18 Burst results for "Assistant United States Attorney"

Does the whistleblower have the right to remain confidential?

Michael Medved

04:18 min | 2 years ago

Does the whistleblower have the right to remain confidential?

"The former assistant United States Attorney in the writer for the National Review and the fox news specialist discussed with the blower while on Chicago's morning answer with van prop and Amy Jacobson again on Adam Schiff refusal to release transcripts of the behind closed doors customer we can still have this sort of running a look a complaint against ship which is released these transcripts a turn these transcripts around so that they can be included in the discussion and real time not to we're going to release his friend we're going to have this testimony that we're gonna decide if this is somebody that's helpful to the case it's a call then I'll decide if the transcript will be released released a transcript it doesn't take long to type this thing up yeah they were absolutely right about that they should have the transcripts available to them when they are examining the other witnesses because the information now you know the way the way this would work if the federal rules of evidence apply which they don't in a hearing like this would be that you can't impeach a witness with another witness's statement but you can use the information that you get from other witnesses as a good faith basis to challenge the testimony of other witnesses the problem that the Democrats have had from the beginning here and I think the problem but the public will have with the the process here is that it's not fair ship has taken to himself the ability to pick and choose what information gets put out the ability to pick and choose what witnesses are allowed to testify nobody thinks he is an honest broker he's a he's a political partisan hardball operatives and if I were the Republicans I would suggest that they have to play the hand they're dealt and they you know he can block them from calling witnesses I would make him the focus of the hearing because he is the focus of a hearing sitting there in the middle he's the most imposing consistent figure in this whole process so why would keep bringing it back to him that he's been utterly unfair and that he's running essentially a kangaroo proceed yeah I mean you Jennifer Williams spent staffer she was you know depose on Saturday I would like to have her testimony be public but what about the whistle blower do you think he should be on mass than we should have a public you know hearing for him yes okay first of all and it it should be done before Ben and testifies the game that the Democrats applying is they apparently you need to see this and then then the transcript of the closed door testimony when they start to ask about the whistle blower and whether he lied stuff to the what's the blower and whether he's in cahoots with the whistle blower ship jump sand and cuts it off on the on the ground that they're trying to reveal the whistle blower he's got a legal right to remain confidential he does not have a legal right to remain confidential first of all the whistleblower statute that they're talking about does not apply to this guy because this is we're not talking about intelligence activities this is the president dealing in foreign policy with a head of state so the statue doesn't even apply to a but even if it did it only imposes a confidentiality requirements on the inspector general of the intelligence committee or community and even with respect to the inspector general confidentiality can be pierced if he thinks under the circumstances it's unavoidable that the guy will become public or and this is very important if the matter if there was any way the matter was likely to be referred to a a court for trial or to the justice department for potential prosecution what that underscores is people's desire to be confidential it's something that we defer to only so far and no further once you're in a position where your information is relevant to an important proceeding like the judicial trial or I would argue like an impeachment proceeding you will lose your interest in being confidential has to take a backseat to the public's interest and the proceedings interest in getting at the truth

Assistant United States Attorn Writer National Review Chicago
"assistant united states attorney" Discussed on WCPT 820

WCPT 820

13:23 min | 2 years ago

"assistant united states attorney" Discussed on WCPT 820

"You served as an assistant United States Attorney leading a homicide US attorney for the district of Massachusetts and later Northern District of California assistant Attorney General for DOJ's criminal division and the FBI director so thank you I appreciate that but having reviewed your biography it puzzles me why you handle your duties in this case the way you did the report contradicts what you taught young attorneys at the department of justice including to ensure that every defendant is treated fairly or is just a Sutherland said in the murder case a prosecutor is not the representative of an ordinary party to a controversy but about sovereignty who's interested in criminal prosecutions not that it shall win a case for the justice shall be done and that the prosecutor may strike hard blows but he is not at liberty to strike foul ones by listing the ten factual situations and not reaching a conclusion about the merits of the case you unfairly shifted the burden of proof to the president forcing him to prove his innocence a legal form to do so and I've never heard of a prosecutor declining a case and then holding a press conference to talk about the defendant you noted times in your report that you have a legal duty under the regulations to either prosecute or decline charges despite this you just regarded that duty as a former prosecutor I'm also troubled with your legal analysis you discussed ten separate factual it patterns involving alleged obstruction and then you fail to separately apply the elements of the applicables statutes I looked at the the the ten factual situations I read the case law and I have to tell you just looking at the flint matter for example the the the four statues that you cited for a possible obstruction fifteen oh three fifteen oh five fifteen twelve be three in fifteen twelve seeks to single when I look at those concerning the flint matter you fifteen oh three is an apple go because it wasn't a grand jury or trial jury impaneled and director call me was not an officer of the court as defined by the statute six section fifteen oh five criminalizes acts that would obstruct or impede administrative proceedings at those before Congress and ministry of agency the department of justice criminal resource manual six of the FBI investigation is not a pending proceeding fifteen twelve be three talks about intimidation threats of force to tamper with a witness general Flynn at the time was not a witness and and certainly director call me was not a witness and fifteen twelve C. two talks about tampering with the record I mean as Joe Biden described the statute as being big debate on the Senate floor he called this a statute criminalizing document shredding and there's nothing in the in your report that alleges that the president destroyed any any evidence so what I have to ask you and and what I I think people are working around nothing is airing it let me lay a little foundation for the ethical rules require the prosecutor have a reasonable probability of of conviction to bring a charge is that correct well generally accurate okay and the regulations concerning your your job as special counsel state that your job is to provide the Attorney General with a confidential report explaining the prosecution or declination decisions reached by your office you recommended declining prosecution of president trump and anyone associated with his campaign because there was insufficient evidence to convict for a charge of conspiracy with Russian interference in the two thousand sixteen election is that fair fair was there a sufficient evidence to convict president trump or anyone else with obstruction of justice we did not make that calculation how could you not of me the calculator regulate will see opinion indicates that we cannot indict a sitting president one of the tools that a prosecutor would use is not there okay but let me just stop and made the decision on the Russian interference you knew you couldn't of indicted the president on that and you made the decision on that but when it came to obstruction you through a bunch of stuff up against the wall to see what would stick I would not agree to that characterization at all what we did is we provide to the Attorney General in the form of a confidential memorandum our understanding of the case and those cases that were brought those cases or declined and the that one case where the president cannot be charged with a crime okay but the could you charge the president with a prime after he left office yes you believe that he comes back states with obstruction of justice after he left office yes ethically under the ethical standards well I'm I'm I'm not certain to have a look at the ethical standards but we'll see if in the opinion says that the prosecutor why cannot bring a charge against a sitting president nonetheless a good did it continue the investigation to see if there are any other other person to from might be drawn into the conspiracy time of the gentleman has expired I mean from Rhode Island director directors you know we are a Pacific action episodes here today I'd like to ask you about the third episode it's the section of your report entitled the president's efforts to represent beginning at page ninety and by cartel you mean limit correct my colleagues of walk throughout the president tried to have you fire to the White House counsel and because Mister McGann refuse the order the president asked others to help limit your investigation is that correct and was Corey Lewandowski one such individual as I get a can you remind me what chart will currently does he's the president's former campaign manager correct do you have any official position the trump administration I don't believe so your report describes an incident in the oval office involving Mr windows on June nineteenth two thousand and seventeen volume two page ninety one is that correct I'm sorry what's a citation Sir page ninety one of the the second volume yes and when meeting in the oval office between these two and asking the president okay and that was just two days after the president called don began at home and ordered him to fire you is that correct early so so right after his White House counsel Mister again refused to follow the president's order to fire you the president came up with a new plan that was to go around all of the senior advisers and government aides have a private citizen try to limit your investigation what did the president tell Mr Lewandowski to do do you recall he told him he dictated a message to his wound owski for trade general sessions that asked him to write it down is that correct throw and your did you and your team see this hand written message of I mean I can get into what we may or may not have included in our investigate the message directed sessions to give in it and I'm quoting from your report to give a public speech saying that he planned to me with a special prosecutor to explain what special prosecutor move forward with investigating election meddling for future elections that's a page ninety one is that correct yes I see that thank you yes it is in other words Mr Lewandowski a private citizen was instructed by the president of the United States to deliver a message from the president to the Attorney General that directed him to limit your investigation correct correct at this time Mister solutions was still were cues from oversight of your investigation correct I'm sorry could you researcher journalists were cues from over yeah the Attorney General would have had to violate his own department's rules in order to comply with the president's order correct well I'm not gay get into the subsidiary details I just refer you again to page ninety one ninety two of the report and it gives the Attorney General had followed through with the president's press Mister Miller it would have effectively ended your investigation into the president and his campaign as you note on page ninety seven correct thank you you get John seven you right I quote taken together the president's directive indicate that session was being instructed to tell the special counsel to end the existing investigation into the president and his campaign with the special counsel being permitted to move forward with investigating election meddling for future elections is that correct very true yes Sir and it's on CSN what struck us this is still a crime is that correct that is correct and Mr Lewandowski I tried to meet with the Attorney General is that right and he tried to be with him in his office so he would be sure certain it wasn't a public log of the visit according to what we gather for the report and the meeting never happened and the president raise the issue again with Mr windows key and this time he said and I quote if sessions does not meet with you moon doubts you should tell sessions he was fired correct correct so immediately following the meeting with the president does he then asked Mr Dearborn to deliver the message who is the former chief of staff to Mr sessions a Mister Dearborn refuses deliver it because he doesn't feel comfortable is not correct federal correct yes so just so we're clear Mr mark two days after the White House counsel done again refused to carry out the president's order to fire you the president directed a private citizen to tell the Attorney General of the United States who was accused of the time to limit your investigation to future elections effectively ending your investigation into the two thousand sixteen trump campaign is that correct I'm not a doctor characterization of saying that the axe is laid out in the report are accurate well Mister all in your report you in fact right at page ninety nine ninety seven substantial evidence indicates that the president's ever trip sessions limit the scope of the special counsel's investigation to future elections interference was intended to prevent further investigative scrutiny of the president and his campaign conduct is that correct generally and so missed more you have seen a letter with thousand former Republican and democratic federal prosecutors have just read your report and said anyone but the president committed those acts would be charged with obstruction of justice do you agree with those former colleagues of thousand prosecutors came to that conclusion those prosecutions thank you chairman but over here thank Mister Mister Miller you guys your team wrote in the report he is the top of page to the dance only one also on page one seventy three restaurant as a form yes you've come to the conclusion that quote the investigation did not establish that members of the trump campaign conspired to coordinate with the Russian government and its selection interference activities close quote that's accurate statement right that's accurate and I'm curious when did you personally come to that conclusion can you remind me which car record bring to top of page two on two volume one questions coming even make any sense okay exactly which programs are you looking at on the investigation did not establish of course I see yeah yeah what was your question my question now is when did you personally reach that conclusion well the way we were I on going for two years if you are going you wrote it is some point during that two year period but at some point you have to come to a conclusion that that I don't think there's a couple that there's not a conspiracy going on here there was no conspiracy between this president I'm not time but the rest of the president's team time of this president and the Russians I as you understand a looking a criminal case you get piece of information piece of information witnesses and the like and as you make your case right and when you make a decision on a particular case depends on a number of factors right I know I cannot say specifically that we reach a decision on a particular defendant at a particular point time but it was sometime well before you wrote the report the report dealing with a whole myriad of issues certainly is sometime part of that report is when you reach the decision that okay makes sound absolutely well that's what they do on farms all day long I'm not certain I do agree with that the way to the last man when you rush the right points out okay we'll know whether there are various aspects of the development of a a and and sure and that's my point there are various aspects that are going to happen but somewhere along the pike you will come to a conclusion there's not there's no there there for this defendant and that right so okay I catch but you can't you can't say when fair enough so so no I'm not no I'm I'm I'm asking the the sworn witnesses you're right this is not for sale that's why they're doing this absolute three days before speaking too fast other dollar sign on fox news is that he's looking to add she brought out and flustered and out and all that yes with a good time to break was Republican okay okay we will operate and then rejoin the mother testimony live Stephanie Miller show join Scott Dauphin Ellen Miller this Sunday eleven AM for out Chicago Chicago's only L. G. B. T. focused radio program right here.

