Justice in the Age of Retribution with Andy McCarthy

30:19Coleman Hughes:idea that the bank had suffered half a billion in damages? Correct. The idea was like the banks and the insurance companies collectively, the theory was that if Trump had accurately represented the valuations of his assets, they would have charged different interest rates. But there was no evidence that they actually would have changed the structure of the transactions if Trump had put different valuations on his personal financial statements. Isn't it more likely, given how savvy they are, that they just said, okay, yeah, he's inflating the value of this, but we have an idea of what it's worth, and we're going to give him the interest rate that we can both agree to.

30:59Coleman Hughes:But we're not going to fight him on, we're not going to make him change the paperwork. How does that benefit us? Yeah, that's exactly right. And that's why it doesn't make sense to take a statute that doesn't apply to that situation and make it the barometer of how you judge this one. So I think that was a complete nonsense case. And it's not surprising that the court of appeals, the first court of appeals, which is the appellate division in New York, threw out the award. They've so far, Trump is going to appeal this part of it. They've so far left the judgment in place that he is liable for fraud, but they threw out the damages.

31:36So that's the main thing.

31:38Coleman Hughes:Can I say one more thing about this before you go on to the cases that may be more legitimate? It's especially rich that they took this line with Trump. When you just had a recent example of a public figure, namely the co-founder of Black Lives Matter, Patrice Cullors, who had raised all of this money, something, you know, like 70, 70 million dollars in a year. And then according to New York Magazine, who did some very rigorous journalism on this, bought a$6 million house with those funds secretly, had parties in that house, spent$70 ,000 on private jet rentals, charter flights, paid a million dollars to her brother, a million dollars to her baby daddy for doing nothing.

32:27Coleman Hughes:paid her baby daddy over$100 ,000 to host a Zoom event. All this stuff, some of which she has admitted to, which would seem a classic case. I don't know the California state law or how the law applies here, but it would seem a classic case where each of us that donated$20 to BLM Global Network Fund doesn't have an incentive to bring a case, but this is a case where an AG would fight on all our behalves, and they did nothing with it. Yeah, that's exactly right. And the problem is it's too easy to say, well, you know who colors is and you know who Trump is, and then you can figure out why a Democratic attorney general or district attorney would bring the case against one and not the other.

33:12And the problem with it is not so much the injustice that's done in any one case, but I mean, this is really a bottom line sum up of lawfare in a way. But a flourishing free society depends on a valid justice system, and you can't have that without people believing that aspirationally at the very least and on a case-by-case basis where the rubber meets the road, the law is applied fairly regardless of who the accused is. And if we lose that, if we lose equal protection under the law, then we lose one of the bedrocks of the system. And if we lose the system, you cannot have a flourishing free society without a judicial system that works.

34:08And you can't have one that works unless it's got credibility with the public.

34:12Coleman Hughes:If you're like me, you've probably seen a recent headline and wondered, can the president really do that? That's why I recommend checking out the chart-topping podcast, You Might Be Right, hosted by former Tennessee governors from the left and right, Phil Bredesen and Bill Haslam. It's produced by the Baker School of Public Policy and Public Affairs at the University of Tennessee. And fun fact, the show is named after Howard Baker's principal, Always Remember, The Other Fellow Might Be Right. Now that's a quote that conversations with Coleman can get behind. On You Might Be Right, the governors tackle timely policy conversations with political luminaries like Al Gore and Judy Woodruff.

34:52Coleman Hughes:If you need a place to start, check out their recent episode on whether there's too much money in politics. Political spending enables expression and participation, but at what cost? As we approach the midterms, this is a timely and thoughtful discussion featuring Harvard Law School Professor Larry Lessig and former chair of the Federal Election Commission Brad Smith. Hear balanced perspectives without the shouting matches found on mainstream news. Follow You Might Be Right on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, or wherever you get your podcasts, and tell them I sent you. Okay, so take me to the other prosecutions of Trump.

35:31Coleman Hughes:Were they all lawfare or were some of them legitimate? Well, I think the Brad, the Brad, uh, prosecutions flat out lawfare. Um, the Brad case was atrocious. Um, essentially Trump reimburses his lawyer for, um, paying hush money to a, uh, a porn star who, um, credibly alleges to have had a fling with Trump about 10 years before he ran for president. And then she demanded to be paid as it got closer to the election. Trump's lawyer, Michael Cohen, pays her$130 ,000 and Trump reimburses Cohen through the Trump organization in monthly payments throughout 2017. Bragg alleges that the way that the Trump organization booked those payments were business records misrepresentations, which is a misdemeanor in New York that, especially under Bragg's non-prosecution policies, would never even be—they wouldn't even think about charging a case like that against the ordinary.

