Fridays with Nicole Sandler

Listen on Spotify (transcripts available)

Listen on Apple (transcripts available)

87 replies
    • bmaz says:

      Lol. It figures that you are the first comment on this. I hope that this case gets shot into the face of the sun. Just as a response to you.

        • RoseGold says:

          “Lol” proclaim the trolls, attempting to convey amusement at those not reaching their own level of intellect and theory. Joy, even- though it be an impossibility, evidenced by the clear need to resort to invectives. This is not funny, humor or joy.
          LOL = Schadenfreude

        • HikaakiH says:

          On the surface, what you state is true, but note that bmaz clearly knows exactly who he is responding to. I really don’t know this particular John Herbison but there is an attorney by that name who pops up on internet searches who has a less than stellar record which involves multiple suspensions of his right to practice. If that be he, bmaz’s dismissive tone in response to “legal chops” makes perfect sense. [I see from comments further down that there was a bit more to this heated exchange that got removed by the moderator.]

          (NB: I certainly fall into the category of people bmaz has railed against for wishing the Georgia RICO case to succeed because of my political outlook. I see less long term threat to the US from the Georgia case succeeding than I do from the sort of election nullification efforts that happened in the wake of November 2020 and will be attempted again this year.)

        • Rayne says:

          As a community member who doesn’t have moderator-level access, do you really have enough information about another commenter’s identity to make any inference about them, when they have ~50 published comments to date, when all you can see is a username, validation of which this site doesn’t require?

          Let’s avoid going down this road and focus on the subject and content of the comments.

  1. dark winter says:

    Very good show tonight.
    Nicole, your questions were perfect re; Aileen Cannons case and Marcy helped me put some things together. Excellent. Also? Nicole? your djt ‘voice’ had me thinking of Steven Colbert..
    I was heartbroken going thru the 1st Impeachment w/Mueller. Then? Jack Smith got called to handle djt and the hype was ‘no one fucks w/Jack, lots of experience and I had hope again justice was going to rule, Q: IS he an excellent Attorney?
    Yes. That is exactly why I follow you Marcy on X. You fight for me. I can’t think of those things to say (well, besides MY potty mouth, ha-ha) but I feel the frustration. Your latest @jamescomer tweets have been just delicious. Gosh, I felt relaxed after this visit. Thank you so much. Grateful to you both.

    • Clare Kelly says:

      Slightly OT, but could someone repeat how to look at Marcy’s tweets without logging in to Xitter?

      I’ve resisted logging in for two years but I really, really miss them.

      Thanks in advance.

      • Savage Librarian says:

        Do a search for: marcy wheeler twitter

        Sorry to say the blue check still shows up in the search results. But not in the actual account.

        • Clare Kelly says:

          Thanks, Savage Librarian!

          Yah, her discovery of said blue check was appropriate and amusing.

  2. Magnet48 says:

    I have a hearing problem & find it impossible to understand Marcy on these podcasts. Is there a transcript available for each show? I was unable to locate one but I’m not adept at these things. Thanks for any response.

  3. Rayne says:

    I have to admit — after reading all Marcy’s posts about Trump’s claim to convert classified documents including national defense information to personal records, and now listening twice to this episode of Emptywheel Friday with Nicole Sandler — I don’t understand why Team Trump (mostly Trump and non-lawyer Tom Fitton) think that claiming Trump converted presidential records is a defense. Keyword here is converted.

    I can’t help wonder if someone else wasn’t really trying to hint that Trump should have been charged with 18 USC 641 – Public money, property or records which has a much smaller penalty compared to 18 USC 793 – Gathering, transmitting or losing defense information as the latter penalty includes property seizure.

    But then there’s 18 USC 2314 – Transportation of stolen goods, securities, moneys, fraudulent State tax stamps, or articles used in counterfeiting which might also apply to converted property or records. I dunno.