US attorney Massachusetts assistant Attorney General DOJ director assistant United States Attorn California FBI two days three days two years two year
"assistant united states attorney" Discussed on 760 KFMB Radio

760 KFMB Radio

09:57 min | 2 years ago

"assistant united states attorney" Discussed on 760 KFMB Radio

"There was a piece written in the hill, the other day by professor. Alan Dershowitz, who have enormous respect for all always a leftist. So I don't agree with that stuff. But he tries to be consistent, when it comes to the constitution and usually is, but he wrote a piece it was, it was very fascinating piece in the hill. And he said, the basically, yes, the supreme court can intervene in an impeachment matter, if that impeachment is outside the constitution. Then I won't elaborate you can read it yourself. That's ridiculous. It's ridiculous. The supreme court is never going to intervene. An impeachment matter for the very reason this district judge just said. It is considered a political question about a constitutional matter. You've heard me say over and over again that there's specific language in the constitution. It's there for reason when it comes to impeachment. But the battle between the house and the president. United States is a political battle. A whether or not you can impeach president goes down to the space on the constitutional language, but the judges are not going to get involved because it is a political battle. Just not. While we're on the subject slung into the subject, we're gonna have to learn more and more about peach Manar wing. And it's something that on this program we are uniquely. Qualified to discuss. I mean beyond the surface level. In as I pointed out to you before one of the finest constitutional thinkers that I've read in modern times is a late professor by the name Rallo burger. And. Robert Bork also was friends with him and admired him, but the absolutely brilliant. To me. He wrote the definitive book on a peach McComb impeachment, the constitutional problems, and I can assure you, there's not a single person on TV who's talking to about this matter. Who's read the book, not one? Are looked at the original footnotes not one, except me when I appear on TV. And. Is a very, very brilliant, man. And he. He writes, part, keep it up here. It could be a second. Scholarly. Studies more apt to provoke fresh polemics than distill incessant debate on the matter of impeachment. Even so I would maintain that history furnishes a plane answer to at least one question that has long cluttered analysis. That is the test of an impeachable offence in England. And this is what it was based on is not an indictable common law crime. And when the framers withheld from congress the powered inflict criminal punishment. Which have been exercised by parliament under the course of parliament as distinguished from the general criminal law, when they limited congressional sanctions on a peach -ment to remove and disqualification left criminal punishment to subsequent indictment and conviction. They plainly separated impeachment from criminal process. Why am I reading this part because you've been hearing pablum? Oddly enough from people who criticize Muller on something happens to be right about, which is you cannot indicted sitting present that is the position of the department of Justice, not that they special counsel or any US attorney could indict a president and then take it up with the attorney general, and he can reverse course. That's not what those memos say, and that's not what history says. That's not what history says. They separate impeachment from indictment. I want you to think this through, and there's more to this. I wanna get into this another phase of this, but you're smart. So I want you to think along with me. And by the way, every book signing, I do people come up to me. And they say when you say people getting bored. No, we want you to dig deeply. So I'm going to do it. Would it make sense? Ladies and gentlemen, that the framers of the constitution. Would leave it to a single assistant United States attorney. With a lapdog grand jury the determine whether or not a president should be criminally indicted, and yet withhold that power from the United States house of representatives. There were no US attorneys that were no assistant US attorneys. There was no attorney general the was no department of Justice there, isn't any of that stuff in the constitution. So do you think that the framers of the constitution somehow would have authorized Robert Muller to indict a sitting president of the United States, while withholding that power from the house of representatives? Of course not. Of course not. And so you have to fit this like a jigsaw puzzle. The so we now have a department of Justice, we now have United States attorneys, we now have a system, United States attorneys, that unfortunately special counsel from time to time fine. But you still have to give. Support for and be faithful to the constitutional structure. These are an attack on the constitutional structures laid out in the constitution. So to say that one of these individuals with a lapdog grand jury, and bring an indictment against a presently United States to cripple him or a secret indictment that would leak out to cripple him. Or do get an indictment and imprison him to cripple the entire executive branch when the framers of the constitution denied such a power Frei president in office to the house of representatives is absurd. There's absolutely no history wet, so ever or logic whatsoever to support that position. But I've been hearing it Dan weeks on and on and on. It's a lie. It's damnable lie. Now, let's go on. And he says this does Rallo burger. Great Yale, professor. A decent regard for the design of the founders resolved to avoid the excesses, which forever stigmatize Johnson tries talking about president Andrew Johnson. They wanted to remove him from office for basically political reasons. He was a democrat from Tennessee been a Senator, and it was the vice president under Brahim Lincoln, obviously ascended to the presidency when he was assassinated, the Republicans for furious. About him. There were some issues with him. I mean he drank very heavily and he refused. He refused to allow congress to remove members of his own cabinet. You might say, well, of course they came back, then there was some debate. And he said, no, they can't it will destroy the president's destroy the executive branch and they build a president to have confidence very much like what congress is doing now demanding the right to, to speak to the president's White House counsel. Former White House counsel and have access to the individuals documents Johnson objected in his own case as our president objects in his own case. If there are indeed limits to the impeachment power. He says the Senate may know more act in excess of those limits when it acts judicially, then when it acts legislatively, what he's saying is the house, and the Senate on have planetary power. It's not simply a political question. Another Dan ally that out there day in and day up, these phony, legal analysts he saying there's language in the constitution. It's confining not expanding its confining. Every branch of government? He writes, is confined to the limits drawn in the constitution and the purpose of those limits was the fence in the much-feared legislative branch. It was not left to the unlimited discretion of that branch to disrupt the other branches through resort to the impeachment power. In other words, the house has the power of peach, not just a president, not just the vice president, not just senior presidential officials, but members of the judiciary, and he said, it's not simply a political question, although it could unfortunately devolve into that. But that would be in violation of the limits placed by the provision of the impeachment clause on that house, representatives and the United States Senate. Now tell me, ladies and gentlemen. How many of these nitwits legal analysts on cable, and on network news have explained this to you? Not one. I'll. Be right back. You know that we talk a lot on the show about the problems with our national debt and our deficit, and how it's going to be very big problem. And there will, obviously be skyrocketing tax rates, and it's going to crush the income that you're planning on retirement, and it's not good. So what do we do to prepare for it? David Epstein Bradley white are hosting mardi ruby renowned author tax free retirement specialist, and he believes that the perfect.

president United States department of Justice vice president United States Senate professor supreme court congress Robert Muller Alan Dershowitz Andrew Johnson assistant United States attorn Dan ally special counsel attorney Robert Bork Manar wing
"assistant united states attorney" Discussed on KTRH

