20 Episode results for "Bob Muller"

Interview with Glenn Kirschner

The Daily Beans

25:40 min | 1 year ago

Interview with Glenn Kirschner

"It's the holiday season and things are sucking. We're all pissed at each other but here comes might Christmas gift to you. The premiere of my I brand new. podcast starring me triumph. The insult comic dog. Yes it's going to be great. Think of it as Joe Rogan not done steroids. It's a live game show called. Let's make it. We're going to have great guests and also Anthony SCARAMUCCI. I'm partnering with my friend. Ended Star Burns audio and also team coco the people who brought you some not greatest shows ever cancelled by and best of all we are according to show live in Brooklyn Union temple so you can attend a taping and see for yourself what podcast magazine calls another fucking talking. Bout guest you'll hear brand new episodes in the New Year and can subscribe right now on apple podcasts. spotify stitcher Google or whatever so that we can count your automatic downloads for weeks after you had quit listening enjoy and since Hello and welcome to the daily beans for Friday December. Twenty seven two thousand nineteen I'm your host. Ag and today we we have MSNBC legal analyst Glenn Kirschner in an interview that aired on July seventh twenty nineteen and we speak with him about his insights into Muller in. This was just ahead out of Muller's public testimony to Congress which took place July twenty fourth. That's just one day before the infamous call between trump Alinsky for which the president has now been impeached when when he withheld aid and dangled a White House meeting in exchange for investigations into his political rival and of course the origins of the two thousand sixteen Russia investigation. So please enjoy this interview interview gun. Kirshner is wonderful with me. TODAY IS MSNBC legal analyst. He spent thirty years as a federal prosecutor with DC US Attorney's office and he spent a lot of time. I am working with Muller so please. Welcome Glen Kirschner Glen. Thanks for coming on muller she wrote. Thanks for having me appreciate it yeah. We're so happy to have you on because we want to get some expert insight Into Muller before his upcoming testimony to the House Judiciary Intelligence Committees. I think it's about ten days from the airing of this episode and Those of us who are keenly familiar with what's in his report and have been following this all along probably aren't going to learn anything new and might be slightly feeling disappointed. Had with his testimony. But that's not really. What makes this appearance so important? Is it no I mean. There's been so much disinformation put into the public square by trump by bar by all of their enablers that I think part of what we're part of the reason Bob Bob Muller's testimony is going to be so important it's it's not only to bring to the public's attention his findings Particularly with respect to the many felony obstruction of justice offenses trump committed. But it's GONNA be hopefully to rebut the epoch. Disinformation nations campaign. That trump and company have been waging against the American people with their with their very effective mantra no obstruction no collusion Aleutian. Hopefully Bob Muller will find some ways and hopefully congress will come up with some pointed precise questions to help Bob Muller find some ways to combat that information campaign. Yeah and that's all. Yeah thanks to Attorney any General William Bar who's Four page quote Unquote Summary of Muller's findings SORTA it totally misled led the public. We saw that woman in the Justin Amash Rally say. Gosh I had no idea there wasn't anything About trump that was negative or there was anything negative in the Miller report about about trump. So it's it's I think that that's kind of why this Testimony is so important and Muller has said that his report is his testimony and and he warned that he won't talk about anything that's not in his report but as you were just indicating do you think if if the questions are asked properly that he might answer some of the critical Outstanding banding questions we have like. was there actually no collusion or no obstruction. Or if president weren't the president. Would he be indicted. I I guess my inclination nation is when Bob Muller says my report is my testimony he means it but you know he is a by the Book Guy Law and order. He's a rule follower. So I actually think what you referenced. A minute ago. When Bill Bar issued his misleading summary of mothers report it really cut against against POB molars grain to issue a written rebuttal of that and say hey look bar you mischaracterized my findings and conclusions and your misleading? The public. CUT It out. That is unlike Bob Muller because he's sort of the king of circumspection but you know he's also a soldier and in the middle. I used to be an army Jag in the eighties. We are taught that you have to number one obey a lawful order but number two you have to disobey unlawful order and sometimes those two things bump up against one another but going back to your question I think if the questions are precise enough then muller will have to answer some things even if they are somewhat outside out of his report so for example one of the questions I would ask him is look Special Counsel Muller you've heard President trump say over and over again your investigation negation found no obstruction. Is that true or false. I think if he's answering even within the four corners of his forty eight four hundred forty eight page report port. The answer is that is false. Our investigation did not find no obstruction. Same question with respect to collusion so I think if crafted properly I hate to say some of this is an exercise in getting some usable soundbites from Bob Muller. But here's here's what I would do if you can get those sound bites where Muller says definitively no we did not find no obstruction. We did not find no collusion. I think it's on the media every time they broadcast trump or bar as they do a thousand times a day saying no obstruction no collusion collusion. They should be obliged to put up immediately after that. That is false. Says Bob Muller so I hate to say it's. It's an exercise in debunking disinformation but because the lies got a several week head start coming out of bars mouth. The truth has forever been playing catch up and has and has not been catching up all that effectively. Yeah totally and and you mention Muller writing that Scathing maybe not scathing to us but scathing to muller that letter to bar about in apparently it was one of a couple of letters he wrote before the before the report was released to Congress in the public How important is it because we read in the threat by Andy? McCabe that when somebody like Muller particularly you know Mr Circumspect goes to paper like that it means a lot more than someone else just I. You know sending a reply on twitter writing a letter. So how important is it. He went to paper on that and also made his ten minute public statement. I wasn't expecting either of those things from him. Yes writing a A rebuttal to the attorney general. Who technically at that moment was still Bob? Muller's boss was You know I'm GONNA say out of character for Muller I mean ordinarily what we would do under those circumstances. If we had a dispute in our chain of command we would go behind closed doors doors with our boss and we would say boss. I've got some real concerns here but I think Muller recognized how high the stakes were and he also recognized how how dangerous bars mischaracterization was and that it was done. I think with I'm you to say evil intent And Muller felt compelled to put in writing his rebuttal his correction of what Bar said so so I think for him. That was Difficult but necessary. And you know I appreciate that Muller said listen. I'm going to stay within the four corners of my report. The problem is once he raises his right hand and swears. To tell the truth he will have to answer questions. That are sort of proper questions in that. They don't violate grand jury secrecy rules so they wouldn't require him to disclose matters. There's that are before the grand jury Or compromise ongoing investigation. So I think those are two areas where he can decline to answer answer because those are legitimate reasons to decline to answer those questions beyond that if there are questions that are posed that require him to go beyond the four corners. The report you know. He's raised his hand. Sworn to tell the whole truth he's going to have to answer those questions As long as they are sort of properly phrased My concern is that you know the Republicans are going to want to ask him about dossiers and spying on the trump campaign as a distraction and the Democrats may want to push muller well beyond the report to a place. He's not comfortable going. You know like if the president accident where a private citizen wouldn't you have indicted him for obstruction of justice. I can tell you was a career prosecutor. The answer is hell. Yes and but I don't know the Muller caller will answer that question because of the way he has you know already signaled that listen. The criminal justice system is not the place to formally accuse a sitting president of crimes that places the Congress and you know basically Muller's report report was an impeachment referral plain and simple how congress hasn't gotten that or why they are declining to open impeachment. Hearings has as me scratching my big bald head every day us to believe me and you know something like the question of if he were a private citizen would you indict him. I'm I'm almost sure of and I haven't worked with Muller's at all but I I just imagine him saying I'm not GonNa answer any hypothetical questions. Hey Hey it's a g hear. This is the daily beans. I hope you're enjoying my interview with Glenn Kirschner. We have a lot more to discuss the stay with us. This helping of the daily beans is brought to you by ancestry. DNA Hannah ancestor. DNA is a truly meaningful gift with the power to connect families over the holidays. Every family has a story and ancestry Danny can reveal. Our origins and provide historical details tells that bring unique family stories to life only ancestry. DNA uses the world's largest family history database to give a deeper and more detailed. DNA story you can combine what you learn from your DNA DNA with over one hundred million family trees and billions of records for more insight in your genealogy and origins from discovering routes and over five hundred regions to the most connections to living relatives no other DNA test delivers such a unique interactive experience. When I got my results back I learned that I'm ninety six percent Western European and I'm related to people actually named Corozzo in Cranston killed in Stern I know they're not real but there are real people that were married name does and Cranston Golden Stern there. My relatives and I found out that one of my ancestors ancestors was actually a comedy musician. Who played the Banjo in the twenty s in New York and that's crazy so apparently comedy and music is in my DNA? And who knows what you'll discover see. How the details of your family's pass asking spark new conversations with your family this year while visiting during the holidays? I'm sharing the results from my ancestry DNA so our whole family can talk about it together. Save big on ancestry. DNA A special holiday pricing and spark meaningful conversations around the holiday dinner table. Give the gift that can unwrap their history. Had To my you are L. AT ANCESTRY DOT com slash daily beans to get your ancestry Sestri. DNA Kit on sale today. That's ancestry dot com slash daily beans. You'll be glad you did and now back to our July seventh interview with Glenn Kirshner is anyone actually consulting the Democrats on how to ask Muller these questions because I think that's very important I assume so but I I don't know as as as a matter of fact I think you should I think you should and I think David priests should probably get in there and who briefed him on a daily basis. Be like all right. Here's how you ask Bob Muller Questions Events and here's what he won't answer I I'm hoping they have some good consultants in that in that vein but And you mentioned the Republicans and we know from public reporting already. The the Republicans are planning on attacking Muller How do you think I'm I'm very interested to see how he responds to questions or at least statements? That aren't questions. Do you know how they do that. That wasn't a question from folks like Jim Jordan Matt Gaetz and Devon Nunez and Louie Gohmert who. I don't consider to be very intelligent. I mean those most men are a little more than gum on the bottom of Bob Muller shoe he will be unflinching in the way he deals with their nonsense and Shenanigans. which which is all? It's going to be it. You know it so reminds me of when I was in basically trial court prosecutor for thirty years and I would have defense attorneys. Who who would cross examine my witnesses about everything other than the facts of what they saw? And that's what these Republicans are going to do. They're going to talk to Bob Muller about everything everything other than the fact that Bob Muller found extreme coordination between the trump campaign and the Russians in volume one and ten or eleven instances of obstruction of justice by the president of the United States in volume. Two I would bet that the Republicans gins are going to ask him a single question about those topics. Yeah no I doubt it myself And I imagined he just simply won't entertain Shenanigans as you said he doesn't seem like a Shenanigan entertainer so This is all congress. You know this is all the stuff that's going on in Congress and as you mentioned they still still have an open and impeachment inquiry which I think would benefit them and trying to get these materials and that they need and the testimonies. They need at least speeded up through the courts As Muller clearly clearly gave them a map to do but right now there's a potential for the trump administration to defy a supreme court decision. If they aren't already by by trying trying to add a citizenship question to the census and I was wondering what role you think the judiciary could potentially take in saving our asses versus Congress. Yeah well thank goodness. The state of our judiciary remains strong because it may be our last hope if Congress sort of remains as timid as Congress has been thus far. Now let me tell you before I move onto the SRI. I hope Congress has a plan. I hope Nancy Pelosi and company have a plan And you know I keep hoping for something good to happen and I keep being disappointed but I can't help but wonder what it is that was collected up as a result of the counterintelligence investigation. Maybe there is still something big coming that is going to make you know. Ten counts of obstruction -struction of justice by the president look like jaywalking fences. I don't know maybe there's something holding Pelosi and company back that is going to actually be so much bigger than the Muller report and that's why they are hesitating but be that as it may the courts have shown us over and over again that they are perhaps our our last best. Hope at making sure this is gonNA sound ridiculously hyperbolic but that our republic survives because every time a consequential issue hugh has now made its way into the courts whether it was the sort of lawfulness of congressional subpoenas issued for trump's banking making records and financial records. You know we saw Judge Mehta in DC Federal District Court. He's an old not hold these young but he's a former public defender in my backyard and the D. C. Courts and he's a very strong judge and a very strong lawyer in a very strong person. And you know he took the administration in a situation to task when trump's lawyers stood up and said yeah. The House has no right to issue these subpoenas for my records Judge May to knock that down at light speed so the courts are doing the right thing. They can do the right thing quickly. We saw that again with judge Ramos in New York and similar litigation Shen over the Subpoenas for financial records from Deutsche Bank and cap one for the president. The president's lawyers went down in flames very quickly in that one and I know they're appealing and it's still ongoing but the courts can move quickly and efficiently in the courts still cared deeply about the rule of law and most judges cared deeply about governmental governnmental misconduct. I was in the courtroom when Judge Sullivan whom I litigated. Before when I was a prosecutor in DC took Flynn's lawyers to task. I mean that was a the thing of beauty to watch and it gave me patriotic goosebumps. Because it's like the courts still care and I think they can move these things through the courts pretty quickly once the house starts. Filing you know actions to enforce these subpoenas for tax returns and what have you You know when we look back we you can see that. There is a precedent for the courts to move quickly. You know back during Watergate when GIA war Sqi issued a subpoena for Knicks six the Nixon tapes I think he issued it in April of seventy four and the Supreme Court got it. It worked its way up through the federal system and they resolved that in July of seventy seventy four unanimously against the president and in favor of the enforceability of subpoena. Now these are different times but I do think the courts know what's at stake and I think the courts can and will move these things through quickly once. Congress begins a steady stream of filing. You know actions to support these subpoenas enforce these subpoenas. Yeah exactly and you're right there so much that's unknown you know as I'm working my way or worked my way through reading the Muller report very carefully I know Muller said Upfront that hey there's a lot of evidence since we couldn't get because people I do us people destroyed evidence people used encrypted apps people you know et Cetera et Cetera. And I think he was mostly talking talking about seemingly Manafort at that point who breached his plea agreement and I'm wondering and I don't see any reductions for harm to an ongoing matter later in the manafort section in volume one. But what happens when you breach your plea agreement all those crimes that you would have been charged with. I would think you would be charged with breath after you reach your plea agreement and I don't see any of that all of his lies and You know any coordination or any you know I mean. He said that he didn't have evidence or couldn't establish evidence or find enough evidence to to charge these as grander conspiracy but like what happens to all of those charges. That manafort was forgiven. Ah because he was cooperating. After he stopped cooperating. And I I just don't I don't see it anywhere. Maybe it's in the counterintelligence stuff but it's it seems to be missing to me. Yes so ordinarily when a cooperator falls from grace and we withdraw from the plea agreement. We we are free to charge any crimes that we decided against charging were. We agreed not to charge in light of the cooperation. But there's a second issue that we always have to confront under those circumstances and it's the sort of the time and the resources and the energy that we would have to put into prosecuting somebody who is already been convicted. A couple of times over serving seven plus years years about to be prosecuted by the State of New York hopefully successfully and put another number of years on top of his head DO WE WANNA gear up for another the prosecution. That's going to take a whole team of FBI agents and prosecutors away from what they're doing which is hopefully going after other wrongdoers so it doesn't doesn't shock me that we didn't you know sort of launch into new charges against Manafort because he breached his. Play Agreement You know that's always IT'S A it's a challenging issue to confront when you know. I always said that we are the federal government. I was the federal government when I was a federal prosecutor but believe believe it or not we still had limited resources we had limited number of prosecutors. We had a limited amount of time to bring charges against a whole lot of criminals. So it's not always easy to bring every charge you would like to bring in a perfect world. He had no. It just seems like these are specifically unique circumstances to which I think the public's right to know about those crimes that could have included coordination or conspiracy Might have just been decided not to be prosecuted in favor of the fact that he's probably already going to jail for the rest of his life. You know what I mean. It's like yeah but it just seemed like unusual circumstances to me. I know it sure seems I was like you know I. I was very aggressive. Prosecutor also like to thank aggressively protected the rights of every defendant that I prosecuted by making sure that I was you you know abiding by the rules and the law and you know holding for example If there was police work that was inappropriate and that may have violated a defendant's rights while it was my job to to step in remedy at turn it over to the defense and dismissed the case if it was that dramatic violation of a defendant's rights. And I did that when I was chief of homicide in DC on a number of occasions But I I hesitate to say this because I you know Bob. Muller taught me how to be a federal slash homicide prosecutor when he was my chief at the US Attorney's office in DC. But it's hard for me to conceive of how there is no larger conspiracy charge for everything we learned about. What manafort did what gates did sharing polling data with Kalinic and and and rolling into that the trump tower meeting with the Russians and Don Juniors participation and all of the hundred and forty plus contacts that Bob Muller laid out in volume one? I understand if you're going to go after the king you got to kill the king but boy it sure looks like a conspiracy that many prosecutors could bring and many juries would convict on Again I don't want to second guess. Bob Muller Muller I always trusted his judgment before so you know we we have to live with the decisions he made he adds where at at least if we knew why. But I suppose saying well we were going to charge him with all these other crimes but we don't have the resources are we. He's already going to jail. That's going to taint any future jury. you can't just come out and say those kind of things but It would be irresponsible but yeah just like you were saying conversations and that August third meeting with manafort where he discussed the three. Are you specific states for specific states. Michigan Pennsylvania Wisconsin with Kalinic and gave him the polling data. And then it just so happens. Mr Trump won by eighty thousand votes in those three states to steal the electoral college. And and it just like what key piece of evidence is missing To table to tie those together I feel you on that so but it is interesting and I do trust Muller's judgment there has to be a reason I can't find it in the declamations but you know we'll see I mean maybe like you said more out there that we don't know about yet there are fourteen referrals. I think a couple of them are cases and the other pending investigations to several. US Attorney's offices offices now unfortunately they are still sort of at the whim of Bill Bar because they're at various US Attorney's offices but you know at least they are out there and hopefully they are moving forward award and as hard as it is for us to sit to take a wait and see approach given what we're experiencing every day by a runaway President We unfortunately are going to have to wait and see what those other fourteen matters. You know what what is produced by those. Yeah definitely and then. Hopefully we'll get some counter. Intelligence information from shifting the Intel Committee but it probably nothing of substance that we can look at as citizens but You know maybe in thirty or forty years they'll declassify all of it all right. Well thank you so much. A former former federal prosecutor. DC Chief of Homicide Army veteran. Thank you for your service and MSNBC legal analyst Glenn Kirschner Glen. Thanks for coming on Muller. She wrote thanks for having me appreciate it. The daily beans executive produced and directed by AG and Jordan Coburn and engineered edited by Mackenzie Mozelle and starbucks industries. Our Marketing Manager Executive Assistant Production Social Media Direction as Amanda Reader. Fact checking research by Jordan Coburn Amanda Reader. Our music is written and performed by. They might be giants. That's our web design and branding or Baio moxie design studios and our website is daily beans pod dot com.

Bob Bob Muller muller Congress president Bob Muller Muller Bob Muller President trump prosecutor DC trump Manafort Bill Bar US Attorney New York Glenn Kirschner MSNBC Glenn Kirshner MSNBC
Special Edition: Robert Mueller Testifies Before Congress

The Lawfare Podcast

1:04:11 hr | 1 year ago

Special Edition: Robert Mueller Testifies Before Congress

"I'm Benjamin with us and this is the law fair podcasts Special Edition Emergency Edition July twenty four th two thousand Nineteen Bob Muller testified before the House Judiciary Committee. He testified before the House Intelligence Committee today. It was not what a lot of people were expecting. I it was dramatic in some respects elect down in other respects and <hes> pretty interesting in still other respects boasts atmospherically and <hes> content wise. We have a great group to talk about it. <hes> none of whom I can see because I am in an undisclosed was location somewhere very far away but in the jungle studio we have Susan Hennessy Bob Bauer Margaret Taylor and Jim Baker none of whom need any introduction to this audience so I will not give one. We will just launch in Margaret. Get US started. <hes> give us an overview of what happened today so I think that you gave kind of good overview. <hes> you know I think there were different expectations about Bob Muller and how he was going to react to this coming in <hes> I think there was probably less energy <hes> and last sort of an of the sorts sorts of moments so a lot of people had been hoping for from him <hes> but what I would say is that I was <hes> quite impressed at how organized the members were and how familiar they were with the report. I think <hes> <hes> they really showed there familiarity with it. They quoted from it. They had specific places in the report that they were asking about and they they were prepared for a Bob Muller to not be you know we'll have a lot of exposition and a lot of <hes> you know a long responses to their questions. They knew that was going to happen. They came in prepared. They came in ready to hit. Certain points not do a lot of repetition and get through a lot of <hes> factual lay down on and I think it was really important for for that to happen. <hes> this is Congress's really really they're opening gambit to just start laying down a congressional record of what the Muller report is <hes>. The Muller report itself has an executive branch document in this. Is You know Article One. This is the congress now taking that report and putting their own sort of gloss on it and really laying down when it found into the congressional record Margaret I prefer I move on. I WANNA focus on that point. <hes> which you made <hes> to us this morning and and I think is really interesting games you know the Muller report has been out there for a matter of months now. It's not a secret what's in it. What is the difference between it being out there and available to Congress I and it being part of the Congressional Article One record as opposed to part of the article two or public factual record? I think the differences that it's in my opinion it's really the beginning of the congress starting to own this narrative own this story own what happened here. There's been this really long time period while Bob Mueller was doing his work on including sort of afterward. Everyone was digesting. The report where you know Congress just wasn't owning it yet in it to me. At least it seemed today that Congress really started to own this and that it's the for them it's in some ways the beginning of a process and a couple of the members referred to this you know they they said thank you for for doing this work. You know special counsel Mueller. It really lays the predicate for our work going forward and so I think the questions you know that we don't know the answer to yet is is. Where exactly is it going? I think there's clear indications that they're going to call some of the very important fact witnesses <hes> for example Don mcgann. It seems like they're going to go through judicial process to <hes> compel his testimony <hes> I'm sure there there will be other factors says compelled as well and so where are they headed. Is this headed towards impeachment. <hes> is headed or not but it seemed to me that this is the beginning of that process and of Congress really really owning this whole story Bob. Your impressions is what was the day more or less what you expected it to be into the extent. It was different. How it was more or less what I expected to be? I didn't didn't have high expectations. It was clear that Muller had hoped that his report would speak for its health. I had many respects though understanding the congress's concerns had hoped that they would abide by Muller's express wishes and let the report court speaks for itself and then came the predictable business in this hearing where Democrats hoped not put this in two parts either to bring out more dramatically what was already in the report or conceivably to lure from Muller a statement that went somewhat beyond the report either as a matter of tone emphasis or maybe even as in the Ted lieu exchange that he later clarified something something dramatically different something significantly different and and then of course the Republicans had mind to bring out all they're talking points about the deficiencies of the report and the ways in which the report the whole process was unfair to president trump. I understand what Margaret is saying at the same time. I have to say that if the hearing was an important foundation to lay for a constructive public debate that to some degree overcomes divides and at least begins to create create something more than we've seen up to this time what we've seen up to this time it's sort of polarization Democrats things one way and Republicans see things and other. I don't think this report advances toward that objective. Excuse me that hearing advances says toward that objective do you share Margaret Sense that the performance of members and I think particularly democratic members here was more impressive says and coordinated and <hes> tight in <hes> in <hes> organization and <hes> interrogative direction than we normally save for members or had reason to expect from these members yes. I think that you did see some more discipline. Of course this was a witness who had made very clear what the limits of his testimony was going to be and they had ample notice of that so the organized very effectively round those parameters. It's a relatively rare case witnessed comes in and says I'm GonNa Talk About X. and only axe based on why written tax. I'm not going beyond it. They understood that was the challenge and they addressed it so you would have to give them credit for that certainly because had they tried to do differently would have been I think it would have been very unsuccessful and very unhelpful to what they were trying to accomplish. What what did you think are you more in the <hes>? This was more or less as expected or are you more in the this was better than expected or was it worse-than-expected I can make an argument that it was worse-than-expected and I'm curious whether whether whether you know how how you see it are you feel better at the end of the day then you did at the beginning or or worse or about the same so I would buy for Kate my answer into two parts one being sort of Muller's performance forman's on the other being the performance of Congress so Muller's performance was about what I expected a little bit worse especially you know he got much stronger in the A._F._C. hearing in part because we were seeing better questions hurt because he was more comfortable arable the beginning of the Judiciary Committee hearing was he struggled to sort of find a rhythm an answer the questions and <hes> <hes> you know that said I never expected you know Bob Muller to come in and be this sort of charismatic person that was going to bring in the report till I I think that was always a fantasy from the beginning <hes> the police in which the the hearings went much better than I expected. It's actually the place where really matters and that's the performance ends of members of Congress particularly congressional Democrats <hes> and that's that we really did see Democrats being focused on the substance of the report we saw Democrats who had read the report were offering offerings sort of page citation. I thought that sort of the the mode of using sort of slides and pull quotes was actually rather effective. <hes> we saw a number of members of the House Judiciary Committee basically taking turns straight each people developing a different sort of thread. Each one of them used their five minutes to say this episode of obstruction. This is what we're gonNA talk about for this five minutes and then the next person when saying we're GONNA move on to the next episode of obstruction. Actually we saw members of Congress that coordinated themselves to cover really an extraordinary amount of ground. The thing that I thought was most significant on the Republican side was less the idea that they were sort of you know off on in kind of conspiracy theory is about the origin of the investigation or attempting to discredit muller something but I I think they were relatively ineffective about doing I think what was most significant about the Republican members is the sort of the implicit assumption and all of their questions <hes> that the report was factually accurate <hes> right so they were accepting kind of as a given when they went about their questioning that you know Don mcgann is telling the truth and Donald Trump is lying the gym communist telling the truth that Donald Trump is lying. Those are the Republican members they weren't engaging muller as sort of new attempting to to dispute the facts they were off on conspiracy theories and then arguing about sort of the legal significance of those facts and actually think that's a huge step forward for us for the past couple years. We've been operating in in different factual universes and part of Bob Muller Job AB was to put a record on the table and say okay. We're all GONNA have a different understanding of what this means legally and politically and for the country but this is our common understanding of what occurred and I actually you think we saw evidence in this hearing but he has accomplished that goal. I think that's really significant and I do think it's a reason to be optimistic. I think the seriousness and the discipline with which we saw the majority engage today it is a reason to be optimistic that they're prepared to engage in the kind of Syria sustained oversight but this is going to require over the coming months. If Not Years Jim do you buy that because I look at in a nice day well yeah they didn't contest the facts of the Muller report but <hes> I don't know that they're operating on the same set of facts either because the Democrats are operating in the fact in the in the factual universe in which every every sentence in Bob Mahler's report is you know the Gospel Truth that was just handed down directly from from God and the only question question is what to do with it and the Republicans are operating in a factual universe in which the Muller report was never written. The only things that have ever happened is that you know Peter Struck and Lisa page exchanged a bunch of tax messages and Chris Steele is <hes> guts and just information from the Russians and something happened with Joseph missed sued right and were at El Robert Muller hired a bunch of Democrats and and so it's not that I agree with Susan that they're not contesting any of the facts of the Muller report but they're not exactly operating on the basis of those facts either and saw. How do you see it? Do you see like are we in a convergent factual universe or are we simply in disparate parallel factual universes <hes> so <hes> this part of the conversation makes me think about art and so an art being an abstraction from reality and so I think about three people looking at a scene and one comes up with an impressionist a picture one comes up with a realist picture. That's very you know would factually accurate accurate with respect to that and somebody else comes up with. I don't know what German expressionism or something I mean. Everybody is agree that everybody is looking at the facts. I don't think the Republicans really undermined the report in any factual way so I agree completely with Susan but they just seemed to be they look at they look at reality and see what they wanna see through their prisons and I think that's what we're sort of stuck in right now so to answer your question that that's what I think about this by gyms analogy Louie Gohmert is finger painting. Maybe he's doing clay. He's just the operating in a completely different <hes> a media. If I go ahead yeah no I was just going out riff on that for a minute in it for <hes> on the art thing for second one of the things to me today so look if the if the idea behind this was and I think it should have been I think most people were thinking about that at least on the democratic side to educate the American people in a better way a about what was in the report I think <hes> well it succeeded. Maybe in some ways I think it was not successful overall because in large part of the format so I think this form of art the hearing I I think when we look back this will be either the sort of the start of the decline or the example of the client. I think that the the hearing as a mechanism for educating the public is dead. I don't think it really really works anymore. Most Americans don't have seven hours to sit there and watch T._v.. All Day they have jobs they're working and it's GONNA get boil down by you know variety of news media and politicians and so on and fed to them in in bits and pieces throughout the rest for the evening as they watch their shows and listen to podcasts and whatever so I think I I don't have a solution to that but that was one of the things that struck me today that this format just doesn't work anymore for conveying information and so that's actually a really interesting transition into talking about Bob Muller's performance because you know when if you imagine translating this into <hes> you know thirty second sound bites of exchanges between him and members burs you can do that in a way that brings out a lot of interesting points and does exactly what Margaret was describing at the beginning which is making vivid the fact that we're now developing a congressional. Yeah no record of this material or you can do it. In a way that frankly makes Bob Muller look really bad because he fumbles a lot of the time he's you know not obviously in <hes> full command of the record before him <hes> and he is certainly not in this setting <hes> you know charismatic and <hes> making points and he trips over things things and members <hes> you know he has a number of pretty bad moments today. <hes> Jim were used them you know him and have worked with him. Were you surprised by by just his his affect and performance today or is this just who Bob Muller is as a public presence it was it was a bit of both I think I mean he he did. I don't think he started out in the best way possible and what popped into my head was thinking about you know if you're watching the super bowl at the start of that oftentimes the teams are like playing terribly and it's like what's going on there all nervous. I mean they're just it's a big. It's a big platform <hes> even for him. He's testified many many times but he hasn't testified in a while and indies never testified in a setting like this and it's stressful when you're in a room like that and I've testified a lot. It's stressful anyway but never I've never testified in a circumstance like this either you know with all those cameras and everything like that I mean how can you not be as normal person just just just nervous so he seemed he seemed very nervous and then he seemed very either the department and or you know Bob and his team had put so many constraints around how he was going to testify another image that popped into my head was that he it was kind of CIA trapped in China cabinet and he didn't like WANNA turn one way or the other out of fear of breaking something that didn't WanNa break and so he he just was seemed extremely constrained and I think he was trying to figure out his way for the first hour or so <hes> and I think by the time he got the afternoon <hes> it was much better variety different reason so I you know he was not his best performance. I will say that <hes> I think at the end of the day he conveyed what he wanted to convey they nobody put words in his mouth on on either side and so <hes> you know he's he's a prosecutor who wants to talk about the facts who's not going to take any rhetorical leaps. He's does not want to be the political pawn of anybody but he's also so that's just how he is and he's he's not a storyteller and he certainly not a showman and he's and he is not going to get out there and portray some narrative just for the sake of portraying it. He made clear that he didn't WANNA be there. He you make clear that his report was his testimony and he was going to stick to that as close as closely as possible so Margaret. You seem to be the most optimistic about how much how the day went to what extent do so you think the performance of the witness <hes> undermined the effort that you're describing to create the record for Congress. I don't Pinkett underminded. Necessarily I mean I guess I'm a person who did not come into this thinking. It was going to be some big game changer and so maybe my expectations were a little bit different from others. <hes> I you know the way I you know I watched the whole thing. I was there for seven hours watching it and you know I ask myself at the end you know. Could someone come away from this. These two hearing sang themselves while there's really no there there <hes> with this whole Muller report thing and it really was a witch hunt and I feel like for anyone seriously watching this thing. You can't possibly come away with that thought and so I guess for me I was really looking at the substance and I felt like <hes> the members the Democrats just really laid down a ton of substance that will be referred to later as they move forward in their investigation over and over and over and over over again so to me was a process of laying a foundation. They did what they could with this witness who had some limitations about how he was going to be presenting himself so I was just really looking looking at it from a very substantive standpoint. I think that's where maybe I'm coming coming down. where I'm coming Bob? I want to look at it from the point of view of the White House so you know you've you been White House counsel at a time when there were significant congressional investigations of the White House or of White House activity that the White House has significant equities with respect to if you were <hes> Pat Cipollone's today and you had watched this. Do you feel like things are under control for you or or do you feel like now. They'RE GONNA sue for Don mcgann and that this kind of keeps a train running downhill that may be uncoupled and get out of control or maybe we already is under control. How are you feeling today if you're White House counsel too difficult question putting oneself into the mind of a lawyer for Donald Trump but I would say that I had I I had a lawyer for a client at a constitutional or for a client I mean there are many differences that I could identify that made my job a lot easier than pat sip loans or certainly done mcgann's but let me let me suggest this? I think if I I don't how Pat Sibling things about these things but I think if I tried to think about it as a White House counsel under trump might have I would have thought of the very outset that the hearing post probably very little danger to the president wouldn't in the following sense that Democrats Kratz in the Congress and the constituency of Democrats will observe this hearing are quite convinced already that muller has turned into damning report. I share that view by the way just put that out of the table so I'm not being I'm not being critical of mothers conclusions or the significance of what he found and I happen to have said at least on one occasion I thought very well of the work that he did under extraordinarily difficult circumstance in a role that is virtually impossible roll this will special counsel in many respects but I would have known that the Democrats needed to do what they did today but I don't think it fundamentally effects the pressures that will drive them in one direction or another on this issue. If they start to move toward a formal armel impeachment inquiry they will have moved toward that formerly impeachment inquiry whether or not they called Robert Muller and especially given the constraints that he put on his testimony regardless of how this hearing it turned out because it wasn't going to turn out dramatically one way or the other so so I wouldn't have expected Democrats break ranks on these issues and I certainly would not have expected Republicans to break ranks on these issues. I think Jim Baker makes it very good point about the hearing format. I don't think anybody could have realistically expected that. This was going to significantly change minds both the length and the format and in truth the sustained exposure to this issue that Americans have had for a long period of time and the way this turns out as an issue to have sort of sorted out within the polarize politics of our our time so I had I been pats up alone. I would assume that we would end up at the end of the day where we were on substance that is to say with a damning report that Republicans are prepared to set to the side and Democrats are prepared not too and I don't know how much of a difference difference this Muller <hes> hearing made one point about Bob Muller's testimony and it goes against it is very interesting point that Jim Baker raised about hearings and I just want to underscore it. He could not testify which was his preference which I fully understood he could testify and put himself under these significant constraints and that I think given his reputation in his role was probably a perfectly sound choice on his part but there was a third alternative and for one of that alternative there was very strange responses or lack of opportunity to educate in the way that we're talking about so for example when the question was raised whether the the trump campaign activity in relation to for nationals offering campaign support would constitute a crime his answer was yes given certain circumstances when he was responding to questions about obstruction <hes> I I noted one in particular where the answer that he gave was will. I can't subscribe to that particular characterization language immediately in front of it in front of me yes I do. I can't subscribe necessarily to the way hey you analyze it. I'm not certain at one point. He says that I can agree with your characterization so they're all these questions. There were hanging out there and these highly ambiguous responses that he gave. I think if you were looking this is educational moment. That's one way in which fell short. I'm not blaming Muller. I think he had to make a choice choice. He made was the one he made one other point that I wanNA raise which was I thought one of the most interesting responses that he gave that he was not asked to follow up on he didn't follow up on unless I missed it and that was it an exchange early on when he was challenged by Republican member over on the one hand his adherence to a formal prosecutorial role and on the other hand to the famous. I'm not exonerating honor rating language and the Republican Preston on the point. How do you square the traditional prosecutorial role with you're saying that you couldn't exonerate <hes> how do you square that how the to how the to be reconciled and he responded by saying it's a unique situation but he was interrupted and nothing more was set on the subject? That's the whole game here. That's the whole clue to the Muller report that it is a unique situation so in some ways he's they're saying I'm prosecutor and I'm going to operate like a prosecutor her but he's not just a prosecutor and he can't just operate like a prosecutor he teased out the suggestion. There was something different here and there wasn't any further discussion on the subject so don't jump in for a minute with a defense of the hearing format and nats whenever you think about the task that the Democrats have here which is that you have a four hundred forty eight page report and you have to go over the same ground again and again to sort of get sort of that breakthrough into the public consciousness to engage with these issues with additional depth just today you know I've read the mother report back to back Multiple Times deeply engaged with the taxed. There were things that I said isn't that new and somebody else. I'd met her know. What's on this page of the word? It is a tremendously dense complicated document. You have to spend a lot of time with it and so if you're going to have to do this thing where you're going back and you're talking about the same story different pieces of the same story again and again and again in a media environment in which everybody is completely overwhelmed all the time the White House's producing these absolutely insane stories often on an hourly rather than a daily basis. You need a witness you need a new person to tell that story from their perspective in their language answering those questions because that's what makes it new and so so when you're in the situation in which Muller has put the sole story on the table and then the job is to deconstruct the story to decide on the significance of the story to debate the legal aspects affects the story over a long period of time. I don't know how you do that successfully. Unless you kind of us a trial strategy that involves I calling the police officer Sir calling the detective to the witness Dan and asking for his story and then getting your fact witnesses in there and starting to have them tell the story their perspective the same thing over and over again and while I agree the hearing was dispiriting ways it was confusing. I don't think it made the kind of Great T._v.. People might <hes> thought in might have. I think the book was better than the movie in this case. I actually don't think there are a lot of alternatives on it and I think effectively used oversight. Hearings actually do have a lot of power not just in what we saw today but more importantly moving forward the book is better than the movie may be but I just I want to say the podcast is better than and and Susan you are speaking like somebody who is added to think in narrative terms for a for six weeks or so I actually WanNa double down enough what Susan said and challenge <hes> the premise that this isn't changing minds and I'm saying this not because I necessarily believe it but because I wanna put it in front of Jim and Bob who seems like our our biggest doubters of the efficacy of hearing of this heeren format <hes> and Sir Jim see what you think of this <hes> I agree that there are probably Louis not a lot of people who believed this morning in a deep state conspiracy to frame the president and Advaucu who watched that hearing and said Oh my I was wrong. There's actually a serious question here about <hes> the way our series set of questions about the way the President <hes> interacted with this Russian operation or the set of Russian operations and certainly the way he interacted with the investigation of it <hes> my God you know I was completely wrong. I agree that that in that sense mimes have not been changed but I do think the sense in which minds probably are being changed is the sent momentum that exists on the democratic side <hes> and today after the hearing Nancy Pelosi who of course opposes and impeachment inquiry had to appear with the to challenge to <hes> you know in you know emphasize her commitment to moving forward on these investigations nations. I and I do think that there is a sense in which the more of this stuff you do the more ineluctably kind of end up moving in the direction of impeachment and that's not changing minds between people who don't believe the premise and people who do believe in the investigative findings but it is it does have the effect of moving people who are disturbed into the camp of the more disturbed disturbed rather than the West disturbed so Jim. What do you think is maybe are? Are you doubting the efficacy of hearings because you're 'cause you already know what you think and so it's sort. Sort of not but the people who for whom reinforcement hey this is really important who know at some level that it's important and upsetting but it actually really does matter to see Bob Muller up there say agreeing with Adam Schefter yeah this reasons patriotism questions well so yes. I mean maybe I'm maybe I'm biased because of my interaction with the report and the investigation and so on I guess <hes> if I think about it for second let me let me just back way up and so <hes> what is the goal of the Democrats at this point in time time at the highest level the goal I think is to limit Donald Trump's time in office as much as possible and that will either be through impeachment and conviction which is highly unlikely or through the election in November of twenty twenty and the end of his term in January twenty twenty one okay so my question is did this hearing. Did this format change the minds of enough people that makes that more are likely than it was when we started the day and I guess I'm just not sure about that I four. I don't know what the exact percentages forty percent of the country. You know this whole thing is a hoax and ridiculous and they're not about the change their minds forty percent of the of the country really does not like Donald Trump and wants him out of office as soon as possible and then there's that middle and so did this endeavor today change their minds I don't I don't know I mean I <unk>. I take your point. I take Susan's point look. We had a full day. You know the T._v.. was dominated by this for seven hours today. <hes> so people and people are talking about it and it's and there are clips and analysis and things going on throughout the day and there will be the rest of the week and probably talking about on Sunday so it'll be a sustained event over a period of time and so maybe it will reach the minds of more people who had thought something different about the report prior to today. I'm just not sure that this was done done in the most efficient way possible that makes this information the most accessible it makes it as accessible as it could be to variety of of different people who perhaps don't have fully formed views on the report or can have their minds changed. I mean just a backup. Though as as Susan was speaking I was thinking about okay presenting a case to a jury right where you have to tell us especially like in a complicated case we have to tell the story to the jury in a way that they can understand in illegal format with you know the defense counsel there who can object in the judge that can rule on a variety different things and we'll keep order and you have to figure out within the constraints of that environment how to effectively lay out to them what the story is and and what happened and I guess to me yet. Maybe calling the copper the investigator at the outset I think may not have been the best thing here calling other witnesses. I trying to build more more of a story and maybe saving Muller for later for so two cleanup might have been a better way to to go about it because it's still sort of bloodless right. You don't have <hes> dom again there. You don't have Corey Lewandowski. You don't have some other protagonists in the story making making it real people who were in the room talking to Donald Trump. I mean really I guess you know Jim. Comey is one of the few people that we've had in that regard so I I don't know I mean I just I'm. I'm struggling to think about whether this is the most effective way to present whether enough minds were changed for for the Democrats to achieve their objectives Margaret. I'm I'm Kim's quite a point raises a really interesting tactical question for Congress which is what is their next step so the Wall Street Journal Journal reports this afternoon <hes> right after the hearing that the house is readying a suit over Don mcgann's <hes> testimony <hes> what what do we know about the state of the state of existing litigation <hes> but also what can we reasonably expect them to do next so it's you know Muller's as Jim puts it knock batting clean up. He's there leadoff had irked whether that's the right decision or the wrong decision. It's the one they made so like if we assume that this is the first act of the congressional side what's the next play so dance your question about so the current state of litigation is you and I have discussed in love her podcast several times you know there are several ongoing cases in courts right going on right now that are making their way through the courts so far the the rulings have generally been in Congress's favor <hes> I do think that the Nancy Pelosi and democratic leadership in the House are looking for more wins in the courts to buttress their efforts. I think they'll continue to pursue those. I think I think they're doing the right thing by pursuing <hes> dom against testimony <hes> in through you know through the through court proceedings. My understanding is is that there's this disagreement about there have been negotiations going on between the committee and the White House the disagreement is over whether don against testimony is going to be was going to be private sort of with the committee behind closed doors or public and my my impression impression is that the committee is insisting no Don mcgann will testify publicly. I think the the only way for them to get a kind of more of a star witness up there and so I do think Dhamma can don mcgann could be a pretty the explosive star witness if they do get him up there and asking these questions again even just ask him questions about things that are in the Mola report <hes> a lot of that stuff is is pretty damning and so what I see is them pursuing a pretty methodical coal <hes> course using the courts to the extent that that is advantageous for moving the investigation forward and you know at this point maybe playing a little bit more hardball with the White House with these more high profile witnesses that could be really really important if they get into a public setting and are able to confirm a lot of these pretty sort of again damning things that are in the report itself Margarethen just to clarify unlike lawler. If you actually could get don mcgann there and you could get past <hes> presumably exempt certain executive privilege clams unlike Bob Muller he is not limited edited by the text of the report right. You could ask him anything well. Certainly I mean you can ask him anything. What he would sort of decide? He felt comfortable saying I think it is a different question <hes> but you know again. I think there's just so much so much of the report depends on especially particularly in the obstruction piece depends on him <hes> and if he could be up there sort of just telling that story with a little bit more color I think that could be pretty could be pretty you know moving <hes> for for people who are really for people who are concerned about whether the president has you know engaged in obstructive acts or not. May I step in on this one so so first of all let me just as a background matter say you wrote a piece quite some time ago Ban <hes> you may have co authored with Susan or quit. I can't recall but about the time having come to initiate impeachment. He's been proceedings that was quite some time ago and just as a way of laying out on the table sort of our general judgments about these things against which are analysis can be measured. I thought at the time you had a strong case I subsequently certainly came to the conclusion that one could make a real strong case the congress should initiated and defended and then responsibly conducted in phased fashion formal impeachment proceedings because I believe there's evidence that the president committed impeachable offenses so I say that just as a starting point however however we are now in the summer of a presidential election cycle and the longer this takes the more we are in the presidential election cycle in fact. We're just a few months away from the Iowa caucuses. It is going to be very difficult to persuade in my view a large chunk of the public some part of it which may very well be not enamored of Democrats but very very troubled by trump's conduct that impeachment is the appropriate vehicle at this point wait for addressing the problem and so while I recognize that the endgame for some Democrats here was to give some momentum towards impeachment momentum at this point is really a critical question of timing and the timing timing is not in the Democrats favors on this in my view that I'm not arguing. That's good or bad. I'm simply saying particularly in view of my view of trump's behavior. It may be lamentable that Congress has is now in the position where it's very difficult to make the impeachment case without out the politicization of the election cycle looming over it but I just want to stress that it's not as if it is going to be easy for the Democrats to carry the case that will have an impeachment proceedings in January of Twenty twenty so you think the last if state is that you could do an impeachment <hes> and <hes> it actually not be <hes> you know sort of a giant stamp within the forehead of the of the presidential candidate of the Democratic Party. I don't really know I mean if you assume now we don't have the July July gone. August is gone then we get into September. We're talking here about lawsuits to get mcgann freed up for potential testimony other critical witnesses. You're now deep into the fall subtract Thanksgiving subtract Christmas by that point the Democrats will have had six or seven presidential debates and then we're four weeks out from the Iowa caucuses. This is not a favorable calendar from the standpoint of public opinion about how this problem should be addressed so that was one point. I just wanted to stress. The second point I wanna make is about mcgann. If I had to guess yes and there's a lot that could have between now and then the circumstances in which he comes to testify if he does it all and how it structured I would not expect colorful explosive testimony. I began will be extraordinarily careful about how he approaches it. If he ever for comes before the committee he has no intention in my judgment knowing a little bit about mcgann's history of committing public suicide with the Republican Party. He is a Republican. He was Republican counsel to the Congressional Campaign Campaign Committee. He was White House counsel mind. You stayed on well past the point when some White House counsel might have resigned given some of what Donald Trump subjected to and asked him to do he is with back at his law firm running a practice. That's heavily dependent on on strong relationships built over a number of years with Republican Congressional Republicans. I think it's highly implausible that he's looking to be the Republican answer to John Dean in this year or early the next. I just don't expect that at all all right so I'm going to put you on the spot on this. If <hes> if you can't if the hearing is a is a is a bad form and Bob Muller is in your are your star witness and Don mcgann's not gonna be your star witness <hes> and you're going to have to live gate the heck out of anything to get anybody else and oh by the way the clock is running out before anything you do has such up electoral consequences that you'll be super reticent about doing this. What do you do if you're the Democratic House? Leaders Chefs <hes> facing the situation. Do you just kinda throw in the towel and say all right. We'll we'll use hearings as a kind of Benghazi like harassment vehicle aw <hes> in order to sort of soften the battle field for whoever turns out to be the the candidate. Maybe we'll introduce some legislation but we're not actually GONNA do anything or do you say something else like like I think like a lot of <hes> the the conversation here has been sort of saying identifying option after option as sub optimal smaller bad so like are there any good options so with the giant caveat that I am far from being a politician of any sort let alone a good one <hes> and that's probably a good thing <hes> <hes> you know so hey I don't completely no ben but I guess I would start with the people least likely to have any ability to assert any type of privilege like Corey Lewandowski like Donald Trump Junior <hes> people oh who are not government employees have not been government employees in the <hes> relevant time period and get them up there. I don't know what kind of how how they're going to resist it exactly I'm having thought through that completely but it would strike me that the the kinds of issues is that Bob raises which are real with respect to a any White House counsel those are going to be real issues that that a lawyer is going to be worried about but start with other people start to tell the story in some other way by putting witnesses up there and to try to convey the information in in a in a way that if you're gonNA use the hearing format that that people will <hes> that people will be able to us. I guess let me just back up on one second. One thing that I did think today was about the the genius and master fullness of Donald Trump in terms of his ability to tell a story to create a narrative whether you agree with her not whether you think it's based on lies or not whatever he is effect in the in in two thousand nineteen he has figured out how to convey information to a large group of the population that they accept and and adopt and so I you know I don't have the solution. I don't know how you go up against that. It's it's you know it's just not. I'm not capable of that but this brings me back to the point I made earlier where he's just playing on a different level. You know I attempt to tweet from time to time and then I don't know how they come out or whatever but I remember getting one comment on one tweet tweet <hes> that I said something about the president and one of my commentators responded and said this Guy is light years ahead of you and that has resonated with me and I think about that a lot and in terms of his ability to communicate effectively with a lot of people effectively again in his terms with his agenda which I'm not making a normative judgment about at this moment put that aside for a second but in terms of his ability to tell a story so I don't know how the Democrats you know deal with that effectively but given the constraints that they've got right now given the reality I would start with some of these witnesses. We're going to be less trouble Margaret. I suggested exactly what Jim is suggesting right now sometime back. You know like Corey. Lewandowski strikes me as the low hanging fruit. Why is the focus not on the people? I'm making you answer for all of congressional behavior here because you're our Congress <hes> specialists but like like what lines why is the focus on so many people with arguably the strongest privilege claims rather than the universe is people. who were you know don't obviously have a basis to resist? I mean I don't I don't precisely no the heads are your question <hes> but you know there was there was a vote on on a resolution that had something like I think twelve or twenty names or something on it a l- recently I take you know maybe three weeks ago that had these types of names on it. So there is an intention I think to pursue some of these other types of people well. I mean Ho Ho picks in some ways is that kind of person <hes> I mean she was in the White House and so there's some complications there but you know she's not the count the wet council. She's the communications director <hes> when you see we saw what happened with her you know the there. was you know they. The White House just went to the mat to basically have her not be testifying in a public way <hes> she did like a behind you know again one of these private interviews so I think the committee was sort of using that those types of people to maybe build behind the scenes a little bit more of the of the factual record the idea of going more public you know with with some of these more high profile witnesses so they're they're really. I don't know exactly <hes> but I do think they you know there is <hes> stated intention to continue to go after those types of low pro profile folks also <hes> <music>. I think they're you know it may very well the case they're pursuing a sort of everything kind of a strategy like put everything out there pursue everything and see what what kinds of things are sticking all right. I WanNa wrap up with you. No this was Muller Day and so I WANNA wrap up with Bob Muller Susan <hes> What Are we done with Muller now. I mean we have his report. We have his testimony about the report. <hes> it is the world finished with I've I don't mean in some cosmic sense but I mean this episode instead of stories done with Mahler or is there some <hes> remaining drama for him mm-hmm that he plays a role in with respect to to <hes> the trump presidency and if he's done. How do you understand his legacy in this in space so I think he has done? I think that today was the day we sort of saw Bob Muller right off into the sunsets and I thought the the moon the Roberts Swansong exactly it's due to their the moment that that really sort of <hes> sunk in with me was in exchange I can't remember them but with which member but it was one of the Democrats who is trying to get them to walk through sort of the various elements of of a particular destructive act rates. There's the next to the preceding was there corrupt intent Jason and he's walking through <hes> and muller stops and he's saying yes I agree that elements met your we stayed the report states. The elements Matt Walking then he gets the enemy said. I just want to be clear that doesn't mean I agree like the fact that I'm saying this is I mean I agree with your with your characterization right kind of a like. I see what you're trying to do here which is getting me to say that he broke the law but like I'm not doing that and I thought that moment was Robert Muller saying I did my job and this part is is your job. I've given you the report. I've told you about the behavior. I've set out the legal elements for you. I cannot decide in this context whether or not a crime was committed or not and frankly not because of some untechnical Noel see memo although obviously that was a big factor here but because the constitution says it's your job and I think the way to understand Muller's legacy as infuriating infuriating as it was and and you know as much as I disagree with some of the substantive conclusions that he made and <hes> might have done differently <hes> if I were in his shoes I'm it's fundamentally a legacy of patriotism of somebody three who was called to challenge and attempted to respond with a sense of integrity and purpose and and commitment to sort of the values of this nation and so <hes> you know there's <unk> such a tremendous amount to unpack <hes> sort of about his work and about sort of his larger a life <hes> you know that said I think even while sitting here and feeling a lot of frustration <hes> <hes> I feel nothing but sort of genuine gratitude not just for Muller's work but especially for today for the reminder that there are still people like Mahler out there that as we see institutions of government being corrupted erupted and tracked down and <hes> you know sort of the the most basic traditions of public service being <hes> been called into question you know I do think that there was something to be said for sing somebody like Robert Muller stand up there and and stick to his guns and say you know I'm playing by the rules as I understand them here and you're either going to do your part or not and that's up to you and so I that's kind of the way that I I am am sort of turning the page on muller but I you know I really do mean sort of sincerely just the sense of of gratitude and admiration for his <hes> for his example and and optimism them that <hes> that we are going to return to <hes> you know a civil service that is <hes> not just lead but sort of imbued by by new people coming out from the bottom of people who wanna Kinda walk in that tradition Margaret what you think is there a <hes> is. Is You know one way to understand how you began on. How Susan just ended is that you know this day is him sort of passing the torch to the article? One body obviously not saying hey. I'm passing you the torch continue my work but saying I'm done you know I'm not doing this this anymore <hes> and <hes> I'm not doing the part of this. That's your job and I'm not making judgments for you. <hes> is that you know. Do you think members understand that is a challenge to them to do their own work or or is there a frustration with Mahler that he didn't do more for them. When I saw today over the course of the two hearings this was the house Democrats trying genuinely very hard to be the next actor that sort of steps up and says you know we're going to do the right thing here? which is to you know really run this to ground to guard our country against foreign interference? You saw Adam Schiff doing a lot of that. I think they are very self consciously trying to step into those shoes themselves in their role in in Congress <hes> it's just it's it's very challenging and the environment that that they're working in with the partisanship and you know seeing the facts you know Jim said earlier just seeing the facts in totally different ways but what I saw today from the House Democrats and then the you know Nancy Pelosi afterward was trying to step forward in a very self conscious way <hes> into a responsible governance role doing the things that they are supposed to be doing under these circumstances Bob. What do you think you've been critical of some of <hes> Muller's individual judgments send and and decisions <hes> you've also expressed a lot of admiration for aspects accident investigation? Do you think he's done at this point <hes> and if so how do you assess the contribution that he's made the job he was given isn't a very difficult one to do. I think that in some respects checks he played by the rules and another respects he frankly bent them. A little bit of that is to say he pushed pretty hard a to put some information out into the public for example on the obstruction issue that I think he thought <hes> might stimulate Congress Congress might motivate Congress to take a hard look for example precisely as Republicans are so agreed to hear his in effect saying I'm not reaching a traditional determination about whether the president commuted obstruction but at the same time I'm not exonerating generating. That's not a traditional prosecutorial judgement so I think he viewed himself in that case as acting in what he described as a unique situation as a special counsel and not just a regular prosecutor I think overall given the conflicts the pressures the fundamental difficulties of the position. I think that he rendered an extraordinary public service. I don't know anybody who could have done it better. Each time when criticizes muller it's very easy to answer or to imagine what counter criticism would be or the response to the criticism would be and so I view the report as a really meaningful public contribution and I would have probably in his place or if given the choice would've let it go there would have let gotta sit right there and let that report speaks for itself and the way that Muller asked that it it'd be allowed to do so I think very highly than the one thing that came out in the hearing today that we all know about that I think will be debated for some time was the decision on his part not to press the president to a higher degree of cooperation and if necessary to have subpoenaed him and his son for their testimony. I think that is a question that came up a couple of times. It's well known that he didn't do that. The reason he gave was the need for expedition that might have been explored. I'm not sure terribly fruitfully at that hearing but I think that was among other issues that we could discuss like where he came down on the campaign finance tissue women. That's going to be debated for years to come on balance. I think he didn't an extraordinary job Jim. I WanNa close with you because you're the person who has the most points of contact with all of this. You worked with Bob Bob Muller in a in a number of different capacities. I you were there when the investigation was that became the Mueller investigation <hes> began within the F._B._i.. The I you were there when Bob Muller was appointed to take it over <hes>. How do you understand his role in the whole thing and and how should we think about the contribution that Bob Mueller made wow that's <hes> that's broad question so <hes> look I mean in terms of the role in this particular instance I agree? It was a very very difficult job he had to do I think if you re a person person who reads that report you might disagree with some of the legal conclusions and some of the way they did it but in terms of the quality of it it's an outstanding document of of you know legal and factual analysis. It's really you know superb really <hes> so I think you know look in in volume. Two and some folks have criticizes quite a bit in terms of what he what he said and his his statement about not exonerating the president he was pushing the envelope in volume to in terms of his role. I think but what I thought about repeatedly in that regard is one thing that prosecutors hate absolutely hate is anybody that tries to screw around with the system and onto interfere with their ability to get to the truth and so to me that just kind of comes out and I think he was probably just reacting to that and look. I you know this this person tried in many many ways to interfere with investigation and I'm GonNa find a way to lay that out there even though this Oh l._l._C. opinion is sitting there and makes it impossible for me to make a recommendation to prosecute so anyway that sort of some of my my my thoughts there I mean I I have to say I was filled with sadness and a lot of different ways throughout the day today thinking that this is Bob's last sort of public service to the country at very well. Maybe I don't know we'll have to see <HES> and I've dealt with him. In a variety different ways for almost thirty years he was my immediate idiot boss at at one point in time and you know he's he's served the country in amazing ways over the course of his career and sacrificed a lot in order to be able to do that and you can talk about his service in Vietnam and so on I guess one thing I would just highlight would be <hes> his service to the country on nine eleven and thereafter I was with him on nine eleven and worked with them closely for many many years after that and you know it was a big team effort of a lot of people across the the federal government and our international partners and so on but <hes> as director by Director Muller was critical in protecting the United States after nine eleven and ensuring that there was another not another catastrophic attack on the United States and he did it'd away in did it in a way that scrupulously adhered to the Constitution laws of the United States turning down opportunities to get involved in some stuff. Let's just say that was extremely controversial right and so the reason that Americans is a significant part of the reason that Americans are free and safe today is because of the service of Bob Muller to the country. We're GONNA leave it there. <hes> this has been a special emergency the addition of the law fair podcast <hes> as always with our emergency editions <hes> we don't have music so it's not being performed by Severe Yam we do however have merch and you should <music> by the law fair Merch at the law fair store DOT COM. You should also leave a rating for the l'affaire podcast. Susan and I have learned a little bit about podcast ratings in the last week and one of the the things we've learned is that it really does matter if people rates the law fair podcast. It's not just something we say you know. The law fair podcast made it to number nine on the tunes chart and it was a whole a lot of people saw that first episode of the report and jumped on it so what I want you all to do because you're all listeners to the emergency podcast is go rate and review the law fair podcast on Itunes and let's just flood the place with feedback to the l'affaire podcast <hes> tweet about it share it on social media and <hes> talk about it. Tell friends <hes>.

El Robert Muller Congress Susan Hennessy Bob Bauer Marga Bob Muller Susan Muller Donald Trump Don mcgann White House Sir Jim president White House Jim Baker Bob Muller House Judiciary Committee Bob Mahler Muller Day special counsel House Intelligence Committee US Bob Mueller
5 Takeaways from Bill Barr's Testimony on the Mueller Report

The Point with Chris Cillizza

05:19 min | 1 year ago

5 Takeaways from Bill Barr's Testimony on the Mueller Report

"Hey, everyone. It's poppy Harlow spring has sprung and we are out with new boss files. Episode this week, meet Mindy Grossman. She's the president and CEO of WW the newly rebranded Weight Watchers, and she's leading a herculean turnaround of the more than fifty year old brand with nearly five million subscribers turning the focus away from weight loss and onto wellness. Plus, the Oprah affect the media mogul is not only a spokeswoman, but a board member and one of the largest shareholders checkout boss files today. Tired of spending hundreds of dollars for prescription glasses. Xeni offers thousands of affordable. Eyewear styles starting at just six ninety five. No ridiculous markups. No hassles. Just quality affordable. I wear delivered right to you visits. Any today at Xeni dot com slash CNN. Welcome to the point for Wednesday. May the first I'm Chris cillizza cutting through the political spin and bring you the news you need to know Bill bar. The attorney general was on Capitol Hill on Wednesday testifying before the Senate Judiciary committee about the Miller report in his actions around the mullahs report who was the first time since we've actually seen the four hundred and forty eight page report that bar was available to lawmakers for questions. Now, I watched the whole thing it went on for a very long time senators that a lot of questions, and I had a few. I'm just gonna go through five takeaways if you wanna see all the takeaways go to CNN dot com, you'll find it there. Takeaway number one bar tried to explain what he was doing with that four page letter. He released on March twenty fourth two days after Bob Muller gave him the full Bulloch report. Now, originally, it was cast as a summary that it went through the fact that there was no evidence of collusion that Muller didn't recommend obstruction, etc. Etc. While bars now saying it wasn't meant. There's a summary. It was more just a top lines a conclusion a verdict. Not sure if I buy that. But that was his explanation. Take number two Bill bar blamed the media for Muller's reaction to that letter. We learned on Tuesday night that Bob Muller head sent a letter to Bill bar saying he didn't really think that the four page letter barred released publicly accurately got the tone in context as related to obstruction. Well, bar seemed to dismiss those concerns on Wednesday when he said, what Muller was really complaining about was the fact that the media was covering it has no obstruction, and as opposed to what he actually said in the letter. I would argue that it was in fact, what Donald Trump was saying, no collusion. No, obstruction total exoneration that drove the public narrative. But what's fascinating is? If you look at molars letter nowhere in there does he blame the media? Takeaway number three the difference between firing and removal. For conflict. So what we're talking about? Here is Donald Trump asking his then White House counsel, Don Mcgann to get rid of Bob Muller. No one doubts that happened. The question is what did he mean? So most people, including most Democrats believe that he was telling me again to fire. Bob Mueller that Muller had problems and he needed bit get rid of him. What bar argued is Mcgann was being told to remove Muller for a conflict of interest and therefore another special counsel will be named in the investigation would go on. So how Donald Trump possibly be obstructing Justice? Takeaway number four, Bill bars, not going to apologize for saying spying. So you'll remember last month Bill Barr testified in front of congress. And he said that he had no doubt that Trump's campaign in two thousand sixteen was being spied on now that caused a huge amount of controversy because presumably what he was referring to was the Faisal warranted. Surveillance of Carter page a totally above. Gordon legal process by which the department of Justice can survey on American citizen bar said, he would not apologize for saying spying during his testimony on Wednesday saying that spying, quote is a good English word that in fact does not have synonyms because it is the Bronx toward incorporating really all forms of covert intelligence collection, period. And finally take away number five bar made clear that in deciding not to charge Trump with obstruction of Justice. He did not mean to say that Trump was innocent of that charge. Simply that Trump would not have been affectively prosecuted on that charge. There's a big big big difference between not guilty and innocent. And I think that's what bar was trying to highlight. So we now know that neither Bob Muller nor Bill lar- exonerated, Donald Trump on obstruction. No matter what the president tweets. And that's the news. You need to know for this. First day of may twenty nineteen four much more. Go to CNN dot com slash the point. You can subscribe to my newsletter. There comes Monday through Friday and Sunday. It's good. It's fun, and it's free. You can also subscribe to this podcast on Stitcher. Spotify apple podcasts or rever. You. Get your podcast, and you can call it up on your Google home for your Amazon echo.

