23 Burst results for "skulduggery"
Dr. Leana Wen responds to Trump intentionally downplaying COVID-19
"Are now joined by Dr Lino, when Former Health Commissioner Baltimore and. Professor of Public Health at George Washington University Dr Wen welcome back to skulduggery. Happy. To join you always. So as a public health professional. What is your reaction to hearing the president saying he did not want to level with the American people about the severity of the corona virus because he didn't want to create panic. While I. The first thing that I thought about was my patients I think about now my patients who? Lost their lives I think about the patients I treated who survived but are living with long-term effects of covid nineteen will now have to be on dialysis who now president heart failure who have had strokes a nail cannot move a part of their body or cannot speak as a result. I think about all those individuals lost their loved ones. I also think about the physicians and nurses respiratory therapists and EMT's gotten infected because they didn't have enough people. In what it would have meant if they knew, and as they will know about how this all did not have to happen, and so it's just incredibly distressing and devastating to learn about all of this because frankly when you look at. What's been hampering our response the entire time it's the mixed messaging and part of. The commentary around us was well, maybe the mixed messaging is due to lack of knowledge or maybe it's due to incompetence. But as it turns out if this is deliberate and if it's there is a deliberate if there has been a deliberate effort to mislead the American people and the cost is people's lives. What does that really mean in just wanted to to respond to? Two. mikes question about specifically this issue of panic that president trump at the White House of what we didn't want to cause panic. We didn't want to have some kind of fear as as the as the response from the American people will actually the best. To fear is the truth. The best thing in the most important thing that the American people in any people want to known in time of crisis is the truth what is actually happening what do we know? What do we not know? What are we going to do to find this out? What are the actions of the federal government is going to be taking? What are things that each individual person can be doing right now and it is beyond shameful and so devastating that week, this could have been done but it was not yeah. I mean, you know these are this is what you do on a daily basis as a as a physician and a public health professional. It seems to me that if you tell people the truth if you tell them how to mitigate. You give them agency that is exactly how you calm people down. But I guess the bottom line question is, is there any doubt in your mind at all that by withholding information and not leveling with the American people that what? President trump did. Cost, significant numbers of American lives. Well, we have the research to illustrate this. We have modeling studies done here in the US that showed that if we acted even a week sooner, and this is back, we're talking about these at home orders and margin acted a week sooner we could have saved thirty, six, thousand lives. We have our own counterfactual in the form of other countries that took prompt that had a national response that had a coordinated messaging to the public, and we saw for example, the case of South Korean that had their first diagnosis of Cova nineteen. A first goes case of nineteen. The same day that we did that they have infections, deaths that are many many. Fold, less than ours. They have jets ranging in the hundreds versus we have them in the hundreds of thousands. We also know that at that time exactly as you said that we could have given the American people agency I mean I think about there's so many allergies to this right you could imagine if there were a hurricane or tornado that's coming. What you want to do is to tell people there is time there is time for us to take action this you can protect yourself and your family imagine if you find out that the government knew about this impending weather catastrophe didn't tell people visiting they didn't want to cause panic, but actually people died as a result of that. would be the outrage or imagine I always think in terms of clinical analogies. Imagine if a physician didn't want to cause a patient panic and fear but then withheld in important diagnosis bump that patience and by the time the patient found out it was too late and that she was going to die versus if they found out a few months sooner, their lives could have been saved I mean. Imagine that. That's the equivalent of what's happening here a doctor when I imagine you had a chance to listen to the tape conversation between Bob. Woodward and president trump what was going through your mind when you listen to that what part of that conversation shocked you the most. I think was shocked me the most was that president trump had a good understanding of the risks and dangers of virus from as early as February seventh. That he had a conversation with President Xi. Of China which is already another kind of bizarre moment because it seems like it was you know there's been a lot of blaming of China but seems like the Chinese president. Action alerted president trump to potential dangers but president trump was. Can't what these dangers are and was able to articulate how that this was something that's more dangerous of the flu that could affect young