KTRH

09:42 min | 2 years ago

"assistant united states attorney" Discussed on KTRH

"There was a piece written in the hill, the other day by professor. Alan Dershowitz, who have enormous respect for all always a leftist. So I don't agree with that stuff. But he tries to be consistent, when it comes to the constitution and usually is, but he wrote a piece it was, it was very fascinating piece in the hill. And he said, the basically, yes, the supreme court can intervene in an impeachment matter, if that impeachment is outside the constitution. I won't elaborate you can read it yourselves. That's ridiculous. It's ridiculous. The supreme court is never going to intervene. An impeachment matter for the very reason this district judge just said. It is considered a political question about a constitutional manner. You've heard me say over and over again that there's specific language in the constitution. It's there for a reason when it comes to impeachment. But the battle between the house and the president. United States is a political battle. A whether or not you can impeach president goes down to the space on the constitutional language, but the judges are not going to get involved because it is a political battle. Not. While we're on this subject slung into the subject, we're gonna have to learn more and more about peach men. We. And it's something that on this program we are uniquely. Qualified to discuss. I mean beyond the surface level. And as I pointed out to you before one of the finest constitutional thinkers that I've read in modern times is a late professor by the name Raoul Berger. And. Robert Bork also was friends with him and admired him, but the absolutely brilliant. To me. He wrote the definitive book on peach mccone impeachment, the constitutional problems, and I can assure you, there's not a single person on TV who's talking to about this matter. Who's read the book, not one? Are looked at the original footnotes not one, except me when I appear on TV. And. Is a very, very brilliant, man. And he. He writes in part. It up here it could be a second. Scholarly. Studies more apt to provoke fresh polemics than distill incessant debate on the matter of impeachment. Even so I would maintain that history furnishes a plane answer to at least one question that has long cluttered analysis. That is the test of an impeachable offence in England. And this is what it was based on. It's not at indictable common law crime. And when the framers withheld from congress the powered inflict criminal punishment. Which had been exercised by parliament under the course of parliament as distinguished from the general criminal law, when they limited congressional sanctions on impeachment to remove and disqualification left criminal punishment to subsequent indictment and conviction. They plainly separated impeachment from criminal process, now, why am I reading this part because you've been hearing pablum? Oddly enough from people who criticize Muller on something happens to be right about, which is you candidate. Ascending present that is the position of the department of Justice, not that they special counsel or any US attorney can indict a president and then take it up with the attorney general, and he can reverse course, that's not what those memos say, and that's not what history says. That's not what history is. They separate impeachment from indictment. I want you to think this through there's more to this. I want to get into this another phase of this, but you're smart. So I want you to think along with me. And by the way, every book signing, I do people come up to me. And they say when you say people getting bored. No, we want you to dig deeply. So I'm going to do it. Would it make sense? Ladies and gentlemen, that the framers of the constitution. Would leave it to a single assistant United States attorney. With a lapdog ranger, the determine whether or not a president should be criminally indicted and yet. Withhold that power from the United States house of representatives. There were no US attorneys that are were no assistant US attorneys. There was no attorney general. There was no department of Justice, there, isn't any of that stuff in the constitution. So do you think that the framers of the constitution somehow would have authorized Robert Muller to indict a sitting president of the United States, while withholding that power from the house of representatives? Of course not. Of course not. And so you have to fit this, like a jigsaw, puzzle the so we now have department of Justice, we now have United States attorneys, we now have a system, United States attorneys now, unfortunately special counsel from time to time fine. But you still have to give. Support for and be faithful to the constitutional structure. These are an attack on the constitutional structures laid out in the constitution. So to say that one of these individuals with a lapdog grand jury can bring an indictment against a present the United States to cripple him or a secret indictment that would leak out to cripple him. Or do get an indictment and imprison him to cripple the entire executive branch when the framers of the constitution denied such power for a president in office to the house of representatives is absurd. There's absolutely no history wet, so ever or logic whatsoever. The support that position. But I've been hearing it for Dan wakes on and on and on. It's a lie. It's damnable lie. Let's go on. And he says this does Raoul Berger. Great yell. Professor. A decent regard. For the design of the founders. Resolve to avoid the excesses which forever stigmatize Johnson tries turnabout president Andrew Johnson. They wanted to remove him from office for basically political reasons. He was a democrat from Tennessee had been a Senator. And it was the vice president under ABRAHAM LINCOLN, obviously ascended to the presidency when he was assassinated, and the Republicans for furious. About him. There were some issues with him. I mean he drank very heavily and he refused, you refuse to allow congress to remove members of his own cabinet. You might say, well, of course they came back, then there was some debate. And he said, no, they can't will destroy the president's destroy the executive branch and they build a president to have confidences very much like what congress is doing now demanding the right to, to speak to the president's White House counsel. Former White House counsel and have access to the individuals documents Johnson objected in his own case as our president of Jackson, his own case. If there are indeed limits to the impeachment power. He says the Senate may know more act in excess of those limits when it acts judicially, then when it acts legislatively, what he's saying is the house, and the Senate don't have plan. Ric power. It's not simply a political question. Another Dan ally. That's out there day in and day up. These phony, legal analysts he saying there's language in the constitution. It's confining not expanding its confining. Every branch of government? He writes, is confined to the limits drawn in the constitution and the purpose of those limits was defense in the much feared legislative branch. It was not left to the unlimited discretion of that branch to disrupt the other branches through resort to the impeachment power. In other words, the house has the power to impeach not just a president, not just the vice president, not just senior presidential officials, but members of the judiciary, and he said, it's not simply a political question, although it could unfortunately devolve into that. But that would be in violation of the limits placed by that provision of the impeachment clause on that house, representatives and the United States Senate. Now tell me, ladies and gentlemen. How many of these nitwits legal analysts on cable, and on network news have explained this to you, not one? I'll be right back. Newsradio seven forty KTAR h. Seventy seven percent of rural counties, lack sufficient primary healthcare, Blue Cross Blue shield is working to fill that gap by placing, former military medics and communities improving access for them of America..

president United States vice president professor department of Justice Raoul Berger supreme court congress United States Senate Robert Muller Alan Dershowitz White House Andrew Johnson assistant United States attorn Dan ally attorney special counsel Robert Bork
"assistant united states attorney" Discussed on News Radio 690 KTSM

News Radio 690 KTSM

09:45 min | 2 years ago

"assistant united states attorney" Discussed on News Radio 690 KTSM

"That was a piece written in the hill, the other day by professor. Alan Dershowitz, who have enormous respect for all always a leftist. So I don't agree with that stuff. But he tries to be consistent, when it comes to the constitution and usually is, but he wrote a piece it was, it was very fascinating piece in the hill. And he said, the basically, yes, the supreme court can intervene in an impeachment matter, if that impeachment is outside the constitution. Then I won't elaborate you can read it yourselves. That's ridiculous. It's ridiculous. The supreme court is never going to intervene in impeachment. Matter for the very reason this district judge just said. It is considered a political question about a constitutional matter. You've heard me say over and over again that there is specific language in the constitution. It's there for reason when it comes to impeachment. But the battle between the house and the president. United States is a political battle. Whether or not you can impeach a president goes down to based on the constitutional language, but the judges are not going to get involved because it is a political battle. Not. Now, while we're on this subject slung into the subject, we're gonna have to learn more and more about peach Manar wing. And it's something that illness program. We are uniquely qualified to discuss. I mean beyond the surface level. And as I pointed out to you before one of the finest constitutional thinkers that I've read in modern times is a late professor by the name Raoul Berger. And. Robert Bork also was friends with him and admired him, but the absolutely brilliant. To me. He wrote the definitive book on a peach mccone impeachment, the constitutional problems, and I can assure you, there's not a single person on TV who's talking to about this matter. Who's read the book, not one? Are looked at the original footnotes not one, except me when I appear on TV. And. Is a very, very brilliant, man. And he. He writes in part. It up here it could be a second. Scholarly. Studies more apt to provoke fresh polemics than distill incessant debate on the matter of impeachment. Even so I would maintain that history furnishes a plane answer to at least one question that has long cluttered analysis. That is the test of an impeachable offence in England. And this is what it was based on. But it's not an indictable common law crime. And when the framers withheld from congress the powered inflict criminal punishment. Which had been exercised by parliament under the course of parliament as distinguished from the general criminal law, when they limited congressional sanctions on a peach -ment to remove and disqualification left criminal punishment to subsequent indictment and conviction. They plainly separated impeachment from criminal process, now, why am I reading this part because you've been hearing pablum? Oddly enough from people who criticize Muller on something happens to be right about, which is you cannot indicted, sitting president, that is the position, the department of Justice, not that they special counsel or any US attorney can indict a president and then take it up with the attorney general, and he can reverse course. That's not what those memos say, and that's not what history says. That's not what history says. They separate impeachment from indictment. I want you to think this through there's more to this. I want to get into this another phase of this, but you're smart. So I want you to think along with me. And by the way, every book signing, I do people come up to me. And they say when you say people getting bored. No, we want you to dig deeply. So I'm going to do it. Would it make sense? Ladies and gentlemen, that the framers of the constitution. Would leave it to a single assistant United States attorney. With a lapdog grand jury the determine whether or not president should be criminally indicted and yet. Withhold that power from the United States house of representatives. There were no US attorneys that are were no assistant US attorneys. There was no attorney general the was no department of Justice there, isn't any of that stuff in the constitution. So do you think that the framers of the constitution somehow would have authorized Robert Muller to indict a sitting president of the United States, while withholding that power from the house of representatives? Of course not. Of course not. And so you have to fit this like a jigsaw puzzle. So we now have a department of Justice, we now have the United States turns. We now have assistant United States attorneys now, unfortunately special counsel from time to time fine. But you still have to give. Support for and be faithful to the constitutional structure. These are an attack on the constitutional structures laid out in the constitution. So to say that one of these individuals with a lapdog grand jury, and bring an indictment against a presently United States to cripple him or a secret indictment that would leak out to cripple him. Or do get an indictment and imprison him to cripple the entire executive branch when the framers of the constitution denied such a power for president in office to the house of representatives is absurd. There's absolutely no history wet, so ever or logic whatsoever to support that position. But I've been hearing it, Dan wakes. On and on and on. It's a lie. It's damnable lie. Now, let's go on. And he says this does Raoul Berger. Great yell. Professor. A decent regard. For the design of the founders resolved to avoid the excesses, which forever stigmatize Johnson tries talking about president Andrew Johnson. They wanted to remove him from office for basically political reasons. He was a democrat from Tennessee been a Senator, and it was the vice president under ABRAHAM LINCOLN, obviously ascended to the presidency when he was assassinated, and the Republicans for furious. About him. Now the were some issues with him. I mean he drank very heavily and he refused refused to allow congress to remove members of his own cabinet. Now, you might say, well, of course they came back, then there was some debate. And he said, no, they can't it will destroy the president's destroy the executive branch and they build a president to have confidences very much like what congress is doing now demanding the right to, to speak to the president's White House counsel. Former White House counsel and have access to individuals documents Johnson objected in his own case as our president objects in his own case. If there are indeed limits to the impeachment power. He says the Senate may know more act in excess of those limits when it acts judicially, then when it acts legislatively, what he's saying is the house, and the Senate don't have planetary power. It's not simply a political question. Another Dan ally. That's out there day in and day up. These phony, legal analysts he saying there's language in the constitution. It's confining not expanding its confining. Every branch of government? He writes, is confined to the limits drawn in the constitution and the purpose of those limits was defense in the much feared legislative branch. It was not left to the unlimited discretion of that branch to disrupt the other branches through resort to the impeachment power. In other words, the house has the powered on peach, not just a president, not just vice president, not just senior presidential officials, but members of the judiciary, and he said, it's not simply a political question, although it could unfortunately devolve into that. But that would be in violation of the limits placed by the provisions of the impeachment clause on the house, representatives, and the United States Senate. Now tell me, ladies and gentlemen. How many of these network, legal analysts on cable, and on network news have explained this to you, not one? I'll be right back. Seventy seven percent of rural counties, lack sufficient primary healthcare, Blue Cross Blue shield is working to fill that gap by placing former military medics in communities improving access for all of America, the Lou Cross Blue Shield association is an association of independent locally operated..