Bob Muller Donald Trump Bill bar Trump CNN president and CEO Don Mcgann Xeni Bill Barr Mindy Grossman Xeni dot Chris cillizza Bob Mueller Spotify department of Justice Google Bulloch Senate Judiciary
Special: ICYMI - Mueller Preview with Jeremy Bash

Words Matter

30:34 min | 1 year ago

Special: ICYMI - Mueller Preview with Jeremy Bash

"Welcome to words matter with Katie Barlow and Joe Lockhart welcome to words matter. I'm Katie Barlow. Our goal is to promote objective reality as a wise man once said everyone is entitled to their own opinion not their own facts words have power and words have consequences Joe. Oh and I are thrilled to welcome Jeremy Bashed as our guest today from two thousand nine to two thousand eleven jeremy served as Chief of staff at the C._I._A.. Under director Leon Panetta and from two thousand eleven to two thousand thirteen as has chief of staff at the Department of Defense Under Secretary Panetta a graduate of Georgetown and Harvard Law School Jeremy was the policy director for National Security Issues for the two thousand Gore Lieberman campaign and also served as the Chief Minority Council for the House Intelligence Committee under ranking member Congresswoman Jane Harman Jeremy Bash Welcome to words matter grew to be here so special counsel Robert Mueller is now scheduled to appear for the House committees judiciary and select intelligence. It's an open session. I WANNA start with the witness himself because the special counsel indicated at his press conference back in May that he didn't WanNa comment any further on what the report said and if he were called or compelled to testify before Congress he wouldn't go any further than what was written in his submission and when you served Jeremy as staff on the House intelligence committee then F._B._I.. Director Muller testified before committee. So what kind of witness was he. He was very direct. <hes> I would say almost <hes> bland but it was powerful in the sense that it was a just the facts Ma'am kind of presentation. He doesn't embellish he's not theatrical. He does provide however I think a compelling narrative because his background his experience the fact that he isn't political that he isn't a partisan official Shaw really lends credibility to his factual presentation and I would say that on both sides of the I'll Republican and democratic when I was up on Capitol Hill and I was observing Bob Muller he had enormous respect from some people across the spectrum and so what do you think we can expect from him on the twenty four same showing different day yeah I mean that is his modality. He he wants to be very factual very direct answer questions clearly succinctly he will when he can. I think referred to his report but look let's face it. In a lot of cases. The questions are going to direct him to <hes> expose his thought process <hes> explain how he arrived at a conclusion and answer the fundamental question of Y Y in his mind does he think Putin courted trump. Why did trump court Putin why was trump so intent on obstructing the investigation why were all of these actions taken that are so oh highly unusual and that seemed to so in significant way undermine national security? I think if you get a national security professional like Bob Muller talking about that in any detail it's going to be pretty powerful and pretty compelling Jeremy. You Wear Oughta hats. I'm GonNa make you wear a lot of them. In the next few minutes what's Bob Mowers goal in this hearing and how will he handle not going beyond the contours of the report when everyone of the room is GonNa want him to Joe. I think Bob Mueller goal is to get out of there without making a ton of news. I think he believes that his major contribution is the report and I actually think that he thinks that the report is much much more damning than anything he can present orally. I think his whole <hes> mode and mentality is read the Goddamn report because if you read the report you'll see how incredibly troubling this conduct conduct by the president and his inner circle actually is I don't need this is Bob Moore speaking. I don't need to tell you anything more. I don't need to embellish it. I don't need to narrate it. I don't need to tell you what to think. The facts in this report will lead you to the conclusion inclusion that Donald Trump did some very significantly troubling things and that they may constitute high crimes and misdemeanors over to you guys to decide so I think Bob Muller's goal really is to highlight the facts to try what a quote unquote play it straight and not to <hes> make news about his own opinions or his own of viewpoints on it. He wants to report to speak for itself but maybe he'll make news like he did last time by literally just reading what's in the report and Lo and behold it was reported as news. It's it's this amazing dynamic. which is the report itself is explosive? The the actual facts laid out in the four hundred plus page report show show a president who was hell bent on obstructing justice on misleading on convincing other people in his inner circle to lie to lie in memos to the file to mislead investigators and so if you just analyze the report the facts of it and have Bob Muller essence narrated out that I think makes for a very compelling hearing Jeremy What's the Democrats on each of the committee's strategy and what will constitute from a strategic point of view success or failure failure. I think the Democrats want to do to important things number one is I think they want to have Bob Muller explained in his own voice in his own words the gravity of the offenses and the gravity gravity of the conduct. I think if you have a former marine a former prosecutor a former F._B._i.. Director who's got clear credibility and <hes> and the force of his <hes> extensive career in law enforcement explaining the president did these things and did these things in a troubling fashion. I think just merely that <hes> that video that <hes> image will be <hes> helpful in propelling the Democrats to say this requires further investigation. I think there's a second I can objective that the Democrats have which is to try to mind for some new information now. What could that new information be? I think come in in a couple of different forms. I I think it's going to be important for Bob Muller A. to be asked by the Democrats. Tell us about whether you agreed with or disagreed with the way attorney. General Bill Bar explained the conclusions of your report. Because of course that's not in the report. That's new information. We really haven't heard much from Bob Muller about it second. I I think they'll ask him about whether or not the he thought it was appropriate for the Attorney General to conclude that Donald Trump did not obstruct justice third. I think they will ask him whether or not he believes meaning Bob Muller believes that the O. L. C. Office of Legal Counsel Opinion <hes> written by the Justice Department was the main factor that prohibited him from finding whether or not Donald Trump committed a criminal offense. And Fourth I think they will ask him whether or not he believes Bob. Muller believes that under our constitutional system is up to Congress to take the next step to determine whether or not they were high crimes and misdemeanors feels a little bit like you're saying that the Democrats I want to get more talking and there's a risk of the Democrats talking too much on the other side. Would you agree that the Republicans WanNa do a lot of the talking and try to limit what Miller says yes. I think that's absolutely right. Show I think the Republicans will now only want to chew up a lot of the time but I think the want attack the whole special counsel investigation and in fact I think they'll probably even go a step further and attack the investigation of trump in the first instance by the F._B._i.. And I was I think they'll try to undermine the basis for the counterintelligence investigation. They'll try to raise issues like alleged F._B._I.. Misconduct <hes> the basis for the Carter Page fiso warrant and whether it was appropriate in the first instance for Jim Komi to approve an investigation of the trump campaign ties to the Russian Federation. Don't they run a risks. They're Jeremy that the soft spoken just the facts Ma'am Bob more kind of calmly and what was the bout of the water I think so but in some respects Joe all they Kinda WanNa do as muddy the waters so if they have a noisy chaotic hearing if they start forcing the chairman Chairman Nadler to gavel people quiet. If it looks a little bit like a circus then I think that redounds to the benefit of the Republicans because they basically say look the Democrats are in charge here in it's a circus and <hes> this is a partisan shell the more the Republicans can paint this as a partisan fight as opposed goes to a national security investigation that somber serious and factual. I think the more that plays into the Republican hands beyond just the Republican approach versus the Democratic Approach. We're going to have to different committees taking a crack this over the course of the day and there's a lot what in the four hundred forty eight page report Jeremy has a copy of it right here on the table. The Washington Post bound version makes allowed thud when he puts down volume one begins with the following the Russian government interfered in the two thousand sixteen presidential essential election in sweeping and systematic fashion volume two with possible obstruction of justice by president trump begins with this beginning in two thousand seventeen. The president of the United States took a variety of actions toward the ongoing F._B._i.. B._I. Investigation into Russia's interference in the two thousand sixteen presidential election and related matters that raised questions about whether he had obstructed justice so starting with the Judiciary Committee what is Chairman Nadler's goal and and focused for his allotted time with Mahler and how is that GonNa differ from chef I think Chairman Nadler and the Judiciary Committee will focus primarily on volume two on the obstruction of justice issues. The mandate of the Judiciary Committee in part is to ensure sure the the <hes> the preservation of the rule of law <hes> our constitutional system in in the notion that no person is above the law and that if there's a valid investigation of anybody including the president that that can't be obstructed and so I think Nadler Adler focus on that it also is by the way <hes> the part of the the story that involves Donald Trump as president and so to the extent that they're looking for things that have tethered to impeachment. I think they're more interested in the in volume two and the third the thing is I would say is that it's the part that was left hanging. It was kind of the hanging Chad of this episode. The volume two of the Mullahs report was the one where he basically said. I can't decide whether or not he obstructed justice because it's not at my job to do that. That's the job of the Congress and so that's what I think that now there's GonNa focus on it and then I think related -Ly Adam Schiff in the House Intelligence Committee Democrats will focus on primarily volume one to establish really without l.. Controversy that Russia attacked our democracy that Donald Trump requested the attack he welcomed it he benefited from it and he rewarded it and I think if they lay that out in clear detail and there. I don't even think they need you'd have to Bob Mueller do the town of the talking if they lay that unclear detail I think it will advance the narrative that Donald Trump was clearly trying to hide something so we talked about the Democrat strategy when he goes <hes> before Congress but I wanNA talk about the Republican Strategy Joe. I'm sure you have questions on this too but talking about the Republican strategy in general we've seen members go after witnesses like Michael Cohen and others what's the risk of them being confrontational intriguing him to adversarial and we've already seen comments comments of certain members on the record saying you know I'll treat him or show him to be the open. It was a biological reference. I think at the time we'll look I think some Republican strategist might say that hey look were ahead here. We're we're winning this. The the American people a think that this is ancient history be this is not new news and see even if it is impeachment isn't the right remedy so the more that we create conflict in a hearing the more that we give fodder are for <hes> cable T._V. to to fire people up on the more. This issue is going to be what's talked about as opposed to other things and so some Republican strategists might believe that actually very a noisy confrontational hearing <hes> only serves to <hes> advanced the narrative that that this is a a political defense of the president not a principal one. I actually think the Republicans aren't going to be able to help themselves. I think they're gonNa want attack Bob Muller because they see his credibility his nonpartisan approach approach his just the facts approach as a mortal threat to the fortunes the political fortunes of the president and they believe that there duty-bound to defend the president at all costs no matter the facts Jeremy. Let's go through a little bit more for <hes> on the obstruction that I wanna turn to some of the counter Intel stuff <hes>. I assume someone's going to press him on why he didn't subpoena the President to testify. How important is that in the broader context first of all this? That's a double edged sword show. I've been thinking about that one too. If the Democrats pressed Bob Muller and say you know why didn't you get the president of talk and Bob Muller says look the reality is we tried <hes> but he said no and we don't WanNa waste a lot of time litigating gain this up to the Supreme Court and we fundamentally don't think we needed his testimony to get all the facts. Let's just say that's the dialogue. If the Democrats Kinda keep pushing on that what do they do basically Kinda undermine muller they sort of suggest that Muller is incomplete now now maybe a very nuanced view of conclusion is that well if he's incomplete we have to pick up the ball and we have more to investigate and that <hes> the mullahs report isn't the whole story here. Okay I get that but the the the double edged sword aspect is that of course if they undermine undermine muller there's sort of undermining their own witness. Let me switch gears a little bit because I think one of the most interesting things about the entire investigation is what's not in the report. <hes> the the many investigations that have spawned spawned <hes> out of it that you know whether it's a New York state investigation whether it is <hes> state agee's whether it's S._D._N.. Why do you think mower will address any of that in any using? Using any specifics and with the Democrats be smart <hes> even though they know that are not going to get more on the record to start throwing some of that stuff out there to remind people that there are things like the campaign finance violations the emoluments. The tax returns the foundation <hes> in New York. Is there any benefit there for the for the Democrats. I think there's some benefit show I think the way the Democrats will phrase that question is <hes> director Mahler. Please please tell us all the open investigations of the president that you're aware of that were related to your investigation and he'll probably say something well on paychecks and such my report. There's a redacted section that explains that there are thirteen or fourteen matters fourteen open matters and and he probably won't substantively show too much ankle on it but I think the mere fact that he will say in his own voice that there are open matters. I think then will allow a Nadler to turn around and say boy. There's a lot more for us to investigate. We have a lot more to dig into. That's clearly not <hes> not encompassed by what we're going to be covering here. You mentioned earlier that it'll be important and you WANNA see <hes> members ask about attorney general bars role and everything that happened after the report even though Muller's indicated he doesn't WanNa talk about it but we have the press conference we have his letter and we have their phone conversations. <hes> that have been <hes> spoken about in public a couple of times how how hard are the Democrats going to push on those interactions and on the quality or or his evaluation of attorney general bars conduct and what's the danger in going too far there. Yeah I think it really depends on Bob Muller's demeanor so so just to play this out. If the Democrats say tell us about how you felt that what Bill Bar did and more says we'll look you know lawyers have disagreements and I disagree. I thought his words than exactly capture my sentiment and I wanted people to read the report he he he's sort of downplays it a little bit and basically says it was kind of an honest disagreement then I think we harvest the Democrats to keep pushing that issue however if Bob Muller says I was really concerned that the attorney general was doing something thing that was misleading that was inaccurately describing our conclusions and we hadn't done two years worth of work in a four hundred forty eight page report only to have our conclusions misrepresented and for a presidential appointee presidentially appointed appointed attorney general to do that was all the more troubling since the president of course was the main subject of the investigation. If Obama says anything like that I think that will be explosive. If you had to try to predict these things are generally <hes> defined by a moment <hes> particular question their particular member. Put Your your crespin had on for those of us. Who are you know as close to sixties I am? Where do you think that moment comes from? I think if a member asks Bob Muller for a kind of personal <hes> no-holds-barred assessment about whether or not the president of the United States conducted himself Elfin man are consistent with national security and the best interests of America and if Bob Muller does something even the small as taking a deep breath in or sitting back in his chair and kind of folding holding his arms and saying Jeez if there's anything that suggests that Bob Muller believes that Donald Trump was unpatriotic even giving aiding comfort to an adversary. I think that's going to be a huge moment. I think it's going to be a moment that will cause a lot of people on Capitol Hill and around the country to say we have to look into this more. We have no option but to continue to press this issue. Give me a not necessarily odds but <hes> the likelihood that this it's or is it impossible to reach the level of hype that we're going to have by the time Bob Muller raises his hand. There's going to be a ton of anticipation. Eyeballs will be glued but if <hes> if as the day goes on not much new information is being gleaned and if there is a sense that <hes> the Democrats are running out of energy <hes>. I think it's possible the Republicans say. Let's not fuel this. Let's can let this go quietly. Let the time click away and they try to change the subject. As soon as the hearing is over before we let you go one of the many hats we want you to put on as your your C._I._A.. Hat and ask you about <hes> the counterintelligence aspect Taylor and volume one. Maybe just walk us through the facts and your grasp on volume one with your perspective and experience <hes> at the C._I._A.. Will the intelligence community came down in January twenty seventeen with a very startling but direct intelligence assessment which is that not only had the Russian Federation interfered in the election and attacked our democracy but they have done so at the direction of Vladimir Putin that they had done so specifically with the intent to benefit donald trump so it wasn't merely that they want to cause chaos in the American a political season but that they favored trump had a reason to favorite trump and that they wanted to in effect help trump in the campaign and so I think volume volume one is really the clearest explanation an exposition of all the ways that the Russian intelligence services benefited Donald Trump and all the ways that the trump campaign in more than one hundred different instances had kind of troubling conduct with the Russian Federation and you know one of the big issues that's addressed in volume on. I think it will likely come up in the hearing is the role of Mike Flynn. The former national security adviser who right after the election basically hopped on the phone with the Russian ambassador and began to conduct secret diplomacy even before Donald Trump was inaugurated so you gotta ask yourself if the Russian Federation supported Donald Trump if they came in a government delegation to trump tower in June twenty two thousand sixteen they informed the high command of the trump campaign haywar here to help and by the way what we want in exchange is relief from sanctions and then they began to get that relief in sanctions and the Begin to get leverage over American foreign policy isn't right they're the entire tale of communication of coordination and a quid pro quo and while it clearly did not rise to the level of a violation of criminal law in what the trump campaign did in obtaining joining a quote thing of value which is what you have to obtain under the federal election laws to violate the Federal Action Statutes while they didn't do that. They didn't need to all the needs to do with say when we're elected president. Where we're we're in the White House? We're going to help you out because you're helping us out and that's exactly what they did so Jeremy in particularly in the counter Intel and volume one mower and his team expressed some frustration about non-cooperation <hes> on about things they just couldn't get to the bottom of how might that play out in the hearing well. I think one of the areas where they're going to press <hes> Bob Mueller is what was the rule of done junior because from the report itself. We don't actually know whether Don Jr. ever provide any evidence to the special counsel. It says that he did not agree to a voluntary interview and then there's a redacted portion of the report and the suggestion is will maybe he provide grand jury testimony and that grand jury testimony was protected from disclosure under the <hes> federal rules of criminal procedure but we don't know that and I think we need to understand whether or not don Jr. provide information to the special counsel and whether they were satisfied with the information they got because of course it was done junior who received the inquiry from the Russian government delegation. He was the one who famously said I love it when told that the Russian government was going to be helping donald trump and he was the one who according to Michael Cohen went into trump's office and told him about the meeting that had occurred and also don Jr. would have been in the middle of many discussions with wikileaks and Roger Stone and the other efforts to weaponize information that Russian Federation had stolen certainly my impression from looking at the report that volume volume to answer the questions without coming to a definitive conclusion but volume one seems to leave open a number of questions on the counter intelligence. is their potential here for new news to break or are. We just going to hear resuscitation of what we already know well again. I think Joe if the paradigm is that people know everything in the report. I'm not sure we're GONNA get new facts but again. The premise here is that not everybody knows what's in the report right right and so the Mir recitation of the facts and the report I think will seem new to a lot of people and <hes> and so I think that's going to be a very important aspect of it. I think with respect to volume one. The headline is going to be that the trump campaign campaign welcomed the support of the Russian government and that that is a very shameful unpatriotic and significant breach of national security. I would certainly expect a Democrat to stay at. I know more won't answer but just asking the question I would ask. Do you think the Russians tip the election to trump and stole the election from Hillary Clinton. He won't have an answer but I think just leaving that out there <hes> is very damaging to trump and we'll get under his skin in a way that I don't think we can imagine tweeting will start it before the hearings over. I think that's probably dead on Joe <hes> I I also think that with respect to volume to the big moment probably will come if Bob Muller says something to the effect of look the Department of Justice Policies Prohibited Me prohibited me from making determination whether or not this conduct that I've outlined was criminal. I believe it was wrongful. I believe that phrase significant questions of criminality however that ultimate decision is not mind to make that's yours MR chairman to make and if I think if he does that which by the way the the import of what he said during his nine minute press statement <hes> <unk> several weeks ago if he says that I think that will be also a big moment the problem with volume to is that Bob Muller stated his conclusion in a double negative. He said the president did not not obstruct justice now. I barely understand double negatives. I think most people get confused by them. In effect would he was saying was the president did obstruct justice but in order for me to find that there's a criminal violation. I would have to Overturn D._O._J.. Policy I can't do that over to Congress what about Devon Nunez who has been <hes> one of trump's staunchest defenders and supporters. What do you expect from him? I think we can expect <hes> from from the ranking member the Intelligence Committee the same that we've seen since the beginning of the trump administration which is an effort to audition for executive branch jobs a <hes> an effort to show the president's opened up exactly exa- in an effort to show the president that he's loyal <hes> and I think it's frankly going to be pretty clownish. There's another aspect of this we should we should touch on which is this issue of time limits and the issue. I wanted to ask about that. Actually the issue of of of constraining the time Yup I kind of think it's a mistake for the Democrats to be agreeing to time limits. I think they're approach should be we've subpoenaed a government official. He will be here as long as it takes to answer every single one of our questions nothing could be more important. Nothing could be more urgent as we prepare ourselves for the twenty twenty elections we have a number of questions is highly detailed two year investigation a four hundred plus page report. There's nothing nothing compelling us to wind this up quickly or rush this through. That's our republican tactic to get this out of the headlines but we're not interested in headlines were interested in the truth where it take as much time as we need. I know that Hillary Clinton in the eleventh eleventh-hour of her Benghazi hearing probably would agree with that Jeremy and you know I think <hes> if she can handle it <hes> he can handle it and we know he can handle it. <hes> and I think the Democrats at times here have demonstrated <hes> <hes> a lack of boldness <hes> and a lack of understanding the leverage they have so. I hope that they won't do that. Let me try to wrap this up with a question that kicks it forward. Let's assume that the movie he gets better reviews than the book <hes> and it's raises a lot of questions and some of the Democrats <hes> in Nancy Pelosi's caucus <hes> start <hes> moving more towards impeachment and we have the you know the twelve new subpoenas subpoenas Gimme a sense of what you think is going to happen next <hes> starting with the subpoenas of <hes> the new witnesses that are all very relevant. They are the fact witnesses here everyone from Mike Flynn to jared Kushner Schnur to David Becker. How do you see this process playing out? I think the Republicans and the trump White House have concluded that there's no price for define the subpoenas and so unfortunately I think the gotTa go to court. I think he's got to court fast. I think the approach of the Democrats should be were giving you a subpoena. You have forty eight hours to tell us what time you'll be year and if you don't tell us what time you'll be here we're GONNA WE'RE GONNA take this to court to enforce this and yes. The litigation will take some time but I think it's fundamentally important for Congress to exert. It's <hes> it's article one prerogatives here and I think only the courts can do that and then we're going to see whether or not trump really is a a strongman President whether he's actually going to defy judicial where's edition to Congressional National <hes> oversight. Let me just follow up in that last question is he the strongman President who will defy judicial or is he the president who last week back down on the senses I think the president is GonNa Press as far as he can go and he's GonNa dig in and I wouldn't be surprised if he directs his team to defy judicial orders and then what what does Nancy Pelosi do well then again. I think there joe she's GonNa GonNa be under increasing pressure if he is defined judicial orders to <hes> to bring to ahead the issues of whether or not <hes> high crimes and misdemeanors in the sense of the president's refusal to comply are present and I. I don't know how it's GONNA play out. Honestly none of us does but I think it's going to build pressure on her. The good news though Jeremy is longer this plays out the more Philippe and I can debate this issue because you know it's it's. It's a show we want to take on the road all right.

Democrats Bob Muller Donald Trump president jeremy Congress trump Robert Mueller Joe Lockhart President special counsel Director Bob Muller A. Bob Vladimir Putin House Intelligence Committee Russian Federation Russian government Chairman Nadler trump tower
A Fiasco on Capitol Hill # 1029

The Dan Bongino Show

55:12 min | 1 year ago

A Fiasco on Capitol Hill # 1029

"Get ready to hear the truth about America on a show. That's not immune to the facts with your host. Dan Bongino is it true. The evidence gathered during your investigation Asian of given the questions that you've just answered. Is it true the evidence gathered during your investigation did not establish that the president was involved in the underlying crime related to Russian election interference state in volume one page seven. We found insufficient evidence evidence of presidents call culpability so that'll be a yes with that that'd be yes. Yes thank you isn't it true. The Evidence did not establish that the president or those close damn were involved in charge rushing computer hacking rack measure conspiracies or that the president otherwise unlawful relationships with any Russian official volume two page seventy six correct. I leave the answer to the report so exonerated again. Hey what does this exoneration number five thousand four hundred twenty six again ladies and gentlemen. This will be a we we will be running video on this. I think for a long time this smaller hearing is imploding on the Democrats it absolutely glorious fashion listen with all due respect to Bob Muller and his service to the country my gosh is there ever been a guy less prepared than this folks. I've got a ton of video for you today. Here's what I'm going to do for you joe and I by the way welcome to the Dan Bongino show producer Joe. How are you today must get that in trap yourself saying it's GonNa be a bumpy right? Yes big time. I wanted to say thank you to you and Paul her. I've been sending them voluminous amounts of I mean it. You guys have been really working hard. Thank you to the audience. Here's what I'm GonNa do for tune in today here's going to do in today's show a little bit the tomorrow show and I promise I will get the news of the week to with the remaining three shows of the week. There's budget stuff. There's other things going on too. I am going to distill down for you. These what's going to be six hours of Muller testimony into about ten or fifteen takeaways and I'm telling on you and I listen. I'm a conservative. I'm not pretending to be nonpartisan. I'm telling you with absolute certainty this. Thus far has been an apocalyptic disaster for the Democrats. If something changes in the afternoon session Russian I am going to record some components Tamar show tonight. This has been a disaster okay. Let's get right to it. You saw video number one Doug Collins Nailing Muller to the wall on this exonerating the president again for the Fifteenth Time Today Show brought to you by buddies that law she listened do not carry a firearm naked by me naked. I don't mean without clothes on you. GotTa have the protections of Lawshield Ladies and gentlemen. Wow excuse me if you are forced God forbid to use a firearm in a self defense scenario defending yourself your family and you don't have the lawshield legal protections. The advice lawshield can provide and their strategy guide them what to do God forbid something like this happens to you. You are carrying your firearm. I'm naked. Nobody wakes up thinking today will be the day they're going to be pushed into a corner and forced to use their firearm in self defense but God forbid what if it is. This was the case for a sixty four year old New York man who fatally shot you prowlers. This is a true story a going through his home. It was the second second time they hit this poor guy's house but that's not why this story is crazy. What's crazy? After killing the suspects to homeowner yes the homeowner was arrested because the firearm which saved his life originally belonged to his dead father and he failed to register it upon inhering it inheriting it this is ridiculous. He was arrested and charged with Felony Felony possession of an illegal handgun. Thankfully he's out on bail but his legal issues aren't over yet possibly costing him thousands more likely tens of thousands stories like this are exactly why I am a proud member of U._S.. Law Show for less than eleven dollars per month. You not only have immediate twenty four seven three sixty five access to an attorney but you won't pay a penny in attorney fees. If this nightmare ever happened to you do not carry a firearm naked folks go to U._S.. LAWSHIELD DOT com slash Dan and and a special gift for my listeners get their five free defend the reports worth one hundred dollars absolutely free so one hundred dollars value absolutely free. You'll be amazed at how much useful information is inside given the choice. I feel better knowing that U._S.. Lawshield has my back join me in the fight to protecting protecting your right to keep embarrass U._S.. LAWSHIELD DOT COM Slash Dan U._S. lawshield dot com slash Dan U._S. lawshield dot com slash Dan all right. Let's go okay. This is a video the second one that of course the opening video is Doug Collins Exonerating Bob Muller Answering <hes> Doug towns question exonerating Donald Trump again <hes> which is utterly absurd. We're going through this fiasco now. Why are we doing this? What's going on here? I gave an interview and w e mail this morning radio station in Washington D._C.. And I said I gave you the behind the scenes a lot of you. After watching that abomination this morning muller completely collapsed under questioning couldn't answer basic questions Louie Gohmert. Jim Jordan absolutely shredded him. You're probably wondering why the Democrats in the Hapless Jerry Nadler did this and they're clearly now regretting folks. Here's the inside baseball. You've probably heard this on T._v.. A little bit but I'm getting this from some quality sources the Democrats were under the assumption here that because most most Americans do not have time to read the four hundred page Muller report otherwise known as the mother op Ed because it's not what's in the report is what's not in the report that matters show the line amongst the Democrats were well if they don't read the book we're going to give him the movie you dig year. The Democrats were under the impression that since nobody read the report or large swath of American and read the report which has some unflattering information nonetheless painted in the most unflattering light because that's what muller was there to do to hurt the president show that and if they put this impeccable witness Bob Muller up there and it looked like a Nixon Watergate hearing that this would convince America finally that America needed to be impeached red flag under the Hood for review folks. This is not working out what he would have went straight to the police. None of this would have ever asked muller absolutely he's collapsed complete not a lisi collapse. He is now joe changed his story for the third time on the L._l._C. guidelines rally one clip. I'm GONNA play time now. He's and by the way people have been reminding me holding not fifties tenure replay I out okay okay thank you. I haven't watched the N._F._l.. In a while so I'm losing my I'm not so so I'm not so re sharp anymore and that's a little softer may N._F._l.. Stuff folks. Here's the backstory to clip. I'm about to play you of bars testimony a awhile ago matter Bob Muller now in testimony today said again changing his story for the third time that the reason the report is written the way it was and the president wasn't indicted was because of office office of Legal Counsel guidelines indicating. You can't indict a sitting President Joe. I'm GonNa need you as the Ombudsman here. Here's what's really going on. Bob Muller hates the President Sodas Bob Muller's team of anti-trump Democrats. They can't stand the president they found a non-prosecutable case of obstruction and they found collusion to be a complete fairytale in other words. There was no prosecutable crimes and there was no predicate crime at all copy Muller did not want to write a report court completely entirely making the president look like the victim of a witch-hunt so what he did is he fabricated a set of narratives in part to on obstruction which painted the president out to obstruct an investigation he never obstructed. Hopefully I'll get to this Wall Street Journal piece later about this for follow me here so he writes this story but he leaves out facts that indicate the presence entirely innocent of obstructing the case because the case wasn't obstructed now because because he knows that obstruction case he puts together a part two is a joke and we'll be laughed out of court if he ever moves forward with it. Muller can't prosecute non-prosecutable case. He hasn't WANNA be embarrassed. Imagine he goes to court loses badly the president so what does he do. He writes this story and says well. I would have prosecuted them but Joe we get an odd. The office of Legal Counsel has a long standing opinion that says we can't died a sitting president and that's the only reason what's the problem you track you dig yeah yeah. I would have hit a right what a prosecuted Joe for Polonius Mo- pary but the problem is the office of Legal Counsel says you. Can't prosecute the best podcast producer in the business on felonious mope richer. It's you can't do it. That's the only reason I didn't prosecute show. That's not what happened. Muller did not move forward with an indictment on obstruction because he had no case what he couldn't say that because it would make trump look like the victim of a second conspiracy theory. What's the problem here folks? The problem is bill bar the attorney any general was already hip to the scam and said to Bob Muller at one point. Hey you know you need to make a decision on this Bob this obstruction like if you don't we will and I WANNA be sure I wanna be Crystal Clear Bob. You're we're not making this decision. Because the oil see guidelines right here's bill bar testifying to the fact that Mahler gave him a completely different answer play the cut special counsel other stated three times to us in that meeting in response to our questioning that he emphatically was not saying that but for the O. L. C. opinion he would have found obstruction. He said that in the future the facts facts of case against the president might be such that a special counsel would recommend abandoning the O. L. C. Opinion but this is not such a case. We did not understand exactly why the special counsel was not reaching Eh decision and when we pressed him on and he said that his team was still formulating the explanation this is great. This is classic to follow me here. Muller is changed his story three times he came out after his report was issued and he seemed to insinuate in his speech in that ridiculous press conference that the Oh well see guidelines stopped him from from indicting the president otherwise I would have done it except teach whole bill bar and three witnesses three times who all took notes on it that that was not the reason he wasn't indicting the president he then comes back again today and changes his story again and says no no. I would have indicted him if it weren't for the O. L. C. Guys do you understand. This guy has no credibility folks. He has zero zero credibility thirty one zero. He has no credit bates over. There are multiple witnesses career officials in the D._O._J.. Who already heard Bob Muller say the exact opposite your liberal friends and their media he a boot-licking coward hack buddies can say all they want that oh I would have exonerated the president accept the guidelines would have indicted the president oil see guidelines got me not say that's a GimMe Mutley talk about the uniroyal thank you? This is a double monthly. He's lying disguised. Credibility Muller is over. He's changed his story again. Is He folks. I'm not listen. I I want to be respectful. The man service to the country but this is a serious question. I and I don't mean this to. I really want to be very careful here is he. Is He not remembering what he said. Ed Is he because there are multiple witnesses to this is he not remembering that after the press conference Bill Bar issued a memo saying that the Oil Sea did not stop stop them from issuing charges and Bob Muller said he didn't dispute the memo folks I mean again. I'm trying to be respectful. Unlike Muller wants to the President is he just not remembering this. He keeps changing changing his story and the idiots in the media. Keep falling for it. Now Mark my words. I have a prediction and again. We're going to record some content tonight. This next two shows are going to be can't miss. I'm GonNa make a prediction that another memo will be issued by the Attorney General's Office today saying that Muller's not telling the truth about the guidelines and Muller will then say no the memo's right. Okay Dude whatever I don't even know what to tell you anymore. This is a really unbelievable bowl. This guy cannot keep his story straight all right. Let's get back this hearing up folks. I'm telling you this is a cosmic apocalyptic. Infinity wars like embarrassment for the Democrats. Jerry Nadler should lose his his gavel tonight. After this hearing this has been an embarrassment and embarrassment getting back to some video. Here's Muller again entirely completely decimating his credibility. Now let me set up this clip clip of Doug Collins who did a masterful job. Thank you doug. What a Ham Jim Jordan? What an awesome piecework Talbot? We'll get to more later. I haven't even started yet as Al Pacino some. Where'd you get warmed up in Muller's report? I had to explain this to Polish border because he received she loved this clip to. I'm accused did here in Muller's report. He clearly Lee states in the report in writing which he says he's not GonNa Remember Muller said I'm not going to testify to anything outside the report and this hearing really in his report clearly states that collusion is synonymous with conspiracy Joe Again Bodman hat on to get you what I'm buds Manhattan. Maybe I'll get you. The referee had from our buddy you next time you come down. I've already ward on my head. I don't know if you're GERMOPHOBIC anything and now we're here. I need you to put your hat. Okay cool going with this in the report. Bob Muller understands clearly that determined collusion is not a legal term but then you just said in a report he says collusion is son synonymous with conspiracy and conspiracy is a legal term. Those two things can't be equal all right if collusion is just a colloquial term. That's not a legal term. Why would you say in your report that it's the same thing as conspiracy think about it folks? Why would muller right that his report 'cause Muller doesn't have any evidence of a criminal conspiracy so what he wants to do in his report is show a pattern of contact with Russians entirely legal entirely league no illegality at all and and he wants to infer on the infer from those meetings with these Russians that they must have colluded colluded again beat not a legal term Joe it means whatever Democrats didn't get means meetings? You get what I'm saying. Yes so what Muller it doesn't as report is. He's trying to get into the American psyche. This idea that collusion and conspiracy are the same thing so when you hear about these meetings Donald Trump may have committed a crime even though we had to exonerate him. That's why he's creating this relative equation here. Collusion equals conspiracy. Yes Collins is smart. Collins then asks him Miss Where Muller Changes Story about what collusion means on page one volume volume one of your report you wrote as defined legal dictionaries collusion is largely synonymous with conspiracy as that crime is set forth in General Federal Conspiracy Statute Eighteen U._S._C. Three seventy one and you said at your May Twenty Ninth Press Conference and here today you choose your words carefully carefully. Are you sitting here today. Testifying something different than what your report states well what I'm asking is if you can give me the citation I can look at the citation and evaluate whether it is let me just clarify you. You say that you would say within report stated your report back to you and you said that collusion collusion and conspiracy were not synonymous terms that was your answer was no we're in that page. One eighty volume one of your report it says as defining legal dictionaries collusion is largely synonymous with conspiracy as at crime is set forth in general conspiracy Statute Eighteen U._S._A.. Three seventy one now you said you chose your words carefully. Are you contradicting your report right now. When I read it so you change your answer yes then the if you look at the language I'm reading your oyster? It's a yes or no answer H.. One eighty page one eighty volume one. This is from your report correct and I leave it with the report so the report says yes. They are Saddam's hopefully for finally out of your own report we can put to bed the collusion and conspiracy one last question is we're going through. Did you ever look into other in countries investigated in the Russian interference in other countries investigated are found knowledge that they had influence our election. I'm not discuss other matters man. Right right well this is again the Rob Schneider Youtube classic comedy piece about the thousand ways or whatever to say dude you know this is a serial killer around the corner. You think you're like dude. You're confused about what your friend says. Dude you know your your buddy shows up if they're not see for Awhile Tude this is one of those. I'm utterly confused about what just happened to what was that. This guy is an entirely not credible witness this. He just changed his story. In the Muller op-ed notice the Mullahs report he conflicts collusion with conspiracy to give Americans the impression that there was a crime even though we said there wasn't because the Democrats used the term collusion but now when questioned questioned under oath in sworn in and asked if collusion is conspiracies. That's not conspiracy Doug Causes. I'm just reading from your report. You said the exact opposite. I'm reading from the report your report Mullah's sitting there like Ah. Where's the non? Where's the mute button? He doesn't know what to say. Why because Muller didn't write the report people who hate trump wrote to report separately genie re Andy Weissman and they wrote the report like an op Ed piece to nail the trump team for crimes that didn't happen and trump trump and his team didn't commit? Please tell me you get that we get collusion equal conspiracy in the report to nail him to the wall so the Democrats Democrats could continue to charge trump with collusion. Even though it's not a crime yet the minute he's questioned on the road. If they're the same thing he totally changes his answer. He is not a credible witness. I am sorry I am sorry. Sorry to deflate your liberal balloons here folks but this has been an apocalyptic level disaster for you and Joe the uncertainty stumbling in the bumbling. It's I mean what is going on. Can you answer the question I mean it's almost sad you know what I'm glad you joe is because I don't have any. I know I get upset but I really don't have personal animus towards any of the players a lot of professional. I get get upset but the guy did serve the I get that served the country. I get that I understand but folks. This is a serious thing here. This is the special counsel investigator the most significant counterintelligence investigation of our time and he can't cajones nailed it. It is sad to watch it is this is a disgrace. Why did the Democrats do this to this? You thought this is the movie you wanted the Democrats Democrats. They didn't read the book but they'll see the movie. I don't think this is the. I don't think this is the movie you wanted. I'm reasonably confident you know I remember taking a theatre class in college and Queen's College Guy Robert Caps. This was the professor say in how people were scared Lis- when they went to go see the movie Arachnophobia because because they thought the movie was a comedy and it was pretty scary movie about spiders they went in with a different expectation and that's why they were scared. The same phenomenon happened a Halloween. The original Halloween where people weren't sure what the movies until Michael Meyer Folks two Democrats went into this thinking this was going to be touchdown and what they got negative to a safety in the end zone Eric. This has been a disaster muller is entirely completely unprepared folks. I'm not done it gets trust me. It gets worse. John Radcliffe absolutely fillets fillets muller in the next one. Okay gotta pay for the show. We have great advertisers folks today. Show also brought to you by Paula loves his my favorite brought together. Duke Cannon Duke like the Duke of Earl. Do Cannon can a bar of soap patriotic Tim Right. This is the bar soap. It is the big brick of soap campfire. Well look at this the campfire edition. That's a bar soap. That's not a brick. That's not a jet engine. That's a bar of soap for men for men look at the side of it. You want to read that check. That is what it says. I love do cannon so bigger than common bar are soaps not from France not for clowns. Who can you want to smell like a man? You want to smell like man. Yeah you go to do cannon and you get there. Look at this solid Cologne. Look at it you. She's little David Missing. Why because I use it on date night Saturday night? Oh Awesome Duke do Karen Duke Cat. You WanNa Smell Paula. How much you love the smell? Do you love it. Oh guess little patrol on some do cannon Saturday night have been epic smell like a man do cannon superior quality grooming goods for hardworking men are tested by soldiers not boy bands do cannon partners with active duty military to develop new ideas and review products anything that doesn't meet the high standards of soldiers doesn't happen do canning back to the country to a portioned their proceeds. This is solid directly supports veteran causes do cannon cells basically everything you need and nothing you don't so news anchor promoted beer wash solid Cologne. That smells like manhood. I love this stuff. I'm not kidding. This is my second do cannon. I need more send more or date. Night is going to go downhill. Fast solid colognes a foolproof way to smell good on the go cologne-bonn that's T._S._A.. Friendly doesn't make you smell like you were attacked by the mall perfume lady ladies the gentleman. I love do cannon products. This is seriously one of my favorite sponsors. I look forward to Saturday nights like you have no idea visit Duke D. U.. K. E. Duke Canon Dot Com right now. We'll get fifteen percent off your first order with Promo Code Bongino free shipping on orders over thirty five dollars. Don't make the mistake of not doing this go to do cannon dot com right now. Get fifteen percent off with Promo Code Bongino Gosh do I love to Canada my favorite sometimes the reason better I know you love that I get more feedback because I'm not making it up. God we love date night little patrol on little do cannon all right back to the show so Johnny Radcliffe knocks it out of the Park Republican member from Texas Republican member from Texas. You'd be John Raccoon absolutely destroys muller all of this clip. Let me set it up for you. Say these prior clips Radcliffe is puzzled in this clip. Why Bob Muller is setting a new standard of Justice Ladies and gentlemen? It's bizarre that Muller's report his standard for justice is I am not going to exonerate trump on obstruction but I don't have evidence to prosecute a case folks think about how innocent until proven guilty gets thrown out if that is the new standard if the police department where to put out a press release saying that they thought Joe Armacost robbed a bank. They're not going to prosecute him for robbing the bank they don't have enough evidence to prosecute him for robbing a bank and therefore they think Joe may have robbed the bank but they're not going to prosecute you robbing a bank. What do you think would happen to that? Police departments the answer folks is they would be sued into oblivion by any entrepreneurial lawyer who would bankrupt that local city or town that did that why because we don't put out derogatory information in law enforcement about people we don't charge ladies and gentlemen. Why is that this is what you're not getting in the mainstream media again having been a federal agent cop? I'm going to explain to you why because a lot of times ladies and gentlemen when you're investigating cases facts emerged that may make people look guilty. Those people may not have in fact committed a crime. They may have been unwitting. 's meaning. They didn't know they were involved in some kind of a conspiracy see they may have been present at a crime scene had no involvement at all or they may have been under duress themselves when they were forced to do things like in a hostage situation or something like that there are multiple reasons why a fact pattern would make someone look guilty when in fact they weren't. I can't use this example enough. If I have evidence Joe came home on a Tuesday with a bag of money and I also have evidence that Joe was in a bank this is a fact pattern and I also have a fact pattern indicating bank. Joe Was in was rob and I put that out in a report and I don't charge Joe. Why would I not charge Joe because we have a videotape of someone else? Robbing the bank and Joe was just making a deposit first business. The the Democrats are conflating Joe Again. I'm buds Manhattan is they're conflating a fact pattern and evidence of a crime because Joe fits a fact pattern was in the bank which through money does not mean. It's evidence Joe. Joe Committed the crime. Can we have evidence someone else did it. If I leave that evidence out that someone else did it that exonerates trump out of my report and I go on the media and say well I have a series of facts indicating. Joe May have committed a crime. We're not GONNA charge him. You would be sued to kingdom kingdom. Come you bet baby. That is why thank you prosecutors. Do not do this. John Ratcliffe who was a United States attorney a Prosecu- for the government in this clip absolutely nails muller to the wall for his ridiculous not not guilty standard in his report. Check this out now in explaining the special counsel did not make what you call the traditional prosecution declaration decision report on the bottom of page two volume two reads as follows the evidence we obtained about the president's actions and intent presents difficult issues that prevent us from conclusively determining that no criminal conduct occurred accordingly while this report was not conclude that the President committed a crime it also does not exonerate him. Now I read that correctly. Yes all right now your report and today you said at all times special counsel team operated under was guided by and followed Justice Department policies and principles so which which D._O._J.. Policy or principle sets forth a legal standard that an investigated person is not exonerated if their innocence from criminal conduct is not conclusively determined. Can you repeat the last part of that Question Yeah Which D._O._J.. Policy or principle set forth legal standard that an investigated person is not exonerated if their innocence from criminal conduct is not conclusively determined. Does that language come from director. Where's The D._O._J.? A policy that says that can let me make it easier there go ahead. Can you give me an example other than Donald Trump or the Justice Department determined that an investigative person was not exonerated because their innocence since was not conclusively determined I cannot but this unique you can't time short. I've got five minutes. Let's just leave it at you can't find it because I'll tell you why it doesn't exist Joe Your your your your responses today been spot on and you're right. This is sad folks. I mean this really is. This is a man who had really A. I'm not GonNa say an impeccable reputation. Muller's been involved volved some real fiascos with the F._B._I.'s. Let's not be too laudatory but I guess thanks to. A service of the country had a decent reputation. It's over absolutely he can't answer any question. Radcliffe just absolutely lutely shreds fillets credibility here a couple of highlights from that clip what the takeaways arm why this matters not not guilty is not a standard as I just laid out. No need to go over that again thank you back. Patterns do not mean evidence of a crime. That's why we don't do this Second Takeaway D._O._J.. Policy Department of Justice for the Liberals who don't understand acronyms is crystal clear that you do not issue Derogatory Katori information about American citizens if you are not going to prosecute them for a crunch it is crystal clear Radcliffe says to him. Is there any other person that you would have done this with because can you cite to me D._O._J.. Policy that says not not guilty or you're not going to exonerate him. Can you site where that D._O._J.. Policy is of course he can't because Muller made it up for Donald Trump specifically now muller's attempt pathetic attempt at an answer is key folks and I'm going to knock in slam this thing down in two seconds flat. He's well. This was a unique situation. No no it isn't ten yards holding Bob Muller repeat. I out that true. Oh Joe what has been the Democrats party line throughout this entire thing that this is is not a unique situation. Nobody is above the law. A law treats everybody no it doesn't it doesn't treat everybody Equally D._O._J.. Policy the law there regulations promulgate and accepted by the executive branch are clear as day that you don't crap all over American citizens and then not charge him with a crime you you know it's not unique that has not been to your point. Your point has been the opposite. Everybody's treated fairly under the law well. We're GONNA TREAT DONALD TRUMP differently because it's unique. Why isn't unique? He's an American citizen so him you get to crap on that is bullsh- then you know it that is total BS. If there's one takeaway from this today thus far there have been some good ones. This is the clip that you said mail your liberal friends. What is it is is Donald Trump's case unique and he's not subjected to the constitution or any of the civil liberties we all enjoy or is everybody equal under the law? What is it because that's not what muller just said? Yes yes self-praise stinks but we just mailed his caboose to the wall on that one mail them. This is a unique scituate. No no the Constitution Ladies and gentlemen does not have unique situations for American Eric citizens. Okay it provides a process for impeaching a president. It doesn't say anywhere in the in the constitution that president can't be indicted. That's an interpretation which clearly mullery ignored you can't have it both ways and radcliffe absolutely shredded any ounce of credibility Bob Muller and Joe's right. It's sad to watch this thought he had ooh. That was an embarrassing display blake. Copy then. Would you treat any other American citizen like no but the president's unique okay you got hooked into that one Bob bigtime why this is a short one. Here's Doug Collins silence again in another masterful display now. I'm hoping to get to this Wall Street Journal article at some Point Ladies Gem. I've got so much material. I haven't even talked about the border the budget stuff please. Don't miss this show on the following two. We're we'RE GONNA get it all in before Friday. I did not everybody I got a bunch of emails. You didn't mention the budget that disastrous budget deal listen. I'll get a lot going on. I've got an hour with you. I WanNa take full advantage of the Wall Street Journal piece which I hope to get to later lays out this by these important points structure doesn't exist but there's another op-ed by this Guy Tom Baker and he asks a fantastic question. Someone needs to ask Bob Muller. Basically what were you prevented from doing if you thought the President committed a crime what were you prevent it from doing if you think the president is evidence of obstruction what stopped you. What an awesome question man? Here's a ten second clip or less of Collins kind of hinting at the same thing and muller again just this folding like a cheap suit here you go at any time with the investigation was investigation controller curtailed or stop or hindered no okay. I thought this was an obstruct so it's an obstruction case where nothing was obstructed I did I miss that so let me just be clear on this so there's a collusion in case that the whole investigation is based on a steele dossier collusion theory that even Muller thoroughly discredits. That's the bump so you're investigating a crime. You acknowledged didn't happen and then you reported an obstruction theory. You would have prosecuted the president. Although although you just acknowledged the Doug Collins it was obstruction. Did I miss that I could we play against possible. I'm not even sure without shutting. That's I don't want to shut down my hosted at theory. Go at any time with the investigation was your investigation. Controller cur tailed or stop or hindered no there we go again for the second time I just I don't get it. This is unfathomable and yet the liberals listening just played that for you twice. We'll still be convinced. There's an obstruction case here. Did he have shot. You know no not at all but we got the structure case. Why didn't you charge it? Oh well. L. C. Yeah but that's not what you told Bill Bar. You said it wasn't l._L._C.. I don't really know. Does this guy have an answer for anything. Oh I love this show so much I do. I love it. I love doing the show I every day I wake up excited to talk to you. You have made this thing such a pleasurable experience but I must tell you having to constantly engage in third grade level pseudo intellectual debates with clueless hapless conspiracy theory promoting liberal nutcases is so exhausting you have no idea the boobs shook to Justice Bob Muller Construct Your Gate no not at all okay whatevs moving on last sponsor day but a great one and I got some more video I got they'll go anywhere this promise you this. This is going to be a new copy of content for you today today and tomorrow Genucell we love genucell my mother-in-law's favorite product. Hey listen you want that neck looking tight and young genucell. This is the joy line treatment with their M._d.. Technologies is my bottle well. He loved this stuff journey so there you wish that double Chin would just disappear Newsflash Ladies and Gentlemen People look at Your Jo- Linux tells your age here is the famous famous robin from Lubbock Texas. Here's what she said about genucel. I put Jenny saw Joel Line cream on my neck two or three days ago best. My Neck is looked in over twenty years. People told me my face looks young. I'm blown away. Yes Robin you would be this is great stuff using M._d.. L. Technology and Chamonix proprietary based genucel brand new Joel on treatment specifically weekly targets the delicate skin around the neck and jaw for tied tied healthy younger looking skin. My mother-in-law digs this stuff like you have no idea they send us little boxes of it. My mother-in-law's like Oh thank you shopping time. See results right before your eyes are one hundred percent senator your money back no questions asked order now and the classic genucell for bags and puffiness under those is is free with your order start seeing results in twelve hours or less genucel immediate effects which is also yours free gratis no double Chin no Turkey Turkey neck and no sagging JAL. I'm because no one needs to know your age. Go to genucel DOT COM DOT COM. That's Genucel Dot Com Promo Code folks Dan twenty-five That's Dan to five get your two free gifts and free shipping. Don't miss out go to GENUCEL DOT COM. That's genucel dot com and her Dan to five Dan twenty-five at checkout great stuff. You're GONNA love it. Okay this. Although the Radcliffe portion thus far yeah I think is the most important takeaway that Muller is established a new standard of justice in the United States. I would argue that this clip here. We're GONNA play now. Representative Talbot is the most damaging to Muller's credibility of all folks Bob Muller. You know what let me just play the cut and come back. This is so let me let me let me set this one part of everybody listening to this show. You're aware right at this entire collusion hoax conspiracy theory right the entire hire hoax is based on steals ridiculous debunked charges in the dossier. There's no evidence of collusion it. Only everybody knows this right. Christopher Steele hired by Hillary Clinton. I'm sorry to restate the obvious obvious but this clip will make a lot more sense about how Bob Moller's credibility is now entirely. This is the most important towards his credibility. Everybody listening show steel hired by Hillary Steel makes these assertions and the dossier and other information about trump colluding with the Russians nations the dossiers entirely that is the only place this collusion fiasco exists steele was hired by Fusion G._P._S. childhood asked smaller about fusion G._p._S. unbelievably unbelievably listened into his answer. When discussing the June two thousand sixteen trump tower meeting you reference quote the firm that produced steel reporting unquote? The name of that firm was fusion G._p._S. is that correct and you're on page one three one oh three that's correct volume two when you talk about the the firm that produced the steel reporting the name of the firm that produced that was fusion G._P._S.. Is that correct. I'm not familiar with with that was it's not it's not a trick question. It was fusion G._p._S. now fusion G._P._S. produced the opposition research document moment widened widely known as the steele dossier and the owner of using G._p._A.. was someone named Glenn Simpson or are you familiar with outside my purview. Oh my gosh dude wait so let's get this a straight Bob taxi medallion investigations by Coen were inside your purview so you can invest in men refer them out. That's fine but you don't even know who fusion G._P._S. folks. I do not manipulate that Joe is not edit that that is a complete thought it now. It's caught. Obviously it's not the whole three hour it's cut but that is not an edited cryptically edited deceptively edited view that is a complete thought right and his name's Chaba sorry not Talbot. I put a Bob Muller doesn't know who fusion G._P._S. Ladies and gentlemen this is this is incredible. I mean this is the liberals you. You're hanging your hat on this guy. He doesn't even know who the company that started the collusion hoax. He's investigating. His fusion is the case it's outside of your purview. I know thing obviously obviously. I don't know any other way to explain this to Bob. Muller was hired to investigate trump team alleged collusion with Russia that exists only in a document produced by Fusion G._P._S.. Yes it doesn't exist anywhere else and Bob Muller in his own words doesn't know fusion G._P._S. is I'm not familiar with that. Ladies and gentlemen I can I said this is really joe is framed it up perfectly right then with the simplest were this is sad. It's sad for the country. Yes sad for Muller. It's really sad for the Democrats. I mean they did it to themselves. It's sad for Republicans to that. We have to sit through this fiasco with a budget disaster. I'd love the economy's doing well but it could. We could always be doing better. We could be fixing our health care crisis immigration. What are we what are we doing? We're sitting up here with a a sorry. Discredited once lauded figure in the American public who doesn't even know the name of the company that started the investigation. He allegedly led folks. This is a total complete embarrassment a total complete apocalyptic cosmic level embarrassment for the Democrats. He doesn't even know the name of the company and then he that's not in your purview. That's why you were hired Bob. Do you not know this. Are you blissfully unaware of the fact that the deputy director of the F._B._i.. Has Already said on the record that the document produced by Fusion G._P._S. dossier was the bedrock of their ability to spy on trump for a collusion case that doesn't exist. Did you not no that. I mean this is unforgivable. I'm sorry I had it with the Democrats a long time ago but ladies and gentlemen this stuff is really unforgivable. You you have wasted the country's time you've wasted. Everybody's time even the hapless media is no way to defend this. You don't know fusionists China think of that. What's that movie movie? You have all remember rocky to when rocky sitting there trying to do the smeal mainly and he's in the cage and that that that Jerk Wad director you have wasted my time you have wasted that Producers Producers Time Time Cesco rock just go you have wasted everybody's time because you cannot read rock k three use search meal mainly. Who knows you have wasted? Everyone's time because you can read rock FOP folks. I'm sorry Bob Muller just wasted. Everybody's time he doesn't know he thinks fusion. G._P._S. is smeal main. It's meals mainly. It doesn't smeal mainly. It smells Manley Cannon. Maybe it does not swill mainly. It is not fuzziness P._G.. Likes meals. Maybe it's fusion G._P._S.. They paid for the document. You're investigating. It doesn't smell mainly. It smells Manley era wasted time. Go back and watch that clip now. You'll be thinking of the Democrats today my gosh. What a disaster yeah it's meals mainly? I need a little levity. Dude it is it's so sad. How's Gosh me to know it is it said and once in a while? I don't want to bring the audience down in a pit whole of Sarah we live in the greatest country on earth. We'll get through this but today's a bad day this really nobody comes out of this. The whole country three loses today. Everyone loses a lose lose lose and I'm here in an hour or less to tell you why so you know so hopefully this disgrace. Fiascos never repeated again. Oh boy all right. They got more queue up that Fox could view and mine of bar on the street interview. This is a good one because I'm GonNa Kinda. Get get the more. We're getting some more video into the next show so don't worry I'm not done with the hearing but we recorded like eleven o'clock clock so I got you the highlights from the morning and obviously we'll cover the rest of it later. Newness hasn't even talk yet as this and we'll get to that later. I'll cover Jim Jordan who has who nailed Muller on Masud which was great. This is important now. The Democrats are now promoting emoting another conspiracy theory along with their obstruction conspiracy theory collusion conspiracy theory. It's just another one now. The conspiracy theory goes like this Bill Bar gave instructions to Bob Muller before before the hearing today Joe you could see story Fox News Dot Com by the way it's in the please read the show say they're very good. BUNGEE DOT COM so scratch my email us. They'll send them to you. Bill Bar gave obstruct of obstructions obstructions instructions to Muller to not not saying anything outside of the report that basically the report is your statement. It was an investigation conducted for two years. If you're going to add something now than reopen the investigation fair enough of course media hacks who has zero zero credibility there are nothing more than than two bit conspiracy theory promoting loons the media acts of course jumped on that show with the lips and said what there it is bill bars telling Muller what to say. They're hiding something. It's a cover up Jerry Nadler. They're actually use those terms because Nadler's completely limi- mandalit ever had credible nothing to lose. Nobody really knows even real is bizarre. He such a phony that it's hard to believe a guy like this actually exists and thinks he's real. He's got a case of the Freddie for real so a high school. quarterback would years later still living off the touchdown path now. They're all over trust me. He never do it touchdown. He's got a bad case of the real he actually used the term cover up ladies and gentlemen. What's the problem with this bars telling Muller what to say? They're covering covering information up well. Fox News grabbed a quick interview with bar on the street yesterday well. He's from Fox News. This is Great Attorney General Bill Bartolo Fox News on Tuesday that it was Bob Mother's team who asked the Justice Department to send Muller a letter telling him to keep his upcoming testimony quote within the boundaries of the public version of the report. I'M GONNA play this game in a second but folks if you need it in written format Muller asked Bar for instructions barred it and tell Muller anything he was responding the Muller's inquiry. What a cover up Joe Hey? Can you tell me what I'm supposed to do here. Hey you're supposed to do what you said you would do. In your press conference stick to the report you issue investigation okay. Thanks Bill. Come Joanie Football Jerry Nadler. It's a cover up. All these people are so stupid. It is like I mean it is exponential levels of stupid. Here's bill bar explaining that in on the street and interview with Fox News. Check this out. His staff was serita rating that that was their position and they asked us for guidance in writing <hes> to <hes> explain <hes> work. Tell them at our position so we responded in Writing Department sent the titans they had actually requested. Yes <hes> secondly. What do you think of <hes> Congressman Nadler lashing out saying this was arrogant to send us let him go? He was distant thirdly on Congress any reacting to them voting. Nothing does with the territory stays. Did you hear the horn the Nadler answer it was like an instant drop. It was misinformed. There's some I know it was like somebody did that purpose boy I need those Doug live classes. You got a cigarette goes in the mouth if we could do that affect that would be great Paula. We gotTA learn the thug life the glasses go onto the cigarette not for me for bar. I mean really that was just epic Bill Bar so you're saying that Muller s for the guys yeah. That's exactly what I'm saying. We're saying exactly that hey what do you think about Nether now now Nadler's misinform. What do you think about being charged with TAB? Yeah it goes with the territory and then he goes walked. This was great. Bill Bar baby cited excited off Bill Barr this guy I love this guy. I was skeptical start. I'm starting to love Bill Barber every day another Democrat hoax completely one hundred percent in island all right. I WANNA leave with this. One last story and in please tomorrow's show is going to be epic to going to record some pieces here some pieces air get some more stuff. You're not gonNA WANNA miss part to. I've got some good information for you. I'm reasonably confident is going to happen. Let's just say okay. If we go to the Wall Street Journal piece there was an interesting piece in the Journal today. The F._B._I.'s obstruction pro had no basis. This is by Tom Baker the piece we talked about before I encourage you to read it subscription only so I'm not gonNA put in the show but you're free to look it up. That's title right there if you have a subscription into the Wall Street Journal but there's a piece of this that I wanted to again just lay the groundwork why what the Democrats are doing today is going to go nowhere ladies and gentlemen there obstruction case is a disaster. There are people who who have testified F. B.. I. Officials who hate trump under oath repeatedly that there has been no effort to obstruct an investigation in addition to the video we just played before by Doug Collins asking asking Muller. Is there anything you were prevented from doing. No here's the clip from the Wall Street Journal which lays out hard core material evidence that this obstruction case is another hoax quote F._B._I.. Director Jim Komi testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee may third of 2017 that interference in the counter intelligence investigation quote has not happen. Let me read that last line again. Komi were you interfered with. No the interference court has not happened six days later president trump fired Komi on May eleventh acting director Andrew McCabe testified to the Senate Intelligence Committee that there there had been no effort quote no effort for liberals quote no effort to impede our to impede investigation today no effort to impede investigation today in his book the Threat Mr McCabe writes that he ordered the bureau to investigate obstruction solely because of Mr Comey's firing yet Mister Komi acknowledged in his farewell address to agents that the president had the right to fire him quote for any reason or for no reason at all case closed. It's over. It's over. You have no case. It's over all right folks again. Please stay tuned to tomorrow's tomorrow. Show I haven't even touched Jon Solomon's Bombshell Mifsud which we've been talking about for two years now Solomon's pieces good. Don't get me. I'm not that wasn't a knock at Solomon. He has some new stuff but the message story certainly not do we got dad. I've got other stuff and more footage from this hearing today. Total Disaster Democrats you did a good job blowing up any remnants of your credibility left. Please subscribe to the show YouTube dot com slash Bongino on Google podcasts apple podcasts soundcloud Iheart the subscriptions.