    • bmaz says:

      And, yet, you deleted yet another comment of mine. About Herbison, which you might remember warning me about repeatedly. Guess it is all good now, eh?

      • Rayne says:

        Your comment, just like this 12:51 p.m. one, was intended to be inflammatory and not a serious effort to contribute to discussion. I should delete your 12:51 as well but I think it’s important for the community here to understand when some comments are binned — yours or others, and there are others — it’s because the comment wasn’t published in a good faith effort to contribute to conversation here.

        As I’ve told you before, if you’re going to publish comments complaining about moderation and comments which are off topic, they will be deleted. You have been given far more grace about this than other commenters who complain about moderation here, but there’s a limit to this grace as you’ve already cluttered up this thread with your complaints against commenters and moderation alike.

      • Rayne says:

        Ugh. More re-reading homework. Once again I wish I had your holographic memory with matrix processing capacity. I didn’t think of Schulte because he couldn’t have claimed any authority or powers as president.

  4. David F. Snyder says:

    Interesting. I think 793(e) is still a better fit to the events leading to the search (and 793(e) “has to be” filed in SFD). I don’t see why they couldn’t, at some point, indict him for 641 in DC now that he’s publicly claiming he converted document ownership.

      • earlofhuntingdon says:

        That’s like testing a weapon by pointing it at your own head. Never a good idea or smart move.

        • David F. Snyder says:

          Makes sense. Okay, so it really is the fact that Trump’s the refusal to return documents occurred in SDFL so that’s where that particular charge 793)e) should have been filed.

      • John Herbison says:

        It is highly doubtful that the indictment was expected to be assigned to Judge Aileen Cannon. She is one of 17 district judges (with one vacancy) in the Southern District of Florida. There are 13 senior judges as well. The case was filed in the West Palm Beach division; Judge Cannon sits in the Fort Pierce division.

        • David F. Snyder says:

          Despite all that, given the case loads and the weighting in the “random” assignment algorithm, it put about a 75% probability of Cannon being assigned to the case. I assume DOJ the stats skills to apply to publicly-available data to come up with this estimate as well.

        • earlofhuntingdon says:

          You mean in a district whose internal rules assign cases geographically – they’re tried in the home or in an adjacent division, unless the chief judge intervenes – as well as at random? The former would seem to occasionally gut the intent of the latter. At a minimum, it increases the odds that Cannon would get the case, as she did the 2022.

        • John Herbison says:

          To surmise that DOJ filed the case in Florida in order to expose a judge as corrupt, as Mr. Snyder speculated, is quite a stretch. The greater likelihood is that filing the indictment there was intended to deprive Donald Trump of any opportunity to cavil about venue being improper if filed in another federal district.

          It is arguable pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3237(a) that the § 793(e) offense was begun in D.C. and completed in Florida, but why unnecessarily inject an additional issue into the jury trial? The gravamen of the offense is retention and failure to deliver the documents.

        • earlofhuntingdon says:

          Trump will always cavil: it’s a defining characteristic of his lawfare.

          If the statute provides that jurisdiction exists in any district in which a criminal act was committed, regardless of where it commenced or was completed, why indict in so unfriendly a venue for the prosecution?

        • John Herbison says:

          Donald Trump has no defense on the merits in the prosecution for espionage/obstruction/false statements. An argument that venue does not lie outside of the Southern District of Florida, however, is at least arguable. That would be an additional obstacle that the government’s proof would need to overcome (albeit by a preponderance of evidence).

        • earlofhuntingdon says:

          Cannon getting this case on the wheel in SDFL has moved things along swimmingly, compared to the slow slog of dealing with a possible but unpersuasive jurisdictional argument in DC. What a relief.

        • John Herbison says:

          It is hardly a “slow slog of dealing with a possible but unpersuasive jurisdictional argument”. Venue is a matter which the government must prove at trial by a preponderance of evidence. A single juror who is unpersuaded that the offenses occurred in D.C. could prevent the jury from reaching a verdict, which would result in a mistrial.