president United States department of Justice professor vice president Raoul Berger supreme court congress United States Senate Robert Muller Alan Dershowitz assistant United States attorn Dan ally special counsel attorney Robert Bork Manar wing
"assistant united states attorney" Discussed on 850 WFTL

850 WFTL

12:17 min | 2 years ago

"assistant united states attorney" Discussed on 850 WFTL

"Federal dot com. The Muller's has proved us entire operation was a political hit job that trampled, the rule of law. I want to get down to this, this portion here. In fact, department of Justice guidelines, expressly prohibit the actions of both Muller and Komi in naming and shaming. Individuals were never formally charged with any wrongdoing. This has come come up from a couple of our from couple of our Email or stable. Well, this, this has happened before doesn't matter. You're not supposed to do it. Right. Quote department of Justice, as a series of cases, makes clear. There is no ordinary legitimate governmental interest served by the government's public allegation of wrongdoing by an uncharged party. And this is true, regardless of what criminal charges may become contemplated by the assistant United States attorney against third party for the future states. The department of Justice's formal policy manual on the duties federal prosecutors and the principles of federal prosecution. Wins nationwide bar rules governing all practicing attorneys in the United States also explicitly prohibit Muller's display, during Wednesday's press conference, quote. The prosecutor in a criminal case shall refrain for making extrajudicial comments that have a substantial likelihood of heightening public. Condemnation of the accused end of quote states. World, three point eight of the American Bar Association rules of professional conduct multiple federal agents. And prosecutors reached out to the federal after Muller's press conference to express dismay at the former FBI director is behavior, quote, I'd have been crucified under this rule for a not innocent comment about an uncharged party of former federal prosecutor told the federalist, I literally cannot fathom holding a press conference to say that an uncharged person was not innocence innocent. Quote, I wish these former FBI directors would learn their lessons. Keep your mouth shut unless you're referring a case for prosecution. Suggest rea retired FBI supervisor during a phone. Call interview with the federalist on Wednesday. Muller's performance made it clear for all to see that what he ran for the last two years wasn't an independent investigation pursuant to the rule of law so much as an inquisition motivated by political animus Muller and his team refused to charge prominent Democrats for crimes. He charged against Republicans, Paul Manafort, was charged with unregistered lobbying of foreign governments while Muller left alone, longtime democratic donor, Tony Podesta, and former Obama White House counsel, Greg Craig George popadopoulos, and Michael Flynn were charged with making false statements to federal investigators while Clinton campaign cronies, Glenn Simpson. And Christopher steals false statements to congress and the FBI were of Nord fronts, non-existent rushing. Connections were plumbed will a dubious Clinton campaign funded dossier source directly to Russian officials was used as a prosecutorial roadmap rather than rock, solid evidence of actual campaign collusion with the Kremlin every. Thing that we've stated. Yeah. This is an we by the way we stay that long time ago. We said, if you listen to show you what we said, if Muller does not go down the route of the FIS award. And, and the collusion of the DNC and the Hillary campaign through pain, the former British fide Christopher Steele by funneling the money to him in order to get dirt from inside the Kremlin. To attempt to destroy the Trump campaign. And when they couldn't do that attempt to destroy the legitimacy of the two thousand sixteen election and use that the FBI and intelligence agencies pushing that to get the, the FBI the FIS warrant and the intelligence agencies to disseminate that information out and push it as legit in order to destroy the twenty sixteen election. As we said, if Muller ignores that. Then it shows that he is a political hack when it came out. And we saw that, that was not there. We said that shows the political hackery. We made that early on Dershowitz disagreed with us in thought than Muller was honorable yesterday, Bali. Alan Dershowitz came out and said, no, he's partisan. Guess that this is a partisan. This is not a what a prosecutor does this is what a politician political act does. And it was it was, it was political trawling yesterday. That's what that was. The had to have his moment, he had to make his moment. Aleni else makes the point. He said, baller says. My report stands, you know, stands for itself within why are you staying exactly then? Why are you here? Why are you here? Right. Well, this is something I said yesterday, I said, you know, the because we're talking about will he testify and we said yesterday, there's no way Muller's going to testify. This is hours before he came out and made statement. This is hours before anybody knew he was going to make a statement. But we said no he's not going to testify and his statement is already I mean, all that he has had to say is already in his report. Let it's funny he set. He actually said that during his statement. Then why are you here? You're at a podium. I'm not going to be speaking. You're doing it right now. It's ridiculous. But he had to make the statement. Had to make a statement. Well, we're not going to tell you he was innocent. That's all folks, I gotta go. What the hell does that mean what it means is I need my friends on the hill to get this done because I can't find a thing, what it was from a prosecutor was you need to impeach president right in essence, because I can't prove that he committed obstruction of Justice. It would have been very acceptable for him to write a report, if he had found evidence I can't prove to a jury right there was obstruction of Justice. Probably can't prove the case and get it to a judge. Right. And I definitely can't, you know, I definitely cannot stand cross examination right on my ideas. What obstruction of Justice may be so you impeach and he could've pointed out, and it's a report said this law was broken this person was responsible. This is how they broke the law. This is what constitutes. That crime. Now, the attorney general can do whatever here's our report. Here's what we found. On a factual basis. No. They needed it to be something else all along. It's funny. We heard trade out say that, you know, talking about stroke from the beginning eight-man man that this is headed toward impeachment. I'm on, I'm on board. I'm in. Who does that pumps, somebody who wants to be something there? They their agenda is all about that end and that's exactly what you saw for Muller yesterday. And that statement, you know, I wonder because what you saw from Democrats even yesterday why we'll have to look at everything. But as the NBC analysts are set an MSN BC yesterday. The resistance is pretty ticked off at Mahler. Yeah. Right. So will there be after people digest this? Let's say they digested today and tomorrow and the rhetoric flying both ways, but we get to next week will there be a call an angry. Call from some Democrats that Muller must because remember the Muller must testify I you know, I guess it could come from the Senate. But it's the house that's been making on Democrats in the house had been making all the noise is Nadler, going to say now this Purves we need to get that, you know, look, obviously, I mean we'll will Democrats come out and say, look, obviously, I'm sure they will in the media, obviously Muller wants us to impeach so we need to get Muller in front of us to give us the roadmap to impeachment and tell us specifically why. Yeah, I, I think they're probably at that point right now. Where and what's interesting too, is that, you know, the impeachment thing, right up until now has been Kimberley strassel in the Wall Street Journal a couple of weeks ago wrote, what does Nadler really want, and he wants to show, he wants to put on the show, but the spectacle, does he wanna bad show? Well, here's the thing at some point, you do either have to move on. You know from it or you have to go through with it. So that's the question because after yesterday I think they're probably looking at this going, okay. If we don't, you know, capitalize on this right here were never really going to have a greater shot at impeachment. Again, we don't know what, what, what they'll base it on. What they'll try and make a case on, but this is kind of the. Alarm going off at the end of it. You're going to have to act now or move on. It has you have to make a decision fairly quickly. And if you're Nadler. What did you think? Because I in many ways as Andrew McCarthy points out Muller made it more difficult. What the statement I believe he thought that he was making it easier. I think he thought that he was essentially because of his agenda. He was making this whole thing. A he was going to be a hero. Who's going to be look, I'm telling you and peach that's basically what he said yesterday. We can't do anything. Our hands are tied. But you guys can. Well, and there was some anger because I think a lot of Democrats said, well, wait a minute. Your hands weren't tie. Right. They weren't if you've found something you should have said found something it should been that report, you don't have to move on it. You handed to the G and say the crime was broken. Here's the person or the crime was committed. The, the law was broken. Here's the person that or people that did it. And here's how they did it. This is what constitutes the crime. Here's the report. If you believe it's actionable go, right? We believe a crime was committed right at simple got seen in the constitution keeps kept Muller from doing that. Right. He just didn't want to go down that path. Right. Why? Right. Because he believed under cross examination, it would be torn to shreds hill. Knew he did have an obstruction case, and if they move on and mint, it's going to be torn Astrid shreds. He didn't. He didn't really help the left here on impeachment. He made that a bigger hill to climb. I'm not saying they won't move forward, but it's a lot different. Now, your calls and comments. Coming.