Bob Muller Democrats Muller Joe president Justice Bob Muller Donald Trump Doug Collins Congressman Nadler Bill Bar attorney Wall Street Journal Paula special counsel Radcliffe Jim Jordan Ed director Fox News TA
The Mueller Testimony (with Anne Milgram)

Stay Tuned with Preet

53:40 min | 1 year ago

The Mueller Testimony (with Anne Milgram)

"From cafe welcomed to stay tuned. I'm Premera we did not address collusion which is not a legal term rather we focused on whether the evidence was sufficient to charge any member of the campaign with taking part in a criminal conspiracy and it was not let me say one more thing over the course of my career. I've seen a number of challenges to our democracy. The Russian government Hefford interfere in our election is among the most serious. This deserves the attention of every American. That's Special Counsel Robert S. Muller the third. He's not my guest this week but he is the principal witness yesterday. Bob Mother gave his first public testimony since the release of two volume report fourteen weeks ago the report documented Muller's investigation into Russian efforts to interfere in our election and the president's efforts to impede the investigation in other awards to obstruct twenty. Today's second ever Special Muller addition stay tuned is my friend and no growth and is the former Attorney General of New Jersey a longtime friend and my co host on the weekly cafe inside or podcast okay so ready to breakdown. Dan Muller's testimony. That's coming up station. Hey folks this week. We're focused on Bob Muller but every Thursday and stay tuned I answer your questions and talk with interesting people about the intersection of law democracy injustice subscribe anywhere you listen to podcasts and if you want to help us spread the word rate in review stay tuned with pre on apple podcasts that helps new listeners find the show hi in pre so here we are in the big day. It's Wednesday July twenty fourth. It's about four P._M.. Bob Muller highly anticipated testimony in front of to House committees just concluded a few minutes ago to let people know so they can get a picture. We're in a podcast studio in Washington D._C.. Our nation's capital just a few blocks from where the testimony occurred and you and I walked part of it together part of it separately early before we get to the substance and the performance and what it means for the future I do WanNa Brag about one thing that is when we when we preview the episode on the Caffeine Cider podcast we talked about what kind of drinking game you might do and a listener sner actually pose the question yes deadlock pose a question at pre Perera. How drunk would you and at an Milgram have been if you to had actually taken up the drinking game from stay tuned in the drinking game was every time Bob Muller? Who Says I refer you to the report yes to drink drink? Would we have been soundtrack like obliterated. I wonder I'm sure so someone on the Internet has done a account of how many times Robert Muller said that today but it was a lot you could even done more specific drinking game instead every time by mothers were purview as in that's not in my purview you take a swell of a Mosa. Yes those are drunk. There is also a lot of our refer you to the report right that I can't answer that I mean there were a million different ways in which he said which was to be expected yes because he said that that would be true. He would not go outside the four corners of the report which pretty much he stuck to even in ways that were annoying to the Republicans who want to ask about the origins of the investigation allegation as well into the Democrats who wanted to sort of get him to sort of take the facts in the report and go to the next level conclusions and if I were to sort of characterized today's hearing in some ways I think that when people ask Muller facts axe and specific facts related to the report we got a lot more answers than when either side the Democrats are the Republicans tried to get Robert Muller to draw conclusions about his work that was not happening mentally was not happening. You know a lot of people predicted predicted that will be powerful is to have Bob Muller read in his own voice sections of the report which by definition by the way is within the four corners of report as we have learned Bob Muller not only refused to do that but there was a negotiating issue for him and every once in a while a member KNBR try to ask him to read a sentence or two from the report needs to I would prefer the you do that yeah what's interesting about that is so one of the effective ways to question muller would have been to go through and a couple of folks did this to go through some specific lines from the report and in even have him read it. It was incredibly clear that he wasn't prepared to be anyone's witness. Neither the Democrats nor the Republicans. It's like you called you know in this hearing. Bob Mueller is the PINATA and I was talking about him as the Ping Pong Ball but like he he wanted none of that and so he was he was like in my he was just incredibly going out of his way to be non-political almost to an extent that you just you don't you don't really see and very minimalist so I was on the set at C._N._N.. For the entire portion in front of the judiciary fishery committee and I remember thinking to myself that before the first break. I don't think there was a multi sentence answer that Bob Mother gave to anything as APP said before that I don't think you want to be either upon or Pinata. He didn't want to be a prop yeah. He doesn't want to appear in Tom Steiner ads impeachment by actually reciting the stuff in the report. I think you just said exactly why he didn't read from the report because he doesn't want that to be taken and used for either side for or against the president. It's it's interesting to because he very much did not want to testify. I mean like really really really didn't want to incredibly did not want to testify and that was clear I think from the moment he walked in today that he was there under subpoena. He was complying with that subpoena but that he really it paint him. I think to be there and to your point you're right. I mean most of the answers today were true correct. I refer you to my report. I'm not going to say it. Just there. Were only a few times where he actually talked and another one is mantras was. I'm not sure I agree with that characterization. I can't adopted characterization. I said that I can't accept that characterization. I would agree with that characterization it sort of interesting to be <hes> viewing hearing in this case to hearings over time and seeing how the new shifts and seeing what seems seems important early maybe seems less important later in the day and so maybe we'll go through some of what the big takeaways were and whether there is big as they seemed when they first happened in here so so the big takeaway all morning the cable news networks had as their Chiron something that happened happened in the first five minutes after the opening statements and that was the examination conducted by the Chairman of the Judiciary Committee Jerry Nadler who by the way I gave an eighty two that he cares about my great and it'll great everybody and you're grading a little bit on a curve when you're talking about Congress but I thought country some people's expectations that he did dramatically good job <hes> by asking short questions pointed questions yes no questions and was on a roll asking muller is his true is at true is a following true mother would reply yes yes or no and the thing that got a lot of people's attention and remained sort of like the big news headline for a long time today earlier in the day was when he said report did not conclude that he did not commit obstruction of justice is accurate that that is correct and what about total exoneration. Did you actually totally exonerate the president no now in fact you reports expressly states that it does not exonerate the president does did you report totally exonerate the president and he said no that's right and that was really important because Muller's report clearly stated that it didn't exonerate the president but then we've had now months of the president and other people on the president's behalf coming out and saying it's a total exoneration and so it was actually without making muller say the president is Aligarh. It was putting up the you know without saying this but essentially saying is what the president has said about your report. Being an exoneration is that true and Muller saying pointblank no it's not an exoneration and that was important to hear publicly so so it was a big deal. I guess I'm going to have a country of you in a second because it was Bob Muller saying it and saying no but in some ways unsurprising because as you point out it was in the report not only was it in the report it was in the summary a Lotta people have taken issue with because it distorted the report but the one thing that did not distort was this line from the report that says we do not exonerate the president on the issue of obstruction and it's interesting that the fact that he saying on television for some reason that becomes a much bigger deal even though we knew this Bob View and we knew that even the attorney general had to convey that was mother's view. It's one of the things that was not distorted in the summary. I think you're totally right but I would also note that Muller wrote the report report came out bar completely frames it he does say that there's no exoneration but he goes out of his way to say the president hasn't committed obstruction of justice and is exonerated on the conspiracy to work with the Russians to influence the election and so the president saying that repeatedly and serving that be one of the ongoing themes for the past few months. I do think it was important for Muller specifically personally to say no. That's just not that's just not true. That's not the case and to sort of refute both what the president said and also you know in some ways what bar intimated eight it even though he included that line in the report so I I think that does resonate for a lot of people the fact that Bob Mother contradicts the president now you can have competing not to sound bites but also video bites that will presumably be on the on the network news tonight and over the coming days so he was the other big blockbuster thing that I said was a bombshell that occurred during the judiciary portion of the hearings today and that is an exchange between Bob Muller and Ted lieu they began talking about why it was the Bob Mueller chose not to indict the president the spektr obstruction if you believe like I do a lot of other people do that. There's a lot of evidence in that section in Bob Muller taking the view well you know we've decided not to decide and it looked like Bob. Muller were saying something new and different and really significant and the exchange was congressman. Lou asked Obama to the question. I believe you reasonable person. Looking at these facts could conclude that all three elements of the crime of function justice have met and I like to ask you the reason again that you did not indict. Donald trump is because of oil see opinion stating that you cannot indict sitting president correct that is correct the fact that their orders by the president isn't were not carried out that is not a reason you did not indict. Donald trump is because of the L._l._C. opinion is that correct and Muller said without hesitating that is correct that was kind of an explosion my ears because then you're saying this whole question of whether someone Israel's not above the law is being answered in a way because Muller was saying essentially but for the opinion we would have indicted and the question was pretty clear didn't say a reason you didn't indict. Were one of the reasons you didn't indicted the reason you did not indict because the L._l._C. opinion is that correct that's correct that felt like a bombshell to me as well and I know he walked it back later before his testimony began in house intelligence but I'll say this as well I think that there was colonel of that in the initial conversation questioning with representative Nadler and Muller where it was it was not as explicit as it was when representative Louis did it but there was a but for the oil see opinion you would have indicted and then after after Lou wouldn't the Republican congresswoman tried to get muller off of that he did. He stood his ground mostly. I mean he he had to little but so they're they're like three instances. During the first hearing where it felt to me that and again then I think representative Lewis the only time he really set it completely and explicitly but there are a few times that it felt like Robert Muller was saying what I actually believe from having read the report which is but for the O. L. C. Opinion. If Muller could have indicted the president he would have indicted the president for obstruction of justice says and it was an incredible thing to hear Muller say that let me add one thing I understand muller took it back and we have to honor that but there are few people in the world who I think choose their words more carefully than Robert Muller and again. It wasn't isn't just once it was a few times at this came back. He did repeatedly walk it back later and say I don't want to characterize beyond when we go to that right so it seemed to me when he entered the Lou question directly and explicitly in it's literally the central question for a lot of people oh and he must have been prepared on that question more than any other question that heads must've been exploding at me. Injustice bill bars had must have been exploding Donald Trump's head must've been exploding all sorts of heads exploding those were hearing during during the hearing and I actually speculated on television that clearly somebody's trying to fix this and we'll be calling mother and we'll see what happens when I was asked the question. What are you looking forward to hearing? Were expecting from the Intel hearing it was this. Would there be a walk back and sure enough in his opening statement before the Intel Committee out of the box before he gets to questioning. I WANNA go back to one thing that was said this morning by Mr Loo- i- Mister loosehead and I quote I quote you didn't charge the president because of the opinion that is not the correct way to say it as we say in. The report and as I said at the opening we did not reach a determination as to whether the President committed a crime we did not reach a determination as to whether the President committed a crime and with that Mr Chairman so you see that bomb a couple I put it out. Yes it's not that satisfying a walk back at it takes you back into this weird. Never Land of you didn't exonerate the guy but you're also not saying you committed the crime. <hes> we've talked about this doesn't make sense such a complicated space that Muller put himself into in some ways and that the report falls into which is that okay on the conspiracy that he says you know not finding that the president engaged in a criminal conspiracy with the Russians but then when it comes to obstruction he says I can't make a conclusion I Kendra conclusion as to whether or not a crime was committed that wouldn't be fair and there's this opinion l._l._C. opinions number one. It wouldn't be fair number two but by the way I'm not exonerating him and then he goes on to write essentially a prosecution memo which is here the three elements elements of obstruction of justice and here's the evidence that we had to each of those three elements and there are somewhere I think the evidence isn't fully there and they sort of upfront about saying you know we didn't we didn't obtain evidence for example in a couple of instances of I think corrupt intent but there are other places where they hit all three of the necessary elements and at least four or five of them feel like places where you are I might have approved in our prior careers someone going forward into the grand jury to seek an indictment on those crimes and so it's sort of like he's in this. It's really weird position and he definitely didn't WanNa make news today. He definitely didn't want to go out of the four corners of the report but it feels to me like his first answer was the honest answer. The reason why it's important if there had not been the walk back and assuming the walk back <hes> is not accepted it is that the Democrats need a reason and a basis that simple and easy to understand as to why they would proceed with impeachment even the polls now showing you know dropping support for continuing with impeachment and that is if it was the case that Bob Muller and his team concluded the president had committed a crime but he uniquely in the in the country can't be charged with that crime that provides the basis for saying we'll know persons above the law and we need to proceed here and that coming not from partisan person but that coming from the special counsel and Bob Muller makes it the different order of magnitude serious I agree and they seem to have lost it with the walk back quite sure how that plays out. What do you think you're completely right? I think if it were left as it was you have a very respected criminal prosecutor. Who is the special council saying the President committed a crime and then Congress's in the position of sort of saying? There's evidence of a crime that we're not making that determination Robert Muller's made it and so it's really powerful. I do think a couple of things one is. I think it's accurate. I think he did walk back and I understand why but I think it's consistent with how I read. The report and I think a lot of people read the report the problem now with the walk back. You can't go out and say well Robert Muller said but for the L._l._C. opinion it would be a crime because he doesn't want to describe it that way so it loses its impact in an enormous way. Do you think that has speculated that in between the two hearings muller was contacted by Bill Bar or that his deputy errands every was contacted or do you think his own team internally decided needed to walk back. I I'd like to the answer that question I would affect my thinking about the walk back but the other thing that that this all relates to a little bit news came out in the question that I had for a long time is when did the special counsel really make the determination that at the end of the day the Ol- see opinion would govern auburn and there can be no indictment of the president was it recent in time was at midway through and he basically said at the outset they knew two years ago right that they would ultimately not be indictment of the president and the investigated anyway could relate person. You're like well if you knew you in advance. You can't invite a person in your criminal prosecutor. What was the point? Why why did we spend all this time and one about molars answers was well? The memo says you can investigate somebody. Including President that doesn't preclude investigations precludes indictment even the sealed indictment <hes> and there may be other people who are involved in the activity co-conspirators and you've got to see where where the road leads but the other thing that that suggests is so it's not just done for not is that there's some other body who can hold a president accountable either either a future prosecutor wants he leaves office and he was very clear about that. There was another bad moment for the president or Congress yes very much so an and we should note that he he refused to sort of answer any question that went to their deliberative process internal investigation nation but this was a great example where he argued. I thought strongly in favor of why the investigation continued and pointed out that they did in fact charge a number of people in this investigation and a number of the president's associates as well and so I thought that was a critical point I mean I also thought when combined with what you just noted which is muller saying absolutely clearly yes. The president can be charged after he leaves office which is that it's not immunity from being charged. It's just a temporary period of time which you cannot indict the president and it says in the report and and we've talked about this and I think a lot of other folks have talked about it that the best time to get evidence is close in time to win. A potential crime has been committed. It's really hard to do it to wait until the president is out of office whether it's four years or eight years and of course statute of limitations may have run but it's really impossible to wait to gather evidence and do the investigation and so I thought that was an important moment today we'll be back with more on Bob Mothers testimony after this message stay tuned. This episode is supported by Ziprecruiter. It's important to surround yourself with good people here in D._C.. That's obviously difficult. Finding qualified candidates takes a long time but there's one place you can go hiring simple fast and smart that place ziprecruiter dot dot com slash preet ziprecruiter censure job to over one hundred leading job boards but they don't stop there with their powerful matching technology ziprecruiter scans thousands of resumes find people with the right experience and invites them to apply then ziprecruiter analyzes each one spotlights top candidates so you never miss a great match. ziprecruiter is so effective that four out of five employers who post on Ziprecruiter get a quality candidate through the site within the first day and right now at Ziprecruiter dot com slash pre stay tuned listeners can try ziprecruiter for free Ziprecruiter DOT COM slash preet. That's ziprecruiter dot com slash P. R. E. Ziprecruiter the smartest way to hire take back go back into the substances from the the back and forth one thing that happens in life is the creation of expectations so on the issue were just talking about to me. It's significant in terms of perception that for a long time lots and lots of people thought notwithstanding the so we'll see opinion which was not as well known two years ago as it is now that maybe there would be indictment of the president and it's a little weird in the universe to know that the special counsel determine two years ago there would be no indictment but the rest of the world thought that there could be and expectations these were raised where at least expectations that were raised were never legitimately brought under control so that's one example of it and other example of it is we've been told for months and months and I've been saying that Bob Melissa testify. You've been saying publicly testify so there's a lot of build up to this thing and in recent days I was wondering is going to live up to the build up and for a lot of reasons I think you and I agree that that it wouldn't because by Muller's minimalist and was reluctant witness and it is true. There's a report but Eve recently his last night in this morning. Lots of folks were saying well. This could be a huge blockbuster. Thing wasn't a couple points. I think the key to life in some ways is having low expectations or at least managing your expectations and so I very much think that the media media over Balu what the outcome of this would be and you're right even as recently as this morning people were saying this is absolutely gonNA lead to impeachment people. Ask Me the other day you know we'll muller agree that trump should be impeached while Mahler say trump right no way we'll we'll muller say that trump committed crime definitively no way and so there were some questions about whether or not the president had answered truthfully in the responses he'd given to Muller and more effectively said no and so here's another example in exchange that maybe has a lot of import based on the way was answered and maybe it gets walked back and people were speculating as we were leaving to come to the studio will walk back. It seems kind of extraordinary is a democratic representative Val demings. Could you say director Merlo that the president was credible can answer that question director Mola. Isn't it fair to say that the president has written answers were not only inadequate and incomplete because he didn't answer many of your questions where he did his asser show that he wasn't always being truthful. Oh I would say generally generally director Mueller is one thing for the presidential to the American people about Joe Investigation falsely claiming that you found no collusion and no obstruction but it's something a little replies I would say generally you know the coal transcripts seems to suggest he was basically saying yeah. The president light the president lied in written answers to the special counsel's office but then you think about how other parts parts of the testimony went today and it's quite that precise I would say generally I would say generally what he said that a few times though she said I would say generally a few times where people were trying to pin him down to specific things in the report and he you know it's a four hundred plus page report and he wouldn't have the specific site in front of him and so I think he was trying to basically say like generally I agree with what you're saying. I found that to be really damning for the president and it really important moment today because he didn't WanNa go into too much detail of who didn't agree to testify defy but it's part of the report that the president did not agree to testify that they'd made numerous efforts and so that's a moment where beyond the answers being incomplete untruthful. I mean it's sort of like with the president wouldn't answer half your questions. The obstruction questions I would only answer questions on conspiracy and by the way the answers he gave you modern sadists but remember there were a ton of. I don't remember I don't know and so muller saying generally yeah. We didn't find it to be completed truthful. That's a big deal and it's also again remembered. This is the president of the United States who refuse to walk into an interview who filed written answers and then even with those written answers. The special counsel did not believe that the president was forthright that is hugely important as we think about what's gone on so Maher did in some ways today I think exactly what you and I would have expected him to do what I would have liked for him to have done. which if I were honest about this I knew he wouldn't do it but I would have liked more of a conversation about the president not testifying and not being subpoenaed to testify Muller Muller went? Give us a little bit there and saying there's a balance between looking at the information that you have and the amount of time it takes to go through litigating a subpoena against the president <hes> but I would have liked to have heard more about that. <hes> the fact that Don Jr. would not testify did not provide information muller wouldn't answer those questions and that's in keeping with the letter that the Department of Justice just sent saying don't talk about third parties <hes> who haven't been charged so I think Muller I don't know whether he was self constraining or he felt constrained by the department ladder but he was very cautious as a witness. Should we talk about this decision not to pursue compelling testimony of the president per second something that was really struck by. I've always believed that Bob Muller imposed o'clock on himself he he wanted to get this thing done as quickly as possible to avoid criticism and also you know he has better things to do with life than do this and he said in his opening statement among other things that one of his goals was that the investigation quote would not last a day longer than necessary this area and then when he explained a little bit of that today as you mentioned you don't know how long it takes <hes> to get through the courts and compel the president's testimony and it's I've often said I'm in the minority here for Defending Muller on this decision. If you started to get into the next next year on to the next summer twenty twenty approaching the election and holding everything else in advance no report on the conspiracy aspects of another aspects of obstruction to try to get the president to be compelled to testify then you're running up against a very very very very serious barrier and clock because it looks much much more political and we have and also you you maintain this cloud over the country in over the presidency for a long period of time in the other way to think about it is it sounds like you had enough. He won't say it because he's bending over backwards to be fair to the president because of what he interprets the L._l._C. opinion to allow or not allow but you don't seek the testimony of the person if you think you have enough and I think that's what's going on here well. Let's let's parse out. Just a little bit in the report basically says there was a question of timing and we felt we had sufficient evidence to make an assessment so I think to your point of there was evidence there <hes> I agree. Yes there is evidence there and there's a considerable amount of evidence the two places I would sort of go back and forth. Maybe a a little bit with you on to dig. Deeper is that obstructions one of those crimes where intent really matters and so one of the three elements of the crime the first is there's an obstructive act. The second is that there's an access to an official proceeding connection. Into official preceding like a grand jury or hearing and the third is corrupt cropped intent and so I think when intent is as much of an issue as it is with something like obstruction it is incredibly important when you can get access to someone's testimony to get access to their testimony so I personally would like Muller to have interviewed the president also. I think there's a question of thoroughness when you're doing these types of investigations of dotting is crossing tease. I don't think I've ever asked this before but I really wonder today whether it's more than just the bounds of these two things it's also the fact that he knows under the L._l._C. opinion that he's not going to indict him exactly I I think that totally played in right because at the end of the day you have a certain amount of evidence you're worried about the timing and even if he got this other evidence in other words the interview you're not gonNA indict him anyway but it takes a year six months. Can we do this exercise a little more so you're the special counsel and you gather your team together. Let's on your team and you say okay well. What should we do about compelling? The president's testimony and I've run this scenario through my own head and your team says well. We really want to get it because corrupt ten is important you WanNa get what's inside the person's head both for their benefit and for the benefit of thoroughness of the investigation and then you would ask I think well. What do you think the timing is? Let's say I don't know because it's it's a little bit speculative. We'll go the district court and maybe we'll take some time months maybe weeks only but probably months mill appeal it. They'll go up <hes> and if you would ask the question which I would you know what's the possibility that this reaches ahead and we're in the position to take testimony the president in say thirteen months or fourteen months in September October of re election year and let's say you're team Said said look. We can't promise we don't know it could be it could be in the election I if you also asked the question of your team will could we put the report out in bits and pieces so even though the obstruction stuff has to be on hold until we get this decision from the court about compelling testimony. Can we put out the conspiracy stuff absolutely not you couldn't do that right and so not to overly defend the decision. I'm just thinking if I were in that spot. There's no good result and I agree that there's no good result particularly because I think you're right you taken that risk. You'd have taken the risk of have this reach ahead on the eve of an election when the whole issue here is that the president thinks it's a witch hunt a lot of folks think it's taking too long and your otherwise imagine the following your otherwise kind of done as evidenced by the rest of the report. The only thing that you really don't have is a testimony the president. Do you hold everything frozen for another witness well. It's it's a podcast the rule of the federal those include podcasts that record in Washington D._C.. Look I think it's a really great question and a really look people can disagree about this in a very real way. Here's where I and I want to agree on one one part very strongly with you it which is that I think that you cannot come close to an election and the president of the United States is incredibly lucky that Robert Muller was the special counsel because we saw even Jim Komi Homey who is was a well regarded prosecutor for many years. Komi broke what I would argue are whether they're official rules or former rules or INFORMA- rules but by talking about investigations within a close period of time to an election. You just don't do it so Robert. Muller is a man of integrity was not gonNA come close to the election and I agree one hundred percent with it so you're right that there was a timing issue where muller could have come up or he could have actually worst case scenario. Even then you've just outlined would be he goes is eight months. He realizes he's coming close to the election and then he says Oh forget it. No he gives up which is once you go down that path. That's the thing once you go down that path then you gotta hold everything up and you gotta wait till you go all the way higher the courts and what if he'd started earlier though because I think the one thing I would question in your sort of analysis is that your presuming okay muller waits a year. He continues these negotiations which were pretty clear from. All of us sort of looking from the outside early on the president was not eager to walk in on this could be could have sought to compel it instead of waiting go for three months and then say look. We're going to issue you a subpoena but there's a conundrum there too and again I don't remember exactly what was accomplished by what particular date and time but generally speaking the other traditional you go about doing these things for good the reason because it makes sense and it's effective is you don't get the testimony from the principal person you're looking at on. That's right you check your boxes. You Cross your teeth. Dot Your eyes so on the one hand you don't want to you know front-load that because that's not how you do things normally on the other hand you have this and I thought they were trying to walk that balance actually because they started the conversation clearly pretty early before the investigation. They're still a lot of people who from public information. They were probably still investigating so it was clear. They were trying a start that conversation without you know understanding it might take a while. There's a lot of things to keep in mind as we're going to be assessing Bob Muller how he went about doing this. We should assess his performance today. In a moment <hes> in questions people have about about it but whether you like it or not to understand the psychological you know approach. That's legal slash psychological is clearly. He did a lot of things that you could have done one way or different way based on urgency and time for example talked about this before he decided to off a bunch of investigations and a bunch of cases to other office. You don't have to do that right cutting going so all these things you have to view through the prism and maybe it's not correct or maybe was overdone but he you want to get out of this thing as quickly as possible by year to he wanted to be done. I think it's also consistent with who he is that he he obviously knew that he was a political football every day and that this was a huge American issue and so look I give him so much credit for the way he handled this investigation and again. I actually don't think that this is as clear cut his people make it seem one way or the other and let me say one other thing. which is that in criminal prosecutions? You know I think it would be very helpful for the nation to have had the president had to speak about what he was doing and why and answered questions but I also <hes> you know we've put a lot of hope on a criminal investigation in a way that I have to say is not always fair and so you you know Bob. Muller did the right thing arguably by the investigation. It doesn't get to the answer that I I very much would have liked which is that the president had to answer questions on obstruction of justice a hundred percent in some ways. We're falling into a trap which is assessing by mothers others conduct that we're lawyers. That's doing former prosecutors in your assessing. We'll show you dentistry down that look to the president of Dun rite agreed. You know if you should've watched in Clinton walked in people walking that you have to negotiate it but they walked in but the fact that the president didn't walk in and Donald Trump junior didn't walk in I mean if you and I are prosecuting case and <hes> we say hey you wanna come in and talk to us and people say no your takeaway is they don't WanNa talk to you and it can be great lawyering to basically say my client isn't coming in because you don't WanNa give the government information to help make the case but it's still it. It says something at the president of the United States would not actually take a lawful request even though wasn't a subpoena from the special counsel to answer questions in particular because and these mistakes I have been made before the Martha Stewart case and others. There're certain people who are not ordinary citizens either public officials were there famous in some way or they have a business and sometimes they overrule their lawyers and cautious lawyers will say based on what the factor don't go in and talk to the prosecutors because the one thing that will get you in trouble is lying and you can be charged with obstruction and so you say the client. Don't do this but some clients whether it's Martha Stewart or someone else says I can't take the reputational loss of looking like I'm guilty and looking like running away from something and would've thought I think that's president trump not control that it's true. It's a great point because it's sort of fell to me if fell to me as was ongoing like how does he stay as the president of the United States and not be willing to answer questions about whether are he tried to stop an investigation into whether he conspired with the Russian government to interfere with election and it's hard to understand that the Martha Stewart examples a great example so while we're on the subject of you know second guessing <hes> as armchair pundits for prosecutors. Here's let's talk about how he did today and <hes> you know we have some questions from listeners viewers. We have a tweet from assiduous rabbit Hashtag. Ask Pre the Muller. I'm seeing on T._V.. Is that the Muller you know. He seems much more hesitant than he's been portrayed and we got an the email from Lisa Catherine. Who says is it obvious to you that the special investigators responsibility together with natural aging process has taken a toll on Mr Muller well? I let me say it's taking a toll on make me to the end of the hearings. Today I can barely conduct this podcast today much less imagine a bunch of Representatives. Look I've done I've done. I've never done congressional testimony. I've done testimony when have state A._G.. In New Jersey before the state legislature and it's tough and I've never done five hours but I can tell you that it is grueling muller was working really hard not to say a lot and that's an effort I think to to carefully choose his words into be really scrupulous about what he said and didn't say <hes>. I also feel like there were times and we'll we'll come to the way that the hearing was conducted but I was really frustrated at parts of the morning listening to and I said this before people interrupt him. I'm not letting him answer. There was some yelling not listening and so I sort of think when he was asked really clear factual questions he did a pretty good job of answering those there was a lot of word salad this morning thing and it wasn't word salad on everything and there was also a lot of speechifying where people had very particular things they were trying to pin muller to and he did a lot of the will you repeat that question. What are you talking about and you know that it certainly didn't came across in some instances halting or as not as confident as you might expect him to be but he he was being asked some pretty complex things where people were trying to make political points and I think he was hesitant again to let people paint him into the corner so it wasn't wasn't <hes> look? He didn't go in there to be Cedar or to be the person who was sort of <hes> you know making news today and I think he definitely came across as understated not answering a lot of questions Russians. He said he didn't walk back that broke through and was a little bit different. Look at one of the questions that I just read was is that the Muller you know and in many ways yeah. He's the mother you know in the first round. I was with the panel of people on on C._N._N.. And they seem taken aback when he began entering questions. Yes no no yes you don't see that surprise buster and that so yeah that's the Mullahs Rhino. The MOLINO also is a person as you describe who doesn't want to be the center of attention <hes> who doesn't doesn't WANNA be embroiled in political controversy who doesn't want allow himself to be used politically in ads which is why he made a deal that he wouldn't have to read portions of the Muller reports all of that yeah. That's the Mullahs Rhino you know frankly if you say <hes> was he has as sharp and quick and forceful <hes> and dominant as I have seen him. Be You know ten twelve fourteen years ago no that's because this is a scenario in which he was especially reluctant to testify because all of those other hearings hearings combined did not get the attention <hes> eight times. I think he testified did not get the attention. Today was GONNA get did not have the significance of today <hes> yeah so I I saw Bob Muller who is trying not to be political who does not look political. WHO's trying the right thing? WHO's trying to obey the guidelines of the Department who's trying to be true to the report? <hes> WHO's trying to get the job done into thankless job that he had both doing the report doing the investigation and also testifying <hes> and is he is sprightly as he was. I know that that's fair. One thing I would say about the dominant question. It was interesting to me. Particularly the first half of the morning hearing before the Judiciary Committee there were a number of places where I thought he was pretty differential and I thought I expected him to be a little bit more feisty in defending the report and defending his team and pushing back on some of the things that were coming and I really even having seen Bob Muller testify before read transcripts and whatnot I expect so I expected him knowing that he would be reticent and very careful in choosing his words expect him to be more forceful on some things after the break though he came back and I don't know if you feel the same way he felt stronger coffee yeah but maybe some people have his team basically said look you know this isn't true and you're trying so hard to not be political. You're like you're almost dissing. You're you're not in there saying hey wait a minute my team. I thought it was a great moment when he was questioned about the members. Members of his team and and how many people on team Democrats speak for a second to the hiring practices we strove to hire those individuals that could do the job okay been in business for almost twenty five five years and who knows twenty-five years I have not had occasion wants to ask somebody about their political affiliation. It is not done what I care about is the capability of the individual do the job and do the job quickly and seriously and with integrity. I've never ever in my entire career as a single lawyer. I've hired what their political party was and here's what's fascinating about that pre just to stop on that from it neither of I and probably neither do you not allowed to. That's what got the justice prominent trouble with respect to the investigation that I helped lead back in two two thousand seven. That's a no no but what's amazing is it's like it would never have even occurred to muller that people would not have accepted that the fourteen people who were already at the United States Department of Justice that they were non-political gets just beyond comprehension attention that people would politicize his team in the way that it's happened and that to me it was there was some great moments today where he was like look I you know I stand by the integrity of the report in my team and I think he needed to do that and I I wish even in the beginning of the Judiciary Committee pretty frankly that he'd done that in a stronger way. What what do you think of how he handled questions about the F._B._i.? Agent Peter Struck who had texts <hes> with women with whom us every relationship Lisa page that said negative things about the president now. I think he was asked a one point. Did you know when you hired Peter Struck onto the team that he hated the president in Bob Muller said I did not which is interesting because he didn't seem to push back at the premise of the hatred which I think is hard to push back on because I don't think <hes> Peter Strip was poorly funded the president. He tried to finish answering by saying that's when we reassigned him he didn't decide to give us sort of electric in law like you and I have done here and explain why in ordinary universe two civilians just because not not to condone it but just because one member of team has done things that that exhibit bias it means that the miscreant goes free there are other safeguards for that and the and the evidence has to stand up on its own and he was removed pretty early. I mean he was removed. I think almost a year close to a year and a half before the final report was issued and it's interesting to me that very few Republicans if any I'd have to go back look through the whole transcript quibble with the actual facts that are shown in the report as opposed to these other issues. That's a great point I think on the text messages to he said you know the first thing he learned about where the text messages it does. Strike me that that that's one of those painful things where if you're Robert Mueller he's the least political guy he does not want to be part of this political <hes> sort of rugby scrum which of course he's part of because he's the special counsel and then you have to people on your team who have these political statements come out. It's got to be painful for someone like Muller because you know essentially he he gave the Republicans and we should talk about some of the criticism today but there's fodder to argue that there's bias where you know. Muller again was quick to say like I've never asked anyone their political leanings. It's not it's not why pick these people these are fine men and women but it gives it gives something to hit him on. I still have some questions that I don't think we're asked and you know every once in a while. I may have sneeze and miss something and they're not you know the most important things not central to the ultimate conclusions about the culpability the president but I wanted to know from Muller how he felt about the idea that Rod Rosenstein the former deputy attorney general was simultaneously a witness in the obstruction case but also is one of the decision makers with respect to the whole investigation and oversaw. It and I don't think I think that was asked now. There are a number of areas that I don't know smaller would have answered them but I would have liked them to have covered with him and in particular I think there was stuff related to the Russian government and the interference with the election I would have liked to have seen them spend more time covering particularly in the intelligence hearing so what do you think we go from here. <hes> am I doing this in the way that some people do it but do you think and I don't know how you're gonNA answer it yet <hes> but it is what it is. Maybe disappointed pointed. <hes> some people might be you know satisfied with the answer but based on how today went if one of the purposes was and I think actually was assets. No I'm trying to one of the chairman was asked is the purpose of today's hearing <hes> to to jumpstart impeachment or something like that. Probably one of the purposes was <hes> I agree with those folks who say that good product was laid down for calling other people with you call impeachment or not <hes> like Don mcgann and others yes but after today does impeachment become more or less likely so I wanNA start by saying that every time we make predictions or at least every time I make predictions there often wrong so I wanNA. I WANNA cabin that the thing I feel about the way Congress has handled this. I'm I'm not a fan and just to be really forthright about. I know it's such an easy thing to do to Bash Congress. Oh I'm not a fan in milligram boldly says she's not a a fan of the way Congress did something well. Here's what I think has happened. Muller COMES OUT WITH REPORT IN MARCH <HES> IT gets released not long after and there's been a lot of hand-wringing and a lot of sort of putting their finger in the air to see where's the public and I I think a real hesitation to have this conversation. Today is the the the most significant conversation that we've seen publicly about the report and about Robert Muller's findings in what happened and so they waited a long time and I agree with you completely don mcgann again needs to testify I think a lot of fair questions for hope Hicks and many many others and so what I like all those folks to be called the answer's yes but there's a point at which we are getting closer and closer to having a democratic and you know the president the Republican nominee for president that the will be a Democratic nominee before you know it and so we're in the presidential election season so I don't think it's likely that we're gonNA see impeachment and today minute less likely yes. I think so yeah I mean my view is if you separate separate out the substance from the theater. The theater was not conducive to what some people wanted. <hes> there are no real huge Aha moments there a couple of big things we talked about one of which was walked back and mostly people who believed thing before believe the same thing now. It's show people are setting their opinion and what we learned today from Muller we knew in April from the report and so there wasn't a lot that was new. I'll say something else further to what we were discussing asking before about how Bob Muller perform and this is the odd thing about doing this right. We are immersed in the actual hearing in watching the things and I I have not had a chance to see a lot of reaction <hes> just intermittently very quickly and there are people who were saying <hes> many many of them but not all of them who have a vested interest in today being a disaster for the Democrats who recalling debacle clawing at a disaster. I don't think that I just wonder if wants to if it's a little if it's a little bit late down the road when there's been a lot out of the people who were saying that based on the substance there was no damage done that I could see to the conclusions to <hes> the integrity of the investigation anything of substance remained intact and in fact I think was strengthened in many ways because you saw the demeanor of Robert Muller as is not being hyper partisan or trying to get someone so they're basing that all on their perception of the quality of Bob Motor's performance and maybe how sharp wasn't a quickie was in the moment and I get that but that means that those people are focusing on theatrics rather than substance substance was was very strong. This substance has been strong since the report came out <hes> and I think you know Congress has made a decision that I don't agree with to sort of stand back and do these sort of small pieces instead of having impeachment hearings and figuring out to the president engaging conduct that constitutes removable a removable fence and so I just my feeling feeling is that at this point remember Congress's leaving this week and so you know we'll have a chance to talk about this. I think going forward on cafe insider but my my expectation is that the reaction to this is not going to be <hes>. It's not going to an explosion of people asking for impeachment and a little bit <hes> maybe the Intel committees hearing a little less attention because later in the day people already formed their impressions of what was going on today based on the early party. You know people lose them patients. It's a a lot of hours of hearings to watch but that was really powerful stuff in the Intel Committee hearing <hes> and you know a reinforcement of this idea that we're not paying enough attention to that. There was a as mullah keeps putting it sweeping and systematic interference in our election election and are we spending enough time thinking about twenty twenty always been enough time figuring out how to prevent that kind of thing from happy not just with respect to Russia some other country as well Robert Muller said it is it is happening as we speak for twenty twenty one of the things that Muller said today that I found so important and chilling was that Robert Muller the man who oversaw the transformation of the F._B._I.. After nine eleven that he said in his entire career that this is one of the greatest challenges to democracy that he has ever Marsin that is an unbelievable statement from someone like Robert Muller who is the director of the F._B._i.. For twelve years oversaw the Po the post nine eleven <hes> changes in the federal government and so it really is even today. Hey I think you're right. There was time spent on it and intelligence committee but there needs to be more time spent on it for all of us because it matters so greatly Louis because they went viral these <hes> it's one final thing in this discussion about Bob Muller who deep deep respect for and whatever you think about how he conducted the investigation where everything about how he did today he didn't need any of this <hes> he'd already proven himself you nothing to prove he did a thankless job which probably appears more thankless today than it never had before and he's not a young man and it is probably the case someone said this earlier today and it kind of struck me <hes> it's probably the case that we will not again here. Bob Muller speak in Congress or at a press conference or from a podium in any way shape or form again. Yeah I agree with that. <hes> I think we all oh him a great debt of gratitude for what he's done here and I think the president it does to you know people can forget the the posture of the president and his <hes> people whether they're folks like Corey Lewandowski Paul Manafort Roger Stone or anyone else is to destroy anyone who dares to say the president did something wrong and the fact is that there are lots of other people who have good records and <hes> our formidable prosecutors who could have been appointed special counsel and it would have been a lot worse for the President I get yet. They have to destroy whoever took that job and in this case it was Bob Muller <hes> but in many ways trump and his allies would think they're lucky stars it was someone as Fares Him who's getting grief for having bent over backwards to accept the L._L._C.. We'll see opinion to such a degree that he won't even state something that is apparent to the rest of us. Yeah what's amazing when you think about it is that in this incredibly politicize World Robert Muller even today we saw went out of his way not to be political and I think with this entire investigation was trying to do it <hes> straight by the book and that is it's. It's a credit institutions. It's a credit to him with this caveat our reactions and we'd like to bring them to you right away. We're taping this literally having watched the hearings all day and let a few minutes labs before we came over in the studio. We'll have a lot more to say about it with the benefit of some sleep and some rumination on the insider podcast on Monday and if you haven't yet sign up for that podcast at cafe dot com slash insider keep talking about testimony and in fact we due to listen to the rest of our conversation become a member of the cafe insider community at Cafe Dot com slash insider members get access to full episodes of the inside of podcast bonus material from stay tuned and more in addition to the rest of today's discussion and I will have more to talk about on Mondays episode of Cafe insider where each week we break down the headlines and make sense of what's happening head to cafe dot com slash insider and become a member that's cafe dot com slash insider to the many of view who have already joined the community. Thank you for your support well. That's it for this. Special Muller episode of Stay Tuned. Thanks again to my guest and mill stay. They tuned is presented by cafe. Executive producer is tomorrow seper the senior producer is Aaron Dalton and the cafe team is Carla Pirini Julia Doyle Calvin Lord the Neighbor Asti and Jeff is our music is by Andrew Dust.

Robert S. Muller president Muller special counsel Bob Mueller Democrats Bob Mother Russian government Donald trump Congress Bob Muller prosecutor Chairman Judiciary Committee United States New Jersey President Washington Bob
Mueller Speaks & The Underdog (with Andrew Yang)

Stay Tuned with Preet

1:16:56 hr | 1 year ago

Mueller Speaks & The Underdog (with Andrew Yang)

"From cafe. Welcome to stay tune. I'm free Berrara. Most Americans are not really tuning into what's going on with twenty twenty they're going to turn on TV. They're gonna see me standing there, and they're going to say who's the Asian man, standing next to Joe Biden, and then they're gonna look you up, and they're, they're going to Google easy. Manson me. And then they're going to find out about me, my vision for the country and the Yang gangs gonna grow and grow. That's Andrew Young. He's an entrepreneur philanthropist, and a twenty twenty democratic presidential candidate Young's got policy proposals for almost every issue. But his focus is on technology, specifically automation, and its financial impact on workers, one of his solutions the universal basic income, which he calls the freedom dividend. It would give thousand dollars a month to every American, no questions asked. That's coming up. Stay tuned. Today's episode is a bit long for two reasons. We have our second ever presidential candidate on. Stay tuned. So there was plenty to discuss their but first, we have to get to some unexpected news from DOJ. I'm taping this late Wednesday afternoon, and has anyone in the vicinity of social media knows by now special counsel, Robert Muller, just made his first public statement regarding his nearly two year investigation into Russian interference in the two thousand sixteen election also that obstruction stuff while most press conference was brief, there's a lot to unpack and there's no one better to help me than an milligram. Former attorney general of New Jersey, but most importantly, my co host on the weekly cafe insider podcast. We'll continue this conversation for the caffeine insider community, and with that. So it's Wednesday afternoon about four pm a few hours after Bob Muller, finally, uttered, some words in front of cameras about his famous report, and I'm here in the studio with an milligram. I, I on so people got to hear what Bob voice sounds like to say that I can't tell you how many people have come up to me and said, I didn't know about more sounded like, here's a good voice. I think he sounds like what I would expect him to sound like I don't know if it's podcast good, but it's pretty good. Try them out. You know, the sense I've gotten from him as he doesn't want to do a lot of talking with our podcast or otherwise. So there's a lot to cover. I know he only spoke for like eight or nine minutes since we can talk like ten x right? Probably we'll try to go like five x but it seems to me the first question is was this a referral to congress, as we're sitting here and as I was walking to the studio. Democratic presidential candidates and other people are prominence have been giving out there two cents like this is clear. It's going to congress. It's going to congress. That's what modern ones but I will say before you answer. He did not say in so many words, it is my view that congress should decide this question is you and I have been discussing for some time now. Do we need to be reading between the lines should this be an issue of subtext? Why can't he just say if he means that to be true? Why can't he just say, look, we did this because we thought that you need to maybe provide some evidence for some other body. Like congress congress go to it. Let me start by saying one of the most surprising things about today was that in the lead up to the release of bar summary. And then the report every day for like three weeks ahead of time. We would hear the mall report is coming. The attorney general is gonna speak. It was everything in literally, Bob Muller is a ninja as our last night. We knew nothing this morning. My, my day is normal all of a sudden, like an hour, an hour and fifteen minutes before Muller spoke. He gets up there. So this was in my view classic Bob Muller said as we were discussing before we came on. I was on a plane back from Oslo Norway. I lost the wifi somewhere over the Atlantic. And at first, I was annoyed because I like to be like to be connected to the world. And then I lost the internet. And I thought, well, actually this is kind of a nice good thing. I listen to some other people's podcasts, I watched a trashy movie, and then my internet came back on after three hours and my inbox was full surprise with messages from lots of people, including so, right? Interestingly, the reporting is that the White House had been notified last night last night that a statement was going to be made. And yet it did not leak. It's amazing back to your question. Was it a referral to congress? You're right Muller. Never says, I am referring this to congress. I read today's a few things, I think Muller was cleaning up the record making it abundantly clear. What he said in his report Bill Barr spoke for him. A number of other people have been talking about what Muller meant. This was Muller's chance very brief. But very I think concise and clear of what Muller wanted to talk about. Doesn't mean it was say, but it was very concise and clear about what he wanted to talk exactly what more wanted to talk about the other pieces. I read it as Muller saying I've done my job, and I've done my job within the constraints that I had, meaning the office of legal counsel opinion, said that the president cannot be charged. We made a decision that it wasn't fair to go out and make a determination as to whether or not he should be charged if we could not charge him and there was no possibility of having your day in court. And by the way, there's all these actions going on to try to get the underlying evidence which I'm not a part of, and the office of legal counsel in the constitution provide or imagine that the right body, or the body to sort of hear this now would be the United States Congress. So referral. No. But in my view, like a I've done my job now it's time for other people to do their job. I think, yes, wouldn't preliminary question, I guess, because he didn't say much new, and he made it very clear, and we'll get to this in a few minutes, you know whether. Should testify, what would be the usefulness of his testifying in front of congress? But he didn't say much new. Why did he go in front of cameras? A my, my senses, Bob Muller wants nothing to have to do with explaining in going on and on, and subjecting himself to members of congress. And again, we'll go over that and more details things worth worthwhile. And I think he was a little bit. I'm not gonna use that old metaphor of he looked like he was doing a hostage video but he a little bit was. It's the same Bob Muller. He seemed you know, he seemed a little less strong in his manner than he usually does. He seemed a little bit more reluctant than I've seen him before at other events. But I think he felt this was his way of sort of satisfying, the throngs, who said, you got to speak, you gotta speak. He must have thought that it was a good inflection point that it was natural to say, I'm wrapping up. I'm resigning today. I'm going back to private life. So it's not some random day that he's designed to speak for nine minutes in front of cameras. But I think he thought he was checking some box agree completely. He was not happy to do it and more than that. So I think if Bob Muller could have done, it the way, Bob Muller, completely would want to he would have written a letter saying, dear attorney general VAR. I resign sincerely yours, Bob Muller. Maybe a couple of extra sentences in there, and he would have literally left it at that. But you're right. That congress has been demanding his testimony. It's very clear that today he said, I don't want to test that was new. That was new. We got that sense, and he did in my view this press conference. So he got the opportunity, nobody's asking you questions he gets to completely control. What is said and how it said, and so he got his nine ten minutes of time where he got to say what he wants say? But completely reluctantly, and I think it was if I do this, maybe I can avoid going in front of congress took back to the original question of whether it was referral to congress. I didn't get to watch in real time because I was on this airplane in the rough, you are fine. But are then want this afternoon. And before I watched I read the statement, and I was really struck by something in the report itself, and then I've been harping on for many weeks. And look, the report is very long, born in four hundred forty eight pages for forty eight pages single space, and this was a short statement, I have it printed out at about three pages and change. So it's interesting what he's chooses to repeat again. And he says, even though it's the case that the officer legal counsel has to opinions and said, you candidate indicted, sitting president, the opinion explicitly permits, the investor. Gatien of a sitting president, because it is important to preserve evidence, while memories are fresh and documents are available. And then he says the opinion says that the constitution requires a process other than the criminal Justice system to formally accuse a sitting president of wrongdoing. He put those two things together. Yes, why do you have to do investigation at all? If you knew from the outset that you can't prosecute because he's a sitting president, you do it, because maybe there to other kinds of prosecutions that can happen, one, not really a prosecution, but a constitutional process of impeachment, and the other is some future actual prosecutor who will, you know, be indebted to the special counsel, team because they did their investigation while memories are fresh and documents are available. And so this process that he refers to that. The opinion itself at makes explicit reference to, to get around this issue that has bothered people and makes people very upset that no person is supposed to be above the law. Everyone is to be able to be held accountable and the opinion that says, you candidates, sitting president makes it very clear that the reason why that shouldn't freak people out is that you have. Other thing, and it's called congress, and it's called the process of impeachment and Bob Muller explicitly refers to it. And so I think it's a little closer to referral to congress, but it's a part and parcel of Muller's, extreme minimalism. Yes. I in not wanting to say the thing he didn't wanna say although he meant it. He didn't wanna say congress at share job now with their other things he didn't want to say he didn't wanna say Bill bar. Totally mucked it up. Yeah. I believe. Absolutely Bob Muller things Bill bar mucked it up. I think absolutely he believes congress should take a look. I think absolutely. He believes that there is sufficient evidence to bring a criminal case of obstruction. But in each of those categories, and there may be others. He thinks to himself, while it's not my job to say that thing. Right. And I don't know that he even thinks he's engaging in subtext. He'd I don't think he does at all is right. He is. And, and one of the things I noticed before I had to think, after I watch his statement, I read it and I had to think about what he was saying in a number of play. And what it really meant, and that is, whether he intends it or not. And I don't think he intends it, it is sub like, we're sort of figuring out what did he choose to talk about? What didn't he choose to talk about? And how do they talk about it? And then we're trying to understand what that means which is complicated. Yeah. It is. Can I had one other thing too that list? You had two reasons to do an investigation. The third, I would add is that other people can be charged. And so even if the president could not be charged, and I think we shouldn't was light of the fact that a number of other people have been charged. And how critical that is so on this question of whether or not the mullahs report was a referral to congress. I think we agree. I agree, not in so many words, do you, and I also agree that those who say that they take it as essentially effectively referral in congress makes its own decision about what information exists in the world at the end of the day, it actually doesn't matter what Bob Muller intens, he's one man who ran a special counsel's office in, by the way, we should thank him for his service and shake the rest of the service should have said that the outset. And it's not up to him. I would like to know what his intention was. And I think people put a lot of stock in what is intent was, but it doesn't sort of matter, and now congress can decide based on what has been put forth to act or not act. So I think the people who were saying they take the Muller reports referral. It doesn't matter if it was or not. But I think they can make those statements in good faith. What's really clear that Muller has laid out an incredible amount of evidence. He's made a wrecker and factual findings that congress can use as a decision maker, this question of whether, and how they hold the president accountable, and so you're right. Whether or not Muller intended that as a referral to congress specifically, I mean, I wanna be sensitive on that, he did do you think he intended anything, this is what I want to be sensitive. I think Muller to your point was so careful of not wanting to put his thumb on the scale he didn't wanna put his thumb on the scale of public opinion. He didn't wanna put his thumb on the scale of what decision congress makes and so he's trying so hard to be neutral that in some ways what he's trying to. Basically say is here. This is for the American public, this is for congress. I'm out, but it does lead to this point where you and I are sitting here, sort of speculating about what he intended. So on the question that is occupying, a lot of people. Is it proper to indicted sitting president? And you and I spent a lot of time here and elsewhere, talking about the to oversee opinions, the one in nineteen Seventy-three and the one in two thousand and Bob Muller said something in his statement today that I've seen for the few minutes, I was watching television before rushing over here. People are making a big deal of on the question of whether or not president can be charged with a crime while in office. He says that is unconstitutional, my view, when you may have a different one is the people overreacting to that statement. Because if you look at what he said, in context, he says, we did not make a determination as to whether the president did commit a crime and then explains referring back to the mullahs report, which explains that under longstanding, the -partment policy is referring to the policy, the all CPN's, a president cannot be charged with a federal crime while he is in office and. Then he says that is unconstitutional. I take that to mean that's what the opinion say and people who haven't read the opinion think it's sort of a policy, but yet it is, it's a policy in the guideline. But it's based on that offices interpretation of the constitution. So the opinion says it is unconstitutional to indict a sitting president, what do you make of his day? So I, I had the same reaction that I think a lot of people did when he first said it, which is, is that, Bob Muller, telling me that he Bob Muller, and the special counsel's office thinks it's unconstitutional to indict a sitting president. Or he telling me that. That's the opinion. I openly having read this now ten times. I think you're right. That what he what he meant is that this is the -partment policy. Right. And the sentence begins. It explains that under longstanding department policy. It president cannot be charged with a federal crime, as you just said, that is unconstitutional. I think he is referring to the policy, but it did jar me when I first heard him say it, which is like to flash statement. Yeah. Because I, I don't agree that it is unconstitutional. And by the way, the courts have not said that it's unconstitutional. That's the United States. Department of Justice, making their own policy as to what they can and cannot do. And so I, I was jarred by it. But I think upon reading that multiple times. You know, why else I think it's not Bob Muller speaking for himself. He just never does. I mean, there's yes, it would be really interesting. If this was the one spot that he made a legal determination is a very interesting post. Oracle discussion, what? Everyone says speaks clearly, we're all have nothing better to do than to parse. Each word look, he could very easily said, according to that policy. It would be constitutional. So he chooses his words carefully. I can guarantee you the remaining people personnel in the special counsel's office spent a lot of time on every single one of these words and Bob Muller himself do because he had to speak them. But this goes to now another question that I have maybe doesn't burn up other people, but it makes me very curious. And I tweeted out this really today when did the special counsel's office determine that given the longstanding policy that is unconstitutional. The standing interpretation that is unconstitutional to indicted, sitting president, when did the special counsel's office, basically agree adopt that position internally was it on day one. And it seems to me it's arguable that it was on day, one clear policy. He's, you know, a minimalist he's conservative with a small c and if they decided to years ago, we'll look, part of our mandate is to investigate what obstruction in the wake of the firing of Jim Komi and one of the people we're going to investigate for obstruction? Is in fact, the president of the United States, and they knew two years ago. I'm curious to know if that's true. Because if that's so you can make an argument that in the midst of speculation from a lot of people, you and I have been consistent in saying, we did not believe the Bob, Mueller would indicted sitting president, because that guidance but that was speculation on our part. I don't know that it would have been inappropriate to make clear to the public that investigation was going to be undertaken. But no one should have an expectation coming from Bob, Muller's office, not from you and me. But coming from Bob ballers office, no, one should expect an indictment because this policy that came as a little bit of a surprise to a lot of people. And I'm not sure they made that determination on the first day, what do you think? So I don't know. We're speculating is always, but I think that if I were sitting in an office like that, or you were sitting in an office, like that, you would be thinking, okay. Let's do the Russia investigation. And when it comes to obstruction, I think it would have come up, maybe not day one, but it would have come up pretty quickly as to the question of what do you do about the president? Can you charge him should you investigate it? If you can't. Charge him should you conduct the investigation. That's really important because people are saying that no, let's say very early on. Maybe not. They one but like they eleven you realize there's back to the president who never gonna be able to bring a charge. What's the purpose? And it seems to me that we've already discussed what the purposes of purposes to put it in the record for someone else after he leaves office. That's another reason why I think it must be sort of an influential referral to congress and because there's a possibility of other people being involved in the crime. And maybe they could be charged even if the president can't be, but look leads to the question from a lot of people wide, you waste all our time. One of the things Muller said today that I don't think he said before, and I thought was really important was talking about why we investigate obstruction of Justice and how important it is to get the truth in the American criminal Justice system. And I will read you and it was said for a purpose, Robert Muller said it was critical for us to obtain full and accurate information from every person, we questioned when a subject of an investigation obstructs that investigation or lies to investigators. It strikes at the core of the government's effort to find the truth, and hold wrongdoer. Accountable. So that's something that, that Muller pointed out in my view. And I think in your view tube, there's a huge incentive for that to be investigated to understand obstruction. You're right about preserving evidence taking witness statements. You're, you're right. Also about potential charges after the president leaves office. But again, it's also possible that other people would have been charged with obstruction of Justice, when you walk into an investigation, as you and I, both know you don't know what you'll find you don't know what charges you'll be able to bring necessarily who you'll be able to bring them against. And so I don't judge Robert Muller harshly for not, you know, sort of flying a flag saying owned, by the way, we're never going to charge, you, Mr President publicly to no, pretender the special counsel. And you begin this investigation, you know, it's going to take a while, maybe it's gonna take a couple of years and you have determined that you can't bring a charge against the president. But you are in the world you live in the world. And you hear that lots of people are speculating about a charge of the president. A lot of people are actually putting their hopes on that because he. Don't want the president and a lot of other people are thinking will your crazed maniac. If you're thinking, you're gonna win the president over this Russia hoc stuff that the president keeps talking about. But in either event apart from a small core of, you know, sort of legal experts who were not much listen to in this process. You have tens of millions of people thinking at the end of the day, there could be an indictment of the president, and you know, that there's not going to be, would you have thought about making some disclosure to the public directly or indirectly, so that you might tamp down this outsized crazed speculation of whether or not the president of the United States was going to be hauled off in handcuffs? I want to respond by saying a few different things here. First of all, if I was rather special counsel, I would not answer question, because I would not be speaking, and I would be speaking to empty chairs that would be podcast would be much worse, there just to be clear. But let's separate this stuff out the first question is, whether the president could be charged. But there's another really important question. Here that I don't necessarily think Muller answered on day, one or day eleven which was should he make a determination as to whether or not crimes were committed, and they are two different things. And so, I think when we're watching the media and Twitter, everyone's conflating it into the O L C opinion says that you can't charge a sitting president. And so that's why you say nothing Muller was really clear today and saying, there's an opinion that says we can't charge. And as a matter of fundamental fairness since I can't charge someone I'm not going to go out and make this determination, which is a public accusation of the president and the president doesn't get his day in court. So I think the right question is, when did he make that decision? So, and I went on for a bit to hear the rest of our analysis on special counsel, Muller's first public statement, become a member of Kathy insider at cafe dot com slash insider, an end, and I will have even more to say, on Mondays episode of the caffeine side or podcast. So if you haven't signed up, yet head to cafe dot com slash insider today. My guest this week is Andrew Yang. He hasn't approved this message but he did come to talk to me on my podcast. If you haven't heard Andrew Yang is one of the candidates currently running for the democratic nomination for president of America, Andrew nine discuss the formative years of facing childhood bullies the mechanics of his freedom dividend. Which, yes, you heard it correctly, the first time, we'll give American citizens of thousand dollars a month to offset financial stress and what qualifies him to be the next leader of the free world. That's coming up. Stay tuned. Stay tuned is supported by the New Yorker. The best writing in America today, both online, and in print, the New Yorker covers unique subjects like the world's diminishing supply of sand and deep dive into heirloom beans, along with a full range of topics, including politics, international affairs climate change. Pop culture and humor. The New Yorker also publishes some of the best writers in the world, like Jane Mayer an investigative journalists and staff writer for the New Yorker since nine hundred five Jane was my guest on stay tuned last fall around the time of the breath, cabinet confirmation hearings. Just days after may broke a story about allegations against Cavanaugh now. Stay tuned listeners get twelve weeks of home delivery of the print addition as well as unlimited access to New Yorker dot com with ten to fifteen exclusive site only stories every day for just six dollars. That's half the regular price. You'll also get a New Yorker tote bag as well as access to apps online archives. Crossword puzzle and more just go to New Yorker dot com slash Prete and enter the code Prete. Andrew yang. Welcome to the show. Thanks for having me pretty, it's a pleasure to be here. So you're running for president. Yes, I am. I'm doing quite well by many accounts. You are lots of interest in your campaign. You've been able to raise a lot of money. But can ask you one sort of first level background question. Of course. Explain a term to us. What is the Yang gang? The, the Yang gang is the moniker for people that support my presidential campaign on the internet in particular. So there's a hashtag gang gang. And if you search in that has tied you'll see a multitude of memes, and people trying to educate others about some of the ideas behind my campaign, very lucky for you. The Yang rhymes with something like gang. I know a name Berrara Berrara, Guerrara doesn't really work. No. Which is why I'm not. I'm sure there are a lot of people that want you to run even without. All right. I was not born in this country. So I cannot. But you know what I can do. You know, you don't have to be natural born citizen to post a podcast. It's everyone in America, wherever you come from Norway, or an S whole country, you can host a podcast. So that's what I'm doing. So a lot of people know who you are. But they're folks who do not. So who the hell are you? You know, I think your background in mine or not that dissimilar. I'm the son of immigrants met in graduate school at Berkeley. I was born in Schenectady, New York. My father was a physicist for Jian IBM. So I thought everyone's dad was a PHD, right? No, I went to Brown and Columbia for law school. Like you did wasn't unhappy corporate attorney for five months and then left to start an ill-fated dot com. Business, then worked in startups and businesses for ten years, or so really the biggest sharp left turn if you will my education company grew to become number one in the US, and it was acquired and two thousand nine and that was. The week of the financial crisis, which was a very bleak time. I had literally been training kids at Goldman Sachs and Chafee Morgan and McKinsey than I thought that the problem was that people who'd gone to the fancy schools, all went to Wall Street became financial wizards tech, wizards or management consultants, then, so I thought, well, what they should be doing is starting businesses and places like Detroit Cleveland Baltimore, Saint Louis Birmingham. And so, I started organization to help train entrepreneurs in those environments, then it was really during those seven years that I directly encountered, the aftermath of the automation of jobs in the midwest and the south. And I'm certain that the reason why Donald Trump's our president today is that we automated away for a million manufacturing jobs in Michigan. Ohio, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin. So imagine being the entrepreneur, who had helped create several thousand jobs in the midwest and the south, who is being celebrated for it. And then seeing that the title way was heading the other direction. So that's how I came to run for president. That's a nice summary, and history of the arc of your career. I don't wanna go back to childhood a little bit. You've been very open about your childhood euro, one very few Asian-Americans where you grew up. Yes. And you talk about being bullied. Yeah, that's not a term that was really us back when you and I were young. No, I was I really haven't talked about this much. But I'm interested, why you, you try to fight back and what you thought was affective about in how it's made you the person you are today. So I was one of the loan Asian kids in my school. And I'd also skipped a grade. So imagine being your scrawny or. And I bet I was stronger than you were. Wow. We should bust out the photos compare. Thank god. This is audio. So this was the eighties, the cultural inputs at the time where like long duck Dong sixteen candles. Hot stuff. Tune in like that's the way the class like there was this kid who just say that to me all the time. That's the way the group laughs. And so as the skinny Asian kid, getting picked on, I felt like, well, I guess, my choices are either just take it or fight back. So I decided to fight back and I would regularly lose those fights because I was a fight back. You mean physically. Yeah. Physically, I would just be like, all right. I guess it's time to fight again. And so, then I'd I'd fight and lose your yearbook. Yeah. I get my butt kicked. I got my book how on up? Lose. I would like to know it wasn't like a regular occurrence. There'd be like a month where it would happen several times. And then, like, what age group was from approximately elementary school through junior high and like you're okay at Columbia law school Columbia law school. I regularly engage in fisticuffs town. Okay. Yeah. No kidding aside, did the teachers help you. This is one of the things I'm very confused about pre because, like, I remember when I was growing up. Probably same as you all is cast ensued between kids in middle school age and your high. I don't remember teachers intervening very often in. No. I don't. Yeah. You don't. There were times. I remember once being on a bus on the field trip going to the planetarium. I really don't talk about this stuff, but I just I was very moved by the fact that you talk about it. And here you are running for president of the United States, if you can do it, then I can talk about a little bit also in, I remember being on his boss, and it's an hour long ride there were kids who were spitting at me like smacking on the back of the head, and calling me names, some of which were derivative of the N word because I'm Brown and all I wanted, was for teacher to tell them to stop. And there was a teacher on the bus didn't do anything that's strange. It doesn't strike me as strange having grown up in a similar era. And so, to me, one of the big question marks is what's happening today in schools? I think that there is this depiction that these things are not happening, but I'm sure they are just because kids are kids in humans humans. And I think there's like a very basic juvenile impulse to single out people who are different in certain ways. The thing that moved me about your. Russian's of being bullied was that you said it is always caused you to think about the underdog, then the little guy, the little person because that's the same for me. People might be surprised that I was really, really shy. And I had these issues when I was a kid, and then I grew up and became when most powerful prosecutors in the country. Yes. And you became a successful business person in her having a rollicking time running for president United States of America. It can be very easy to think you don't remember what it's like to not be successful. Or what's like to not be popular to not be light for me. It's been very formative in how I think about the world. You know, I felt myself to be that marginalized Asian kid throughout my tire life. And so whenever there was a gathering of people five notice, someone who seem like they're out of place. I would naturally gravitate towards them. I might be one of the least extroverted presidential candidates. Recent memory because, you know, like I on my route, I was like, bookish Asian kid, who just like to read fantasy novels and play dungeons and dragons with my older brother who's now academic. And so, I think if you had to go back to your childhood, and I'll ask anyone to do it growing up in going elementary school in grade schools, tough, but given your experiences, if you had to go back, would you have handled it differently, who it's hard to know because when you're like the scared shy kid mean you don't have that many tools in the tool kit? Has happened with you. I mean, we went through these formative very unpleasant experiences, but then they end up shaping even various ways. So I just can't imagine what I would have done differently because, you know, it's like you only have one history, it's one of the big things because you're a parent, I'm a parent, and you look at your own kids, in Elliott, certainly don't think my boys are going to grow up with the exact same form of. Are, you know, bullying that I've experienced but then there's part of me that looks at them, and it's like, well, how are you going to come of age? It's like what does it mean to grow up in a society that is at least on some levels more accepting of people of different backgrounds? Everything is obviously, my kids are growing up in more diverse environment than I did area and the air is different too, because only three TV channels. And right now, it's like everything looks the same on TV well and their Asian people on TV. And if people literally didn't know what to call me. So I would say was from India and I would get ask. So does your family live in a teepee? Oh, yeah. Absolutely. And literally people would say to me, I'm indian-american, obviously, and Asian Americans. Interesting term in the United States because there's lots of countries in Asia. Some people don't consider indian-americans to be from Asia because it South Asia, and there's less sort of overlapping culture, and bless overlapping origin, and I will get asked. Why don't you move back to China? I don't I don't know that, that would be where I would move back to. Well, you know, I didn't get into fights because I was I was so scrawny that I you my odds were very low, although I did a couple of times because you lose patients, what I did was try to develop comeback. And so, maybe that's why you became with the that's, that's actually pretty awesome. I wouldn't say, yeah. Because all I had was if you could embarrass the bad kid who was treating you poorly, but was bigger and stronger, and wider. If you could humiliate them with a taught or a joke, they might stop because of other people to laugh at that person. That was that was the only weapon I had while, so interesting. I, I did not. You're you win. Right for the jugular. I guess. Right. Right. For the, the beating. We need more nerds in politics. I certainly do. I think one of the stats, I saw was that there are three trained engineers or scientists in congress right now. And we got rid of the office of technology assessment in nineteen ninety five twenty four years ago. So they've literally been completely devoid of any technology advice or guidance that didn't come straight from industry, so we could certainly use more nerds in government, and you are a nerd at my correct. You don't have a science degree law degree dislike me. I know. But I certainly would consider myself a nerd. Yes. You have made a lot of the fact that we have ever increasing technology and automation in this country. And that, that automation leads to lots of things including Ilya nation of people who are in professions, where their jobs have gone missing. If you look at the voting district data, there's a direct correlation between the adoption of industrial robots in an area and the movement towards Trump. Those industrial robots were centered in Michigan Ohio, Pennsylvania. Wisconsin, Missouri Iowa swing states that Trump needed to win. And when you go to these environments, you see that there's a real void that has not been filled in, and now you see massive levels of substance abuse, and opioid overdoses in those communities and what happened there is now going to happen to American communities around the country, thirty percent of malls and mainstream stores are closing in the next four years. What's that based on? On the thirty percent or eighty percent. Oh, so that's just real estate industry. Reports who started the retail sector say that thirty percent of American malls are going to struggle and fail over the next four years. And then there's another thirty percent that might fail. Somebody say that's a good thing. We have we have too many malls, come on. You grew up in Nigeria. I grew up. From the mama th mall in Eden town. New Jersey I did. So we were somewhat overbuilt in retail. But then you have to reckon with the fact that working as a retail cashier is the most common job in the US economy. The average retail workers at thirty nine year old woman making ten dollars an hour. So if you say and say, hey, do you many malls, that's close their percent of them? Then you're looking at literally hundreds of thousands of low-skilled American workers who are doing those jobs to get by. So then what is their next move in a country, where they don't have much in the way of savings, and if those stores and malls close, it's not like they're going to be other stores and malls hiring. So looking back to robots per second. Are you anti robot? Well, I'm very pro progress, and I consider robots part of progress. But you have to be honest, and say, if I'm living in a part of the country where my main streets closing, and I don't have a path forward, and it's partially because of robots am I gonna like robots. We have to try and make it. So that Americans are actually sharing the this sense of progress instead of having the economic rewards. Contrated in the hands of fewer and fewer of us. I want to get to this idea of people losing jobs. And it's a guiding principle of yours in some of the policy proposals that you've made including the central tenant. I think of your candidacy, which is the universal basic income bowed. I guess is confusing, maybe to some people is we had the lowest unemployment rate. We've had in decades this alarmist talk about the loss of jobs, whether it's from robots or technology or anything else, it's very small given. How low unemployment is. How do you square, the fact of low and employment with this bleak picture that you're painting we have three primary economic measurements that we rely upon in the media today? Number one is GDP. Number two, is headline unemployment number three is stock market prices. Now, if you flash back to two thousand fifteen Donald Trump's running for president, and what does he say about that unemployment number? He says, it's fake. He says it doesn't reflect what's happening in communities around the country. Now that he's president, of course, tall taking credit for it. Yeah. It's great. He was right. The first time. Unfortunately now while we're trumpeting this very low headline unemployment number everything. It's like three point seven percent at the same time. Our labor force participation rate is also at essentially a multi decade, low of sixty three percent the same levels as Costa Rica, and Ecuador. And that's right now in the good times of your ten of an expansion, almost one out of five prime working age. American men has not worked in a year by till you're saying it's just people understand the unemployment rate that we always talk about on the news is a function of the number of folks who are actively seeking work and want to work. Yes. But there are large numbers of people, you're saying who have given up on working. Yeah. Call discouraged discouraged workers. So from your perspective, what is the better index for how employment is faring in the country at the moment? So if you use something called the use six, which includes people who are discouraged or trying to cling to the workforce. Then you have a rate. That's more in, like the mid to high single digits, maybe six or seven percents of the. Three point seven. And if you look at the rate of people who are living in what's called like financial insecurity. Seventy eight percent of Americans are living paycheck to paycheck fifty seven percent can afford unexpected five hundred dollar Bill. Some of them were telling stats in my view are labor force participation rate, again, close to a multi decade low and levels of underemployment, that is people who are doing jobs that are not what they theoretically qualified for. So have you graduated from college with thirty eight in debt and you become a barista you count as employed? I mean that that's like you've got a job, but forty four percent of recent college graduates are in a job that does not require a college degree. So if you go to them and say, hey, great news, you're employed. They'll be like, what are you talking about? I'm like this massive debt load, and I'm doing this temp job with no benefits, but you count as employed ninety four percent of the new jobs created in the US economy since two thousand five have been temporary Giger contractor jobs. That's one reason why you have so many Americans are working multiple jobs to get by. So Donald Trump diagnosed this problem while he was a candidate and then as president, it hasn't really changed for many Americans, but he's singing different tune going back to this idea of automation. I wanna make sure I understand your, your view of it. Are you just being descriptive in saying, well, we have automation, I'm pro technology and pro progress and it causes these problems that we have to deal with. Or you also saying something normative that automation is not good. Well, I think unchecked automation, where only a handful of Americans enjoy the benefits is not good. And that's where we are right now where Amazon's paying zero in federal taxes, while they're getting rid of thirty percent of brick and mortar retail jobs. So if you live in some rural area, your stores, your mainstream clothes, and there's nothing coming back to you really just the jobs and my had used to be, they're gone, and the trillion dollar companies paying zero back into the public coffers. That's not a great situation. That's where we are right now. Job wise. Right. But there are other things we talk about including you didn't. You didn't mention one of the. Things that we focus on to gauge the success of the economy, the GDP unemployment, and the stock market. There's this other thing, which is not as important, I presume utility to consumers and efficiency for consumers. The fact that Amazon has caused all these stores to shutdown is there, some argument that offsetting that is the tremendous amount of utility is brought to tens of millions of Americans. I love my EMS on prime account like I love communities as much as the next guy. But one of the things I say is look access to cheap goods and cool apps per very cold comfort when you're a factory closes, or your main street closes, and you're looking around, not knowing what to do. So I'm very, very pro progress writ large, but I've even more pro progress if more Americans like they were sharing in that progress. And if you talk about progress in the manufacturing sector our manufacturing sector went from seventeen million to twelve million workers over fifteen year period, two thousand two thousand fifteen and. Eighty percent of those lost five million jobs were due to technology and automation. If you go to a factory today, it is not walled wall immigrants. And I know you would agree with this, that we are scapegoating immigrants or something, they have next to nothing to do with it's wall to wall, machines and robot arms. And so if you're a manufacturing worker, are you supposed to be celebrating progress while you get sent home. And I looked into I started economics in college, according to economic theory, those four million manufacturing workers would find new jobs. Get retrained re skilled and the commun- would go all would be, well, but in real life, half of them left the workforce, and never worked again. And of that group have filed for disability to the point where now there are more Americans on disability than working in construction, as one comparison. And then you saw coincident surges and suicides and drug overdoses to a point where life expectancy overall has declined for three years in a row that shocking last time American life expectancy declined for three years in a row was the Spanish flu of nineteen eighteen so here we are cheerleading. These GDP stats while our people are dying. Younger of the darkest causes of death. You can imagine essentially, so it just goes to show how disconnected these statistics are from our people's reality. I want to get to your signature proposal in a second. But before I do that I want to note that you have lots and lots of specific policy ideas. In fact, the cafe team put together a long list of your policies, we'll get some of them, so there's a whole you can see there's a whole jeez gang. I think the number right now is like something like one hundred and seven hundred there's a range among your adversaries who were vying for the nomination. Some say that at one is you Andrew Yang and Elizabeth Warren was a lot of policy proposals at the other end. There are people who are a little less specific. Now. They say they will roll out more concrete policy proposals the only other presidential candidate. We've had on the shows people to judge who is beginning to roll out some policies, but has made the point that at this stage of the race, I want people to get to know me, and I want people to understand what values I'm trying to promote answer to the general themes. And my candidacy, you have gone a different way. Why I think the best way to introduce Americans to who I am is to see what I would do as president. And so if you have over one hundred policies, laid out, you get sense of a vision for the country, and then there's some values behind that vision, as, you know, my signature proposal is freedom dividend of one thousand dollars a month for every American adult freedom dividend. Sounds better than you BI. It tests better to universal basic income. Yeah. Yeah. Freedom. Sounds a little bit. Like, like it could be a disease. Yeah. UTI. Yeah. So freedom dividend is much, much better. So the freedom dividend is universal basic income by which the government would pay according to your proposal, a thousand dollars a month to whom to every American adults starting at age eighteen. So whether you have one adult household, or two adult household, if you had to adults both adults get the thousand dollars. Yes, that's correct. And until when until death until death, and whether you're citizen are not citizens, only, but I'm for a path to citizenship for people who are here with green cards, I'd before a very expeditious Pathe's citizenship, because I know a lot of volun- friends with green cards. You've been waiting for a while. Right. But I'm not talking about a document. I mean, people who are legal residents of the United States of America, would not get thousands dollars a month until they become citizen. That's right. Why oh, you have to set a threshold and citizenship seemed to be the appropriate one because at that point, you are now actually paying taxes. And I know many of the residents are obviously paying taxes. Well, but you're full fledged member of the society with all of the bene. Bits and obligations. I'm very much for legal residents. Adopting citizenship. Every time that happens in someone's cool. I'm like us main America cooler like Mesa happy, but only citizens should receive some of the dividend from our showed progress, delete all residents. Get social security so good question digging it. I believe you probably actually I'm. You're paying social security as you have to if you're an employee in this country, then you get you get the payout from social security. So. And that's why I just wonder why you would leave off, you know, tens of millions of people from the universal basic income. I don't think there are tens of millions of legal residents in the US. Well, there, I do know that the figure for undocumented alone is somewhere between nine and twelve million. Yes. But legal residents, I would assume is more, but will research this. Yeah, we should research it. I think legal residents is, is less than the undocumented number. But, you know, I'm for again, a path to citizenship for people who are here and undocumented, we need to try and integrate people in society, but this in many ways is like a very powerful incentive to make citizenship more meaningful. So let's go back to the freedom dividend why thousand bucks and has many benefits? And this is not my original proposal, that was championed by guy named and eastern who used to run the SEI you, then it was studied. Yes. The largest labor union in the country representing service employees then studied by the Roosevelt institute, a thousand dollars a month has some tremendous qualities. It would be a difference maker for. Tens of millions of American families. It would make our children stronger healthier, better nourished, it would make us all mentally healthier. It would create over two million new jobs in the economy, according to the Roosevelt institute because of increased consumer demand. But it's below the poverty line in the United States, which is twelve thousand seven hundred seventy dollars a year and it doesn't distort our labor markets that dramatically because no one's going to be able to retire one thousand dollars a month. So that's why it's not five hundred dollars up too little and that's why it's not two thousand dollars because that costs more in be thinking distorts the labor market's. Yeah, that's right. When that means test. Well, there's one state, that's had a dividend in effect for almost forty years that states Alaska where everyone in the state gets between one and two thousand dollars a year from oil money. No questions asked. What I'm saying in my campaign is that technology is the oil of the twenty-first, century, and that what they're doing Alaska with oil money we can do for everyone. But one reason why it's so wildly popular in Alaska is that you just get it. There's no means testing. It's universal. And this is an. Publican conservative state. It was a Republican governor that passed it in the US, if we make this, a right of citizenship, then they'll become much more universally liked. There's no stigma attached to actually getting the dividend because it's not a rich to poor transfers. So it's not like, oh I'm giving it to you. You get it. I don't get it. You get rid of all the administration and monitoring requirements change of circumstances. There's no timing of payments issue because I don't need to figure out how much money you made. There's no negative incentive to say. Oh, I made below a certain threshold. You get rid of a lot of stuff and you make it much more universally appealing. It's one reason why this dividend in Alaska has stood the test of time in his wildly popular, despite being there for almost forty years. So everyone gets it. If you'll Rockefeller, if you're Trump, if you're in basis, or if you're impoverished, yes, that's right. That's fair. In a way, you could say that's the fairest we could do is that if we're all owners, and citizens and shareholders of the society, and we all get a dividend of one thousand dollars a month. You can interpret that as as being quite fair. Though the way I want to fund this is by putting a mechanism in place so that it was on dozen pays zero in taxes next year because that's unsustainable taxes on Amazon is not going to pay with the estimates are three trillion dollars a year for the basic income. So here's how you pay for it. Our is up to twenty trillion dollars up five trillion in the last twelve years. We're the richest country in the history of the world, but we're not measuring and taxing the right things. And one of the things I say is like look, Jeff Bezos is worth one hundred sixty billion dollars. It doesn't matter what you make the income tax level because he's never selling his Amazon stock. He's never going to have a taxable event. You know, it's like he's too smart, frankly, like if you increase the tax rate to seventy percents like he's not gonna all of a sudden, like give you billions of dollars in new revenue. So the way you get the revenue from someone like Jeff is you join every other advanced economy in the world, and you have a value added tax, which would then give the American public tiny slice of every Amazon sale, every Google search every Facebook ad. And soon every robot truck mile and because our economies now, so vast at twenty trillion even a mild value added tax generates over eight hundred billion in new revenue, how mild ten percent, which would be half the European level. And you don't think that, that also has its own negative effects on the economy. Well, it has it has many positive effects in the economy because it actually gives us a segment of the value that's being produced and distributed. And again, every other advanced economy in the world has already taken this step because they know it's perverse for a company like Amazon to sell tens hundreds of billions of dollars in goods and pays zero in taxes. What you say the people who suggest that the sort of giveaway of money as opposed to expanding tax credit or having some form of means testing that is giving folks money, whether they work or not, whether they earned it or not in some ways undermines the dignity of work. Well, that's one of the misconceptions. It's actually very pro work again. It creates a couple of million jobs in the economy. And so here's the magic to it. So you have this that we're getting this money. Where does the money go? Oh, the money goes right back into our homes and communities, it ends up creating jobs, right there with our local businesses, but also superchargers, nonprofits and religious organizations, it makes it so that people like my wife, who's at home with our two boys. One of whom is artistic I mean that's playing out in families and communities around the country, where right now, we talk about empowering women, what would empower women is if they had the economic freedom to improve their situations and walk away from exploited over abusive jobs in relationships, which thousand dollars a month would actually help them do. So it's pro working and recognizes the work that's actually being done in our families and communities each day. It also ends up being a catalyst to arts creativity. Entrepreneurship your brothers and entrepreneur and entrepreneur, it's very, very rare that someone's on their last legs economically, and then they say you know what I'm gonna do. I'm gonna start a business. The way it works getting twelve thousand dollars a year transformed someone from being. Sort of sitting around the house, the deciding suddenly, they're gonna start a business. Well, again, you have to look at the cumulative effects. So if you have a town of one hundred thousand people, and then there's an additional twelve million dollars being spent in that community every month, then it's not just that I have this in bucks a month. So I'm going to start a bakery. But now that bakery, makes a lot more sense in my town because now like the people there will be like, hey, I like Andrews cupcakes. I don't make cupcakes though. I should I think you should think about them for the trail. I think the Yang gang would occasionally like cupcakes this. So, so it ends up being essentially like a reversal of the current mindset and environment of scarcity that, unfortunately, much of our country has fallen into. And so this is the trickle up a Konami from people and families, and communities up the money doesn't disappear we get it back as it circulates over and over is this socialism, it's capitalism where income does not start at zero. And as a CEO I will tell you that it's much better for the economy when people have money to spend what do you think about the term socialism and the debate about socialism? And one of your adversaries running for the presidency. Bernie Sanders in his views, I think the entire socialism, capitalism dichotomy is out of date. And I like to quote, one of my friends, Eric Weinstein, who said that. We never knew that capitalism was going to get eaten by it son, technology capital of trying to picture that visualize. Okay, got it. So here's what he means by that. We're all Suming that our economy's still works like it did in the seventies. Where if I start a successful company, I have to hire lots of people have to treat them. Well, I have to pay them. Well, and I care about what happens in my own backyard today. None of those things is true. I can sort of successful company, not hire many people if I hire them, they could just be a handful of highly specialized workers, they can be temp workers. I don't care about how much they make I don't care. What happens in my backyard 'cause I sell everywhere. So all of the relationships you take for granted. It's like, oh, if I get these companies bottom lines to be more profitable. They'll hire an invest. They're not going to hire an invest. By spoke to seventy CEO's in New York. And I said, how many of you are looking at having AI replaced islands of your workers every hand went up and you could actually fire that CEO of they didn't employ AI to get rid of those workers? So if you put more money into the hands of that company does that mean they're going to go around and hire thousands more high school graduates, and like rebuild main streets around the country, of course, not we have to wise up to the fact that when the twenty first century and the best way to build an economy that works for us is through something like the freedom dividend is that of reaching back into our past for twentieth century solutions? How much support is there for the freedom dividend in the current house of representatives, and the Senate? Well, it's going to be much much higher after. I'm in the White House twenty twenty one but why will that be because by definition you will have had a mandate because that's the issue in which you would have been elected. That's right. And the Democrats and progressives will be like, oh my gosh. Thank goodness, Hanjiang beat Donald Trump. And he's our president. And let's work with him to pass his dividend. Because it'll put more money into the hands of children and family. But here's the fun thing through Republicans and conservatives and libertarians and independence. I'm going to look up and say, wait a minute. This dividends, a huge win for rural areas red states on the interior communities that have been devastated by automation. Am I really going to stand in the way of, of Andrew Yang and where my constituents in this dividend? And so we're going to pass the dividend when I'm in the White House, Americans are going to be shocked that the government did something right for a change. They're going to look up and then we're gonna see what else we can get done. But on the way to getting there, obviously from the vision of hindsight, assuming you get elected things will have had to happen, that would necessarily have to have made the freedom dividend as you call it incredibly popular. And you ride on a wave of popularity that's universal essentially to the White House, which would seem to presuppose that along the way between now and election day. Not just average Americans, but also people who are in a position to make endorsements including view would come along, and say, you know what I've been listening to Andrew talk about the premium dividend and the basic income, and I'm on board. And i'm. Vinced is that happening all that is happening. You just met Steve Marsh, and who ran for governor in New Hampshire, as a democrat, and he just came out and endorsed me, and there's so many politicians who are deeply interested in universal basic income. They're trying to see how warm the water is the them to come out for it. Any Alaskan politicians indoors you? I'm in touch with the Mike gravel team. Gods? So there's a very high level of interest and this is going to be one thing that the people can help with is that as universal basic income becomes already very popular among a majority of Democrats at young people and progressives. But as it sweeps, the nation than obviously, more politicians, we'll get with the program and say this is a much better move than anything else. We're talking about. Let's move on to a related issue economic burden that a lot of folks have, and that's higher education. There was a very moving story that I've talked about, and lots of people have noticed around the country where you have a billionaire, Robert Smith, who decided to as surprise, giving the commencement address at Morehouse college say, I'm gonna take care of all your student. That's is great for the class of twenty eight hundred dollars that school and some might say, well, it's a wonderful story. It's very heartwarming and it's great for those people. But you know what does it say that you have to rely on that kind of fortuity and graciousness on the part of somebody who's made a billion dollars? What are you gonna do for people with respect to school debt? We should wipe out a lot of that student loan debt. Not just for the people go hang and do that because you've got the three trillion on the on the freedom dividend. Well, so on the freedom dividend couple things. So we get a lot of the money back and I cannot make growth in new activity. We also save billions of dollars on incarceration homelessness services. Emergency room healthcare things we spend a trillion dollars on right now that I was with a prison guard in New Hampshire very politician. He of me, I know but I was with a prison guard New Hampshire, who said we should pay people to stay out of jail because when they're in jail, we spent so much on them, we're going to save a lot of money and the fourth thing is there's one estimate that we would increase our GDP by seven hundred billion dollars by dominating this plan just on the basis of better health than education, and mental health outcomes for people, but you're, you're actually getting a lot of the value back. So you're asking how can we forgive the student loan debt wept at one point five trillion in student loan debt up from less than one hundred billion in nineteen ninety nine? So this is a very recent phenomenon. And so when young people look up and say, like, hey, is this normal? It is not norm. College is two and a half times more expensive since I went, and it has not gone two and a half times better. So when you say, how are we going to forgive the student loan debt? This again is a giant stimulus to the economy every dollar. We've forgiven student loan debt that young person sometimes older person to just going to end up having more money to spend, what are they going to do? They're going to buy homes. They're gonna start families. They're going to start businesses. They're going to do things they should be doing. This is a stimulus of the people instead of shoveling money to the banks, we give the money back to our people, where they actually will will make use of it. And at this point, it's not like the schools are in hock with his money. This is just a set of financial institutions that are holding this one point five trillion. They don't care where the money comes from pay them off. Do you believe there should be a national minimum wage? I believe that no American should be working fulltime and be poor. The problem is that if you increase the minimum wage from let's call it, you know, nine dollars to fifteen dollars, that's going to hasten the automation of many of these jobs, and environments, like fast food, restaurants, and retailers that are. Barely scraping by. So it's better just to give everyone a thousand dollars a month, because that's a defacto six dollars an hour raise for everybody. And it gets people like my wife, who right now minimum wage went not touch. You are lawyer by training. You're unhappy lawyer in private practice for a bit, and one of the issues, and obviously, I care about and talk about and is consuming. The new cycles are issues, relating to the rule of law, and Donald Trump's conduct and the mullahs report and everything else. I just wanted to ask you, as somebody who went to a phenomenally terrific law school, six years after I did. Do you think the house of representatives should proceed with impeachment of Donald Trump? Oh, I think there's a very strong case that they should, but as you suggest I think it's their job to figure out whether to impeach Donald Trump. And it's my job to solve the problems, I got him elected and beat him at the ballot box if he's still there for me to beat. So we all have jobs to do. Looking at the evidence, you know. And obviously I find much of his conduct somewhere between objectionable in reprehensible, it's one reason why I'm running for president to beat him. But I will say that the problems that got him elected are much more profound than can be resolved even by getting him out of office through impeachment illegal proceedings described, but those things are the levels of dislocation and despair and the fact that many Americans do not feel like the government is responsive to them. I have met thousands of people who voted for Donald Trump, as a sensually vote to burn the house down. They don't feel like the government's working for them. They look around and see their kids strung out on drugs, their way of life disappearing. They're looking for answers. They don't have anyone really speaking to them, except for Donald Trump is like, hey, you know, whose fault, it is immigrants know I'm gonna do I'm going to turn the clock back. I'm going to bring your jobs back and many of them knew he was talking garbage nonsense, even at the time, but they're like, well, at least he's talking about it. So to me, he's a sim. Item. He's a manifestation. And I'm here to cure the disease. You've been outspoken on the issue of legalization of marijuana. You believe in legalization. Yes, that's true. Maybe smoking the marijuana today down the trail, is it help you on the trail. Let's just say you can before the legalization of marijuana and not indulge in it yourself, very well said, nice sidestep there, I think you've said with respect to the supreme court knows where legal issue there should be term limits. Yeah. What, what is the process by which supreme court justices should be appointed and serve, and why we should change it from lifetime appointments to eighteen year terms, which would then make it more predictable if you were to have nine justices, there'd be a new one appointed every two years, every presidential election, you know, would end up nominating two justices, if you kept it at nine and this would make it so that we don't freak out when an eighty five year old woman gets a cold lifetime appointments might have made sense. When your life expectancies were much shorter, as was the case when they wrote the constitution and back in the day, people stepped off the court for a multitude of reasons. They didn't stay there until they were on death's door because they're afraid all the laws land. We're gonna change. They were there. So what might have made sensitive, another point in time, it was just meant to protect judges from political influence than an eighteen year. Timeframe is plenty long for someone to maintain judicial independence during the time. Do you believe Puerto Rico should become a state? I believe that the Puerto Ricans want Puerto Rico to become a state. Yes, it should become a state, and it's one possible way. We can forgive the debt load at his crushing. The people in the economy of Puerto Rico should the district of Columbia, become a state, same thing, if they want to become state, which, I think they categorically do. They should become a state as well. Yeah. No taxation. I was just gonna say that to Asian guys talking about no taxation without representation. Yes. We've learned our civics. Well, even while being bullied in school. Maybe that's why we learn them. Well. Like, no recess. I don't wanna go to recess. I was more of a new gym. No. But then I became very, very you can't see me. But it became very strapping example, had very fit, you look, very fit now, should companies like Facebook be broken up. So here is a very interesting set of issues, like are there instances, where it would make sense for them to divest parts of their businesses. Yes. Does that solve the problems? We're actually concerned with in some cases, probably not like if you look at Facebook, there's a problem with the information, people are getting, there's another problem with the negative impact on the mental health of teenage girls in particular, and that has nothing to do with the ownership structure of Facebook that has something to do with the fact that we have engineers, who are turning supercomputers into slot machines and dopamine delivery devices for teenagers, which has had a disastrous effect on their mental health and wellbeing. So we have to figure out what problems we're actually trying to solve and not be tempted to use twentieth century solutions for twenty first century problems because dynamics of tech are not such that. Oh if I just increased competition. All will be. Well, that's actually not the way it works. There is no reason for any of us to want to use the fourth best navigation app. We just want one that works and has the right traffic and the rest of it. That's why we're all not being things today. You know, it's not like oh, if I just had a multitude research, people don't even know what the hell you're talking about being is a search engine. Tried to compete with. What's the other one? Oh, yeah. Google. Although I was on my laptop today, and it forced me into a Yahoo. Search and how did you react to being forced who serve clearly? Acted poorly to do that. So there are certain dynamics I work in tech. I make it such that just being like if we just like bring them up in have is definitely the case that silicon valley's business models have been transformed in a negative way. We're now everyone's just trying to get acquired by one of the behemoths, right? But what do you think about this? Other aspect of the problem on social media toxically hatred white supremacists and it gets more generally separate from these policies, and they're, they're interesting that should be judged on their merits. But there's also this question this country of how we bring people together, and I don't know that you do that through individual policies. Although you have great faith in the power of policies that affect people who've been disaffected to bring them back into the fold. What do you think generally about a vision for unity for the country? One example of a policy, I think would help his an American exchange program, where every high school senior goes and lives and works in another part of the country with a group of twenty four other high school seniors. And then it be not hers. But Paris, Texas. Yeah. Paris, texas. Okay. And then you'd be face. Book friends with people from all over the country, when someone tried to demonize someone from particular group, let's call them Indians. You know what I mean? Get from Chicago. And he was like, doesn't like me. So that's one way of policy can actually reduce the insularity and tribalism on social media networks in particular, there's a guy named Jaron Lanier who pointed out something, he's one of the pioneers of the internet. He said that negative sentiment is more powerful on the internet than positive sentiment which is one reason why it seems like inflammatory and even toxic. And hateful ideas spread so much online, and that's a fundamental observation than you have to reckon with where, okay we've set up these social networks, that transmit negative, emotions and ideas faster more powerfully than they transmit positive ones. And so what does that mean for how to bring people together, yet this point, even Mark Zuckerberg is saying, I need help with this, if you listened closely she saying, look, I'm head of a private company like I can't be making all these decisions, and then we're throwing rocks at him in part because, again, our government and congress is decades behind the curve, and we can't imagine them making intelligent decisions about. These issues were like Mark do something. Then marks like literally in an interview with George Stephanopoulos. He was like I should not be making these decisions. And if you look at what Facebook's doing to screen, they're toxic content. They're doing they're paying humans chicken scratch to look at the content figure out, what's hateful and evil and obscene. And then to no surprise of anyone that was humans start losing their minds after a certain number of months, and they they're like quitting. It's like the most burnt out inducing job. You can imagine talk about inhuman Facebook. The multibillion dollar company is paying people, you know, I think it's something like ten bucks an hour and a look at terrible things and said that a depression. Yes. And send them into depression, and that's what passes for policy today, because the government's like do something about it. And that's what they're doing. What qualifies you to be the commander in chief? I think what most Americans are looking for, in a commander in chief is good judgment. Because these are the kinds of decisions that, you know, there's really no prior preparation. And so I have principals around what I would do with the military, I would end the forever war, the fact that we have troops in so many places in many cases, engage in conflicts that to your point of the rule of law that congress has never authorized that the American people have very little visibility into even certainly American people do not decide on many of these conflicts. I think we need to put the ability to intervene militarily back into the hands of congress where it belongs. How would you deal with Iran? I mean, I, I would hope to reopen the deal we entered into about de escalation of their nuclear activity in return for various economic considerations, and others. I think we'd get more done when we're engaged with people than when we're not. So I've spent most of this talking about policy, and your background, and your character. And how you think about the country. I do wanna spend a few minutes talking about the thing that everyone does on the cable networks and that is the horse race stir the process through one vinyl eleven hundred running, come on. It wasn't twenty twenty four but maybe not close yet. Is that is that the closed universe? I think there might be more there might be one or two more wanted to more. How the hell do you stand out? You have said something that I think is clever about yourself. You said the opposite of Donald Trump is an Asian man who likes math very funny people to judge says something like that. The opposite of Donald Trump is a millennial veteran who is gay in runs a city in the mid west. I think. I think he's a little longer is a little longer. Remember, do gang who judge has the same problem? It's going to be an issue for him. Because the Buddha judge good a judge. There's no rhyming thing for him. Is it important to premier self as the opposite of Donald Trump? Well, it certainly helps people make sense of my candidacy in a very, very memorable way. But I'm one of only twelve candidates who's qualified for the democratic primary debates on the basis of both polling and individual contributions in most Americans are not really tuning into what's going on with twenty twenty they're gonna turn on that TV. They're gonna see me standing there, and they're going to say who's the Asian man standing next to Joe Biden, and they're gonna look you up, and then they're gonna think of Elision man, send me and then they're going to find out about me my vision for the country, and the Yang gangs going to grow and grow. So we're starting to see increased polling numbers and New Hampshire and I win the early states and this movement is just catching. Fire at the right time, we're going to grow and grow and peak at the right time you have optimism, but the Democrats will do a lot of them are saying they're going to do, which is to be positive only in not trash their adversaries. Well, this is a very, very interesting dynamic pre because like you're in a crowded field, and like I'm top ten most any measurement, the internet has actually seventh most likely to win the nomination, sometimes six. So I'm actually in a better position than a lot of people in, like so the question is, if you're in, like the thirteen to twenty four range, and you're trying to get on the map it's going to be hard to resist taking a shot or two at various people above you. But here's like, are you signaling? So why don't you take a shot at someone? Right now, here's a very interesting thing, though. The Democrats have a history of being nice to each other, and then the gloves come off in the general and sometimes that dynamic shift is not good for us, if we're going to have a genuine race, then the gloves should probably come off at some point during this race. So that by the time our nominee faces Donald Trump all the stuff out in the open, as opposed to all of, like, the, the really important stuff being held in wait until after the personal against nominated it's very candid honest response. So here we are on stay tuned. Take the gloves off, say something about Bernie Sanders in a lot of Americans are very excited about the fact that he seems like a very sincere economic messenger, but his solutions are very backward, looking, they're trying to resuscitate an economy that existed at some point in the twentieth century. And a lot of that is going to be very, very hard to actually materialize in real life. Like, we, we need to be more forward looking about how we can actually make an economy, worked for people. And this is coming from someone who liked supported Bernie in two thousand sixteen was he too old? To be president. This is one of the most important because is one of the elephants in the room pre, we're looking at Bernie Sanders, and Joe Biden, and we're like, okay there were born in nineteen forty one and nineteen forty two respectively, is that what we want like as a party as a people? It's very hard for candidates to talk about. It's very hard for the media to talk about. But every American thinking about it when I go out on the trail to one of the first things that comes up if someone has a problem with our those two candidates, and you're in a personal conversation with him. One of the first things they'll say is there too old. So are you saying they're saying that the American people should have, like a very real conversation about what we think we wanted to president and whether or not having someone who's advanced ages, actually an issue is ideal for the party or the country about Elizabeth Warren? I like Elizabeth Warren's vision of the country. You said, she's very wonky, his sort of like that. So would you be a running mate, would you have her as your running mate? Well, one thing that, you know, because you've hired many, many people yourself, but you would never agree to work with someone unless you'd actually met them and spend some time with. I have never met Elizabeth, Warren. So it would be impossible for me to say, whether that was a nice dodge. How about how about, comma, Harris? Oh, also not met komo's I don't have a basis, but I'm going to meet them all sooner the debates. So I'll have more to say after June twenty-sixth, what's your strategy for the debate, I have four zingers locked and loaded and you kidding. That's a joke. All right. I actually have six oh, I think, anytime guy, you gotta you gotta prepare them. Fence. I actually think it's painful every time a politician like brings out there. Clearly rehearsing her in one of those contexts right now, I'm still introducing myself the American people. And so, like, I'm very happy to have that opportunity. That's you become the nominee. What is the way that you take off the gloves with Donald Trump? He's a bully, lots of people suggest, I tend to agree. Do you think he's a bully? Oh, yeah. Clearly, how is he different from the bullies that you dealt with when you're a kid if at all? No, that's a great question. He's actually quite similar in many. Are you gonna jump them? I want to be a fan day, and I'm like a man in my prime that dude's like seventy two and eat fast food every day. This is going to be an interesting. I can be interesting debate. So short of physicality, how do you take on a guy like that? I'm the perfect candidate to expose Donald Trump because I'm talking about the problems I got him elected, but I have real solutions. So, again, his solutions were build a wall, turning the clock backwards. Bring back the jobs, I'm saying we have to turn the clock forward. We have to evolve in the way we see ourselves in our relationship to the wealth. We're producing in this society. And that's one reason why I'm already peeling off many people that supported him in two thousand sixteen and that's one reason, I'm going to end up the democratic nominee because Democrats want first and foremost, someone who can beat Donald Trump in two thousand twenty and more and more people wake up every day to the fact that I am that candidate complete the following sentence, which I had Valerie Jarrett, who was a guest on the show, recently complete when they go low. We make a clever joke, Preet Brar stone, make everyone laugh and expose them for the blustering failure over president, that he is the has less of a ring. Into it than we go. Hi. That's true. It's a bit long been longer. Maybe want to tweak that a little bit. Do you think America is ready for an Asian American president? I'm going to tell the joke right now. Like someone is someone said this to me, America's ready for an Asian American president because it will irritate everybody. What is that? I don't even know what that means. I wouldn't be here with your Asian Americans or maybe a little bit. You know it's true, competitive Asian Americans, we like, you know, they'd have to deal with their parents saying to them, as my parents with your fifty he's forty four. And he's already the president of the United States. It'd be like some competitive angst, I think, Americans already because most Americans, I, meet on the trail, do not care about my racial background or identity. In the least, they there's wanna know what my vision for the country, is how it's going to help them and their families. And when they see that I'm there to help. It's the last thing they care about if you don't win, if you don't win the primaries and you're not the democratic nominee. What do you think the next few years will look like for you? Well, we're going through the greatest economic and technological transformation in the history of our country. What experts are calling the fourth industrial revolution? And I'm running for president to help America wake up to the fact that is not immigrants and that we need to advance meaningful. Solutions. And so that work will be there, if I'm not the nominee. I mean there's a lot of work to be done. And so if that's as part of a new democratic administration that would make me very happy if I had a role that I thought I could actually help really make these changes, if it's another sort of role that would also be great. But the problems are big and getting worse. And I see myself as someone who can help. No, what I appreciate about that answer. I fully expected you to do what most politicians would do and not answered by saying, we'll I intend to win and not expected that. Well, I expected that of an average person not, not someone like your editor guy. Right. Very impressive. Yeah. You admit the possibility that something would happen. And it's not just the standard talking point. So I appreciate that. I'm on the record saying I have a lower than fifty one percent chance of becoming president, as we're sitting. Fifty one. Well, the internet has me at six seven or eight percent. Andrew Yang, congratulations. And how far you've come good luck to you and the entire Yang gang. Thank you so much pre like I thought you might join the Yang for his I their remaining neutral neutral for now. Thanks so much. Just a quick note before we end remember that Andrew Yang I discussed the number of lawful permanent. Residence, also known as green card holders as compared to the number of undocumented immigrants. Well, so Andrew Yang, and I we're both a bit off since I taped, the interview my crack team did some research into this and found that based on department of homeland security's most recent estimate from twenty fifteen. They were about thirteen point two million lawful permanent residents and twelve million undocumented immigrants living in the US. My conversation with Andrew Yang continues for special insider, bonus to hear that and more analysis and Muller statement joined the community cafe dot com slash insider. Well, that's it for this episode of stay tuned. Thanks again, to my guest, Andrew Yang tweet your questions at pre Perahera with the hashtag ask pre or you can call six nine two, four seven seven three eight and leave me a message that six nine two, four Crete, or you can send an Email to stay tuned, cafe dot com. If you like what we do rate and review, the show on apple podcasts reviews, help new listeners, find the show. Stay tuned is presented by cafe. The executive producer is tomorrow suffer senior producer is Aaron dogs and the cafe team is Carl appear any Julia Doyle, Calvin Lord, the name Bassetti, and Jeff is our music is by Andrew Dost. I'm pre- Perahera. Stay tuned.

