The Top 10 List Of Everything Merrick Garland Should Have Done To Stop Trump

Is Merrick Garland's Department of Justice truly navigating the treacherous waters of Trump investigations as effectively as it could? We dissect the criticisms and expectations placed upon Garland, revealing the intricate balance between the desire for swift justice and the necessity of thorough investigations. Explore strategic considerations, such as the decision to charge the classified documents case in Washington, D.C., and the delicate moves behind the scenes to safeguard evidence. As we examine these choices, we ponder the weight of public perception and the challenges of maintaining trust in the legal system.

The January 6th Capitol attack remains a pivotal moment in U.S. history, but what about the alleged inaction of the Biden administration in holding key figures accountable? We delve into the complexities of pursuing justice against prominent individuals involved in the attack and the controversial fake elector scheme. Our discussion uncovers the roles of Special Counsel Jack Smith and Judge Cannon, probing the impact of their decisions on public trust. With insights into the challenges faced by the Justice Department and the FBI, we evaluate the repercussions of delayed accountability.

Finally, we confront the sensitive topic of allegations, from music moguls Diddy and Jay-Z to broader societal issues. We underscore the importance of due process and the challenge of handling accusations with fairness and patience. With personal anecdotes and high-profile examples, we highlight the complexities of navigating accusations in a world where the truth can sometimes be elusive. Join us for a thought-provoking exploration of justice, accountability, and the power of perception in shaping public discourse.

Transcript

Speaker 1: 0:05

so in the last episode of the podcast I told you I was going to have a list of all of the things that mary garland and biden's department well, not all the things, but like a top 10 list basically of all the things that mary garland and his department of justice, uh, could have taken over the course of the four well, I guess three and a half years, since he wasn't confirmed after Biden's inauguration for a few months there. But the things that likely you know likely routes or choices of action that Garland could have taken that might have possibly resulted in a different outcome in the sense that, even though Trump was charged twice by the Department of Justice in Florida for the classified documents and in DC for January 6th those cases didn't go to trial for various reasons. And again. So there's always been a lot of Merrick Garland criticism for not having done enough or not having done the right thing or having done this or that and, generally speaking, I think the criticism is it's not that criticism of garland is unwarranted, it's that the specific things that people criticize him for are just unrealistic largely. For example, like why didn't mary garland charge trump the first day he was sworn in as attorney general?

Speaker 1: 1:23

Well, that's because criminal investigations tend to take time and you can file charges at a standard of proof that's probable cause but when you get to a criminal trial, you have to have enough evidence to convict beyond a reasonable doubt, and there was not a significant enough investigation done, you know, over the course of the couple of months before Mayor Garland got there to arrest Trump, have him indicted and have him convicted at a trial. So it was just going to take a little bit more time than that. And of course, there's always a counterbalance here between like hey, if you wait too long, look what can happen, because we saw the worst case scenario it took two years for DOJ to get an indictment of Trump and it never made it to trial in either case. So, yes, there is a balance that needs to be struck, but I've got some specific instances of things that likely should have been done or at the very least could have been done. And even even with this list, I can tell you I'm not.

Speaker 2: 2:30

We could have been done. We could have got the motherfuckers from south korea over here.

Speaker 1: 2:37

Look so yes, look, what happens is when you have an unexpected hiatus when it comes to recording the podcast, a million things happen. I mean, we had the, the fall of assad's regime, there's an attempted coup in south korea I just like on, and on brazil, fucking boston yes, it's absolutely crazy out here in these streets.

Speaker 1: 3:03

But on to the top 10 list, so number 10. One of the things Mary Garland's DOJ could have done and this was likely before Jack Smith of a special counsel it could have charged the classified documents case in DC and, again, like could have brought the charges. For well, in terms of executing the search warrant on Mar-a-Lago, that could have been done months earlier and he could have brought the charges in DC. Now there would have been, of course, an argument that because the majority of the crime took place in South Florida, the charges needed to be filed there, florida, the charges needed to be filed there. But you could also argue that the origin for the criminal activity was in DC and that he could have been charged in DC and that would have potentially avoided Judge Cannon presiding over the case and ultimately tanking it. Now, again, that's an argument that would have went up eventually to the Supreme Court In all likelihood.

Speaker 1: 4:01

We've seen how the Supreme Court kicks it. They are here playing Trump's legal defense counsel, so it's possible they could have dismissed the charges. But again, you have the Mar-a-Lago search warrant executed, say, three months earlier. You get those documents, you get the charges filed in D, judge Cannon doesn't hold up the process by engaging Trump's demands to look so that that whole legal legal fiasco with the execution of the search warrant, the Trump fraud of court that delayed the investigation and ultimately the charges he ran out the clock.

Speaker 1: 4:40

So this would have been potentially a way to try to avoid running out the clock in multiple ways, but largely to circumvent Judge Cannon and again the Supreme Court probably could have been like hey, wrong jurisdiction, dismiss these charges. It would have been refiled again in South Florida and we could have ultimately ended up in the same place. It's entirely possible. I don't know Number nine Mayor Garland could have immediately appointed a special counsel and get this. Most people are saying why didn't Mayor Garland appoint a special counsel in January of 2021? Well, he wasn't the attorney general in January or February, or most of March, for that matter.

Speaker 2: 5:23

Biden wasn't even inaugurated to almost the end of January.

