back after this.
|
Break:
[31:41]
| You're listening to this podcast. Do you like it? No! Do you want to support the show? No! Well, after you have subscribed to the show, followed us on Facebook, and told all your friends they should be listening to, what else can you do? I won't subscribe! You can help fund our Patreon at patreon.com slash curmudgeonscorner. Patreon is a way you can throw us a few bucks a month to help out with the expenses of the show. You know, web hosting, equipment, a little bit of advertising to promote the show, and maybe every once in a while some much-needed sedatives for Yvonne. At different contribution levels, you can get a mention on the show, our Curmudgeon's Corner postcard, or even a Curmudgeon's Corner mug. Fun stuff. Not fun! In any case, the contributions help tell us that you enjoy and appreciate the show. I really, really hate Commodion's Corner. Are we worth a buck a month? No! Five bucks a month? No! Or if you are nuts about us, maybe even more.
|
Break:
[33:01]
| If we're worth anything to you at all, send it our way at patreon.com slash curmudgeonscorner. Alex hates, really, really hates curmudgeonscorner. That's really mean, isn't it? That I hate curmudgeonscorner. But I really do!
|
Sam:
[33:22]
| Okay, we are back. Yvonne, if there's only going to be one of these segments. arguments.
|
Ivan:
[33:30]
| Yes.
|
Sam:
[33:31]
| Should it be Trump or do you have something else in you have in mind?
|
Ivan:
[33:35]
| I was looking at the list. We got basically, I mean, yeah, we're going to talk about Trump. Okay. So, so what's going on, Sam? Well, let me ask you a question because I haven't checked into this. I saw some people talking about this, but I haven't confirmed what the reality is about this trial. trial when do we expect the verdict in the new york trial.
|
Sam:
[33:57]
| Well he timeline wise it looks like we are we are probably going to have closing arguments and this sent to the jury tuesday or wednesday next week.
|
Ivan:
[34:06]
| Okay so next week.
|
Sam:
[34:08]
| Now i mean it depends how long the jury decides to deliberate right i mean i mean they could deliberate for weeks but chances are they're going to deliberate anywhere did i say that right anyway on the short side it would be be a few hours on the long side maybe a few days if they well.
|
Ivan:
[34:28]
| We should have a verdict in the next week.
|
Sam:
[34:30]
| Well i i yeah and i i should i should wait there is one wild card that we don't know for sure yet like wow um okay what what so where we are right now and is that the prosecution's last Last witness is Cohen. They cross-examination was finishing up today. They are off tomorrow. So they will be back Monday. And the, what do they call it? The prosecution's second chance, the redirect, is going to probably be Monday. So I said closing arguments could be as early as Tuesday. day. But that depends how much the defense wants to do. The defense is under no obligation to do anything. So they could just be like, we're done, let's go straight to closing arguments, or they could call various witnesses. It looks like they have at least a few witnesses they do intend to call, and they haven't officially made the decision about Donald Trump yet. So if the defense decides- I mean.
|
Ivan:
[35:37]
| I would be honestly utterly shocked.
|
Sam:
[35:40]
| Oh, yeah.
|
Ivan:
[35:41]
| Everyone puts Trump in for defense, puts Trump up there. I mean, Trump is probably, you know, listen, you can get Trump to confess on the stand. I mean, shit, I just heard today that he basically outside the courtroom basically admitted to the crime.
|
Sam:
[35:59]
| He, well, he's, he's.
|
Ivan:
[36:01]
| He's, he's, he's not that many times.
|
Sam:
[36:03]
| Yeah. His, he's always like, he's never really contested the actual facts of the case. He contests whether or not it's a crime or whether he should be charged.
|
Ivan:
[36:13]
| Right.
|
Sam:
[36:15]
| Right. But, but the, if the defense decides to like, we're going to call a shit ton of witnesses, whether, whether they call, like everyone agrees it would be an absolute shocker if they actually called Donald Trump. But there are a few witnesses apparently they want to call about like an expert witness on campaign finance law to argue that whatever his intent, because making it a felony relies on it being in furtherance of another crime. So would they want to make an argument that the campaign finance stuff, that it wasn't really a campaign finance violation? They want to call somebody related to some of the records that were involved and to, I guess, to dispute some of the things. I don't know. And so if the defense calls a whole bunch of people, it may push the timeline I described back by a week or more. But the timeline I mentioned sort of assumes that there are going to be very few defense witnesses and they're going to be relatively quick. In which case, like –.
|
Ivan:
[37:22]
| So it's like their defense is just going to be, well, you didn't do it. No.
|
Sam:
[37:29]
| No, no.
|
Ivan:
[37:30]
| It's not a crime. No, no, no. Yeah, he did. But it's that's not a crime.
|
Sam:
[37:34]
| Basically, his defense is going to be that, you know, you're trying to make this into a crime because of this campaign finance thing. This campaign finance thing isn't really a thing. Plus, the only thing that ties this to Donald Trump is Cohen's testimony. And you can't trust Cohen like otherwise, like, you know.
|
Ivan:
[37:58]
| Which is bullshit because there's a whole bunch of. There's a whole bunch of documented evidence that it's not yes there's a lot of what is a corroborated what Cohen said I mean that's just a whole bunch of horseshit but yes that's what the defense is going to be, Okay, not much of a defense.
|
Sam:
[38:22]
| Well, and again, their whole strategy the whole time along, nobody's expecting, they're not even expecting that they could go for an acquittal. All they're looking for is get one juror who says he's not convinced beyond a reasonable doubt and will hold out and hang the jury. That's what they're after. That's it.
