Speaker 1: Hey, drilled listeners. I'm here with an update on the
Speaker 1: story we told in our last narrative season, La Lucha Lahungla,
Speaker 1: about the decades long fight between Chevron and various groups
Speaker 1: in the Ecuadorian amazon As. You know if you listened
Speaker 1: to that season. Chevron has recently been going after one
Speaker 1: of the lawyers in that case, Stephen Donziger. He has
Speaker 1: been on house arrest now for more than six hundred
Speaker 1: days for a criminal contempt charge stemming from a civil
Speaker 1: contempt charge that Chevron encouraged a judge in New York
Speaker 1: to impose on him. That all started a few years
Speaker 1: after Donziger lost a rico case brought against him by Chevron,
Speaker 1: claiming that he and the other attorneys in Ecuador had
Speaker 1: engaged in misconduct in order to win their case in Ecuador,
Speaker 1: and that therefore the judgment should be considered null and
Speaker 1: void in the US. The Ecuadorian plaintiffs have continued to
Speaker 1: try to collect on that judgment elsewhere in the world,
Speaker 1: and it's possible that those efforts triggered Chevron's interests in
Speaker 1: Donziger again. At any rate, they asked Judge Caplan, who
Speaker 1: was the judge in the Rico case to subpoena certain
Speaker 1: files and information from Donziger because they believed that he
Speaker 1: was violating the agreement in that case, which is that
Speaker 1: he would no longer be able to profit in any
Speaker 1: way from the Ecuadorian judgment. Donziger refused to hand over
Speaker 1: his files, saying that it would violate attorney client privilege,
Speaker 1: and that's when Caplan slapped him with a criminal content charge.
Speaker 1: Caplan took that charge to the US Attorney's office. The
Speaker 1: US attorney said, Nah, we don't want to prosecute this,
Speaker 1: not really a case, and instead of letting it go
Speaker 1: at that point, Kaplan hired a private law firm to
Speaker 1: prosecute Donziger. Now, this is a very unusual move. According
Speaker 1: to Donziger's current attorneys, it's the first time that a
Speaker 1: private prosecutor has been used in a case like this.
Speaker 1: We haven't been able to find any other examples of
Speaker 1: this being done, so it could very well be the
Speaker 1: first time. It's certainly unusual, especially with sort of a
Speaker 1: low level offense like a contempt charge. And then about
Speaker 1: a year into court proceedings around this charge, Donziger and
Speaker 1: his team discovered that the private prosecutor that judge Kaplan
Speaker 1: had appointed a firm called Seward, and Kissel had worked
Speaker 1: for Chevron as recently as a year before they were
Speaker 1: hired to prosecute Donziger. That all seems a little shady.
Speaker 1: Now here we are six h days in. Donziger still
Speaker 1: hasn't had a trial. He's been denied a jury trial.
Speaker 1: There is a court date set for May tenth. The
Speaker 1: judge has declined requests for audio or video streaming of
Speaker 1: that trial. In this episode, I am joined once again
Speaker 1: by my co reporter on that series, Karen Savage, to
Speaker 1: bring you some updates on what's happening in that case
Speaker 1: and what Donziger is facing when he finally heads to
Speaker 1: trial in May. That conversation coming up right after this
Speaker 1: quick break, Karen, welcome back.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Amy.
Speaker 1: I have missed reporting with you.
Speaker 2: I think this crazy long story that's going to come
Speaker 2: out in a few days, and I didn't have anyone
Speaker 2: to bounce things off of.
Speaker 1: Oh it was harder.
Speaker 2: It was so much harder.
Speaker 1: I know, right, It's nice to partner with with another
Speaker 1: reporter on stuff. Yeah, yeah, okay, so I know I
Speaker 1: feel like, I mean, you and I have been texting
Speaker 1: each other you know, as different briefs and things come out.
Speaker 1: But but what have you been kind of seeing in
Speaker 1: the last couple months on the Donziger case.
Speaker 2: So there's been you know, there was the back and
Speaker 2: forth about the lawyers and who could get their win,
Speaker 2: and then eventually everything was postponed until May tenth, and
Speaker 2: I've really seen the most interesting things I've seen. Well,
Speaker 2: first we'll talk about the motion to dismiss I guess
Speaker 2: based on vindictive Yeah, this.