people to that it was airborne and therefore is extremely contagious that back in end of January, he was warned by his own team that this could be a once in a generation type of dangerous virus at a he understood it comprises it and could articulate back in. So I, think back to. all these press conferences that president trump has had since then where he deliberately it seems now downplayed the severity of the virus and that. Contrast is so jarring when I think about what could have been done in the meantime. That February seventh phone call with Woodward really leaped out me. Now, I do have to say that I do think it would have been really difficult to persuade the American public in February when the numbers were so low to take the kind of socially distance restrictions and lockdowns and all the other requirements that would have been necessarily would it would have been difficult to get the. American, public on board win. So few cases had been reported in the United States, but that said when you look at that February, seven phone call where trump is telling Woodward. This is more deadly than even your strenuous flew. This is deadly stuff which is precisely the opposite of what he was saying to the public five times more. He said five times more deadly didn't he? But I mean that and on that same day he's tweeting. To the world, I'm the you know the the corona virus would disappear. You know when the weather starts to warm and on March seventh saying no, I'm not concerned at all. It's not. It's that dichotomy of saying privately to Woodward. He thinks it's private because it's for a book that isn't GonNa come out for a while you know, hey, this is really deadly stuff while telling the public don't worry it's all going to go away. That's right now, I'll give you that same analogy for a weather atrophy. Imagine if the president or governor or some other leader knew about this impending catastrophe and is saying this acknowledging this in some private setting but not letting people know whose lives would be directly affected and for do something about it I mean this is. This is not a storm that's going to hit us no matter what we're all going to die I mean this is something that we could actually prevent by taking steps I do think that you make a good point about how difficult it would have been to get the American people on board early on when we didn't yet have diagnosed cases and no deaths in the US that's true but. For Two things one is that the federal government could have been taken that time to prepare and arguably had we gotten our testing capacity up the very beginning way now. South Korea and many other countries did. We probably. Have even needed these dramatic shutdowns. The way that we did eventually, we had to have these shells the point that we did because we had so much community spread and not nearly enough testing couldn't rate it in. If we had the testing, maybe we didn't need those shutdowns in the first place but the other thing too is because the president consistently downplayed the severity of the election, the American people were left wondering what do I do now? Who Do I listen to? Is this even so serious, I mean. We are seeing something as basic as masks as you both know it as we talked about being politicized, and so I think that is key to all this ad. We actually still have a chance to turn this around and I. Hope I'm not sure that this will happen but I do hope that the president. Takes this opportunity now and instead of defending his own past actions says it maybe this crazy wild dream that this could occur but I hope you'll say now. Dan. Here's where we are. This is extremely serious whatever happened to the past happened in the past but here's what we can do moving forward and let science and public health finally lead
'Supreme Inequality' Argues That America's Top Court Has Become Right-Wing
"Us my guest is Adam Cohen he's a lawyer and a journalist and author of the new book supreme inequality the supreme court's fifty year battle for a more unjust America it's about how the Supreme Court has grown more conservative often ruling against the poor against workers rights against voting rights while favoring corporations and the wealthy overall contributing to income inequality you read that in the five decades since the Nixon presidency there've only been three Supreme Court chief justices and they've all been conservative burger Rehnquist and Roberts yes and they've had a conservative majority behind them the whole time and that's really stunning right because if you think about going back to nineteen seventy we've had so many changes in the White House right we've had conservatives we've had you know we've had Reagan we've had George W. bush and we've had Clinton we've had Obama Congress has switched parties multiple times right back and forth back and forth we have just had a right wing court for sixty years so do you think that's kind of coincidence that justices tend to to leave or die during Republican presidencies or it do you think that Republicans are better at getting Supreme Court justices appointed well the game the whole system much better than Democrats do in many ways so one way is that they do tend to step down in strategic ways that Democrats often don't so Anthony Kennedy stepped down at a time when he knew that trump would be able to replace him and get his nominee confirmed by Republican held Senate with Peter Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer did not step down towards the end of the Obama administration's