|
Ivan:
[38:44]
| I mean, okay. Well, so...
|
Sam:
[38:49]
| So since we.
|
Ivan:
[38:50]
| Last talked about but but here's the thing that what what my point is that the possibility of donald trump being a convicted felon before the end of this month is high is.
|
Sam:
[39:00]
| High yes it is.
|
Ivan:
[39:02]
| It's it's.
|
Sam:
[39:04]
| Not a hundred percent by any means but.
|
Ivan:
[39:06]
| It's high it.
|
Sam:
[39:07]
| Is high it's not trivial like you know.
|
Ivan:
[39:10]
| Yeah and and the i think that the prosecution has got a unlike some prosecutions And I think we're talking about the Edwards prosecution in some weeks ago where the prosecutors really botched the whole fucking thing. And one of the things is reading about trying to remember what the hell was the bots. And they the prosecutors focused on the salacious details instead of the actual facts. OK, of the money, the money trail, how he procured the money, how the payments were were illegal and so forth and so on. And it's kind of like why they wound up in a hunger jury, because everybody was just focused on it seemed like they were just focused on the fact that he was having the affair. And it's like, that's not really a crime. That's not a crime.
|
Sam:
[39:56]
| Right. Well, and so and so let's let's talk about this. Matt and I did not talk about the Trump stuff at all last week. So since we last spoke about it on the show, we had both the Stormy Daniels and the Cohen testimony. So let's go back to Stormy for a little bit. This is where like there was concern. Are they getting too much into the details of exactly what happened between the two? And I heard a lot of commentary that maybe they went a little bit too far. The judge seemed to be uncomfortable at a few things she said and may give instructions to the jury to disregard some of it. The defense made motions for mistrial because she'd gone too far. Those were all denied.
|
Ivan:
[40:39]
| Mistrial! Mistrial!
|
Sam:
[40:41]
| Yeah, those were all denied. Because fundamentally, Stormy Daniels held her own. Like, when it was, you know, direct, the initial direct part of the process, she mostly kept to the facts. There was a lot of consternation that in a few places, she, like, instead of just answering the question, sort of got into more detail than she perhaps needed to. and a few times was sort of trying to joke around with the jury a little bit. A lot of people were like, ah, I wish she'd held back just a little bit. But then on cross-examination, they were really trying to fluster her. They were really trying to make it seem like she was untrustworthy, make it whatever. And she completely like.
|
Sam:
[41:31]
| In the battle between her and a defense lawyer, she won. Like, she was able to, at every turn, answer the questions in a way that diffused whatever the hell they were trying to do. Like, you know, in one case, they implied she was making something up. And she was like, if I was going to make something up, I'd make up a story that was a lot better than this. You know, and jurors were laughing. And, you know, so I think she did a really good job of, like, knocking down the things that they were trying to get against her. Yeah. And generally presented herself as sympathetic.
|
Sam:
[42:13]
| Excuse me.
|
Sam:
[42:16]
| And generally presented herself as sympathetic and trustworthy. And also, like, there was lots of commentary. And I'll get into the no television in just a second because I think that's important too. But there were a lot of people commenting that of the people who were in the courtroom and saw this firsthand that she came across as an incredibly smart woman who knew what the fuck she was doing, knew what was going on. And there's comments that like, she's clearly was a lot smarter than the lawyer who was questioning her, et cetera. Uh, and, you know, at least on the, the, the, the cross examination. And so that all went well. And then, and then when Cohen came on, you know, again, there was worry about him. Like is Cohen, is Cohen going to go rogue? Like he's been, you know, he's been convicted of lying to under oath and, and just generally being, you're an asshole liar, you know, and there, and, and he's known for losing his temper as well. And so on direct, there was all kinds of commentary about, oh man, he looks like he's so well practiced and rehearsed on this. And okay.
|
Sam:
[43:39]
| Because yeah, they'd worked with him. They'd worked with Stormy. They made sure they knew what they should expect with the direct part of the questioning. And by the way, that's some people like talked about that, like that was a bad thing, like it wasn't a lot. No, the witness, you're not allowed to tell them what to say, but you are allowed to sort of have practice testimony and make sure they know what to expect and, you know, make sure they have an idea of like the way they should approach things and all this kind of stuff that is perfectly 100 percent allowed. And so he did a good job on that. And then on cross, it seemed like, you know, the natural strategy for the defense would be get Cohen flustered, get him mad, get him like upset. So like the very first thing the lawyer came up and said is, is it true that on TikTok you called me a crying little shit?
|
Ivan:
[44:38]
| His response was like, well, that sounds like something I would say.
|
Sam:
[44:41]
| Yes. He said that immediately. And then there was an objection and the judge sustained the objection and said, yeah, this is the wrong kind of question. Don't do this. But the effect immediately, the jury laughed again. There's the whole thing. But that answer, by the way, like on cross-examination, this is something that Cohen did over and over and over again. Instead of just saying, yes, I said that, or no, I didn't say that, he kept saying things like, yeah, that sounds like something I would say. And it was clearly flustering the defense lawyer. Whereas, yeah, the defense lawyer wanted to be flustering Cohen. It was working exactly the other way around. And Cohen never lost his temper. He never got mad.
|
Sam:
[45:40]
| There were clearly a few times where it seemed like maybe he had to take a breath because he was intentionally trying to stay calm. But all of this didn't work. The defense strategy to get him off his guard did not work. Now, what they were trying to do was constantly point out all of the ways that he was a liar. And they did that, but it had sort of been pre-butted in the direct because the prosecution had already talked about that over and over and over again and said, you know, yes, there are these issues with Cohen. And we know that there are those issues, but here's the documentation. Is this correct? Is this correct? Here's the paperwork. Here's what the other witness said. Here's the thing. You know, like you said, almost everything, almost not 100%, but almost everything is backed up by documentary evidence that is not just his word.