Speaker 1: Is so interesting. So this is all happening because, like
Speaker 1: the this is part of the criminal contempt trial that
Speaker 1: is still ongoing. There is a hearing scheduled for May tenth,
Speaker 1: and in the meantime there have been lots of different
Speaker 1: sort of motions filed and the most recent, right is
Speaker 1: this one one of Donziger's.
Speaker 2: Lawyers, Martin Garbage, and.
Speaker 1: It is really kind of asking for more discovery and
Speaker 1: alleging that this is a vindictive prosecution, right.
Speaker 2: Yeah, And I think that's what's so interesting to me
Speaker 2: is that you know, he's asking for the trying to
Speaker 2: find the thing and get in front of me, but
Speaker 2: he's asking.
Speaker 1: For the for discovery, which I honestly seems fairly he
Speaker 1: should be able to access the evidence necessary to defend himself.
Speaker 1: Is kind of like the argument that this brief is making, right.
Speaker 2: Right, Yeah, that's that's what I'm thinking. It looks like
Speaker 2: to me that you know, first of all, he's saying
Speaker 2: this is vindictive prosecution, this is against the way we
Speaker 2: do things here in the United States, which may or
Speaker 2: may not be true, but that's apparently that that's the
Speaker 2: whole premise of the law at least. And so you know,
Speaker 2: the whole idea that that Donziger is being executed basically
Speaker 2: because he went up against a large corporation a one,
Speaker 2: and you know that there's been the whole thing that
Speaker 2: we've we've covered, you know, how the narrative has shifted
Speaker 2: from the people on the ground who are still suffering
Speaker 2: from this toxic pollution, and so the narrative has shifted
Speaker 2: away from the folks in Ecuador to focus on Steven
Speaker 2: Donziger and what he what Chevron claims he did wrong
Speaker 2: and all of these things. And you know, there's a
Speaker 2: whole reco trial and the conviction. But you know, I
Speaker 2: think that the message in this, in this motion to dismiss,
Speaker 2: which is very consistent with what's been what's been said
Speaker 2: all along by Steven Donziger and his supporters is that,
Speaker 2: you know, this is really malicious. You know, Judge Kaplan
Speaker 2: has sided many many times with Chevron, and they even
Speaker 2: in the motion pull out from some transcripts some of
Speaker 2: the things that he has said in the past. And
Speaker 2: you know, it's really if you look at it. I know,
Speaker 2: our jobs as reporters are to kind of look at
Speaker 2: both sides, but when you just look at it on
Speaker 2: its face, it does look kind of pretty malicious. You know.
Speaker 2: It's just this continuing pursuit of this guy.
Speaker 1: Well, and also I think it's important for people to
Speaker 1: understand that, like what's happening to him now has nothing
Speaker 1: to do with what Chevron accused him of doing in Ecuador.
Speaker 1: You know, at this point ten years ago, you know,
Speaker 1: it is this kind of renewed attack on Donziger that started,
Speaker 1: you know a few years after Chevron's Rico case was settled.
Speaker 1: I mean, they won the Rico case, they you know,
Speaker 1: kind of succeeded there and then for whatever reason, felt
Speaker 1: the need to continue going after Donziger. I mean, I
Speaker 1: think because the Ecuadorians were continuing to try to collect
Speaker 1: this judgment somewhere in the world, and Chevron wants to
Speaker 1: put us off to that. And also, honestly, it does
Speaker 1: seem like they want to make an example out of
Speaker 1: him and scare off other attorneys from from taking on
Speaker 1: cases against oil companies and against big companies in general.
Speaker 2: Right, And I think what you spoke to a few
Speaker 2: minutes ago about, you know, the private prosecutor is really horrifying.