president Robert Muller United States congress special counsel America Andrew Yang attorney Donald Trump Bob congress Bob Muller New Jersey caffeine Andrew Young Joe Biden United States Congress Bob Muller intens Muller
Robert Mueller, Reluctant Witness

CNN's The Daily DC

22:55 min | 1 year ago

Robert Mueller, Reluctant Witness

"It's an edge of your seat. Thrill ride that will change overseas forever. The Movies Sundays Nine PM on C._N._N.. Tired of spending hundreds of dollars for prescription glasses visits any today at Xeni Dot dot com slash C._N._N.. Hey everyone I'm David Chalian the C._N._N.. Political Director and this is the daily D._C.. Thanks so much for listening today on the podcast the reluctant witness that is clearly what former special counsel Bob Muller was today when he testified on Capitol Hill before I the House Judiciary Committee on the subject of obstruction of justice and then secondly when he was testifying before the House Intelligence Committee on the issue of Russian interference in the election and if you heard a lot of Democrats in advance of the hearing say looking for the opportunity for Bob Mueller to come and give life to his written words that so few Americans Americans have actually read the Mullahs report that even if he was sticking to the confines of the report and the four corners of the report which he was determined to do and made that clear the just hidden giving voice to some of his findings could be a game changer for the American public in how they perceive the overall investigation and where the findings came down now remember this investigation was successfully politicized by president trump and his team a you know a year and a half ago they went out with the strategy of full out political warfare and successfully I think used used the polarization of our modern day politics and applied it to this very serious and important investigation about a foreign adversary tampering with interfering with the most precious of our small d democratic traditions free and fair elections that is the whole thing that is underneath all of this and and it to no matter how important that is no matter the national security concern about it happening again it fell into very partisan. Listen polarized lines instantly so if you're a Republican and you supported the president you saw this as an unjust investigation and you probably still do today if you were a Democrat and you are opposed to president trump you saw this as it's a very important investigation that would lead to ousting the president in having him impeached. You are probably not broken from either of those camps today but that doesn't mean that each side didn't walk away way with something here. My question is what did the American people walk away with overall with what they saw. I think they clearly saw a performance. Just that's the theater of it all by Muller that was unsteady at times teams and certainly thoroughly reluctant to expound on anything he did not want to read from the report that was clear he was going to have the members read from the port and then just confirmed things so he was unwilling to join in that exercise of giving life to the report as my colleague Laura Coats said on the air after the hearings were over in her now. She said you know this may be one of those examples where the book is actually better than the movie for a lot of readers out there. I'm sure there are many examples of that in your life for me a big movie addict Ah you know the movie usually does a more compelling than the book but but you get the point that that Mullah really didn't join in that effort to breathe life into what he and his team found and therefore he may not have been the star witness that Democrats. Democrats were hoping for he may not have moved the needle if you were pro impeachment Democrat. I don't know that Bob Mueller delivered a testimony performance today that is going to swell your numbers. Although I think by C._N._N.'s count to additional Democrats did go from previously not publicly supporting impeachment to now doing so I think our tally is up to ninety four House Democrats now in favor of impeachment but I want you to hear some chunks of what happened here because in addition to his performance the Democrats did get a headline that they went in trying to get which is president trump has repeatedly said and did so a gay did today in a campaign campaign fundraising email no collusion no obstruction total and complete exoneration Bob Muller made very clear today in the earliest questioning by the House Judiciary Chairman Jerry Nadler that that was not the case okay so I want you to hear Chairman Nadler with Bob Mueller out of the gate. He may have been Nadler the most effective democratic questioner of the entire day across the two hearings and it was this exchange that many Democrats you'll hear tout tonight and in the days ahead that we're Bob Muller supported the notion and push back on the notion that would donald trump says this report says it does not say here's the exchange director mother. The president has repeatedly claimed that your report found there was no obstruction and that it completely and totally exonerated him but that is not what your report said. Is it correct that is not what the report said and reading from page a two volume two of your report. That's on the screen you wrote quote if we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts that the president clearly did not commit obstruction of justice we would so state based on the facts and the applicable legal standards however we are unable to reach that judgment close quote now does that say there was no obstruction no in fact you were actually unable to conclude the president did not commit obstruction of justice. Is that correct well we at the outset determined we came to the the president's culpability we needed to uh we needed to go forward only after taking into account the L._l._C. opinion that indicated that a president sitting president cannot be indicted so the report did not conclude that he he did not commit obstruction of justice. Is that correct that is correct and what about total exoneration. Did you actually totally exonerate the president know now in terms of the unsteadiness that I'm describing of Muller's performance that that was probably more the case earlier on the day. You'll notice a lot of the sound that I'm playing for you. In this podcast is from the judiciary committee side of things it was the longer hearing and it's the one more focused where I think the political battle has been more around this notion of obstruction of justice because that is where muller did not bring any charges obviously but also did not exonerate the president in any way and said that if he could he would have done so so that's sort of where as you know since the Miller report his come out the whole political battle has been but but in terms of the unsteadiness the performance I thought this back and forth with the ranking member Congressman Collins Pressing Miller on this notion of collusion a word used in the press and by colloquially. Really by a lot of people versus conspiracy which is actually the legal term that muller found not sufficient evidence to bring charges for <hes> in this case obviously muller seemed a bit confused at one point as to what Collins was trying to get up but it was it was a telling exchange for how Muller was handling. Some of the more heated adversarial questioning from the Republicans. Here is Congressman Collins Although your report states collusion is not so uh specific advance and you've said that this morning or a term of art in federal criminal laws conspiracy is in the colloquial contexts are collusion and conspiracy essentially synonymous terms. You'RE GONNA have to repeat that for me. Collusion is not a specific offence or a term of art in the Federal Criminal Law conspiracy is yes and the colloquial context known public contents collusion collusion and conspiracy spiracy are essentially synonymous terms correct now. If no one page one eighty volume one of your report you wrote as defined in legal dictionaries collusion is largely synonymous with conspiracy as that crime is set forth in general federal conspiracy the Statute Eighteen U._S._C. Three seventy one and he said at your May Twenty Ninth Press Conference and here today you choose your words carefully. Are you sitting here today. Testifying something different than what your report states well what I'm asking is if you can give me the citation I can look the citation and evaluate whether is let me just clarify you cited that you stay within report. I just stated your report back to you and you said that collusion collusion and conspiracy were not synonymous terms that was your answer was no in that page one eighty volume one of your report. It says as defining legal dictionaries collusion is largely synonymous with conspiracy as at crime is set forth in general conspiracy Statute Eighteen U._S._A.. Three seventy many one now you said you chose your words carefully. Are you contradicting your report right now now when I read it so you change your answer to yes then the if you look at the language I'm reading your airports. Are It's a yes or no answer H.. One eighty page one eighty volume one this was from your report wreck and I leave it with the report and in what may be or was for a few for for a couple of hours one of the more dramatic moments I I just wanted to hear this whole notion of O.. L. C. The office of Legal Counsel it at the Department of Justice. This is the now famous memo and guidelines the oil see guidance here that you cannot indict a sitting president that that is not something you can do and if you recall and if you don't recall you're about to recall because I'm going to read it to you but back on April eighteenth when the mullahs reporters least East Attorney General Bar held a press conference at the Department of Justice and I'm going to read you one quote from what he said there. This was an answer to a reporter's question quote we specifically asked him referring to Bob Muller about the O. L. C. Opinion and and whether or not he was taking a position that he would have found a crime but for the existence of the O. L. C. Opinion and he made it very clear several times that that was not his position he he was not saying that but for the O. L. C. opinion he would have found a crime he made it clear that he had not made the determination that there was a crime so that's how bar put it in trying. Trying to diminish the impact of the O. L. C. Opinion on Muller's decision making now listen to how Moeller described it in his may twenty ninth press statement. I'm going to read this again. I'm GonNa read you this quote promoter quote. It explains that under longstanding department policy. This is what the L._L._C. opinion is. A president cannot be charged with a federal crime while he he is in office that is unconstitutional even if the charges kept under seal a hidden from public view that too is prohibited a special counsel's office is part of the Department of Justice and by regulation and it was bound by that department policy charging the president with a crime was therefore not an option we could consider now. Everyone is has been focused on this notion of so is he saying he would charge a crime. If it weren't for the oil seep in no he actually has not been saying that all along Bob Muller but he's also not portraying what Bob Barr was portraying that who only is trying to say that if it wasn't for the O._C.. Opinion he would have found a crime. There's a different middle ground here which is that if it weren't for the O. L. C. Opinion Bob Muller may have made a different determination other than the one he made which was not to make a determination that is that seems to be lost here it's not about Oh if there wasn't the C._O.. L. C. opinion he would have indicted the president. He doesn't say that anywhere except for a moment today to Ted lieu we'll get to that in a moment but what about if it weren't for the O. L. C. Opinion. Would you have felt you would come to a different conclusion about not even heading down the road to make a determination about whether or not there was <music> a criminal offence obstruction of justice at play that to me gets lost in this whole conversation about the import of that oil see opinion which Muller clearly states was extraordinarily important to his thinking and bars. I trying to say well that really wasn't the deciding factor for him about not charging a crime but again it was the decisive factor if you listen to Muller about not even heading down that road of thinking about coming to some determination about charge or no charge in that matter and as you know he didn't exonerate the president you heard him till Chairman Adler that so here I'm waiting to hear I ted lieu from California Democrat then you're GonNa hear from Debbie Lesko <hes> a Republican in from Arizona kind of rebut but this was the back and forth today in the second half of the Judiciary Committee hearing and for a moment it seemed that Bob Muller had answered this question differently. It seemed that Bob Muller was in a totally a different place than what he was portraying at his press statement on May twenty ninth or even what Attorney General Bar was trying to portray back on April eighteenth so I want you to hear lose question and Muller's answer and then the exchange with Congresswoman Debbie Lesko from Arizona recap what we've heard we have heard today that the president ordered former White House counsel Dahmer Gant to Fire You President Order Don mcgann then cover that Uthman create a false paper trail and now we've heard the president ordered Corey Lewandowski to tell Jeff sessions to limit your investigation that he you stop investigating the president. I believe you're reasonable. Person Looking at these facts could conclude. Blue all three elements of the crime of justice have met and I like to ask you the reason again that you did not indict. Donald trump is because of oil see opinion stating that you cannot indict sitting president correct that is correct just recently Mr Muller. You said Mr Liu was asking you questions and Mr Lewis Question. I quote the reason you didn't indict. The president is because of the O.. L. C. Opinion and you you answered that is correct but that is not what you said in the report and it's not what you told Attorney General Bar and in fact in a joint statement that you released with D._O._J.. On May twenty nine after your press conference your offered your office issued a joint statement with the Department of Justice that said the Attorney General has previously stated that the special counsel repeatedly affirmed that he was not saying that but for the opinion he would have found the president obstructed justice. The special counsel was report in his statement today made clear that the office concluded it would not reach a determination one way or the other whether the president in committed a crime. There is no conflict between these statements so Mr Miller do you stand by your Joint Statement With D._O._J.. They issued on May twenty ninth as you sit here. Today I would have to look at it more closely before said uh well so I you know my conclusion. Is that what you told Mr Liu really contradicts what you said in the report and specifically what you said apparently apparently repeatedly to attorney general bar that and then you issued a Joint Statement on May twenty ninth saying that the Attorney General is previously stated that the special counsel repeatedly affirmed that he was not saying but for the all report that we would have found the president of sector justice so I just say there's a conflict and then <hes> once you heard that so Bob Muller said yes that's correct to the question of Ted Lieu that you did not indict donald trump because of the old see opinion stating you cannot edyta sitting president correct. He said correct he then of course walked that back later in the afternoon which I think is what congresswoman Lesko was trying to get him to do in the moment but here's Bob Muller at the very end of his opening opening statement before the House Intel Committee the second of the two hearings clearly there was a lunch break he had learned of what he said and how he answered lose question and he wanted to correct the record. Here is former special counsel Bob Muller now before we go to questions WANNA add one correction to my testimony. This morning wanted to go back to one thing that was said this morning by Mr Liu who said and I quote you didn't charge the president because of the opinion that is not the correct way to say it as we say in the report and I said at the opening we did not reach a determination as to whether the President committed a crime without Mr Chairman right answer questions the other piece of this this about the decision not to prosecute or not even a head down the road of making a determination that Republicans were seizing on today. Is this notion of if you're not going to prosecute do you as a prosecutor lay out the case if there is no trial for someone to exonerate themselves and you know president trump on the south lawn today feeling a little celebratory said it wasn't in Muller's purview to to exonerate him that. That wasn't his job. He didn't have the ability to exonerate him. Congressman Russian follower of Pennsylvania really pushed muller on this notion that he was not following the rules of justice and that he was committing an injustice by presenting cases of potential obstruction of justice but not providing the presumption of innocence that would come along with that being out there to the president because he knew he wasn't heading down the road to make a determination about whether or not to seek charges so here is congressman reckenthaller. Isn't it true on page one volume to you. Stay when you're quoting the statue the got an obligation either prosecute or not prosecute or generally that is the case although most cases are not done in the context of the president in this case. You need a decision not to prosecute correct act now. We made a decision not to decide whether to prosecute or not so so essentially what you report did was everything that A._G.. Reno warned against. I can't agree with that carpet. Well well what you did. Is You compound a nearly eighty four hundred and fifty nearly four hundred and fifty pages of the very worst information you gathered against the target of your investigation who happens to be the president of the United States and you did this knowing that you're not going to recommend charges and then the report would be made public about true. That's just a very interesting. I think sort of legal push-back two molar that Miller didn't really defend himself on very much throughout the day. He didn't seem all that interested in doing so but I do think obviously the the big takeaways. Are you know that Muller said that he didn't even head down the road of assessing whether or not obstruction of justice was committed because of that oil see guideline. He knew he couldn't go there he he said that the president was not exonerated. He was not exculpated pushing back on the president's of very often stated claims of no collusion no obstruction total and complete exoneration muller definitely pushed back on that Muller did also note that it is totally possible for the president to be indicted once he is out of office as a former president and that the stylistic headline which is that Bob Mueller was not some rock star witness yes that was going to galvanize the trump resistance out there and inspire Nancy Pelosi to move ahead with impeachment the day after the hearing kind of thing I if you were a Democrat looking for a real rallying cry try that impeachment was absolutely inevitable now. After you saw the way muller put the case out there against Donald Trump. That's not what happened today and I will be surprised if Nancy Pelosi somehow feels anything anything but secure in her decision not to have moved to an impeachment inquiry inquiry yet and trying to keep that at bay politically as you know because she doesn't think that is a wise move with an all certain defeat in the Senate lots of presidential no candidates lots of democratic members of caucus from very safe districts for the most part say no no no morals and the law and congressional responsibility demand an impeachment angry. She does not believe that that is true and she believes that it is going to help aid donald trump and his reelection victory. If House Democrats moved to an impeachment that is certain to be defeated in the in the Mitch McConnell Republican controlled Senate. I don't think the needle moved.

president Bob Muller Donald trump Bob Mueller special counsel Department of Justice Attorney General Bar Attorney Mr Miller O. L. C. Opinion Chairman Ted lieu Congressman Collins Xeni Dot Mr Liu congresswoman Lesko Political Director House Judiciary Committee David Chalian
Mike Schmidt on Stopping a President

The Lawfare Podcast

47:26 min | 4 months ago

Mike Schmidt on Stopping a President

"The thing about the obstruction section of the report is that. The greatest hits of obstruction. All come after mother was appointed. The attempt to fire Mueller, trump's attempt to get mcgann to create a false document to basically recant on what he had told prosecutors. The best meatiest part of it. Come from after molars. In that time is when they had mcgann. and. It's an astounding level of cooperation. I'm Benjamin with us, and this is the law fair podcast September Fourteenth Two thousand twenty. Michael Schmidt is a reporter for the New York Times reporter who broke a number of key stories during the Russia investigation. He is most recently the author of Donald Trump versus the United States inside the struggle to stop a president, a new book with exhaustive reporting on the history of the Russia investigation and the confrontation between the president, and those in his administration tried to put the brakes on his most extreme behaviors. Schmidt joined me in the Virtual Jungle Studio to talk about the book we talked about Jim Komi and his wife Patrice we talked about former White House counsel, Don mcgann, and the impossible situation he was in being a deep believer in the trump agenda and also an informant for the Mueller investigation, and we talked about the Mueller Investigation Wyatt never answered those counterintelligence questions everyone was expecting it to address. It's the l'affaire podcasts, September. Fourteenth Mike Schmidt on stopping a president. So Mike I WANNA start with the question of why the world needs another book about the Russia Investigation Trump and Jim Komen Bob Muller what is the ground that you're covering here that hasn't already been well trodden by a lot of other people. Too great question. That was one of the great challenges of the book was figuring out. How do you say something lasting and how you say? Different and impactful at the same time. That tells a larger story that holds together. In more and more that I looked at this issue of more and more that I saw that there was a phenomenon going on here that. I thought was different than anything we've seen before. I think that for much of. American history focused on how presidents used their power with. Does that say about the president? What does it say about the moment? What does that save the country with the country's confronting at that time? And how did the people around the president help the president do that? In the case of trump something very different was happening I thought. I thought the people around the prison who were supposed to be there to help the president. Achieved his agenda. We're trying to stop. And it's not just like trying to stop someone is trying to stop the most powerful person in the world. And from a human perspective, I thought that was fascinating and from a historical perspective I thought. I should try and capture what that is like. What is it like to stand toe to toe with the president and try and stop the president from doing If you're the nine, one, one operator. and. You take the call. There's no other nine, one one operator to call. If you're the FBI director, there's no other FBI director coffee the way council there's no other White House counsel calm. So what is it like when you're truly the last line of Defense? So Mike you've structured the book very self consciously in Shakespearean terms the book begins with a quotation from a King Lear and then the table of contents is structured as a four act tragedy on. So why did you organize the book that way and to what extent do you see this as a kind of Shakespearean tragedy? I certainly see it as a saga and I think that the human sort of carnage of it has not been totally captured and I was trying to capture that human element of what this experience has been like, and if you look at the saga I think. Word Shakespearean because I think that's too lofty but there are some really interesting story developments in things that encompass this. If you start at the most basic level. Jim Komi. Do that there was something off about the fact. That truth was not holding the way that it was in the country. He could see that there was something being in the world around him after he became. FBI. Director was back at the perch atop government. And he believes that change was so significant and drastic he needed to hold a press conference to basically set this. On the right path because the public in the institutions of Washington would not be able to level set it on their own. And as he goes into, do that. To hold that press conference. He in some ways, set himself on a path. That leads. To him ultimately seeing his worst nightmare scenario of what happens to. The reputation of the FBI and the justice. Department and the end of his tenure in the FBI. And I. Think if you're starting from that vantage point. and seeing how combing recognized this and went into try and do something in ultimately. was was blamed essentially for doing that and had to confront someone in Donald. Trump is president who was in as a worst nightmare scenario for Komi. I just thought that saga is remarkable. You could start a book like this. On the beginning of the campaign. You could start the book the day of the inauguration, the beginning of the confrontation between trump and the FBI what is the narrative scope you're covering here? So the place that I wanted to the timeline start this story. Was On September eleventh two thousand twelve. and. That is the day of the Benghazi attacks. and. Ideal with about to lay out in the book, but I don't start the book but let me explain why that day is shown port. On that day, Mitt Romney promises not to attack Obama as a running against each other for president because it's nine eleven. And you don't attack each other on nine eleven on such a sacred day. By that night Romney is putting out a statement essentially accuses Obama of being on the side of the terrorists in Romney is dipping his hand into the far reaches of the of the right and the conspiratorial part of the right that is really crossing a threshold for him. and. What happens is that that event? That decision by Romney. Sets off. So many questions about Benghazi. And he's using the imperatore of being the Republican nominee to do this sets off all these questions that the questions about Benghazi kick around and kick around and kick around in the Obama Administration in the year and a half that follows can't get rid of them in enough pressure is ultimately put on John Bainer. To appoint a special committee to investigate the Benghazi attacks. Tree Audi the head of that committee has his investigators go to the State Department and say, okay, we're doing this big Benghazi investigation what do you got and they say we've got a stack of ten thousand documents said that the people the State Department thought they were never going to have to produce because they had the thorniest issues of executive privilege classified etc and they say we'll take those documents, i. And when they receive those documents, they see eight emails from Hillary Clinton. And at that point, the committee has Hillary Clinton's personal emails in your on the pathway to disclosure. About email. Account. and. Everything. That comes after in the twenty sixteen election. You look at this story through the Lens of the people as you say, who were trying to stop the president, which is a very odd. Posture for an executive branch official to be a little bit less odd for congressional figure but. You know as you say the. General position of the executive branches that they are arms of the president. They are trying to carry out the president's agenda, fulfil the president's policies, and yet you focus on a number of people particularly the White House counsel Don mcgann, and the FBI Director, a gym me, and then ultimately, of course Bob Muller, you know who are in a much more adversarial posture with respect to trying to prevent the president from essentially from being himself. So. Talk to me about the psychology of that. I'm particularly with respect to Don mcgann pretty central figure. In the book, you don't go to the White House to try to stop the president how did Don mcgann and up in this position? So the thing about mcgann that I I think begins the most remarkable character of the trump era and for three basic hugely consequential reasons is in charge of the umbilical cord between trump and his base the judges he's remaking the federal judiciary, not just with typical Republican judges but a very certain type of conservative judge and a fairly young one at that and he's remaking the federal judiciary. In that tether, I think allow trump to behave the way that he did without the base running away from him. The second thing is that he's as we've been talking about a chief container of trump he stopping trump from earning himself, hurting the country earning the institution of the presidency just a highly unusual thing for a White House counsel to be trying to stop a president. And the third thing about mcgann is that he's caught up is the chief witness as a lawyer against his client. In, despite all this he staying in his job because he thinks he can here in Kennedy's voice, the Kennedy may retire and if Kennedy retires. Then mcgann will have another shot at feeling someone on the court but mcgann beliefs. If he leaves Kennedy may not retire because he won't trust who will come after. So, McCain has these incredible forces on him any staying in the ring. Basically, to make the federal judiciary, he's come to the trump trough and he's GonNa walk away with the remade judiciary. So what was he willing to put up with to do that? He realized that he could only contain so much of trump but he was going to stay for his own political gain, and because he believes so much in the judges and that's just a remarkable thing to go on for someone in a White House, we're in the past a White House counsel would be there to you know make sure they're I'm not diminishing the role, the White House counsel, but it would be much more straightforward job of. Determining what the president can't can't do and the president largely listening to the White House counsel and them carrying out the president's agenda. And it's just a fact that trump just turns all of that on its head that allows this highly unusual situation to develop with his lawyer with the lawyer for the White House. And yet in your account. I mean, the extent of that is extraordinary. mcgann becomes effectively a real time confidential informant for the Muller Investigation So Law Fair podcast listeners some of them will be very sophisticated about the reason. Why this happened, which was these rulings in appellate courts in the DC, circuit and eighth circuit from the Clinton era which held that there is no government attorney client privilege right and so his relationship with trump isn't privileged. How do we go from that to? Muller's people effectively tasking mcgann to find things out for them and report back. So although there's that decision. If you have a White House counsel in a high profile investigation like this, usually the person at the White House dealing with that investigator. Puts constraints on what that lawyer without White House counsel Ken say and do because it's such an invasive thing to have the president's lawyer as an open. But what happened was is that trump had been sold by his lawyers ty Cobb John Doubt a strategy of cooperating and they were going to cooperate with Muller. But they never took the time to figure out what the witnesses may know or say. So, they never figured out what mcgann new. So they told him to go in and cooperate and began in his lawyer Bill Burke or thinking. They don't know what we know. And they want us to go in and be an open book in. They're not gonNA put constraints on it and they're not gonNA find out what mcgann May know. So the president could trying assert some sort of privilege. Even if their privileges in hold. Like in the courts. Began thought that that they should go to court to fight over it it would drag it out. But even if it didn't hold, you can reach negotiation. that. Fact is proven because by the time that Cobb is gone. Over a year later and John Kelly, the White House chief of staff goes in Emmet flood. The top lawyer WHO's dealing with a special counsel at that point is you can have Kelly. You got him for two hours at that point began it's been. Hours with Muller's team. And what happens is is that mcgann? Realizing that. He has to go in a being told by the White House to cooperate if he's going to cooperate, he has to fully cooperate and to protect himself was going to be the first to tell the special counsel's office anything because this was not a normal criminal investigation. This was an investigation that was going to end with a report. And an errand adjective or verb here there could have destroyed mcgann's reputation. In mcgann has to preserve who he's going to be because he has a whole he's mid career he's in his forties. So. When he goes into cooperate he's Bill Burr GonNa make sure that they muller's team. Here's from them I, and it creates this thing in Cobb is not policing the relationship between the special counsel's office. And mcgann and Bernie doesn't understand. How close and intimate it becomes. So. You've made this point elsewhere but I think it's a point that for our listenership is really worth dwelling on. This sounds to me like frank malpractice on the part of the president's personal lawyers and I I'm not asking you to comment on their performance, but I just want to flesh out some of the facts as you've described them. Number one that they allowed mcgann to spend thirty hours with Muller's people without really finding out what he knew. Number two that their idea of cooperation involved a basically telling him go ahead and answer whatever questions and putting no conditions or restrictions on at a not negotiating for terms that would limit and third therefore kind of being unaware as this relationship becomes intimate and almost tasking and in your description as mcgann acquires a very powerful incentive to be the first to report things that Muller's people might eventually learn about and so become sort of proactively forthcoming. I want to suggest that that is absolutely terrible lawyering. On the part of the president's Personal Council I'm just. If you don't want to address the Tarot lawyer question. So I've talked to people around the president they're very close to the president who understand. What went on here. And I think it's malpractice. I'm not sure the president appreciates it. But they think that this was highly reckless in the only reason that he does not have a greater consequences. Is that the president ultimately skates on the obstruction issue. We know more about Donald Trump's attempts to obstruct justice business report than like. Certainly. It's just downing how much we know it's all because mcgann. But because trump faces no consequence because of that because mother declined to make a decision and the president's not impeached over it. It becomes less significant. But every lawyer that I talked to about this and I I every single lawyer that I came in contact with in this story I would I would ask about this 'cause I founded a remarkable. In. No one thought. That this was, this was a good idea. and. I agree with you that the president didn't really face severe consequences for this except one, which is the text of volume two of the Muller report right and to the extent that the president has a two hundred page document outlining his ten or eight or depending how you count eleven instances of possible obstructive activity that is largely a function, not entirely a function of the extent and degree of mcgann's cooperation, right? It's also an. Emmy I'm just saying like on the on the road restaurants, the president faced no consequences I'm talking about sort of legally end impeachment. Wise. Obviously politically it was damaging Dan but he he's been damaged. So badly politically it's hard to measure what the impact of it was but the thing about the obstruction section of the report that is even more remarkable. Is that the greatest hits of obstruction. Come after mother was appointed. The attempt to fire Mueller trump's attempt to get mcgann to create a false document to. Basically were can't. prosecutors. The best neediest part if it. Come from after, molars appointed. In that time is when they had mcgann. and. It's an downing level of cooperation because. I mean I'm sure you're prosecutor listeners may know this or have a better articulated way of saying this but. With a witness, you want someone who's truthful as a good command of the fax as a good memory documents the stuff. In also has great proximity IM- again, checked all those boxes. It's a dream witness to the point that by the spring of two thousand eighteen. Muller's team is going back to bill burke and saying L.. Trump talking about you know prosecuting Kobe is trump. Had A role in getting rid McCabe. They're looking to see whether trump is continuing to obstruct justice in trying to use the power of his presidency to punish potential witnesses Kobe McCabe. And To me, it's just like off the charts remarkable. It is off the charts remarkable. Talk. About mcgann's own psychological experience of this. So on the one hand, you describe him being a real true believer in the trump agenda or even really it's mcgann's. that. I'm sure mcgann felt more strongly about it than trump did. On the other hand, he's informing on trump in real time on obstruction stuff to the. Special Counsel's office and he has a parent bewilderment at the Conduct of the president's lawyers and he's witnessed to some. Genuinely remarkable activity including stuff that he's sufficiently worried about that. He you know in order to fire. Mueller that he refuses to participate in and then he finally leaves a having been sort of dismissed having or maybe. Agreeing to hang on until after the Cavanaugh nomination he leaves having been the subject of some trump ridicule although not nearly as bad as some others face. How does Don mcgann feel about the experience at the end of the day? I think mcgann is a very, very conflicted. Person He wanted to remake the courts. He knew he had a once in a never again opportunity to do that. and. He basically is willing to put up with a lot of stuff that is on the line questionable to do that, and in that process I think he's conflicted I think he believes in trump is more than trump does he believed that the Republican Party did not need to follow the twenty twelve autopsy it needed to run to the far right that it needed to. Happen to that far base that needed to go after those Americans who thought they had been left behind by trade deals, and that was a core belief of his and he was a true believer in. And mcgann also has a bit of a renegade streak in him where he was never going to be offended by trump's behavior mcgann's a guy who went to the F. E. C., his Bob Bauer said to me was the most consequential head of the FCC because he ground the place to a complete halt. He's a true believer in limiting government power. and. He wasn't offended by trump's behavior and he kind of liked the idea that they were gonna come in and smash things mechanics. Federal Government has overreached mightily. So he comes to this and because trump is so unusual. He empowers mcgann to basically be a committee of one to nominate the judges. This is not going to be a process like in past white houses where they sit around with resumes and they talked to the Justice Department and they look at you know lawyers in their histories of began streamline. This is going to go find these young lawyers that have a certain type of belief. Very conservative belief a similar belief to a Thomas or gorsuch. Scalia and they are going to pump them through to McConnell McConnell's GonNa Ram them through the Senate and they were to fill all these posts in remake the courts to calm. There's a reason why I focused on Komi and mcgann we're going to be living in Don mcgann's America for decades and decades to come. I also think there's a very good argument that if you're a Democrat or Republican, you would say we live in the world. Jim Komi had an enormous impact on asides Obama and trump I. think you make good argument that a lot of what we live with today is tie back to decisions that call me and Not, only are these people. They're human experiences intriguing. What is it like to stop a presence, but I believe historically consequential. So. Let's talk about that. You make a very interesting choice in the portrayal of Jim Komi. To do it to a large extent through the eyes of Patrice Comey Jim's wife tell us about that decision and why Patrice Komi is an interesting figure for you. So Coney presented. For storytelling purposes and I don't think of myself as a storyteller they myself as a newspaper reporter who tried to tell a story in the book but. Kobe presented a very unique challenge. Komi has written a book testified before Congress gone on national television? Democrats largely made up their mind what they think about him Republicans have made up their mind what they think about him and In that sense. We've all Kinda looked at Komi. Mehtab Vermont. So how do you tell the Komi story in a way that's new in different? How do you bring that story to life in a way because he I believe is historically usually consequential person the decision he makes whether it's you know the the stuff that goes on with keeping memos about trump or email investigation things that we all know. So. The editors that I was talking about the books as we gotta write about Kobe you you probably covered Komi more than anyone else in you. Understand it better than anyone else. So you know when you wrote about his memos and caught up in all that. So you gotta write about combing. Almond about. And I thought about it and thought about thought about it and I thought we need to try and find a different way of looking at Komi. We're sort of all looking at him at a forty five degree angle. Let's see if we can move the camera. Let's see if we can move the lands, accommodate him from a different way. And I thought. You and I will never be the FBI director in. It's very hard to relate to that. We're never GONNA have. To. Be that type of position and have to make decisions he did. But if we look at combing through the eyes of a loved one like his wife. We can relate a little bit more of that because we all know what is like to watch a loved one go through something excruciating and feel paralyzed by that and. Feel awful for the person we love going through that, and my sense was is that if we can tell combing through the eyes of Patrice, we may understand me better and it may be a new fresh way of illuminating him because I think the more we can understand about him the more that we have a better historical context of what he did. So. I sat down with Patrice, call me and I said. I can't imagine what it's been like to be you and to have watched inexperienced this and I just kind of shut up and I tried to listen to her story and I found it fascinating because. She took me into these moments before the press conference. Before the October reopening the investigation. Election night she has to tell Komi that trump has one and watching Komi. Then when trump becomes president struggled to contain him and I said, okay, this is a new and different way to tell this story. And she's a very compelling character and she has a very interesting history herself and she's also a bit of a partisan. Partisan in the sense that you really wanted Hillary Clinton to win. And here was her husband being blamed forgetting donald trump someone she thought was an existential threat to the country in someone who she knew her husband. With think absolutely little of. and. Let's try and tell that story and that's what I try to do. and. How does the story seen through the eyes of Patrice? Change a reasonable assessment of Jim Komi or does it I don't know that I'm GONNA leave up to the reader to try and see. How much debt changes their understanding of him or not but I think what it allows you to do. It allows you to see. A little bit better would me was seeing? You, see him trying to explain to her why he's willing a press conference in why he's reopening the investigation she's essentially pushing back on. And saying press conference could be really bad for you and in October she's thinking only shit. This could get donald trump elected president. You can't do this. So close to an election in Komi is forced to defend his decision. And I think in looking through her eyes Kobe's a little bit easier to listen to because I think that a lot of people tuned Komi out when he's on book tour trying to explain because people sort of made up their mind about how they view him and how they view the decisions he's made and. I thought that watching him defend this. As he's making these decisions to his wife. Illuminated them in a way that. Me Someone who had studied these decisions understood better. You gotTA leave it up to the public to figure out whether they think is right or wrong. People have very strong views about what he did. My guess is a lot of people will not be swayed by it wasn't. My job to sway the the reader one way or another, but I thought. Okay. Here's this guy who? Had this enormous impact, and now we get to see him from a different angle in a different vantage point and maybe understand him better. And I thought that if I could do that it also it also shows the human element here which I tried to come back to which was. Like what was it like to be laying in bed on election I comb he goes to bed. Florida has just been called for trump. He thinks that the Blue Wall will prevent Hillary. Clinton goes to bed anything Hillary Clinton could be elected president. and. Around I think four or five o'clock three somewhere in the morning patrice comes in and wakes him up in says Donald Trump's been elected president. She's been crying on the phone with her daughters and. What is that like to all of a sudden think? Did. You may have helped get donald trump elected president when you're laying there in bed staring up at the ceiling in your wife just woken. said. It's just incredibly dramatic. It's incredibly dramatic and I've known Jim for a long time and I. Talked to him in the period after this and I've always been fascinated by the question of what his emotional reaction was to the possibility that he had played a role in trump's election. I'm curious after this amazing quantity of reporting including the time that you've spent with Patrice. How do you understand his emotional response to certainly something he never meant to do right he he has said he's faintly nauseous at the possibility that The F. B. I. Played Any role in influencing any aspect of the election. What do you think is his internal monologue about the question of his own role in possibly helping trump be elected. As right the book he starts sort of rationalizing to himself. We didn't do this. Did we do this? We didn't do this. Oh maybe he won't be so bad. The office will change him. Maybe, I can be someone that steers the president in the right direction user just business people they just need to be guided a little bit. It won't be so bad he starts rationalizing People themselves, but it just hits home to him in a way that is different because. He's been. So closely associated with what happened just days before opening the investigation so we rationalize it to himself. And I think Patrice did that to. The office was going to change it and oh. My God, we didn't do this. Did we do this and he's wrestling with these questions head and he's trying to do I think would anyone in that situation do is allow maybe. Could have been. That couldn't have been. Awesome. And He also I think. has a very high threshold for pain. and. This is something that I learn about in the book is that COIT basically walked up to the line of of dying. Right after he left the Justice Department in two thousand and five yes he had a very very serious bout of cancer and I think that for Komi. Someone. WHO's sort of looked at in the eye? At Stage three cancer was hospitalized twice after once for an infection in his stomach once for a blood clot that went to his lung. And you know someone who got his will in order and Had to look death in the I I think that for him. He's like well, I think baked into him as the idea like vice survived that and I can survive Donald. Trump is president I'm not sure he's consciously like taking that exact thing but baked into Jim, Komi is is the fact that He looked cancer in the eye and walked away a survivor. And I think that. that. IDEA. Is something. I'd actually love to explore more just in general in people who survived something. Where they've walked up to the line of death in how that changes your ability or willingness to do things afterwards because it's like well, if I survived add then I could survive this. So. Pete. Struck in his recent book does not directly address the allegations that Bob Muller has had significantly slowed down in the course of running his investigation but he does describe Conversations with Mahler in which he sort of makes a point of describing as sharp and precise. You portray it differently talk about your your reporting about Bob Muller. What lay out in the book is. Basically Struggles that Muller had prep sessions for his testimony. And how there were real struggles to basically recalled basic facts about the investigation. And The pursuit that I had of trying to report that and. The walls that I ran into the denials did I received? And in the end Muller testifies and I think Muller's testimonies spoke for itself. And if you talk to anyone who knew muller, that was a different person. Who was testifying? That was not the person of the FBI. Years now there's. A myriad of reasons why? Someone. Would present that way including normal agent, but I thought that Muller's. Acuity and personality. were. Fair game to write about because I believed. Based on looking at previous special counsels and people in similar positions, the personality of that person. is almost as significant as the underlying evidence because. If that person is. Like Ken Starr or Lawrence. Walsh. I. Think you end up in a different place than someone who may be in their last job or may not be a sharpest they were a few decades earlier. And, I think that. Who that person is such a direct. Impact on things. Look the decision not to make a decision on obstruction. I think is it is a good example of that of. Had it been. Pick your former Justice Department official. One point it looked like Rosenstein was considering albeit briefly Jim Cole with Jim Cole if he ran special counsel's office have declined to. Make a decision on obstruction. And, I think anything that can illuminate what muller was like and what is personality and being an acuity were I think are essential to the moment because is decisions. Decision not to make a decision. Is. Usually. impactful on. What happens with trump in the consequences does or does not face in how bar was able to come in and clear the president. So, there's been a bit of a controversy following the news stories that emanated from your reporting on the books specifically about the. what I have termed the counter intelligence gap, which is you know this issue that the Muller Investigation did not conduct the counterintelligence investigation that everybody including a expected it was going to engage in. You posit a really interesting answer to the question of why which. Is Basically that Rod Rosenstein prevented it There has been some pushback against that from people involved including from from Andy Weizman Mal at one of Mahler's deputies on the other hand Anne McCabe the deputy FBI director or the acting FBI director at the time has said, you know he was pretty surprised that Muller had not done that stuff and had proceeded on the assumption that Muller was was handling the counterintelligence equities as well as the criminal equities. I'm curious for your sense of the controversy in light of both the reporting that you did, and also some of the pushback that the reporting has received. The place did the reporting start on. This is with Muller's testimony on the day of the hearing when he goes up to the hill any. Basically says that they did not do this inquiry into trump's longstanding financial ties to Russia. And in the process of reporting the book Would be able to figure out is that McCabe opens this investigation. Rosenstein is taken aback by McCain his done it unilaterally. And McCabe is pushing Rosenstein to appoint a special counsel. and. Thinks that if they they need a special counsel to conduct is sort of once in a generation investigation into the president's. Personal and financial ties to Russia to totally understand that and whether he's compromised. And Rosenstein. In that process appoint smaller. When Rosenstein goes to task muller he says. Go Conductor Criminal Investigation. Do you WANNA. Do More. You can come back to me. But the simple. Directing of Muller to conduct a criminal investigation. Is, directing them off of what McCabe had opened in what Rosenstein doesn't do as he doesn't go back and tell McCabe how he has directed Muller giving the cave. The impression that Mueller has inherited this whole thing and will conduct it in McCabe believed that mother was conducting it until until you know I basically laid out to him. The series of events that went on here. And do you have the sense that? Rosenstein did that by way of Hoodwinking McCabe as in? Was He being actively? I don't WanNa say deceitful but sort of hiding the ball about what he did or was it simply I mean the truth is that Muller's investigative mandate. Was Public and was you know pretty clearly act in retrospect at least pretty clearly a criminal investigation and. What's more special counsel rigs terms contemplate a criminal investigation, and so I I mean do you have the sense that this was a kind of bit of deceptiveness on Rosenstein part or do you have a sense that it was? Just. Kind of McCabe thought. One thing was happening and Rosenstein kind of directed something else and word never really got back to McCabe. So. I think the point here that. Eliminates this is that the appointment of Mueller had as much to do about getting the investigation away from. McCabe. As it did about. Insulating it from trump because. I think Rosenstein, thought that Mackay have conflicts in that they may be out of control in opening up this investigation and that he wanted someone with clearer is to take a look at it and to get the investigation away from McCabe and. Their reach only so many ways you could cut the FBI out of such an investigation. This was not like. A case where you could bring the DA to do the work of such a complicated investigation and. The move to appoint Muller is to get it away from McKay. Among the reasons and the thing is is that That was a motivating factor for Rosenstein. Any never goes back to McCabe to basically explained to him the way that he has tasked more now you ask. Should. have. Have realized this and I think the sense for McCabe was that Rosenstein never raised objections to him about the opening of the counterintelligence investigation when they briefed Congress on this and they told Congress. McCain says, look we've opened this investigation obstruction and intelligence. Rosenstein doesn't stand up and say. You know hold on, wait a minute and this always McKay with the impression that vulgar is going to pick up where the FBI has opened and left off. The book is Donald Trump versus the United States inside the struggle to stop president. The author is Mike. Schmidt of the New York Times Mike. Thanks so much for joining us. Thanks for having me. The law fair podcast is produced in cooperation with the Brookings Institution, our audio engineer. This episode was Zachary Frank of Goat Rodeo. You should do your part to promote the l'affaire podcast tweet about it. Share it on facebook up, voted on, read it and pin it on Pinterest. You can get your law fair Merch at the l'affaire store dot com. The law fair podcast is produced and edited by Gen Paci Howell our music is performed by Sophia. Yan. And as always, thanks for listening.