|
Ivan:
[46:39]
| Right. And I think that's the critical thing that it, this isn't just about somebody's testimony about something. There is a paper trail. There's a pretty well-documented paper trail that shows that what the prosecutors are saying happened, happened. Hell, there's even notes on some of the documents in terms of the payments that actually specifically state what the hell was done that was a reason that was like, Not legal.
|
Sam:
[47:13]
| Right.
|
Ivan:
[47:13]
| I mean, they were altering the records to reflect something that they knew and documented wasn't what they intended it to be. And there is, go back and the prosecutors can clearly argue that there is very well documented evidence that Trump knew that all these actions were illegal.
|
Sam:
[47:36]
| Right.
|
Ivan:
[47:36]
| So because because there have been in some cases, and I don't know that in New York, this is the case, but I know that there are certain and people use it as a defense, even if it not may not be a legal defense in certain cases, because ignorance of the law in many cases is not a defense. Okay. But, but some people do use that. And, but, but even that claim doesn't even hold water because there's, there's quite a lot of evidence that, that clearly shows that, that he knew that, that what was happening and any claim of like, oh, I'm just some business guy that I'm just like at a distance and I'm not micromanaging payments. And actually, it was completely, you know, rebutted by the fact that they showed that, oh, he insisted on signing every fucking check.
|
Sam:
[48:31]
| Yeah.
|
Ivan:
[48:32]
| And everything that happened. And it's like, no, that's not true either. So I'm not sure why. I mean, like you said, the only plan that I can see is what you said. They're expecting some kind of jury nullification. I mean, that's the only thing that I can see, because there isn't anything evidentiary that they've done to disprove this in any way. Their class examinations have not been helpful to them in any way, shape, or form.
|
Sam:
[48:59]
| Now, the one additional defense that I neglected to mention, what's Trump's CFO's name? Weisselman or something?
|
Ivan:
[49:07]
| Well, Weisselberg. uh whatever we.
|
Sam:
[49:09]
| We right whatever they're they also will probably bring up the fact that he is not testifying like he is a central character in this and his name has been brought up over and over and over again but he's not making.
|
Ivan:
[49:25]
| A fucking lying.
|
Sam:
[49:26]
| Well right but as far as the jury knows i mean some of them may know because they watch the news but like as far as the jury knows he just mysteriously is not being called as a witness by either the prosecution or the defense now the reason why he isn't fucking rikers right now he is in jail right now for lying on things related to this case and the other case right um now but that's not officially in the record for the case it's like weisselberg couldn't be here because he's in jail is not officially in record listen This is.
|
Ivan:
[50:03]
| What I would say. I really don't think that that weighs that much.
|
Sam:
[50:08]
| I'll add one more thing on that. There was a bench conversation a few days ago on whether they should call Weisselberg anyway. Like the judge was bringing it up and suggest because they can pull him out of jail and bring him.
|
Ivan:
[50:22]
| Yeah, yeah, yeah.
|
Sam:
[50:23]
| They could subpoena him and have him come. and the suggestion was the judge suggested can we subpoena him have him come ask some questions without the jury here and see if he pleads the fifth and then depending on what he does we either bring in the jury or we don't but, basically I think everybody decided that that was not worth pursuing but look.
|
Ivan:
[50:50]
| If the defense were bringing him up and the prosecution wasn't as a witness, then that could be used in some kind of way. But the reality is that I think that with so much stuff being presented to the jury, if neither side brings them up, they're not going to even think about it.
|
Sam:
[51:14]
| Right.
|
Ivan:
[51:15]
| It's just not going to be a consideration.
|
Sam:
[51:19]
| Yeah, and I'll mention one more thing about the defense trying to prove that Cohen is a liar. The one big surprise from Thursday's testimony is the defense thinks they caught him not just in a lie, but a lie he was telling right then and there in his testimony.
|
Sam:
[51:42]
| Right then and there. There was apparently one phone call where he had testified earlier in the week that was a phone call to Donald Trump to talk about the Stormy issue. And the defense brought up that it turns out they have evidence that that call, the one he had referenced, was actually about Cohen having been getting pranked called by some 14-year-old. And he was calling, what's his name? Trump's body man guy to talk about the prank calls he was getting from this 14 year old kid because he threatened the 14 year old kid with he was going to sick the secret service on him. And he called the guy to like, to talk about that. And they're like, so you lied about this. You lied about this on Tuesday.
|
Sam:
[52:32]
| This call was not to Donald Trump. It was to the body guy. and it wasn't about stormy daniels it was about this 14 year old kid and this was a surprise apparently you know from the people in the courtroom they say everybody like started paying attention in ways they hadn't been because this was clearly a surprise and blah blah blah you caught him in a lie and he he had to admit that the phone call was about the 14 year old kid but then he explained so maybe this is neutralized because he was like yeah okay look i did call the the body guy. I did talk about the 14 year old kid, but then I think the guy's name is Schiller. Then Schiller, Keith Schiller or something like that. Then he handed the phone to Donald. And then I talked about stormy.