Speaker 1: 5:25

So yes, but so Garland didn't get confirmed until March. His deputies didn't get confirmed until closer to the end of the year. But one of the things Mayor Garland could have done because we did find out last year that he initiated a small task force in secrecy inside the Department of Justice to go after, if not Trump, all of the higher ranking co-conspirators. That would include likely members of Congress and, of course, the war rooms scattered around DC on January 5th and 6th. Now we don't know the details of where that investigation led, but it eventually culminated with the appointment of Jack Smith special counsel's office, who ended up ultimately indicting Trump on charges related to the coup was doing was to avoid publicizing the investigation for a couple of reasons, but largely because if it had become public that he was specifically investigating Trump and Trump's inner circle and his immediate co-conspirators, it would have caused him to change their behaviors and their actions and the way they communicate and possibly led to them, you know, deleting evidence from their phones, their emails, any other type of communications and such. But again, that's, you know, one of the that is one of the trade-offs. You know the investigation would have moved a lot faster. In all likelihood it would have been well-staffed, it would have been equipped to go after Trump the same way Jack Smith's office did, and on the flip side, you know the way he did it did ultimately result in charges, but it took longer. But again, you know, one of the issues here is get to the point where there was enough evidence to convict Trump and his co-conspirators at a criminal trial beyond a reasonable doubt, was going to step in at some point, as they did, and find a way to not only delay the trial but also institute a brand new set of rules when it comes to prosecuting presidents. And they did so in such a way that, even if this, you know, even if the clock hadn't run out before this, got to trial in terms of presenting evidence, because they basically made a rule, you know, they made new rules of evidence for presidents. Any decisions the court made in terms of Judge Chuck in allowing evidence into the record, that could have been appealed back up to the Supreme Court and we could have just been going back and forth with this on loop for eternity, regardless of when the charges had been filed, for eternity, regardless of when the charges had been filed. So look again, it probably would have resulted in charges sooner, but it's no guarantee the end result would have been the same.

Speaker 1: 8:32

Number eight Merrick Garland should have fired Chris Wray and all of Trump's holdovers at the DOJ and FBI. The second he was confirmed to be the attorney general. Now this one, like clearly Mayor Garland you know, I don't know. Obviously he has the power to, you know ask President Biden to fire the FBI director. But you know, biden made it clear that he was going to let Chris Wray stay on in an attempt to bring the nation back to some semblance of normalcy.

Speaker 1: 9:07

But the argument I would make is, in terms of all the criticism directed at the DOJ for what they did and did not do in terms of going after Trump and his cronies, largely, the DOJ, and specifically Merrick Garland, were a lot more aggressive than the FBI wanted.

Speaker 1: 9:26

Merrick Garland were a lot more aggressive than the FBI wanted and there was a lot of consternation between the two agencies and it was in all likelihood so, like in terms of executing the search warrant. It was the FBI that didn't want to execute the search warrant and then they were the ones that didn't want to go in with the uniforms and all of this and they tried to delay the search as long as possible. It was Merrick Garland himself that signed off on the search warrant and told them hey, go get the shit. You know we have numerous instances of former FBI officials who were appointed under Trump, doing things to delay the investigation. Now you could argue that, hey, maybe they wanted to, you know, not put themselves in a position to face Trump's wrath Should he be reelected, and that's a legitimate concern. But also you probably just had a bunch of dudes who work for Trump who were trying to make sure he wasn't brought up on charges, doing what they could within legal limits to delay the investigation legal limits to delay the investigation.

Speaker 2: 10:37

The thing about Biden and Merrick Garland they came around about the same time in politics and their respective jobs, in that they're kind of centrist, they believe in bipartisanship, they believe in that we're not there anymore, but they were still trying to play by the rules that are no longer there decision making, because they were going at it as if they were dealing with rational people in a rational time and also holding out hope is what I think that somebody held on to those principles and valued the rule of law and constitution above. And then you soon found out that everybody's a fucking sick of it and and also, at the end of the day, it didn't matter what they did. So if somebody it's like, if you have a significant other who's always accusing you of cheating, cheating and you're not, and you're not, and you're not, and then one day you get fed up, not saying it's right, but you get fed up and you're like, fuck it, I'm gonna go cheat because I haven't cheated, but I'm being accused of it anyway and I can't get no motherfucking sleep.

Speaker 2: 11:50

Bitch about to pour some hot grits on me like I can't take this anymore. So you know, if I'm gonna get scalded, I may as well get the benefit up. May as well say okay, I did it. You know what I'm saying. So it's like there was going to be nothing.

Speaker 1: 12:04

With all the accusations of Biden weaponizing the Justice Department and the FBI, he should have just weaponized the Justice Department and the FBI, not weaponized. But yes, like you know, even if it came to the point where it seemed like they might be super aggressive, fuck it be super aggressive because this was a serious issue. And, like again, no one would have faulted Biden for coming out and saying I'm firing or I'm asking chris ray for his resignation. He was in charge of the fbi when the attack on the capitol took place. The fbi received numerous credible threats. Uh, that attack was imminent. They failed to act.

Speaker 2: 12:39

Chris ray deserves to lose his job they should have also brought fucking michael flynn back to active duty and had his ass court-martialed for sure. I shouldn't be paying his four hundred thousand dollars. My tax dollars shouldn't be going into paying finn's fucking pension, while he's left for years to just run around being a traitor.