president Mueller trump Jim Komen Bob Muller Donald Trump Don mcgann FBI Patrice Komi trump Komi trump special counsel Patrice Hoodwinking McCabe White House director Hillary Clinton Rod Rosenstein Patrice Comey Jim Justice Department Kobe
The Backlash is Coming (Ep 1296)

The Dan Bongino Show

1:11:22 hr | 7 months ago

The Backlash is Coming (Ep 1296)

"Get ready to hear the truth about America on a show. That's not immune to the facts with your host Dan. Bongino, could we have a more loaded Monday? We have more stupidity by a Oh see. We have the Roger Stone Pardon. This is just the intro. We got the media losing their minds over mask mandates I have some personal experience on that. We get the panic. Panic merchants back, telling you Florida's exploded overnight. What Else Thomas Soul? What mccloskey's mccloskey's you know? The mccloskey's Saint Louis dared to defend their house now they're the subject of an investigator and we got we got. Got The media face planting on a trump symbol and the GOYA CEO a lot to address today. Don't go anywhere loaded show today show brought to you by express VPN secure your online data today from prying eyes online. Get A VPN GO TO EXPRESS VP DOT COM slash Bongino. Don't wait go today. Welcome to the Dan. Bongino show producer. Joe. How are you fine? Sir, just another loaded Monday to slowed it fully. No, no. No but Joe. We're usually on Mondays. Usually look. Today is extreme story by the way a big. Thank you, pod track, which is one of the world's great podcast trackers pod track you guys and ladies made us a top twenty show on pod track. Thank you so much top twenty in the United States. Thanks to you you all the best. We love you to death you're. Not Kidding you guys and ladies, are there we go? Thank you Paula for putting that up. got that email this morning seventeen in the whole country? All Right? Let's get to loaded. I said jury that this morning. Show by friends at helixsleep, they make personalized mattresses right here in America shipped straight to your door with free. No contact delivery free returns and one hundred nights sleep trial to choose a mattress helix made quiz takes two minutes to complete matches your body type and sleep references to the perfect mattress for you not for someone else perfect. Feel like a mattress and software firm. You sleep on your side like me or your back your stomach or your sleep, really hot with Helix. There's a specific mattress for each and every bodies unique tastes. I took the quiz we were matched to a midnight locks helix helix mattress. Because I like to sleep on my side. I've tried other brands. They are not as good. My wife had a roll me over on my side yesterday because I accidentally started sleeping on my back and I was snoring. Big Mistake woke up my daughter to my eight year old. WHO WANTED TO SLEEP? Sleep in a room last night. I Love Helix, but you don't take my word for. We have two of them. This ouster that great it was awarded the number, one best overall mattress pick two thousand twenty by G. Q. Wired magazine, an apartment therapy. Go to helixsleep DOT COM Slash Dante of two minute sleep quiz. They'll match you to a customized mattress for you. Give you the best sleep of Your Life Ladies and gentlemen. It's like sleeping on a cloud right now he looks is offering up the two hundred dollars off a mattress orders for our listeners. Go to Helix. HELIXSLEEP DOT com slash Dan helixsleep dot com slash Dan. Get Two hundred dollars mattress order. Go today. You'RE GONNA love it all right. Joe Let's talk. So Ladies and gentlemen. In case you were under the illusion. Some of the Liberals listening now by regular listeners who aren't ferociously loyal to when I think that goes both ways that I was just. podcast actually I. have been an activist for a very long time. I've run for office. I've been through so many. Tea Party second. Amendment free speech rallies that candidly I lose track sometimes people send me photos. They say Dan. Right, Paula, remember me from this. I love you to death, but honestly I've done so. I don't remember I appreciate, but I honestly don't remember because they all blend so as you heard me speak about over the last week. I live in Martin County Florida where five county commissioners. CLAIM TO BE. Republicans voted to put Massey, put face diapers on everyone. And mandated it as if we are in all grown adults and can't figure out when to wear a mask, or when not to. There's very little science behind this anyway. Universal masking that is. There's some pretty decent science behind. If you're infected, wearing a mask, but science has gone out the window. Public Hysteria has now taking over because the media refuses to tell you the truth, so they had A. Rally this week. Freedom Rally. For for the I will not comply crowd and keep in mind. As I said to people and I'll say again because my position keeps getting mischaracterized on this, which is pretty common for liberals who lie all the time in media, people who lies well. I'm not anti mask. I never have been. I'm not anti mask mandates by businesses. It's your business. You want people to wear a mask. Go right ahead. Matter of fact, Paul and I had a little thing this weekend local place we eat a oculus say where guy decided to be a wise Guy Apollo. He said thanks later. We won't be back. Have a nice day. My choice nothing wrong I'm GONNA out them recommending some boycott or anything like that? I'm not anti mask I'm anti stupidity and government. Universal masking mandates are pure unadulterated stupidity. So, here's a photo of me at the couple photos. Actually if you want to see dot com slash Bongino. Here's rally. If you'll notice in my back pocket in the top picture, there is a mask. People like. He has a mask at an anti mask rally. Okay, you're wrong on two fronts. It's not anti-basque rally at never was number one and number two I told you. I'm not anti mask. I have one I. Keep Him at all times. What I don't understand like what what part of that Joe like we got him. He's got a mask back what? Do you. Listen to my show or you just loop it all the time. He's got a mask at his back pocket. Yes, no, kidding! Yeah, I hear Ya I I had to go to. We went to the local Bagel store to get bagels. Every have to wear a mask. It's on the door put. COGGIN didn't go into Bagel store. Start tearing a place up. Rippin the bagels up throwing the bagels I'm not BLM activists. Kick it into a front door, hitting people with fire extinguishers over the. That's the other side. That's not us. Not anti-basque at government, tyranny and Anti Stupidity. There's no science behind universal masking none. Zero So, of course, the local newspaper which you know big mistake, it's really a symmetric kind of fighting to pick a fight with huge mistake. One of these local teenyboppers guys probably about fourteen. I'm not really sure, but he decided to be a good idea on. This is not a joke. I did not make this I'm gonNA. Put up a screen shot of tweet, so you see me at this rally and I. Put those pictures up by the way on. My twitter is happy to be there with fellow patriots who believe in fighting. What's ANTIFA says it's anti-fascist, which is hysterical because they're really fascist themselves. They're really anti-free-speech, but we are anti stupidity, so where we. To like, how would that go? We should call Tusa like we're anti stupidity and government edicts on are really stupid, so we showed up. To, so whatever you think about and I, put the photos out on twitter and instagram and elsewhere. And this local reporter from the palm. Not a joke. He decides to be a good idea to try to rats out the local sheriff, not even kidding. Look this this. Dope here, this is the Real Jay Solo? That's his twitter case. You confuse him with any less famous J. Solos. That's his real twitter at the real Jaso. It's the real one. Joe Josh Salman because he doesn't want you to confuse him with less famous John's. You know he's the famous way. He's the real IB. My my hidden twitter dbongino. It's my parlor handled. It's not the real de Bongino okay. But this is the real Jay. Solo kind of like Han Solo or whatever so josh. Solomon otherwise known as J Solo kind of like jailed a real one, not the faker less famous John Josh Solomon's. He's like what is the Martin County Sheriff, and he tax them and the city of Stewart response to its residents, breaking the law and publicize it. Maximum not breaking the law breakers. You never get IOS cultural references. I know that break. Why by honestly I remember I said Hey I remember that song for Beavis and Butthead, not the actual saw. If you watch beavis and butthead, an empty growing up. They used to say that all the time, but the real jay solo not the fake chase. He got dough, confused him with Lesser Famous J. Solos other than him. He thought he was going to be a real joe. He's a reporter journalists. What are you doing? Are you locking these people up? Could Move Jay Solo. Journalism Joe. Journalists better every piece journalism in. Everyday, just doing his journalism. Yeah, look at these people. Go Get out there and lock them up. Dude! That's his idea about reporting the real. Jay. Not The fake Jay so again. Don't confuse him with faker. Less famous J. Solos He. He's very upset about that. Kids about fourteen. He's probably Reading Teeny Bopper magazine aside while he pretends to be a journalist. Picking the wrong fight guy pretty much a symmetric at this point, but you do whatever you want I. Mean I have no idea who this guy is. You tweet away to public account. You want to be a public figure. You want to be a media, person and rat people out to the sheriff. Because you think you're being a journalist all right when? They'll show other people what you do the Real Jaso. Now another issue on this. So these five county commissioners who claim to be Republicans who voted in their little, dopey, tyrannical nonsensical stupid guidelines that we can all as adults figure out and work out on our own. They've got a real spot and. It speaks to a larger issue. Folks nationwide, and that's the only reason I'm bringing this up. I'm bringing this up, not because it's happening in my county, because it's happening everywhere, not just mask mandates not just horrible media. People think it's their job to rat. People out to the Sheriff Look Sheriff. Go Lock Them Up. I already said take define. Job Give me the right to find you know where I live. Where you can find. It? On the show. Real Jay, Solo. Not Fake Jane Not Lesser Famous J. Souls Real Jason. But they know where I live. Just leave the fight at the front door. Happy to pay no problem at all. But there's a real conundrum year. One of these commissioners who I've met before. He's got an opponent in the primary. The opponent. I've communicated with is not a conservative at all. And it reminds me of the problem. Nationally and I'm going to call this the Mark County Commissioner Conundrum. It's when you get these people who claim to be Republicans and Conservatives and back liberty and freedom, and our values Joe, and they get into office, and they become rhinos, and do Reino things and stupid things, interior and things like universal masking like we're all children. They create a real problem for us and being serious here and the problem is. You can't sit it out. There's no quitting. There's no one can vote for anyone I'm just going to say that's not an answer for. That's honestly folks that's. That's juvenile I'm sorry we can't set it out. The decisions they make affect our lives and our kids lives. This is our country. It's not theirs. But the conundrum may put us is this man has an opponent? WHO's not a conservative at all? Not even a little bit and is running as a Republican. Really in my opinion isn't Republican all sounds like a Democrat. If you know what I mean, Joe running as a Republican because. She knows it's a Republican county. Ny Communicate with I'm going to disclose I don't WANNA say. Wouldn't we're in emails or not? A Y? Be Unfair and I didn't tell her that in advance, but she's not a conservative. So now we're in this position wherein nationally we're Republicans get elected. They take our money. They take our time. They take our vote and they pledge to us to do Republican things, and then they don't. They do big government nanny state things, and they put us in the spot where we're constantly forced to vote for the lesser of two evils. I call it the Martin County Commissioner Conundrum. Because I don't have an easy answer for you I have an answer, but it's not an easy one. The answer is you still have to vote for the lesser of two evils, sometimes why because it's the lesser of two evils? Someone says to you. Hey, I'm gonNA either cut in half with this chainsaw, or we're going to give you a paper cut. They're both pretty evil. Joe But I think I'll pick the paper cuts then I'm a choice. Most people would be. You don't have a choice. You don't destroy your job. Your county, your businesses and your neighbors, because try to make a point by sitting in an election. Sometimes you have to accept the lesser of two evils. The only solution here and it's not an easy answer. Is Short term and long term. We just have to find and vet better candidates I. We've tried that before the I know we've tried, but we can't stop trying. That applies locally here. I'm that now at a meeting this weekend. And it applies nationally as well. We just have to find better people. I know it's not an easy answer? That's why I call it the conundrum. conundrums. Easy answers! Their dilemmas. We have a hard time working our way through. Because everything is tough, there's no every four you take in. The road leads to another fork in the road. We have to start today. All right. Sorry but I can't get over the real Jay the real Jason Confuse him with the Lesser Jay so I I I can't get over that I changed my degree. Really. Confused with Harrison. Ford or something like that on Solo. Solo. Sheriff. Sheriff, what are you GonNa, do you better go lock their budget while you look over there. I'm getting the luck. Why why? NO COME A-! Everybody thinks Polish should have a microphone. What is it? Come on what you're saying. Why did why? She's got I know. I can tell she's got some commentary. Oh, yeah, yeah. That's a good point see Paula, commentary. We do have to get her a microphone. Cheap she doesn't like to be on camera, but she should. She says Oh. Yeah now. The media loves cops. Right go gross their budget for not wearing. A great point. Well Dodd Best Paula. She does she always is good point we do. You gotta get her. Mike let's come into that today. We'll get Paulo microphone now. They love cops. Go. Issue is fifty dollars citation. Please go ahead right away, I. Don't care. We'll be a okay. Move on so the panic. Merchants are back Joe. They're back. Corona Virus God forbid they give you? The facts show the facts like we do. On the show faction things you can make rational reasonable decisions. They don't want any of that. The media's now now that they're they don't see any political advantage with furthering the police suck narrative. For. Awhile you know, police are based on by the way a universally agreed upon grotesque use of force, and there was no disagreement anywhere anywhere amongst any credible circles about the incident. Would Floyd none who district? There was no disagreement there everybody was like. We gotta fix that. Yeah, but of course that turned morphed into what you a universal media police suck rally, which is what they do because they can use that. They think to their political. They're not your media Dan. They're not political. That's good. That's a good one. That's really funny. So now they've given up on that. Because the political advantage from painting the police, who conservatives generally sports bad guys. It's kind of Wayne Joe. It's gone down a little bit. The emotions so the media has to do something else to like what we do next, you know. Maybe they got a focus group together. Whatever and the folks who is like media people. You have to start painting corona virus hysteria again. Again painting the full portrait of Corona virus hysteria because that makes trump look bad, too. Just like US painting. The COPS is awful. Who Conservatives like trump is a conservative or governed is such data. We gotta move onto another nap. So they're back. They're back to. You would think Florida. Joe Is being surgically removed from the United States because it's such a disaster right now. This is floating out into the sea. I live in Florida the situation is rough. But? Here's what's really going on in Florida again I will go back to the social media feed of the Great Alex Berenson who actually does facts, who again we'll challenge a republican or a Democrat narrative on corona virus, and that's good. Facts matter so what's really going on in Florida 'cause you've been you've been told the whole state. Burning right is burning to the ground folks. Well here's Berenson. Who actually sites Florida's own data? God forbid we use real data. He says, and after a week of nightmare headlines about Florida at about seventy thousand new cases AKA positive tests. Hospitals have a grand total of. One hundred and thirty more patients in ICU bed statewide than last Sunday. Can't make it up folks. Now he does site that there were forty five. That's an east deaths are tragic. We didn't have to put that caveat in there because it seems like commonsense, but liberals on the other side who are not interested in common sense or facts or reality I was having this conversation with Paula last night. It's morphed into a conversation by liberals whenever you bring up the facts. What do you want? People to die would want people that please please stop talking. You're a moron. Nobody wants people to die. You're just imbecile and you have no real argument to make. Your suggesting what we should shut down the state again bankrupt our hospitals. Destroy our food supply and destroy businesses of of hundreds of thousands a middle-class Floridians. Over a virus! That yes seems to be. The positive tests have gone up. But that. The fatality rate right now and the number of fatalities. We have albeit all tragic. You want to bankrupt the whole state because of it. Just to be clear. We want people to die. Would you want people to think you're a on because by saying that you look like? Every single proposed. Solution to the coronavirus problem has a trade off. Went to lock the state down again. Bankrupt the entire state have you considered? How many people do you want people to die? Have you considered how many people would die from that? So again the facts, ladies and gentlemen, because we have friends of ours to calling us down here. Oh my Gosh! Florida's burning to the grass. It's not. It has a problem. It is dealing with like every other state. Now, you've probably heard number two as well the. Panic merchants and the media. We can't open schools. We can't open. School got to keep the schools do yeah, so now you want to bankrupt. The food supply shut down the hospitals and bankrupt the entire united. States economy over what is a troubling, but at this point manageable threat. The ICU's in Florida not overwhelmed. That's not happening. You're making that up. But now you don't WanNa open up schools either so you want to cost kids. What two years of education? Untold amounts of productivity later in their lives because they have missed out an education. You want to knock all that out. Because of what some unmanageable threat. Well. What's the real threat to children in schools matter-of-fact show? I think it'd be a fair question to say. What's the real threat? To children by this virus. At all. GOT TO BE DATA RIGHT Now. I'm sure you've heard the data. I'm about to present. You have right. Of course you haven't because the data paints a very different picture about the corona virus threat to children, then the panic merchants and hysteria merchants. The media want you to believe because they want the school shutdown. Why because they don't give a damn about you? Your caterer, anything or interesting political narratives that hurt the president, and because the president came out, said we should open up schools. The media narrative is no. We shouldn't. I saw an interesting meeting this week and it said. If President, trump recommended that you don't do your business in your draws is kind of funny that media people would walk around on weekend. crapping in their draws all which is absolutely true because they really are that stupid. I was a great response. It's true is not yet for trump came out towards oxygen is bad. The media walk around with plastic bags on their heads all day, so there was a study. You may say to yourself. Is there actual data about the vet? That children shockingly folks there is, but you probably haven't heard about it. Here's a study. They did in Iceland. Fascinating study, because the study is very to use the buzzword of the day robust. Spread of SARS. covid to in the Icelandic population. It's pretty exhaustive study where they did some tracing on people. and. The tracing was done in a very scientific, very strict mannered determine who gave the virus to? Now you'd save. The media's arguing like they always do. Trump said open up the schools. We gotta shut those schools down because trump said otherwise, we don't care what happens. You may say this Icelandic study surely backs the media up that this is a huge threat. Children right well hat tip to this. This individual MCI forgive me if I'm saying his name wrong, but he covered this study, and so let's talk about the realized landing study, and the threat to children same new Honda Hossam saying your name wrong. Forgive me. It's not intentional terrible with names, but here's this first tweet covering this study and the threat to children that the media wants you. Believe should justify shutting schools now. He said the study. You just mentioned. We just showed isolated. Covert samples from every positive case they sequenced the genome of the virus and the mutation patterns. This analysis along with contact tracing the authors to identify definitively. Who passed the virus to this was unique says Newman Haas. So we clear on this. There was no doubt with this study who gave Corona virus to who when this Icelandic study of children now again if you believe the media keeps the schools shutdown, trump's at otherwise. Messy surely there's evidence in this study that children are giving it to everyone right Really. Checkout tweet number two by Mr Nas. Based on this study, the senior author concluded. GET READY FOR THIS JOE QUOTE Even if children do get infected, they are less likely to transmit the disease to other to others than adults. We have not found way way way before i. read this sentence authors of the study. This can't be right Joe. We have not found a single instance of a child infecting parents. Come on mistake, something's wrong summer gotta be a mistake. Joe I. Don't think the Guy Does Co tation marks means that means that was in the study, the quotation marks. Clearly making that up, except for the fact actually links to the study. You can read it yourself. Here in the media. said. Where where do we do we? We hear that anywhere. Now what have we heard? Florida's melting down should be sought within the United States and made a prison colony. We should put a seventy five foot. Concertina wire wall around flyers. We saw it off and insular flowed out plate tectonics. Type thing. Because it's melting burning to the ground. I see user overflowing everywhere in Florida shut the whole state down. and. We've heard kids. You can't send them back the school. This is a grave threat to the kids will bring it back and give it to their parents. But they actually traced the genetic mutations in the. Study with detailed contacts. They didn't. They didn't find any other. Zero Zero. None. Wow Now, you may say come on. Dan Science Shmaya. Actually do that stuff. I mean the real Jay. Solo knows better. Not The fate J. Solo the real Jay. Solo clearly he's the guy seventeen. He's reading Teeny Bopper Meg, Ryan Watch look at a picture of Olisa Milano from her days. WHO's the boss or whatever so real? Jay Solo knows better guys. Genius can call the sheriff. Sheriff Come Right Societe She's got seven. Right that house, so clearly. He got to be another study out there. Joe showing that children are massive super spreaders, even though the Icelandic study found zero examples of that. Well, you'd be right. There are other studies. Maybe the real Jay Solo. Should check this out to. Here's the third tweet in this awesome thread by Mr. Nas saying, you know they did another study in Ireland on the kids to. Researchers compared infected children with infected adults. This is crazy, Joe. This is Craig because we've been told the kids. It's going to be an epidemic with the kids. Quote the Ireland Study, not the Iceland study. Case the real Jay Solar. That's an are instead of a see that the fake Jay Solo the real Jaso, he says. Despite identifying scientists that he had total of seven hundred twenty two context for the infected children. Sounds like a lot. The study found way way. What did it find a my palm? I reading? This right found not a single instance of an infected child passing on the virus. The hold of deckhand be that can't be is the real Jay Solo really this. WAY WAIT! There's more in this tweet threat because this is, this is genius. In contrast, the adults who were infected had fewer contacts, one, hundred and two. And yet did pass on the infection. Come back to me, so go back so just to be clear Over seven hundred traced context and Ireland Ireland Not Iceland. That's the Iceland studies at different study where they found zero children. Who passed it on the Ireland study. Studied Seven, hundred twenty two context say large sample size I don't know if the real Jay Solo. There's science. This announced the maybe the fate. J. Sold us, but that's a lot. That's a sample size. Seven hundred twenty two context, they can't find a single instance of a child passing it on. I DID SCIENCE Science. Science you do science. If signs imbecilities. That's the science you do. kind of weird, Joe. How the adults? Had won seven of the contacts, one hundred and two contacts rather than the kids. You can't play and run around with each other in groups. And the adults did pass on. which if you believe in things like science, real science, not media science dreaded air quotes. That should tell you that adults are the one spreading this, not the kids, but no. Let's keep them out of school now. Surely Ireland Iceland. You're like can't possibly be another study out there. That shows the same thing right because the media. You know you're not hearing this anywhere in the in the media. That wants to keep. The coup school shut because trump said to open them up. By the way one quick before I get back. I say to the trump team. This being bit sarcastic, but Not really trump should come out and say shut the schools dad forever. The medium come out to Marseille. Open them up tomorrow. There's no risk look at the science because they're idiots. They really that stupid. They are I've worked with these people in my prior line of work. They are more aunts. I'm telling you ladies and gentlemen. It's not an isolated example. There are people like the real Jay Solo everywhere. In the media, not all of them, there are some. It's very rare to find someone in the media who has an Iq in the triple digits? Evidence. What they're saying about schools is true at all. You may say surely. There's not enough you watch it on Youtube. You've got to kind of see ahead. Put that tweet chain again. You like Ireland Iceland. No cases kids transmitting the virus. That's crazy. Maybe they're not because they're young and healthy. They're not developing a viral load shedding enough virus to actually transmit it to others. Maybe if you believe in science, you would read that. In the Netherlands, there's another report by the Ministry of Health based on extensive contact tracing data. Here we go, Joe. This is crazy again. Also found almost no disease spread by infected patients, twenty and under at all. By the way if you read that tweet, thread and I encourage you to go to Mr Newman Haas's account. There's a chart table and the interest of time for the show so much to get I'm really sorry. Today's really voted. There's a chart. Bar Graph for the real Jay Solo and stuff. And the bar graph has some interesting data for people nineteen and under. Bar Graph number of people to contact tracing they infected. You know what the interesting part about the bar graph JOE is. There's no bars for people nineteen another now for the real Jay Solo. You've ever read a bar graph before the way this works is the reason. There's no bars because there are no people they've infected. Maybe the fake Jay. Solo do that, but not the real one. He's going to call the manager on you indefinitely. Call the sheriff. God forbid you use like science it stop. Science. No people. On their nineteen. Folks that would. Listen I'm not an epidemiologist or an infectious disease expert. But I believe in science and Common Sense. And I believe in questions. And if we're finding rates of transmission amongst people, Nineteen and younger close to zero. Maybe that would tell you something Joe. Maybe because they're young and healthy. Generally speaking, their immune systems are combating this. They're not developing enough virus in their body to infect others. I'm just asking a question. You're not a doctor. You can't ask question swell I'm not a moron either and I will ask questions. But just maybe that could be the case. He's all scientific phenomenon. Things beg questions if you're. Want to open up your ears. Maybe media people once in a while. You should take the cotton out of your ears, and like stick it in your mouth and listen once in a while. Instead of always teenyboppers acting like they know things they really don't. Folks at stunning data. Think about what I just told you zero transmission shut the schools down. Good! You didn't know that. I didn't know was. We can either Yeah. I didn't either I. Mean Josie I did not know that I read that tweet thread and I was like this can't be based on science until I actually went to the study and looked it up and he's right. All right. Let me get to my second sponsor. I got a lot more to get to including stone. Losing their mind over the Roger Stone commutation losing their trigger warning. We're going to talk about Roger. Stone next liberals go get your s'mores than your snuggie I know it's going to be tough to deal with today. Show also brought to you by friends at net sweet. Hey, the last few months have taught us. What's really important life? They've taught us what we need to eliminate change. It's the same for business. What are the changes you need to make today? Do you have this hairball of multiple software systems. You know the ones that are all over the place, and they're not streamlined. Why not streamline with one? Do what we do go with net suite. by Oracle, the world's number, one cloud business system finance HR inventory ECOMMERCE everything. You need all in one place, so you save time money, and you save yourself the headaches. Doesn't matter if you're doing. A million or hundreds of millions of sales doesn't matter. Sweet is for you. It gives you the visibility control of your whole business. You can manage every penny with the precision that matters. Join over twenty thousand companies who trust nets sweet to go faster with confidence today that's sweet surveyed hundreds of business leaders and assemble the playbook for the top strategies. They're using as America reopens for business now. Receive your free guide seven actions businesses need to take now and schedule your free product toward today. Don't wait go two net sweet dot com slash Bongino. Get Your Free Guide and schedule your free product or right now at net sweet dot com slash Bongino stop wasting time. Stop wasting money. Go to net sweet dot com slash Bongino today. Make your business more efficient important nets, we dot com slash Bongino. Thanks in that sweet for sponsor and show appreciate all right. Getting back to so again, Joe trigger warning here for the lips. You all have a tough time Roger Stone got his sentence was commuted Roger Stone. Is a known Republican operative. He's been in Republican circles since the Nixon days as a behind the seems operative listen, he's. He's known for being an edgy kind of operative. Who can you know? Get into some things that a couple people might be like. That stone. But. Roger Stone was. Attacked ruthlessly by the Muller Team, because of one reason and one reason only. Stone decided at one point to engage in the dastardly act of. Providing some of the trump T- people advice he thought would help them get elected. Oh, my Gosh! You gotTA throw him in jail if He lied Bob. We'll get to that a minute so president. Trump on Friday commuted his sentence. Roger Stone put out a video subsequently of him dancing to tone, Luke's wild thing that's on my social media feed, which is I'm not kidding, which is hello. Roger started. She has some moves. He's into seventies and the liberals promptly lost their minds. Joe the, tyrants, liberals want people in jail. The guillotine anyone who goes near trump because that's just how they are. They're all anti-free-speech. Tyrants! That's what they do. So in response, the broken fully discredited. Adjust disaster right now? Bob Muller decided be a good idea to write a Washington Post op it because it wasn't good enough that he humiliated himself and embarrassed the whole country in a two year escapade, trying to prove a collusion hoax he knew from the start was a hoax. That wasn't enough joke now. He's got a pile on at the remember Bob Muller. Who didn't even know who fusion GPS was as Bob Muller so. Bob decided to put this Washington Post op. Robert Muller Roger Stone remains a convicted Felon and rightly so seriously folks. I'm not even sure. Bob Muller knows who Roger Stone based on his last testimony up on Capitol Hill. I don't think he wrote this op Ed. I'm not kidding. That's not a joke. It's not like one of these Biden jokes. We make when Biden loses place in the. The middle of the sense, no, this is real. I'm not kidding I, think he? Someone slapped his name on that I. Don't mean it's some conspiracy I mean. Keep probably knew they were going to slap as I have no doubt Bob. Muller like is report. He knew nothing. Remember the Muller Report. They were like man Bob. How do you feel about fusion GPS? He was like what. that. S The real Jay Solo. What fusions may be here? He's a reporter, I don't WanNa. EAT BUFFET! Jay, so let me ask the real jet. What's fusion GPS BOB? Bob Fusion GPS another company paid for the dossier thing. You're supposed to be invested dossier, not my purview now. Well, what was your purview? Bob was anything your purview. So, he decided to fake. Right this up doubt he even wrote it. Someone Rooted Forum and he slapped his name on it because again. He can't stay out of this case because he's just been humiliated over and over again. So the fascinating thing about Bob, Muller, going after Roger Stone again in his nonsense op-ed is Bob Muller is now a fully discredited political hack? Yeah, oh my gosh, just service the. Thank you I mean it that this. Not absolve you for making really dumb stupid decisions. You've made over and over Bob. Bob Muller engaged. Let's just remind everyone Bob Muller new things when he started this investigation into trump. Bob Muller knew this case was a hoax. Dan. He's decorated public servant. We're not allowed to attack. His credibility were not even we gauged cynical. My second book on this exonerated where I go to in detail. HOW MULLER NEW THE ENTIRE TIME! This thing was a hoax, yeah! But it almost two hundred pages of it. You can't read that book and come away with it thinking anything other than the fact. That Bob Muller was engaged in an unbelievably unethical immoral investigation. How do we know that? Because when Bob Muller was just a few months into his investigation. They spoke to the translator at trump. Tower who was in that meeting with Don Jr... Alleged the Russian collusion may have hatched. The translator who was in that meeting with Don Jr. and those Russians? Bob Muller Steam spoke through translator. You didn't hear this. You didn't hear this on CNN or MSNBC. You Miss you miss that. 'cause they're actual notes. But you never heard about what the translator said. Did you well? Here's what the translator Anatoly Summa Chernoff. About the meeting between Don Jr. and the Russians you know the one the liberal swift Bob Mueller noses by the way because his is the one who interviewed him. Check this out. Here's the notes from the meeting. This is the translator who is in the meeting with Don Jr. quote. There was no smoking gun according to some mature enough. There was not a discussion about dirt on Hillary, and the translator saw mature enough did not think Hillary Clinton was mentioned by name at the meeting at all. So mature enough had not heard the Russian Veselnitskaya say anything about having dirt on Hillary and Veselnitskaya did not offer any materials during the meeting and no papers were exchanged. But there was no follow up to the meeting. That mature enough knows about be clear. The high and mighty Bob Muller. How dare we criticize? How dare you? Engaged in a two year Russian collusion investigation centered on a meeting junior had to Russians where none of the things actually came up about Russians Russian collusion or Hillary just checking. Because Uncle Bob new that because his team's the one that did the interview. You didn't hear that in the media anywhere digit. Highly Ethical Bob Muller sure. What else did Bob? Know what Bob knew that the FBI in January of twenty, seventeen met with Christopher Steele, who wrote the? Dossier. And in that meeting he met with Christopher Steele primary source who allegedly gave him this information. The FBI interview Michael Bob knew this surely Bob knew that the FBI in January two thousand seventeen interviewed steel source, and the stores must have said Yeah, man this stuff. It's all true. The tape trump collude with the. He knew that right. Let's listen to Lindsey Graham. who kind of knows about that? January twenty seventeen meeting? Here's an interview with the Great. Cheryl Atkinson. Check this out thing Charlatan treats me. The most is in January twenty seventeen, the primary sub source rush on who prepared all information to give Christopher Steele to go in the dossier. was interviewed by the FBI and the Department of Justice were four people in the interview, and he basically told them according to the Horowitz report. This is talk is not reliable I. Never meant to be used this way. I can't believe you're getting a warrant based on this document. Okay, so just to be clear. Op Ed writer now. Op Ed writer for The Washington Post. Bob, Muller. Who wants to again double down? His bogus investigations started investigation, knowing all of it was false. Everybody debunked it, and that every source involved including people involved in actual meetings had no evidence of Russian collusion at all. But. Let's defer to Bob for his experts. Bob Who didn't even know what fusion GPS was. Real Champ Bob Mode I'll never forget seeing him in the airport at Reagan, coming back for meeting in DC and him, dropping his head and disgrace as he walked by me, I will never forget that. In disgrace walking by me. Stare at right. He's tall. He's a big guy. Stared at. The face the whole way down. By pecan advertisement is still staring. Now the media of course is still pumping this Roger Stone Oh my gosh, we gotta get this guy jail immediately, Joe. He was the one he was the conduit between the Russians and trump was. So the media has evidence, I've heard it all over the place including discredited, MSNBC Chris Hayes suggesting again that stone with some kind of Russian collusion intermediary. There's evidence that. Roger Stone. You know who sentences commuted. There's evidence that stone was an intermediary between trump and the Russians. Where where's that evidence? I haven't seen that I. WANNA hat tip. Mateo had the screen shots up on his twitter account. Who suggested that? If you believe Roger Stone was an intermediary to the Russians and you have evidence that. Maybe you should tell the Washington Post the. New York Times way what? Some of the same leftist radicals who are telling you that Roger? Stone was an intermediary to the Russian collusion scheme. Probably read these papers that've already reported that that's not exactly true. Let's go to Washington? Post piece number one here fascinating. Washington Post. This is from a while ago. Randi credit go who was a friend than an ally of Roger Stone Credit Co flatly rejected a claim that Roger Stone made the Congress. That credit was a secret intermediary to wikileaks and assange. The Washington Post. He conceded that he promised to reach out to wikileaks on stones behalf, but testified that he never did. I can't possibly be true. We've been told. Roger Stone was his big time intermediary between wikileaks. The Russia coordinated the whole thing, but he never even spoke to them as reported in the Washington. Post just just checking maybe so much to tell Chris Hayes, I'm sure he reads the Washington Post. So Joe. Definitely other people confirm this. That stone was the intermediary. He's the middleman middleman for this big conspiracy stones coordinating everything sure. Russians Roger Stone's Putin in his back pocket. So Randy credit goes on. Friends, said now it's not exactly true. We were lying about that, so secondly, definitely, someone else confirmed this maybe Steve. Bannon right Steve Bannon. Who Knew these people? So let's go to the Washington Post article number two. On Cross examination by Roger Stone's lawyers, Robert bushel Batman conceded that stone never claim to him that he had advanced access to the team of Washington. Post that crazy so stone hasn't talked to Putin. Was Not coordinating quickey leaks and didn't have access to these data I'm not defend. Roger, I met him once at a Fort Lauderdale. I'm simply suggesting to you that the media again is lying to you about what stone did because he didn't do what they said he did. As reported by some in the media themselves that were forced me may say. Why are we crediting The Washington Post? I'm not. They had to report on this because this was sworn testimony by Bannon and credit go, they couldn't lie about it. Someone raised their right hand and said here's the whole truth. You may say well definitely the New York. Times has evidenced that Roger Stone was he was the big Koluder the big Koluder. Ron Koluder. Collider. I. He's the Hadrian colluded definitely. The New York Times has evidence I'd like to see that then, too. Because this is what the New York Times had a report themselves that quote. In fact, Mr Stony former campaign adviser had no real ties to wikileaks. Oh, my gosh isn't as crazy yeah. Again folks. If. You're listening to Chris Hayes. Left wing media and others out there I'm really deeply sorry that you live in a world that doesn't exist. There is no evidence of that for Roger. Stone. You have to like Roger you don't have the latest like tactics, but I suggest Roger. Stone's should sue anyone on TV. Who says that he was a middleman between the Russians wikileaks and trump because it is not true. It's interesting. The media so upset about this commutation as well remember Bill Clinton when he pardoned Susan McDougal member that way, yeah, Susan McDougal had all the dirt on the Whitewater thing and McDougall said I say squat and went to jail over it. Remember that pardon. We Clinton Not Media Love that one. They were like Susan McDougal so loyal. Bill Clinton Loyalty was peeps. There are phonies folks these people off. It's a total joke. Oh, and by the way remember that guy who's it from Platte river networks? The guy they spoke to who admitted that he lied to the FBI about the whole Hillary Clinton server thing. Yeah, remember that guy you know. The Guy Prosecutors do intended twenty in jail. Oh, just kidding. He wasn't prosecuted all doing no time in jail. Yeah, that guy so again! The Media Joe's very concerned about Roger Stone lying very concerned until someone who lies Benefits Hillary Clinton and they're like. Don't ever forget this. May Say Dan Wellstone. He didn't tell the truth in front is hearing. Ladies and gentlemen the on Application, the uneven application of justice is no justice at all. Never forget that. The uneven application of justice is no justice at all. And we are to fight against that at all times and places everywhere good for trump for commuting the sentence I employed him. All Right? Let me get to my last sponsor. I'm going to try to get to get so much. More Mike I'm really angry. I can't get through all of this today because I got Thomas Soul stuff, which is awesome. Stuff and the awesome CEO of Goya. Love I bought some. Saas Zone yes, by three just by one I already have enough Adobo I bought a really. We don't have enough Adobo to like salt meat from now to the end of time. If I had beef Jerky, I could salt with Adobo seven eight hundred pounds of it and I still have some leftover. All right now final sponsor of the day, but a great one because it's our families new favourite Goto is magic spoon growing up cereals, one of the best parts of being a kid. Come on, you know it, but I had to give it up because I'm a health nut I realize a lot of the cereals out. There are sugar junk. Just look on the back and you really shouldn't need them now. We have magic spoon. I'm just warning you folks before you try this. The minute you eat the first bowl you're going to be hooked. Stuff is magic. Spoon has zero sugar eleven grams of protein, and only three grams of carbs in each serving. It tastes amazing to me. It tastes phenomenal. It really does my oldest daughter absolutely loves it. The only downside is, we can't order enough because she eats them right away and it makes my youngest daughter. It takes amazing, and it's too good to be true. You're going to it, but it's not. It has four flavors, Cocoa, fruity, frost and blueberries Isabelle's favor. Boo! She loves the blue. It's Kito Friendly Gluten, free grain, free, soy, free, low-carbon GMO free, and it's awesome. It's awesome on the awesome scale. It's ten go to magic spoon dot com slash Bungee, grab variety pack and try today's which flavors your favorite. Use Promo Code Bongino and you'll get free shipping. Magic spoons so confident in their. It's back with a one hundred percent happiness guarantee. If you don't like it for any reason, they'll refund your money. No questions asked you eight. Sending it back could go to magic spoon dot. COM Slash Bongino. Use Promo Code Bongino for free shipping. Thanks Magic Spoon for sponsoring the podcast again. It's magic spoon dot com slash bunch. Today stuffs the real deal. Going to start going a little longer on the show these days folks got an election coming up. I got a lot of material. A lot of people email me their commuter over an hour. They get upset. That fits in our show and their commutes an hour fifteen minutes that they got listen to radio for fifteen minutes after that they're like. You gotta give us some more stuff. I'm here for you, talk. So the Great Mark Levin. He's called great one for a reason. There is no other great one. HUMAN BEINGS OF COURSE We love mark he had. The fantabulous and credit, one of the smartest human beings I have ever. Read or come across as Matthew Thomas Soul on life liberty, and did you see it if you did not see it last night? Sunday you made a huge mistake because Thomas soul is incredible mark Levin is a genius, and it was one of the great interviews I've seen in a long time. So Mark Thomas Soul on. And you know my favorite book of All Time Right Division vision of the anointed by Thomas Soul changed. My Life at is my favorite book of All Time I love it by copy by a thousand copies to give them out to everyone you know. Maybe someone will read. It will change your life. So Thomas Soul economist philosopher, and just all around great human being was on last night. He was asked by mark about the term systemic racism, which is a meaningless term. Term. It doesn't actually mean anything because when you ask people to define it. And what system systemic racism meaning. There's a system that they'll never tell you what the system is because whenever they use the term systemic racism, there oddly always talking about liberal cities where the systems liberal, so they avoid answering the question, so Mark Thomas all about systemic racism, and he was this answer, which is great here? This phrase, systemic racism systemic oppression. You hear it on our college campuses. Do hear it from. Very wealthy and fabulously famous sports stars. You hear it from media types. You hear it. First of all. What does that mean and whatever it means is a true, it really has no meaning which specify and tested the way the one test hypotheses. Are It does remind me of the propaganda. Tactics of Joseph Girl do the age of the Nazis. In which he? said that people will believe any lie repeated long enough and loud enough, and that's what we're yet I. Don't think it's one of many words that I. Don't think even the people who use a clear idea what they're saying. The famous the server, having other people, K, then ladies and gentlemen. This man is a genius. I'm not kidding. I am not Awestruck or I don't fan boy anyone I. Don't I? Just don't care. I gotTA. Tell you the only time I think I'd be in a loss for words is if I ran into Thomas Sowell I thought. I saw him one time in an airport. I thought he was too I'm not sure if it was as far away. And the only thing that stopped me from going and grabbing who I thought was Thomas, so he was too far away from to make out any kind of positive ID. Only thing that stopped me was I was running for office in the media person I was with was like we gotta go. This is one of the great legends of our time. He deserves the presidential medal of freedom for the genius city is. His book again. Vision of the anointed is a life changing book about the failure. A far left radical ideology. My admiration for him is deep. The man is ninety years old and congratulations to mark Levin for scoring that interview if you haven't watched the show. I don't at this point in Dvr it. You gotTa Dvr Mark Show Life Liberty and the van. It's important. But I'm sure you can go to your comcast APP or whatever it is and watch it or just you need to watch it. It was really fantastic. Show soul has a new book out to about charter schools. Show you how Great Thomas Solas I've been watching his videos for years. They've changed my life I. Don't I'm not I'm not hyperbolic I changed my life meeting. I would be different person now without the commentary and writings and thoughts of the legendary Thomas saw. Here's one of my favorites a little over a minute. This is from decades ago. But this is Thomas Soul in his younger days on a debating show with a far-left radical woman named Helen o'bannon was the Pennsylvania Bureaucrat in charge of welfare programs. And the reason, this is important. This segment is because Thomas Soul is great at debunking fallacies. False arguments used to advance fake stories. He addresses two of them here and I'll play the clip for you in a minute I encourage you to listen to every word of this because he's a genius. He I've never seen this man loser. Debate soul ever. The left always loves to start. The story in the middle. That'll make sense you see this clip. You see what I mean, but secondly. They always engage in the broken leg fallacy. The broken leg fallacy meaning broken leg. They treat it with the same thing that broke the leg. In other words, they try to bring in government remedies for problems. The government caused themselves and ignore the fact that the government caused it, so keep those two things in mind. How the left we start the story in the middle. And how they propose government solutions for problems. The government caused. They expect you to thank them for watch. Soldier totally dismantled this woman. In this classic epic Clip Cut Off Welfare tomorrow. What will they do? What will be their immediate response at what price to their small children and to their Middle aged children Yes, they'll get a job. In fact, the statistics show that women in fact are the most successful through the employment program, but what has to supplement that typically provision of some kind of daycare arrangement. Either the individual woman has to earn enough money to be able to pay privately for her daycare, or in fact, she is subsidized through this insidious corrupting program set of programs run by the federal government, which in fact makes her employable in taxpayer It's a it's an interesting notion of trying to get people in a productive mode. Tom Is incredible the way the way you start the story in the middle as if there's a predestined amount of poverty, predestined amount of unemployment that the welfare system is not itself way responsible, predestined twenty percent of the bottom half of the population I have never off well. That's always been. It's also true that twenty percent of the bottom doesn't have to be living on the government and ruled by the government. You mentioned for example the female-headed household, many of those additions of the wrong woman who has all all the kids are teenage pregnancies There's not a predestined amount of teenage pregnancy I grew up in an era when people particularly blocks where a lot poorer than today faced a lot more discrimination than today, and then which the teenage pregnancy rate was a lot lower than today i. don't believe there is a predestined amount of teenage pregnancy. A predestined amount of husband desertion Bettman has done a study of the black family showing that this whole notion that this. Family has always been disintegrating. That is nonsense. This study is go to nineteen twenty five. The great bulk of black families were intact. Two Parent Families Up get twenty five and going all the way through the Arrow slavery, so it is now only within our own time that we suddenly see this inevitable tragedy, which the welfare system says it's going to rush to solve the which is itself a for? The man is genius I'm. I really I mean I'm in awe of his genius. Now, that was a complicated clip, but it's worth your time to dig through it what he's saying there. The woman Helen o'bannon who I don't know have never met I don't know if she's still around, not God rest or so. She's trying to make the argument that. Well, if we would take mothers off welfare, what are we going to do with them? And so comes back and he says well. That's fascinating that you started that kind of book in the middle whenever, asking well. How did they get on welfare in the first place? And Inter arguments in return as Well! There's always GonNa be people on Welfare. There's a bottom twenty percent. And so it was like. What are you suggesting you're suggesting? Some other people are predestined to be poor and stupid or something. What are you suggesting? What are you suggested? I mean isn't a souls in other words. There isn't that kind of racist. And classist that somehow there's a predestine lower twenty percent that just cannot escape their own. What in mental incapacities an inability where none of that's true? None of that's true. None of that is true. There is a bottom twenty percent some on welfare, precisely because of incentive set up by government system that has caused this chaos. Any challenged you totally removing any responsibility of the welfare system is set up in and of itself declaring there's always GonNa be a bottom twenty last set by the way because ladies and gentlemen if you understand simple. Now, you understand bath. If, you just understand common sense. Joe Of course there's always GonNa be a bottom twenty percent sold. Point is if the bottom twenty percent are doing really well. Then they're not necessarily poor. In other words, if everybody was making a trillion dollars in the bottom twenty percent or making a million real money, no-one's crying for the bottom twenty per said. She suggesting that there's people destined to be poor. Ignorant. Who are in this fixed bottom twenty percent of the government's GonNa, come in and save the day. Government's causing that these people are predestined for anything. The people in that bottom twenty percent many are there because the government is destroyed their lives. They have set up a set of incentives that many of these people could not escape. The government has failed them. Stop starting the story in the middle. Let's get to the root of the problem I. and she says that bottom twenty percent is almost inevitable. What she's hinting at to make you believe he could. Government had no role in it. That's why she's doing that and sold immediately catches it. That's not true of course by simple math, always going to have a bottom twenty minutes after mean that doesn't mean you have to be poor. The bottom twenty percent. You want just a simple example. The bottom twenty percent in Indonesia makes far less money than the bottom twenty percent of the United States. Twenty Percent Yep it relative condition matters. How did the bottom twenty percent? India make as much as they make versus the bottom twenty percent here. Something's different. Governing systems are different. They do this all the time the left. Don't let them get away with it. Souls just a genius with that. All right I wanted to get through this. Because I, T's that on my partner account where I do, the show feeds morning I'm sorry if you hear that in the by my landscape, guys making me crazy in the background, so forgive me if that's bleeding through. Are you hearing any of that show? Yeah, it makes me a little. Off with outside my place. Here no, no, no, it's not all right. Sorry about that folks, but still I got you know like the show goes on no matter what. So my new hero is the CEO of Goya. Love this Guy Bob. Who New again from saying your name wrong? Forgive me I say my own name wrong a lot, but here's a piece up and legal insurrection. Be at the show notes today. Check this out. It's so worth your time. This yoga is not backing down one bit so again. He made the dreaded mistake with air quotes here, the dreaded mistake of going to the White House and say president trump's a builder. We like this guy you know God forbid me about the same guy. God forbid you say that the White House with trump. Of course you have to be boycotted immediately. By the CEO of has been at meetings with Michelle Obama Barack Obama as well and ladies gentlemen businesses. Do you're invited to the White House go? It's not a mystery, okay? So he went praised president trump the boycott brigade began. Here's the article up. Legal Insurrection folks just. Like an incredible, these people never give up. Folks. It's time to get up and dance again. Listen I hope he holds strong. It sounds like he's going to the CEO of Mr Bob Call Mr because I don't like mispronounce his last name and I'm sure I'm doing it. Despite how many times did because I've heard it three or four different ways? But. It's time to get up and dance and do something and. You remember my get up and dance show I did I. don't talk about dance like you gotta show moves. Roger Stone. I talk about that video I've I've spoken about many times in the show that was shown to me by conservative activist once. It's a guy at a festival, the dancing to music and it's kind of an interesting dance. And people laughing at him it. I Think, it's funny. Then all of a sudden, the first guy gets up and starts dancing with him. And about two and a half minutes later. The entire Park is dancing with the guy. They were laughing at the beginning. I'm sure a lot of liberals are laughing at Mr Bob the CEO Right now mocking. Do Sky praising President Trump God forbid. Folks. We need some other. CEO's to stand up and stand with a member. It's not the person who gets up and dance. It's the first person to join him matters. We need to back the sky up. You need to dance with him. Picked up some. Saas own here. We're GONNA. See My kids using a mess with you, but some Goya. Olive oil to this weekend. That one didn't get delivered I. Don't know why maybe the bottle broke, but we got some suss own coming. Like. Why did you have three times? Because I bought three of them, probably will use three of them any time soon. Maybe one or two, but. Maybe I'll give one away. By? Maye brings obsess own Goya. Gentleman go out by some going at products. Got To stand up and dance moneymatters I'm sorry, I wish I wish. We lived in a nice cutesy world where? Everybody did the right thing and we can all live in the you know. Literally takes a village, but that's not the way the world works. We have to go out. Do the right thing. We've got to back this guy up. Go pick up some products. They'll do with that. They're not a sponsor. I have no financial interest. In Goya. I don't even know if it's a public didn't even look it up. But this guy deserves our support. All, he said was that he thought the president was a builder. Doing a good job I'm not even sure what is even matter. It's probably milk toast, and he's being attacked by the cancel culture lunatics on the left and it's a disgrace. Should I do the mccloskey's? We do the AOC thing. Paula can be skip ahead of the mccloskey's tomorrow. I final story today. This we're bookending this show Joe. With. Ignorant. Mrs We had. A Real Jason, not fake Jay, solo the real Jay Solo. I you know? Want to speak to the manager and the sheriff about. People who dare to be out in public on mass dare dare the Real Jay. Solo was deeply so on the other end. We have. Seen. This stole laugh because you've already seen a job. Cheat on video stuff. Gets to cheat on the visuals because she does. Joe Does the audio video and drew season, but the show is already over. So AFC would who's always a source of comic relief. It's a stunning people take. Representative, seriously I'm not kidding. It really is. I! I can't recall any kind of major statement. She's made that it's not come with hilarity afterwards because she said remember when she was puzzled by culture. Remember Joe always. Remember look plants I remember that really. She. Can they crow like him the dirt? This is a Oh see. Now a lot of you email me after i. do a OC segments and you say things like why don't ignore Dan No, Women's ideas are very dangerous. Ideas, she claims to believe in have led to the downfall of civilized society. Since the beginning of time, these ideas have to be called out and challenge. You ignore them at your peril. By the way Paula very rarely gets angry politicians. She seems to have taken a personal dislike. Lately I just want my my correct. In that analysis. She's given me a head nod. She very rarely comments on the videos I send her, so here's a Oh this weekend. Who face plants again and in a Zoom townhall session? As if she's trying to say the dumbest things possible, she succeeded this weekend. She suggesting that Joe Ignore the six hundred percent increase in shootings in new. York City Year over year and the twenty-seven percent increase in murders because don't worry, Joe. It's just people who are hungry trying to feed their kids. No, no, no, I'm like play the cut. So why is this uptick in happening? Well, let's think about it. Do we think this has to do with the fact that there's record unemployment in the United States right now? The fact that people are at a level of economic desperation that we have not seen since the great recession. Maybe this has to do with the fact that people aren't paying their rent and are scared to pay their rents, and so they go out, and they need a feed their child and they don't have money. You may be have to your. They're put in a position where they feel like they either need to shoplift some bread or go hungry. That might so as Paula brought up, which was a brilliant point to hat tip and this footnote getting a lot of mentions the show today. John Channel Row. So she suggesting what the poor people steal stuff. Again just kind of like Helen o'bannon, but the suggestion that there's a bottom twenty percent of people who are really dumb and could do nothing to change their condition. You know liberals. They always do this stuff. She, suggesting, if you don't make a lot of money, you're struggling that you're going to go steal stuff from people. I'm I'm asking. Feel free to respond. What were you saying there? Can't pay the rent, so they're out there shoplifting. But secondly. Joe Again Science and data. It's always tough for liberals I get especially see process barely any information all God forbid like complex information looking at the science so. That should be challengeable. Hypothesis Correct Joe if the economy hypotheses. I'm trying to formulate the stupid into. Go here and thought for her, so the economy gets bad. Shoplifting goes up and that's what the crime wave is all about so we should be able to look at that correct Joe. Shoplifting called Petty Larceny I'm not sure she knows that, but that's the chargers Grand Larceny pennant larceny. I've rested quite a few people in the NYPD for stealing things. We should be able to empirically look at that right well. I did and it turns out that Pettit Larcenies Yorker down seven point five percent. It. Yeah So murders and shootings are up. So just to test the hypothesis you walk in the store and you're murdering the guy, but you're not stealing the bread. I'm just checking. What am I missing I'm just asking? Shootings are up six hundred percent murders twenty seven of a peddler Caesar down, but she just told us their shoplifting bread. Now you may say that can't possibly be true. It is so it's go to the new. York Post which has a great article about this. You can read at the show today again. Bongino DOT com slash newsletter for the show notes. HEO SEE BLAMES ECONOMY FOR NEW YORK. City crimewave, not the PD cuts. So, we go down in the New, York Post piece and we see this little gem. Genius assertion that they're stealing bread and that's the cause of people murdering people. US Rep. Alexandria Costs Cortez on so they bizarrely claimed that Hungary. Not laughing, this is just so stupid. I can't believe this that Hungary New Yorkers are stealing stealing bread where behind an uptick in crime in the city. Despite the fact that overall crime is down while shootings and murders of sort. People follow this. Representative, OCASIO accordance people follow. They believe her. spouts nonsense twenty four hours a day. And lemming-like followers walk right off the intellectual cliff with her. Shootings up six hundred percent. She thinks it's because people are stealing bread. Despite Pettit, larcenies being down, I'd just asking. They're shooting the guy in the store, but not stealing the bread. Or they're shooting guy stealing the bread and hiding the fact that they stoled. Hiding the bread like the not the gun hiding bread, so the cops get the guy for the gun, but the breads hidden. Don't let them see the bread like flushing it down the toilet. Like the wife and Goodfellas when they do to rate flushing the bread. What about the gun don't worry about? The good flushed pride can't let them find the bread. We don't want petted larcenies to go up. I mean what planet does this woman live on? Representative Alexandria Alexandria Akeso Cortes. What? I'm not mispronouncing a mistake at number today, but I I listen. I've always said congratulations you WANNA. Seat in Congress is very hard to do. I did not having said that your responsibility. Representative Casey Cortes to actually know stuff. Of Which? You don't. All right I'll get to the mccloskey's tomorrow. I was pretty cool. Story at the show notes. Maybe I'll talk about, but read it anyway about trump doing more airport rallies. Good Idea open-air hangers. If I go into tomorrow. How advances for those secrets are pretty cool story, secret service, and how to do it pretty cool, so check that out. Thanks again for making us top twenty on pod track. I open that email this morning. Because I follow the industry and I was just Kinda floored seventeenth, most listened to podcasts in the country. That is thanks to you all thanks to you one hundred percent, my sincere, heartfelt gratitude, please subscribe to the show on Apple podcast soundcloud wherever you find your podcast youtube. youtubecom Bongino. Just heard Dan, Bongino,

Wayne Joe Roger Stone trump Jay Bob Muller Jay Solo Robert Muller Roger Stone Michael Bob Florida Paula United States Hillary Clinton twitter trump America Dan Joe Let FBI reporter Tea Party
CAFE Insider 05/06: Bill Barr: The Politics of "Snitty"

Stay Tuned with Preet

11:01 min | 1 year ago

CAFE Insider 05/06: Bill Barr: The Politics of "Snitty"

"Hey, folks, another week and no sign of the new slowing down. Bill VAR is coming under increasing scrutiny for his handling of Muller's investigation. There's been a flurry of letters to make sense of including the letter the president's personal attorney Emmett flood sent a bar. There's the question of Bob Muller testifying and and your time story about an undercover FBI investigated that has fueled allegations of campaign spying. I talk about all this and more on the cafe insider podcast where each week and milligram joins me to break down the news and take stock of what's happening. The podcast is part of the cafe insider membership today, we're making a clip from the most recent episode available in the stay tuned feed to listen to our full conversation and access all other cafe insider content, including a weekly newsletter and bonus content from stay tuned. Become a member have cafe dot com slash insider. That's cafe dot com slash insider. A couple of other exchanges that now maybe look a little different in light of the back and forth between Bob Muller and Bill bar, those letters that became public whereby mother clearly on multiple occasions wanted the Justice department to put out the special counsel's own summaries that didn't need to be redacted to the public as opposed to the four page letter the Bill bar sent on March twenty fourth and one of those is an exchange from back in April between Charlie Crist democratic Representative from Florida and Bill bar where Charlie Chris reports have emerged recently that members of the special counsel team are frustrated at some level. With the limited information included in your March twenty four letter, do you know what they are referencing with that not the greatest question in the world. But you know, I think ordinary people would understand it and Barr says, no, I don't know. I don't I think I think and then he says I suspect that they probably wanted more put out, but in my view, I was not interested in. Putting out summaries which we've already discussed this bizarre because he put out a summary. And that's maybe why he doesn't want to call his own thing a summary. So he could say this thing with a straight face was that was that perjury. There's a couple of questions here, and obviously he's under oath. And so I thought about this actually Moore's one thousand and one where you lie to someone conducting an investigation which could be part of we've talked about this in the context of lying to FBI agents. Could you, you know, you're lying to a member of congress about a material fact is. It goes back to my view that he sort of he slides around or tries not to answer directly the questions, and I did read this as you know, when you're a lawyer. And again, this is why people hate lawyers. So let me acknowledge that I like, lawyers I do too. I love lawyers. But, but it's the sort of if you read the question, do you know, what they are referencing with that? They is the press. There's an expression of frustration with the limited information and then bars saying, no, I don't know. And he could be saying I don't know what the press is talking about. And again, I'm parsing here. Which is what I think he was doing. But to me at the end of the day, it's completely false. And it is a lie. Now. Would it be a prosecutable? Why in my mind, I would not charge. I would not charge this crime right as a crime for lotteries. But here's what I think each has. No, I don't he kind of closes it down. Like, he doesn't know anything about any issues. Right. So and then he says I suspect that they meaning Muller's team probably wanted more put out. But he didn't suspect anything he knew he knew it four occasions in which Mahler there's one before the report comes out remorse saying here, my summaries. We would like us are summaries. And then there's three times after the report comes out to in writing one by phone call. There's no way he doesn't know that they thought that there was an issue with the summer he did. And they wanted their summaries out. What what do you think would you prosecute this repurchase or false statement? No, I would not for various reasons because you can see a jury might look at it differently because you have to get to intent. But what I don't get is. I mean, I agree completely false. If someone in your family dissemble that way about something if your kids said that what would you do you would say come on? You're not going off. What's also weird to me? It's totally unnecessary. You know, you have to know at that point that the letters at some point may come out look on other occasions Bill bars perfectly capable of saying a flat. No in ways. It also make him. Look knock very good when he's asked. Will you recuse yourself? Will you follow the? Elections of the ethics officials. He says he says, no, very forthrightly, actually, frankly doesn't make him look good. Because because I'm decider and on other questions to is very forthright. You know to a fault when he wants to assert his power and his progress as attorney general so what I don't get is. Why couldn't you here to say? Yeah, I think I do know what they're talking about. They wanted to put more out. I didn't want out for all these very good reasons that I'm reciting to you that you may disagree with. So I don't get the point of it. Do you think he got just caught? It feels weird to me that he would not have been prepared for that question. Because you, and I we actually haven't even had a chance to talk about this. But knowing who Bob Muller is he's pretty conservative. He's deeply respectful of the chain of command for Bob Mueller to put something in writing. It's like he screaming at belvoir. And and so for most people they might say, oh, the guy wrote a letter. No like, he papered him, which means he put on paper as a record for all time. You did something wrong to Bill bar. You're not representing this. And by the way, you're defeating the whole. Purpose of the special counsel, which is to bring the truth to the American public and to do a good investigation. So, you know, it might not seem like that big a deal, but it is literally like shouting by Bob mall. It is an memorable bar said about the letter then snitty say. That's that's. As an underused were. Yeah. That he thinks he may apply to a lot more things, by the way. I've read the letter snitty, it's not it's actually very straightforward. It was a weird moment in the hearing because bar generally, actually retains his composure. He can be infuriating because he doesn't answer everything completely forthrightly. He's com. Pretty calm. And with respect to this letter. He said, you know, Bob Muller was a political appointee. And he was a political appointee. With me at the department Justice. I don't you know, the letter is a bit snippy. And then he says, and I think it was probably written by one of his staff people. Do you think Bob Muller didn't have the power of the pen over this letter that you describe as a, you know, something that's shouting missive? It doesn't matter who wrote the first draft. Bob Muller signed it just like, do you think Bill are wrote that four-page summary himself? No, I thought that was kind of snitty. Yeah. And. The word was snitty. But somebody else drafted it. And then he probably edited it and made it his own. It's a silly silly thing to say who would reminds me of something else. Rudy Giuliani say there's many things you can say about Muller among them. You could say war hero. And did a thankless job. But of all the criticisms he is not an uncomfortable. He's person he's extraordinarily careful. And so I saw similar to this Rudy Giuliani. When talking about some aspect of the Muller report. And how Muller came to this conclusion about or lack of conclusion about obstruction? I heard really Honey say yet that section of the report, I bet Muller didn't read it, very carefully. There's no way. There's no way. And times to the point where he was probably blurry eyed at three o'clock in the morning, but there's no question. There's one other thing from the hearing to there's we have a listener Jesse who wrote in and asked us why Bill bar wasn't pressed about Senator van halen's questions of Bill Barr. From a previous hearing, quote, and I will discuss that decision after Muller. Support your conclusion, I don't know other. Bob Muller supported my conclusion, and Jesse writes, it seems like van halen's question and answer are harder for bar to dance around. What I think Jesse is asking is why didn't the senators push more on that. Because this is consistent with the conversation. We're having which is it's incredibly clear that bar knew exactly what Muller thought of his summary. And that Muller was not a fan of it. I agree. I think this is also clear dissembling is also trying to make it seem like there was not, you know, huge amount of daylight between bar and Muller on this particular. Score. So I don't get it. It wasn't necessary. Clearly, you know, an ordinary person understanding the question would say, yeah, I think there are probably some disagreements in fact, they Bill bar said at the press conference before the release of the report rod Rosenstein, and I disagree with an disagreed with and continue to disagree with some of the analysis. Bob muller. Especially in the law and how expansive executive authorities. So I don't I don't get why you would sort of leave a misimpression here. But I do think that if you're if you're looking at the question of perjury or the crime of lying to congress that this is even more ambiguous than the exchange with Krist, and it would be difficult to trust the kennel. But it's this thing we keep coming back to both with respect to the president and other people in the White House. And now with the attorney general we should expect something more than behavior that comports with the criminal standard. Yeah. That shouldn't be the question is the question shouldn't be the attorney general it's fine as long as he didn't commit crime. If a judge asked you any of these questions when you were allying prosecutor, or if any of the people you've supervised gave this kind of answer repeatedly during a court hearing that a congressional hearing turned court hearing, I would expect to get a call from the judge and say, you know, you had a prosecutor in here. No doubt who was being too cute by half. You need to talk to that person. And make sure that doesn't happen again. And that person would lose credibility in that courtroom for the rest of that proceeding that trial and maybe for the rest of their career. That's the kind of thing that the tens of thousands of lawyers who Bill bar overseas have to hold themselves to what do you think this means for a, you know, the men and women in US attorney's offices who are out there. And what you I'm sure trained as a as a United States Turney is, you know, you act with integrity, and truthfulness. And then you see the boss the head of the organization doing the exact opposite. It's a terrible thing. Yeah. So I I don't know there have been other occasions most notably in my experience when. Gonzales was the attorney general I think a lot of people they just do their jobs doesn't sort of matter. You know, what what the head of the agency is thinking or saying it probably doesn't help. But I'd like to think that the rank and file folks were prosecuting in a public Russian cases and robbery cases and all the kinds of things that they do keep the country safe and the individual districts safe and hold people accountable that it's like sort of a thing that they can ignore and keep their head down. Just do their jobs. I hope so I hope you enjoy the sample of the cafe insider podcast to listen to the full episode. Head to cafe dot com slash insider and become a member. That's cafe dot com slash insider to the many of you who have chosen to join the insider community. Thank you for supporting our work.