        • Sussex Trafalgar says:


          The determination of proper venue would have taken a couple years to settle.

          And since most of the alleged criminal conduct charged so far by Smith occurred at Mar-a-Lago, it would have been difficult for Smith to successfully argue the proper venue was DC.

          In addition, since Trump arrived at Mar-a-Lago with many of the documents at about 11:25AM on 1/20/2021, he could argue that he was still president until 12:01PM that day and, therefore, legally possessed the documents he brought with him to Mar-a-Lago. Such an argument would also
          favor the Southern District of Florida being the proper venue.

        • SteveBev says:

          This proposition ignores
          1 s1 20th Amendment

          Section 1

          The terms of the President and the Vice President shall end at noon on the 20th day of January, and the terms of Senators and Representatives at noon on the 3d day of January, of the years in which such terms would have ended if this article had not been ratified; and the terms of their successors shall then begin.

          2 The executive vesting clause

          3 the element of the offence
          739e is
          retains the same
          and fails to deliver it to the officer or employee of the United States entitled to receive
          [cf 793 d equivalent element
          willfully retains the same and fails to deliver it •on demand• to the officer or employee of the United States entitled to receive it; ]

          At noon President Biden and other Government Employees were entitled to receive the Government documents containing NDI and other property of US of which now citizen Trump was no longer entitled to possession and control.

          His actions in removing the property had the inevitable consequence of depriving those entitled to such possession and control at the time and in the place they were entitled to it.

          And such entitlement does not depend on it being asserted or a demand made for the property

        • SteveBev says:


          Up until noon 1/20/21 the positive duty on Trump identified by the combination of constitutional and statutory provisions above, are also subject to the constitutional requirement and positive duty contained within the Take Care Clause.

  5. David F. Snyder says:

    Following Marcy’s bringing up “microchip” during the show, I revisited her (excellent) analysis of microchip’s testimony of March 23rd 2023 (

    Was it ever determined how microchip financed his $500/month expenses? (Bankruptcy suggests he might have self-funded, but then how far are MAGAts willing to go in their hatred of all that is lib?).

    Hashtag hijacking could be done to greater lasting damage than microchip managed (while savvy, he was a bit heavy-handed).

    I suppose I can moderate my concerns somewhat in knowing that The Social Media Site That Used To Be Called Twitter has had a shrinking audience.

  6. Bay State Librul says:

    Cannon is like a first-round pick who never made it out of the minors — or as David Goodnough notes from Shakespeare. — .
    His promises, as he then was, mighty.
    But his performance, as he is now, nothing.

    King Henry VIII, IV.ii
    and please change his to her.

  7. bmaz says:

    A full house for just a shoot around for the Women’s Final Four. Much less the greatness of last night. The kind of weekend for women’s sports that was once celebrated, bye all on this blog. Now ignored completely. In memory of Bob Schacht, I object.

    • Tracy Lynn says:

      I was waiting for a Trash talk column so that I could comment on the game. That was an aMAZing game between UConn and Iowa. So intense! Despite all the injuries on the UConn team, they made it close. So close. It also didn’t hurt that the game helped my bracket.

    • holdingsteady says:

      bmaz, are you not posting trash talks anymore? The NCAA women’s basketball has been so cool, it even came to my (not much into sports) attention

      • bmaz says:

        Sadly no, else I would have been all over it. I watched much of the women’s tournament, including most of Iowa, UConn and South Carolina. It was spectacular and, frankly, far more interesting than anything on the men’s side.

        One of our early good friends, and commenters, Bob Schacht, turned me on to the beauty of the women’s game and how it was turning out to be more watchable than the men’s. Sadly, Bob is no longer with us, but man was he right. Wish he could have seen the last weeks of the women’s tournament, he would have loved it.

      • bmaz says:

        IL tried to respond to you Holding Steady, but yet another innocuous comment response has been moderated. There were no trigger words in it.