Speaker 2: You know, if you follow that, you know right now
Speaker 2: it's Steven Donziger who is being prosecuted by a private prosecutor,
Speaker 2: but it could be anybody if this is if this
Speaker 2: becomes a normal thing, and I know they're they're saying
Speaker 2: it's this is the only time it's happened in ever,
Speaker 2: And I honestly have looked and haven't found that it's
Speaker 2: happened at other times. I'm not saying it's not out
Speaker 2: there and I haven't missed it, but you know, I
Speaker 2: haven't found any evidence that it's happened before. I haven't
Speaker 2: found a specific case. But if this does happen and
Speaker 2: goes through and becomes the norm, the ramifications of that
Speaker 2: are really horrified because that means that corporations can hire
Speaker 2: someone to prosecute.
Speaker 3: Who are right, Well, that's right, Well, oil companies already
Speaker 3: hire the police exactly right.
Speaker 2: They already to pay the police hundreds of thousands of
Speaker 2: dollars to work side jobs, or or they pay their
Speaker 2: department directly, or they you know, in promotion and all
Speaker 2: kinds of other you know, donations or whatever. So they
Speaker 2: already have bought the police, and now they're trying to
Speaker 2: buy the justice, you know, the court system, which is horrifying.
Speaker 1: It's important for people to understand that Gibson Dunn created
Speaker 1: the sort of novel strategy of using RICO to go
Speaker 1: after plaintiffs attorneys, right like they did it with Dole,
Speaker 1: and then they really sort of perfected it with this
Speaker 1: Chevron case. And now that kind of thinking has made
Speaker 1: its way into some of these anti protest bills that
Speaker 1: are happening. Just last week or maybe two weeks ago,
Speaker 1: I think it was Kansas Past one of the many
Speaker 1: anti protest laws that are criminalizing protests around critical infrastructure,
Speaker 1: which basically means pipelines and fossil fuel infrastructure, and they
Speaker 1: actually included RICO charges as part of that. So this
Speaker 1: is like, you know, all right, well we've already seen
Speaker 1: this happen where you know, a legal strategy that was
Speaker 1: used in this case fairly novelly five six years ago
Speaker 1: is now being replicated in various other instances. In fact,
Speaker 1: Gibson Done was brought on to help prosecute the protesters
Speaker 1: at Standing Rock for Energy Transfer Partners.
Speaker 2: Yeah, and they're following right in that playbook, you know,
Speaker 2: the way there were the subpoenas in the Chevron, Ecuador
Speaker 2: case against the you know, journalists against the Crewe documentary,
Speaker 2: and now you know, Energy Transfer has is seeking information
Speaker 2: and has issued a subpoena to unic and Riot, which
Speaker 2: covered the protests of Standing Rock. So there are all
Speaker 2: of these similarities. And I think what the corporations are
Speaker 2: kind of hoping is that you know, maybe you and
Speaker 2: me are sitting here saying, well, you know what, we're
Speaker 2: not attorneys, we're not plaintiffs attorneys, so that's happening to
Speaker 2: the plaintiff's attorneys. And we're not protesters, so that's happening
Speaker 2: to the protesters. And you know, we are media, so
Speaker 2: we notice that this is happening to media. But people
Speaker 2: who aren't media are like, well, that's not us, that's media,
Speaker 2: and no one kind of thinks of the collectively of
Speaker 2: like these are a broad scale scaling back of our
Speaker 2: first sleety rights. Yeah.
Speaker 1: I was just talking to someone, you know, the other
Speaker 1: day about the fact that media liability insurance has become
Speaker 1: much more expensive and hard to get. Like I have
Speaker 1: a fairly large policy because of the kind of you know,
Speaker 1: the sorts of stories that we do, and.
Speaker 2: Sounds like a really good I'm not a business person,
Speaker 2: but Amy that sounds like really good.
Speaker 1: Yeah. But the insurance company that I use, when I
Speaker 1: went to sort of like the annual renewal of the
Speaker 1: policy thing for a minute, was like, Oh, we're not
Speaker 1: sure about this because we're not really giving policies to
Speaker 1: investigative journalists anymore because it's seen as too risky. And
Speaker 1: I was like, wow, that is quite troubling, because yeah, right,
Speaker 1: it's like especially so I just feel like you've seen
Speaker 1: this thing happen in over the last ten fifteen years
Speaker 1: where corporations have increased their First Amendment rights and at
Speaker 1: the same time have really worked strategically to whittle away
Speaker 1: the First Amendment rights of everybody else. And it's very,
Speaker 1: very troubling. And I see this case as like a
Speaker 1: real as a part of that. You know, it's like
Speaker 1: make plaintiffs attorneys scared to file suits against them, make protesters.