|
Sam:
[53:19]
| And the whole, the whole call was only 90 seconds long, but apparent, but, but, you know, these, all of these things can happen in 90 seconds. So like he explained, he explained the call. So we'll see what the jury thinks. I mean, honestly, like if you compare to the E. Jean Carroll trial, it had the same Michael Cohen issues in the E. Jean Carroll trial or trial. And in basically everywhere, was Cohen an EG Carroll or was he, he was in the financial trial, whatever, whatever he was in the financial trial, but they all have the same issue. But the, the conclusion that Erdogan run in the, in the financial, in the Trump org trial, what he basically said is Cohen is a liar. He absolutely is a liar, but he told the truth about this. Right and i think that's what you're gonna get out of this jury too again maybe there'll be one juror who hangs the jury or something but the overall impression is going to be yeah okay.
|
Sam:
[54:22]
| Cohen's cohen's not a great guy he's got lots of issues with honesty he did all kinds of bad things in service of donald trump but if you look at the sort of history of what he's said over time it looks like he's telling the truth now, you know, whereas the defense's argument is basically he's a liar. You can't trust anything he says about anything ever. Um, whereas the prosecution is like, yeah, look, he's a liar. There are lots of things he's lying about. We're not disputing that. But in this case, he's telling you this and there's all kinds of supporting evidence that what What he's saying is true. So let's go. Now, if you didn't have Cohen at all, like I've heard some people say, well, could you have run this case and just not called Cohen at all?
|
Sam:
[55:12]
| And the consensus seems to be like, maybe you could, like the case would not have been dismissed out of hand if you didn't have Cohen, but Cohen's the bit that brings it all together in one place and sort of puts it over the top. So you need Cohen, but you know, you, but you don't need to think Cohen is a saint and everything he says is true. You just need to believe enough to push this over the edge.
|
Ivan:
[55:41]
| Right.
|
Sam:
[55:44]
| Okay before we wrap this up since this will be our last topic the only other thing i want to say is it a following this case has been incredibly freaking frustrating see i said freaking that time instead of fucking but you know anyway it's been incredibly frustrating because you've been working well yeah i've been working but no the i'm it's 2024 yeah like there was a whole day where like I was so busy at work, I couldn't even keep up with summaries until the end of the day. And I'm like, what the hell is wrong with that? Like, you know, it should be a freaking national holiday so we can all pay attention to the trial.
|
Ivan:
[56:23]
| Right? But, oh my God, you know, Donald would love that. You do realize, right?
|
Sam:
[56:31]
| Yeah, yeah, yeah. No, but what I was going to bring up is it's freaking 2024 and this is not televised. What the hell? like there should at least be live audio and i know every.
|
Ivan:
[56:44]
| Oj trial was televised.
|
Sam:
[56:46]
| I know it's like it's not a technological issue it's a you know the and the rules are different in every jurisdiction and blah blah blah and some clearly have some have televised trial like we've seen like the georgia one hat but look and i know there's a trade-off there's a trade-off between making it a freaking circus and having the lawyers and all play for the tv instead of playing for the court. But at the same time, like, I feel like the default at this point is that unless there's a damn good reason not to, all court proceedings should be available on video all the time, forever.
|
Ivan:
[57:24]
| And I will say that I get your point. But also today, I got on my plane, And two and a half hour flight, midday, okay, there was no internet. The internet wasn't working. Okay, and I had some shit that I needed to take care of, but there was no internet. I mean, there was no connectivity. I even got up, went to the flight attendant and said, hey, what's up? I said, look, we have some technical issues. We can't get the satellite connection. We've got no internet. I spent two and a half hours on a plane where basically my phone was an iPod. Okay? And I have to say one thing. It was actually quite blissfully nice.
|
Ivan:
[58:13]
| I was sitting there and all I've got is my music and I'm just falling asleep and I'm listening to music and I have no idea about anything. I will tell you this, that when I landed, when i landed the number of notifications that i received the moment that my phone connected was just absolutely insane okay because i've just been used to flying like recently where there is with internet yeah yeah and it's just so so not being connected at all it's just something doesn't normally happen so when i landed i mean it was just like i mean it's like a damn burst the moment I got doubt. I was like, so I have this appreciation for the fact that we don't, we can't see this trial live. There is something to be said for it not, like you said, not being turned into an even bigger circus than what it already is, because listen, it is a circus to a certain extent already. Writing and if it's live can you imagine if trump knew that he was live on tv what the hell he would be doing i i.
|
Sam:
[59:35]
| Yeah yeah but like look what they're actually doing here is like thankfully the reporters that are in the courtroom are allowed internet like they can't take video or audio but they're not allowed internet so as far as i can right.
|
Ivan:
[59:50]
| So they're live so they're live i know.
|
Sam:
[59:52]
| Well, as far as I can tell, what all the network's doing are their reporters in the courtroom have like a shared Google Doc and are taking notes as fast as they can on the Google Doc. And the people that are on the air are reading the same Google Doc. I think that's basically how they're doing it. You know, they may use some other technology, but I'm pretty sure it's a Google Doc or something very similar to it where they can all look at the same thing live as they make edits to it. And so you've got the people who are on the air on TV trying to cover this are like they chat about whatever. And then like every minute or two, they're like, and we have a new update from the courtroom. And they, and they read off whatever's new in the notes about what so-and-so said or whatever. And it's just a ridiculous way of paying attention to it. And I know that's like, there is a full transcript released at the end of every day. They are doing that. So if you're, if you're on a slower track of reading, like sort of the print summaries at the end of the day, okay, that's another way of doing it. But still, you know, and I know what you're saying about like Trump making faces and all that could just be a distraction. But at the same time.
|
Ivan:
[1:01:07]
| Faces yelling, bitching, moaning. I mean, yeah, I mean.