Speaker 1: 12:58

I'm with you there and like just the way that trauma's going around trying to accrue to everyone under his employ. To help him with January 6th, there's absolutely no question that he tried to ask Chris Wray, number six, or rather number seven, mayor Garland should have charged the fake electors with conspiracy to commit forgery slash defraud of the United States. I think this would have been the easiest possible charges to prove. Were the fake elector documents forged? Yes, were they sent in to government agencies in an attempt to change the outcome of the result of the 2020 election? Yes, open and shut. You know conspiracy somewhat difficult to charge, but I think in terms of forgery, you got them cold on that and a lot of hands touch those fake elector certificates.

Speaker 1: 13:55

Senator Ron Johnson Absolutely For three seconds. According to him, of the like you know, the speech or debate clause section of the constitution does not confer to attempting to use forged documents to subvert a presidential election. I think that would have been pretty open and shut could have got that done in months, but again, that likely would have required a special counsel, because I don't think the route that Mayor Garland's investigation took got to the fake elector plot for months after his appointment. Number six should have conferred with the January 6th committee and made sure that they share their evidence with the Department of Justice and the FBI. If everyone who's been accusing you know the Department of Justice for waiting around for the January 6th committee to do their work before they made any moves, you're wrong.

Speaker 1: 14:50

That investigation into Trump and his cronies started, you know, approximately April of 2021. One of the issues that held up the department, though, is the January 6th was also going around taking these depositions and collecting evidence, and what you can't have is the department filing charges against Trump and other co-conspirators and then it comes out that these other witnesses have testified to a government body and then testimony differs, and then if there's any sort of inconsistencies, you know Trump and his people were going to get off and they decided to hold off on that information until they finished their investigation and held hearings, which made the department look bad. But instead of like encouraging the department to investigate leads that they had that maybe the department didn't, and they try to be selfish with the information now again, like you got to take your ego out of this. If you're the Justice Department, you got to go to them and be like, hey, this is why we need this, we need to de-conflict and we need to make as many moves as soon as possible to make sure that Trump doesn't run out the clock. So, in that regard, yes, the DOJ should have, you know, maybe done some reaching out, but like I'd hold the January 6th committee responsible for sending on as much information as they did for as long as they did, which helped Trump run out of the clock. So you can kind of, in that regard, I think the blame is largely on the January 6th committee.

Speaker 1: 16:15

But sure, doj, they can. They should have took some initiative on that Number five, it should have immediately held voluntary interviews with Trump administration officials and campaign staff. If not, you know, the second that Biden took office, when Merrick Garland was confirmed to be the attorney general. Now, what I mean is the same way that Robert Mueller and his investigation. Once he was appointed he went around talking to Trump campaign staff and people who worked at the White House. Went around talking to Trump campaign staff and people who worked at the White House, gathering information and getting people on the record about what they knew or what they had witnessed, got that on the record.

Speaker 1: 16:53

There were numerous people caught up in that investigation in those voluntary interviews who ended up lying. And what happened? Robert Mueller basically offered them an agreement where if they cooperated, they would get hit with the 1001 charge, which is basically lying to a federal agent, largely end up getting probation in exchange for cooperating in the investigation. Doj should have like looked at what happened in that particular investigation and employed those same tactics to get everyone on the record. They likely would have had cooperating witnesses because people lie, and they would have had like a clear insight into the Trump campaign and the Trump administration in their attempt to overthrow the government on January 6th, which likely would have sped up the process, which would have meant you know charges far sooner than when they actually occurred.

Speaker 1: 17:51

So number four, jack Smith special counsel's office should have moved for the recusal of Judge Cannon for her interference in the execution of the search warrant and just the way she handled all of the issues regarding pret a level of clarity in all of her emotions and whatnot and she ended up basically making it impossible for anything to be filed in public on the docket, which means she had to make all of her decisions in private. Everything that was communicated in terms of trying to make the trial go forward was just hidden from public view. I mean, she was. It was a whole disaster. She got overturned by the 11th circuit twice and was likely on her way to being overturned a third time.

Speaker 2: 18:45

Yeah, but she learned from that and that's why she started being real careful with the things that she said to not give it a chance to go and be taken to the 11th circuit again yeah, special counsel's office should have just moved to have her thrown off the case because we knew where it was going.

Speaker 1: 19:02

So when, when you know, the charges were first filed, we talked about it on the podcast quite often. But once it became clear the judge cannon was never going to let that go to trial, how often did we, like you know other podcasts and kudos to them because you know we deserve to understand like the process and how it plays out. But you know a lot of other legal podcasts. We're going over every development in the case in florida and I was like, hey, man, we're not talking about this again until it's clear it was going to trial and it never went to trial. So we never talked about it again. Because you know, I told you guys pretty much it's not gonna happen with judge canaan on that case and she was basically installed after trump lost the election in his district to ensure that any trump related cases that went before her got squashed and she did her job. So I mean, you know, good win for trump. But like again.

Speaker 1: 19:51

So there was this. There's this show foundation on apple tv. I mean I don't care if you watch it or not, but there is a fantastic quote from a character in that show that says you cannot play chess with someone who is willing to set the board on fire.

Speaker 1: 20:06

Well, yeah, that's pretty cut and dry Full stop, largely speaking, surrounding the failures of the Justice Department to hold Trump accountable. All regard, you know all revolve around the fact that they were playing chess and Trump and his co-conspirators in the Supreme Court and Judge Cannon and Republicans in Congress were willing to set the board on fire and look, it worked out for them. So number three charge all the Trump's co-conspirators in Congress. I think this one's pretty straightforward. Trump was the only one involved in the fake elector plot on January 6th. Like you know, there were multiple arms of the coup. One was the violent insurrection, the other one was the fake elector certificates to give Mike Pence an opportunity to either certify those or delay the certification of the 2020 election to a point in which the states could decide and you know, I think, the rule there is congressional no state legislatures basically make the decision and because Republicans have a majority, they could have handed the election to Trump. Like, charge everyone who is aware in that regard of the plot.