that's one part of it but another part of it really is that they just do the skulduggery a little bit better to write so when Obama nominated Merrick garland it's garland had been confirmed that would have restored a liberal majority to the court for the first time in half a century and look what the Republican Senate did they just said we're not interested what I can do anything so you're actually say in the book that these are kind of two book ends on the the half century that Nixon steals for this is C. and Mitch McConnell refuses to allow a Democrat to fill Scalia's seat and the both propped up the current conservative majority there's something about the process of nominating and confirming Supreme Court justices that seems to have changed now you mention the McConnell blocking the Merrick garland nomination but you know trump named his potential justices during the campaign that that's kind of unheard of isn't it's gotten much more political and just the way in which trump is saying you know I we were putting together this list and we're consulting with the federal society and and I think it's pretty much acknowledged that you know trump in many ways was not very traditional right wing presidential candidate by background by temperament to many other things one thing he clearly did to solidify his support from the right wing from fundamentalist Christians and all that was to make it clear to them we're going to choose the kind of justices you walked and they've been very emphatic about doing that it used to be the was not supposed to be a litmus test for Supreme Court justice but now both Democrats and Republicans seem to be boldly mentioning their support of a litmus test I mean some democratic candidates have said that yeah they would choose you know Supreme Court justice who supports abortion rights at that would be essential so I think that's something that's changed too with that you know intentionally stating to the public yes this this judge is coming in with you know certain points of view in advance I think that's right the mask is falling off right everyone can see what's really going on you know in theory if the court is the sort of legal body we like to pretend it is what present should be saying is I'm gonna look for the best interpreter of the law I will look for someone who maybe got very good grades or road very good lord you articles or who is a fabulous teacher or who has shown just a general you know excellence in the craft but that's not what they talk about it all is as you say they talk about the politics because everyone's pretty much admitting now that the court is a political institution you read that the area in which the Supreme Court has changed the most is in the area of economic class give us an example of that sure during the war in court which we were talking about the court really embraced poor people and their problems so we began to see them being very active around issues like the poll tax but also really about welfare right I mean welfare used to be something that was kind of disparaged and embarrassment people didn't talk about it we looked out the people who are on welfare well the Warren court comes along and says no welfare is an important thing in our society that allows people to subsist and the and actually right after the Warren court ended with the momentum of the Warren court in nineteen seventy the Supreme Court did an amazing thing in a case called October versus Kelly they actually ruled that under the due process clause localities cannot remove people from the welfare rolls without giving them a formal hearing first chance to be heard so that's that's something that is you know it would have been unheard of a decade earlier so that was the kind of new approach the court took to the poor but then when the burger court rises and when the Nixon justice is really begin to take control the quick very quickly turned his back on the poor and and it's actually just a couple weeks later that the court issues a ruling that really sounded the death knell for the poverty law movement case called energy Williams where the court not only said that they were going to uphold really discriminatory unfair local welfare rule but he basically said you know we're washing our hands of welfare law cases where it's you know it's the this is something we're pretty much going to leave to the government to do as they want and after that Dandridge case although not in on the court began to rule against the poor and to make clear that they didn't care about things like whether welfare was fair by the controversy over whether the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment should include poor people as a group with special protected status yeah this is one of the most fascinating things that was going on during the war in Europe so there is this notion of a suspect class is there certain classes that the court says I have a higher standing under the equal protection clause so it it's mainly you know racial minorities religious minorities non citizens groups like that and the idea is that if you're a discreet and insular minority that is unable to really effectively protect itself through the political process which is often true of the groups I just mentioned the court will give you extra care so the court had been for years identifying different groups it considered to be in this class and if you get in this class the court is that much more likely to strike down any laws that puts a burden on your disadvantages you and for