36:54They generally don't do much with misdemeanors to begin with, but that kind of misdemeanor is not going to be prosecuted. But because it was Trump, Bragg not only charged it as a felony, I'll get to why in a second, but he decided to treat every single piece of paper, the invoice, the check, and the book entry as a separate felony. So he took one misdemeanor transaction, which is up to one year in prison. And he turned it into 34 felonies, four years in prison each. So Trump, I think New York sort of caps sentences at about 20 years, but otherwise statutorily Trump is looking at something in the neighborhood of like a century and a quarter prison over this thing.

37:43I mean, and the other thing that's preposterous.

37:46Coleman Hughes:For paying a porn star that was extorting him out of his personal money yeah and uh you know the uh the misdemeanor is a two-year count so these transactions i'm sorry a two-year statute of limitations so these transactions happen in 2017 the statute should have run because trump gets indicted in 2023 um so by turning it into a felony brad gets himself under a different statute of limitations that he can just barely squeeze the case in under. And the theory of it being a felony is that Trump misrepresented his records, his business records, in order to conceal the commission of another crime. And Bragg doesn't say in the indictment what the other crime is.

38:35And he's cagey throughout about what the other crime is. The reason for that is essentially the other crime that he accused Trump of committing was a federal campaign finance violation. Bragg doesn't have jurisdiction to enforce the federal campaign finance laws. And the two entities in the federal government that do have that jurisdiction, the Justice Department and the Federal Election Commission, had investigated this and decided that it wasn't technically a campaign expenditure. So they didn't take any action. So the whole thing was ridiculous. And there's an unseen kind of dog that didn't bark element to it because if any other state prosecutor had tried to enforce federal election law, particularly in a case that the Justice Department had investigated and decided not to bring, the Biden Justice Department would have gone nuclear.

39:31Here they didn't make a peep. They didn't protest because it was Trump. So I think that case was awful, and it will be thrown out on appeal eventually. It's got – we could spend hours on how many legal problems there are with the case. So I think that's sheer lawfare. Now, the other two cases you asked me about, the Biden Justice Department cases that they brought in Jack Smith as a special counsel to investigate, those are investigations of serious misconduct. there are significant issues about whether it's prosecutable misconduct, but there's no doubt that it's serious misconduct and it would have been a legitimate basis.

40:16Not only would have been a legitimate basis for any prosecutor's office to look into it, but it would have been irresponsible not to look into it. So the first case and the one they really wanted to get to trial was the so-called January 6th case, which is really about Trump's stop the steal, bogus claims that the 2020 election was stolen, which culminates in the Capitol riot. That's serious misconduct. The problem in our system is that it's serious misconduct, which involves Trump's exercise of his executive power. And in our system, the main check on abuses of power by the president is Congress, not prosecution in the courts, which is why there was this long litigation over immunity.

41:15And the Supreme Court finally in July of 2024 decided that Trump had absolute immunity for actions that were what they called in the core of his executive authority and at least presumptive immunity, but possibly even more than that with respect to anything that is a legitimate activity in terms of the ambit of his executive power. And I shouldn't – I need to be clear about this. What I mean by that is not that the president's action is good or that it's not an abuse of power. When I say legitimate, what I mean is the president has legitimate authority, say, to issue a pardon. If he issues a pardon because the person he's pardoning is a political crony, that's an abuse of power, but you can't second guess it because the president is given legitimate pardon power by the Constitution.

42:14So it's not something that you can base a criminal prosecution on. And the problem with the January 6 case is it was the effort by the Biden Justice Department to bring into the criminal justice system and correct what they regarded, and I think rightly about this, what they regarded as the failure of Congress to impeach, remove, and disqualify Trump on account of the stop the steal fiasco that led up to the Capitol riot. And they also tried to do – the reason I think there's lawfare elements to it is it's really Congress's responsibility. You can't do this in a case like this in the criminal system.