Muller prosecutor FBI department of Justice United States Nadler Kremlin Christopher Steele assistant United States attorn American Bar Association Alan Dershowitz Paul Manafort Kimberley strassel director rea
"assistant united states attorney" Discussed on 77WABC Radio

77WABC Radio

12:19 min | 2 years ago

"assistant united states attorney" Discussed on 77WABC Radio

"Com. The Muller's proved us entire operation was a political hit job that trampled the rule of law. I wanna get down to this, this portion here. In fact, department of Justice guidelines, expressly prohibit the actions of both Muller and Komi in naming and shaming. Individuals were never formally charged with any wrongdoing. This come come up from a couple of our from couple of our Email or stable. Well, this, this has happened before doesn't matter. You're not supposed to do it right. Quote department of Justice, as a series of cases, makes clear. There is no ordinary legitimate governmental interest served by the government's public allegation of wrongdoing by an uncharged party. And this is true, regardless of what criminal charges may become contemplated by the assistant United States attorney against third party for the future States, Department of Justice's formal policy manual on the duties of federal prosecutors, and the principles of federal prosecutions nationwide bar rules governing all practicing attorneys in the United States also explicitly prohibit Muller's display during Wednesday's press conference quote. The prosecutor in a criminal case shall refrain for making extrajudicial comments that have a substantial likelihood of heightening public condemnation of the accused end of quote states ruled three point eight of the American Bar Association rules of professional conduct multiple federal agents. And prosecutors reached out to the federal after Muller's press conference to express dismay at the former FBI director is behavior, quote, I'd have been crucified under this rule for a not innocent comment about an uncharged party of former federal prosecutor told the federalist, I literally cannot fathom holding a press conference to say that an uncharged person was not innocence innocent. Quote, I wish he's former FBI directors learn their lessons. Keep your mouth shut unless you're referring a case for prosecution. Said, Jeff Danna retired FBI supervisor during a phone call interview with the federalist on Wednesday. Muller's performance made it clear for all the see that what he ran for the last two years, wasn't, an independent investigation pursuant to the rule of law, such as an inquisition motivated by political animus Muller and his team refused to charge prominent Democrats for crimes. He charged against Republicans, Paul Manafort, was charged with unregistered lobbying of foreign governments while Muller left alone, longtime democratic donor, Tony Podesta, and former Obama White House counsel, Greg Craig George popadopoulos, and Michael Flynn were charged with making false statements to federal investigators while Clinton campaign cronies, Glenn Simpson. And Christopher steals false statements to congress and the FBI were Nord. Trump's non-existent rushing connections were plumbed, while a dubious Clinton campaign funded dossier source directly to Russian officials was used as a prosecutorial, roadmap rather than rock, solid evidence of actual campaign collusion with the Kremlin. That we have stated. Yeah, this is. And we by the way we stay that long time ago. We said, if you listen to show you what we said, if Muller does not go down the route of the FIS award. And, and the collusion of the DNC and Hillary campaign through pain, the former British fide Christopher Steele by funneling the money to him in order to get dirt from inside the Kremlin. To attempt to destroy the Trump campaign. And when they couldn't do that attempt to destroy the legitimacy of the twenty sixteen election and use that the FBI and intelligence agencies pushing that to get the, the FBI the FIS warrant and the intelligence agencies to disseminate that information out and push it as legit in order to destroy the twenty sixteen election. As we said, if Muller ignores that. Then it shows that he is a political hack when it came out. And we saw that, that was not there. We said that shows the political hackery. We made that early on Dershowitz disagreed with us in than Muller's honorable yesterday. Bali. Ellen Dershowitz came out and said, no support guess that this is a partisan. This is not a what a prosecutor does this is what a politician political hack does. And it was. It was it was political trolling yesterday. That's what that was. He had to have his moment. He had to make his moment else makes the point. He said Muller says. My report stands, you know, dance word self within. Why are you explaining exactly then? Why are you here? Right. Well, this is something I said yesterday, I said, you know, because we're talking about will he testify and we said yesterday, there's no way mama's going to testify. This is hours before he came out and met statement. This is hours before anybody knew he was going to make a statement. But we said no he's not going to testify and his statement is already I mean, all that he has had to say is already in his report. Then it's funny. He he actually said that during his statement, then why are you here? You're at a podium. I'm not going to be speaking. You're doing it right now. I mean it's ridiculous. But he had to make a statement. Had to make a statement. Well, we're not going to tell you he was innocent. That's all folks, I gotta go. What the hell does that mean what it means is I need my friends on the hill to get this done. Because I can't find a thing, what it was from of prosecutor was you need to impeach president, right in essence, because I can't prove that he committed obstruction of Justice. It would have been very acceptable for him to write a report, if he had found evidence I can't prove to a jury right there was obstruction of Justice. Probably can't prove the case and get it to judge. Right. And I definitely can't, you know, I definitely cannot stand cross examination right on my ideas. What obstruction of Justice may be so you impeach right? And I mean he could've pointed out, and his a report said, this law was broken this person was responsible. This is how they broke the law. This is what constitutes. That crime. Now, the attorney general can do whatever here's our report. Here's what we found. On a factual basis. They needed it to be something else all along. It's funny. We heard trae out say that, you know talking about struck from the beginning. Hey, man. This is headed toward impeachment. I'm on, I'm on board. I mean. Who does that put somebody who wanted to be something there? They their agenda is all about that end and that's exactly what you saw for Muller yesterday. And that statement, you know, I wonder because what you saw from Democrats even yesterday why we'll have to look at everything. But as the NBC analysts said, unanmous Amec's yesterday, the resistance is pretty ticked off at Muller. Yeah. Right. So will there be after people digest this, and let's say they digested today and tomorrow and the rhetoric flying both ways, but we get to next week will there be a call an angry. Call from some Democrats that Muller must too, because remember the Muller must testify, I guess it could come from the Senate. But it's the house, it's been making the Democrats in the house had been making all the noise, it's Nadler, going to say now this Purves we need to get that, you know, look, obviously, I mean, we'll Democrats come out and say, look, obviously, I'm sure they won't the media, obviously Muller wants us to impeach so we need to get Muller in front of us to give us the roadmap to impeachment and tell us specifically why. Yep. I, I think they're probably at, at that point right now where and what's interesting too is that, you know, the impeachment thing, right up until now has been Kimberley strassel in the Wall Street Journal a couple of weeks ago wrote, what does Nadler really want, and he wants to show, he wants to put on the show expectable does he wanna bad show though? Well, here's the thing. At some point, you do either have to move on. You know from it or you have to go through with it. So that's the question because after yesterday I think they're probably looking this on, okay? If we don't, you know, capitalize on this right here were never really going to have a greater shot at impeachment. Again, we don't know what, what, what they'll base it on. What they'll try and make a case on, but this is kind of the. Alarm going off at the end of it. You're going to have to act now or move on. It has you have to make a decision fairly quickly. And if you're not ler. What do you think? In many ways, as Andrew McCarthy points out Muller made it more difficult. With the statement, I believe he thought that he was making it easier. I think he thought that he was essentially because of his agenda. He was making this whole thing. He was going to be the hero who's going to be. Look, I'm telling you impeach. That's basically what he said yesterday. We can't do anything. Our hands are tied. But you guys can well, and there was some anger because I think a lot of Democrats will wait a minute your hands weren't tied. Right. They weren't. If you've found something you should have said something it should've been that report, you don't have to move on it. You handed to the G and say the crime was broken. Here's the person or the crime was committed. The law was broken. Here's the person that or people that did it. And here's how they did it. This is what constitutes the crime. Here's the report. If you believe it's actionable go, right? We believe a crime was committed. Right. That simple. Nothing in the constitution keeps kept Muller from doing that. Right. He just didn't want to go down that path. Right. Why? Right. Because he believed under cross examination, it would be torn to shreds hill. Knew he didn't have an obstruction case, and if they move on and peach mint, it's going to be torn distract tribes. He didn't. He didn't really help the left here on impeachment. He made that a bigger hill to climb. I'm not saying they won't move forward, but it's a lot different. Now, your calls in.