|
Sam:
[1:01:12]
| If he if he did that stuff, the judge would like stomp on him. Of course, that would be entertaining, too. Right. But like, you don't get the same thing from the dry transcript. So we do have the reporters in the room sort of describing their impression of what Trump is doing, what the jurors are doing, how the lawyer's attitude seems to be. But it's just, you know, I feel like we're really missing out on, this is the biggest trial that's going to happen. It's probably the only Trump trial that's happening before the election. It's one of the most significant trials of the last few decades.
|
Ivan:
[1:01:54]
| Wait, you don't think that, are we not, well, let me ask a question. You don't think the Georgia trial is going to get started before the election?
|
Sam:
[1:02:02]
| No. No.
|
Ivan:
[1:02:04]
| Why not now?
|
Sam:
[1:02:07]
| A, like the latest thing, the appeals court just accepted the appeal of whether or not Fannie Willis can be on the case. And they may not even hear that case for months. And the trial's not going to go ahead in any significant way until they do that. Plus, a similar case, another RICO case that Fannie Willis was involved in related to some rapper, the jury selection process itself took months and months and months. So like, yeah, I think that train has left the station too, unless something really unexpected happens.
|
Ivan:
[1:02:49]
| What are the other, what about the, well, we've got the other cases, the ones that are not, not, not dependent on Trump's favorite judge in South Florida, but the ones that are in the other jurisdictions where so does we expect i guess that we'll have a decision by july and so one of the things that i saw some people arguing was that it's probably a good thing that eileen cannon went and like decided to not schedule because.
|
Sam:
[1:03:19]
| It clears the calendar yeah.
|
Ivan:
[1:03:20]
| Correct because that actually cleared the calendar so the other people that aren't mucking around with this shit now Now don't have to, you know, wait for her fucking bullshit. Okay. Which could have really obstructed other cases to, you know, it actually, in a sense, cleared, cleared away for other cases. Once that decision comes down for those to proceed. So I'm thinking at some point that those will get started.
|
Sam:
[1:03:44]
| Here's the thing with the DC one. What can or cannot happen depends highly on exactly what SCOTUS decides to do with it. In the absolutely best case, in a best case scenario where SCOTUS rules in a way that allows things to move forward as quickly as possible, you could just barely squeeze in getting a trial before the election. Just barely, with almost no room to spare. But that's the best case. I don't think SCOTUS is going to do it in the way that's the best case for making this thing move faster. Her like maybe they'll surprise us all but i feel like scotus is going to go the opposite direction and rule in a way that slows this down as much as possible in which case we're clearly into next year i.
|
Ivan:
[1:04:35]
| I well i mean you're you're you're i mean you're being emotional about it i have no idea what the hell they're going to decide okay because you're thinking oh i'll just consider the worst case. I'm trying to be what the realistic case is on this, like, right now.
|
Sam:
[1:04:51]
| Well, the realistic case would be in between those two extremes, which still puts us after the election. Because it's absolutely only the best case scenario that gets you before the election.
|
Ivan:
[1:05:02]
| Which would be.
|
Sam:
[1:05:05]
| Which would be what?
|
Ivan:
[1:05:05]
| I mean, what would be the best case scenario is what you're saying?
|
Sam:
[1:05:10]
| Oh, the best case scenario is that the Supreme Court says that it actually decides directly that there is no immunity for the specific situations related to this case. Like they may define a rule that says there is some immunity in some cases, but none of that applies in this case. And if they directly make that decision and return the case back to the trial judge, then the clock starts ticking. The trial judge guaranteed all parties something like 88 days before trial starts after the clock.
|
Ivan:
[1:05:50]
| I will tell you this. But wait, wait.
|
Sam:
[1:05:52]
| Here's the alternative that most people seem to think is more likely, which is they define a rule for what's immune and what's not and then send it back to the lower courts to actually make further decisions which then the lower courts have to do that then that's appealable then blah blah blah and then yeah that's what takes the time i.
|
Ivan:
[1:06:13]
| Actually maybe i don't know because i've seen the number of this court has surprised us many instances many occasions.
|
Sam:
[1:06:22]
| They They have sometimes subscribed us, surprised us.
|
Ivan:
[1:06:28]
| They've surprised us in many cases with just different things, one way or another, better or worse, okay? I mean, I think people were surprised about the fact that they decided to take this case in the first place, okay? So that was a surprise in and of itself. Yep.
|
Sam:
[1:06:43]
| Part of the reason everybody thinks the way that I just described is exactly because on this case, at every junction so far, they've picked the slowest route.
|
Ivan:
[1:06:55]
| I happen to believe that they're not picking these just based on time. I just, I don't, okay? As much as everybody wants to make it, well, they're just out to, like, slow it down for Trump. I don't really think so. I think that naively, in some way, I think that they see themselves somewhat isolated from the political situation to a certain extent.
|
Ivan:
[1:07:29]
| And that it's their institution and they decide on their time, okay, and how they want, not necessarily to either appeal to one or the other, but for them to set the law as they believe it should be, okay? OK, and so and it may be in ways that we don't agree, but I don't think that it's done in terms. You see, the thing is that thinking, well, the only reason they're doing it is because they're trying to do it in the slowest way that will benefit Trump. I truly don't believe that's the case. I really believe that they're doing it in a way that is inconvenient for that. But it's not necessarily because of of that directly. I just don't think that they are trying to do this just as a delay tactic. And one thing, you know, I keep seeing cases like, for example, what happened today, Republicans were challenging the authority of even like funding the CFPB. We're basically just completely dismissed it out of hand in that way because it's just a ridiculous argument. And we've had some others in terms of this that has been that way.