years the court was edging close to putting poor people in this category they would say things like you know what lines with the government draws against poor people are very similar to lines of the drive against racial groups and you know everything but actually calling the suspect class and we don't know what the Warren court would have done if it had been allowed to continue but one of the first things the burger court did in that dentures case as I mentioned was really make clear no the poor not could be a suspect class and they're not getting any special attention from us so if the court had ruled differently and said poor people were a protected class how might that have changed things the poor would then be given a very powerful legal tool to use in a lot of different context to challenge a lot of ways in which their heartbeat so right now we have very unequal distribution of of welfare around the country there are some states that if you live in California New York not that welfare is munificent because it is not but with the other states where you get almost nothing you know if you're if you're in Wyoming and you need help so things like that could have been amenable to being challenged by under equal protection for people to say look we're not being treated equally by the federal government how it distributes well for so there are a lot of categories like that we're we're populars would've been able to step up and say this is a way in which a law is really hurting the poor and remember there are a suspect class my guess is Adam Cohen author of the new books of freedom and
Justice Watchdog Testifies Before Congress About His Report on FBI’s Russia Probe
"As the house moves closer to impeaching president trump members of the Senate today questions the justice department inspector general about the origins of the F. B. I.'s Russia probe DOJ inspector general Michael Horowitz is report found no evidence that the FBI's investigation of the trump campaign was politically motivated but he also told the Senate Judiciary Committee today that there were significant errors in the FBI's investigation although we did not find documentary or testimonial evidence of intentional misconduct we also did not receive satisfactory explanations for any of the errors or omissions we identified meanwhile the house Judiciary Committee is expected to convene at seven PM eastern standard time tonight to begin finalizing the articles of impeachment before a float of the full house likely next week Phil Ewing joins us now to discuss all of this he's election security editor for NPR infill Horowitz looked into the FBI's investigation of that twenty sixteen trump campaign and possible ties with Russia Republicans have highlighted that the FBI is serious performance failures as detailed by Horowitz what's been their line of questioning they want to drill down very closely on one specific part of the FBI investigation the surveillance that officials conducted on a one time junior foreign policy aide to truck came Carter page who was the subject of a number of renewals by the foreign intelligence surveillance court from twenty sixteen and twenty seventeen and what Horowitz discovered was as you mentioned there were many problems with air is affected a mission and practices by the FBI and the justice department in getting and then sustaining that surveillance the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee Lindsey Graham has stroll down very strongly on that as part of what's been a years long effort by him and the president in their supporters to tear down federal law enforcement the justice department the FBI in their view the problems with that case are emblematic of wider problems with the FBI and the justice department and that's been a leitmotif for some time yeah I want to ask you about Attorney General William Barr he's attacked this report several times in the past couple of days what impact hello do you believe his comments had on today's hearing well the ranking member senator Dianne Feinstein of California asked for what's the inspector general about those comments and he said that he didn't have any undue influence from the Attorney General before submitting this report but he also re stated that he believed there was an appropriate predication as he said for the F. B. I. in twenty sixteen to open the investigation into the Russian attack on the twenty sixteen election I mean there really wasn't attacked there really was skulduggery that took place which has been uncovered by investigators and has been the subject of so much focus since then if senator Gramm focused on the details here about the page story the Carter page story senator Feinstein and Democrats want to talk about the big picture that this really wasn't attack that it really was Russia and not another nation has and has become the subject of controversy more recently here in Washington and that the FBI and the justice department and other intelligence agencies were justified in responding to the information they were getting twenty sixteen and trying to figure out what was happening in that report about it to Congress and the American people as they have yeah you've mentioned the committee's ranking member senator Dianne Feinstein and Democrats have focused on the conclusion that ho it's found no evidence of political bias or improper motivation let's hear what she had to say I believe strongly that it's time to move on from the false claims a political bias and those who showed great interest in the question a