Bob Muller Bill bar Bill bar cafe insider attorney Bill Barr Bill VAR Bill bar special counsel FBI perjury Bob Mueller president Jesse Charlie Crist congress Bob mall Senator van halen United States Bill
Ep. 356 - Muellers Campaign To Get Trump Impeached

The Michael Knowles Show

47:05 min | 1 year ago

Ep. 356 - Muellers Campaign To Get Trump Impeached

"Bob Muller won't go away. And Joe Biden can't be found. We will analyze the former special counsels campaign to get congress to impeach Donald Trump. Then we will try to locate the elusive twenty twenty presidential candidate a maniac lights himself on fire at side, the White House to protest President Trump New York magazine marvels that ugly. Guys wanna look better to get laid and a conservative writer opens a massive debate and very important debate. What exactly we mean by conservatism finally the mailbag? I'm Michael Knowles. And this is the Michael Knowles show. We have an inordinate amount of things to get to today, not the least of which is the former special counsel. Bob Muller basically teeing up a campaign for congress to impeach Trump. Totally showing his partisan cards totally and finally, showing he's not acting in good faith, even though a lot of us gave him the benefit of the doubt. But I think about the peace of mind that you have by being prepared for any emergency. It's just that sort of thing, you've got that low level stress. You worry. Gosh, can I take care of my family? If there's an emergency, what will happen. Why is company takes an innovative approach by providing dependable simple and affordable freeze dried food for emergency preparedness and outdoor use wise company, meals are designed to protect your most valuable asset your family when government resources are strained. It can be days if not weeks before you can get to fresh food and water. We've seen this happen around the country natural disastrous people are trapped don't. Let yourself get stuck in that position. And don't let yourself worry about that. Even if it's a low grade, worry just right now, go over to wise company and just be prepared. Get their food all their ingredients, or chef prepared internally by wise company. Wise emergency food is an investment in peace of mind for your family. Buy it. Forget it store it you'll be prepared. You don't need to worry about your family this week. My listeners get any wise emergency or outdoor food product at an extra twenty five percent off. The lowest marked price at wise, food storage dot com when entering Knowles candidate at checkout, or by calling eight five five four five three two nine four five plus shipping is free. Wise has a ninety day no questions asked return policy. There is no risk and taking the initiative to get yourself and your family. More prepared today. That is wise food storage dot com, promo code Knowles candidate E S to get any wise emergency or outdoor food product at an extra twenty five percent off and free shipping. And then you get peace of mind, and who could. Put a price on that go do it today. All right. Bob muller. I can't defend him at all anymore. I tried to be fair tried to be balanced. I tried to say, maybe he's not a partisan hack is he showed his partisan cards. It was unnecessary and unfortunate yesterday. The former special counsel before he finally left, he held a big press conference to try to frame and President Trump as a sort of criminal to try to frame the what will happen now politically in congress as the congress considers impeachment. Here is the key part of the press conference after that investigation if we had had confidence that the president clearly did not commit a crime. We would have said, so. We did not how ever make a determination as to whether the president did commit a crime, the introduction to the volume two of our report explains that decision. It explains that under long standing department policy a president, president cannot be charged with a federal crime, while he is in office, that is unconstitutional, even if the charges kept under seal and hidden from public view that too, is prohibited. Especial counsel's office is part of the department of Justice and by regulation. It was bound by that department policy charging the president with a crime was there for not an option. We could consider. The departments written opinion, explaining the policy makes several important points that further informed are handling of the obstruction investigation. What Muller did here is so, so wrong, it is so beyond the scope of his job. It is so wrong to politicize the federal government in this way. So what exactly did he do the key? Takeaway, the big line from this press conference is that Muller is not quote confident that the president clearly did not commit a crime. Since when has that been the standard of Justice in this country since one has that been the standard of innocence or guilt in, in this country? Typically, we would say that you are innocent until proven guilty. Now, according to Bob Muller, you are guilty until he is confident that you clearly did not commit a crime. That's the implication here. Bob Muller is not confident that the president did not clearly commit a crime. Okay. So did he commit a crime will no, no, we're not going to conclude that? So you're not saying he committed a crime. Right. I'm not saying he committed a crime. So then you're saying there's, there's no actionable evidence that he committed a crime. Well, yeah, but I'm not confident that he didn't clearly commit a crime that he clearly did not commit a crime. What is this all about? Now, his defense here he comes on and says that under DOJ guidelines he can't indict the president. Okay. So then why was he investigating this obstruction in the first place? Why did he write two hundred pages about obstruction in the first place? I know this is very confusing. It's gone on for years now. We hear about the Muller investigation, the Russia the collusion. What was Bob Muller tasked with doing in the first place? The entire reason Bob Muller was appointed the entire reason he has this investigation is to determine the extent of Russian interference in the two thousand sixteen election, which he did by the way, he indicted, a bunch of Russians you found certain companies in Russia that were working to shift the balance of the two thousand sixteen election actually working for multiple candidates or working rather to advance multiple candidates. So his job was to identify Russian interference. He says explicitly he is not allowed to indict a sitting president. So if he's not allowed to do that, then he's not going to conclude that a president committed a crime. So then really he shouldn't have been investigating this in the first place. He overstepped the bounds of his office. Why did he investigate obstruction if he couldn't do anything with it? He investigated obstruction because he hates Donald Trump. And he really wishes that Donald Trump didn't win in two thousand sixteen and he wants to do the work of congressional Democrats for them to help them. Impeach him. What else could it have been? What else could he have been doing? He can't take any action even if he did find sufficient evidence of, of the crime of collusion, which, by the way, the attorney general William bar, and the deputy attorney general rod Rosenstein did not find evidence of obstruction. They did not find sufficient evidence of obstruction to act. So even on that front, they declared the DO J declared there wasn't sufficient evidence now what really happened here Muller punted on the question of obstruction. Then the attorney general and the deputy attorney general came to the conclusion as was their job. And the conclusion, they came to was that there was not sufficient evidence of obstruction. Some people are saying, well, why didn't they leave the question open because the department of Justice is not a freshman seminar at a college in the middle of America. The purpose of the department of Justice is not to foster, intellectual debate and engage in hypotheticals and just leave questions out there and you can form your own conclusions. The department of Justice is the department of Justice. It is there to prosecute. It is there to effect Justice. You don't get to just leave academic questions hanging in the air, you have to come to a conclusion. So they came to the conclusion and Bob Muller is. Really upset that the report that he gave out did not have the political affect that he obviously wanted which was to hurt the president. So then what did he do? He wrote a letter he wrote an angry letter to William bar saying you misrepresented what my report said so bar called him. He said, Bob, why the fancy letter if you had a problem, why not just call me what was your problem with, because what Muller was saying that bar misrepresented, what Muller said in the report? Well, the reports out there you can read the report yourself. I've read the report, many other people have read the report. What did the report say did bar misrepresent it? No. In that first letter, you'll remember when the mullahs report came in William bar, clearly said that Muller did not exaggerate Trump on obstruction. One way or the other. He did not come to a conclusion one way or the other. There was no new information in this press conference. This press conference the only headline the only thing that Muller was trying to say is that if I had found if I was fully convinced that President Trump did not commit the crime of obstruction. I would have said, so. Right. You said that in the report, we all read it not only did you say in the report weeks ago William bar, quoted you as saying that in his first letter on the subject weeks ago? There was no news. Bob Muller is just angry and petulant because the report didn't begin the end of the Trump administration. And so he's trying to Ed congress along to impeach him. President Trump for his part responded in a typically Trumpian way he made some great points, and then he made some what seemed to be very unhelpful points on an impromptu press conference. Totally conflicted, because, you know, he wanted to be the FBI director said, no, as you know, I had a business Butte with them after left the FBI. We had a business dispute. Not nice one. He wasn't. He wasn't happy with what I did, and I don't blame him but I had to do it because that was the right thing to do, but I had a business dispute and he loves wa- told me you look at the relationship that does do so whether it's love or deep light, but he should he was conflicted. Look, Robert Muller. Should've never been Joseph because he wanted the FBI job and he didn't get it. And the next day he was picked special counsel. So you tell somebody up, sorry. You can't have the job. Then if you say that he's going to make a ruling on your does it work that way. Plus, we had a business Butte, plus his relationship with Ghomi was extraordinarily. So what is President Trump doing here? He is reaching into a pot on the stove. And he is pulling out a big handful of spaghetti. And he is throwing the wall. He's giving a bunch of facts about Robert Muller that apparently have no bearing on the question. But he's just doing it to create the sense that Muller was always compromised, which, by the way is true. Just not for the reasons the President Trump said, so President Trump says that Komi that Muller rather wanted the FBI director job, maybe he did. He did meet with President Trump. So it's very possible that he did. He then says, that's the reason why you shouldn't have been appointed. I don't know about that. Then he says they were in a business dispute. I don't know the nature of the business dispute but okay. Well, what does that mean then he says he really likes James Comey? It does appear that he had a very good relationship with James Komi. Okay, fine. But he's throwing all these things out there, which one is it. That actually shows why Bob Muller was unfit for this job. He he he eventually comes to the point. After throwing spaghetti at the ball. We'll get to that in a second. But first speaking of firing things off. We the people holsters offer. Custom-made holsters all produced in the US. They are super cool. I love that. They are produced in the USA, and consequently, they are extremely high quality they design their own holsters in house. That means they don't use any third party Mods for their holsters. Instead, they designed every unique mold in Las Vegas in order to best fit each and every firearm perfectly, they are constantly updating their designs. They're adding new designs every month lets them stay up to date on the newest models that come out. They have their own three d design team. They measure every micro millimeter of their guns to ensure the perfect fit that you cannot get better quality than this, and the designs are extremely cool to they print designs in house. The thin blue line constitution cammo American flag, and they more and more each month. Best part of all, we the people holsters start at just thirty seven bucks a piece every holster ships with a lie. Lifetime guarantee. How many holsters can you say that about every holster ships for free, if it's not a perfect fit, send it back for a refund? I love them. And especially, look, you wanna protect your gun because you want to protect yourself. So make sure that you, you don't cheap out on the holster and you don't get some shoddy quality make sure that you get the best quality and you can get it, right. Now, if you're a listener of the Michael Knowles show, if you go to we the people, holsters dot com slash Knowles, you, enter the promo code, Knowles at checkout. You'll get ten bucks off your first holster that is, as low as thirty seven bucks. And the shipping is free. And then you get another ten dollars off using my promo code. That's pretty good. We the people holster is dot com slash Knowles, Canada, L, E S, promo code Knowles, candidate, you L S at checkout for ten dollars off. So you down to what twenty seven bucks. Don't be foolish. Go get it today. So President Trump throw spaghetti at the wall because of th- because legitimately because of this outrageous press conference from Bob Muller. Then he comes to the better point in his response. Eventually. Total conflict. I think baller is never Trumper somebody that dislikes Donald Trump be somebody that didn't get a job that requested that he wanted very badly. And then he was appointed and, despite that, despite forty million dollars, eighteen trumpeters including people that work for Hillary Clinton, and some of the worst human beings. Are they got nothing? It's pretty amazing. This is it. I love to be calls them some of the worst human beings on earth, fair enough. You know that's the real point. Bob Muller in his actions appears to be committed never-trumper, not a guy who had issues with Trump may be voted for maybe in, but, you know, K moves on. This is a guy who staffed his investigation with people committed to overturning the two thousand sixteen election with people where we found their text messages. And they say we're going to cheat, we're gonna use the power of the state, we are going to rig everything to stop Trump from being elected president. That is the problem. He that is why he was compromised. That's why this investigation was compromised. We have tried to be fair to him. We've tried to give him the benefit of the death this press conference, I think, totally blew that out of the water, and I'm not alone in thinking this the some of the greatest legal minds in the country agree with this, not just committed Republicans, but people who have been lifelong Democrats lifelong civil libertarians, guys like our friend. Alan Dershowitz, Alan Dershowitz, wrote out quote, until today, I've defended Muller against the accusations that he's a partisan. I did not believe that he personally favoured I the Democrats or the Republicans or had a point of view on whether President Trump should be impeached. But I have now changed my mind by putting his thumb indeed, his elbow on the scale of Justice in favor of impeachment based on obstruction of Justice Muller has revealed his partisan bias. He has a distorted the critical role of a prosecutor in our Justice system. Exactly. Right. People all the time complain about Donald Trump undermining our institutions are our political process. No people who staff absurd investigations with committed never Trumpers, and committed partisans who brag about using the levers of power in the federal government to overturn a presidential election. Those are the guys undermining our institutions. Those are the guys who are undermining or political processes, much more. So. And much more egregiously with Donald Trump at at least Donald Trump, when he exaggerates when he says, things that aren't true when he boasts when he brags when he goes goes all the way out there. At least you know what you're getting. At least he's, he's sort of honest about it. But these guys Robert Muller unimpeachable the, the most serious respectable man in the country. He wears his tile nice. He has a very serious face. He has worked in the federal government has whole life, and then he staffs, his entire investigation with partisans and people who are committed to overturning the election. And then when he doesn't get his political way he hosts an outrageous press conference that just reiterates his points and Exxon congress to impeach. That's the that's the problem because he's not honest about it. He's not honest about his goals. Same thing with the people that he staffed. Same thing with the people egging him on that. That's the real problem after this press conference. It's very hard to conclude that. Bob Muller has been acting in good faith. Now, some would say, why do you hold the press conference? Maybe he did it as a last word because he doesn't wanna testify before congress because he doesn't want to inject himself into politics, if that were true, he could have just written another letter if that were true, if what he said, there is true. This is my final statement. And my, my Muller report is my testimony if that were true, he could have written that in a letter could have texted. Could have done anything other than hold this press conference in all, but begged congress to impeach. Maybe he thinks William bar misrepresented his findings. Well, except that Muller didn't say anything in that press conference that bar didn't right. In his report about the report, he's campaigning to get congress to impeach. He's politicizing, what is supposed to be the least political office in the federal government, and it's too bad. At least one man, though was even less in control of his emotions than Bob Muller was yesterday for those watching this is a little hard to watch a man set himself on fire outside the White House to protest President Trump. Start. Do. That's starting. This guy's county. He's burn himself. Oh. No. He doesn't sound like get your head out of your. And while you guys want to be like slick stupidest thing white. First responders extinguished him. They took him to the hospital. Very sadly, the man died. The reason I bring it up at all is is because of the reaction to it. There were a lot of people on Twitter calling him brave thing this is so brave. This is why look at this brave and courageous man setting himself. There's nothing brave about this. This is mental illness, which you're looking at his mental illness, Thirty-three-year-old arnav Gupta, as from Bethesda, Maryland. He had been reported missing earlier in the day by his family who said that they were concerned for his physical and emotional welfare. He then went outlet himself on fire and killed himself. He committed suicide in some people are calling him brave for this. This is mental illness. No, one should call it brave. I'm certain the guy had underlying madness. And I'm certain that, that madness was exacerbated by hysteria about the president by hysteria that the president is a fascist murderer genocidal, racist stooge of Russia. He's destroying the whole world because of. That hysteria. It would appear that his mental illness got worse. I'm not blaming the media outlets that fan, the flames of that hysteria and the political activists who fan the flames of that hysteria. I'm not blaming them for his death. But it is undeniably. It seems the case that, that climate that hysteria contributed to this mental illness, which should raise questions for us about how we discuss this president. I'm not you can be vigorously critical. Absolutely. But some of the excesses that we've seen for, for two years seemed to be just that they seem to be excessive. However, what people do have responsibility for their reaction to this. There's nothing brave about what he did. There's nothing courageous about what he did. There's nothing to be encouraged about what he did. It's mental illness. We should pray for the guy we should pray for his family. It's awful. And we should hopefully and all the smoke of this guy going. And flames. We should try to see. Politics with a little clarity and, and blow away the fog's of hysteria. Speaking of clarity and hysteria. There is a major news story in New York magazine about in cells. I don't know if you've heard about in cells in sales, or the involuntarily celibate, it's a, it's a phrase referring to guys who are ugly, and they, they can't get laid, and as a result, they hate women. And now this story is that they are getting plastic surgery to make themselves look better. So the opposite of an insect in this culture, is Chad. That's their word for guys who look. Good chads and New York magazine has this headline. How many bones would you break to get laid the article begins in sales going under the knife to reshape their faces and their dating prospects. The posters call themselves in cells short for involuntarily celibate on one forum where a comment or truth for live posted its look, ISM, which succeeded. Forum called slut hate. There were ten thousand registered users. They were another websites to although it's impossible to know who was posting on multiple accounts in cells called women like the one truth for lie. Had hired Stacy's alpha men had a name to. They were called. Chad's says this culture they're describing pretty bizarre culture, obviously. But I just want to point out this headline how many bones, would you break to get laid New York magazine is just viciously mocking. These guys even in the headline because they're getting plastic surgery to look better. Okay. Perfectly fair to criticize people who get cosmetic surgery just to look a little bit nicer. Would you use that same headline to talk about a girl who gets a nose job? I don't remember New York magazine saying how many bones, would you break to get laid, ladies, these desperate women with big noses are getting nose jobs and breast augmentation. What bunch of weird losers. That's a little bit of a double standard here. Now, obviously these cell guys are lunatics as well, and they should shake out of it. They go on the article rights, you know, those guys who are quote praised day and night for their top tier genetics. Making a boatload. I'll change the word of money getting insane amounts validation. Never having to worry about paying the rent or any of that BS, all they think about is their next football match and coming home and having a threesome with two supermodels supermodels that puke at the thought of them, touching you that's how one in cell with pepper frog. Is this avatar described CHAD'S? So obviously, a lot of this culture, I think is trolling, like everything on the internet. It's. Trolling. They're exaggerating. They're using these kind of terms in an ironic way. They're using memes in an ironic way. I suspect the reason using massage any in an ironic way lots of the time. However, if you live in iron, if you're being ironic, all of the time, then there's no such thing as irony. That's just what you're doing. If you troll all of the time. That's just who you are. You just have become the troll. You have become Pepe the frog and the issue here, too. With insect. Culture is the same poison that is affecting all of the culture, which is materialism, which is that we are just our bodies that are physical features or that's all that we are. That's all that make us up. And therefore, we can hopefully try to change them forever and make them better. Now with these guys seem to miss. They say if you're ugly, you're not ever going to have sex with a woman. I know I personally no ugly rich guys who sleep with beautiful women all the time. It's this. I don't know why it's something there's something very physically attractive about a wad of cash in somebody's pocket. People who are very successful, people who have good careers, people who get famous, even if they're ugly, even if they're not that rich. There are other shallow attributes that also attract women. So I think the premise of in-cell culture that if you're ugly, you're never going to sleep with a woman that premise is demonstrably false. And the, the bigger problem than the topic of this. Essay is a major problem in our culture. The idea that we are just our physical bodies and further the idea that we can just endlessly change ourselves. Endlessly augment, our physicality, and that will somehow make us feel better that will somehow make us have a better life. This is the same logic of transgenderism, it's exactly the same logic. It's the it's the same logic that tells us that we can not only define ourselves. We can thereby define reality by chopping off this part of us or re changing this part of breaking this bone, and that is not true. And this actually ties in to a major. Political story on the right today, which is a big debate that has broken out between traditionalist conservatives and more classically liberal conservatives, can you take liberty to its logical conclusion forever, and redefine everything and just maximize individual autonomy. Or is there something that restrains us something that holds us back, morality, religion culture? We'll get to that in a second, but first bless we'll get to the mailbox. I you gotta go to daily wire dot com. You get everything you get the whole daily wire crew me bench bureau Andrew claybin. Matt Walsh, another kingdom questions in the mail bag. Russians backstage and the leftist. Here's tumbler but you gotta go to daily wire dot com. Be right back. We got a lot more. All right. Before we get to the mailbag before we get to questions of the rift in the conservative movement. We have got to find out where Joe Biden is has anybody seen Joe Biden is Joe Biden, should we file a missing persons report for Joe Biden. He didn't participate in any Memorial Day ceremonies on Monday. This is one of the biggest campaign events of the campaign season, going to a Memorial Day ceremony Pete, and Bernie were in New Hampshire. Amy club. Your was in Minneapolis. Eat elizabeth. Warren was an Iowa Kamla did a video on Memorial Day, Biden. Nowhere to be found. Why not because Joe Biden thinks he's going to get the nomination by default, Joe Biden thinks he's pulling way ahead of everybody. Fifteen points ahead Bernie. He's, he's thirty points ahead of other competitors. He's killing it in the race right now. So he says the best way that I can maintain that lead is by pulling back. Is by not showing myself. Why because Joe Biden is the most gaffe prone politician in the entire country. So for Joe Biden being in public is a liability. For most politicians being in public is helpful when pe- Buddha judge goes on TV people like him more. He gets more name recognition. He does better for Joe Biden, people like him the most that they will ever like him right now when he opens his mouth when he talks when he when he acts in public, people like him less. So he's trying to hide this is very difficult for him. I can't remember anyone who just got the nomination by playing it really safe and hiding out which president did that happen. Obviously not Donald Trump. Obviously not Barack Obama certainly not George W Bush, not Bill Clinton. This doesn't work. You've got to go for it. You've got to grab hold of something you have to offer people something if you or the liability, how do you expect to get the nomination? I know that Joe Biden has a big lead right now. We haven't even had the first debate. He's gonna have to open his mouth, eventually better to go on the offense better to define yourself. And, and if you being in public is the big liability presidents have to be in public presidential candidates need to be in public a lot. That's probably not going to work out very well for him. We have an enormous debate opening up on the right. Between traditional conservatives social conservatives. I guess you'd say and classical liberals, the people who, who believe that the most important thing, the main thing that matters is individual liberty maximizing individual liberty. Unfortunately, we don't have time to get to it today. So we're gonna have to get to that tomorrow. Tune back and we will discuss it because it's a very important debate, and people are, are taking very strong sides, and we'll try to analyze what it really means today. However, we don't have time for that because we have to get to the mailbag. So let's get to it. Let's get through as many as we can from Michael great name. Hello, michael. I to a fellow Michael, what are your thoughts about men wearing earrings in professional settings? I appreciate your thoughts. If you are a rock musician or a pirate, you can wear earrings in a professional setting. If you are a man in any other profession, you cannot wear any ring in the office or anywhere else from Michael also, Michael. Hi, michael. I'm wondering about your thoughts on why most of the prominent Democrats happened to be baby. Boomers, does this bode well from the Democratic Party. No. That doesn't bode well at all for them. I have noticed this, obviously. Joe Biden is leading the pack right now. Bernie Sanders is right after him Hillary Clinton's pro the most prominent democrat in the country. They're boomers, that's true. And I think the reason why boomers are trending democratic is because. The Democratic Party is embracing past ideas, old ideas ideas that have been rejected the baby boomers were the hippies. Right. They grew up, they sort of became the hippies, and they broke down, so many cultural institutions, I know it's nostalgic to look back and say, oh, the past used to be better. And now it's much worse. Something really did change in the late nineteen sixties and seventies. And then up through the eighty s something really fundamentally cracked in the culture. And this had a lot to do with the rise of second way feminism had a lot to do with the sexual revolution. Had a lot to do with the cultural revolution's that happened, not just in the US, but all around the world and what it led to was an acceleration away from traditional culture. So you saw on university campuses hollowing out of the curriculum saying, hey, hey, JoJo western civ has got to go as they marched through the campuses sitting in shutting down classrooms. It was the left's long March through the institutions Hollywood basically falls apart in the nineteen sixties, and nineteen seventies, all the great old movies, gone now movies have an explicitly leftist political agenda and almost uniformly leftist political agenda. It's all just about deconstruction breaking down. That's what has defined the baby boomer's that is what now defines the Democratic Party. And so even young Democrats have embraced these sorts of ideologies. I think that's why you see it there. And the alternative is, is the opposite of destruction. It's conservatism, and it's is building things back up and it's harkening back to our traditions or political, cultural and religious traditions, hope that answers from Michael, another, Michael goodness, gracious. Hello, michael. I have recently had an argument, thrown at me against abortion, that I wonder how you would respond to the person said that they don't like guns, but don't want our right to them taken away. I'm curious how you would respond to this argument. Sincerely, Michael c idea being. I don't like guns, but I don't want people's political, right to a gun taken away, therefore, I don't like abortion. But I also don't want people's political right to an abortion taken away. So the difference here the most basic difference, is that there is a constitutional right to a gun. You have the second amendment right to keep and bear arms. There is no constitutional right to an abortion, even the supreme court jurists, who invented that right in Roe versus Wade, more or less admitted that it wasn't in the constitution. They said, well, maybe you can find it important, the ninth amendment, or maybe you can find in the fourteenth doesn't really matter. Now there's a right to an abortion. So there is no right. It would be one reason, the other reason is that guns exists to protect life. That's the purpose of the second amendment is to protect your life, your life, your family's life and your liberty again. Psst tyranny. The purpose of abortion is to end life. It's to kill life. So it's, it's a mother, killing her child, or an abortion doctor killing a mother's child. The other aspect here is if you're arguing from say, natural rights, which people do in America, you got life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. So we protect our liberty, of course, life comes first because without life, you can't have liberty without liberty. You can't have the pursuit of happiness or the pursuit of property. I. I've never heard that argument before that you bring up. I don't think it has any merit at all. And I think there are a number of ways that you can answer it pretty succinctly from Joshua. Would you say that there is a correlation between not knowing American laws and rights with leaning politically to the left? Absolutely. That is absolutely the case, and, and you see it not just on a micro level so individuals who are less aware of our constitution, and our laws and our history, lean more left, although they do you also see this on a social level. So in recent decades, people's knowledge of American history, American civics American government has dramatically decreased most Americans can't name all three branches of government. Most people can't identify what the first amendment does and as that has happened the country has moved to the left, even though conservatives and Republicans win some elections here there the country and the culture overall. Has moved to the left a country. Cannot be stupid and remained free country. Cannot be ignorant and remain free. And so with the left has done is hollowed out, education and hollowed out our own civics. And even in our history, departments turned our history against as rewritten certain aspects of history, deleted whole swats of history, taken away, context from history, and so people graduate ignorant, and they become more susceptible to ideologies that are fundamentally un-american from coal. Hey, Michael, my girlfriend is worried my traditional values will rob her of her autonomy. She holds similar values to me, but we were both raised in San Francisco. So our conservative values have marked out, like black sheep amidst friends. How do I counter the leftist narrative that I am a chauvinist or a misogynist? How do I show I still unequivocally? Consider my girlfriend equal. Thank you Cole. Well, the first way is you. You probably have a better relationship with your girlfriend than most of these lefty, friends. That's just going to be my guess, so the best way to show it is to just have a great relationship, and I it is, certainly the case, I have seen it, practically personally, I've seen it anecdotally, with friends and statistics socially, Barrett out, people who are in traditional, romantic relationships are much happier. They're much better off the New York Times, had to admit this the other day. The happiest wife in America, the happiest category of wife or religious conservative wives. Not religious liberals, not irreligious, conservative era, in the traditional types, and specifically traditional conservatives, or the happiest wives, that is one way to do it. The other way is to show that actually feminism is pretty anti woman and traditional gender roles are pretty pro woman. What do I mean by that feminism tells women that the only way that they can be good and valuable and worthwhile is to act more like men dress like men, go to the same jobs that men go to engage in the same sort of sexual behavior that men engage in take the same attitude towards sex that men do just be like men? They're saying femininity is valueless worthless. But masculinity is very valuable. And so women need to be like men. That's what feminism says what traditional gender roles teach is that men and women are. Spiritually equal even though they are different. And distinct the most obvious example of this is Adam and eve eve comes from Adam's, rib, God reaches into atom pulls out his rib, and creates eve, this does not make eve. Subservient to Adam. This does not make even lesser than atom. If God had pulled out, part of atoms hair from the top of atoms body that would make eve better than atom. If God had pulled eve from his big toe that would make eve less than atom. She pulls eve he pulls eve, rather he pulls her right from the center of atom. That is to say right in the middle. His rib woman is spiritually equal to man, albeit different and in different ways that's the traditional view. I suspect that's the view you're talking about that is the far more defensible view of, of the genders than modern feminism, which, which is the most anti-women theory that we've yet devised from Ken. How do we keep our cool when dealing with the emotions? Of the left, I have many friends who base their decisions off of emotions rather than logical reasoning. How does one combat this without getting emotional himself? I talked to left-wingers all the time, I very rarely become emotional, because I'm confident in my views, and I can defend my views and they can't defend their views people, get emotional in political discussion. When they feel that they're wrong. They get emotional and political discussion when they can't quite defend what they're saying. So they get really worked up and they streak in the yell and they scream. No. And they wear the pink hats and they do all of that. When you're confident about what you think you just explain to them, why they're wrong. They say, well what about this, a good, good point? But this is why that's wrong. Well, but what about this? Okay, fine. Good point. But this is why that's wrong. So I, I rarely get worked up. What's the point of getting worked up emotionally, you can be passionate about what you believe you can be firm about what you believe. But that's how I would deal with it the crazier. They get the cooler that you would be because possibly, you could convince them. But what you do ninety nine percent of the time. If you just make them look like complete lunatics and you look like the same guy and that helps us win helps us when the culture, and it helps us win elections from Daniel. Hi, michael. I'd like to know why the mothers and fathers aren't liable for getting an abortion. My gut tells me they shouldn't be criminally liable. Only. The doctor should be but what's a good argument for this. Thanks, daniel. I agree with that. I don't think that mothers, who, who procure abortions should be punished. Even though I do think that doctors who perform abortions should be punished. Why? Because this legal system has told women now for fifty years that they have a constitutional right to get an abortion, women have been told for over generation that they have a legal constitutional right to get an abortion. They don't but still pretty confusing. The culture has told them that they have a right to get an abortion, that abortion is not only okay but that it's a good thing that you should shout it from the rooftop. How wonderful that you can shout, your abortion and on a personal level. Women get abortions for a variety of reasons. One of them is intense pressure pressure from their boyfriend or or the guy who got him into trouble pressure from the culture pressure. Maybe from their parents pressure from their schools. They have a lot of pressure to go and kill that baby. And they've got a lot of rationalizations for why. It's not really killing a baby, and it's really awful thing. I was at Planned Parenthood and Philadelphia at that rally that meant Walsh, put together, I saw a woman walk into Planned Parenthood. She didn't look happy. She wasn't skipping down the street. She didn't seem excited to go kill her child. She seemed. Distressed, as as well. She should be because somewhere deep down, her conscience, was telling her that she shouldn't kill her baby. But she was distressed women are victims of abortion, as well. They live with lifelong regret. I know multiple people who have had abortions friends of mine. The ones that we've talked about it. They have immense regret. Jane Roe the woman who was in the case Roe versus Wade had immense regret. She actually didn't have an abortion. She actually had her child, but immense regret carried this guilt with our the rest of her life that she was part of killing all of these babies because we know alternately what it is. It's killing a baby. So I think that conservatives while eager for Justice in the case of abortion and eager to prevent the deaths of a million babies, a year, also much more than the left understand, human frailty and understand the complexity of the world. And so if we can stop abortion. Bye. Through the mechanisms of the law, as we should and punish the people who are removed don't have that pressure. Who don't face all of this issues, doctors who should know better, who took a Hippocratic oath, not to harm people. I do no harm. If we can do it that way. I think that's the wiser way to do it. And a just way to do it from KENDALL. Hey, Michael, can you weigh in on the argument going on between the more Catholic than Knowles, and Matt Walsh combined, so rob Amaury and Mr. ivory tower? David French, it's funny that questions in there because that is a story that I wanted to get to today, and we'll have to get to tomorrow, the debate between so rob, and David French is a debate that has been bubbling among conservatives for twenty years at a very high level, and has really been there, the whole time, it's the debate between conservatism traditionalism social conservatives and whatever you wanna call it. And classical liberalism, or people who trend toward libertarianism, or people who say, hey, hands off. It doesn't matter. We everything's neutral, we want pluralism. We want to. That's the debate that's happening. The reason the debate is happening now is because both sides came together. For fifty years, forty years, I guess, from William F, Buckley junior, bringing all of these sides together, the conservative movement after World War Two to fight together against communism to fight together against the Soviet Union. So you have the conservatives who were mostly upset about atheism in communism, and you had the classical liberals, who were mostly upset about the collectivism of communism, and they came together because they had a common enemy. And then after we vanquished enemy of communism, the two sides broke apart, again, because they had profound divisions. That's the debate that's being had right now if I had to choose between. The traditional ISM of so rob Amaury and the liberalism, classical liberalism of David French. I would choose the traditionalism of so rob. But the question is complicated, and we will get to that. I guess tomorrow has effort cliffhanger. In the meantime, I'm Michael Knowles. This is the Michael show. I'll see you then. The Michael Knowles show is produced by Rebecca dob koets and directed by Mike Joyner executive producer Jeremy boring senior producer Jonathan. Hey, our supervising producer is Mathis Glover, and our technical producer is Austin. Stevens edited by Danny d'amico audio is mixed by Dylan case hair and makeup is by Jessica ovarian, and our production assistant is Nick Sheehan. The Michael Knowles show is a daily wire production copyright daily wire twenty nineteen. Hey everyone it's Andrew claybon host of the Andrew klavan show. Once again, an investigator opens his fat mouth, hoping to take a shot at Donald Trump. And instead, he blows up the Democrats, maybe they should appoint a special counsel to investigate how Trump keeps doing that. That's on the Andrew klavan show. I'm Andrew klavan.

President Trump president Robert Muller Bob Muller Michael Knowles Michael Joe Biden federal government special counsel congress Muller department of Justice America New York magazine William bar USA Democrats Democratic Party Hillary Clinton Justice Muller
Bonus: Democrats debate impeachment

The Beat with Ari Melber

56:11 min | 1 year ago

Bonus: Democrats debate impeachment

"Hey, everyone listened to the podcast. This is Mel from MSNBC, what if I told you we had secret leaked Muller memos and behind the scene stories of the quotes psycho drama inside the Trump White House, as the old question goes is that something you'd be interested in well, Michael Wolff? You may have heard of he had that huge book fire and fury that upset the Trump White House, basically got Steve Bannon ousted from the White House and all that other stuff. He's got a brand new book and right now you're going to hear my extended interview with him. I pushed him on the molar stuff the secret memos. And we talked about a lot of other things, including whether Donald Trump is quote unquote, deteriorating after that, we have a bunch of other special stuff, including a conversation with a democratic congressman backing impeachment atop democrat and the judiciary committee's new plan to actually get to testify that could happen within weeks and a breakdown of what it means when the speaker of the house starts, talking about the sitting president going to prison, and is that even a good idea. We ask some tough questions about that. All of that in this special podcast. Extra. Thanks for listening to the beat with Ari. Melber. Why didn't Bob Muller sue Donald Trump to get that interview? Why wasn't Bob Muller clear in his public conclusions? My next guest, says that his new reporting may reveal some of the answers, which are not in the written Mullah report itself, that's selling author, Michael Wolfe, says he's talked to a host of Trump world, people also obtained secret memos from inside Muller's team, including research on what would happen if Trump tried to fire Muller or pardon people pardon himself, all of it is in the new book, siege a sequel to his blockbuster fire and fury, which you may remember it sold over four million copies around the world earned a threat of a lawsuit from Donald Trump and was associated with the removal of Steve Bannon, from the White House, not your typical book how you doing? I'm great. Thank you for having me, your first time on the beat. You got a lot of stuff in here and I'm delighted to be here. I'm happy to have you here. You're also a controversial author, we'll get to that. But let's start with what you say you found secret internal memos that, no one. Has ever gotten before, which explored the potential limits on the molar pro explain all of these memos. If you read through these memos you come up with one conclusion, which is that the special counsel is a very, very fragile construct that they could be. It could disappear any moment. The memos are series of series of questions. Can the president of the United States unilaterally fire the special counsel? And let's read the answer because it was clear than some of other things Muller has said, here's the answer. According to your reporting, quote, the president could fire the special counsel die recklessly, and you say that was the molar office conclusion. Right. So that was different from, you remember all of that discussion that you have to go through Rosenstein a set of layers. And the special counsel, this memo, includes not necessarily one of the other interesting things is what happens to the work product of the special counsel. If the special counsel is fired, and the answer is unclear but it might will be in the memo describes that it could just be. Toss away shredded gone. So there's a very reading through this, you come again, to that conclusion that they were aware at every moment of the day. And remember every moment of the day, pretty much Donald Trump is threatening them. They're aware that this could that this could result in effective constitutional crisis, and rather the mother of all constitutional crises and to your point, Trump also is doing in public would pass presence would only do in private. He is musing and tweeting about pardoning himself or others. In one of the memos you say, you obtained a you say MOS office concluded, the president can pardon his family members or close associates, even for the purposes of impeding an investigation, one of our experts when we covered this news, that you broke said this sounds like people in Moore's office. Trying to explain why they weren't more aggressive. I don't know if that's what it was. But I rather look at it. Just by what I have if this is the situation if the special counsel is exposed as this, then perhaps, if you're Bob Muller. And if you see your job as defending the institution, rather than I prosecuting the president. Well, I think than, than you might might well say better to give Donald Trump a pass a slight pass on this. So this rather than risk him going nuts. This is fascinating because they're the memos. And then there's a larger depiction in your report the memo's, as, you know, some people may still not believe you, the larger reporting. I read the whole book, let's me with the impression that your collective account was that for all of the basically, the excitement around the molar probe as you just put it the fragility. There was actually inside it a great deal of consternation or even. Legally required weakness. I came to the conclusion that one of their missions, primary missions became not to be fired not to be closed down that a mistake. I, I don't know. I, I think that I mean, I guess, in a world in which you, would you would say, here's the alternative Donald Trump literally creates a. Size say the mother of all constant crisis. End of the world style. Or, you know, you run this out, I think Bob Muller, probably thought again, I'm reading reading into what he might have thought since he's a Spinks. That, that Donald Trump will pass a couple more years of Donald Trump versus a. A crisis in the government, like we have never seen. And so that, when you say it that way, I think people do understand that interpretation because Muller certainly seemed like someone playing by the book and not trying to over shoot or be too aggressive with the president. I mean, I've always thought it'd be interesting to see if there was someone else in this in this role, rather than than than Bob Muller, like I thought, I thought, what if in a different world than alternative universe Rudy Giuliani had been this been the special counsel. No doubt in my mind he would have indicted that son of a bitch. So that's quite a line. So this goes to another paradox in your reporting, and your first book, as I mentioned, was quite influential, and had a lot of detail and backroom detail it in this book, you seem to seem to sketch, a paradox where on the one hand Donald Trump and his team are inexperienced and often undisciplined, but the other hand when it comes to self-preservation Donald Trump is quite canny. And you show that you, you basically show he got where he needed to get eventually with the molar probe and rattling Muller's that, right? Yeah. In one of the things about about about Donald Trump, which, which everybody in his circle, repeat pointed out to me, again, and again, and again, is that he's been in litigation for forty five years. Almost nonstop. I mean his whole life. I mean really whole life is not is not real estate and business. It's, it's, it's, it's fighting fighting legal battles. He spent as much time in court and TV is judge Judy the two places he went, you know, it's, it's, it's, it's literally him running lawyers in a way that, that, that is either absurd. Or possibly brilliant. Was he underrated? I think that, that Donald Trump's version his approach to this as synchronous city, you know, one of the things I sort of toggle between is, is, is, this is the story of Donald Trump Richard, the third Shakespearean like that, or is it the Beverly hillbillies, go to Washington? And I kind of think that there isn't that Beverly hillbillies things he, he's, he's, you know, Muller in the whole the whole institutional establishment approach this in conventional ways. And here's Donald Trump doing things which they have never signed because your book with all the mobile reporting lands at an interesting time where the country. Now eight days ago saw Bob Muller speak for the first time and is trying to understand how someone who was rated. So high and did this way and Donald Trump who on law and ethics and many other issues. According to a lot of Americans is rated so low. I'm a little bit. Reminded of Sean Carter. Jay Z. Sure, you know him who rhetorically asked. Would you rather be overpaid or underrated? And the question is was was Muller in some sense overrated for this job. I think you know, there's Steve Bannon that one point we after the Miller report came out. He said is Bannon kind of leaned in and said, said to me, never send them marine to do a hit man's job. Well, which seems to really resonate with what they were worried about Muller was going to do, and what some people, legally said he didn't do, which is as you say land that legal killer, we used to looking for a second. Sure, I'm going to fit in a break. A lot more including why Mr Wolf says he has the goods and the receipts to show. It's all a psycho drama at the White House when we come back. A new book roiling, the White House by author, Michael Wolff. It depicts chief of staff John Kelly saying this about the president, he's out of control. Nobody can even carry this any more. What impact does Donald Trump's approach to life and human relations have on these people who give their careers and part of their lives. You know, I, I think it's the overriding factor in this in this White House. I mean, I think you can innocence put aside policy. You know, I mean, I think it used to be we worried about him because he's a far right wing. He was a despot. He was all of all of that, that, which may will be true, but the real bottom line here is, is that he is first thing that he, he treats his staff terribly, they don't know how to work with him because because he's he can't focus. He can't absorb information he can't do. He doesn't really have any of the skill sets of a president of the United States on top of that. He, he, he, he regards them all as expendable. And, and in fact, the entire the entire class that entered with him in on January twentieth. Two thousand seventeen is virtually gone the class that replaced them, right? Is virtually God. And then you have the people he works with you report, the Senator McConnell view. Donald Trump is quote the stupidest person he'd. Ever met in politics, his wife, Elaine Chao regularly mocked and mimicked Trump is a set piece performed I think I can go for. I think I can go further than that. It said anybody in the last three years, who has come into direct contact with Donald Trump understands that there's something wrong here. Something broken in him that he is a. A vial and ludicrous figure and what it has broken within him. I I'm not sure I can go there, but I would say it has probably has something to do with forty five years of just craving. Attention and spending every waking moment in your life trying to get attention. Moves from. Is he a constant or is he deteriorating in your view? I'm not I'm not gonna I'm not gonna go there. And in a way, I found him. I speak to him when I was at New York magazine. Late nineties early. Two thousands used to call me up a lot because to complain about what had been written about him or more often than not when something was not written about about him. And I thought he was he was he seemed crazy to me then but amusing because who cared so to, to me that is the same person except he's been transformed into the president of the United States. I got a fan of break, I should mention the Justice department as we previously reported has contested parts of the book. The White House says you are pushing lies and fantasy and you'll come back. We'll talk about all of it again. Michael Wolff a very interesting. Thank you. The book is siege Trump under fire it's out now. And when I come back news that could lead to a different contempt vote. After this. There's a lot going down right now President Trump landing in London, hurling insults, as massive protests, loom, while his son in law, Jared Kushner, speaks out in this rare interview, you actually have to hear because he defends birtherism, as well as the worst meeting of his life. One news outlet already dubbing it a quote clown show and later Neo Khatau's. Here are opening arguments segment. He says he has the receipts that show Bill bar has contradicted himself in an important way. But we begin with this developing news from congress. Is there a path between impeaching Trump and doing nothing that debate is you probably know has been riling Democrats in congress, as well as around the country ever since the Miller report came out, and especially since he spoke? Well now as the week begins we are seeing the outlines of an apparent middle road. Another house chairman driving towards a vote to hold attorney general Bill bar in contempt. This is new and would be the second committee, vote to do so and tee up a potential floor vote. Whoa. All at the same time judiciary. Chairman Jerry Nadler, formerly convening a series of obstruction hearings. Aw. President Trump's quote alleged crimes. Probing Trump's most overt acts of obstruction outlined in the mobile report, and considering targeted legislative oversight and constitutional remedies. In response to Muller's find X. So let's stop right here and just take a look at what's happening. What is now they're saying he's making this move as other house members who call for impeachment have been growing their ranks, it's now up to fifty eight members from just fifty when we were talking about this last week. So these hearings may just be for factfinding and to inform legislation, but they do also hold out the prospect of more because of what he's saying. In fact, let's, let's put that announcement backup. Okay. Right here. We're chairman Nadler refers to constitutional remedies that is an important set of two words because it doesn't mean legislation. Constitutional remedies is a diplomatic. Reference to yes, impeachment. It is the constitution's remedy and process other than the criminal Justice system. That accuses the president of wrongdoing. Now, if that language sounds a little familiar. Did you hear like a little echo? It may because the former special counsel us that exact language when he gave his resignation address employing congress to read the report and do its job. The opinion says that the constitution requires a process other than the criminal Justice system to formally accuse a sitting president of wrongdoing, Nadler's, hearing may not have some Trump aides involved because, as you know, there defying subpoenas, but the Democrats are doing other things to try to get this going for example, they are of announced today. They're going to have the Watergate star witness John dean to testify as one of the experts, he certainly knows his way around these issues, along with former federal prosecutors who say they will conclude, what Muller would not that they have looked at the evidence is prosecutors, and they think there's criminal obstruction of Justice, and there may be some kind of tiny crack in the democratic leadership as well. Because while Pelosi and her deputy standing Heuer are not for impeachment. They're deputy majority whip, Jim Clyburn, who's also the most senior ranking minority in the house or Senate. He is now all of a sudden he's saying impeachment proceedings will begin at some point. You think that the president will be impeached, or at least proceedings will begin in the house at some point, but just not right now. Yes, exactly what I feel. I think we've already begun. That's new. Now is that a new plan teeing up an actual road to impeachment proceedings or is it and you have to always hold out the alternatives when you're dealing with politicians is it some kind of political speak for later, which may ultimately turned into never Clyburn, is not on the actual impeachment caucus list, yet that's important not for context, as I mentioned, you got fifty seven Democrats and one Republican. And now it is also including some moderates, congressman Tim Ryan, you may recall him. He's challenged Pelosi from the center, right? Four leader, and he says that he has now changed to backing impeachment explicitly, because of molars new statement. The need this amazing opportunity. Read the report, and I believe he obstructed on multiple occasions. We have a responsibility, I take no joy in this at all. But I have a duty and a responsibility and duty. And responsibility is let me think that we have to do this. I'm joined now by congressman John Yarmuth. And former federal prosecutor Jean Rossi to get into it. A congressman has the impeachment process effectively begun under another name, more your colleagues, not there yet. Well, I think it has I've said this for months now that what judiciary committee is doing right now. And what actually the oversight committee is assisting with are exactly the things you would do when you were you would be initiating an investigation prior to impeachment, whether you call it an impeachment inquiry, or just an investigation looking for the same type of information whether or not, for instance, the president and occasions violated emoluments clause. How many foreign entanglements are there, whether it's not just with Russia, but with Saudi Arabia and? Possibly other countries. So these are things that the congress has been trying to get at we'll continue to try and get it. And I think this is what speaker Pelosi means when she said, you have to have a compelling case because if you just rely on obstruction of Justice, you know, they're, they're those because of the narrative that, that attorney general bar has been able to create those there are those who aren't going to be convinced and use it for sir, you support impeaching President Trump, I do, I was actually cosponsored impeachment resolution in the last congress. And so let me ask you this about your party, a given that framework for our viewers, if that's a good idea. Why are the leaders the Democratic Party afraid to call for why does it have to be impeachment by another name in your view? Well, I don't think it will end up being impeachment by another name. I agree, totally with Jim Clyburn, that once these investigations have run their course over the next couple of months, we'll have the entire case that we would then bring draft articles of impeachment. Which then the judiciary committee could hold on. Let me get your view on, on some other reporting that we're hearing 'cause we always like to go to the source chairman now, the reportedly privately pushing Pelosi for impeachment telling her to let telling Pelosi led him, beginning inquiry an investigation on what if any articles they would draft to vote on, does that sound accurate to you? I don't have any firsthand knowledge of that, but it does sound accurate to me. And let me say this interesting. So the idea that we have Pelosi out here with her reasons, but the chairs pushing her privately respectively, but trying to get her closer to you. That, that reads right tonight. I think that sounds right. And. The one reason I think that is because speaker Pelosi has never said a word to me or to anybody else that I know who has come out for impeachment to cooling comet down. Cool, it hold your powder. Those, she's never made any of those comments. So, but she, she tries to get your own way from using the I word doesn't even that's where we started tonight. Right. I think she doesn't want the country to focus, the focus on the house be on impeachment that she'd rather have people focus on the legislative agenda that we are trying to implement and much of which we passed already. So I understand what she's doing a fully agree with their strategy. But again, I think impeachment is, is inevitable always have. And I think the American people if we if we don't impeach bring proceedings you serve as president than impeachment means nothing. So you just you just double down your I-word. You went from impeachment to inevitable that's farther than we've heard from others. Stay. With me Jean as a prosecutor. What do you think hearing all this? It's news to my years, a rose by any other name, still smells sweet, and you can call it impeachment. You can call it an investigation. You can call it anything you want, but I agree with the congressman. We have now started the process of removing the president of the United States. Take a listen to speaker Pelosi and how she was received on the point you raise which is are we on that road or not? And what is her party want? This was at a big very big California gathering that a lot of politicians spoke at take a look. President can't pain, welcome Russian interference in the election. And the report lays out eleven instances of possible obstruction of Justice by the president of the United States. As I tell you this is like coming home for me. You know, Jean it is like coming home. But obviously coming home to a crowd, that wants her to be somewhere else than she is at this moment. Right. Well Ari I'm from Virginia in there to congressional districts, the seventh with congresswoman Abigail span burger and the second congressional district with Elaine Luria, I know both of them and they're in tough districts. They won by a small margin. So speaker Pelosi who I think is absolutely brilliant. She understands that. There are some members of congress that can't use that I word as aggressively as other people with the most respect to the congressman, because we have to go through this thoughtfully and deliberately patients in time, but at the end of the day, whether it's two months or into next year I think it will be at the point where people will have read Damola report. Well, not. And we'll conclude that he needs to be removed, you said or next year. I mean, this is the issue congressman, because I can't see the future. I'm not in these private meetings urine with your, your colleagues, but I do have a calendar and the Iowa caucus and the other primaries begin in the in the start of next year. And it's hard to imagine if you're probably doesn't move by the end of summer early fall that then the trigger would be right in the middle of all that, and part of what you may need as well as this question of who else is going to be compliant witness as opposed to those who are in defiance. It would it would stand to reason to Bob Muller, if he got us a Pena would testify in public. I don't think he's the type to defile though he made his views, his preference clear. Here's your colleague congressman Schiff on what you should do about to take a look. I hope that, Bob Muller understand as painful as it may be as much as it may subject him to further abuse, by the White House. He has a final duty here to perform like any other witness. And if he doesn't subpoena, well, it will be my recommendation. Yes. You agree. I agree. Totally with, with Adam. We have to have Bob Muller testify. We have to have him go through some of the most important points that he made in the report for instance, on the issue of collusion. He didn't mentioned in a statement the other day that he said evidence was destroyed documents were overseas. They couldn't get witnesses took the fifth amendment. Some witnesses lied. I mean, there are a lot of reasons why they couldn't come up with a convincing case of conspiracy. So I think that's the kind of valuable testimony that, Bob Muller would give, and he didn't give the other day. Congressman Yarmuth laying out your views and your statement that impeachment could be inevitable at this point. Jean Rossi, thanks to both of you. I'm fitting in a brain because I have so much tonight show. Chris Matthews is here. Live talking twenty twenty on the beat as well as previewing Hayes big interview with Pete tonight, and later, Jared Kushner, boy was this an interview we're going to fact, check it with his biographer and a couple other experts, including getting into Russia and Trump's birtherism. The resume racist. Look, I wasn't really involved in that I know you what was it racist? Like I said, I wasn't involved in that and later, Neil Kochav here with the receipts on Bill bar, and we're going to preview tomorrow's London protests against Donald Trump's visit the British already projecting. His low polling numbers on the tower of London itself. A big return is expected as well for this little guy, or should I say big guy, I'm talking about the Trump baby blitz. All that ahead. Stay with us. And we have a lot to get to tonight later this hour. We're going to have some international news about the protests against President Trump, including the return of the baby blimp, more on that later. Meanwhile, a new prisoners sinement for convicted Trump campaign manager, Paul Manafort, he could be headed to Rikers island any first on the B tonight. I'm thrilled to tell you. I'll be joined by twenty twenty candidate Amy klobuchar for her first interview with us since jumping in the race. So that's a lot this hour. I hope you'll stick around we'll begin right now with Democrats firing back against the new stonewalling from the Trump White House today, directing two more. Former White House aides included loyalist and person in every room hope picks to defy congressional subpoenas juche chair, Jerry Nadler says he's not having it. And he says today, the president has no lawful basis for present preventing these witnesses from complying with requests telling reporters Hicks should show up for her hearing later this month. Awesome. Here. They do. Satisfied with Hicks response. That's the kind of interviewed it lasts as long as it takes to catch the elevator. But you got the headline. And it's not the only thing that Democrats are planning right now. Speaker Pelosi's top deputies saying the house, should go ahead. This is new and something everyone's been thinking about since Wednesday. Go ahead and issue is peanut force Bob Muller to testify since he's made it clear. He doesn't want to speak in public while in terribly. And then you get to someone who did finally come around to speaking in public Richard Nixon's Watergate star witness, John dean, we'll come back for his turn on the hill, the very next day, the full house will vote on contempt for both attorney general Bill Barr who intelligence committee chairman Adam Schiff dub today, the second most dangerous man in America. Then attorney general who really is the presence defense, lawyer, and spokesperson and who's quite good at it. And has the veneer of respectability to camouflage what he's doing. I think he's the second most dangerous man in the country. Second most dangerous location, being the president. And then, as I mentioned before we, we were, we set up, Mr. ships point, you also have contempt coming for Don, Mcgann. So there is sort of a building pieces, or little pieces. If you want to call it that, from the Democrats all this pressure, though, has Pelosi wondering whether she needs to do more, because people are saying is this diet impeachment. Is it impeachment light? Is it time for an actual impeachment? Pro fifty Fifty-eight House, Democrats, and one Republican say it is that time half of the Democrats publicly on the committee, we've been told right here on the beat, and it may be more privately. And now a new push for more than two dozen joined liberal groups, saying, it is time, I one of the most high profile Democrats to call impeachment freshman. Progressive Alexandria occasion of Cortez says it's time to get on board. I think that the tide is turning public and seen exactly what is going on with president or legally binding subpoenas. I think that at this point, it is getting to be come so overwhelming that when you to uphold the rule of law and the constitution of the United States. We are joined by New York Times columnist, Michelle Goldberg. She has been writing about what's going on out in the country. Democratic voters do peach mint as the house dawdles and journalist Jacob Weisberg, former editor in chief at slate and co founder and CEO of the podcast company, Pushkin industries, get the right perfect. Cool. Nice to have you both here. Let's get into it. Is it time? Well, I think it's been time for a while. Right. But I think that one of the things that's really starting to change. Is that there's much more of a public groundswell than there was in the past, you know? So it used to be that democratic leaders would say and they've said it to me and you hear them saying in interviews that if you go out into the country, people are talking about this stuff, right? That only people in the beltway are so obsessed with Muller and with the repercussions of the Miller report, and that has really, really changed. You've seen it in interviews on this network. You know, the other day Bennie Thompson was on was on Chris Hayes show. And he was saying that he, we have that. Let's, let's look at that. I talked to a lot of people and to the person everybody said, what are you going to do about President Trump? They expend a shift in the conversation in my community in my district. The report lays out eleven instances of possible obstruction of Justice by the president of the United States. As I tell you this is like coming home for me. So, again, I've heard the same thing talking to people. Right. That they say that at their town halls for the first time you know, as much as people wanna ask about prescription drug prices. They want to say, what are you doing to hold this lawless president to account and the other problem? And I think that Nancy Pelosi is moving to address. This is that her alternative has always been. No, we're going to run these hearings and see where they lead. But until maybe today they haven't really been leading anywhere because the White House has been so good. It's still mulling them. Are I really think Donald Trump is trying to provoke the Democrats into impeaching him? And Democrats naturally have the reaction will if he wants us to do it, it must be bad for us politically. But I think there are couple of problems with that assumption. One, it's fighting the last war. It's assuming that because impeachment backfired, in the case of Bill Clinton, that it would backfire in the case of Donald Trump. I think that presumes a lot. We don't know. But I think in a way, the bigger problem is trivial Leising impeachment and politicizing it to that extent impeachment is a solemn thing in a democracy. It's happened twice in our history. I think there's a strong case for it with Donald Trump. But I don't think Democrats can approach it from the point of view of, how is this going to play in the election? This isn't a filibuster. This isn't the next the next roll call vote. This is this is impeachment. There's. Sort of a procedure, Itis that you notice in the way that this is discussed by at least some public officials. Joe biden. Declares himself an arbiter of Frank talk, but he's falling into it as well using the I-word to sort of suggestive Oaters that he's open to this wall really saying, oh, well, who knows someday this may happen and sort of, like aren't y'all in charge of things to take a look at the former vice president. If they get stonewall and kid make any progress in. And I think I have no alternative but to move to and impeachment proceedings. If then no alternative than they will. I mean, if you want to be the leader of the party, the nominee, let alone, the president wouldn't this be around the time, where you have to tell the voters, your for this or not? And if not, maybe you make the strong case and explain why right? And I think that you're seeing candidates like Elizabeth Warren who've been on this upward trajectory that really started in some sense, when she kind of came out strongly for impeachment in the immediate. Aftermath of the Miller report and full disclosure my husband's because something for Elizabeth Warren. But I do think that there's this hunger because what's happening right now is that I think the people who have politicized at the most or the people who are posed to it. Right. The people who the Democrats were opposed to impeachment. They're not making the argument that it's not warranted for the most part, and they're certainly not making that argument privately, politically infeasible for the argument that they're making consistently is vital hurt us in twenty twenty doesn't. He's front-line districts. What I'm asking. You is politically infeasible for them. Then I caught between saying to the base. Oh, of course, you think there's a legitimate case from patriot. So I'm not gonna make the subsidy case against it. I'm gonna make this future Bank shot. Jacob was criticized. I think it's I think that the argument that they've been making that basically he's a criminal, he has clearly committed impeachable offenses, but we're not going to move to impeachment, unless we know that we have the Republican votes to convict in the Senate. I think it'd make it. I think it makes them look like they're failing to lead and they're sort of putting their fingers to the political winds. It's wild. And you also have people who are kind of getting into that a little bit of that, collusion truth or space where you have some Democrats still arguing that. Maybe there was something very famous or criminal at the level of Russian conspiracy. And that's not true there. I mean, I think that the I mean, the report has over one hundred pages on contacts between various Russian officials, and the Trump campaign's Bob Muller, didn't find a rose to a criminal conspiracy, which is doesn't use the framework of collusion, because there was obviously collusion. Well, what I'm saying is, you have people who point to volume one and try to make it sound what I'm arguing is. Worse than it is. And then there's still against impeachment, and I guess my question then would be how bad is it? If you think volume one is really bad, and volume two is super bad. Why are you in impeachment? Hang with me. I want to bring in congressman David this who serves on the district committee, and is advocating impeachment hearings. I know you're running around, thanks for forgetting to us dealers choice on any of the above that you've been hearing that you want to weigh in on you or in the body. We are just talking about it. Well, I think your your guests. There was speaking about the solemn responsibility that we have is really hits the Mark Michelle Goldberg piece last week was superb. This is about our responsibility to uphold the rule of law to defend the constitution of the United States. I have been advocating for the opening of an impeachment inquiry, which is a formal process for considering whether to move forward with articles of impeachment. I think we have seen substantial evidence in the mullahs, report, ten specific instances of, of Justice that include asking witnesses to create false documents. To be untruthful and their testimony to fire the special counsel and on and on, we now have seen the president since the mole report has been released engaging in an ongoing cover up and trying to prevent us and the American people from seeing the full truth and behaving as if he's above the law, no one in this country, including the president United States is above the law. He's attempted to obstruct congressional investigation of these matters. And I think we need to signal to him and all those around him that we are proceeding to the next step to open formal inquiry to make a determination so that we can gather the evidence appropriate to make this decision. But this is about not just this president. This is about future presidents people will look at the responsibility of honoring the constitution on our oath of office. And this is a moment where Democrats have to stand up and defend the constitution. And so on this, when you lay that all out on the hearings themselves are the Democrats wrong to put John dean's. You know greatest hits back in the day. Testimony ahead of say, Bob Muller. No, look, we're, we're continuing to bring and do what we have to do to get the witnesses before the committee and the conversations with Mr. Muller continue. We're going to bring temper seniors against two witnesses. Let me depress you on the on the molar side. And the contempt is important. We've been covering that here. But on the molar side, wouldn't you want to hear from molar before John dean and hasn't Muller made clear? What his position is? He told you last week publicly, and Jerry. Now, they're says they've been negotiating privately, but he told the world he's only coming if he's subpoenaed. Yeah, I think there is no question that Robert Muller made it clear to the to the committee and to the American people that he would prefer not to testify. But in my view, it is his duty to testify, and if he doesn't if he's not willing to do it voluntarily that we absolutely must subpoena him before the committee, and I'm only brushing you I've only because you just said, if but he said Wednesday. I mean, tell me if I'm missing something he said. Wednesday in loyally words, you'd have to subpoena me to come when will that subpoena come, if you're for well, I would advocate for that subpoena. Immediately, obviously, a media, chairman of the chairman of the committee is continuing and the staff of the committee to talk to the Muller team to see if they can reach an accommodation, it's obviously better becomes on his own, but he has to come before the committee that report. You had me. No. You just lost me cause he ain't coming here. Come here come here. Right. But no. If thing if he doesn't come voluntarily, if that's the final determination, he makes that I have every confidence, the chairman the committee will issue the subpoena that will compel as attendance, and that he'll comply with that subpoena. This is a duty. He owes to the country. He did extraordinarily work on behalf of the American people when he conducted this investigation. He now has the responsive to walk the American people and the committee through the mullahs report to the decisions he made that determination. He made the judgments he's made. This was a report that was that was created because of an attack on American democracy on our presidential elections. That was the reason this began, and it's absolutely essential that he come before the committee and explain the contents of that report. If people wanna give him every benefit of every doubt as they negotiate, but if and when he ultimately says, I will not come unless you subpoena me than we ought to subpoena him topic there, because I think he said, Jacob final thought focused on the Muller report, and obstruction of Justice almost certainly the first article impeach him. But I don't think it's the only one we're tending to forget, some of the others remember high crimes and misdemeanors is fundamentally about the abuse of power, not all crimes are impeachable offenses and not all impeachable offenses or crimes. I think Donald Trump pointed at another impeachable offense yesterday when he called for a boycott of AT and T on Twitter, more or less to punish CNN. I think that's an abusive presidential authority. I think there's an article of impeachment related to corruption, the ways in which he and his family enriched themselves through office. I think these things have to be aired. I think they have to be further investigated. I'm not certain exactly what the articles of impeachment are, but it's not just the mother report. It's not just obstruction. Well, and that goes, I think to the congressman was arguing earlier, while he's advocating, which is yes, those earrings become a place to do that. In a formal in a serious way stipulating, if it goes that direction, that, that there's a process that people have to abide by not because of the politics. But because if it's what? Congress wants to do or as I've said, on this show, if not then congressman let us know. And we'll move forward. On the other stories, the speaker seems to be holding out, maybe possibly someday. Very interesting stuff. Congressman Sicily, Michelle Goldberg, and Jacob Weisberg Dixie each of you. Really appreciate it. Coming up. Thousands flooding the streets to protest Donald Trump's visit to London as he makes this claim. Plus, Bob Mueller spokesman telling me, he's not going to comment on some explosive and controversial reports in a new book. We're going to get into what it means when they won't comment on leaks from Muller's, office, and Paul Manafort, maybe heading to Rikers, what message could that send a Roger stone and then later as mentioned Amy klobuchar is here for I beat interview interviews a candidate. Laurie mellberg. We'll be right back. We have a special show tonight, including the Republican civil war, Trump attacking his own party over tariffs, and a top conservative says the party is now effectively Trump quote Colt and then this story that has every Muller, Allah, just fascinated right now, these new secret memos from inside the Muller pro which allegedly go into all kinds of details. It's all part of a clear indictment of Trump world from the pretty famous author Michael wolf. I have a lot of questions about this. I don't know put them to him as he makes his first ever appearance on the beat. That's in tonight's show. And also later tonight, I wanna tell you, I have a special report for you, that we have been working on this is about a brand new story it relates to Trump's immigration policy turmoil. It involves the president's recurring nightmare, which involves never-trumpers. It also involves Ted Cruz also involves some pretty bad news for Mitch McConnell. And I could tell you honestly, we don't think you'll see that story anywhere else that's tonight as. Well later in the hour, but we begin with the House Democrats on offense hitting hard against the Trump teams efforts of what they call stonewalling these open obstruction probes. Plus the new release of voicemail. That reveals Donald Trump's own lawyer criminal defense lawyer trying to get a heads up on whether Michael Flynn had quote evidence that would implicate the president. Democrats are pressing ahead on their aggressive plans in all of this as they face what they call the stonewalling because they're going to hold the general bar. Former White House counsel Don Mcgann in contempt. And that's not all there, this new, there's this new report here, but they're going to grant other committee chairs the power to go to federal court to enforce any subpoenas that could be the Miller report. It could be evidence for bar. It could be future subpoenas. So it's another way that we're seeing the esscalation of this interbranch war, even as the larger question over whether the impeachment questions, the impeachment debate is winding up or winding down. Now here's a clip. Also, new speaker Pelosi, she's dialing up her rhetoric telling senior. Democrats that, while she may not be for impeachment. Now. She wants to see Donald Trump in prison, closely showing that was unlikely that impeachment is coming anytime soon. She is the house speaker, she controls, whether that would become real, she wants to have to focus on some sort of longer term alternative. You have the Justice department policy that you cannot a sitting president. We've heard a lot about that. That's also being contested twenty twenty dams or running against that. And then separate from whether they repeal that policy, if a democrat does defeat Trump, what you have here is the speaker of the house openly, suggesting that after his presidency, maybe he should be prosecuted. Maybe he should be jailed. That is tough talk. Trump responding in kind on a Fox News interview, this was part of the war cemetery discussion, part of the Normandy, seventy fifth that we've been covering today. Take a look at this. NC Pelosi cooler nervous, Nancy, Nancy Pelosi doesn't talk about it. Nancy Pelosi is a disaster. Okay. She's a disaster and let her do what she wants. You know what I think they're in big trouble. Of course. If the Democrats are in big trouble, that raises the question of why the Trump administration in the White House stonewalling in the first place. Why not just get this over with and provide the witnesses now in the Miller report, you have evidence of potential parts of obstruction? And you have as we reported previously, the discussion of what Trump's lawyer said, when dealing with former national security adviser Michael Flynn's lawyer. This was in a very stressful. Hot time November twenty seventeen reports are out that Flynn was going to leave joint defense agreement and make a deal with Muller today for the very first time that voicemail is out that we knew about this because it's part of Motors evidence now you can hear it for the very first time. This is John again. Maybe a sympathetic I understand your situation, and they receive the stated in stark appearance will surprise me if he's on to make a deal with will determine if on the other hand. Information. Implicates the president. Then we've got a vassal security issue. We need something has remember. What was all about? The president is would Flynn. You know still. I'm joined by the center for American progress action funds, when he told her Daily Beast, Margaret Carlson, and the dot dotcoms. Jason Johnson, a good evening to you. Margaret, you've been covering a lot of these different characters over the years. Rarely do you get that kind of a private recording. What are you read from it? What are you here in the atmosphere, as I mentioned, we knew the outlines when the report we did? But hearing it like that. It's, it's chilling it sounds like something that could be in the sopranos where you say you were our friend, but you might not be our friend anymore and it, it would create a national security issue. You know, the whole all of the times that the, the White House has tried to dangle favors pardons anything to keep people silent is a disgrace. And now they're doing it by ignoring subpoenas, and forcing Democrats in this case, and I don't. They need to do it through impeachment. I think the tools that Democrats need are available to them, by other means through the judiciary committee through oversight committee's to and, and use the contempt. Method if they don't, if the soup that's how they have to enforce the subpoenas against people who are really not under Trump's control anymore. Don McCann had his her roic moment has, you're reading the mullahs report. And I assume he would testify but he's been intimidated by Trump into not testifying the same with hope Hicks. So we have to hope there's a branch of government left. The Senate is a moral not gonna do anything don't count on them. They're never going to impeach. But that the judicial branch, there are judges who will still do the right thing wanting to take a listen to Senator Warren. Donald Trump, as president delayed, deflected move, fired, and did everything he could to obstruct Justice, if he were any other person in the United States, based on what's documented in that report, he would be carried out in handcuffs. Is this the new democratic message instead of them actually doing, what one would do if you thought someone should be carried out in handcuffs, which is go forward with the congressional remedies? The Senator Warren is at least consistent, because she has come out for impeachment. If Nancy Pelosi believes his criminal conduct just find jail, and doesn't it justify impeachment broke? Well, I think what Nancy Pelosi strategy here is ultimately, let's be strategic. Let's get it right. The first time because once she's opened that floodgate with an impeachment proceedings. There is no taking it back. And what Pelosi is fully aware of is that sure there might be success in the house. But the Senate is a graveyard as we've seen for any bit of positive legislation that House Democrats have put up Mitch McConnell has made it very clear. They're all DIO way, the other thing about Senator warned statement that really springs. True is no one is above the law, and that includes President Trump's will leave us obstruct. Yeah. Bros. You on that because you're in Washington and you're dialed in. I'm not saying cap is the same as speaker Pelosi. We'll invite her on as well as you do that, as you articulate the some of the analysis of the rationale, doesn't the counter argument, become is this, the Democrats version of law corrup-. I mean, there was a judicial legal process. We've covered it extensively. It did not result in an indictment, whether you like it or not the next step would be does congress want to deal with it. And if the speaker doesn't want to go that route she has every right to explain that. But if she doesn't want to go that route, and then she is making prison esque jail, esque references, does she risk. I ask for your analysis to she risk getting close to a locker up kind of frame where you're using the impunity of criminal conduct without actually responsibly dealing with the evidence. Well, I think going back to what she said about whether or not she wants to do, I think she is dealing with it. I think she's just not moving as quickly as some with want, because she's outlined. The premises in which in the conditions in what she would like to move forward is with one, a lot more buy in from the general public awareness into some bipartisan support. So I think she's dealing with it as they ramp up a committee chairman and women's abilities to foul suits against people who and hold people in contempt of congress who choose to not appear in by subpoenas. So it's, it's being handled is just not being handled in a way that I think with the urgency that a lot of people want to see Jason. Do you see a risk riskier of this turning into lock him up? Yes. It's just a silly or as lock him up because it's also a chant that they're not willing to go through with everybody knows that Donald Trump really wasn't going to try and lock up Hillary Clinton and essentially, what you have Nancy Pelosi saying is we have a monster here, you can use. Holy water and you can use garlic. But don't use the silver bullet even that we got him in the chamber literally and our chamber the house chamber. We're not going to use the silver bullet that's suppose it doesn't make any sense and it makes her leadership sound week look down here right now. Just saw a speech by by Maxine Waters. She led the entire audience in a chant of impeach forty five the base wants to see this process. Nancy Pelosi is speaking against our own base and speaking against your own leadership. At this point. There is no strategy behind it. It certainly not want a lot of people agreeing with. Wanted to you wanted to get in. Yeah. I'm saying she's not, she's the saying let's not jump to that civil billet yet there are still some foundational things that need to happen here. And so she's just moving strategically. No, no. That's not strategic issues. We're not gonna yes. If she says, what we can't do it until the Senate happens. And we can't do it until we get the public involved every single logical person who knows anything about history as saying you can't get the public involved in to begin impeachment for, we don't have to go back and repeat the whole Nixon rule. Again, you can't get the public involved. She is constantly moving the goalposts in ways that don't make sense to anybody. You can still impeach him without him being removed. That's the senate's problem and putting them on the line and making Republicans have to say during right before an election year. This is why wanna keep a president who is engaging in possibly illegal activities and office. That's the greatest campaign slogan. You can have for twenty twenty and she's denying that to this country hearings that are televised will get public buying the idea. But I think those hearings can be done. The judiciary committee hearings oversight committee hearings. Look what Trump did with the Muller report, he exonerated himself. He had the help of William bar. Who's, you know, this is the part of the movie where you find out that the police captain is on the take so Barr did everything he could to help Trump make that case. So the public, or at least a portion of it thinks that Trump was found innocent by the Miller report he said, no collusion and I was exonerated. Imagine what he'll do if the Senate relieves him of impeachment if it doesn't convict him of impeachment what he will do with that. He will have been a martyr, and he will be he will declare himself innocent, and that will not help anybody if you know that your you that adds I mean it makes it worse for Democrats going into the election to have Trump. Have that in his pocket. Yeah. That's that's not going to be in this pocket. He's going to say that no matter what Donald Trump has been caught doing all sorts of inappropriate activities, and he will still exonerate himself. And if you wanna talk about the dirty police, you've, here's what we learned from all cop films, right? The departed if you take too long the hero ends up dead. Right. The indentity moving because they weren't aggressive enough, when they needed to be this doesn't have to be about what Donald Trump is, this is about what the constitutional responsibilities are of the house, what the responsibility, what the constitutional responsibilities of the Senate, this sort of tepid nonsense on the part of Democrats. We can't do this because Trump is going to flip it. Another way has no one been paying attention to this guy for the last three years, we make up and lie. I thought, what we learned for the in the department, we learned that, that, if you have the top floor apartment in the best fielding, Massachusetts. It doesn't make sense on a cop salary. Going back. Is that too as moderator? I'm gonna go Juanita and then Margaret and then we're out of time. Yeah. I honestly think with all the departed analogies aside. There is some value to the fact that the public needs to be bought in here and I'm talking about sure the echo chamber of Twitter is loud. You got progressive folks on the left really pushing here, but Pelosi sees the big picture. And I think we gotta stay the course so if you can fast forward and see that impeachment only emboldens Trump and makes him stronger. Would you still be for impeachment? It won't do that. So I'm in favour masking, my friend, Jason. Yeah, it's not going to embolden him because he's emboldened anyway. So you should go ahead with impeachment. There's more emboldened men in in him. Look at him on d day in 'having after so quickly. Completely under. Well, I'm going to fit in a break, because we have so much in this show, what I appreciate is such a fulsome no-holds-barred exchange of views with people having a very different ideas about what to do next on central constitutional question. So we listened and we learn Margaret, Jason Juanita. Thanks to each you, thanks. I really appreciate it. Interesting conversation coming up this moment of truth, but Republicans opposing Trump on immigration John bainer throw in the shade. I wanna talk to you about what's happened with the Republican party. There isn't a Republican. There's a Trump party Rebublican party is going to take a nap somewhere taking a nap and then as I mentioned, I've especial report for you tonight. Donald Trump looking for an immigration, hard liner. Why it could blow up in his and Mitch McConnell's faces then later controversial reporting on this behind the scenes fight in the Muller, approp-, Michael Wolff makes his first ever appearance on the Beedi as a new book. He has controversy. And he says, he's got secret molar memos all of that on the show tonight, we're looking forward to it when we come back.