Speaker 1: And now you know that the one of the novel
Speaker 1: things in these anti protest laws is that they include
Speaker 1: the ability to go after organizations for organizing protests. So
Speaker 1: now you have all of these nonprofits who have helped
Speaker 1: to like organize the Line three protests or organize the
Speaker 1: Standing Rock protest or whatever, like, they're being dragged into
Speaker 1: court now too. And then you know, uh, media is
Speaker 1: having less and less protection because you know, everyone from
Speaker 1: insurers to too, like publishers are worried about, you know,
Speaker 1: the cost and the risk associated with investigating these guys.
Speaker 1: It's it's very troubling for sure.
Speaker 2: And the other thing they do is they they shift
Speaker 2: your the narrative of who you are as a reporter, right, yes,
Speaker 2: you know, I covered the buy you Bridge stuff and
Speaker 2: I cannot tell how many times I was called an activist. Now,
Speaker 2: I was there, I was embedded, I was clearly reporting
Speaker 2: on it. But what they do is they shift the
Speaker 2: way that we are described so that it diminishes or
Speaker 2: changes our actual role and in people's minds, then there
Speaker 2: becomes no distinction. Yes, so that's just another thing that
Speaker 2: that you know, and I've seen them do it, like
Speaker 2: Unicorn Riot, I've seen them do it to them and
Speaker 2: they're you know, there's many many people that have reported
Speaker 2: you know, look at at all kinds of folks democracy now,
Speaker 2: Amy Goodman. You know, they'll do these subtle you know,
Speaker 2: maybe just a word or two in there, or some
Speaker 2: of my mass'll subtle, but it slipped the image of
Speaker 2: something as a reporter into some murky unknown place.
Speaker 1: Absolutely absolutely that they've I mean, that has happened to me.
Speaker 1: And it's why I'm such a like giant bitch about
Speaker 1: it when I see people as saying it, because it's like, no,
Speaker 1: you don't understand. It's not that like I have so
Speaker 1: sort of idea about activists, you know, that I'm like
Speaker 1: above activists, or that they're you know, less than or
Speaker 1: anything like that. It's that this is a very specific
Speaker 1: strategy that's used to not only undermine the reporting that
Speaker 1: some people are doing, but also to erode our First
Speaker 1: Amendment protections.
Speaker 2: I have had some of the most heated battles with
Speaker 2: other journalists, I gotta tell you, so I hope out
Speaker 2: there listening, please pay attention to where these boundaries are
Speaker 2: constantly shifting and what even a little shift can do.
Speaker 2: Because I don't like arguing with fellow journalists, but if
Speaker 2: they're gonna misidentify me, I have to argue with you.
Speaker 1: Yeah, exactly exactly. I know. I had a whole back
Speaker 1: and forth with the guy at Axios because he referred
Speaker 1: to me as an advocacy journalist and I was like, uh, nope.
Speaker 2: I was referred to it was either activist journalists or
Speaker 2: journalist activists. It was like hyphenate, which is another weird
Speaker 2: variation that somebody created. And I had to like go
Speaker 2: toe to toe and I was and I was in
Speaker 2: a special place at that moment, so I kind of
Speaker 2: let loose on that poor person. I think they probably
Speaker 2: hung up like wow, she's really really you know, a
Speaker 2: grand bitch.
Speaker 1: But I had to do it, you know, like sorry, yeah, yeah, yeah.
Speaker 1: And again, it's like it's important for a variety of reasons.
Speaker 1: It's not just like, oh, I don't really care about,
Speaker 1: you know, what title people give me or you know,
Speaker 1: and I don't have any sort of like ego tied
Speaker 1: up in like I'm a journalist or whatever. It's it's
Speaker 1: actually it's about like legal protection and also like kind
Speaker 1: of who controls the narrative and how things gets spun.