Speaker 2: 21:21

I mean, and the way that they moved so quick like Michigan, arizona and what other state? It was one other state, was it Colorado or Georgia? Georgia, yeah, I think Georgia, but they really it pretty much was a slam dunk and that would have been a good place to start.

Speaker 1: 21:46

So here's the thing. So you charge members of Congress that, like the pretrial proceedings are going to play out over the course of years, probably weren't going to get them to trial before the election. But again, what it would have done is got information out to the public. It would have painted Republicans into a corner and it likely would have decided the election in favor of Democrats, which in turn would have given the Department of Justice more time to prosecute these fuckers and get Trump. Prosecute these fuckers and get trump.

Speaker 1: 22:18

So, um, you know, and now I again, I understand the plan here was to indict trump, get the slimmest possible indictment that you think has the least amount of issues, to get it to court before the election. And didn't work. And at the very least, once it became clear, um, after the supreme court stepped in, after cannon dismissed, dismissed the charges in florida, that hey, like this, ain't going to try before the election, indict all the co-conspirators, at least get the evidence out into the public, out into the public spotlight, because sunlight's supposed to be the best disinfectant, but apparently that was not the case. Number two subpoena slash charge Jenny Thompson for her role in the fake elector plot yes yes, back to the your opponents being willing to set the board on fire.

Speaker 1: 23:02

Once it was clear, uh, that clarence thomas and a number of his other cohorts believe that they had impunity to step in and defend trump in in any manner that they see fit.

Speaker 1: 23:14

Uh, it probably should have been a clear indicator that anything appealed out of these Trump cases that went to the Supreme Court is probably going to go in Trump's favor, and the way you combat that is you set the board on fire.

Speaker 1: 23:25

So you know, jenny Thomas was in communication with numerous officials in swing states about the fake elector plot, which you kind of have to ask yourself yourself how the fuck did she even know right? And then also, she's married to a supreme court justice who's making decisions on these cases. You make her a witness or slash a co-defendant, like you basically eliminate any of Clarence Thomas, the ability of Clarence Thomas to weigh in on these cases, while the pressure would have mounted for him to recuse, if not resign. And there you go, you got. Either you have one less vote to rig the system for Trump or you might even have another Supreme Court justice at this point, which would have in fact, prevented the Supreme Court for stepping in and helping Trump and bailing him out in numerous ways, but, you know, again lost the opportunity, something they should have thought about and took action on. So I do Again. It's not a guarantee that this would have worked, but like.

Speaker 2: 24:29

It definitely would. It definitely would have sent a message.

Speaker 1: 24:32

It would have sent a message.

Speaker 2: 24:33

It would have sent a message, and more of a no one is above the law message, even before trump took to go, because she was very, very brazen, her arrogance and then clarence. Thomas, this motherfucker, sat on the bench for a decade and didn't say a fucking word, but he sure could not stop yapping like a goddamn canary after he started to feel emboldened and shit, and now he won't shut the fuck up now he won't shut the fuck up and if nothing else, it would have distracted his ass because he loved him some jenny.

Speaker 1: 25:02

So I think what it would have done most is put all of the conservative justices on the supreme court in fear of intervening in this and putting a target which he would have deserved, and somebody weak like cavanaugh would have made his ass think twice.

Speaker 2: 25:18

See. See alito and thomas. They don't give a fuck. However, roberts is a squish cavanaugh's weak baron she's.

Speaker 1: 25:31

She is a unicorn in her own right. Like she's super conservative.

Speaker 2: 25:35

She's made some decisions that have shocked me.

Speaker 1: 25:37

That's the other thing. There are, in some cases, principled decisions that she makes that don't necessarily align with what you think of far right conservative, but beyond that, the point really here is try and take as many pieces off the chessboard as possible to ensure, you know, the department of justice was able to carry out his goals. And it did not do that. Um, and the number one thing, the number one thing mary garland should have done is it's fairly obvious once I'm once, I say it is he should have charged trump with obstructing robert muller's that's a good one.

Speaker 2: 26:15

I didn't even think about that.

Speaker 1: 26:17

Yeah, so Mueller made it fairly clear that Trump obstructed his investigation in numerous ways in you know, a couple of specific instances you can go with.

Speaker 2: 26:26

Like yeah, interfere with the federal investigation obstruction.

Speaker 1: 26:29

Well, trying to have Mueller fired. That was one. Now, of course it wasn't successful, but obstruction doesn't have to be successful to be a crime.

Speaker 2: 26:37

I'm also lying. You don't have to get the money to have tried to rob a bank.

Speaker 1: 26:43

No, Mueller submitted Trump numerous written questions, and even in the written, you know, in lieu of an interview and even in the written questions, trump lied. He could have charged him with that, you know. And look, I don't know what Bill Barr did after the conclusion of Mueller's investigation to ensure that no charges would be filed, like I'm sure there were some shenanigans being played in DOJ on the record, or at least you know, confidentially on the record in terms of making it difficult to charge Trump. And one of the things Bill Barr did was he went to the Office of Legal Counsel to get an opinion saying that you couldn't file obstruction charges without a crime. And I know you're thinking well, well, that's, that's seals the deal. Trump wasn't charged. Well, that's not entirely true.