Muller prosecutor FBI department of Justice United States American Bar Association assistant United States attorn Jeff Danna director Ellen Dershowitz Paul Manafort Bali Trump Christopher Steele Kimberley strassel
"assistant united states attorney" Discussed on WCBM 680 AM

WCBM 680 AM

04:21 min | 2 years ago

"assistant united states attorney" Discussed on WCBM 680 AM

"All right as we continue with former army, personal Michael Behan a- and his mom Vicky Mehanna and John Richter with us as they have. Now, the president yesterday granting now let me bring in John Richter. You know, John, I do like the innocence project and berry Sheck as actually convinced me unless there's a video of a murderer and somebody getting the death penalty, we've made so many stupid mistakes and some political and some overaggressive prosecutors, I'm not supporting the death penalty, unless we got a video, Sean. Yo I appreciate you posing the question to me, but Vicki is actually the the executive director and Oklahoma. In addition to being Michael's mother. She obviously join this cause after many years as a career federal prosecutor, I've had the honor of representing Michael through this pardon process and serving as as his lawyer in this pardon process, and as a. Former United States attorney and former head of the criminal division. I can tell you personally that the actions of the prosecution in this case violate all decent standards for fair prosecution of defended. And while obviously a pardon process was not here to relitigate the case it nonetheless is an important part of considering whether forgiveness an act of grace like the president is giving Michael inappropriate. I just don't like the fact honestly at all that we now are putting handcuffs on on people. We put in life and death situation. We're sending these guys out to fight wars. Their lives are at risk. We're second guessing what they do. And we're putting handcuffs on them and rules of engagement that are obscene that puts their lives in jeopardy. I mean, you know, when I hear Michael story about, you know, his friends being blown up by. Geez. You know, put yourself in his position. And you this is the guy you believe has the information about where those explosives coming from. I'm sorry. I'm not going to be polite asking the guy that has the answer to that question. So that we can save American lives with. That's not a moment. To be polite. War is a very dark, ugly horrible, but necessary evil, and our guys are the good guys, you know, Al Qaeda killed three thousand Americans in two thousand and one. I mean, this is this is this really pisses me off because we're doing this not just to you, Michael we're doing it to too many people. There's a long laundry list of guys that are in prison for instances like yours. And I don't think it's fair. We're going to ask you to go fight bleed die risk your life. And and many don't come home or many don't come home with legs and arms. I think we ought to be able to put enough faith hope and trust that you're gonna make the right decision and not set. Second guess you. Right. Sorry. Got a little worked up. Well, we appreciate the passion on. I may ask him on. I got to be held when your son is in Leavenworth for five years. Oh, I would not wish that experience on my for. And it was you know, again as as John was saying, I mean, I when he was returning. I was. Assistant United States attorney working in that office. And just never think you're going to have to hire a criminal defense lawyer for your arms. I don't think that's going to happen. When you send it off to combat worry when I sent him off to combat that. Well, we're glad you're home. And I'm sorry. You had to go through this, Michael. And and Vicky of a loving mom, therefore you and family, and I do thank you for serving your country. We owed you better than this though. This is you did not deserve this. This has to stop. And I wish you the best future. Endeavors, and we'll see you on TV tonight. We get to actually see you guys are going to join us and tell your story on television. I can't wait to see you. Okay. He is right. Thank you. Sean eight hundred nine four one Sean toll-free telephone number quick break right back. We'll continue. This report brought to you by Maryland's for it's no change that situation over on the west side still have the crash.

Michael Behan John Richter Vicky Mehanna Sean president Michael executive director United States attorney Oklahoma berry Sheck Vicki Maryland Assistant United States attorn Leavenworth five years
"assistant united states attorney" Discussed on KGO 810

KGO 810

09:02 min | 2 years ago

"assistant united states attorney" Discussed on KGO 810

"Zero eight zero eight one zero follow me on Twitter. Send me your tweets. I what a day are coming up in about twelve minutes. We've got David Katz. Former assistant United States attorney. To talk about the constitutionality about this new national aid -mergency as declared by the president of the United States of America. Congressional correspondent for the New York Times nNcholas fan does is gonna join me as well. And a little under thirty minutes. What happens next? And I wanna take your calls too. Because this was a wild morning at the rose garden with the president declaring after five minutes of prefatory statements, which was really odd. If it's a national emergency went you immediately go in I don't know like presents beforehand. And say all right. Here's what's going on. Folks. We got a problem. We're being run on the cartels. The Zayd is moved into Texas, New Mexico. Arizona they have taken over territory in the southern United States of America. Oh my God. We have a foreign power who has invaded. We have a national emergency. I cannot wait for congress to act, although in that case, congress would actually act in a very rapid fashion as we saw after nine eleven, and if it was very bipartisan coming together to authorize use of military force to go after the terrorists. But here we have no such thing. The facts are very clear and simple. The facts are very clear and simple. Crossings on our southern border was over one point six million in the year, two thousand it's been steadily down had some little bumps up steadily down slightly up now about three hundred ninety thousand weight one point six million in the year, two thousand three hundred ninety thousand now you see what that trend line looks like right down dramatically. Okay. The drug enforcement agency itself. Customs border protection DA have shown it is seven in eight seven eighths of the illicit drugs coming into the United States. Come through the ports of entry seven eighths. Interdicted by the coast guard. I that aren't interdicted beforehand seven eighths, according to the DA and the Trump zone, DNC BP mind, you come through the ports of entry. And I mean, shall we continue the crime rate of people who are not native born as lower etcetera, no way diminishes angel moms, and what has happened to them that in no way diminishes what happened to the Stanley family that in no way changes how we feel about anybody who has been a victim of a crime in any way, shape or form. But the facts are the facts, and yet the president chose to ignore all the facts admitted as such in the speech today at the rose garden admitted as such. And is going tomorrow Lago this weekend while there's national emergency seeing if there's a national emergency would you go tomorrow Lago to go play golf? Go hang out with your pals, drink and cavort. No, typically, not if there's an actual emergency. And actual which is is not Trump himself admitted. I wanna play a little clip for you from this morning's, I don't know what you call. This thing that happened at the rose garden national emergency declaration moment, where President Trump himself. Yeah. President Trump himself said. Different ways. It's not that urgent. But he wanted to make listen to his actual words around this take a listen this from this morning at the rose garden. This is the president of the United States of America talking. I want to do it faster. I could do the wall over a longer period of time. I didn't need to do this. But I'd rather do it much faster. And I don't have to do it for the election. I've already done a lot of wall for the election twenty twenty. I couldn't I didn't need to do. It this way. I could well, then it's not a national emergency. Boy, are you in trouble. When you go to court get a fair, shake, they'll give you a fair shake. They'll give you a fair shake, and you're gonna lose you're going to lose like a loser. You're gonna lose like the sixteen Republicans who ran against you as a twenty sixteen Republican primary. That's the way you're gonna lose. You're gonna lose all the way through the supreme court. Because as we found there's gonna there are limits to what you're going to be able to do let's take this a step further, though, what are these facts, he uses I do we have time to listen to that that exchange with Jim Acosta and the other reporter followed up take take a listen to this. Because this was the most amazing thing this was after he was done. He was taking questions from reporters on unbelievable how he admits. I just make stuff up and throw it out there. He essentially admits that take a listen. Yes. Jim acosta. Thank you, Mr President. I wonder if you could comment on this disconnect that we seem to have in this country where you are presenting information about what's happening at the border calling it an invasion talking about women with duct tape over their mouths and so on and yet there's a lot of reporting out there. There's a lot of crime data out there. There's a lot of a department of homeland security data out there that shows border crossings at a near record low. But it still undocumented immigrants eight meetings. Lower levels shows undocumented criminals are undocumented immigrants committing crime at lower levels than native born Americans. What do you say, you don't you don't really believe? That's what you really believe it. Federal I believe I believe in facts and statistics. Let's go. Let me ask you this. What do you say to your critics who say that you are creating a national emergency the year concocting, national emergency here in order to get your wall? What do you think you think I'm creating something ask these incredible women who lost their daughters in this sons? Okay. Because your question is a very political question because you have an agenda your CNN your fake news. You have an agenda the numbers that you gave a wrong take a look at our federal prison population. See how many of them percentage wise? Are illegal aliens. Just see go ahead and see. It's a fake question. Yes. Go ahead. Thank you, Mr President just to follow up on that you unifying crime reporting statistics numbers from your own border patrol numbers from this government show that the amount of illegal immigrants are down. There is not violence on the border, and that is most islands and there's not as much violence. Six people finish the please let me finish a question weeks ago. Twenty six people were killed. I understand what you're mile away from where I went I under. I was there. I understand. That's not the question. The question is do we forget about that? No. I'm not forgetting that. I'm asking you to clarify where you get your numbers because most of the DA crimes reporting statistics that we see show that drugs are coming cross at the ports of entry that illegal immigration is down and the violence is down. So what do you base your legs come on? Let's go. Seconds. You get one you get one. Wait, sit down sit down could you? Please. You get one question. I get my numbers from a lot of sauce like homeland security. Corner right from homeland security are a disaster. And you know, what else is a disaster. The numbers that come out of homeland security Pearson for the cost that we spend and the money that we lose because of illegal immigration, billions and billions of dollars a month, billions and billions of dollars based on and it's unnecessary. So your own government stats are wrong. Or you know, I use many stats could. With us. Let me tell you you have far worse than the ones that I use. But I use many stats, but I also use any homeland security. Our next women many many many, we don't know what the stats are. Nobody's ever heard of them. But yeah, I mean, I use many our right? What is this going to look like constitutionally, how do we move forward legislatively? This is such a weird situation to be in former assistant US attorney, David Katz joins me next for one five eight hundred eighty eight ten I know it isn't true truth. G O eight ten and streaming online at K G,.