Speaker 1: So yeah, anyway, okay, So Garbus has filed this motion
Speaker 1: asking for discovery, which is a legal term that means basically,
Speaker 1: you know, being able to request documents and evidence from
Speaker 1: the other side and to be able to dig in
Speaker 1: to people's files and things like that, and has also
Speaker 1: called this a vindictive prosecution and asked for it to
Speaker 1: be moved out of this judge's court, which I'm sure
Speaker 1: this judge will take great offense to. But you know,
Speaker 1: the accusation is that Judge Kaplan, who is very cozy
Speaker 1: with Chevron, you know, hand selected this judge and that
Speaker 1: there is just a huge conflict of interest here in
Speaker 1: that she can't really be unbiased in this prosecution.
Speaker 2: Right right, Yeah, And they pointed out, I think that
Speaker 2: she's a member of a federal Society, and Chevron has
Speaker 2: donated many times, yes to the to the Federalist Society,
Speaker 2: so you know, they're just a whole bunch of conflicts there.
Speaker 1: Yeah. Yeah, when was that motion filed.
Speaker 2: It was filed I think last Thursday, and they're in
Speaker 2: the process now of looking you know, setting the schedule
Speaker 2: on how they're going to deal with that motion.
Speaker 1: Okay, and whether and like whether it's going to impact
Speaker 1: the hearing date in general.
Speaker 2: Right, which is another interesting part of this story, because
Speaker 2: they the judge came out early, I think it was
Speaker 2: two weeks ago and said, you know, because covid is
Speaker 2: is at a better point where it was before, it's
Speaker 2: going to be an in person trial. And of course
Speaker 2: we already know it's going to be a bench trial,
Speaker 2: even though don Zegger and his attorneys wanted a jury trial.
Speaker 2: But he also requested that there be audio, video, video,
Speaker 2: you know, access for public right, and she denied that.
Speaker 1: I know, I thought that was really suspicious too. I
Speaker 1: was just like why, I mean, it's like, you're already
Speaker 1: under scrutiny here. I would think that you would want
Speaker 1: to be transparent at least in that way.
Speaker 2: But yeah, so I was just curious. So I looked up,
Speaker 2: you know, and they have a whole calendar of civil
Speaker 2: and criminal proceedings in that court. So I went there,
Speaker 2: and so the things that are happening this week, the
Speaker 2: week of what is it, April twelve, there are only
Speaker 2: two trials going on that I could find but both
Speaker 2: of them allow folks to call in and listen. It's
Speaker 2: not like a zoom type thing, but you can call
Speaker 2: in and listen over the phone. So it's bizarre to
Speaker 2: me that those two trials the same court, same you know,
Speaker 2: a little bit different charges, and those do have a
Speaker 2: jury trial, so I think that's a little different there,
Speaker 2: but basically same courthouse, same well it's a different building,
Speaker 2: but it's under the umbrella of the same court, and
Speaker 2: they are allowing folks to call in and listen, and
Speaker 2: Donziger's trial will not be you know, folks won't have
Speaker 2: that ability.
Speaker 1: So wild honestly, Like, I've been following a bunch of
Speaker 1: other cases not related to this at all, and they're
Speaker 1: all allowing like phone in access.
Speaker 2: Well, you can still go to the courthouse, and they
Speaker 2: have agreed to have overflow rooms. I think Judge Presco
Speaker 2: moved it to a bigger courtroom and had the overflow rooms.
Speaker 2: But part of the thing is that there are really
Speaker 2: pretty strict rules about how you can enter, particularly if
Speaker 2: you have traveled from another country. Right, you know, you
Speaker 2: have to have this documentation that you are not that
Speaker 2: you are negative COVID negative, and that's I would imagine
Speaker 2: if I was traveling from another country, I would not
Speaker 2: necessarily want to be here ten days in advance. So
Speaker 2: it all just kind of complicates, complicates the issue, and
Speaker 2: it also like leaves all of these folks who are
Speaker 2: you know, it's kind of emblematic, right of the whole
Speaker 2: recent proceedings that leave the folks who are the initial
Speaker 2: victims of this toxic pollution completely out of the picture.
Speaker 2: So they're in Ecuador and they have no way to
Speaker 2: access these proceedings if they want to.
Speaker 1: And I think that.