Speaker 1: 27:27

Robert Mueller charged numerous people, including Russian agents and Trump co-conspirators, and Trump tried to obstruct the investigation that resulted in the charging of those people. Therefore, you're still in alignment with the OLC opinion. There were charges filed, trump tried to obstruct that investigation. You charge Trump with that. You can do that within the first couple of months on the job, if not weeks, that likely would have ended with a trial and a conviction uh, before the end of 2022. So there were numerous and again, you know I'm not saying that's 100, sure, but it would have been an opportunity, should have been done, likely, could have been done.

Speaker 2: 28:09

He had a lot of spaghetti to throw at the wall. He could have gave it the old college. Try, you know. I mean it's not like he didn't. Yeah, you know, it's not like trump didn't, when he was in office with hillary, nothing with hunter before they investigated hillary clinton right up until the day trump left office yeah, they did.

Speaker 2: 28:31

He had like four fucking investigations like going on and I was like reading that was like the, uh, the western district of texas, um one of them. He was like bro, there ain't nothing here, like no nothing now.

Speaker 1: 28:46

So you know I've been accused of being like a mary garland glazer.

Speaker 2: 28:49

I love mary garland well, you and allison, both, because allison has been hanging in there too, no, but here's the thing.

Speaker 1: 28:56

it's like I've been saying, like it's not that Merrick Garland is above criticism, it's just the shit people be criticizing him for. It'd be stupid.

Speaker 1: 29:03

And look, I just laid out a whole entire list of things that Merrick Garland, doj, even Biden himself could have done, including firing Chris Wray, since he's going to resign anyway Should have got him out of the paint and out of the way and, like it's entirely possible, the investigation and the outcome of the criminal charges would have been faster and maybe have ended in a different result. So it's not that I'm, like you know, pro Merrick Garland to the point where I'm not objective, like I clearly have, you know, some ideas about what could have been done differently and should have been done differently. Now, again, there's a cost benefit to all of these. You know possible actions, like there are ways that attempting to do those things could have backfired. But again, we live in a world of consequences and sometimes to do the right thing, you got to deal with whatever potential fallout might exist.

Speaker 2: 29:53

Now what they need to do is just they need to release everything they can, and I think that they need to erase. They need to erase, they need to release the January 6th report because Trump's going to erase it.

Speaker 1: 30:07

We're going to get the report in January. The problem is that there's a lot of information and evidence, likely obtained by the grand jury, that can be released to the public without an order from the court.

Speaker 2: 30:23

They need to release what they can at least.

Speaker 1: 30:25

Well, I think Smith's going to do that and I think they're going to find a way to make sure as much information as possible gets into the record here. But there's a lot of evidence that I would suggest that they go to judge chuck in and try and ask her to uh, you know, unseal for the public since the case is being dismissed. But again, you know, the possibility of doing that is if it, if chuck orders that and that information is made publicly available. Uh, there could be arguments made in the future should there ever be federal charges against some of trump's co-conspirators but you know what I?

Speaker 1: 30:59

I don't even care yeah, you, just right now, the information we gotta move like there is no, four years from now yes, we gotta move and move like the charges are gonna go away forever, because in all likelihood once trump is in office, then they're gonna.

Speaker 2: 31:13

They're gonna erase every fucking thing. They're gonna erase everything yeah and so we need to they. Yeah, it needs to be. I don't care how they get it out there. I don't care if he get hop on one of the motherfucking drones and drops it over the new jersey, over the hudson, like I don't care and look man, so much stuff happened while we were gone.

Speaker 1: 31:33

I mean I got page 36 like I don't care yeah, you know the republicans, you know top witness and trying to impeach biden and lock up hunter. He is apparently going to plead guilty to crimes of lying to the feds. I mean, it was wild out there, all right. So we had a crazy story last week where an accuser came forward accusing well, a woman came forward accusing Jay-z of rape during a party after the, I believe, the VMA Awards in 2000 and just like it's. It's an insane story. Trigger warning here. Anyone who's been like a victim of sexual assault you this this is probably tough for you to hear just want to let you take a second.

Speaker 1: 32:21

It turn off the podcast if you trigger warning yes, we have a clip of the woman in an interview with the outlet here the night of the 2000s vmas.

Speaker 4: 32:32

She says a friend drove her from Rochester, New York, to Manhattan, a more than five-hour drive. Her attorney provided NBC News with the name of the friend who has since died. The woman says she spoke to Combs' limo driver who offered her a ride to an after-party.

Speaker 3: 32:46

I stumbled upon Diddy's driver, who told me that I was exactly what Diddy was looking for. What did you think when he said that to you? I thought it meant that I was just for.

Speaker 4: 32:58

What did you think when he said that to you? I thought it meant that I was just pretty. She went to a White House, she says, where she spoke to musicians Benji Madden and his brother.

Speaker 3: 33:03

I'm talking to Benji Madden about his tattoo, because you know I have a really is about his tattoo. That's the last supper, because I have a religious background, so it was just something to talk about.

Speaker 4: 33:19

In a statement to NBC News, a representative of the Maddens confirmed that they did not attend the 2000 VMAs and that they were on tour in the Midwest at the time. At the after party she says she had a drink that made her feel woozy. Then she says Combs and Carter took turns raping her while a female celebrity watched.