42:59It's too complicated given what the immunity issues are. But there's also Justice Department guidelines that say prosecutors can never take into account the election calendar. And what Smith was pushing very hard for was to get this case to trial in advance of the 2024 election because they hoped it would be a big – basically a big campaign ad for Democrats. It's not to say that there might not be – maybe there's a few things in there that you could eke out criminal charges on, but prosecutors are never supposed to bring charges based on the calendar. Can I ask you about that?

43:43Coleman Hughes:Because isn't it also true that there's a less formal rule, that there's a six-month period before an election where you're not supposed to bring charges? So it's 60 days, and it's an unwritten rule, which probably tells you what you need to know about it. Anything that's not written – remember what we talked about before is why personnel is more important than trying to write these rules. There is an unwritten rule in the Justice Department that you should never take overt criminal investigative action with respect to a candidate in the last two months before an election. I've never been a fan of even the unwritten rule because it seems to me that if you don't bring a case that deserves to be brought and that you would bring in other circumstances is just because the person is running for office, that's just as bad as taking a case that shouldn't be brought and tarring the person during the campaign.

44:47So I think you really, this is the kind of thing that needs to be a judgment call case by case. But there is this 60-day standard that the Justice Department at least tries to go by where it's not that you can't do anything in a case, but you're not supposed to take overt investigative steps. So there's a lot of things prosecutors and agents do that are covert. Grand jury proceedings are supposed to be secret. Some scanning of records is done with investigative secrecy. There's a lot of things that are done secretly. And then there are overt activities like you bring an indictment, which is obviously for all the world to see.

45:36So that's the kind of stuff you're supposed to stay away from in the last two months.

45:42Coleman Hughes:Okay. And so both of those prosecutions were serious. There is, though, on the classified documents one, which we haven't talked about yet, this was – there's no doubt. I mean, the way that the Espionage Act is written, there's just no doubt that they had him dead to rights on that issue, I think. Tell me if you think I'm wrong. But there's also, inconveniently, just the example of Hillary Clinton's emails, which you can almost go down the list and check what she did in terms of when the emails were subpoenaed, when they were deleted. And by the plain language of the Espionage Act, she could have been prosecuted for that.

46:33And as you've pointed out many times on your podcast, The McCarthy Report, which I highly recommend, the language that James Comey used in condemning Hillary Clinton was almost synonymous.

46:47Coleman Hughes:He basically said she was negligent or she was – he used like a synonym of the words in the statute and then recommended that she not be prosecuted. so even though it's clear that that was a serious violation well it's been very easy for a trump supporter or a republican to say well why wasn't it a serious violation when hillary did the same thing right and and i thought they were always right about that argument and then you get into this philosophical issue of okay well should we balance the scales by not prosecuting in reverse Or should we insist that this is an important law and just even if there's been unfairness in the past, you've got to restart the race at some point?

47:32Right. The Hillary example is a great example because I thought the main failing of Jack Smith's Mar-a-Lago documents case against Trump was the fact that he grossly overcharged it. he once you bring one classified documents felony charge in a case and he brought like three dozen in that indictment but once you bring just one then your prosecution is in the ambit of the classified information procedures act and the the it takes forever to get the case to trial And he was trying to push to get the case to trial before the election, which was nuts. The Classified Information Procedures Act requires that basically you have to litigate.

48:27It's almost like a pretrial trial of the trial in the sense that the judge has to make a ruling not only on what the government wants to prove but what the defense wants to prove in the way of classified information. She's got to make a decision about what's admissible. And then the Justice Department has to decide with the intelligence community whether that information can be made public. And if it can't be, they have to propose alternatives. It just takes forever, even if it's one charge. And this was, of course, 36 charges. I always thought what Smith should have done with this case, and I've said this a bunch of times, the real thing that I think people could have wrapped their brains around.

49:08Trump made all these claims about how he had the power to declassify information and all that jazz, which muddies the waters. The important thing here is in June of I think it was 2023, Trump gets a grand jury subpoena telling him to turn over all of the documents that have classified markings on them. And that's important that it's worded that way because the subpoena didn't say turn over all the classified documents, which would allow Trump to argue, well, they're not classified because I declassified them. The subpoena says any documents with physical classified markings on them. So that means whether they're classified or not, whether he thinks he declassified them or not, he's got to turn them over.

49:53Right. So the evidence is that he gives he gives some of them to the FBI and represents to them through his lawyers that that's the whole bunch that he's got. And in the meantime, he's got over 100 still at Mar-a-Lago, which is what they find in the search. So I always thought with that case, if you would just put all the classified documents to the side, don't charge SB and I jack counts and just make it a conspiracy or a scheme to obstruct a grand jury investigation. They could have gotten it to trial and it would have been a very strong case. But I think because of the way that Smith indicted it and he had this propensity to overcharge everything that he undid his own effort to try to get the case to trial.