United States president rose garden President America Trump David Katz Jim Acosta assistant United States attorn congress New York Times Twitter Mr President Lago supreme court Arizona Zayd assistant US attorney CNN
"assistant united states attorney" Discussed on WMAL 630AM

WMAL 630AM

03:13 min | 2 years ago

"assistant united states attorney" Discussed on WMAL 630AM

"At it. What's the name of the US attorney? What's the name of the prosecutor those looking at it getting a surname? There isn't any. Mr. Muller keeps going to Mr. Rosenstein. To expand his investigation. But he never asked to expand it where Russia is slapping. I'm right in the face. Now. Why is that? We know why it is. We know why it is. And I had gotten so concerned about this at decided, honestly, this is not a promotion, but you think about it. That on my FOX Sunday show. This is really where I can do it to reach the most people other than radio. My single guest. Is Sydney panel. A caller called in and suggested we were already thinking about it. But I want to thank the caller anyway. She's a former assistant United States attorney. She served under nine different US attorneys, democrat and Republican appointed. And she's litigated against Andrew. Weisman. And you're going to learn more about how this special counsel's office operates and the invisible hand behind Muller and all the activities going on. Because what you see that happened to stone today? What you see that happened a matter for months ago also happened to the Enron executives to the Andersen? Executives to four Merrill, Lynch executives, and you're going to see what the supreme court ruled. You're going to see what some appellate courts ruled this guy. Weisman. Has been given more and more responsibilities. More and more power by Muller over the course of the last twenty years. Roger stone. Is not a serious person. He's a joke. He's a gossiper. He stirs the you know what? He's easy pickings for a prosecutor. Who's just out to do damage? And we should have absolutely object to that as a people. If these guys can do this too powerful people to famous people, they will roll over you in two seconds. I a bankrupt you then they're out to destroy you. There is no reason for me to still be going after manifested in Washington DC. When it's got an arm long list. Of guilty decisions in Virginia. Where manager it's going to be spending an incredible amount of time in prison. Depending on his appeal. Roger stone in Florida today. He spoke to the American people. And when we come back, I want you to hear this many of you actually actually work during the day. You didn't hear this those of you were listening? I wanna play this for you. I'll be right back..

Mr. Muller Roger stone assistant United States attorn Weisman prosecutor Mr. Rosenstein US attorney US Washington DC special counsel Andersen Sydney Merrill Andrew Lynch Russia Virginia Florida twenty years two seconds
"assistant united states attorney" Discussed on WCBM 680 AM

WCBM 680 AM

03:14 min | 2 years ago

"assistant united states attorney" Discussed on WCBM 680 AM

"Who the house looking at it. What's the name of the US attorney? What's the name of the prosecutor those looking at it gives us surname? There isn't any. Mr. Muller keeps going to Mr. Rosenstein. To expand his investigation. But he never asked to expand it where Russia is slapping. I'm right in the face. Now. Why is that? We know why it is. We know why it is. And I have gotten so concerned about this. I decided honestly, this is not a promotion, but you think about it. That on my FOX Sunday show. This is really where I can do it to reach the most people other than radio. My single guest. Is Sydney panel. A caller called in and suggested we were already thinking about it. But I want to thank the caller anyway. She's a former assistant United States attorney. She served under nine different US attorneys. Democrat Republican appointed. And she has litigated against Andrew. Weisman. And you're going to learn more about how this special counsel's office operates and the invisible hand behind Muller and all the activities going on. Because what you see that happened to stone day. What you see that happened a matter for months ago also happened to the Enron executives to the Andersen? Executives to four Merrill, Lynch executives, and you're going to see what the supreme court ruled. You're going to see what some appellate courts ruled this guy. Weisman. Has been given more and more responsibilities. More and more power by Muller over the course of the last twenty years. Roger stone. Is not a serious person. He's a joke. He's a gossiper. He stirs the you know what? He's easy pickings for prosecutor. Who's just out to do damage? And we should absolutely object to that as a people. If these guys can do this too powerful people to famous people, they will roll over you and two seconds. I they bankrupt you then they're out to destroy you. There is no reason for me to still be going after manifested in Washington DC. When it's got an arm long list. Of. Guilty decisions in Virginia. Where manifest it's going to be spending an incredible amount of time in prison. Depending on his appeal. Roger stone in Florida today. He spoke to the American people. And when we come back, I want you to hear this many of you actually actually work during the day, and you didn't hear this those of you are listening. I wanna play this for you. I'll be right back..

Mr. Muller Roger stone assistant United States attorn Weisman prosecutor Mr. Rosenstein US attorney US Washington DC special counsel Andersen Sydney Merrill Andrew Lynch Russia Virginia Florida twenty years
"assistant united states attorney" Discussed on KTRH

KTRH

03:12 min | 2 years ago

"assistant united states attorney" Discussed on KTRH

"At it. What's the name of the US attorney? What's the name of the prosecutor who's looking at it gives us their name? There isn't any. Mr. Muller keeps going to Mr. Rosenstein. To expand his investigation. But he never asked to expand it where Russia is slapping. I'm right in the face. Now. Why is that? We know why it is. We know why it is. And I have gotten so concerned about this at decided, honestly, this is not a promotion, but you think about it. That on my FOX Sunday show. This is really where I can do it to reach the most people other than radio. My single guest. Is Sydney power. Our caller called in and suggested we were already thinking about it. But I want to thank the caller anyway. She's a former assistant United States attorney. She served under nine different US attorneys, democrat and Republican appointed. And she has litigated against Andrew. Weisman. And you're going to learn more about how this special counsel's office operates and the invisible hand behind Muller and all the activities going on. Because what you see that happened to stone today? What you see that happened? A Manfred months ago also happened to the Enron executives to the Andersen. Executives to four Merrill, Lynch executives, and you're going to see what the supreme court ruled. You're going to see what some appellate courts ruled this guy. Weisman. Has been given more and more responsibilities. More and more power by Muller over the course of the last twenty years. Roger stone. Is not a serious person. He's a joke. He's a gossiper. He stirs the you know what? He's easy pickings for a prosecutor. Who's just out to do damage? And we should have absolutely object to that as a people. If these guys can do this too powerful people to famous people, they will roll over you and two seconds. I a bankrupt you then they're out to destroy you. There is no reason for me to still be going after manifested in Washington DC. When it's got an arm long list. Of of a guilty decisions in Virginia. Where manager it's going to be spending an incredible amount of time in prison. Depending on his appeal. Roger stone in Florida today. He spoke to the American people. And when we come back, I want you to hear this many of you actually actually worked during the day. And you didn't hear this those of you are listening. I wanna play this for.

Mr. Muller Roger stone assistant United States attorn Weisman prosecutor Mr. Rosenstein US attorney US Washington DC special counsel Manfred Sydney Merrill Andrew Lynch Russia Virginia Andersen Florida twenty years
"assistant united states attorney" Discussed on KNST AM 790

KNST AM 790

03:16 min | 2 years ago

"assistant united states attorney" Discussed on KNST AM 790

"The house looking at it. What's the name of the US attorney? What's the name of the prosecutor those looking at it gives us name? There isn't any. Mr. Muller keeps going to Mr. Rosenstein. To expand his investigation. But he never asked to expand it where Russia is slapping. I'm right in the face. Now. Why is that? We know why it is. We know why it is. And I have gotten so concerned about this. I decided honestly, this is not a promotion, but you think about it. That on my FOX Sunday show. This is really where I can do it to reach the most people other than radio. My single guest. Is Sydney pound. Our caller called in and suggested we were already thinking about it. But I want to thank the caller anyway. She's a former assistant United States attorney. She served under nine different US attorneys, democrat and Republican appointed. And she has litigated against Andrew. Weisman. And you're going to learn more about how this special counsel's office operates and the invisible hand behind Muller and all the activities going on. Because what you see that happened to stone today? What you see that happened a manner for months ago also happened to the Enron executives to the Andersen? Executives to four Merrill, Lynch executives, and you're going to see what the supreme court ruled. You're going to see what some appellate courts ruled this guy. Weisman. Has been given more and more responsibilities. More and more power by Muller over the course of the last twenty years. Roger stone. Is not a serious person. He's a joke. He's a gossiper he stirs the you know what? He's easy pickings for prosecutor. Who chest out to do damage? And we should absolutely object to that as a people. If these guys can do this too powerful people to famous people, they will roll over you in two seconds. I a bankrupt you then they're out to destroy you. There is no reason for me to still be going after manifested in Washington DC. When it's got an arm long list. Of guilty decisions in Virginia. Where manager it's going to be spending an incredible amount of time in prison. Depending on his appeal. Roger stone in Florida today. He spoke to the American people. And when we come back, I want you to hear this many of you actually actually work during the day, and you didn't hear this those of you were listening. I wanna play this for you. I'll be right back. Mark Levin.

Mr. Muller Roger stone assistant United States attorn Weisman prosecutor Mr. Rosenstein US attorney US Mark Levin Washington DC special counsel Andersen Sydney Merrill Andrew Lynch Russia Virginia Florida
"assistant united states attorney" Discussed on WMAL 630AM

WMAL 630AM

02:48 min | 2 years ago

"assistant united states attorney" Discussed on WMAL 630AM

"The house looking at it. What's the name of the US attorney? What's the name of the prosecutor those looking at it getting a surname? There isn't any. Now, Mr. Muller keeps going to Mr. Rosenstein. To expand his investigation. But he never asked to expand it where Russia is slapping. I'm right in the face. Now. Why is that? We know why it is. We know why it is. And I have gotten so concerned about this. I decided honestly, this is not a promotion, but you think about it. That on my FOX Sunday show. This is really where I can do it to reach the most people other than radio. My single guest. Is Sydney pound. A caller called in and suggested we were already thinking about it. But I want to thank the caller anyway. She's a former assistant United States attorney. She served under nine different US attorneys, democrat and Republican appointed. And she has litigated against Andrew. Weisman. And you're going to learn more about how this special counsel's office operates and the invisible hand behind Muller and all the activities going on. Because what you see that happened to stone today? What did you see that happened a matter for months ago also happened to the Enron executives to the Andersen? Executives to four Merrill, Lynch executives, and you're going to see what the supreme court ruled. You're going to see what some appellate courts ruled this guy. Weisman. Has been given more and more responsibilities. More and more power by Muller over the course of the last twenty years. Roger stone. Is not a serious person. He's a joke. He's a gossiper he stirs the you know what? He's easy pickings for a prosecutor. Who's just out to do damage? And we should have absolutely object to that as a people. If these guys can do this to powerful people to famous people, they will roll over you in two seconds. I a bankrupt you then they're out to destroy you. There is no reason for me to still be going after manifested in Washington DC. When it's got an arm long list. Guilty.