Speaker 3: 33:37

JC comes in and rapes me. Well he's, well he. At that point I was fighting, trying to get away from him, and he put his hand over my mouth and told me to stop it, cut you it, cut the after the alleged rape, she says she ran to a gas station where she called her father, who picked her up and drove her home we wrote home in silence. He didn't ask me what happened.

Speaker 4: 34:07

He didn't ask me what I did or where I was in an interview with nbc news, her father said he could not verify the claims Quote. I felt like I would remember that and I don't. I have a lot going on, but I mean that's something that would definitely stick in my mind, he said. When we asked the woman about the contradictions in a phone interview on Friday, she said that she stands by her statements. I have made some mistakes, she said Honestly. What is the clearest is what happened to me. Mistakes, she said Honestly, what is the clearest is what happened to me.

Speaker 4: 34:38

The inconsistencies in her account of an incident alleged to have happened 24 years ago does not necessarily mean the allegations are false. The accuser's attorney, tony Busby, said because we have interrogated her intensely, she has even agreed to submit to a polygraph. This has been extremely distressing for her, to the point she has experienced seizures and had to seek medical treatment due to the stress. In a statement to NBC News, sean Carter said this incident didn't happen and yet he filed it in court and doubled down in the press. True justice is coming. We fight from victory, not for victory.

Speaker 1: 35:09

All right. So you know we're in a post Me Too movement, era Right, post-MeToo movement, era right. And you know I'm in a position of like when women come forward and, you know, accuse other individuals of sexually assaulting them. Generally speaking, you know I want to be sensitive to that. I like to leave as much space for that as possible because, let's be honest here, you know so many more women in the world, and specifically the United States, get sexually assaulted than ever come forward.

Speaker 1: 35:36

So you know we have to take allegations like that seriously and but I'm also in a position of like, you know, generally speaking, if some regular rando on the street is accused of sexual assault, I'm like you probably did it, because there's absolutely no reason why a woman would make this accusation, generally speaking, without there being some truth to it. But you know, and like this might piss some people off, but I generally feel like, if you're a celebrity and you're a man being accused of this, if there's no history of it in your past and there's absolutely like no evidence, you know, over the course of your life or your you know the time you've been in a public space of being accused of things like this, I'm willing to, you know, give you the space to defend yourself as well, Cause there are occasions where you know it's rare, but it does.

Speaker 2: 36:26

And that that that is fair. You know, that is fair, and more so, um would say, like the, the lack of history. Not that it's not possible, because absolutely somebody doesn't have a history yeah, just because someone has somebody's not. You know. Somebody isn't a killer until they kill. You know what I mean so absolutely it's, it's so that definitely I'm giving some grace um, but his vehement denial and he seemed really I was like when I was reading you know his response boy.

Speaker 1: 37:01

So let's, let's back up for a second, because that was just some context. So jay-z did put out, put out a response on social media the other day. It wasn't even really of an ahemant denial, it was more so I felt like it was but well no, but he wasn't really, you know, attacking like the accusation as much as being like dog.

Speaker 1: 37:20

This is ridiculous. Y'all know I didn't do this and he was mad. And you know, typically speaking, you know celebrities, wealthy individuals they usually go through a PR firm or their lawyers when putting out a statement in in regards to these allegations, but Jay-Z, it looked like he typed this up himself.

Speaker 2: 37:35

Like he typed it up.

Speaker 1: 37:37

Yeah, no, I get that.

Speaker 2: 37:38

Where they'll issue this kind of generic denial response through their PR spokesperson for Jay-Z said but this was like he was like give me that pen.

Speaker 1: 37:48

Give me that pen. Yeah, let me write this up.

Speaker 2: 37:51

Give me my phone, you know, it looked like something he said himself as as a sa survivor, I want to give everybody grace when they are a potential survivor, even nancy crazy ass grace, regardless of what I think about her. You know, I give her, you know, grace as well. Um, in that aspect, but yeah, but I can, I can get you know what you're saying. Um, I don't know.

Speaker 1: 38:19

I've kind of where I am mentally with this accusation yeah, let's talk about this one specifically, right, because yeah, well, I'm just saying I'm in the same headspace as I was with the kobe situation, so I'm, I'm um when that happens. So we don't have to rush the judgment on this one. We can let the facts come out.

Speaker 1: 38:37

But, so let's, let's talk about some of her. You know the interview specifically. So one of the things she said was so, she's from upstate New York. You know she had a friend drop her off for the awards. She was 13 at the time, you know again. Look, you want to talk about kids sneaking out and doing crazy shit like that. That it does happen. Five hour drive, five hour drive.

Speaker 1: 39:02

So she's at the ward, she can't get in. She's hanging around outside. She's checking the limousine seeing if she can get you know, find someone that could get her access in. She runs in the uh, I think she said she runs into diddy's limo driver. He's like I can't get you in, but you, you know you come to the after party if you want to. You seem like you know Diddy's type or whatever. So they take her to the party. She ends up in a room. Well, she ends up having some drinks. She gets woozy. I guess the assumption is there she might've been drugged. I mean, diddy's been accused of this, like this there's multiple instances of accusations of Diddy drugging, you know, guests at his parties in order to engage in some kind of sexual, sexually compromising position.