        • Rayne says:

          You are misinforming community members about the site’s operations. You do not know what the trigger words are wrt the auto-moderation list. Furthermore, there are triggers in WordPress below what moderators/administrators set.

          Once again, you are attacking moderation here in a way you would not have tolerated as a moderator.

        • holdingsteady says:

          I got turned onto it by hearing about Caitlin Clark and really enjoyed watching a few games with my ardent sports fan friends, we call ourselves the brew crew, haha.
          Anyway, it’s a trash talk I could have gotten into!

  8. JanAnderson says:

    Admittedly I’m a Timothy Snyder fan-girl of his Twenty Lessons on Fighting Tyranny from the Twentieth Century.

    5. Remember professional ethics. When political leaders set a negative example, professional commitments to just practice become important. It is hard to subvert a rule-of-law state without lawyers, or to hold show trials without judges. Authoritarians need obedient civil servants, and concentration camp directors seek businessmen interested in cheap labor.

    Whether you believe this is OTT or not, there’s good advice in it.

  9. parapello says:

    The Truth Social post in which Trump allegedly mentioned making Cannon a supreme Court Justice was fake. I haven’t listened to the full podcast but I don’t think this was mentioned.

    • Nicole Sandler says:

      Thanks Parapello. I didn’t realize it was a fake faketweet. I’m not on “truth” social. I guess I should have figured it out since there wasn’t a greater outcry about it. I’ll correct myself on today’s show and again on Friday when Marcy’s back. I appreciate the correction!

  10. earlofhuntingdon says:

    Among all the faults of Knight Specialty’s $175 million bond for Trump in the NYAG’s case is that its language, on page three, only says that the Trump defendant-appellants will pay. It omits any express statement that Knight Specialty will pay.

    Given the context of this submission, that characterization is not likely to hold, but it would be appealed to the Court of Appeals, resulting in delay. Justice Engoron will avoid that scenario by tossing this bond after his forthcoming hearing, and give Trump a very short time within which to provide a new, compliant one; to pay a full cash bond paid to the court; or refuse to stay enforcement.

    Don Hankey has repeatedly said Trump fully collaterized this bond with all cash. No marketable securities or liens on real estate. If so, another bonding company would provide a bond. But however it works out, Engoron is certain to tell Trump his time is up: put up or face enforcement.

    • earlofhuntingdon says:

      After reading this site for more than a couple of years, I can say I learned from the best.

      • xyxyxyxy says:

        So Trump was charged with fraud and garbage financial statements and civilly fined and penalized for these offenses in February.
        Then he and Knight present a potentially garbage bond that they felt there’s no way the Appellate Court and NYAG were going to review after his fraud conviction?
        And that after telling Appellate Court that it was impossible to bond the full amount of the appeal judgement while Knight was supposedly ready to bond the full amount of the appeal judgement before the appeal judgement amount was lowered.
        If the bond is found to be garbage which they presented as legit, can any of this reach a level of criminality, like lets say perjury?

        • dopefish says:

          SteveBev mentioned in a previous thread that Knight Specialty completed and signed the undertaking, under penalty of perjury, claiming about themselves:
          “meeting the requirements to transact business and issue this undertaking in the State of New York”

          Except it turns out they aren’t licensed to issue bonds in NY. So that might be interesting if it comes up in the April 22 hearing.

        • bmaz says:

          Heh, yet another completely innocuous comment bogusly moderated.

          [Moderator’s note: all of your whining about this site is off topic. Stay on topic. /~Rayne]

  11. Bernard R Cuzzillo says:

    New Impression question:
    All of the discussion of Cannon procedure et al. focusses on precedent, i.e. caselaw. I haven’t seen any mention of a case of new impression. Can the Cannon court’s tilt prompt an 11th Circuit ruling of new impression? Yes, no, explain.

Comments are closed.