politically motivated investigations against president trump should show the same concern about politically motivated dated investigations requested by the president or his Attorney General is this hearing today likely to bring any clarity to the ultimate poll well you know point of this report are we just talking past each other Republicans and Democrats the answer to your first question is no among other reasons because there are pages from the horror was report that are redacted and so there are still things about the story about Carter page for example that we do not know because they're continuing to be withheld by the government the other question which senator Feinstein alluded to in those comments you played is that there's another report about the investigation still pending from the justice department Connecticut U. S. attorney John Durham has been asked to do his own look at this he's already said in an unusual statement when Horowitz's report came out that he disagrees with some of the things that are in that report so we have a whole other chapter of litigating about this to look for to whenever Durin's work is complete okay my last question with you for the few seconds that I have with you the mark of the impeachment articles begin tonight what are you watching for well that's going to be a normal process but also very contentious all legislation whether it's naming post offices are impeaching the president has to go through the same practice so Democrats wanted to be by the book but we expect minority Republicans on the committee to make it as painful and drawn out as long as possible with procedural motions and other tech attempts to delay it that's Phil Ewing election security editor for NPR thank you Phil
"skulduggery" Discussed on Skullduggery
"What I would say? It's interesting yesterday. Several of my colleagues were saying I think the fellow from Stanford order that this is not impeachable. Nothing's impeachable I say the reverse if this is impeachable everything's impeachable every action by the president that at least the president in his blunt enough. Or shall we say transparent enough to articulate the way trump did beers impeachment. But is that really what matters. What if somebody does a wink and a nod and says I think it's really skewed interest to investigate this as an example of a broader corruption Ukraine wink quake would that be any different these nothing that the president can do under the legal architecture would forward by the house? Democrats that is not an impeachable. Offense and liquidation is. Does the house want to do that. That is an abusive power most fundamental proportions. You know I think your arguments would have a little more traction. If if you were willing to admit the obvious which was that it was wrong for the president to make this request of the president of Ukraine. It was something that left out at everybody when they read the plain words of the transcript. I want you to do me a favor. And then he identifies Biden by name as should be the subject of the investigation trump's on honest it's rods cracked. It's correct was not why's is wrong wrong. Wrong okay fine. It was wrong. It was foolish not wise but it is a FARC first of all I am. I am not at all convinced that if you take the linguistic you know takes aside that what he really was driving at is looking at the broader earlier context. I know we've been going to discredit feary. He does anything other than he wants. Two Thousand Sixteen election interference and his crazy talking to whack a doodle doodle reference to a missing server and and and then he mentions the Biden. I understand this is sort of like similarly as reference about McCain. I didn't live like people get captured. Can we look like one of the things you do in lawyer tight. Look Beh- was behind it. Look we know that. Russia interfered to why the interferes with different story. When I'm going to debate of course they interfered but Russia was not the only country interfered? There is some evidence. Look John Solomon reporting but Ukraine interfered as well. What is nothing? Like the scandal of what the Russians which was cyber systematic biologists operation the security services their intelligence agency stealing thousands of my own using them political effect. WOJ allies my sing. Like what a few Ukrainian Lloyd's sand. I agree lawyers my second career. My first career was Soviet. Defense Analysis. Familly my work. I'm not gonNA take a backseat to anybody. You might distasteful things Soviet and Russian. But that's not the point. Was it illegitimate for the president to say to Ukraine. You were bad bad guys who will corrupt guys. Why don't you look into it? Did he choose the wisest words. Should he done that on his own. No but all of that has nothing to do remember Mel Administration fraud by the framers. Because there's not an impeachable offence 'cause Mel administrations in the eyes of the beholder that makes president instead of being a CO equal branch award of Congress. That's what Madison and Mason. And everybody else said it has to be real okay. So let's not worry about the wisdom of his of terminology. Okay what do you mean has to be real real innocence in my view when the president uses his authority. He's not exceeding it noisy violating a statute. Which is what Andrew Johnson was impeached? Turns out it was unusual but I mean if a prisoner is operating within his constitutional box. I would argue in most aggressive view as mine per save on unimpeachable offense unless aggressive you