Speaker 1: 39:45

They go into a room. You know there's. There's three celebrities there Jay-Z, diddy and a female celebrity who's currently unnamed. She says she was sexually assaulted by Diddy, and a female celebrity who's currently unnamed. She says she was sexually assaulted by Diddy and Jay-Z. And then she leaves the party. She gets to a gas station, she calls her dad. Her dad supposedly has to drive five hours to pick her up and take her home. And the dad says hey, you know, I don't even remember this happening. I mean, I guess it's possible, but it seems like something that would stick out. And then she talks about, you know, seeing another celebrity at the party having a conversation. It turns out that that that individual was not actually in the state at the time, so there are some holes in her testimony. Now, look, I'm not gonna sit here and intact the woman because, generally speaking, even in terms of like false allegations, I just don't attack women. I mean, mean, you know it's not ideal.

Speaker 1: 40:36

We don't, and again like so there's, while it's entirely possible that this happened, it's also entirely feasible, given what we know currently, that it didn't happen. That aside, you know, like, what Jay-Z is doing here currently, and even if this allegation turns out to not have any kind of truth in regards to Jay-Z's participation, what it is is Jay-Z paying a price for hanging out with some weirdos. That's, that's what it is Right. So you know you friends with Diddy. You know this is blowing up in terms of accusations surrounding Diddy. You're associated with the guy like and look, there have been no, so so we talked about.

Speaker 1: 41:24

there's no history in terms of Jay-Z in anything, any sort of allegations of any kind of improper behavior in this regard. So you, in that respect, I gave jay z some space, but it's been all kinds of allegations for years now about diddy, so you knew who you was rolling with in this well, yeah, that's exactly what I was going to say.

Speaker 2: 41:46

I 100 believe go oh yeah, but I I was going to, I was going to comment on that that I I 100 believe that jay-z knew and you know I remember them video, vixen days, double xl and smooth mag and you know the gloria velez's and the karen steffens and yeah, you know, back in the day there was some times and so he absolutely, I believe, knew maybe he didn't fuck with it like that, but he knew what the hell was going on and he knew who did.

Speaker 1: 42:20

He was yeah, let's make a delineation here, right. So you know, in terms of the industry, you have associates that you work with and through that sometimes you become friends with those people. But then there's like an even tighter group. It's it's your crew dog, it's like the people you roll with. Now, jay-z ain't like rolling with diddy all the time they they didn't have that kind of relationship.

Speaker 1: 42:44

But they were friends, they were close, they talked all the time. Like you know, they talked about things between themselves. Uh, you know that. That. You know, jay wouldn't necessarily talk about with other people. But here's another thing. So while you so, while Jay-Z is a victim of the people he associates himself with in this regard, at this point he was also look, he's currently married to Beyonce. I don't know how to even dissect this, but they've known each other since she was a teenager, before she was an illegal adult. So you know that could possibly raise some questions about Jay-Z's particular intentions and they've been together.

Speaker 2: 43:25

what 20 years now? I think it's been a long time. I think somebody said I think that's when Beyonce's album when Bonnie and Clyde came out.

Speaker 1: 43:34

Yeah, so they've been married for a while. He knew her before she was of the age of 18, also, you know, working in the industry, and was associates with alia when she was underage and then dame dash was dating her. Yeah so look you, you've got some questions about like the possibility of jay-z being interested in underage girls potentially.

Speaker 2: 44:00

R Kelly, wasn't everybody circled to?

Speaker 1: 44:02

Yeah, so R Kelly and Aaliyah ended up getting married, but then she, you know, unfortunately is no longer with us, thanks to a plane crash, I believe. And then, of course, you know we know how R Kelly was kicking it. Jay-z and R Kelly, I think they put out a couple of albums together.

Speaker 3: 44:16

They went on tour together.

Speaker 1: 44:19

So, whether or not Jay-Z actually was involved in this particular incident, like you know, who am I to say? The evidence suggested? Likely not. But also, on the other hand, dude put himself in this position where enough people can take these allegations to be credible because of who he'd been hanging around. Yeah, and like I don't know, like I'm not the moral judge on this stuff, like I'm just some random dude on the internet with a podcast. But also you got to be like hey man, like you're a celebrity now and you're at a point where you know you wear the mantle of black excellence, at least in terms of our entertainers. You're one of the few guys to make it out of the entertainment arena and step into the business arena and compete with the giants. You are up there, you sit at tables, did very few of even the most popular artists we ever get to, and you've been hanging out with dudes that do weird stuff Now again. So you know Tony Busby, the lawyer representing the he's representing a lot of the accusers, isn't he?

Speaker 2: 45:24

Yeah so like the Ben Crumb of the yeah Well so.

Speaker 1: 45:31

So he is probably most prominently known for representing numerous victims who filed lawsuits against Sean Watson, the former quarterback of the Houston. Oh really Cleveland? Yeah, so he's.

Speaker 2: 45:46

And like this is not necessarily to say that Busby is not a credible attorney, but he's like the male Gloria Allred, because you knoworia allred represents a lot of celebrity accusers like yeah, yeah, that's kind of her.

Speaker 1: 46:01

Thing now so he can. He's been accused of being like an ambulance chaser he out here trying to get these checks and he's probably taking on cases whether they have merit or not. That doesn't mean none of them have merit. That doesn't mean all of them have merit necessarily. You just have to judge each case individually by the facts presented. But so he's currently representing numerous women who have accused Diddy of similar activities as this woman's accused Jay-Z of.

Speaker 1: 46:37

Scientifically like it's, it's tough to try and figure out what sounds real and what doesn't, and I would just personally say you ain't got to make up your mind on any of these cases. You can just wait until the decision is made before you can come to any conclusions. But in terms of diddy he absolutely out here doing some weird nasty shit and he is like in jail is likely the correct outcome. As far as jay-z is concerned, I don't know, and like I don't know, what the correct response is to being accused of sexual assault. Um, when you haven't done it right, like when when the accusations are not true or you know you have it that is true, and that's just, you know, just a sidebar, really quick.