|
Ivan:
[1:08:42]
| And I think that they're trying to make a decision based on honestly saying, hey, we're going to make a decision on this. We need to make a decision on this, that it's not just based on Donald Trump being president, that it's got to be a decision that has to be applying to, you know, everybody being president on something that I guess had never really been documented as law. And I do think they take it seriously. Whether we think that we may agree with their interpretation, that's one thing, but I do think that they're doing it that way. And it's not just because of their delay.
|
Sam:
[1:09:20]
| We shall see. I think it's delay. I think it's also the decisions themselves. I don't know. We'll see. Maybe you'll be right. Maybe you'll be right. Most of the commentators I listened to who had been optimistic and were saying things like you said, in terms of they care about the general principles, even, even maybe, maybe Alito and Thomas don't, but the rest of them do. And they'll, you know, they'll do something reasonable. Most, most of those people, after they heard the oral arguments on this case, were like, okay, I was wrong. Sorry, I was wrong. They're, they're, they're completely in the tank.
|
Ivan:
[1:10:04]
| I just think that sometimes oral arguments in these things are misleading.
|
Sam:
[1:10:08]
| I know they can be misleading. They can be.
|
Ivan:
[1:10:11]
| And it's happened before. So that's why I'm like, I know that a lot of people went that way after the oral arguments. And I'm like, yeah.
|
Sam:
[1:10:21]
| I, I know, but, uh, but again, part of it too, for me is like to get there before the election, you need the absolute best case scenario and you never get the best case scenario. Just like you never get the worst case scenario. If it's somewhere in between, we still miss.
|
Ivan:
[1:10:37]
| What about exactly? So what about, what about Arizona? What timeline is that on?
|
Sam:
[1:10:44]
| Oh, that just started. So they're not going to go anywhere until next year. Like you know all of these others you've seen how long it takes from the indictments to anything happening there's no way anything happens with arizona in the short term and of course they haven't indicted trump they just invited indicted all his minions the the one other thing.
|
Ivan:
[1:11:06]
| That's right and.
|
Sam:
[1:11:07]
| I want to close this out real quick because i know you're like going to be snoring any moment now. But the one other thing is that after the judge's warning about any more gag order violations and I'll have to consider jail, Trump calmed down for a little bit. He really didn't violate the gag order for a while, but that all changed in the last two or three days. He has now seemingly violated the gag order multiple times in the last few days. Seeming, and it's like, are you actually just daring the judge to do something about it? And there are two things. One is Thursday morning, he apparently made a comment directly about one of the people on the prosecution team. Now he's allowed to disparage the head prosecutor, but not the other people on the team. And so that's a direct statement by Donald Trump that they could potentially take up. The other thing though, was for the last couple of days, uh.
|
Sam:
[1:12:18]
| Donald Trump has been parading in a lot of other politicians, Congress people, whatever, who have been coming up and people have been making fun because they all are dressed in the Donald Trump uniform, same suit, same tie, whatever. And they all come in together and they get in front of their microphones. And here's the thing. They have all been making statements when they get in front of their microphones in from the courthouse that if Donald Trump said them would clearly violate the order. But their argument is like, you know, we're not Donald Trump. We're not bound by the gag order. We can say whatever we want. And so, yeah, we can talk about the judge's daughter. We can talk about how bad Michael Cohen is. We can talk about this. We can talk about that. And, you know, because we're not bound. However, the gag order does say that Donald Trump cannot direct other people to speak on his behalf on things that violate the gag order. And of course, what they say is, we're not doing that. Hold on. Yvonne, are you still there? Yvonne?
|
Sam:
[1:13:43]
| Okay, let's see.
|
Ivan:
[1:13:50]
| Hello?
|
Sam:
[1:13:54]
| La la la. La la la.
|
Break:
[1:14:02]
| Okay.
|
Sam:
[1:14:04]
| At that moment, as I was talking, working, Yvonne's web browser completely locked up, and he had trouble getting it started again. He was able to upload his recording, get that finished somehow, but then apparently his internet went out completely shortly thereafter, and he could not connect back in. So we've texted back and forth, and I'm just going to finish up without him. Sorry, guys. And as I was saying before I was so rudely interrupted. The gag order does not allow Donald Trump to direct others to communicate on his behalf in ways that would violate the gag order if Donald Trump said it himself. And the people who are talking on his behalf say, we're just friends of Donald. We're we're just saying what everybody would say about this. This is, we are, you know, no, we're not, we're not relaying a message for Donald Trump. We're not doing any of that stuff.
|
Sam:
[1:15:18]
| But they're all clearly, uh, working off the same talking points because it's the, you know, they're saying the same stuff. There's like a dozen of them and they all basically say exactly the same thing with slightly different words, which is a standard way you do talking points. You know, people coordinate messaging all the time, but in this case, there's a strong suspicion that the talking points are coming from Donald Trump, which would violate the gag order. Now, is it just a strong suspicion? I mean, like, look, everybody knows the kinds of things Donald Trump wants to say. You don't have to have him say it to do that. So there's a legitimate possibility that all of his surrogates just know, okay, we're going to yell about how Cohen's a liar. Oh, we're going to to talk about how Stormy is unreliable. Oh, we're going to talk about how this case is trumped up. We're going to talk about the judge's daughter. We're going to talk about how this is a miscarriage of justice, all this kind of stuff, some of which violates the court order and the gag order, and some of which doesn't. But here's the thing.
|
Sam:
[1:16:37]
| One of the people in the courtroom, room, I think it was a reporter, but don't hold me to that, says that they witnessed, a note being passed to Donald Trump from one of these people, and then Donald Trump making edits and notes on the printout, and then passing it back, indicating that if true.