is there has to be utterly compelling evidence. What Mike trying to infer it he really did it for this reason? He's not dead reason. It didn't really care about exposing corruption. He really wanted a symbolic announcement of an investigation. The has to be clear and convincing evidence of this the case. And there's absolutely no clear and convincing evidence. The only person who tried to talk about his motivations were Salmond. What happened with Bolton what the happened? We'll move any. You're making a compelling case for why they should be required to testify because they have the first knowledge of what was in the. The President's intent was cutting off the military angry. Why do you think he cut off the military aid? Look I would tell you what the Washington Post Nude Times who snowmass I'm asking. Why do you believe he cut off military aid in? Joel tell you what I believe to be. The case is been described and it's interesting because it doesn't fit this this case while he wanted to go off to buy because he was worried about buying they've been multiple articles in newspapers and nobody can accuse of being sympathetic to president. Trump would say he hated Ukraine from day. They want as soon as he got into office had real issues. We crane because he believed. They want to interfered against him. Do you realize by the way if that's true. You cannot really try. What he's he's done with the aid to trying to block biden in fact was articles in? I'm sure you've read them. In the Post New York Times asserted his aides including Bolton took months to get him to do anything positive is of Ukraine. So let's stipulate this cut off on it and cut off aid to Ukraine in two thousand seventeen. He didn't cut off Aid Ukraine in two thousand eighteen in two thousand nineteen after Biden announces for the presidency and is immediately immediately touted as the front runner. Then he cuts off the the reason I was wanting Mike is US grabbing a tremendous messaging and policy formulation disciplined administration which. I don't think anybody accused bottom. Line is the president rightly wrongheaded real concerns about crane bold because he believed rightly or wrongly rain defeated wrongly kind of matters if it was wrongly that it's an abuse of power no male administration. It's not on abuse of power at all. If you wrongly believe that's using the powers of his office for the wrong reasons that seems to be an abuse of our Barack Barack Obama in my view a very wrong reasons done A. Do nuclear deal. Ron Appreciated Ron gave him hundreds of millions of dollars. So we can engage in terrorism and kill more Americans Ping was but that wasn't really clear. Example lyrically risky deal. That was not gonNA help him get. I mean he was already the second term but it was not going to help his political things tells. Does me that. That's not how you saw. It rightly or wrongly bottom line is. Let's get off a table the issue of political benefits if what that you're doing is per se legal because it is wiser not use a record constitutional powers it is not an impeachable offense by the way with with do coequal branches right. Congress go on price article to Congress has members of Congress have an absolute Unical speech and debate clause right for all oh uses of proper uses village the power so reason people like congressman. William Jefferson Clinton got in trouble because member that cold hard cash in the freezer. But whatever you sand sand floor whatever you do oversight wise whatever you do legislation lies you one hundred percent immune. The executive has in my opinion of annoys. Not written quite quite this way. The very same prerogative. You cannot muck somebody up by virtue of his or her use of constitutional powers because you don't I like it if you don't agree with it. We don't have equal branches and volume sick and tired of hearing office. Well family problem. I suppose I'm not gonNA use the F. Word now yes okay okay. Bought always fucking shit about King George because let me tell you something. The notion that the frame was primarily concerned about king. George is historically ridiculous. If you look at the at the framers and the debates though primarily concern about what legislative supremacy the expected to Congress will be the most powerful branch they wanted to limit it so they would be very very very unhappy today watching Congress do what is doing now. I'm not saying that they weren't concerned about only powerful president they were but that was not the number one priority number one priority is making sure but the president is not a word of Congress. What is being done today? vulgarising trivializes impeachment impeachment. Because it's not high crime and Misdemeanor Hog Council on Foreign Relations Seminar Monrovia or not. It was wise to uphold military bowie. Where's colonel a women complaining? About the fact that Barack Obama's administration hasn't done shit for Ukraine. Am I missing something. Where were you a supporter of bill? Clinton's impeachment I don't know did and come because in my opinion he did not commit a high crime and misdemeanor. He'd indeed perjured himself but the underlying conduct was not nuts. Officially grabner wait. Let me be clear. Heat this expression actually would. He's he's done which is committing perjury is not an accessories constitutional powers so committing perjury. While in office aborting a witness offering offering somebody a bribe is not in that sweet spot of a constitutional powers so technically it was impeach. Actually isn't the word