50:45But I do think it's also a lawfare exercise in the sense that in a normal environment with very complicated cases like that, you would be hard-pressed to get one of them to trial prior to, say, October of 2024, given the timing of the indictments. These prosecutors expected Trump to try four cases prior to the 2024 election under circumstances where the cases, many of them were hundreds of miles apart, requiring him to be at different courtrooms for preliminary proceedings at the same time, which was, of course, impossible. and unlike a civil proceeding where it's up to the defendant whether he shows up for the trial or not in a criminal proceeding the defendant has to be present so the plan by these prosecutors was to to to uh try chump like rat tat tat in these cases that were going to take between a month and three months to try and keep him chained to courtrooms rather than campaigning while they use the publicity of the bad conduct that would come out of the case to their advantage in the election.

52:07So even to the extent that I think the Mar-a-Lago case and the January 6th case were worthy of being investigated and perhaps worthy of being prosecuted, certainly in the case of the Mar-a-Lago case, the idea that you would scheme using the election calendar, which a prosecutor is not even supposed to look at and have a plan to chain this guy to courtrooms for the entirety of the run up to the election was itself a not only a crass exhibition of lawfare, but it was also, to my mind, a profound due process violation because he's entitled to prepare his defense. And there's no accused who could conceivably prepare an adequate defense, meaning investigate the case and prepare your defense in the time that they gave him to the anticipation that these cases would all be tried before the election.

53:10Hmm.

53:12Coleman Hughes:Now, I remember I was commentating at CNN during this whole period. And if memory serves, you know, we would be constantly covering the new poll of the week about, you know, DeSantis, how well is DeSantis doing? How well is Nikki Haley doing? How well is Trump doing? This is before it was obvious that Trump would secure the nomination. now in my memory Trump was not clearly leading or not even necessarily leading at all until the prosecution started coming now there's obvious potential for correlation without causation there but in my recollection DeSantis was considered if not the front runner then then then neck and neck with Trump until prosecution one prosecution two prosecute And then you see Trump soar ahead in the polls as the party unites behind what they consider to be a victim of malicious prosecutions.

54:10Coleman Hughes:In your opinion, was this, is this what happened? Is this the story of how Trump secured the nomination? I don't think that there's any doubt. If you look at, if you graft it out, I want to say April, early April was Bragg's indictment. when bragg's indictment is announced trump has a surge and he never goes backwards it's never a race again and it and that's the case for obvious reasons as you say that the party backed him and that includes the other candidates if they wanted to be viable candidates they needed to go with the flow which was that the base was very upset about these cases against trump the other thing it did i think is it denied them any oxygen in their own right because the conversation became they're constantly being asked what do you think about these cases about trump i mean everything was about trump my own theory about this for what it's worth um and i've this is no mystery i've written this any number of times i didn't think trump had a prayer i thought I think lawfare is reprehensible, but just from a utilitarian standpoint, I thought it was a brilliant strategy.

55:29And I think from their standpoint, I never thought Trump could win the election because I didn't think he could get above 46. And I thought if the lawfare plan went according to plan and they got him to trial in at least one of the important cases, the Jack Smith cases, I would have been surprised if he had gotten 41, 42. And you can't win with that. So I thought the Democrats' strategy was to use the lawfare cases to get him nominated because it had exactly the effect that you would have expected, that everybody rallied behind Trump. And then once he's the candidate, kill him in the election with all of these because that's when the cases go to trial, right?

56:16And then the audience when you are first doing the lawfare cases is the Republican electorate because it's only about the nomination. By the time the cases went to trial, the audience was going to be the broad electorate where Trump isn't nearly as popular. So I thought it was a strategy that I thought was going to work. the fly in the ointment for the for democrats as it turned out was the supreme court's immunity ruling because the basket that they put their eggs in was smith's january 6 case that's the that was the big mcgillia for them that was the one they really wanted to get to trial and because of the way appellate litigation works once the supreme once the appeals courts took jurisdiction of that case to review what Judge Chutkin had decided.