|
Sam:
[1:17:04]
| Donald Trump may be helping to define the message that these surrogates are giving. And if that is the case, then it is a clear violation of the gag order. So the question is, okay, well, what then? So there are a few possibilities there. One is we're pretty close to the end of the trial. We don't want to cause any disruption at this late stage. Just let it go. You know, okay, Donald Trump is pushing the limits again. And, oh, well, just let it go. Like, we're almost done.
|
Sam:
[1:17:46]
| Stormy finished a while ago. Cohen is almost finished. We just have a little tiny bit left to go on Monday, probably. I don't think any of the comments have been specifically about the jury. No, there was one. Like one of the people was like implying that the jury might not be real Americans or something like that. So, but anyway, one possibility is certainly let it go.
|
Sam:
[1:18:13]
| Another is the question of like, for the most part for these, the judge hasn't sort of taken action on these violations himself. They wait for the prosecution to submit an official, whatever they call them, memo, notice, whatever, saying that, hey, he's done it again.
|
Sam:
[1:18:36]
| We think you should hold him in contempt. And then the judge holds a hearing for Donald Trump's lawyers to basically state why he shouldn't be held in contempt for whatever he's done. In those situations, the judge could potentially call witnesses and all kinds of other stuff to talk through it. It could just be questioning the lawyers, but he could call witnesses. So like that guy or guy or girl, I don't even know who it was, who apparently saw them passing notes like in grade school, that person could be called as a witness to say what they saw. So one possibility is that the prosecution, either on Monday morning or maybe later, gives the judge this notice and says, he's done it again, what are we going to do? And the judge decides to hold a hearing on it. They could play with the timing, right? Since we're near the end, the prosecution could potentially wait until the case has gone to the jury to even bring this to the judge's attention, or they could bring it to the judge's attention.
|
Sam:
[1:19:49]
| Bring it to the judge's attention first thing Monday, but the judge could say, we're going to have a hearing on this after the case goes to the jury, and then have a hearing on it. And then if there is punishment for it, whatever punishment does or does not occur could be deferred until after the jury has reached a verdict anyway, so that it doesn't interfere with the trial itself. And even then, even if the judge does decide, even if the prosecution does bring this to the judge's attention. And even if the judge decides to have a hearing and they have a hearing, the judge could decide, you know, it's the end of the trial. We'll just do another round of fines. You know, there's no point in putting you in jail now. There's no point in doing anything else now because it's almost over. They could decide that.
|
Sam:
[1:20:44]
| It will be an interesting twist if this comes up at the end there's always a twist at the end i i heard that on a recent doctor who episode anyway they yes so we'll see like it could be nothing like they could just let it go and not have any and nothing comes of this at all or there could be another round of hearings and everything and something may happen at the end of it or it may not. But it's interesting that Donald Trump did sort of lay low and refrain for a week or so. And then he comes back and tries this stunt with having surrogates speak for him, him even though the gag order prohibited directing people to speak on his behalf and maybe maybe he didn't direct them maybe he really didn't but if he's trying to be clever and direct them behind the scenes but try to make do it in a deniable way i don't know that's the kind of thing that It feels like to me, like the judge has to do something in that situation.
|
Sam:
[1:22:02]
| Yeah, I don't know. I don't know. We'll see. So anyway, things are moving quickly. We'll have more developments next week. And I don't like, you know, we talked about timetables. The very fastest timetable could have a verdict before our next show. I kind of feel like it's more likely it'll drag out a little bit longer but, It's probably not going to be more than another week. So if we don't have a verdict by the end of our next show, not by the end of our next show, if we don't have a verdict by the time we record our next show, we almost certainly will have one by the show after that.
|
Sam:
[1:22:48]
| And yeah, so I guess we'll just wrap it up now. There's nothing else to do. The usual stuff at the end, if you want to get in touch with us, you know the drill, curmudgeon-corner.com. You can find all of our emails. You can find our Facebook. You can find our Mastodons. Yes, Alex. Are you texting me? Okay. So for the last couple hours before we were recording the show, Alex has been texting me dialogue as if it's from curmudgeon's corner that I presume he is having chat GPT generate for him. Should I just read the new one you just sent me? Not all the ones before that. Okay, so here we go. So you guys tell me, and you know, I could try to be sophisticated and try to use AI, to read this in our voices, but I probably won't have time to figure that out this weekend. So I'm just going to read it. Sam. Hey, Yvonne, have you ever tuned into Curmudgeon's Corner Slack? It's this pretty unique setup where people deep dive into discussions, kind of like a virtual roundtable. Yvonne. Oh, I've heard bits and pieces about it. Isn't it where folks go to hash out really nuanced views on all sorts of topics? Sounds a bit intense.
|
Sam:
[1:24:18]
| Sam. Exactly. It's intense, but incredibly rewarding. They really get into the weeds on everything from politics to philosophy and, of course, movies, which would be right up our alley. Yvonne, I'm intrigued. How do they structure their conversations? Is it all serious debate, or is there room for some lighter, more personal exchanges? Sam, it's a mix, actually. You've got some people presenting detailed analyses, citing studies or films or books, and then others might share personal stories that relate to the topic. It balances out the heavy with the human. Yvonne, that sounds pretty cool. I like the idea of a place where dialogue is encouraged, especially if it allows for different perspectives. Plus, talking about movies in that kind of depth is definitely something I'm interested in. How do I get involved? Sam, just join the Slack channel. Once you're in, you can jump into any thread that interests you or even start your own. People are pretty welcoming there and they appreciate new voices and viewpoints. Yvonne, perfect. I'll look into it this weekend. It'll be nice to engage with a community where depth isn't drowned out by all all the noise on typical social media platforms. Thanks for the tip, Sam.