Speaker 2: 47:13

But I remember back and, um god, her name was Nina. I can't remember her last name, michael Irvin oh yeah and I was living in Dallas when that happened and when it broke and of course I'm in Dallas, so it's everywhere. And you know he was, and though he was wild, you know man liked to party but that wasn't his.

Speaker 2: 47:35

I mean, the cowboys was wild behavior was not his stelo, you know what I mean. But yeah, but when the accusations came out it was like whoa, and then it turned out that it did not happen. So that was, you know, one of the most high profile that I can remember, where it was really like just a blatant attempt to extort and and lying and whatnot. And then, but it gave people some pause and people were kind of looking at him a little with some side eye because he did like to get down and party. You know what I mean.

Speaker 1: 48:09

He was the bad boy. He did like the cowboys Like they had they had him a whole little crib off on the side where they would just go kick it and bring the girls over.

Speaker 2: 48:18

I would go to this place called the Cowboy Cafe. We ain't going to talk about that, okay.

Speaker 2: 48:23

I don't want to know, but yeah, but yeah, so and so, yeah, but yeah, but I understand in that and like and I'm reserving judgment on this on this one I do feel like I need more information. I'm not, I'm not, um, dismissing or discounting any of her experience or what she has to say, but I'm also going to give him a little bit of grace and I and I do want to see, and I don't think that there's anything wrong with being unsure and and saying you know what I don't, I don't know what I think about this, I don't know us personally.

Speaker 1: 49:04

We can't speak for, like the legal system, but just us personally. We, we don't. You do not.

Speaker 2: 49:10

If you're listening to this podcast, you do not have to come to a conclusion one way or the other yeah, and because he's got billions of dollars, and whether or not you know jay-z was the perpetrator or participating in that act, it does not mean something didn't happen to her that night either, and that's also true.

Speaker 1: 49:29

Now, look, I don't want to talk about the woman's. You know mental state or her emotional capacity, but you know clearly she's got some issues that she's been dealing with and she's autistic now again, like autism is a spectrum, so I wouldn't make any necessarily judgments about.

Speaker 2: 49:45

You know her cognitive abilities and 24 years ago, it wasn't something that people really knew, and so, when I'm thinking, it was like she was 13 at the time. Who was this friend? This friend had to be at least 16, because they had a car yeah and a license, and they drove her five hours and then left her there yeah and then, I guess, drove back as crazy as that sounds, shit like that does happen.

Speaker 1: 50:08

So I mean no, I mean absolutely, but.

Speaker 2: 50:11

But I'm just saying so. I'm like, who was this friend? How much of a friend were they that they just left this 13 year old girl? Because, obviously they were older because they drove.

Speaker 1: 50:21

Well, the friend is deceased so they're not going to. There's no way to get like a deposition from the girl, the friend whether it be a man or woman, I'm not particularly sure, but yeah, it's just. It's unfortunate Now what I will say again. So back to my point about not knowing how to respond to sexual assault allegations when you've done nothing wrong. I have no idea.

Speaker 1: 50:39

But I can tell you like I have been privately accused of, you know, being inappropriate on the Internet, here in someone's DMs on formerly known as Twitter Now. So the way that came about is so, you know, an Internet acquaintance of mine that I'm fond of started DMing me out of the blue one day. I was like, okay, hey, nice to talk to you. So we chatted for a few days back and forth, off and on, and then after about a week or so she you know she was like the reason why I actually contacted you is because someone else said that you were being inappropriate in her dms, so I just wanted to see you know if that could possibly be true, how you rocked in the dm.

Speaker 1: 51:21

Yeah, she was trying to see how I move out here in these streets and she nancy drew.

Speaker 1: 51:26

No, no, I mean, but again, you know when. Again, so we are. This is that dilemma where women make these accusations, you want to, at the very least, you know, not demonstrably uh, chastise them, but you want to take them seriously. But she was like I will verify for myself and you know, because I wasn't dming, dming anyone, when she told me that I was like, well, yeah, that's total bullshit because I wasn't talking to anybody, and she's like I figured that and know the way you've been acting lends credibility to the idea that she was just making this up and, you know, wrongfully accusing you. Now, I don't specifically know who the person was that did this or why they would even do it, but she was giving you both the benefit of the doubt.

Speaker 2: 52:12

It seems, I guess, that she was giving that person the benefit of the doubt but also knowing you somewhat to a degree, and it didn't, I guess, jive with what her perception of you were, was or is. So they wanted to see if they threw a bone or what. Yeah, Kind of yeah.

Speaker 1: 52:33

She wanted to see if the girl was like what she was saying was even feasible and it turned out that wasn't the case. Now my response to that because you know it was a private issue it's not like somebody was like accusing me openly and trying to take me to court. Yeah, like I don't know how would I respond in that regard, but, like in this case, I was like I know I didn't do anything, so I was like that's crazy. I don't know what was wrong with that girl and I just say this and I say that just to say this like it's entirely possible that I'm Jay-Z and somebody out here is in these streets. You know the lawyer is trying to take advantage of a woman where something may have happened to her, but it didn't necessarily involve Jay-Z and this was an opportunity for dude to get a paycheck. I have absolutely no idea and all I can say is wait to find out. You don't have to rush to any kind of judgment whatsoever. The facts will eventually speak for themselves. No-transcript.