57:12Judge Chutkin originally decided Trump did not have immunity. She lost jurisdiction. She wasn't allowed to act on the case. So by the time the Supreme Court rules eight months later, there was no way she could conceive, even if the ruling had gone more in Smith's direction, there was no way they could conceivably have gotten that case to trial. And as a result, what the public knew about lawfare turned out to be Tish James's case and Alvin Bragg's case, which were preposterous. So I think that ended up hurting the Democrats more than it helped them. Whereas I still think if Smith had gotten the Mar-a-Lago case to trial, if he decided that's the one I'm going to go with and forget all this classified document stuff, I'm going with the obstruction count.

57:56I think he could have gotten that case to trial and it might've been a very different outcome.

58:01Coleman Hughes:Okay, so let's talk a little bit now about the prosecutions that the Trump DOJ is bringing against Trump's enemies. You talked about the, well, I find ridiculous case against James Comey. You can explain exactly what's so ridiculous and ironic about that prosecution. But let's also talk about Letitia James and Adam Schiff. the slingshot has gone back in the other direction. Describe these prosecutions. Are they malicious? Are they lawfare or are they legitimate? No, they're totally lawfare. Just I could probably quickly say about James and Schiff that the misunderstanding here, which shouldn't be a misunderstanding for Trump for the reasons that we discussed in connection with his with the case Tish James brought.

58:54There's no doubt in that case that Trump misrepresented a number of his assets, right? But that doesn't mean there was fraud. If you're an investigator, Bill Pulte, who was the guy that Trump put at the, what is it, the housing finance agency, he's the one who's digging through all these mortgage records, right, and finding misrepresentations. I don't think he's a, I'm not even sure, I don't think he's a lawyer. I think he's a business guy, but I don't know if he's ever been a lawyer or a prosecutor. But to an experienced investigator, if you find misrepresentations on financial documents, that's the beginning of an investigation.

59:33They seem to think this is slam dunk. We got him guilty. And Trump should know better than anyone that that's not how it works. In his financial documents, he claimed his Trump Tower apartment was like 30 ,000 square feet and worth 270-something million dollars. And in fact, it was worth it was it's like less than 11 ,000 square feet. And the I think the record comparable in New York at that time was around 70 million dollars. I mean, grossly, grossly exaggerated it. But the bottom line was no one was defrauded. So if you were going to be if you're going to act with respect to Trump's own case, the way Trump and Pulte are acting now, you would think you had Trump on a slam dunk fraud because he misrepresented his documents, which is what that's what that's what.

1:00:23tish james did but um you know importantly as we said before the criminal prosecutors didn't go near the trump documents case because they didn't think they could prove fraud and the same thing is going on here i think you have profound statute of limitations problems with james and schiff because the federal unless you're dealing with particularly serious crimes the general federal criminal statute of limitations is five years. And most of the stuff they're looking at with respect to Schiff and James is time barred. I mean, it's long time barred. But the other thing is, when you find misrepresentations in documents, again, it's the beginning of the investigation, not the end.

1:01:08And for example, Schiff says, and look, I'm not a Schiff fan, but it is what it is. Schiff says, my banks knew that I was a congressman from Burbank, California, who lived part of the time in Burbank, California, and part of the time in, I think his place was in, I can't remember if it was Maryland or, I think it was Maryland. You know, he didn't misreport. The bank knew what he was up to. He wasn't claiming that his property on the East Coast was a rental house or something he was trying to flip or a business office. It was a separate home because he had a bi-coastal life where he lived in two different places with his family.

1:01:54That's not grist for a fraud case. And in the connection with James, apparently the documents are more complicated than what Pulte has represented. So there are misstatements in some documents, but with respect to the same transactions, she seems to have stated accurately in other documents that this was not – that this was not – that she wasn't – she didn't have two separate homes that were her principal residence. And there's some storyline that I think she was signing as a surety for a niece or something like that. You're not going to charge fraud or something like that. I mean, it's just – it's highly, highly unlikely without actual fraud victims that you're going to charge fraud.

1:02:34But look, lawfare, sadly, the people practicing lawfare don't necessarily care whether the person – whether there's actually a case and the person gets convicted. A big objective – I mean, with respect to the way it was practiced against Trump, the objective was to make him unelectable. You know, I mean, they also wanted to destroy him financially. They wanted to convict him if they could. But the main thing was to make sure he didn't become president. And, you know, with respect to these people Trump is going after, he wants to put them through the same ringer he went through. At the end of the rainbow, does he care whether these people actually get convicted or not?