Speaker 2: That in a normal time would be kind of unfortunately
Speaker 2: just the way it goes. But with COVID, you know,
Speaker 2: there was the whole thing for a while where they
Speaker 2: were pushing, pushing, pushing to have a zoom trial. And
Speaker 2: now not only are we not having a zoom trial
Speaker 2: and we're having the trial in person, but now the
Speaker 2: folks in Ecuador have zero ability to follow alone. So
Speaker 2: I think that, you know, those kinds of things just
Speaker 2: look funny. So I don't know, you know, like I said,
Speaker 2: these other two trials managed to have ways that folks
Speaker 2: can call in on a teleconference line. I tried just
Speaker 2: to make sure you can actually get through and everything
Speaker 2: was working, and I got into one and you know,
Speaker 2: some kind of like sec fraud or something that I
Speaker 2: wasn't particularly interested in its time, but you can do it.
Speaker 2: So it's really beyond explanation why in Donziger's trial this
Speaker 2: isn't allowed.
Speaker 1: Yeah, yeah, it is very It's it's unusual. It's it's
Speaker 1: an unusual thing to deny that request. So yeah, just
Speaker 1: another of the many ways that this is unusual. And
Speaker 1: he is now, I mean, he's he's coming up on
Speaker 1: almost two years in August, right, it'll be two years
Speaker 1: that he's been on house arrest.
Speaker 2: Yeah. He did a Twitter live thing last night. I
Speaker 2: think he said it was six they six o four
Speaker 2: Maybe I'm not sure I got that number right, But
Speaker 2: by the time this is out, it'll be more than
Speaker 2: that anyway.
Speaker 1: Yeah, so more than six hundred days. The the sort
Speaker 1: of like the penalty if he's if like someone is
Speaker 1: convicted of criminal contempt is six months. So I just
Speaker 1: I don't understand.
Speaker 2: For sure, you know. I And this is kind of
Speaker 2: so typical of oil companies, right, like they want to
Speaker 2: pumo any opposition to their exist and to the ground.
Speaker 2: I mean, but at right now, Donziger. He's got I
Speaker 2: think fifty five noble lawyers laureates are supporting him. He's
Speaker 2: got folks from all over the world. You know, different
Speaker 2: personalities have come out and supported him. And you know,
Speaker 2: every time they push back against him, what I think
Speaker 2: they don't realize is that they're growing his support. So
Speaker 2: it's yeah, it's beyond me why they just keep pushing this.
Speaker 2: This is crazy. There's even like a trial monitoring committee
Speaker 2: set up, which is something that doesn't normally happen in
Speaker 2: the United States. You know, folks think of that in
Speaker 2: countries that just don't have well established justice systems or
Speaker 2: fair justice systems, I guess I should say, and here
Speaker 2: it is they want to do that in the United States.
Speaker 2: So I think it speaks volumes just those types of things,
Speaker 2: you know. And like I said, as a journalist, my
Speaker 2: job is to go in and kind of look at
Speaker 2: both sides and see what happened and kind of figure
Speaker 2: out where the truth lies, which is often sometimes in
Speaker 2: between all the sides. But in this case, there's so
Speaker 2: much just what appears to be unnecessary push against Donziger,
Speaker 2: and that the vindictive prosecution becomes very believable.
Speaker 1: At the point where the US attorney is like, nah,
Speaker 1: we don't want we declined to prosecute, like this is
Speaker 1: a nothing burger case. And then the judge goes out
Speaker 1: and hires a private corporate law firm that just so
Speaker 1: happened to worked for Chevron recently. I mean, that's just honestly,
Speaker 1: I feel like, at a minimum, you would think that
Speaker 1: the judge would want to be careful about giving the
Speaker 1: impression that he is biased or has a grudge against
Speaker 1: you know, and it's like it's like wow, Like it's
Speaker 1: like no effort was made to even really conceal it here,
Speaker 1: so I don't It's like, well, what other It's very
Speaker 1: hard to come to any other conclusion because the facts
Speaker 1: are so gregious.