President Trump president Bob Muller United States Speaker Pelosi White House congress Miller Trump White House chairman special counsel Trump congressman White House Trump Robert Muller congressman John Yarmuth judiciary committee
AP One Minute Headlines Mar 25 2019 15:00 (EDT)

AP Radio News

01:21 min | 2 years ago

AP One Minute Headlines Mar 25 2019 15:00 (EDT)

"Super value. Online shopping delivers convenience and now with fifteen euro of your I online shop over seventy five euro we deliver value to or with our free. Click and collect service you can pick it up in store packed and ready to go shop online now super value Dodi all things considered. It's super value. Trump and Muller, I may Donahue with an AP news minute. President Trump is accusing those responsible for launching the special counsel Russia investigation of treason and says they will certainly be looked at or a few people, I know could have handled it we can never ever let this happen to another president again attorney general William Barr says he and deputy attorney general rod Rosenstein determine Muller's evidence was insufficient to prove in court. The president had committed obstruction of Justice to hamper the investigation, California Democrat Roque HANA sits on the house oversight committee. He says bar went too far bar somehow made himself the person who was going to make this deterrent determination when Bob Muller wanted the American people to make that determination police in Connecticut, say the father of one of the twenty children who were killed at sandy hook elementary school in two thousand twelve was found dead in an apparent suicide. I'm Ed Donahue.

Bob Muller President Trump Ed Donahue president sandy hook elementary school deputy attorney general Dodi Roque HANA William Barr rod Rosenstein AP special counsel Russia Connecticut attorney California
OMG people! It's Mueller report day.

Meet the Press: The Lid

03:58 min | 1 year ago

OMG people! It's Mueller report day.

"Welcome to the live from meet the press. I'm Carrie, Dan, O, N G people. It's finally Muller reports day, if you were looking for a summary of everything we've learned from the four hundred and forty eight page report, so far you've probably come to the wrong place because we only have like four minutes here and be there is a wealth of extremely comprehensive reporting out there with all the minutia and juicy details, but what I actually want to do is take step back for a minute and say something that maybe doesn't feel very popular right now. The coverage of the report today has been breathless and understandably so right? It's a huge report. It outlines a ton of actions taken by the president and his team that demonstrates a lot about how Trump did try to undercut the investigation. It's pretty breathtaking in its scope, there are lofty legal arguments, juicy fights and. Least one f-bomb. But I am here to be a big fuddy-duddy and say that when it comes to public opinion, this might not change very much at all. Here's the thing. We have been through how many ups and downs related to this report. Scoops about what Muller was gonna find Trump becoming increasingly negative about the quote, unquote, which hunt the bar summary of the report at the end of March through it all Trump's approval rating has been basically unchanged and voters aren't paying as much attention to the story as you might think an NBC news Wall Street Journal poll right after bar released that summary found that fewer voters had paid a lot of attention to the findings then they had paid to say the access Hollywood tape or even the firing of James Comey end most people say that the investigation hasn't changed their mind about Trump at all about sixty five percent of people. According to a Fox News poll out yesterday. For people who are super-duper keyed into all of this news. This cake is probably actually been baked for a long time. Democrats are convinced that the president was implicated in doing and nothing Bill bars said last month or today was really going to change that most Republicans are convinced that he's been exonerated and nothing. Bob Muller said in the report today is probably going to change that for people in the middle there. Well, they're exhausted. And maybe confused Embiid once about half of independent voters said in our poll last month that they weren't really sure. Whether or not Trump did anything wrong, we've seen this reflected on the campaign trail, by the way, voters really haven't been asking twenty twenty candidates about Robert Muller and the candidates are mostly not bringing it up on their own either people who hate Trump have plenty of reasons to hate him. But don't have anything to do with Robert Muller and poll after poll shows that people who love him probably aren't going anywhere unless. Something really dramatic happens. And that probably is a whole lot more likely to have to do with their pocket book then with legal arguments about what constitutes obstruction of Justice to be clear. I am in no way, minimizing the importance of this moment in history, and the enormous implications for Trump's presidency and his legacy that this report contains I'm just saying that if you were expecting some kind of sea change in how the country views the president because of the Miller report history will show it might take a lot more than that. Because the good money is that well, we're going to stay a little bit. Like this. That's a live for us if you'd like to hear more of this free audio reading you can add meet the press the lid to your flash briefings on Amazon, Alexa, enable devices or just download us as a free podcast.

Trump Bob Muller president Robert Muller Trump Dan James Comey Wall Street Journal Bill bars Amazon NBC Embiid Alexa Hollywood Miller sixty five percent four minutes
House Democrats Take a Step toward Impeachment

The Point with Chris Cillizza

03:43 min | 2 years ago

House Democrats Take a Step toward Impeachment

"Tired of spending hundreds of dollars for prescription glasses. Xeni offers thousands of affordable. Eyewear styles starting at just six ninety five. No ridiculous markups. No hassles. Just quality affordable. I wear delivered right to you visits. Any today at Xeni dot com slash CNN. Welcome to the point four Monday March the fourth on Chris cillizza cutting through the political spin of bringing the news you need to know and on Monday house. Democrats led by House Judiciary chairman Jerry Nadler of New York announced that they were beginning a sprawling investigation into virtually every aspect of Donald Trump's life from his campaign his business practices the inauguration transition and yes his administration. Now what this is doing. And they by the way wrote letters to eighty one people in organizations searching for information that includes Eric Trump, Donald Trump junior and virtually everyone else you've ever heard of tied to the Trump administration. What they're doing. Here is simple. They are beginning to lay the groundwork taking a baby step toward impeachment proceedings now Nadler was on the talk shows this weekend, and he said this about impeachment and about this coming investigation to George Stephanopoulos quote. We do not now have the evidence all sorted out. And everything to do and impeachment before you repeat somebody you have to persuade the American public that it ought to happen. And that's exactly what Nadler and the broader Democrats in the house are doing this is a persuasion process. Remember impeachments a political process not a legal one? It is much more likely and more dangerous to Donald Trump that he could be impeached over Russia or the hush money payments. He made to women who were alleging affairs with him or his potential breaking of the emoluments clause as it relates to using his name and office to derive personal benefit so much more likely be impeached, then indicted, I don't think either is terribly likely but impeachment is a political process indictment is legal one. And we know the Justice department does not believe a sitting president can be indicted. So as long as Trump is president, he's not going to be indicted, but he might be impeached, or at least emigrants might consider impeachment proceedings against him. And that's what this is about. This is about swaying public up. Opinion. This is about holding members of the Trump administration accountable asking questions trying to probe and find out. What's there? What isn't there? But most importantly, trying to make sure the public knows these allegations against Donald Trump. Do you think he should remain president or not we don't know the answer to that question yet? I would say Trump is understood that this is a political process from the beginning his railing against Bob Muller, the special counsel, the Justice department, the broader deep state as he alleges all based on an effort to try to in some way, swayed the judge's which is the American people to think that well, whatever Muller finds and reports it just going to be a partisan thing by thirteen angry Democrats in Trump's words, so this is Democrats fighting fire with fire saying we now have the ability to do oversight to do accountability. And we are going to do that. And if it leads to maybe the possibility of impeachment with the public behind it. Well, then they'll probably go along with that. Right. I don't think it will happen anytime soon, but House Democrats are clearly taking a step in. In that direction. That's news. You need to know for this Monday March fourth for much more. Please check out my daily Email newsletter. Just go to CNN dot com slash the point. And you can sign up right there. We can also subscribe to this podcast on Stitcher. Spotify apple podcasts wherever you gain podcast. Call it up on your Monaco, or your home device.

Donald Trump Democrats Jerry Nadler Xeni CNN Xeni dot Chris cillizza Justice department George Stephanopoulos Spotify Russia Bob Muller New York House Judiciary chairman special counsel
CAFE Insider 04/29: Fight Club: Congress v. Trump

Stay Tuned with Preet

10:54 min | 1 year ago

CAFE Insider 04/29: Fight Club: Congress v. Trump

"I folks another week other relentless new cycle. Bill Vars expected to testify before congress subpoena fights continue between committee chairman and the White House and a Massachusetts state court. Judge stands charged with obstruction of Justice. I talk about all this and more on a cafe insider podcast where each week and milligram joins me to make sense of the news and take stock of what's happening. The podcast is part of the cafe insider membership today, we're making a clip from the most recent episode available in the stay tuned feed to listen to our full conversation and access all other cafe insider content, including a weekly newsletter and bonus content from stay tuned. Become a member at cafe dot com slash insider. That's cafe dot com slash I n s e r. Now it standing all these fights about Bill bar. It looks like he will definitely testify in the Senate two days from now recording this on a Monday, what kind of stuff should he be asked? And how do you get a real answer out of this, very smart and shrewd lawyer when he says, the president didn't commit a crime, I would want I would want to basically get him on the record saying that I would also work through with him some of the analysis you and I have done and saying okay in section one of the report, here's what Bob Muller says, here's the standard that he used. Here's the exact language. What about in section two and going part by part? And and I don't think that they necessarily have the time of this. But I would I would go line by line. Some of the parts of the report to really try to pin him down. There's some smart people on the internet grew providing free advice to senators and saying don't ask certain kinds of open ended questions don't ask questions to begin with why. Because it allows the. Witness to go far afield and to filibuster the answer like you. And I've been talking about that happens all the time and other hearings. And when you're trying to make the point that Bill bars, you know, so-called summary four-page summary was misleading in some way can be careful how you do that. And what's most effective is if you plan in advance you show the phrase verbatim? Yes. You show the phrase, it's them in the mullahs report, put it side by side juxtapose, it with what Bill bar said about it to show that he left stuff out to show that it was, you know, weirdly edited you can do it in either direction, you know, his his phrase, I compared to Muller, I I compared to his, and you might not even ask a question other than to say, did you write that, sir degree this? What the report says because that's how you often do it in court. You don't have to go to the question to allow a person to do. She would explain away. So that's one thing. I do think worry I have is people will attempt to show that the four page summary that was submitted on March twenty fourth was miss Lee. Ding, in some way, you could characterize it as false in other ways that you're not going to get that far because he's a cage witness because he's a smart guy. And he can always fall back on the answer. Look, you know, what kind of a fool am I that? I was going to get away with misleading anyone about anything. Obviously. When you have a four page document that's trying to give the principal conclusions of afforded in forty-eight page document things are going to be left out. There's nothing I could have done in a short period of time that you would say was not misleading in somebody. That's the nature of the other thing. I was doing although I won't call the summary. I have now by the way, and you could say he can say with great enthusiasm. I have now released basically the whole report restoring reductions. But to the extent the spirit of your question is I'm trying to mislead people, and I'm trying to pull the wool over people's eyes. And I'm hiding something. I have not hidden anything you cannot point to a statute you cannot point to a law. You cannot point to a regulation. You cannot point to a precedent. Really? That says I had to tell anybody any of this not to congress not to the gang of eight. Not to the public. So it is what it is. And you want you can Senator if you want you can quibble with me about this line and that line I was trying to fulfill an obligation. You know that wasn't required to do. But I thought in good faith for the sake of transparency in the feeding frenzy that occurred after it was reported that the report was delivered to the attorney general, which is required by regulation. People wanted to know what the upshot was. And so I gave up shot. So leave me alone. Also, do I think he's also going to slam molar? I think he's also going to go one step further and say, and you know, what Muller couldn't make he didn't make a call. Somebody had to make a call. I couldn't leave this out there. I made the call. I'm the hero. You need me to make that. That's what I think agree with you. You want me to make that call? What do you think about the line of question? I think there's a really interesting line of questioning around. And you can even forget about the press conference where he says the president was great. He cooperated with everything just a line of questioning around the president not sitting down for an interview when you do standard, and you just use city cooperative. Fully present did not who ex correct. The president did not do why. Correct. The president. Did not do z. Correct. The report points out, you know, a correct just just do that. I think that could be so effective and just three to four minutes of that. And you know, what the answer have to be. And so that's a good example also of controlling the question isn't everyone on the democratic side of the judiciary committee in the Senate running for president? Oh god. All like. Already. You'll make them worse. It's three at least three. Yes. Cobblers? Cory Booker, Amy klobuchar who were all rapes, Volver, smart and can be good questioners. Here's what I'm interested in and under that anybody will do this. There's some value in being forward looking and making the record with witnesses, and you know, from time to time people ask my advice about these things. And I say look not everything has to be a blockbuster question in the moment. Most good cross examination is not blockbuster in the moment, it setting it up for later because remember what congress has function is they're not proceeding towards a particular trial on a particular charge. You're trying to get someone on the record. You're trying to let you know. We were talking about this suspect interviews that we've done in legal matters. We've we've engaged in you want to get the attorney John the United States to commit to some principles that you were worried are going to be trampled and violated in the future and that useful do that. So for example, what is a political campaign supposed to do if they are offered dirt on arrival by a? Hostile foreign nation like Russia or North Korea or Iran. That's a great one and Rudy Giuliani. Went on television. Same time. I did and said, yes, okay. It's okay. To take information from Russia. I would like to know what the chief law enforcement officer in the United States of America thinks about that. And if I had my five or seven or eight or nine minutes, I would only ask about that. I would say, you know, we have an election coming up. What is your view on what should happen if a democratic candidate is offered material on Donald Trump that's dirt by Iran or North Korea or Russia or you can make these Donald Trump to would your advice not be reported to the FBI? And then the question is should the FBI what should the FBI do? And then the exercise will be one of either getting the attorney general to agree with that proposition, which is important in a good standard to set both that it should be reported and investigated or make him look like an ass for refusing to accept that common and decently held. In widely-held, principal and just that. And you can't write out those questions. Right. You have to in the moment. See how the particular witness is going to Bob, and we'd too many people questioning and these kinds of hearings are about the question. They're not it's about depending on the circumstances. The answer you want the person to give you so focused less on the question and more on what the thing is. You know, that you want them to say because it's the truthful thing to say when the when the greatest release pieces of advice, I got as a practicing lawyer before going into a deposition with a partner at the law firm, and I was keeping him at the questions. What questions should I propose to the partner to ask this witness? And he said look into win this litigation. You know, we need to prove things you tell me pre based on you know, you're involved in the case. And I was three junior associated the time at a law firm. What are the ten things we want this guy to say not where the ten questions I should ask. Right. What are the ten things we need? And then you go about it. And you and you you hit you hit you hit you hit. And if they Bob this way, you go back to the thing as long as you keep four in the forefront of your mind. The thing you want them. To say, then I think you ask better questions you said on I think Twitter this morning. Also, you you pointed out the bar is a smart lawyer and a practice layer. So it is even more important in a circumstance like this where he will be incredibly evasive. So he's going to be smart witness. And he's going to be tricky witness. The other thing that I always think about questioning and there are a couple of points. One is people grew with facts not with conclusions. And this is what all the people running for higher office. We'll probably do wrong. There's no way that you're gonna get Bill bar to agree that he did a terrible summary and lied about what Robert Muller said that's not going to happen. And so what you can get him to do is agree to underlying facts and pieces. Like, you're asking a great question. What should a political campaign? Do wanna foreign adversary? Come. There's only one good answer to that question. And if he gives the other answer everyone can draw the right conclusion, but you're you're pinning down the actual factual answer. And the other thing that people don't remember to do. And we thought we would talk about this in training. With assistance in the same goes when you're crossing examining your child. Who is who would like this is good? This is good stuff. You ask the question. Is it your view that? If you're presented with dirt on arrival campaign that the receiving campaign should report it to the FBI if it's from a foreign power. And he doesn't answer because he won't and he'll Bob in. We've and do other things people think you have to rephrase the question. You don't if your first question was well put and well phrased and they say, okay. Thank you for that. My question was and you repeat the same question. You do it. Again, you do the fourth time. You know, how effective that is? You've you've done it. You've seen it in court. Now, it helps if you have the luxury of time you don't have the round ending. But again, but by either the answer that you that you need to get because it's the truth or the witness looks like an asks, and you prefer the first over the second. But the second has some value to and good questioning I have no question with Bill bar. There are a lot of avenues for good questioning of him some of the things on its face. When you first hear you think that doesn't sound quite right. But you have to think about it. And so you really have to pay attention. And then think about what does he actually saying? And what is the role of the department of Justice, and there will be ample opportunity if if folks can do a good job listening to what he says. But you're right. He's he's going to be a tricky witness. I hope you've enjoyed the sample of the cafe insider podcast to listen to the full episode. Head to cafe dot com slash insider and become a member. That's cafe dot com slash insider. To the many of you who have chosen to join the insider community. Thank you for supporting our work.

Bob Muller president Bill bar cafe insider congress FBI attorney Bill bar Senate Russia Senator principal Bill Vars Massachusetts Donald Trump North Korea Iran United States Twitter
Ep. 896 Did You Miss This Stunning Revelation Yesterday?

The Dan Bongino Show

59:55 min | 2 years ago

Ep. 896 Did You Miss This Stunning Revelation Yesterday?

"Get ready to hear the truth about America on a show. That's not immune to the facts with your host. Dan bongino. Boy a show for you today. Folks. Do not go anywhere. Do not turn off the show. Do not delay the show do not pause the show. And listen to the end matter of fact, I've got such a show for you today. I did something I never do. I didn't even brief Joe before the show right Joe because I want Joe is not a joke. Watchos oddest reaction. It is all now coming together finally beautifully. Don't go anywhere. Welcome to the Dan Bongino show producer Joe. How are you today? We will control your vertical, we will control your. The outrageous limit. Yeah. Remember that? Yeah. No diggity, no doubt. We are on today. Stunning. New piece yesterday at the epoch times about George popadopoulos. And some folks reached out to me, you know, who you are. And a couple of other folks from the media reached out yesterday as well. And it is now finally coming together just how devastating this thing was so don't go anywhere. Let me get right to today's show. Brought to you by our buddies at G code G code. You know, I'm a big supporter of the second amendment and your big all right to defend yourself bear arms, defend yourself and your family. You know, I'm I'm a gun owner firearm owner, I carry my firearm for protection. Luckily, I live in the state of Florida, they respect your second amendment rights, and depending on your states concealed carry laws. You want to protect your family when you go out, which is why you'll need a great holster to properly carry and secure your firearm for more than twenty years. G code has produced what many consider to be the finest holsters in the industry today. They clearly lead the pack. These are one hundred percent American made products, all materials all components sourced, right here in the United States. The owners of G code holsters, our military veterans, and they met they are meticulous about the quality innovation and workmanship of their products in their holsters. Excellent drives. Excellent strives everything they do in every product comes with a lifetime warranty. These are beautiful holsters, whether you're military law enforcement or civilian G code has a holster for you. Check out. The all new this is really cool, G, code FINA. M- in the way inside the waistband holster is being hailed as a game changer for comfort and conceal ability. This is a must have Ulster order online at range five that's the number five dot com. That's range the number five dot com range five dot com. Be sure to use the promo code Bongino for fifteen percent off. This is this is my my new inside the pants holster. Check it out range five dot com. Promo code Bongino for fifteen percent of all right here. We go. Get ready for the ride. Ladies and gentlemen. Let's go back to the August of twenty sixteen texts about the insurance policy detects from Peter stroke, the lead investigator to his girlfriend at the time. Lisa page. They are both senior FBI officials at the management level one on the legal side one on the investigative side. They are having an extramarital affair with each other. They're texting each other their text messages are exposed on July twenty seventh. July twenty seventh is when the inspector general essentially, the internal affairs agent for the government investigating what's going on with the Clinton Email case finds these emails and notifies special counsel. Bob Muller on July twenty seventh right on July twenty seventh. Joe follow me here on July twenty seven twenty sixteen just to be clear the back and forth Email exchanges in the text messages. One of them which was about an insurance policy the insurance policy, basically to get rid of Donald Trump. Remember that tax folks? Yeah. These FBI we're talking about insurance policy. Nobody knew what the insurance policy was it now is all coming together. Thanks to the epoch times piece. Pieces in the show notes today for you to read and follow along. If you want to pick it up right now. On July twenty seven th of twenty seventeen a number of critical things happen in this election. The inspector general Joe who is investigating FBI misdeeds in the Clinton investigation. The inspector general notifies, Bob Muller. We've got a problem. These two people involved in the investigation both of Hillary Clinton. And of Donald Trump are texting each other. Here are the texts, and they are devastating. They're talking about an insurance policy to get rid of Trump. How Trump is. I can't even use the words because they're expletives is is a is a blank is a is a D his they smell his reporters. Excuse me, his followers. You could smell them in the WalMart. These are devastating. Tex. The inspector general knows they got a problem and Bob Muller figures it out to July twenty seventh follow this timeline. It is absolutely critical. Now. Thanks to a good source. I've had that's been been a let's say assisting for a while Joe. A couple of other things happen on July twenty seven so July twenty seven twenty seventeen is the day. Bob Muller figures out his lead investigator in the Trump case is a dog, Peter stroke. He also figures out that they were the people deeply involved in the Hillary Clinton case. And they are they are corrupted by these texts there's no way they can credibly testify, right? Now, Joe what else happens on July twenty seven twenty seventeen. Thanks, buddy. You and I've talked about this before. Now, you're the producers your job to keep these dates of your there. But when I say, I know you remember it. Someone gets arrested on July twenty seven twenty seventeen in a hurry up arrests that Dulles airport that would that top d. Yeah. Property George Papa D in a quickie arrest. We're still not sure if there was a rest warrant issued at the time it seems like it was a PC arrest probable cause arrest at Dulles airport. Why does that matter it matters on that day on July twenty seventh because ladies and gentlemen, having been a federal agent. I'm telling you probable cause arrests. In other words, arrests not based on an arrest warrant, I the only way I can explain it to you is police officers make arrests all the time. When a police officer sees a street fight between Joey bag a donuts and Bobby bag a donuts and he makes the arrest. There's no arrest warrant they didn't go to a judge and talk about the fight and get an arrest warrant wide because it was based on probable cause what the officers saw in their presence. You Joe you tracking up big time. I've said to you repeatedly. If you're a regular listener to the show that on the federal agents side, not the local policing side. Right. But on the federal side of the ledger. These. Arrests are extremely uncommon. Judges don't like them, the US Marshall service doesn't like them. They want the paperwork in advance. If possible it's not illegal. It is it is perfectly ethical moral and legal to make a PC arrests. I'm simply telling you Joe. And this is an important point. Ladies and gentlemen, I'm telling you from an insider's perspective, it is simply unusual. They don't like them it. It administratively complicates arrests. Judges don't like them the predictability the arrest goes out the window. They would much rather have an arrest warrant in their hands in advance. So with the Marshall service again, not illegal not on ethical. 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 July twenty seventh twenty seventeen. Exclusive a top FBI lawyer is allegedly under an investigation for leaking classified information to the media. Who's that lawyer James Baker the guy we found out this week on Monday is under criminal investigation. But we found out July twenty seven twenty seventeen. Didn't we? All on the same day. Now. Let me read you a quote for ominous tie this all to get don't go anywhere. This is from the July twenty seven twenty seventeen circa Ps three sources with knowledge of the investigation told circa that James Baker is the top suspect in an ongoing leak investigation circus, not been able to confirm the details of what national security information or material was allegedly leak. All this gets Chris gets better. Joe? A law enforcement official with knowledge of the internal investigation in the bureau told circa the bureau is scouring for leakers. And there's been a lot of investigations all these people at their nothing's going on Trump's not doing anything, you sure about that. This was July two seven of twenty seventeen. It gets better skip to the next paragraph. James Baker is a close confidante of former FBI director, James Komi. And Mason media reports suggest he was reportedly advising the then FBI director on legal matters following private meetings to former director had in February with President Trump in the Oval Office. That is a kind of make sense why when I gave that viral speech at the breakers a few months ago, I kept telling you that the three letter agency people are in a world of trouble because there's a paper trail is it starting to come together. James Baker the one of the head lawyers in the FBI, according to circus owner, not some right wing outlet. A close confidant of Jim Komi, deeply implicated in giving Komi legal advice legal advice on his conversations and the memos. He drafted on his conversations with Trump was being investigated for criminal leaks. Criminal leaks. Conveniently someone leaks this to circa on July twenty seven twenty seventeen. Now, some of you more entrepreneurial types out there who've been following this case in the beginning, maybe putting together what's happening here. If you haven't no worries I get it. You know, you all have jobs you work for a living, and you work hard. You don't have time to study every detail is my job is to do it for you though. And I'm honored to fit that role. Folks, it's clear as day July twenty seventeen twenty seventeen is the day that this this political civil war within the government? The spark was lit and the dynamite. One off. My guess is what happened on July twenty seventh twenty seventeen is that the administration and people got on the inside figured something out quickly. They figured out that the spying operation into Donald Trump was an effort to flip sources to get them to work. Why? While Donald Trump was president. Who was that person? They likely tried to flip that right around July, the time this probably all came together. Well, let me say let me say this show it probably came together long before July twenty seven twenty seventeen the July twenty seven twenty seventeen day matters, though. Because clearly at that point the I g the inspector general investigating the sole team had figured out that the to lead investigators by that time he had figured out. They were corrupted and decided it was time to notify Muller. Someone in the administration likely figured out that Muller was then going to double down Muller was then going to try to cover their tracks. Someone in the Trump administration likely figured out. They were going. To have to get ahead of this narrative Joe that the bureau and the special counsel, we're going to work to try to clean up the mess. What's the mess Joe? And if doesn't make sense, please stop me, the messes clear they were trying to flip popadopoulos the FBI as an insurance policy, hoping he got an appointment within the Trump administration to use a spy on Donald Trump and an imbed while he was president of the United States and the plan completely blew up. That's going to be part to this, dude. You get where I'm going with this inspector general sees the texts. He knows what's going on somebody in the administration figures out now Muller's gonna find out they're going to tell Muller on July twenty seven hey, buddy, your to lead guys investigating. This thing shoes me your lead guy and his girlfriend texted the whole plan to flip a spy inside the Trump administration, you better figure this thing out Muller panics. What do they do the guy? They were trying to flip as popadopoulos. This epoch times piece. You've got to read it. Illuminating to whole scam gets exposed gets exposed on the twenty-seven. They know about it in advance. Please tell me you're tracking with if they rushed to the airport to pick up popadopoulos to arrest him the shut him up. They engage in a PC last minute arrest with no Warren. They bring them in at something like one forty five AM the following calendar day, which almost never happens unless it's an emergency situation or violent crime the marshalls. Don't wanna see you at one forty five in the morning. There's not even a sitting magistrate judge to do the initial hearing at that time unless it's an emergency. Something happened. What happened is their entire scam? To flip a spy to get an informant within the Trump administration that person I believe being popadopoulos was completely exposed Muller knew it, and they panicked. The administration. The Trump administration knows the Muller team is going to panic and to get out ahead of them. Somebody leaks to the media notably circa at that time that the FBI's lead lawyer who was advising Jim Komi. This entire time that the F B I lawyer himself is under investigation for criminal leaks himself a criminal leak conspiracy to the media to again gaslight the public to prepare them for the fact that they want to impeach Trump on false information. I let me I didn't explain that. Well enough the whole strategy because they didn't have collusion conspiracy. They only had a collusion fairytale was to get the fairytale out into the media and embedded into the public psyche so much so Joe that the public pressure built for impeachment before the fact that the story was fake was exposed right? In other words, tell the story that Joe Armacost is an alien so many times through the media and the public that by the time it's exposed that. Joe is in fact, a human. Being it doesn't matter. They've been gas literati and try and Joe's already in jail or in Trump's case impeached. So the Trump team sm- someone in there. I'm not sure how much of this Trump even knew by the way, but someone within the Trump administration leaks out to the media via circa on July twenty seven to prepare the public for the fact that these guys are frauds their stories been ally that this guy bakers under criminal investigation for felony leaks to the media. Do you see what this happened what's happening here? Joe? It's somebody July twenty seven is the spark somebody lights the fuse for the stick of dynamite. That is going to go off on July twenty seven they know it and the the becomes a back and forth. Tit for tat Muller goes and has popadopoulos locked up at the airport on a rush PC arrest to shut him up because he doesn't want popadopoulos talking about the efforts to flip him to get him to work against the Trump administration. Why not show obviously because the Democrats and the liberal media don't want the story out there that they tried to recruit a spy to work in the Trump administration for a sitting president bay. Based on a false story. Is this incredible? At this. Same day, the house GOP investigating this the Republicans who've been read in on this who know the whole story Joe that they tried to flip popadopoulos the bureau that is calls for a second special counsel look into this. This cannot be a coincidence. You know, the leak the popadopoulos arrest and the house GOP calling for a second special counsel. This is not a coincidence. This is all on the same day. This is the day the stuff hits the fan. Clearly people who were not reading on the back story here. Are failing to put this together. And I want to really applaud a couple of the folks out there who been amazing who have been doing a lot of this stuff as well. You know, it's a whole bunch of stuff going on that all comes together here, Dan. But on top of that, it's almost surreal because this isn't supposed to happen in the United States, and it's really really hard to grasp man really to be a constitutional Republic. Joe? This is supposed to be a country that respects big our God, given right? Yes. That's not what happened here. That's the weaponization and abuses by the FBI and the icy the intelligence community here are legion. It is disgusting. What happened here? Yeah. Now, what were they covering on July twenty seven so part of this show? Are I twenty minutes was setting you up for this this critical piece in the epoch times yesterday. Part of the show describes on July twenty th how this entire scam scheme is exposed Muller panics because now he knows lead. Investigators texts have exposed the efforts to spy on the Trump team and Trump while he's in the White House to get some spies to get some informants. I should say to be more precise in my terminology Muller. Panics the house GOP freaks out, and the Trump administration someone within it leaks out the story to get ahead of this that Baker and Komi are frauds to and have been a part of this thing. What were they hiding folks? It all goes back to the August. Twenty twenty sixteen text by page, two stroke, how I opened up the show about the insurance policy. That think about as an insurance policy in case you die before your forty. You whatever stroke says there everybody's been wondering and a lot of the house GOP members who are read in on. This new Ness, Jordan and others have consistently focused on this Texas being a source for trouble for the FBI. Joe what was the insurance policy the FBI agent leading an investigation and Trump what insurance policy where they talking about. It seems crystal clear right now Joe part. Let's move a transition apart be the show that that insurance policy was an effort to flip George popadopoulos against Donald Trump that failed and failed miserably. Let me walk you through this. George popadopoulos is interviewed on January twenty seven he's interviewed on January twenty seven th of twenty seventeen by the FBI. He's interviewed again on in February. February sixteen. He's interviewed again. And in the statement of offense, they used to charge popadopoulos. They say that popadopoulos reiterated his claims that he wanted to help the FBI reiterated Joe, meaning it was interrupted the first time. Yeah. Meaning what Joe on their initial January twenty seventh interview of George popadopoulos. There was likely some type of formal or informal cooperation arrangement made between George popadopoulos and the FBI. Gotcha something previously. Let's say not disclosed or not disclosed in any detail. What the heck is going on here folks who was popadopoulos cooperating against why the rush to interview again on February sixteenth, what happened at the February sixteenth meeting where popadopoulos and the article describes the FBI storming out of their anger. What happened? Folks, they were playing popadopoulos and myth sued against each other. It's so obvious. Now, it's clear as day the sun funds, finally come up. The FBI needed a source within the Trump campaign. They interview him January twenty seven seven days after Trump is inaugurated president. Now, if you notice in the statement of offense against popadopoulos Muller's own statement of offense charging popadopoulos with false statements for the FBI the timeline Trump's jumps around dramatically it jumps around from August, all the way to January. Now, John Salman is brought this up at the hill. And I brought this up on the show months ago. We remember Joe now Solomon said a while ago. Solomon knows the whole story. Solomon is another piece of my show notes today that I'm hoping to get through. That's another bombshell. But Solomon has made a key. Tenet of his presentation on the Hannity show at night when he does his appearances of this broken time line with top popadopoulos to how the FBI seems to show interest in popadopoulos in August of two thousand sixteen and shows no interest with him again, all the way until January of two thousand seventeen after Trump is president, ladies and gentlemen, if the FBI story is accurate that they started investigating Donald Trump because of George popadopoulos is meeting with Alexander Downer. The US strean Basser the United Kingdom where the topic of allegedly emails comes up Hillary Clinton's emails on the Russians. If that was the impetus for the investigation all the way back in the in the summer and spring of twenty sixteen how the heck is the statement of offense. Have this missing block of time from the summer of two thousand sixteen all the way till January of twenty seventeen and the is clear as day. The answer is this had nothing to do with popadopoulos. This was an FBI effort to spy on the Trump team that fell apart after the effort fell apart. When Trump was when wins the presidency, folks, they panic they try to go back to Christopher Steele. As we saw with yesterday's show that Bruce ores asked to reconnect with Christopher Steele after he's been fired by the FBI. And after Jim Komi gets fired why because Andy McCabe, the number to the takes over the FBI panics. He freaks out. He's intimately involved in this whole thing. He will do anything to make sure they can nail Donald Trump and cover up his misdeeds Joe. So what does he do? He gets desperately. He goes back to Christopher Steele and asked Bruce ore to connect with the author of the fake dossier to get more fake information. They can hopefully leak to the media to put public pressure on the public to support impeachment thing against Trump to get rid of him. What did they also do? The popadopoulos time makes sense now popadopoulos had nothing to do with it. He was just in the spring and summer. He's just another spoke on the wheel of this massive spying operation. The Obama teams that conducting against the Trump team. But what happens in January, Joe, nothing's working out for them all of their supposed- angles and evidence points and bullet points and data points showing the Trump colluded with the Russians turn out to be false the dossier. Everything turns out to be fake, they panic. They try to reconnect with steel the steel connection doesn't work because they can't hide it to reconnection. They've already fired him deeming them not suitable for us. So what do they do? They got to go back to another person and flip a mess. An informant who is that person. And why does he appear in January twenty seven because it's George popadopoulos. They think they've got something on them, and it's seven days after the election. They freak out. Joe? Nothing's working. Donald Trump is the president. They need to get rid of him. Komi this entire Kabbalah at the FBI needs to make sure they can get somebody on the inside of this Trump team somebody, but they need somebody who's dirty a little bit who they think is dirty. Now, why would they need someone who's dirty to work for them Joe or they think sturdier can dirty up? Well, let let me ask you a simple question because I'm sure someone home at the audience or asking the same certainly Daniel. Well, why would pop adopt this work for the FBI? The FBI came up to you today and asked you to be an informant on a crime that never happened. Would you agree? On a crime that never happened. No, probably not. How? But what if the FBI came to you Joe, and you were shady on whether this happened or not, you're not really sure. But they say Joe, listen, we're going to take away little Joe we have evidence you've been engaged in a in intriguing with the Russians would you consider. They might have like ten thousand dollars. They want to hold over my head or something. Yeah, ammo, yes. You know, what I'm very you. So that ten thousand dollars free. I know where you're going with this, brother. Yes of they needed. They it's now clear they played popadopoulos amid suit against one another. Remember the popadopoulos myth Soudan connection back in April of the prior year? Popadopoulos is alleged to have he meets with Susanna. He did meet with MS Suba. The allegations of what happened at this meeting with Joseph miss sued are the key component of the entire FBI case against popadopoulos. Please man, I hope you're following me. I actually prayed before the show, I'm not kidding God allow me to speak with clarity precision and some wit here. I know you did inspire me put the thoughts in my head and the words on my tongue. So you'll understand what's going on. Because this is so devastating the year before popadopoulos who keep in mind is just these small spoke in a massive operation spy on Donald Trump through unmasking do targeting Mike Flynn targeting any foreign calls by the Trump administration misuse of the NSA database misuse of the FIS accords targeting Carter page the to hop rule. The are all spokes in a major keep the thirty thousand foot sixty thousand foot hundred twenty thousand foot view in your head. It is a major operation by sitting president. Is everything? It is disposal to spy on Trump popadopoulos is a small spoken this wheel. This small spoke does not work out. They abandoned it. The abandoned it in the summer, they come back to it. After Trump is president because they don't have anything else. Every other angle they pursued Carter page unmasking. Mike flynn. None of it's working out. None of it. They have to get rid of Trump. So what happens will you have to understand popadopoulos a spoke. I when you look at the statement of offense against popadopoulos and popadopoulos interview yesterday with epoch times. It's crystal clear what went on here. Let me read to you from the epochs times piece yesterday because there's an explosive new allegation. Pieces in the show notes. This is mandatory reading. Quote, epoch times in a previously undisclosed interaction with the FBI. An FBI agent asked popadopoulos to wear a wire to record Mifsud, according to the transcript the offer occurred at a cafe in Chicago on or around January thirty first 2017 just days after popadopoulos is first interview with two F B I agents on January twenty seven popadopoulos without a lawyer met this loan FBI agent, one of the two interviewed him days earlier who asked popadopoulos to travel to London again and told him he would get a glimpse into the operation from behind the scenes. They tried to flip this guy. Now, again, do you entrepreneurial investigators out there who've been listening to this show for a while you've been saying, well, Dan, I thought you you've been indicating for awhile that myth sued was a western intelligence asset. So let's explain what happens in the prior year popadopoulos this foreign foreign policy adviser for the Trump team at a low level granted he's asked to meet with this this multi professor Joseph Soudan, April. The prior year, it is alleged that myth sued is the one who tells popadopoulos that the Russians may have emails on Hillary, ladies and gentlemen, that point is key. I believe popadopoulos was the subject of a targeted F B I investigation and FBI investigation to rope. Trump team members into a conspiracy to hack into Hillary's emails by the Russians. How do they do that? They pushed the information into the Trump team, and they see what they do with it. They're monitoring them. They're clearly looking for ffices there clearly using the NSA database. They want the Trump team to talk about Joe information. They got from other people about Hillary's emails and the Russian right? They need this because they need to rope them into the spying operation and use it as material to leak to the media before the election. And God forbid after the election of Trump gets elected to use them for a payment. Are you tracking me now if you are tracking at home, you may be saying, well, Dan has Masud working within our intelligence or partners in London or as popadopoulos because why would the FBI then ask popadopoulos to wear a wire against them if certain. Ladies and gentlemen, it's distinctly possible. That not all parties are talking to each other here. Myth sued may have been working with western intelligence partners. While the law enforcement side of it. The bureau may have initially been unaware of this. Remember, Lisa pages commentary from yesterday, her testimony up on the hill was exposed and page seems adamant that they did not know about the dossier until September of two thousand sixteen but it's clear as day now that John Brennan knew about it earlier. And it's also clear as from John Salomon's peace now, which you read in the hill today that Andy Weissman Muller's bulldog and others when he was with the Justice department clearly knew that this information was coming from Steele a corrupted source way before the FBI's alleging they found out about it in September. I know it gets confusing here. I must listen to this twice as the ombudsman. It is a load of information to process gosh. It is Joe, but it's so critical. I let me explain this to you. Again. They're trying to set up popadopoulos in in the spring of twenty sixteen because he's a member of the Trump team. They push onto him information from Mifsud about Russian emails being emails from Hillary being held by the Russians in an effort to get popadopoulos to play ball with it to contact people on the Trump team. Hey, this is great. Look the Russians are going to work with us and get us. Hillary's emails. You follow that point? You you tell me, please. Tell me you do. Okay. It's a setup. I'm suggesting to you that that's setup may have been an icy setup by people in the intelligence community working with five eyes partners in an effort to set up a member of the Trump team to do what to leak that information to the media if popadopoulos plays ball, look the Trump team wants to work with the Russians to get Hillary's emails in an effort to do two things at the same time. Joe? In an effort to undercut the Trump team credibility, and Secondly to make the Hillary Email scandal go away by making it look like it's a foreign operation with Trump you track any time. That's step one needed to recap, dude. Okay. Good and feel free to start this one. You're here. Well, you here for other reasons too. But that's your biggest that's your most important role. Folks, step one doesn't work because popadopoulos doesn't play ball. He doesn't do anything. We criminal with the investigation start conspiring with the Trump team to reach out to Russian officials and get the emails. He doesn't do it. The bureau panics that's spoke on their wheel of the spying operation falls apart. It doesn't come back again until everything else fails the Fiso warned against Carter page, they're tapping in the NSA database, Joe they don't have anything on this. The Trump team is not playing ball. They're not working with them on this. The IC I believe in conjunction with Brennan's team. His small group are desperately trying to get the Trump team to talk about this stuff. So they can push it to the bureau and nothing happens. What do they do they panic? They bring in Alexander Downer later Alexander Downer later meets with popadopoulos and this London pub and the allegation, then is that popadopoulos mentioned something about emails that allegation later refuted by popadopoulos and downers. Well, who says he just mentioned dirt on Hillary, which was already a public story. But Joe the bureau's panicking to why again, the scandals not working out there. Trying to set up the Trump team to get them on tape and get them on recordings and get informants within the Trump team to admit that the Trump team is trying to work with the Russians for Hillary's emails. But the problem Joe is they're not doing it. Right. So they panic. Downer comes into the mix. The Downer conversation with popadopoulos is used as a reason to start an investigation against popadopoulos. Was there a FIS against him to popadopoulos? What happens after the Downer meeting? Joe? Nothing. Nothing happens after the Downer meeting because in the Downer meeting popadopoulos where they talk about dirt on Hillary clearly someone in the FBI starts in investigation but realizes after a couple of weeks and weeks of investigating. There's no there there. There's nothing there. That's why you don't see popadopoulos enter the picture again until after the election when you know. Tier one level panic sets in and people in the FBI or like, holy Moses. It's going to be exposed that we tried to get popadopoulos dirty up and tried to flip them. Good deal, brother. Yeah. That's good. That's good. Yeah. So after seven days after the election, the bureau shows up at his house again and in an effort to get him dirtied up. What do they say, hey, we'd like you to wear a wire against Masud? Now, there are two possibilities here. If myths should here's possibility number one. The people in the FBI are not ready in as to what the intelligence community did by working with Masud to thirty up popadopoulos, please tell me that makes sense. And here's scenario number one people within the intelligence community, not the law enforcement community on the FBI side working with Brennan and some partners in London and probably some private companies to. Are trying to thirty up the Trump team. They don't tell the FBI about this the guy they're using as a as a as a spy for them. If sued is the FBI may believe at this point. He's legitimately dirty myth sued. They, but they they think popadopoulos is dirty to Joe because popadopoulos has been dealing with the dirty guy. Like if you were trying to cooperate corroborate a coordinator Bank robbery with a Bank robber. They think your dirty to for being a piece of it. But they also want the Bank robber. So the bureau comes in figures out that they may be able to flip popadopoulos as a source within the Trump administration. If he gets a job there by getting him to wear a wire Whitman's sued, and then they have something on them. They have this whole thing they have this this April meeting with him where he's dealing with this alleged Russian guy. Excuse me, miss sued. This guy connected to Russians and emails. In other words, they have a Chit against them chintzy h. You see what I'm saying? Joe do they probably approach puppet? Dopoulos in January twenty seven th hey, we know you were meeting with this guy, MS sued, not realizing this citizen intelligence asset for western intelligence, and he mentioned something Russian emails Georgia and a lot of trouble you better work for us. This is really an effort to flip popadopoulos on Trump though. You get it. They don't care about myth Soudan. How do we know that Joe because they interview if sued just weeks later on February eleventh after they interviewed popadopoulos on twenty-seven on January twenty seven then ask him to wear a wire. Popadopoulos doesn't want to do it on February eleventh. They interview miss soot. He's never seen again, the FBI right, folks. What happened here what happened is pretty clear at this point? Somebody notifies the FBI after the February eleventh meeting with Masud that mid sued was an intelligence asset for friendlies. China's set up the Trump team the bureau panics. The bureau panics because now they realize they've been trying to flip popadopoulos the whole time and popadopoulos is the victim of a setup by our own ic-. What did they do? Joe they go back to popadopoulos five days after the Mifsud interview. February sixteenth popadopoulos figures out the scam. It's clear as day. Why Joe he deletes his Facebook page and gets rid of his cellphone? He figures out the bureau's not looking for Masud the bureau's looking for him. Between this period popadopoulos wipes his accounts Clinton. I'm not suggesting it's the right thing to do. I'm just telling you what happened to euro comes back to him in an extra super paddock on February sixteenth just five days after the mis interview probably realizes holy mid sued was an icy asset for us. He's not a Russian. What do we do? Now, we got to shut this guy up. They go back to pop dopoulos desperate now for him to cooperate against the Trump team realizing their role in this whole thing. That the bureau was probably people were hoodwinked. In this massive scheme. Believe me, I'm not suggesting at all that they are without stain on this because there's another option to which I'll get to. But they panic in the interview because now popadopoulos with this lawyer in the room, February sixteen is totally not interested in playing ball at all gets rid of his Facebook gets rid of his phone there. FBI realize is now Joe they've got a real problem but Muller's team. Excuse me, the team working on this case Muller. Not a key player in the shed the team working on this case Joe realizes, they have a serious serious problem. Because popadopoulos is out there. Now, people know, they have recordings likely popadopoulos meeting Masud, they realize MS Sudas, likely and unintelligent asset being groomed to work against the presidential candidate that they're all mailed for their role in it. But it doesn't become transparently obvious. How much trouble there in Joe until? July twenty seventh twenty seventeen. When the inspector General Michael Horowitz goes up to the Bob Muller team and says Bob have you read these text messages? Oh, boy with those probably an eye opener for Bob. Hey, we panico arrest poverty. I have another option for you. Let me just get through this. Let me read this don't go anywhere. There's another I'm leaning towards that first option. I told you that the bureau was entirely unaware that myth sued was that western intelligence asset. They needed to flip popadopoulos they figured this out on February eleventh. That's why Mifsud disappears to never be seen. Again, the bureau panics to look what we did. We're gonna get busted Trump's going to figure this out. He can declassify all this ship. Call rasp double is myth sued. Don't show your face like ever. All right. Today's show. Also brought to you by one of my favorite new apps. Robinhood, it's an investing app lets you buy and sell stocks ETF's options and cryptos all commission free is thing is so super easy to use. Folks. I love this app. They strive to make financial services work for everyone. Not just wealthy folks. It's a non intimidating way for stock market newcomers to invest for the first time with real confidence. Great outcomes highly recommended simple and intuitive clear designs with data presented in an easy to just way. This is the one of the best parts about it. There's no commission fees here. Folks, other brokerages can charge up the ten dollars for every trade that eats into your money, Robin Hood, doesn't charge commission fees. They trade stocks and you keep all of your prophets. It's easy to use. It is easy to understand charts and market data. I'm not kidding. You don't have to be a financial analyst to read their charts. They are written out so elegantly and beautifully. All that makes sense. You. You can make your own decisions on how to place a trade and just four taps into your smartphone. The Robin Hood web platform also that you've you stop collections the hundred most popular and not entertainment, social media, whatever you want and analyst ratings of by holds ourselves for every stock you can learn how to invest as you build your portfolio. Discover new stocks and track favorite companies with your personalized news feed, you can customize notify stuff for price movements. So you never miss the right woman who invest. Robin Hood is giving our listeners free stock today like apple Ford or sprint to help. Build your portfolio. Sign up at Bongino dot robinhood dot com. Make sure you get this, right? That's Bongino dot robinhood dot com. Bongino dot Robin, Hood dot com. This is a really really terrific app. For those you at home interested in investing and looking to make it, easy and versatile, Bongino dot Robin, Hood dot com. Please check it out. Folks, there's another possibility here to this massive massive scandal. We now know that despite the Democrats protest stations otherwise that Andy Weissman who's on the Muller team. According to John Salman's latest piece is aware that the B primary source of information in the Russian collusion thing. Steel is corrupted. Apparently, Bruce or briefs this is a coordinated Solomon piece people at the Justice department. Why Andy Weissman was still there briefs them briefs McCabe at the FBI and others. And when he tells them about the information, the Steele dossier, Bruce or under oath in congress, Joe has said that he was clear as day that this was potentially corrupted information that was the result of a guy who didn't like Trump now. This is new as Sean Hannity said last night. He's right. They knew they knew the whole time, the Democrats and the up in congress, folks, and the media has been insisting the entire time here. That when the dossier information was presented to the Pfizer court to spy on the Trump team that people in the FBI were unaware of the political motivations of the document people in the DOJ were unaware that is not true. Let me read to you from John Salomon's piece, but ORs contacts about the steel weren't limited to the FBI. Listen to the day Joe. The date of the insurance policy tax for Peter stroke is August of two thousand sixteen or briefs the Justice reset in August of two thousand sixteen nearly two months before the FIS Amore was issued that he was asked to conduct a briefing for senior Justice officials. Listen who's in this briefing? Does he briefed included Andrew Weisman? Then head of the DOJ's fraud section. Bruce swertz longtime head of the DOJ international operations and Zeynep Ahmad an accomplished terrorism prosecutor at the time was assigned to work with Lynch as a senior counsel. She is now on the special counsel with Angela Weisman as well. Now, do you understand the cleanup operation Muller's bringing in all of these people who were briefed as far back in August as August of two thousand sixteen about a dossier that later turned out to be false from guy. Steele Christopher Steele who Bruce or told them was corrupted source. Now, do you understand? Why Muller was the only guy who could possibly be appointed for the special counsel could clean up this mess because he was going to hire the people involved in the mess. Of course, they were gonna make their role in it. Go away by keeping me attention on Donald Trump. Right around the same time, Bruce or is telling them about this, this this phony dossier. Stroke probably catches on. He's the lead investigator in this case. Remember, he text his girlfriend in another text exchange show that there's probably no they're there. Right. When talking about the investigation of Trump, Lisa page as said in congressional hill testimony in Capitol Hill testimony that that by the time they had that got the FIS awards that it's still could have been literally nothing. What does this tell you? Joe now, it makes the insurance policy text in August, twenty two August of two thousand sixteen around the same time make sense, clearly stroke goose inexperienced, but rather dopey investigator at times. But these the lead investigator on this case against Trump clearly figures out that there's probably this is a garbage case. They need an insurance policy. What is the insurance policy the insurance policy at this time is clearly going to be the work. They do on George popadopoulos to flip him to get popadopoulos to work. Folks. This is this thing. It's so devious and disgusting. I just want you to take some solace in the fact that I'm absolutely convinced that all of these players are going down. They have left a massive massive paper trail. Now, I want to get to two more things. I t's before the read, and I wanna I don't wanna leave this out because I want to get to one more thing before the end of the show as well. There's another option here. So just let's pull this back out. And summarize the whole show. Around August of twenty sixteen. There's a lot of action in this case or is briefing the FBI, Bruce or Bruce oars talking to steal investigations are going on. This is right before the Fiso warrant, they're desperate to get information on the Trump team because they're spying on them. They start to realize their investigations falling apart. This is when the investigation into popadopoulos kind of the timeline lapses for a while because they're probably moving onto other targets and other spokes in their spying wheel someone texts about an insurance policy at this point. It's a stroke techs page. The insurance policy is likely the flipping of people within the Trump team. Notably popadopoulos being one of them. Trying to thirty up popadopoulos to get him to be a source while Trump is campaigning and get him to be a source afterwards. It doesn't work out popadopoulos figures out when they come back to him in January popadopoulos figures out what they're doing. They ask him to wire up against myth sued. They likely figure out Masud is an ICS set in their interview in February eleven they back off that on the Masud side Masud disappears. They go back to popadopoulos February sixteenth to try to shut him up. He won't shut up. So what are they do? They lock them up on July twenty seventh after the texts are exposed exposing the whole scheme, but there's another possibility here I wanna put out there. And the other possibility is this that myth sued may have been what the sky quotes to me in an unwitting myth sued may not have been the IC asset. They were using the setup popadopoulos show in. In the statement of offense. Notably. They talk about this Russian MFA connection that myth sued introduces popadopoulos to in other words, Masud introduces popadopoulos to a Russian. How they frame the Russian. The statement of offense is very distinct leave out sex at many points. You know, the the sex of the of the source. Indicating that this Russian MFA connection may have been the IC asset him or herself. In other words myth sued. Joe? Myth sued may have been unwittingly involved in this. Oh, he that may have been approached later on by intelligence community members, the bureau figures this out in February of eleven February eleventh of two thousand seventeen when they interview him. And then gives him the boot to and says don't ever speak of this again. But it's fascinating how they described this Russian MFA connection. In other words, folks, either way option one that miffed sued as the asset working for the intelligence community setup. Pop up alerts or option to it's this mysterious Russian MFA connection who's really spying for our community. Either way popadopoulos was clearly being set up. There is an effort here repeatedly with popadopoulos approaching him. Joe mentioned the ten thousand dollars the approach to popadopoulos with this ten thousand dollars overseas, which the account of that's disputed by the other person involved Charles to we will. But you can read the epoch times piece. But there were multiple approaches to popadopoulos I'm asking you this question why the rush to arrest the sky on July twenty seven then one appears to be more. And the answer seems crystal clear right now. They needed to shut him up and shut him down. There was no other way to do it. They tried to flip popadopoulos they were using popadopoulos what they thought as a source, and it would trying to thirty him up to use him. If he got hired later on by the Trump team where they were trying to use him against Masud until they found that Masud was being used by the ICU against popadopoulos. Folks. I'm really starting to believe. That some of the key players in the bureau knew what they were doing believe me. They knew they were investigating Trump for no reason. But that Brennan kept a lot of them in the dark as well. That there may have been a deepen detailed icy operation with foreign partners in London and elsewhere to set up Donald Trump to leak that information to the media. They only brought in law enforcement later, Joe with the August memo from Harry Reid after he gets briefed by Brennan as they started to panic about the election and figured out President Trump at that time candidate Trump may in fact, win this thing, and if he was going to win they were all going to be exposed they needed an insurance policy that insurance policy was going to be to flip popadopoulos against the Trump team believing. He was involved in this in this Russian scandal. Only figuring out later that myth sued and the whole thing was a setup by the see. There was no Russian scandal. There was an intelligence community scandal. Hence, the July twenty seventh political civil war date. Where Muller figures out the team's been using the whole time has been corrupted. They have to arrest. Popadopoulos the house GOP figures out calls for a second special counsel and conveniently someone leaks to circa about a top F B I lawyer working with Komi who may have been involved in a scheme to leak information to the media. Folks. I know this show was complicated today. I'm sorry for that. But this is one of the more critical shows we've done in a long time. This article by the epoch times is devastating. I have to be candid with you. I'm not even sure popadopoulos understands the layers involved in this. He may I'm let's we should try to get him back for another interview. Joe, but it seems clear as day now that popadopoulos in January of twenty seven is clear as day. According to his own words is approached and is possibly going to work with the FBI. But popadopoulos doesn't realize Joe that the F B I is not targeting myth sued the FBI is targeting popadopoulos. They need a source inside the Trump team. Popadopoulos figures it out he figures it out, and that's why he panics with his Facebook pages phone and the FBI Russia's in on February sixteenth to clean, this mess up. They can't have it. Go public that. They're trying to recruit a spy inside. Would would now may be the Trump administration. They had a clean this mess up. They thought they had gold. He met with MS sued. They they met with this Russian MFA connection. They were talking about emails. I'm not sure Mifsud was the FBI thought he was. Folks. This is a devastating piece please please check it out. All right. I'd love to hear your feedback on the show today. I understand that was complicated. Please listen twice. I did. I tried to repeat myself as little as possible on it. I know some of you like that some of you don't we went right straight through it in the time line. But I think if you listen twice in all make sense, the bureau thought they had golden popadopoulos never realizing that their own intelligence assets will work in against them, you you intelligence assets for friendlies it now appears crystal clear based on this new information popadopoulos was asked to wear a wire against myth sued. Which makes absolutely no sense. If Mifsud was working for our guys in a bureau it unless they were trying to get popadopoulos groomed to be an informant later on and told miss just play ball with this guy. Makes absolutely no sense. All right. Thanks again for tuning in, folks. Really? Appreciate it. Police subscribe to the show on itunes. You'll get the show every day. It's free. You can also follow an iheartradio follow us on Spotify. You can subscribe on soundcloud and elsewhere really helps us move up the top charts at his absolutely free. But this is it's the subscriptions not just the downloads that help us move up the charts. I'd love to hear your feedback on today's show, you know, where to find this. Our contact is on our webpage, Bongino dot com. Please subscribe to the show notes as well. And read them today. The really really important. I'll see you automobile. You just heard the Dan Bongino show. You can also get Dan's podcast on itunes, soundcloud, and follow in on Twitter. Twenty four seven at dbongino.