bribery in the constitution as grounds for impeachment of course worse bribery. Well and and here well not on the facts that we know. There's actually a piece by thing Senator Blumenthal yesterday in the Post right and it's interesting I read it. I said to myself myself being over snarky. The difference in his arguments in shifts argues serves arguments kind of vague. An amorphous a wrong but it's not easy to see he tried it down. What precisely and it shows you how ridiculous they are in order to his basic argument is this? He says it more or less this way. If what you're doing is legitimate in its own right so you want to investigate corruption Ukraine or but we. Let's ask us over a second. So let's say he was concerned about by. I don't know if it's true. But let's say he was but he believes bind broke the law. United States government asked foreign foreign governments to investigate every freaking day. Americans who broke a law in foreign country is the fact that you're running on is affected running for president. Gives you some kind of temporary community. I mean coming from people. Don't think a sitting president has immunity so the body you think Biden violated or that. What law do you think the president could could have plausibly believed Biden violent? Well I don't know but I've Vice. President former Vice President Biden but to extend Barista was a nest of corruption. Listen if you have I can tell you this. It's one of areas of law practicing if Burris Mar was a nest of duty money every penny that the paid into Hunter Biden is an act of money laundering. If you still money and you pay me Pelagic Emmett service you engage them laundering. I'm recipient of your money wondering maybe I am an innocent recipient and therefore I can get up. There's more than enough to just fine investments. But you know you you have to believe that. He was fixated on Biden because Biden was his political rival. Right he did not ask you know. There are a thousand of Americans who do business in in Ukraine who H- who are therefore associated with light likely associated with trump businesses. I will fall back on the fact that I'm a lawyer. The impeachment process is a politically infused but at the quasi judicial process. We're not supposed to in four-fifths I cannot get back. cannot get up in the court of law and say this person is bad because of such inside. Let's it's an inferno things. I am not prepared to infer anything you spoke in a way that probably was not wise. You probably should have been driven by him. But fundamentally the essence of requests which is look at the past corruption is not wrong. was there any Justice Department investigation in July of two thousand nine thousand nine hundred into Berea Sma Joe Biden or Hunter Biden. I have no idea but there was. Nobody has even suggested tested. There was there was an adequately predicated investigation by the Justice Department and the president is asking the Ukrainian in President to see to cooperate in that investigation. Fine then you've got a point but there wasn't he just out of thin air in fact less didn't in fact he invokes attorney general bars name and then Barr says he never talked about this. I don't know anything about this. There's some there's look again. We take people as we find them. This trump okay. There is some missing linkages here or look I look. I'm I'm I'm trying to be forthcoming but please be forthcoming foolish me. This is as a use of impeachment power which is most formidable authority. Congress has S. overriding the democratic choice. Destroying Incapacity Neha coordinate branch harming foreign body tremendous harm not to be invoked without enormous justification. Never be completely partners. The most partisan.
"skulduggery" Discussed on Skullduggery
"You can't just let this conduct go unpunished again. I think if the parties were reversed if this were President President Obama. Who did this or Elizabeth Warren or something? You would have a massive number of people and I sure hope every Democrat to saying no. This person has to go that is completely unacceptable in art democracy and by the way. I don't think that we should just say Oh. Well they're twenty Republican senators. Who Haven't come forward yet? I mean that's the standard The way that the Democrats have been thinking for so long it's been so afraid textually call the Republicans out and I think that you know as the evidence is developed as the house moves toward an impeachment vote and then the information is presented in the Senate. I don't know what's going to happen. And you know these are going to be some of the most solemn proceedings these folks have ever engaged in probably the most solemn proceedings and You Oh every one of those hundred people came to Washington to make the country a better place. They didn't come to make money. There's a lot easier ways to make money and I think when the evidence evidence is low when the evidence is listened to. And that's what I tried to lay out in the book. There's only one choice which is to remove the sky from office one final question referencing your previous observation that as a law professor you ask your students to argue the case that they don't believe in to argue the other side so okay professor Konczal. Please argue why. The president should be impeached. I think it's really hard. The president has had a whole bunch of shifting rationales. Like the ones you were talking about a battle for the purpose of this exercise honestly. I don't know what to say. Okay and I'm you know. I