Mr. Muller assistant United States attorn Weisman prosecutor US attorney Mr. Rosenstein Roger stone Washington DC US special counsel Andersen Sydney Merrill Russia Andrew Lynch twenty years two seconds
"assistant united states attorney" Discussed on KSFO-AM

KSFO-AM

02:43 min | 2 years ago

"assistant united states attorney" Discussed on KSFO-AM

"Who the house looking at it. What's the name of the US attorney? What's the name of the prosecutor who's looking at it gives us their name? There isn't any. Now, Mr. Muller keeps going to Mr. Rosenstein. To expand his investigation. But he never asked to expand it where Russia is slapping. I'm right in the face. Now. Why is that? We know why it is. We know why it is. And I had gotten so concerned about this. I decided honestly, this is not a promotion, but you think about it. That on my talk Sunday show. This is really where I can do it to reach the most people other than radio. My single guest. Is Sydney power. Our caller called in and suggested we were already thinking about it. But I want to thank the caller anyway. She's a former assistant United States attorney. She served under nine different US attorneys, democrat and Republican appointed. And she has litigated against Andrew. Weisman. And you're going to learn more about how this special counsel's office operates and the invisible hand behind Muller and all the activities going on. Because what you see that happened to stone today? What you see that happened a matter for months ago also happened to the Enron executives to the Andersen? Executives to four Merrill, Lynch executives, and you're going to see what the supreme court ruled. You're gonna see what some appellate courts ruled this guy. Weisman. Has been given more and more responsibilities. More and more power by Muller over the course of the last twenty years. Roger stone. Is not a serious person. He's a joke. He's a gossiper. He stirs the you know what? He's easy pickings for a prosecutor. Who's just out to do damage? And we should have absolutely object to that as a people. If these guys can do this to powerful people to famous people, they will roll over you and two seconds. I a bankrupt you then they're out to destroy you. There is no reason for me to still be going after manifested in Washington DC. When it's got an arm long.

Mr. Muller assistant United States attorn Weisman prosecutor US attorney Mr. Rosenstein Roger stone Washington DC US special counsel Andersen Sydney Merrill Russia Andrew Lynch twenty years two seconds
"assistant united states attorney" Discussed on The Dan Bongino Show

The Dan Bongino Show

03:25 min | 2 years ago

"assistant united states attorney" Discussed on The Dan Bongino Show

"But I'm telling you from experience extremely uncommon. Because in the federal side. You don't you're not a patrol officer. You don't just happen. Upon a crime is an FBI agent on the way, home you copy, Joe that's not your job, right? The police officers who I was with the just happened to fall into observing a crime Tonge turned a corner on the street at guys Robin someone getting a foot pursuit you arrest them. So time to call a judge for a warrant. That's not the way the federal system works. You get a tip you investigate the tip. You present your investigative results to an assistant United States attorney. They drop a complaint or they an indictment is issued an arrest warrants issued. Then you go get your guy. That's how it works in the federal system. Probable cause. Hurry up arrests are extremely rare. What was the hurry on July twenty seven to get popadopoulos? We'll get to that. In a second. I always say remember the names Joe remember the date July twenty seven so we now have two things on July twenty seven we now have Bob Mueller special counsel, which hunting Donald Trump being notified that his lead. Investigators are corrupted. There's a hurry up arrests that the airport of George popadopoulos. Why the hurry? He needs to shut someone up. Couple of other things happen on July twenty seven and I can't thank this source enough. This was brilliant. Joe don't you find it awfully convenient that? They Republican members of the house that were investigating all of the malfeasance and misdeeds that went on in the FBI against Donald Trump and four Hillary Clinton in the shelving of her Email case, do you know, h I'll just let me ask you a question. You don't know the Dayton advance. But let me based on the conversation. We're having now the house GOP issues a urgent call via letter for a special counsel to investigate the FBI. What date do you think that happened on? Let me just throw that out here. The say July twenty seven was going to say that then you took the words right out of my mouth baby that that's a great cast show at you'd be right? Joe's right again with a widow chicken. Do all of a sudden on July twenty seven Muller finds out. His team is corrupted popadopoulos gets hurried up arrested at the Dulles airport on on what we believe to be a PC arrests, very unusual and the house GOP issues this urgent letter calling for a special counsel into misdeeds by the FBI during their Trump and Clinton investigation. Oh, gets better. You'll told you go anywhere. I could see the look on your face and pointing at him right now, do our new high tech video connection. Okay. What else happens on July twenty seventh? Well, there's an interesting article that appears in circa, but which is a news type newsy type outfit. I think a couple of people at the at the hill and folks used to work there, but circus kind of like the hill or axios. Joe an article appears in circa on July twenty seven twenty seventeen. How what's that article about something we talked about during this week? So I think it was Monday or Tuesday show. Joe the article is about elite lawyer for the FBI who's in a lot of trouble, buddy. Whole lot of trouble. Let me read to you. The headline of this piece from.

FBI Joe Hillary Clinton Donald Trump special counsel GOP George popadopoulos officer Tonge assistant United States attorn Bob Mueller Robin Dayton Muller Dulles
"assistant united states attorney" Discussed on Best Case Worst Case

Best Case Worst Case

04:02 min | 3 years ago

"assistant united states attorney" Discussed on Best Case Worst Case

"I'm getting these details from agent Roland and I am typing up a complaint. And of course, by now, I've realized that this is going to become highly public. And the first thing that any good prosecutor agent detective does when they figure out that. They've got a case that is going to be highly public is they kick it right up the chain of command because you have to immediately alert the presidentially appointed United States Turney if you are about to have a case that's going to break in the news. And so I had to not only sit in my office on a Saturday and type up a complaint in wait for the ages to arrive and process, the whole case, I had to call my boss, United States attorney Dave Nahmias, and I called the first assistant United States attorney who at the time was a woman named Sally Yates who everyone may remember was at one point here. The acting attorney general of the United States of the time. I had no idea she would get too lofty position. But I had to alert both of them that I had a case that was going to break in the news, very soon. Okay. What a big when you told them. Well, they more than I they knew TI was immediately. I didn't even need to tell them. And so my boss, the US attorney came into the office to quote, help me what that meant really though was he stood over my shoulder as I was typing up able work which anyone knows when your boss stands over your shoulder when you're typing paperwork things are different than normal. Usually little more scrutiny little more stress. Tried a lot more stress for sure. So here's the full story by now, I have from the agent. So they've got the bodyguard is wired up and ready to record this transaction between him and TI where is delivering the guns on that day. So the bodyguard arrives the agents are already in the parking lot of that Publix grocery store here in midtown Atlanta. And they are survey ailing it TI arrives in a car. He's driving. The bodyguard gets into the car and delivers the machine guns in silence to TI at which point the ATF swoops in and without incident. Arrests TI humanity comes alone. He doesn't come with the whole crew. So there's not any question that he is actually the person that is purchasing and possessing these illegal firearms. That's right. He is all by himself and not only that. But the first thing the agents do after they. Pat, him down to make sure that he doesn't have any weapons is search his car to make sure that there are no weapons within his reach that he could break away in get and they find in fact, there is a weapon there are multiple weapons in that car, including a loaded handgun tuck right in between the driver seat where he was sitting and the center console ready for him to grab us in a second Mets was driving stops or the most dangerous for law enforcement because it's very easy to secrete a weapon that is very acceptable and quickly acceptable that can be used to shoot anybody neck to be somebody in the public or somebody like police officers just stopped you, and you wanna make sure that you don't get arrested. So, unfortunately, this is what happens many times officers get shot wounded or killed because there are. Felons running around this country driving cars with weapons in them and those weapons early in their you know, they'll go to jail if they get caught with them. That's right. And that's why that desperate situation sometimes arises in. Why police officers have Drennan pumping in are so anxious themselves when they conduct the traffic stop because they're so aware of cases where just like the one that just happened in California happen all the time..

United States Sally Yates United States attorney assistant United States attorn Pat acting attorney general Roland prosecutor Publix US attorney Turney ATF Drennan Atlanta Dave Nahmias Mets California
"assistant united states attorney" Discussed on The Dan Bongino Show

The Dan Bongino Show

02:01 min | 3 years ago

"assistant united states attorney" Discussed on The Dan Bongino Show

"Right i can't walk into a police department talk to detective and say by well i can but they're going to have to do their homework to verify this and say somebody told me that he was told by someone else that my neighbor year ago was a drug dealer now the police departments free to look into whatever they want but they have to verify that info what they can't do joe what they cannot do is walk into a court and swear to a set of facts based on what i just said hey my neighbor jani beg donuts dan's neighbor is a drug dealer and we need to warrant well the judge said well who told you that dan nono dan didn't say dan said that someone told him told him the judge would be like that's funny guys that's a good one get out of my courtroom before i have you arrested i dead we see to judge with laugh your butt out of there so if if you weren't if you weren't fired the next day the judge would probably have one of his assistant united states attorneys at least the federal level call the field office it'd be like don't ever send that guy in my courtroom again you know what truth be told and i'm not kidding you know why that would never happen because no assistant united states attorney lawyer for the government would sign any petition to the court affidavit and they would they would laugh you out of eastern district of new york i used to work as a federal agent so fast it would be comical they would call your i'm not kidding they would call your boss joe conway used to be the intake guy the united states attorney where i worked in eastern district as a secret service agent to counterfeit cases and financial crimes he would call your boss so fast it'd be like did you send this idiot in here with an affidavit saying that he heard information from john you heard it from joey please tell me you didn't do that my boss aim was mardi mardi please tell me he didn't come you would never work a case again.

dan joe conway united states attorney financial crimes john joey assistant united states attorn mardi mardi