President Trump Joe George popadopoulos FBI Trump FBI popadopoulos Hillary Clinton Bob Muller Trump United States special counsel Andy Weissman Muller Muller Dan bongino Jim Komi investigator
#EERS S8 Ep88: Mueller Speaks

The Erick Erickson Show

49:03 min | 1 year ago

#EERS S8 Ep88: Mueller Speaks

"Truly embracing your complexities means rejecting anything that can harm you are, like smoking cigarettes, which can damage nearly every part of your body tap, the banner to see more this free life freedom to be tobacco-free. Hi, it's Jamie, progressive's employee of the month two months in a row. Leave a message at the hi Jamie. It's me, Jamie. I just had a new idea for our song about the name your price tool. So when it's like, tell us what you want to pay, and the trombone goes Wah, Wah, and you say, we'll help you find coverage options to fit your budget. Then we just all do finger snaps while a choir goes, savings coming at ya. Savings coming at Joe. Yes. No. Maybe. Anyway, see you practice tonight. I got new lyrics for the rap break. Progressive casualty insurance company and affiliates. Price and coverage match limited by state law. Blind zero all engine dive. We have. I would I like to say that he ended up to the mountains on Friday. I saw the Doug Turnbull, Jason Durden hovering over the interstate in the helicopter. And I can't tell you what I said, because it would give me thrown off radio mumbling and under my breath thing, you know, man, there's a wreck ahead of me because I saw the helicopter hovering in the sky thankfully, they were just waiting for another helicopter to go past before they moved on. But man UC channel two up in the sky. You know, there might be a problem where the only radio station that's going to give you access to that. You helicopter up there watching out for you now. We, can we get into the more survey? I, I wanna I wanna break this down in several ways one wooded. He actually say what is Jerry Nadler's response to this? He's the chairman of the House Judiciary committee. What are the Republicans say and in where does this leave us and I'm really frustrated with some of the talking heads on rail? Listen, I realized, we're, we're all conservatives summer better team players than others. One of my deep frustrations of the Trump era. As I was deeply critical of George W Bush when he was president win on the right cared. But if you're critical of the president, oh my gosh, you're somehow, not a conservative anymore. The I, I don't belong in a cult of personality in, in some of what I have heard on radio today has been positively stupid, genuinely stupid. You are dumber for having listened to it in your dumber. If you believe it, it's just stupid stuff and same on some of the talking heads on FOX, as just stupid stuff, some of it's simply not true. We can disagree with Muller, but let's not lie about it or be stupid about it. And there is a lot of stupidity out there today about the more seven basically, what you're getting is if you're a democrat. Oh, yeah. He's, he's telling us to impeach. And if you're a Republican, he say, in the president's not guilty, that's not true. You people actually need to read the report, I, I've actually got a balance copy of it. I have read if the president is impeached. It's not good for him. It is not good for the president. If he is impeached. Don't believe this talking point. That's out there that, that the impeachment of Bill Clinton helped the Democrats, and it will help Donald Trump, get reelected. I've heard people on radio says, oh, come on. Impeach the president. It's going to get him reelected. You know for a while there. I thought maybe that was true, and I've said it as much. But the more I've looked at it actually know the data says it actually hurt Bill Clinton and the Democrats, you know what happened after Bill Clinton's impeachment. George W Bush got elected Democrats got wiped out in two thousand across the board, Al Gore lost his home state. No, it's in the same way, people in Washington leg say, oh, we can't have a government shutdown, it's going to hurt the Republicans. You know what has happened every time Republicans of the government, they kept a majority, or gotten a majority in congress. The conventional wisdom's crap, don't believe it. Don't believe the stuff at all. No prosecutor would ever do what Bob Muller digits. That's not true at all. Have you ever heard of unindicted co? Conspirator. Richard Nixon was one. I just Manny people are believing the because they don't wanna believe facts. Let's actually get into what Bob Mueller said, there are there are a few things to get to. I wanna play some audio for you, so that we can at least set the parameters for the discussion, instead of listening to partisan hack who wanna ingratiate themselves with the president. Now. I hope and expect this to be the only time that I speak to you in this matter. I am making that decision myself. No one has told me whether I can or should testify or speak further about this matter. There has been discussion about an appearance before congress any testimony from this office would not go beyond our report. It contains our findings and analysis and the reasons for the decisions we made we chose those words carefully and the work speaks for itself. And the report is my testimony their report was my testimony, essentially what Bob Mueller is sane is he's leaving. And he. He has no intention of testifying before congress. He wants no part of the dog and pony partisan show. He defended the attorney general said he does not believe the Torney general was partisan or, or mean-spirited or behaving badly by doing what he did. In fact, Muller said that the attorney general he one of the general to release certain parts of his report, and it said the region will release the entire report so that takes all a partisan talking point from the Democrats. The Democrats have said, Moeller was upset with attorney general Muller was pushing stuff out the attorney general mischaracterize report. You've heard all that in the last couple of weeks in Muller saying that is not true. You know, one of the other things we talked about, on Friday on this program is there was a rumor surfacing that a Bob Muller had drafted an indictment of the president, that the Muller team prepared an indictment for the president. This was circulated all over the media on Friday as people were headed in the Memorial Day weekend. It was talked about on the weekend shows that the molar team had actually gone so far as to prepare. It indictment of the president hammering other facts in molar discredits that as well in what he said he order appointing me special counsel, authorized us to investigate actions that could obstruct, the investigation we conducted that investigation. And we kept the office of the acting attorney general apprised of the progress of our work and asset forth in the report after that investigation if we had had confidence that the president clearly did. Not commit a crime. We would have said, so we did not how ever make a determination as to whether the president did commit a crime, the introduction to the volume two of our report explains that decision. It explains that under long standing department policy a president, president cannot be charged with a federal crime, while he is in office, that is unconstitutional, even if the charges kept under seal and hidden from public view that too, is prohibited. Special counsel's office is part of the department of Justice and by regulation. It was bound by that department policy charging the president with a crime was, therefore, not an option. We could consider they're a completely debunks this talking point in the media on Friday that he drafted impeachment. We couldn't even consider it. He says, but what about impeachment? I, I do think this fires up the impeachment radar for a lot of people. Again, though, one of the things we're seeing today. Is that if you're a Republican, you heard everything he said, exonerated the president? If you're a democrat, you heard everything he said made the president. Look like he should be buried under a jail. I want to get to all that. We'll take your phone calls as well, four zero four eight seven two zero seven five zero one eight hundred WSB talk. Okay. I wanna play you what I think, is the most important bit of what Bob Muller said today, and you're going to be hearing, the sound bite. Probably a lot. I think over the next week, this is e I can't emphasize enough. How important this piece of what he said is listen, very carefully. I, I made sure I ask Charlie to give this as much context wraparound as possible. So you can't accuse me of taking context. This is just Bob Mueller. The former FBI director of the special prosecutor for himself has special counsel's office is part of the department of Justice and by regulation. It was bound by that department. Policy charging the president with a crime was there for not an option. We could consider. The departments written opinion explaining the policy make several important points that further informed are handling of the obstruction investigation. Those points are summarized, in our report, and I will describe two of them for you. I the opinion explicit explicitly permits, the investigation of a sitting president, because it is important to preserve evidence while memories are fresh and documents available. Among other things that evidence could be used if there were co conspirators, who could be charged now. And second opinion says that the constitution requires a process other than the criminal Justice system to formally accuse a sitting president of wrongdoing. So you get this, the department of Justice has a longstanding opinion goes back to the Nixon administration, it has been affirmed repeatedly by democrat and Republican administrations. The Reagan administration reaffirmed the Clinton administration reaffirmed the Bush administration to reaffirm to both of them the Obama administration. Affirmed, it a sitting president cannot be indicted, the reason a sitting president cannot be indicted, is because the executive power flows from the president and executive power cannot be redirected back in the direction from which it flows. So, because the prosecutorial power in the United States government flows from the president, it must go out from the president. It can't be redirected back to the president because anyone beneath the president exercise of the press you to repair our answers to the president. So they can't flow the power back towards the president and indicting, but the president can be investigated to preserve evidence, essentially, although it's never been tested in court, the, the general consensus, is that L O you can preserve, all the evidence and indict the president once he leaves office. This is how it's done everywhere else in the world. So impeach. He indictment was never even a consideration. But what he says, is you can investigate the president. You can preserve the evidence. But if you want to go after a sitting president, there is a different means by which you do that, under the constitution, that would be impeachment, and interestingly enough, this puts puts the Democrats in a very awkward position because you have the democratic leader in the house, Nancy Pelosi, and the democratic majority leader in the house in the whole, you're saying, we are not going to impeach. Now, they may have to because of what Bob Muller just did. Before we get into the implications with the Democrats, and we may be here on the subject for a little while. There is other news out there, but this is the big story of the day, and some of the Democrats are actually out there saying, this isn't helpful for the Democrats, I do want to walk you through some of that Amway, Jerry Nadler had to say right now, though. Let us go to some phone calls. I want to go to Mike in Marietta, you're going to be I tonight. Welcome. Hey, how are you? I'm good. Who you? Well, I'm just going a what year Predication is, is that since all the evidence they have is comes from the dossier. The president is guilty of something. He didn't do so he's gotta prove himself. Not yet. No, no, no, no, no, no, no. Let's let's walk this back. See this is what I tell you in, in my guy, I don't mean to be insulting to you or anyone. But, but everybody's fixated on the Steele dossier. We're not talking about this deal dossier here. Well, the second real quick, the second part was if they go for impeachment. But will they impeach him for what's he done to them, PC? That's the issue here and a lot of our on radio or muddling the water here, here's the situation. We're focused on obstruction of Justice. We're not focused on the steel here. We're not focused on Russia. We're not focused on any of that stuff. We're focused on the president's obstruction of Justice, if he did it, and what Muller is saying, is we can't clear him of this. But we can't indict him, and if congress wants to pursue it, they have to impeach. So what would the obstruction of Justice portion be you can save firing firing? James Comey was not obstruction. Just I don't care how much the Democrats say it. Everyone wanted James Comey fired. The question was what about afterwards? The president telling his lawyers to fire Komi urge fire Muller, the president purportedly suggesting the lawyers, not tell Komi all everything that are not call me. Muller wanted to know that's the impeachment issue here not Russia, but obstruction of Justice. And that's a problem for the Democrats to I'll explain when we come back. Elo idiot. Eric erickson. News ninety five five AM seven fifty W. S B. I wanna go to the phones take some of your phone calls. We'll continue working through the Muller stuff. I've got more audio Jerry Nadler, audio some of the Democrats kind of upset with, with what Muller had to say. I, I to go back to the phones though. I to Tony Colin from canton, you're going to be up. Next. Welcome. You. Just, you know, I just think that this impeachment Russell saying, if this, the Democrats Jasper, I just think out of touch with the real world. All here in the non Oro. We're working with paying bills, they'll kind the and that's all we care about. I don't get nothing about Russia, though impeachment when it comes to voting on both Donald Trump, I've been working for three years, I have not gotten laid off, and that's what seems to keep doing. You know, nobody cares funny. You should say this every single poll that's been taken out there by every media institution. And its reason you're not hearing about all the polling has shown that the public is ready to move on their tired of this issue. They'll settle it at the ballot box in. And that's the Pelosi position, frankly, is that they should sell settled at the ballot box. You know, we've got if, if you listen to a lot of talk radio in, in conservative talking voice other, we've got this logical conundrum here. You've got the belief that impeachment helps the president. You've got the belief that Nancy Pelosi knows this, therefore, she does not want impeachment. And you've got the belief that Knoller hates, the president and therefore wants to push impeachment to do what exactly you help the president get reelected? I mean mowers, not a dumb guy everyone concedes, he's a smart guy. And, and you many of you think he hates the president has post he was assigned to a job and did his job and that he wants to the president. So if he wants to oust the president, you would think he would not then be setting the stage for impeachment because impeachment, you think helps the president out does it's all reconcile itself. I, I'm, I'm lost on the logic train on this one. It makes no sense to me in. I feel like I need to and I don't mean to send us. I'm just deeply frustrated that both sides are believing mythology and their obvious getting the Steele dossier Q keeps coming up from people and what Muller viscous has nothing to do with the Steele dossier. And you would never know that by listening to Republicans. I want to explain that for you. But before we get there, I want to take the phone call Robert Tucker. You're next. Thank you very much. I'm just wondering if they cannot press charges while the president is in office. And what's the point of impeachment, unless they're two different things in the second question and more important in my opinion? If for whatever reason the. House. Impeach. And the Senate does does. Gina to discipline once it gets out Jamie still be charts again. Yes, you're great questions, Robert Robert, by the way, perfect caller. He gives me an opportunity to make me look smart. But so you cannot indict a sitting president, because the prosecutorial power resides with the president himself, anyone using the prosecutorial powers using it on behalf of the president, the president candidate himself, therefore they candidate the president. So what you have to do you have to remove the president from office before you can indict him the way you remove the president from office, as you so high crimes and misdemeanors. That is you show that the president while in office did things that were against the law, and that does not actually convict the president of a crime. A just provides a pathway to remove him from office, so that he can then be convicted of a crime in peach mint is a legislative matter. It's not a criminal matter. It's a it is a separation of powers issue with the constitution. So if the Senate were to convict the president and impeach him that's not going to happen. Then the president would be removed from office at which point then the president could be indicted, criminally for crimes, but you have to go through the process of I either allowing him to lose the election, then. Prosecuted him or impeaching him. Removing him from office. Nancy, Pelosi's position, is, I think the reasonable is that I know I know but the reason position here is deal with it at the ballot box. That's what she's telling Democrats behind the scenes that she thinks the president obstructed Justice. But if they had an impeachment trial, the senate's not gonna convicting in the Senate is not going to convict him. Why waste their time being distracted in as opposed to go out on the campaign trail and make the case to remove the president of the ballot box. And then go after him, if you want with a democratic president, and prosecuting, but Nancy Pelosi thinks that there's no reason it's a waste of time because the Senate would not convict now frankly, I think there are some Republicans in the Senate who hate the president so much they might convict. But it's not gonna happen. I think she's right on this and, you know, you've got people out there, including Ari. What's his name Melber on on? So here's here's the thing. Let me play this Ari Melber clip. So you have the gist of, of where some of the progressive talking heads on TV you're on the scene. This was vintage Bob Muller. No questions. No bowl. And just laying out what he's already laid out in the report, he basically quoted the key highlights on this report. And in so doing, I think affair reading of what he said, would rebut the White House and parts of what his boss Bill bar said about him. But then he went out of his way to say he doesn't question, the quote, good faith of attorney general Bill bar, his boss. That is huge because Democrats in congress have tried to line up an attack on bar as the front edge of their allegations against what they call a corrupt the Trump administration and it's the tempts to obstruct Mr. Muller just brushed that back. He also did something else that may be disappointed people in congress will make its own determination whether to demand, his public testimony, but. He basically said, if you make me talk. I'm a region back this report. And that's it. Yeah. So in other words, Buller is, is essentially inoculate immunizing Bob Barr. Not Bob arms are William Barr from the Democrats attacks that, he's just a partisan hitman for the president. He actually he defended him. And, you know, the other is he's just going to read the report. Well, here's Jerry Nadler, the chairman of the judiciary committee. Very interestingly, he was reading all of his remarks. He wanted to be very precise with his words today, which is somewhat unusual for him. But listen to what he said, we will continue to do so, and we'll make decisions as as they seem indicated. To to testify. Mr mother. Told us. A lot of what we need to hear today. It's very important to be clear on what he told us. I what the special prosecutor told the American people, he reaffirmed what was in the investigation, which which was in the report about the investigation, which found substantial evidence that Russia attack political system that the Trump campaign benefited from Russia's interference that Trump in those around him repeatedly, welcomed Russia's support, and that throughout the investigation Trump sought to obstruct Justice and undermine Muller and the investigation over and over again, the president that the invested in sorry, the special counsel, did not exonerate, the president from having a committed a crime DOJ policy, prevented Muller from bringing criminal charges against the president. So the president is lying about the special counsel findings lying and saying that the special counsel found no extraction. And no conclusion, we, we can leave there. He he's reading it off a piece of paper which is which is kind of interesting that he's doing that. But let me. Before I go to break. The republicans. I'm y'all. I'm trying to be nice and how I do with this. But I'm deeply frustrated by friends of mine on this issue. Everyone keeps screaming about the Christopher Steele dossier. That's not part of the Mueller investigation. And I know all of you think it is. And I know you could all site where so and so and so and so have said it is. But it's not part of the Muller investigation. Yes. The Christopher Steele dossier, led the F B I to begin an examination of the president. That's not what Bob Muller was looking at. And that's worked a lot of the Trump supporters are, obviously, they've got the Christopher Steele dossier, which was garbage dossier. You so much of it, not true. And Republicans are saying, look all of this was ally. This was the product that was the predicate of the FBI under James combing looking into the president. But that was it the predicate of Bob Mueller. The predicted a Bob Muller was the president lacked, the self control to not fire James Coleman. Had the president never fire James Comey. We would not be dealing with what we're dealing with now. He fired James me, everyone told him not the firing at that moment, and he did anyway, a win on television with Lester Holt on NBC and said it was about Russia. That's why we got the molar investigation. The molar investigation was tasked with two things to the Russians interfered in the presidential election in two thousand sixteen and guess what they found. Yes. In fact, there was substantial interference by the Russians. The Russians tried to sway the election. But what Bob Moore says this glossed over by Democrats, but Muller, did not say that the Russians were trying to help Donald Trump and hurt Hillary Clinton. What he found is that the Russians wanted to interfere with the election and that, by the way everyone, including the Russians thought Hillary Clinton was going to win. And so they tried to throw support for Donald Trump. Not because they wanted. Donald Trump to win. They just wanted the election to be a mess in. That's what they got the second part of the investigation was did the president tried to obstruct Justice one from by firing. James me, and to by then trying to impede the special prosecutor's investigation. This is where the impeachment stuff comes from. Again, none of it has to do with Christopher Steele, everything has to do with the president's conduct while in office. And everybody on the right throws up Christmas. You Christopher Steele, Christy motor didn't care about Christopher Steele. You don't have to take my word for read the damn report yourself, what you carry about is, is did the Russians interfering. Yes, everyone. Yes, the Russians interfered in the election were they successful. No, no. The Russians were not successful. Hillary Clinton did not lose because of the Russians she lost, because she was a garbage candidate who didn't campaign the way she should have. And everybody ignores that everybody wants to scream about steal the Democrats want to scream about impeachment and everybody on both sides is ignoring the key nugget from the Miller investigation. The Russians want to undermine our democracy and all the screaming is helping them. Alright. I do not have enough time on the clock. Bad clock management's? We'll have to continue this discussion in the next hour. We'll continue taking your phone calls on this as well for four eight seven two zero seven five zero one eight hundred WSB talk. Those are the numbers. Here's the thing. You just need to understand your key takeaway moment from what Muller was saying today. He's done. He's leaving. It's over investigation closed he will not testify before congress if forced to he'll read the report, and he had no power to date, the president, therefore he could not indict the president. All engine. Hello and welcome. It is Eric Erickson here at Landes. Evening news on WSB the phone number four zero four eight seven two zero seven five zero one eight hundred w SP talk. Bob Muller has spoken. He says, well, you know what? Let me tell you what he says Libby, play you what I think, is the biggest most important thing. And then what I need to do is I need to discuss the box. This puts the Democrats in, because I don't believe the conventional wisdom that this Kirk Democrats helps the president but there is a way I think Nancy Pelosi realize that does hurt the Democrats helps the president. But before we do that molar on why he didn't indict the president. Let me let me play this audio for you. His special counsel's office is part of the department of Justice and by regulation. It was bound by that department policy charging president with. Crime was there for not and option. We could consider. Departments written opinion, explaining the policy makes several important points that further informed are handling of the obstruction investigation. Those points are summarized, in our report, I will describe two of them for you. I the opinion explicit explicitly permits, the investigation of sitting president, because it is important to preserve evidence while memories are fresh and documents available. Among other things that evidence could be used if there were co conspirators, who could be charged now. And second opinion says that the constitution requires a process other than the criminal Justice system to formally accuse a sitting president of wrongdoing. In other words, impeachment that the special prosecutor is not allowed under the law and department of Justice guidelines to indict a sitting president. He's not allowed to do it. So he couldn't do it. Didn't even consider it as a result. So all the rumors about a draft indictment whatnot not true. Is basically what he saying, contrary to press reports last week, not true. What can be done is impeachment and the Democrats are now in a box because above mower. And I think some of them recognize earned box Jerry Nadler today coming out saying impeachment now on the table. I there's a lot of conventional wisdom in Washington. A lot of times the conventional wisdom is wrong, and one of the pieces of conventional wisdom here in Washington DC's, that government shutdowns Republicans, and there's actually no data to support that in fact after the. Government, shutdown of the nineties, and the Clinton ministration Republicans went up the Republicans who lost in the house representatives. They're only handful of them. No one expected them to win their election in one thousand nine hundred ninety six so ninety eight rolls around they've lost will it's not the government shutdown that caused it, actually or his, he was ninety five shit. Any it? They wound up picking up seats in the Senate. They went up picking up goo- governors races. The last couple of shutdowns Republicans had e they wound up gaining seats. They gain seats of the Senate this last time for Pete's sake. The government shutdown do not hurt Republicans in the same way. I don't think it's true to say that impeachment helped Bill Clinton in the nineties, didn't hurt Republicans didn't help Bill Clinton. What happened is George W Bush got elected beat for God's sakes. The impeachment happened in nineteen ninety nine Bill Clinton had already served. It was in a second term, Al Gore wound up losing Republicans were not heard at the ballot box by impeaching the president. None of that stuff is true. It is a mythology built up in conventional wisdom circles. A Nancy Pelosi has bought? Into it. But there is an angle here that I think does hurt. The Democrats in does put them into a box. So here's the problem. And I think this is what Pelosi understands is that there's an election coming and because there's an election coming a this is best resolved at the election. It is not well resolved in an impeachment proceeding. What an impeachment proceeding do would be to take Democrats off their message of why they're different from the president, they would be forced only to talk about impeachment. But here's another thing you've got e Elizabeth Warren. And Kamala Harris both coming out today saying, essentially, what Bob Muller said this morning was the president needs to be impeached. That that's, that's their England this bobble or say the president's speech. If Democrats keep talking about impeaching the president and not actually, impeaching, the president, then that since very strong signal. The Democrats are just as partisan, as they say that Republicans are me Miller has boxed the Democrats in all this, now they either need to impeach the president and tomorrow, or they need to abandon it altogether. If they abandon it altogether. They hurt the democratic base. The democratic base will be mad at the Democrats. And by the way, you know, who that could hurt that could Joe Biden, because Biden has very much taken the position that they need to do with this at the ballot box biting. His long said that this is a fight. We need to address the box, not an impeachment here. So if the Democrats take impeachment off the table, that's going to inflame the democratic base, and they're going to go towards the Kamala Harris dealing with warns the Bernie Sanders, the world. Not Joe Biden, all of whom are say impeach impeach beach, beach beach, if they do in peach, though, there is a lot of pulling out there for multiple news organizations that shows that the public ready to move on the public wants to handle this at the ballot box the, the, the majority of the public, they're not huge fans of the president, some of the will vote for the president over Democrats who were distracted off message because of impeachment. This really is in a good situation for Democrats to be an any more than it is for the president about the only way to resolve the situation is for. To get room tomorrow and decide either, we're gonna move forward with impeachment, or we are going to abandon it altogether it just e they've got to figure out one way or the other exactly what they're going to do. And they need to do that tomorrow the longer. This drags out with the Democrats say impeach the president, we're gonna consider impeaching president. We're gonna hold hearings on it whatnot. It makes it look less credible. What happens in, in the worst case scenario for the Democrats, they do decide to impeach the president. But they wait until next year to do it. They drag their feet through this year. And they wait until next year will, then the president has a new talking point. The Democrats have decided they can't campaign against the president, and so they're going to basically drag out impeachment in distract the public from the campaign, and the president suddenly can say they have no message against me. They have no message that they have no way to show that their policies would be better. And by the way, they're trying to wipe out the economy. They're trying to wipe out the gains, we've made economically. They're trying to wipe out the president's job growth where you had turned Tony Cole in earlier that had been laid off in three years. She's had a job. He's had steady work as income's going up. That's what he cares about not even a big Trump. Fanta. That's we're seeing this in the polling across the country. So that that's that's why what Muller today? So interesting to me. Listen, I don't buy the narrative that he hates the president. I don't Bob. Color is a sound civil servant. He's a Republican. I hear it was, oh he's the last of the Bush's Bush's. They, they, they hate Trump. Yeah, the Bush's eight tro Muller was picked for this job. He here's the thing, any person who got picked, for the job would be attacked by people who support the president, and this politics. I get it. But I think that this over over Archie nods. No prosecutor would do today with Bob bowler. Did have this press covers bull only? Bowl only what Bob Moeller said today, you should be pleased by. He said he's not going to testify before congress. Oh well he just he wants. He wants these Republicans in the house. Let them get a hold of him start asking questions. You really you what the Republicans in the house to be able to question Bob Mueller. Ono bumbler scared of those net. Punt bowler was a combat. Veteran from Vietnam. He is not scared of house. Republicans asked him to questions. He's just not a now. I realize I, I know I'm stepping on line here because I'm supposed to be I I'm supposed to be good in all the team and in the tribe, and and go with the talking points. But the talking points are bunk here. All Miller is eight is he's not going to testify before congress. He could not exonerate. The president in a because there are lots of things that make it look like the president tried to obstruct Justice, but it all goes to intent remember this. That's part of the report is, is it depends on the president's intent and that's another difficult bar that Muller appreciator would have to prove in he candidate the president. So why bother trying to flesh out what his intent was anyway? If the Democrats feel so strongly about it impeach and it puts the Democrats and potentially difficult spot where throws the most message. But let let's not dismiss bowlers claims here. I mean Muller is a serious grownup. You may not like it. You may hate him. You may listen to all the other Republicans and conservatives in, in Trump supporters L. He's a terrible person. He's out to get the pres- upstart my president. My guy, therefore, he's the enemy. No, no. He's just he was appointed for job by Republicans. He did his job. He's not indicting the president and now he wants to go home, and he doesn't want to fight for congress. If Bob Muller hated the president and wanted to get the president, he would be testifying before congress, he would, but he's not going to he just wanted to do his job. And now it's the Democrats court and what's he done to the Democrats, basically told him it's their time to put up or shut up, and they don't know what to do with that, that's a problem for them. And Bob more cost them that problem, not the president. And I need to go to phones four zero four eight seven two zero seven five zero one eight hundred w WSB talk, Mike. Engage Gainesville, thanks for being patient. How are you? Mike. Hi there. Can you hear me? Yup. I can cook. Still to be seem to -ccomplish two things. One is that it's basically just continuation of the diversionary tactic that they Democrats have used to keep people away from fully investigating the Clintons, violent ministration, particularly as it pertains to these selling if you rhenium to Russia, and Secondly, if Moore was director of the yeah, during that time he probably has some exposure, and is trying to keep the diversion going. Particularly in what we should statements by the attorney general about the fact they are vesting such. Well, what the attorney general is specifically investigating is what led to the, the F B I investigating the president originally. That is what they're, that's what they're probing. Why are they investing? Why did they investigate? What was their original grounds for investigating Donald Trump was at the Steele dossier? And if so how did that come about? And I think that's a fairness Gatien. They do need investment it. We do need those questions answered I don't think that we can. I mean, if you want to relitigate uranium one and Hillary and all that stuff. Okay go fort but we're well beyond that. No one looked into it. Even Donald Trump is not looking into it. So if Donald Trump's not looking into it if we embar isn't looking into it, then I think we kind of were fighting the last fight instead of looking forward to what's coming down the bike. All righty. It is Eric Erickson here at length is evening news. The full numbers four zero four eight seven zero seven five zero one eight hundred WSB talk believe it or not, I had a stack stuff to talk about. But I don't think it's going to get there because everybody wants talk about Muller got people on hold bear with me. I wanna play a bit of audio for you. This is just an Amish who I know in deeply respect. I disagree with him on impeachment. I do I think that this is best settled at the ballot box, not an impeachment hearing. I don't think the president actually obstructed in. I have read the Miller report. Now, somebody actually sent me a bound copy of it via Amazon. I have no idea who did it. But I have read it, and I disagree, yeah. The, the president things he shouldn't have done. I don't think it amounts to obstruction of Justice. Honestly, though, in large part, I think the president didn't obstruct Justice because he asked people to do things and they did not do them. And that's one of the things more points out, is, is that a lot of these people, the president, basically with. Saved by the people around him. But I want you to listen to this clip sue you get an alternative viewpoint. I do think that it is more dangerous for our country to allow a president to mislead people make things up as an example, in the molar report. He asked the White House counsel to create a false record, things like that, to, to basically mislead people about a statement. He had made things like that, to me reflect incredible dishonesty and, and really harm the office of the presidency. And I don't think that. I don't think that you can just let stuff go and say, hey, it's no big deal. We're going to have an election in two years and just let it go. I think you have to have proceedings to deter this kind of conduct even if the person is not convicted. You know there are a lot of protections here for a president, but we should expect the president to uphold. The law says to have the highest standard more than anyone else. Now, I believe the people are smart enough to figure out what's going on. I really believe that. And in this district. I heard someone mentioned like you know, running Republican on Trump's co tales or something, the president did much worse than I did in the strict. Okay. In fact, we've looked up the numbers. President Trump had the worst showing in Kent County of any Republican in the history of our county. And the worst showing the worst showing in the city of Grand Rapids of any Republican. Now, you may not be there, but I'm actually a series libertarian conservative. Really? The what of the only Republicans in the house, I would classify as more libertarian than conservative, but very much in favor of limited government does not like the president willing to, to speak up about it thinks the president used to impeach being beach because he thinks the president calls the presidency into disrepute. But again, this is something to deal with at the ballot box. If you think the president undermines the office will fight about it at the ballot box. Now, let's go back to the phones. Jason in Norcross. You are going to be Knicks tonight. Welcome to WSB. Hey, thanks for taking my call. Sure. Just a little surprised by something you said earlier in a I don't want to miss quote you. But you were saying something like that we really want these Republicans to go up against molar Muller's grizzled, eating veteran or something like that. What I was saying this is one of the Republican talking points. The reason Miller does wanna testify is because he scared of Republicans in congress. I don't think that's the case. Oh, okay. Maybe I misheard you 'cause I was thinking, gosh, I could sit here for hours and named the reasons why Muller would be terrified answer questions, like per one. When did you know collusion wasn't on the table? And why did we continue after that? Maybe I misheard you, but the thing about mcgahey and the, the thing that, you know, I guess Trump asked him, maybe to change his story or try to coach them on how to how to answer that. I think I see what people are getting out there. But really, I think when Trump saw evidence and we've. Seen the evidence. It's not just guessing we've seen evidence that this molar investigation was the ferris. What was ill founded and, and it'll handle. I think that gives the president, you know, the right now. Why was the investigation itself nefarious? Well, maybe I'm using the wrong word there. But I mean, the whole thing started on. I mean it's a sham. What did this investigation should have never happened? It's an illegal investigation as far as I'm concerned. Keep I'm actually, I really am trying to your point. If, if the attorney general allows the assistant, general, rod Rosenstein to make the call and Rosenstein a point to special prosecutor under the special prosecutor statute and tells them to look at two things did rush interfere with the election and did the president of struck Justice a key. Can you say where, where would the legality of the investigation come in? Well, they, they started with Carter page, right? And no, no, no, no, no. They didn't see this is the Jason this, this is what my is not a frustration with you. It's, it's a frustration with I think away some Republicans have talked about this investigation for so long. They didn't. They did not Bob Muller did not start with Carter page bumbler never started with Carter. In fact, Carter page is is not a big deal in the Miller report. Bob Muller started with the firing of James Komi, which again, all the president's advisors told him in in, you don't believe me, re read the Miller report, they say it under oath. They told bread don't fire James. Call me James Colman investigations started with the Steele dossier. But the reason the Muller investigation happened was not because of the steel does he it was because the president fire James me, and win on NBC nightly news with Lester Holt and city fired him because of the Russian vindication had the president that the winning ever been a Muller investigation. So it it's, it's, it's not fair to say that the molar of education was about Carter page because it wasn't about Carter page. In fact, I've got the molar report pulled up on my screen right now, a PDF word searchable version of it. Do you know how many times Carter page is named appears in the report? Zero zero times Carter page does not appear in the Miller report. At all it just this this, this isn't so much of this is not actually I take that back. Carter pages name does appear it took forever. Four to come up quarter pages name does appear, but a half dozen times. But again only half dozen times, this isn't about page out about steel. This is about the president's lack of self control had the president, not fire. James Komi had he not fired James Komi? We would not have a Bob Mueller investigation would the president could have done is he could have had the Justice department insist on an investigation into how the Christopher Steele dossier came up? In fact, he's doing that now and William bars doing that. And I think the, the reason that James Komi in some people within the DOJ in the screaming is because they know. That James Comey had no business doing that in head the president done to begin with we wouldn't be where we are right now. But where we all right now with the, the calls for impeachment. Everybody's muddied the water and all them doing is I'm trying to clear the water up for you. I'm trying to make it clear, so you can see that where we are right now with the Democrats and impeaching the president. Yes, they think the president work with Russia to steal the election. But you know what the Miller report shows that did not happen? He clears the president that were the impeachment grounds. Come from is did the President, Try to get people to not be honest with Bob Muller? That's where the investigation come from did the President, Try to get people to not be honest with Bob molar, and their ample examples of the president tried to get people to not say things or to say things differently than they wanted to. But these people saved the president by not listening to him, which is why I don't think we can get there with with obstruction of Justice. The people did not do. What the president wanted them to do? Correct myself quarter pages, mentioned seventeen times when you strike out footnote in indices. But the Miller report says that he did not collaborate with the Russians to steal the election that they gave him a pass on that. Perfect coffee. Table is out there just waiting to be found at homedepot dot com. No, you won't have to build it. Because now the Home Depot has everything for your living room from Lennon's opus decide chairs and with easy and store returns. You could bring it back if you ever do build one yourself this Memorial Day. Save up to twenty five percents living room furniture, plus get free inflexible delivery. Shop decor now at Home Depot dot com. More saving, more kinds of doing valid online, only through may twenty ninth free delivery, and select items forty dollars more. Visit homedepot dot com for more information. The Starlight lounge presents an evening with the progressive bucks. The move. Let's go to cling, the ivories. He just saved by bundling home and auto. Progressive gonna finally by ring for that gal of yours Ugo condolences. This. Nice. In my. Progressive casualty insurance company and affiliates. Discounts available in all states or situations.

president Bob Muller Democrats congress Donald Trump prosecutor Muller Bob Mueller Christopher Steele Miller Jerry Nadler WSB Nancy Pelosi attorney James Comey Russia Hillary Clinton George W Bush
Taking Your Dogs Xanax with Connie Britton

Life Will Be the Death of Me with Chelsea Handler

51:18 min | 1 year ago

Taking Your Dogs Xanax with Connie Britton

"Hi, it's Chelsea handler. And I'm excited to tell you about fabrics, the company co founded by my good friend Kate Hudson. It's the ultimate destination for women's active wear, including the world's best leggings which Brandon, you've borrowed some of mine multiple times. Well, please wash them when you return them. Next time I love wearing five lettuce when I work out, and I love wearing them when I don't because I like to walk around and act like I've just worked out, even when I have it for a limited time, you can choose to leggings for just twenty four dollars when you become a VIP member. So go to WWW dot com slash Chelsea handler. Or you can go directly to five lettuce dot com and select Chelsea handler, under the where did you hear about us tab? Hi, I'm Chelsea handler. Welcome to life will be the death of me a production of iheartradio. Thank you. That's very, very warm. Welcome. I know it's going to be one of those nights. Because it always is in Dallas. It's always one of those nights, and that's why I always come back here. When I go on tour. I haven't been on tour and a really long time and I didn't feel like standing up while I was doing it. So. And I didn't want to go on tour until I had something to say. And so this is me with something to say, I wrote a new book, it's called life will be the death of me. And I'm going to read the first chapter of the book to set the tone for everybody about where I was in my life. When I wrote this. The book is dedicated to my future. Husband. Whoever he is if you're here if you're a straight man here tonight. By yourself. There are no straight men here by themselves. No fucking way. And if they are they're seventy. The chapters called wherever I been all my life. I don't remember the actor and I don't remember the movie, but I remember it was five o'clock in the afternoon. And I had just taken a couple hits off of my vape. Pen I needed to load my picks account which held pre released movies that I was expected to screen before a star of one of the movies was a guest on my Netflix talk show. I was sitting on one of my overpriced, Shays lounges the kind that celebrities and Russians purchase for their bedrooms. When I found myself, once again, unable to convert the TV that descends from the ceiling from apple TV two picks. Rich, people have descending smart televisions. The idea is that they descend silently and gracefully from the ceiling, but because I am nouveau riche rich mind. Sounds more like a helicopter as fucking landing. I'd like to blame my inability to change the mode of my television picks on the fact that I was stoned, but that would be a lie. I'd be even less capable if I were sober. I called my assistant Brandon at his house to tell him to tell my other assisted Tanner, who was downstairs in my house. To come up stairs at healthy with the television, I hung up the phone. I looked down at the table and saw the vape pen, how many more hits of marijuana going to need to take to get through this movie. I knew things that hit a new low or high depending on how you looked at the situation. I picked up the I've had that controls the TV along with everything else in my house from the window shades to the exterior lights in my backyard to my pulse, probably and tried to pretend that I was troubled shooting. So that Tanner would think I had at least tried to figure it out on my own as if that had ever happened before. How did I become so useless? And how many assistance did I actually have the answer is to Brandon and Tanner, Brandon is gay and has an incredible attention to detail. Tanner is straight. And before he met me, he thought the four seasons was a weather pattern. Before I met Tanner, I thought Venema was an online liquor store. I do want to watch another stupid movie that I didn't care about, and I really didn't want to interview another action star below v aiding about his motivation for playing a half man half mermaid, I didn't care, and I wasn't doing anyone any favors by pretending that I did did I ever care. The answer is yes. There was a time when all of this matter to me, there was a time when being famous and having this kind of success and money, and having a TV show was what drove me to want more and more and more. And now I found myself exhausted and ashamed by the meaninglessness of it, all, I remember coming home, a couple of weeks before the two thousand sixteen election on a windy fall night, which for Los Angeles is rare anytime. There's weather in Los Angeles, even rain. It's exciting. The constant sunshine can start to grate on your nerves. I went up to my bedroom. I opened up my sliding glass doors. I grabbed my vape pen and I turned on. Some Neil young and I lay on my bed in the dark watching the wind blow, my bedroom. Drapes around hearing, the ruffling of the leaves, and watching that lanterns that hang from my backyard trees swinging into each other thinking, if there's an electrical fire, I hope the dogs will at least bark to wake me up. But overall, my thought was, this is fucking awesome. This is exactly what I hope to dull. -ted would be like. No kids, no husband, no responsibilities. Just a TV show on Netflix. And whatever else I felt like doing whenever I felt like doing it. Not trapped not stuck dependent on a single person, but myself free to be you and me. I couldn't believe how lucky my life had turned out how many of my dreams had come true. And also Mike, good fortune in being alive during this time in history. The year we were going to elect, our first female president. That didn't happen. I suppose I could play my state of mind on the election of Donald Trump. So I will. I have the Trump family in the horrifying personalities and those disgusting veneers to thank for my midlife crisis. Along with more than half the population of the world. I couldn't grasp how in this day and age we elected a man who insulted everybody. He's insulted and done everything. He's done since that contrast indecency between Barack Obama and Donald Trump was too much for me to bear. It was like electing snooky to the Senate? Now, people were seriously talking about Dwayne the rock Johnson for president how on earth, did we get there? Although if I'm being honest at that point, I would've taken an actual rock. I kept hearing the word elitists. You know like that. Everyone in California, New York lives in a bubble that the election of this, lunatic was a result of all of us, not knowing anything about the rest of the country, and that didn't ring true for me because I had traveled all over the country doing stand up for so many years. I've been to every major city in some minor cities multiple times. I wasn't an elitist. My father was a used car dealer. I didn't have a trust fund or wealthy. Parents. We weren't even allowed to answer the phone growing up because more often than not, it would be a Bill collector. At four hundred dollars when I drove across the country alone to move to Los Angeles. And then was broke for seven years, living paycheck to paycheck, while simultaneously getting fired from every waitressing job I ever had. I worked for everything I ever have. And never even went to college. How could I be an elitist without ever going to college? And then oh, wait a minute. I remember I grew up wanting to get as far away from my life and my parents as possible. I had created a life in which there was a zero tolerance policy for any discomfort, I could handle physical discomfort, like dental work or elective surgery to make my thighs smaller, but not any discomfort related to not having money. Sure. I was just scraping by on those cross country trips in the beginning of my stand up career barely making enough money from small comedy clubs to cover my hotel room for the week. But after a few years, I was making more money, and then the club's turned into theaters, and then arenas and then private planes and chauffeured cars, and sometimes I'd be in a city for less than twenty four hours and then onto the next city. So here I was, again, not taking into account, the optics or for that matter, the reality of my own entitlement I had become exactly what I'd always wanted to be. An elitist. I did live in a bubble inside a bigger bubble, which was inside an even bigger bubble. That's three bubbles to assistant to cleaning ladies, are basically more like my nanny's. A driver of pool guy. A landscaper a florist 'cause I need flowers all the time. A house van what's a house man? You ask someone who walks the dog and polishes the outdoor furniture. And oh who somebody cleans up the dog shit because can't do that? Either basically he's an outdoor Butler when was the last time I cleaned up dog shit probably the last time I flew coach. I hated having these thoughts. I hated it because in the process, something clicked for me, and I realized that I'd made a career of over hydrating people with honesty, yet, I was being dishonest with myself. And now that I was aware of this situation, I would have to do something about it, because I couldn't just carry on the way I'd been carrying on just coasting and cashing checks for a centrally being allowed mouth. So I took another head of my vape. What I really wanted to do is watch the news, even though the news was giving me diarrhea the whole administration was giving me. Diarrhea. I'm probably herpes too for all I now. My outrage was high. I spent the year after the election being sucked into the vortex of news cycles that accompany, Donald Trump's ascendancy in my subsequent mental hernia. The news was like a high-speed merry go round that never slowed down long enough to figure out what it was safe to hop on or off, so, like everything else in my life, thus far, I hopped on, and I stayed on. I spent the better part of my day in a wormhole googling pictures of young, Robert Muller. Because I always developing strong, sexual feelings toward him as well as his investigation in an interesting plot twist it turns out, Bob Muller, he's even hotter and his early. Seventies, then he was when he was in the marines, I was more attracted to present day, Bob Muller than I would have had I been alive during nam. The guy fucking kills me. I mean who is hotter than Bob Muller Daniel day? Lewis playing Bob Muller. Maybe. I mean, potentially but he's going to have to stop with his shoe cobbling to fill them. Another movie. Daniel day Lewis and his shoe cobbling. It's like no one's talking about your shoes, buddy. Okay. Just an act. Bob Muller was the only hope I had that Donald Trump in that terrible, vampire family, he spawned would end up in prison. The investigation into Donald Trump and his conspiring with Russia and all the other crimes. I'm sure he'll be indicted for. Hey. Made me realize what real men look like they looked like Bob Muller. I seventy four year olds with a six pack possibly an eight-pack underneath his shirt when he walks you can see it. He's wrapped. Keeping your shit together, as what that's called everybody. The prosecutor marine and the director of the FBI, how on earth is any woman worth our salt meant to control herself around him and not set to regularly on his face. Very few seven year old men have a head of hair like that. And if anyone knows their way around seventy year old man, it's me. They're my core demographic. The thickness the salt and pepper. It's one thing after another with that patriot. My best friend, Mary, and I have spent many nights deliberating about what he drinks when he gets home after a long day. Was it a scotch on the rocks or scotch neat one ice cube? Mary would say, and it would be a mcallen people who use one ice cube. Usually annoy me, but this was different. I knew that Bob Muller knew better than I did. And if he wanted to use one ice, Hugh. Then he was trying to accomplish something different with his libation. I'd be willing to switch over to scotch or whiskey or even use one ice cube for the rest of my life. The reward met seeing Donald Trump dragged out of the White House topless handcuffed. While his hairpiece detached from the tape on his head and, and then flew around, like a cyclone landing in the rose garden. I'm not embarrassed by my feelings about Robert Muller or four Robert Muller. I'm surprised maybe but I'm not embarrassed. I am legitimately attracted to him, and everything he stands for I respect the shit out of him. And I suspect there will be a lot of people naming their baby boy's Bob, after this whole shit show is over. Who would have thought Bob would finally take off? Imagining Bob Bobby sitting in his boxers and a little boys Hain under shirt with short sleeves while drinking a mcallen on the rock. Probably in a leather club chair. Maybe it feel like Bob Muller. And I had a lot more in common than anyone would have guessed even me. I imagined us plan clue together deep deepen the Catskills. Learning entirely new strategies to a game. I thought I had already intellectually mastered. I understand Bob Muller is married and unavailable. So I would like to go on the record and say, I respect that, while also remaining deeply attracted to him, it wouldn't matter if he was interested in me or not. I don't need people to like me in order for me to like them. That's a new thing. I'm like it. It's fun. Through the months of thick fog and despair after the election. He was the one bright spot. He also represented. A seminal moment for me, personally, I had finally found the first Republican I could see myself being penetrated by. Back to my midlife prices, there's a line, I'd written down from Viktor Frankl's memoir, surviving, the it's about surviving the holocaust, it's called man's. Search for meeting. It was a line that stopped me cold. When I read it, it said it did not really matter what we expected from life. But rather what life expected from us. I had never thought about what life expected for me. I had only thought about what I expected from life. That was a book put her down. It was a look up at the sky and wonder where the fuck have I been all my life moment? How lost was I if that question had never occurred to me and it had an ever occurred to me. I had to read it to think it, what a fucking dummy. I was rewarding myself over and over again, with homes and cars and vacations and gross extravagance I justified all of it, because I worked for everything I had I came from nothing. I told myself for years. That was my story work hard, fight hard, don't give up. You can do anything you deserve this. The idea that I came from nothing is a joke. My parents were disappointing like with their personalities but. I always felt loved by lots of people I never went hungry. I never struggled. I was white pretty Jewish and had a ton of misplaced self confidence. So life got easier. The more focused I became I got to Hollywood. I was rewarded for all of that behavior. My life was a bubble. That's exactly what have become a big vapid bubble. And what we're my ties to being famous. What were my ties to being a celebrity wealth and fame existed as a couple in my mind. They went together. Did that mean I could still have one without the other? And if so, which one would I choose, and is this, my whole identity? Is this, my whole life can't be do I get to fall in love again with a man? No. A man can't help you with this. You got yourself here. So the question is, what are you going to do with yourself now? What is my enough? I never had a care about the state of the world before the world was vague thought and a whimsical fancy that was for the adults. I thought that by traveling to so many different countries. I was doing my due diligence that by edifying myself with other cultures and sharing my experiences on camera on my show. I was somehow making a worthy contribution to society, America wasn't a problem. There wasn't a problem. We had elected a black president, and we're about to elect, a woman, racism and feminism, we're fights again. It didn't happen. Sweetie. Maybe we're not talking about the same thing. Racism and feminism, we're fights. We had already one America was being handled by people smarter and more skilled in politics. And they took care of this stuff, so that people like me could live the American dream and remain. Blissfully ill-informed, I spent my adulthood on a cigarette boat, going one hundred miles per hour. And now I felt like I had somehow become marooned on one of those terrible. All inclusive Carnival Cruise ships. Time speeds up as it goes by someone explain to me that there is a mathematical reason for this as you age each year becomes a smaller percentage of the life you have already lived, I'm forty two as I write this. So one year now represents a small percentage of my forty two years about two point three eight percent. But when I was eight one year was a really long time. It was an eighth of my life, and that's why some are lasted for about four years when you were a kid, and this may be why I now feel an urgency to know more to do more and to be more. Don't get me wrong. I don't believe life is too short. I believe life is too long. It's exhausting. I don't fear dying. I want people know that if I die early it's not some tragedy, if I die tonight. It's not be relieved. I'm wiped out and I've had a great adventure. I have two hundred and fifty thousand dollars set aside for my funeral because I want everyone to have one big fucking party in my honor. I want to have a great funeral filled with dancing, and little people and mushrooms. And then little people on mushrooms. I wanted to be a celebration for all the people who love me. And for all the people who are happy to see me go. But in the meantime between now and then this is my attempt at taking stock of how I got here, where I've been and where exactly it is that I'm going, what exactly is it that I might bring to the table to answer the question that Viktor Frankl forced me to ask myself, do I have the conviction to examine myself unflinchingly to reveal the good the bad ugly? The beautiful the answer's. Yes, I have a lot to be embarrassed about, and I intend to advertise it. I'm sick of my voice of Miami Bishen of my entitlement. I'm sick of not knowing more and I'm embarrassed at took me, this long to figure it out. Life has been too easy. I've gotten almost everything I've ever wanted, and I'm forty two something smells fishy. After all is said and done. I'd like to be cremated and have my ashes scattered over Bob Muller scrape. Or inside. Or his inside mine. Or inside of me or one of Daniel Day-Lewis as clogs. Thank you. Thanks guys. Okay. We're gonna take a quick break, and we'll be right back. Hi, I'm Chelsea handler. And I'm excited to tell you about my very good girlfriends clothing company that she co founded called fab x her name is Kate Hudson. And when she started the company, they set me tons of samples and all the leggings fit grape. But guess what part was tied on me, the booby action and I sent it back I said, don't worry. I know you're not going to have my size. I'll wear my own bras. And then she set me back a that did fit. And then she sent me another one, and then she sat me, another one. So if you have a body, like mine, or one that doesn't match up to everybody else, you know, fab, Latics has five star, styles and sizes double extra small two three x two x there's something for everybody in every workout, no matter how you choose to sweat, and no matter what size you are for a limited time. She's two leggings for just twenty four dollars when you become a VIP member. So go to WWW dot FedEx dot com slash Chelsea handler. Or you can go directly to. Dot com and select Chelsea handler. Under the where did you hear about us tab once again, WWW dot fat buttocks dot com slash Chelsea handler. I'm going to bring out somebody that you're all going to love very much, and she's a very good friend of mine, and she was nice enough to fly out here to interview me for for tonight and you might know her. Please welcome tiny Britain. Okay. Hi. Dallas. Yeah good good. Let's tell everybody how we met. Okay. Was it on my TV show? We, we met. No. You thought we met on your TV show. We did not meet on your TV show. We met in an airport. You accosted me. You were dating Ted harbor. Remember Ted harbor from previous books that was one of my first older. Boyfriends that was the twenty one twenty years between my age and their age was acceptable. Right, which when, when I was in my twenties, and thirties, I date fifty year olds now that I'm forty four. I'm not dating a fucking sixty four year old. Do you know what I mean? So the margin has to, like, shrink so. I mean, I'm open minded, and that's why I'm single so yes, it's worth. It's working out. Great for you working wonderfully. No. But you were a fan of Friday night lights. I know I'm so happy to be baggage this. I love y'all and you accosted me in the airport, and somehow we ended up with each other's numbers. And I don't know if you remember this, I wanted to start by saying, I'm so fucking proud of you. This book is number one on my two different New York Times bestseller list. I am so proud of you, because this book is like nothing else you've ever done. It's nothing else. You've ever written and it is a reflection of who you've become and I say that because we're talking about when we met, because when we met this, Chelsea. I was out of control and then we texted each other, and then you invited me some birthday party that you had you were having on some island, and like I'd like a club whereas like going to be a club like twenty four hours a day. And I was in the middle of working on something. I don't know what and I couldn't go and you were so mad at me was I so mad needs used to be really pissed at the time he was so pissed. She was so seven anger anger, like just fucking agit yet. But also also, like somehow that I couldn't go it was like I was abandoning her. You don't do that anymore. No, no. Now, you're so healthy. I'm a lot healthier than I was. Yeah. But you don't realize when you're in those states when you're just kind of going in and you're just like, you know, my my career when it started in this town, you just go million Myers per hour. You know you never can take a break either, and it becomes in addiction. And then all of a sudden, you're just out, you're not even paying attention to what's happening and your life, just kind of passes you by. So it was good to have a wake. Call because when I hear stories like this, I cringe, I'm like, oh, God, I was so fucking annoying now. But you weren't you were still. You always have had this heart. But now you're letting us really see it. And you're letting yourself really see it, and I'm really proud of you and I, I'd like to thank Dan for that, Dan's my psychiatrist. I have I have. Really irrational feelings for Dan. I really want Dan badly. Like you want Robert Muller. I want I gotta I got it on Pro Bowl. Dan was the first psychiatrists that I ever went to that. I wasn't attracted to, and that's why I stuck with it because I knew that if it wasn't if it's a sexual thing, your girls were so screwed up. You know you dentists can be borderline good looking. And all of a sudden you're like. Just because he has some control over you. Have you ever like anybody anytime? I've been put under by an anesthesiologist. You're just like, oh my God. Like you're mainly attracted to them, just because they're like, they have your life in your hands and their hands. I know that sexy, so. Yeah, I love I love being drugged. What's. What's happening? Connie doesn't like drugs just so you know. Yeah, I gave her a head of weed I meant into cannabis now. Yeah, she's into Canada's town is not legal here. Right. Okay. And it will be it will be at some point the way it's gotta be legal everywhere. But I've coming out with my own cannabis line, at the end of the summer and because it's helped me it's helped me so much, especially with, like, you know, just relaxing calming. Slow down cannabis was my gateway drug to like meditation and all that shit. But because that's how that goes always start with drugs before you meditate helped me, I, I have to calm down for long enough to meditate. So, yeah, I need some weed. We weren't over. We were over at our friend Charlene's. They're on house one night. And so were there, and I had my we'd pen of sample. My we'd pen I said Connie here. Try it. And she's like I never really smoke. I was like, then don't I don't want the drama. You know what I mean? If you're going to like. Place. Wait. Also, it was a dinner party, where all these people were supposed to show up. And, and like we were the only two people who came. So it ended up being and it was like this beautiful dinner party for like, three three women three of us, who have him were real stones. I was stone, but I'm always a little bit stone. So you are shown, and then we moved in the living room and some other people came over. So as Rita ORA the musician and cartel Evine came over. So she's on the couch. Lying behind me. And I'm talking chitchatting, and I don't even notice, and I just went to go sit back on my, who's the like Connie. She's been sleeping for like two hours. Man. Three weeks later. I got a text from cards elevated saying, hey, I'm having a party at my house housewarming, or whatever at birthday. I thought it was too. I got there was a house where like why the fuck that I go to this. I was like I thought this is an important night. I mean. So she said, hey, I have I'm having a house warming party where you win by Connie and Charlene is, and I was like, yeah, yeah, I will. And then I invited you, and you're like oh, that's so sweet. I don't even know cards Alvin. And I was like, well, she met you the other night while you were sleeping on the couch. And I must have made a great impression. See invited me to her not birthday party. So whatever a great sleeper, if you can make a good impression while you're sleeping. I think that's solid. Yeah, I feel pretty good about it used us to be more of a sleeper, too. That was another thing too years ago at your birthday party, you basically announced to everybody who was still at your birthday party. Okay. Guys, I'm going to bed. You know, I was it was as awkward as that sounds like it was not any less awkward than that. It was literally like I looked at Brandon, I'm like, okay should we go? We're gonna I'm gonna go. That's, that's yeah. I'd like to do a French exit. But it's hard to do that at your own house. Yeah. You know what I mean? It's hard to just. Anyway, anyways. So but now here you are. You're in Texas. I'm in Texas, which the other thing, the other thing about see she's had a crush on. We've had a crush on a couple of my the things the reason, I'm friends with Connie is because. Yeah. Works with men that I would like to get penetrated by. Kyle Chandler obviously is ridiculous. And obviously had a huge crush on him. And then he did the other show after you. And then I was like, oh my God. Like I have a real obsession with him. So I had to stop watching him because it was unhealthy because he's married and doesn't want anything to do with me. I tried to get him on my show to interview me. I mean to interview him on my old show and Connie would try and be a liaison. But then, you know he'd be like no not gonna do it. He's like real sweet. I she could come what you offered to go meet him like an teepee or something. Said no. She come down. And do that. Interview in where does he live in Austin? Yeah. And the Austin and I was like, yeah. I'll go to Austin. We could do it in the woods. And he's like that crazy bitch. I don't want her to interview me. And then she worked with Eric Brown, because and that's another one of my, although did you guys all see dirty, John? Although in dirty, John, I wasn't as into him as I've been well, it's hard to get into a sociopath. Yeah. Well, you did. I'm an actress, that's called acting. Yes. Yes. Okay. Well, this sounds like a good time to take a break. Hi. This is Mark Murphy. And I'm the host of a new podcast from iheartradio called booed three sixty. Some of you may know me as chef and a New York restaurant tour. Maybe you recognize my voice as one of the judges on food network's chopped, I've been cooking for over thirty years, but I'm not done. Learning about food yet, and you shouldn't be either. Join me as we take a three hundred sixty degree. Look at history science culture and more all through the lens of food. It's about Shug right and understanding Mylar affect it's chemistry. It is protein and fat and heat. I lose a American chef opening a restaurant in New York City, which was highly unusual hair new, the new animals zoo, you know, let's go see that new animals. He striped exactly. Exactly writing the recipe itself. Don't be flowery. Don't be purple get that information across really what's writing on your recipe someone else's dinner, you should have some scribe to food three sixty on the iheartradio app, apple podcasts or wherever you listen to your favorite shows. Tell the story about chunk on the plane. Well, John, John, John, my old dog. Yeah. John was he was such a style. All they're gonna cry in the book, too, by the way, just saying he chunk was great. Chunk was like my family dog he was my first dog. He made me a mother, and I wasn't a great mother, which is why I'm glad I didn't ever have children because, you know, that would be a disaster. And so, I think I also like people should thank me for that, too. Like I don't get enough recognition. I feel like you know, not contributing to putting out another one of me I think, as a responsible decision making. But Junkin I, I was a really good mom until I took chunk to my orca. I brought him to Spain because I thought he would deserved a trip overseas and. And when I before I had never taken on an international flight. So it was like, twelve or fourteen hours, totally with a layover in Germany, and we were going to see my family and my family, and I we, we all get along. But we're a little bit like my brother's married to this Russian, and she's kind of a buzzkill, and she's very Russia. You know, like she's very over protective. She doesn't she superstitious? It's all like she thinks everyone who's gay has been molested. It's like it's hard to deal with her. You know, she's always like Chelsea. When do you get the boyfriends? And I'm like, what are you have you been listening to anything? I've ever said. That is not going to complete me. And so she has three boys with my brother and they're all horrified by her as well, because she's. She's one of those women is like a mosquito, you know, like, did you like they got out of the pool, and then she makes them put on dry clothes, and then when they get back in the pool they have to put the wet ones back on my just skip the pool. Skip it. It's a nightmare for all of us to watch this. I mean she and she's so materialistic like she's always about my money and the things. And where am I? Oh, this is a nice house. You've rented, you thinking about buying it. It's like no, no one's talking about that. And, and, you know, she thinks the only key to have Unisys to be married to have children. She still thinks there's a chance, I'm going to have a child. I'm like, I'm forty four. It's a wrap. Jake Jessie are very fertile. I can tell I'm like. But is going on vacation with them. And on the on the flight out Junkin, I flew Iberian, air or something. And I got sleeping pills for him because I had never taken him on a flight. And I wanted to make sure you didn't pay or anything. So I was like, okay, I'll probably knock him out. And then in some twist of fate, I just said, no, I'm not going to do that. I don't want to give him a Stephenville. He's never taken one. It was the most responsible parenting. I'd ever very impressed data take over hiring. Thank you. Welcome for me to take an overnight flight without taking a sleeping pill. That's saying I love you. You know what I mean? Like I had never done that I've never taken a flight without taking sleepy Bill. That was that long. But I stayed up with him. And whatever. So I got there and I was like you guys, I did I nailed it, like number one, parent, and then halfway through the trip. My brothers and sisters are all there. I was really annoyed with my Russian sister-in-law. We were on a sail. And I was taking the boys into these coves to swim, and these caves that were underwater there. And she was just like you can't go with Chelsea's. It's not safe. And Finally, I just swam home like Julia Roberts and sleeping with the enemy. I was like, literally, we ought about sailing. I'm beautiful my run. I was like, I'm just going to swim back to the house G, so fucking annoying. And you know what's so funny about her, she's so annoying, but she doesn't even if you tell her, she's inaugural like, ooh there. She doesn't. Oh. She doesn't hold a grudge about it. She'll just pick up the conversation. We're supposed to guess. Anyway, jesse. That's not nice. What were you saying, I'm like? So I swam, I swam to shore on my aunt, who's awesome. She's a real bitch. So we have a good rapport. And she doesn't say much I walked in, and I was like can you believe them like they put so much sunblock on their sons like it was you couldn't even see them? You know. And I walked in, I go can you believe fucking Olga and the and my brother Glen? They bicker about everything, you know, like she could see a Kano burn. It's the thing. You're like, oh my God. Everything's a safety hazard. So I said, I go can you believe how they act? I mean, what's up with that some block of my aunts, I, I can't believe she doesn't even put it in their mouth? I mean. And I, I looked at chunks meds, and what I discovered it was that they were doggies annex, basically the equivalent to a human zanex, and I was like game changer. And I popped one put it in half because it had faster. And I was like, listen, I'm going to go knock myself to the fuck out because it was a Thursday. We had so Saturday. And I was like, I was at the end of my rope, and so I basically slept for the next two days and I just wake up in the morning. Go downstairs take a half zanex pop it and go back upstairs, my I'm like, I can't deal with anymore. Russian accents anytime they asked me. I'm like I just can't. So we get on the plane on the way back from my orca. And I popped the last out X chunk out five, and I was on my fifth one I popped it and realize I didn't have any John and I was like, oh fuck. I can't throw up zanex on a plane. And I'm like, oh, God. That was. So I think I was a thought, though, I was like what do I do? I mean, what do you do if you take something, you're not supposed to of course? That's the first thought and I go for me anyway. And so it is an. So I pass out and I rapped Chinse leash around my waist, and I'm just hoping he's going to pass out to. And then I was falling asleep, and I was like, I have one of these babies sleeping pills that I brought, but never used because I you know, pilfered my own sons, and so I gave him a sonata, which is like a light for our sleeping pill. And we both falsely we wake up four hours later, the woman is like pulling me by my hair, the flight attendants. She's like your dog is running around the first class cabin. And foaming at the mouth. And I am literally like you should have dog hair everywhere. And I had a leash around the my belly and I was so out of it, you know, I tried it. I'm like, oh, John. And I could hear him. He sounded like a where wall he was. Oh, go out. This is going to be a nightmare. Oh my God. Oh my God. And so I'm writing and I get up to go just jump for him to, like lurch and the rope burn around, my waist from the leash I was like. Please help and the women's like I'm not a flight attendant. I I'm not helping you. I don't work here. I was like, please go get me and she's like, I'm not. And I was like, oh shit. I'm on my own on this flight. So I get him. And he is just an Trump was cool, like he would never be on call. He never even would let himself get an erection in front of me or go to the bathroom. He was just a gentle, man. He would turn around if I saw, I'm going to the bathroom he would turn around and run away. I was like, that's what I like I like that. You know, respect. And so it was hard to see him in that condition, especially knowing that I had done that to him. And, and then finally, then the flight attendants were, there were like year, a nightmare, and I was like, listen can we can we get some food? I was like fuck it. I've just got to give him water. He was so thirsty. You know, the vet said before, you know, if you take your dog on a plane just remember the pill makes them very thirsty. And I give it you just told me I can't give them water for fourteen hours. So then he's going to be thirsty and dying for water. She's like you have to choose. Stuck in vets. They never give you at abriel information every fed I've ever gone to they're like, oh, you rescue dog. Like, oh, could be four could be twelve. That's a pretty big margin of error eight years. So the vet you know show he did get thirsty. So I finally just gave him water. I even tried to give them more juice anything and I ordered a mistake, the flight attendant came over and was, like, would you like anything for your traveling companion? The stake was for him. And then he finally calm down, and I was just so scared that I was gonna get off the plane, and I was going to be fucking arrested by the, by the I don't know, some from by pita, you know, news would have spread. I'm like, that's the, that's the shit I need to deal with Chelsea handler kills our dog on playing for my orca. Well, your, your book is so much about death that when I read it, I'm like, she I don't remember the story. She killed junk on a plane like I was sure that that's how it was gonna end. I was so relieved that he served it. He did survive. He, he wasn't really ever the same after that trip. But. I mean, I do feel badly that I did something to him, it would just really knocked him out, and I won't take any more dogs to my orca. That is not a smart move. You know what I mean? They can't handle it's too long and it's not fair. But I don't really know what the point of that. I really like I like your story right? You know, your drug stories are always funny to me, like, I like the one where you right there. So funny like I like the one where you didn't. You take a good yeast infection like suppository or early. Yes. That happened, right? Yes. I was I was in Whistler Canada done. I thought I had a situation. Yeah. And I called my doctor and they sent me a pill, and I took it orally. And then like. Like a day later, I was like I wonder if that was supposed to go in my Pika chew. And then I called my doctor is like, hey quick, quick question. Got Bill that die flu can or what you know. And he goes, yeah. I'm like that goes, and he's like nothing. I'm like where does that go? It's like I'm sorry. Where does that pill? Go. And he's like, I don't understand the question. I'm like, yeah. You do. Anyway. Zoe patience page. And then I wanna talk about politics because that's another change right now. Okay. But that's about that. Oh, yeah. Yeah. I mean Beto right here in that you're in the seat of it right here. This is bad. It's bad outside. Three taxes, isn't it? That's how actually that's how we became kind of we we. Yeah. Because we met a while ago like the airport in Friday night, lights. But this was like, in your old days. And then I remember I didn't go to a birthday party you invited me to which was on some island away. It was like in, like a cl- club. You were going to be in a club like twenty four hours a day, every day for your birthday, and I was like I'm working I can't go, and you almost didn't forgive me. Yeah, I have got mad at people. Really pissed like if you didn't show up she was like you're done. I'm done with you. So, but thankfully, we, you know, time passed and you had your colleagues down about politics, kind of brought us back together again. Yeah. It was nice because after that election, you became friends with people not, this is an example of us. But you actually became friends with people that normally, you wouldn't talk to your like. Oh, yeah. We're on the same team here. Let's figure this out, and I know that you and I both were like scrambling about what to do and hysterical. And I didn't realize, you know, I learned about like for me. It was like I threw myself in which I know you did too. You just like oh my God, what are we gonna do? We gotta get the midterms going like your we're going to go in and fix everything. But luckily, it was a collective of so many people that went in and actually, so I thank you, realized, who I think the way the way we're dealing now with the way the country is, I think, is very Representative of who we are as individuals because in order to change the country, you have to invest yourself, you have to invest yourself financially, you have to invest yourself with your time you have to admit. It yourself with your passion. You have to invest yourself with the way you talk to people around you with your community with your family, and there are some people who are capable and willing to do that. And there's some people online and that's an indication of character. So I think that, that's that we're seeing that a lot amongst ourselves right now too. So we actually kick holiday was roommates with Kirsten gillibrand. Yes, here's some delivered. See, you're not matter. I guess, smattering of applause. First thing we are very lucky because we have many truly incredible candidates right now and possible. Bosmo president on how many I live here since amazing. You are a lot of good candidates. And it's I mean I like I mean like you, I got so burnt out with the mid terms that I was like, oh my God. I don't ever want to deal with fucking politics. Again, I can't stand this shit but it's necessary. You can't just dip in and out, you have to kind of harness your outrage and make it something positive and go and do something good. So I'm trying to pace myself and not burn out, or burn the candle at both ends with this, and be active and be aware of everything that's going on politically. So it's, it's like a I'm right here sweetie. You could see me, open, your Ojos. Hose. What drugs has? She taken who knows people get shit faced. When they come see me. Right. We want to show like Ted years ago. We did a show we were in Long Island, and it was a feeder, that was in the round and which means like you're in the center of a crowd. So like your ass is facing half the people it's, it's not a great setup but it's old school. And we're in the speeder in Long Island after we're done the security guard, like watching me off the stage because you're surrounded by people, and he was being very protective and he's sorry, there's vomit everywhere. Like every girl their throat up he was like, wow. You really attract quite a crowd. He's like last time I saw this was easy top. I'm like. I'm sure this theater has seen its share of vomit. Yes, I'm sure it has. But anyway, I'm optimistic about the future because I think we have to be, and we have to live in a state of hopefulness, and I really wanted to get my head on straight, and the thing that I learned the most is like, in order to be of use to anyone really in this world. You have to get your shit together. And you have to clean out your own injuries. Amen says, say man sister big, Ed. So also, you're living an honest life. Yeah. Honest and true life. You are at sober. And I'm limiting living in on his life chairs chairs. I didn't say we're living sober live. But I want to read this last part of the book for you guys before you got going. Wow. We have these, I decide bracelets, and these necklaces, and t shirts that say, I decide because of something I wrote in the book, hold on. Let me get rid of my camel toe owns. I. Don't let other people decide what kind of mood you're going to be in. Don't let anyone change your life in one day. Don't let death take you down and keep you down you go down. But get back up if we don't give into our despair and instead lock it away. We fail to properly more and the people we love how on earth are we honoring the very people? We are grieving if we fail to more them fully we should be celebrating. The people we've lost. I missed thirty years of celebrating my brother. I decide to grow up, I decide to be better. I decided to take my life back. He all I c t shirts, and the bracelets Goto shoop colors United, which is an organization for LGBTQ. I you through a homeless. Thank you. I appreciate it. And thank you Kati very good for being here. Thank you. Okay, brandon. Well, that was a live show. So you now I just want to make an announcement to everybody that I've had twenty one shows and you haven't been to one and is the city dwelling. And you didn't even come to that show. Branded had plans the night of my show here with my new plans to come to one of your other shows, like I really like to go to New Orleans Saint Louis. Well, we need to I laughed at you're not coming specialist. I added new dates where I'm going to be doing standup. So that's Westbury Long Island. I'm coming to Atlanta. I'm coming home to Montclair, New Jersey, Saint Louis Minneapolis, New Orleans and Nashville. So go to livenation dot com for tickets to a live show where I will be doing stand up and Brennan will not be back next week with my psychiatrist. She's going to break down the grand for everybody who's been asking questions about that. Life will be the death of me as a production of iheartradio. For more podcasts from iheartradio. Visit the iheartradio app, apple podcasts or wherever you listen to your favorite shows. Throughout history. People have been denounced for dissenting from the majority, put that didn't stop them from speaking up. Popular is about resistors rebels and revolutionaries people. Like sitting bull foam, Eliah, ransom, Kunti and Galileo. Took a chance on what they believed in and inspired wheel tame. Every week on top layer, we'll tell the story of someone who challenged the status quo. Connecting the dots between their history and the history, we're making today. Unpopular drops every Tuesday, you can listen and subscribe at apple podcast or on iheartradio app or wherever you get your podcast.

Bob Muller Chelsea Donald Trump Chelsea president Brandon Robert Muller John apple Connie Los Angeles Kate Hudson iheartradio Viktor Frankl Tanner Dallas Netflix mcallen Daniel Day-Lewis