1:03:14I mean, I think he'd like to see them get convicted. But what he mainly wants to do is make them feel the pain that he was put through. Okay.

1:03:23Coleman Hughes:Just a couple final questions for you before I let you go. So if you were in charge, if you were, say, Attorney General, what changes would you make to the structure of the Department of Justice so that America could get on track, get back to a situation where people trust the Department of Justice and end this cycle of toxic lawfare? Well, I would go back to a meat and potatoes standard, and you wouldn't see any of these cases. I mean, certainly not the Comey case we didn't discuss at length, but it's just – I mean, it's clear that that's arbitrary. I would go back to the standard that says they don't have immunity, but it's got to be a serious crime.

1:04:24It's got to be compelling evidence. And the eyeball test ought to be, does the average person look at this and say, if I committed this action, they would prosecute me? If you can't say that and there's any hint that you're only bringing the case because it's a political enemy, if that's a compelling defense, that's a case that you don't want to bring. And actually, I have to say, I think the Justice Department, for the most part, pre-Obama days, had a pretty good track record of adhering to that standard. I think it began – Obama began the politicized prosecutions not necessarily against political enemies.

1:05:07There may have been some of that with Menendez, but against targets like the left's favorite targets. and biden sharpened it to a really aside from doing the stuff that obama was doing he also sharpened it to go right after trump and now trump as is his want um is you know much more unabashed about doing exactly the same things these other guys are doing which is why it always looks worse with trump but that's because he doesn't he doesn't care to um uh to pay the tribute that that vice pays to virtue, right? I mean, he just he's he's very out front. So I would go back to what I described as bars, meat and potato standard.

1:05:53I think the other thing I would do if I was attorney general, that would be an instant change from what we have now is you wouldn't see me on nighttime cable television. You wouldn't see me speaking to the media about investigations or cases. I would be disciplining anybody who did that because it's utterly unethical and a violation of due process to be talking about people who are, constitutionally speaking, presumed innocent. I was trained that the Justice Department speaks in the court, and you don't go public about charges until you're ready to bring them formally in an indictment, Because in our system, that's the moment in time where the accused gets all the rights of the Bill of Rights to defend himself, which means it's a fair fight.

1:06:41this stuff of, you know, going public about cases and having unbelievably, I mean, Orwell would would blush at this. The idea that they have something that's called the D the weaponization division, which we're supposed to understand as they're getting rid of the weaponization of law enforcement, evidently by prosecuting the president's enemies on the theory that if we don't do it to them, they'll do it to us when they get back in. That stuff has to stop. And I think the best argument for why it has to stop is Trump is, I don't know, he doesn't seem to be able to compute this, but I think Trump is president because of lawfare.

1:07:30I think a lot of moderate, But the normal Americans who aren't obsessed with politics, a lot of whom had no use for Trump personally, were very turned off by the way he was treated and by the idea that if the Justice Department or the progressive prosecutors or whoever, if they could do that to somebody who is politically powerful, a business titan, etc., they can do it to anybody. Which is frightening to people. And I would have hoped that Trump would appreciate that his retribution was winning. And unfortunately, that hasn't been enough for him. But I think there's a real political opportunity.

1:08:14I don't know if the Republican Party is structured at the moment for somebody to grasp the nettle on this. But there's a real political opportunity out there for the first person who runs against lawfare and does it convincingly.

1:08:28Coleman Hughes:Yeah. Okay, Andy McCarthy, thank you so much for your time. Like I said before, I highly recommend if you struggle to make sense of all the prosecutions and you only have a little bit of time and you want to get a straight down the middle, no bullshit, balls and strikes analysis of all these things, listen to Andy's podcast. It's called The McCarthy Report. it's really a breath of fresh air and it is it is I'm not sure it has any true competitors in terms of the level of analysis you're going to get so I'm a big fan please keep doing it Andy thank you so much for your time Coleman thank you so much this was a pleasure Ryan Reynolds here from Mint Mobile I don't know if you knew this but anyone can get the same premium wireless for $15 a month plan that I've been enjoying it's not just for celebrities so do like I did and have one of your assistant's assistants switch you to Mint Mobile today.

1:09:23Coleman Hughes:I'm told it's super easy to do at mintmobile.com slash switch. Upfront payment of$45 for three-month plan, equivalent to$15 per month required. Intro rate first three months only, then full price plan options available. Taxes and fees extra. Default terms at mintmobile.com.