|
Sam:
[1:25:42]
| Sam, no problem. I think you'll bring a lot to the table. Can't wait to see what you think about it. And there we go. Generated by, oh, oh, he wants me to read one more.
|
Sam:
[1:25:56]
| Wow, Sam, that sounds intense. It's good you didn't lose a finger. It reminds me of the time I tried to fix the sink and ended up flooding the kitchen. It was a total disaster. Speaking of disasters, I was reading about something rather fascinating recently. It's a show not about kitchen disasters, but about people navigating through some pretty harrowing experiences. Any guesses?
|
Sam:
[1:26:20]
| Okay. Anyway, there's some stuff that Alex, my son, Alex, who's 14 now, has generated using chat GPT simulating discussion on curmudgeon's corner, specifically simulating discussion about the slack in that first part. And so, yeah, like I was about to say, you can also find on curmudgeons-corner.com a link to our Patreon where you can give us money. And at various levels, we will mention you on the show, we will ring a bell, we will send you a postcard, we will send you a mug. And at $2 a month or more, or if you just ask us nicely or ask us at all, even if it's not nicely, then we will invite you to our Curmudgeon's Chorus Slack. And at this point, you now know all the benefits of going on the Curmudgeon's Chorus Slack based on that exchange that Alex sent me. He is indicating to me that there is one more set of comments that I'm supposed to read, also both from Sam and Yvonne, generated by ChatGPT, and then we'll wrap it up, I promise. I'm doing this instead of the highlight from the Slack. Okay.
|
Sam:
[1:27:42]
| Sam, you know, the other day I was thinking about how popcorn has this way of getting stuck in your teeth no matter how carefully you eat it. Anyway, what's this about a new movie? Movie, continuing Sam. That reminds me of the time I tried to bake a cake and forgot to add the flour. It was a total disaster, but it did make me laugh. So this movie, is it a comedy or something?
|
Sam:
[1:28:06]
| Sam. And I don't know, this feels like they've got, it should have been, there should be Yvonne's stuff in between that's missing. And he only sent me the Sam stuff, but anyway, here we we go. Sam, haha, very funny, Yvonne. Speaking of comedy, did you ever watch that show where the guy keeps getting into ridiculous situations? So what's the real deal with this movie? Sam, all right, all right, I get it. I'm the star of this imaginary comedy. Seriously, though, what's the movie actually about? Or are you just pulling my leg here? Sam, this really looks like there should have been Yvonne stuff in between. Was there Yvonne stuff in between you didn't send me? Anyway, Sam, nine hours, huh? That's quite the marathon of my supposed antics. Maybe I should start charging royalties for all this inspiration. But really, what's the actual movie about? Is it something you'd recommend?
|
Sam:
[1:28:59]
| Sam, okay, you got me curious now. If there's really a nine-hour epic about my so-called adventures, I might need to see it to believe it, but seriously, what's this movie about? And then finally, Yvonne says, wow, if there's a nine-hour movie about you, Sam, that'd be something. Did they include your infamous FNAF rants? Okay, we're at this point done with AI imitating myself and Yvonne. Thank you for joining us on Curmudgeon's Corner. corner, we would love it. If you join the Slack, just let us send us a, send us a message and I'll send you an invite to Mike, who I mentioned at the beginning of the show. And I had coffee with after not talking for 20 years. If you want to be on the Slack, just ping me. I'll send you that invite and, and, and we'll have you on. And I, I.
|
Sam:
[1:29:58]
| Alex has sent me one more, and this will be the absolute last one, even if he sends me more, because we're going to wrap this sucker up. Okay, Sam. Oh, I hope not. A nine-hour movie and FNAF rants? That's nightmare fuel right there. Seriously, though, Yvonne, what's this really about? Yvonne. All right, all right. It's actually a new comedy about this guy who keeps getting into bizarre situations because of his own clumsiness. Reminded me of your cake instant.
|
Sam:
[1:30:29]
| Sam. Ah, now it makes sense. Sounds like it could be fun to watch. Any big names in it? Yvonne. Yeah, a few. The lead is played by that guy from that sitcom we used to watch. You know, the one with the really weird catchphrases? Sam. Oh, him. Now I'm definitely interested. I could use a good laugh. What's the title? Yvonne. It's called The Blunder Years. Aptly named, don't you think? Sam. Perfect title. I'll have to check it out, but I'll keep my fingers crossed it doesn't remind me too much of my own mishaps. And there we are. We're done. Now we're going to have to, like, figure out, like, some more stuff about the blunder years, I guess. But we will do that off the podcast. Thanks, everybody, for joining us for yet another Commodions Corner. As I was saying, Mike, let us know. We'll add you to the Slack if you're listening. Listening uh anybody else out there who listens and has never participated in our slack it's a lot of fun just just contact me in any of the ways listed on curmudgeon-corner.com and we'll get you on board for everybody else have a great week stay safe have fun and we'll talk to you next time good.
|
Sam:
[1:31:46]
| Bye, Okay, now I'm hitting stop for real. Why do I put these things at the end where I hit stop? Does anybody care? Does anybody find them funny in any way? they're usually not funny every once in a while there's something funny but usually i just include them because like i don't know i've been doing it for the last couple months but yeah like maybe i should only do it when they're actually funny or interesting as opposed to just me saying okay i'm hitting stop now because that's not exciting or interesting and alex is slapping me now because it's time for him to have some attention before bedtime okay now i really am hitting stop stop Stop!
|
|
|