Speaker 2: Yeah. One thing Garbage points out is that, you know,
Speaker 2: when the prosecute, the prosecuting attorney initially said that they
Speaker 2: didn't have the resources to prosecute. But here we are,
Speaker 2: and we haven't even reached trial or appeal or sentencing
Speaker 2: or any of those things that are still coming. They've
Speaker 2: already paid Sword and Kissel over five hundred thousand dollars. Wow.
Speaker 2: So you know, as he points out in his brief,
Speaker 2: it could well be over a million dollars of taxpayer
Speaker 2: money is paid for this prosecution.
Speaker 3: Yeah, which also I think it's important to point out
Speaker 3: started initially way back with Chevron asking the judge to
Speaker 3: look into, you know, what Donziger was up too.
Speaker 2: Lately, Chevron's narrative is like, well, we didn't we didn't
Speaker 2: ask for criminal contempt charges. Well, but you did ask
Speaker 2: for civil contempt charges.
Speaker 1: Right exactly, and that is what led to the criminal
Speaker 1: contempt charges. So like, you did kick this entire thing off.
Speaker 1: And I honestly I just I look at this and
Speaker 1: I'm like, this is like it's it's laughable. Because the
Speaker 1: for years it was like, you know, we want to
Speaker 1: move the trial to Ecuador, and then as soon as
Speaker 1: they got to Ecuador and Ecuador's political situation changed, it was, oh,
Speaker 1: the courts in Ecuador are corrupt and there's no way
Speaker 1: we can get a fair trial. And it's like you
Speaker 1: look at this and you're like, this is the type
Speaker 1: of corruption that you know, Americans criticize other countries for
Speaker 1: having in their judicial system, and like it's right here
Speaker 1: in New York, right right, yeah. Yeah, So anyway, well
Speaker 1: we'll be continuing to watch what happens.
Speaker 2: But I think they're saying that the trial will last
Speaker 2: maybe give or take ten days or so.
Speaker 1: Wow. I know there have been actually too, some some
Speaker 1: politicians who are starting to kind of tune into this too.
Speaker 1: So I think it's Rep. McGovern in Massachusetts, right, and
Speaker 1: Corey Bush also are who you know. This is an
Speaker 1: interesting thing too, because Corey Bush comes out of the
Speaker 1: Black Lives Matter movement. This whole like RICO criminalizing protest
Speaker 1: thing has been like there has been some talk of
Speaker 1: using that against Black Lives Matter protests too. So even
Speaker 1: outside of the pipeline protest, these laws and this, these
Speaker 1: precedents that really the fossil fuel industry is setting legally
Speaker 1: will have ramifications for every other type of civil protest. Right,
Speaker 1: that is very concerning. So I know that they are
Speaker 1: drafting a letter to Attorney General Garland this week asking
Speaker 1: the Department of Justice to review this case. So that
Speaker 1: should be interesting too to see if anything happened there.
Speaker 2: Yeah, and I was just reading I don't I forget where,
Speaker 2: but that the Biden administration is totally within bounds. They
Speaker 2: could the DJ could say, you know what, we want
Speaker 2: to take on this case and take over the prosecution.
Speaker 1: That's interesting.
Speaker 2: That would be really interesting.
Speaker 1: That would be very interesting. Huh wow. Well, yeah, so
Speaker 1: the plot continues to thicken with this case. This story
Speaker 1: is like the most mind blowing story I think I've
Speaker 1: ever worked on, and it just continues to go on.
Speaker 2: Yeah, And what's what's amazing to me is that I
Speaker 2: feel like there is so much that just in the
Speaker 2: interest of time, we didn't cover, you know what I mean,
Speaker 2: Like there are just yeah, probably millions of documents, yes,
Speaker 2: of just fascinating little side stories. Yeah, definitely something to watch.
Speaker 2: Will keep us, We'll keep us busy for a while.
Speaker 1: Yeah, yeah, something to watch. And it is the thing
Speaker 1: that is very concerning about it is that this case
Speaker 1: has set a lot of precedents all along the way,
Speaker 1: most of which have been pretty bad for democracy, and
Speaker 1: this is sort of the latest phase of that. So
Speaker 1: it's very it's important to sort of to keep tabs
Speaker 1: on what happens here and how it might affect lots
Speaker 1: of other things.