think I'm a pretty good lawyer can come up with a lot but this is a president who is acted beyond all bounds. And even if you think for whatever reason what he was doing in Ukraine wasn't enough that we should get over it. We can't get over the president's conduct in how he's treated the impeachment investigation complete one. One hundred percent unilateral stonewalling of any witness any document of the executive branch that totally on does our separation of powers hours in our constitutional system. And that again. It's not about president trump. It's about any president would then have the power to do that and to stymie and destroy impeachment investigation and this is not our system. I've got a last question just looking ahead a second because you obviously. It's been a lot of time studying past impeachments. I think there is no doubt that there is going to be a Senate trial. How does that unfold? What are the standards for proof? What rolled is this? The Supreme Court justice play can McConnell change the Senate rules or can the Republican Senate rules so they just do this in a day and how does it play out all right. We'll take a couple of those so so First of all in terms of timing we heard recently professor. Jonathan Turley testify in Congress that this was an unprecedented speedy moved to impeachment right and therefore it should be slowed down. I think that argument is going. Pretty much nowhere I think he was absolutely wrong. I mean Johnson was impeached within three days after his action and the boys were they were trying to impeach him for trail over here but the articles in which I mean the Republicans say that they've been trying to impeach trump trump since for well over a year or two. So I don't I don't think that point make matters whatsoever. But even like the Clinton impeachment seventy five days between the start in in the house and then the impeachment proceedings. And we're day seventy two right now so you know. Surprising that Turley. Who after all worked on that impeachment didn't recognize that but I think that this we'll move pretty quickly in the house I think it'll Then moved to a full trial in the Senate. The Senate rules require that full trial. I think it's very hard for McConnell to change. Those rules are the rules have been around since the Andrew Johnson impeachment and the eighteen sixties. So I think we are going to see a full trial in those rules are pretty onerous. They require the senators to sit there all day every day for six days a week. Now you asked about the role of the chief justice. I do think this is interesting. Chief Justice Roberts is so much. Jim `institutionalised I've had the privilege of arguing the thirty nine cases before him and I think he'll conduct the proceedings with dignity and fairness tall involved In maybe I think is guiding light. He clerked himself. For Chief Justice Rehnquist he was as law clerk and has a lot of respect for him And Rehnquist when. He presided over the Clinton impeachment. And Michael I'm sure you'll remember. He came in with those silly bro Striped Shannon's back. Roberts God yes no stripes onerous and but but I do expect one big thing to be the same which is the chief justice in the Clinton impeachment did very little indeed so much so at the end of it he said I did very little and I did it. Well and says Rehnquist Chief Justice Rehnquist and I suspect actually Justice Roberts will try and emulate that to the extent he can ultimately. They don't really have any choice. They don't have that much power right. I mean you know the chief. Justice can rule on some procedural matter or allow evidence in or or a witness but that can be overruled by the Senate made to be put to the all. Those decisions are put votes. Aren't exactly exactly so. The chief justice can make a ruling fifty-one senators can disagree. I don't think the fifty one senators are going to disagree with Chief Justice Roberts as as a practical matter. I just think that would be suicide. We're talking about you know One of the great justices to have served our nation. Here's a scenario. Ah The house. Democratic managers called John Bolton as a witness for Senate trial who rules as to whether or not he has to testify yeah. I don't think that's hypothetical at all. I think it could very well happen And that may be one reason. The Democrats haven't tried to as Danny was saying go to court. You know Ought to try and Subpoena Bolton so the Democrats will have some subpoena powers as part of the rules in the Senate trial they will then impede they could then call subpoena someone like Bolton and The Republicans could object and try and quash that subpoena. And that would be ruled on by chief justice. Roberts that doesn't get litigation GEICO litigated in the federal court. Saying these on exactly. There's this case called Nixon verses United States which was about a judge Nixon. I have the unfortunate distinction of having the name Nixon and the sanctions being impeded. Not a good one thing. Is You know God has a sense of humor. I guess and in in Dickson Judge Nixon tried to argue to the Supreme Court. Hey Federal Court should stop this unfair impeachment. It went nowhere. Well Neil Konczal. Thanks for joining us. I should say the book again is impeached. The case against Donald Trump. It's probably the best one stop guide for the impeachment process so thanks. Thanks for joining us on on skulduggery fantastic book and I think he should consider this. Your your moot court before your a death penalty argument going up against justice. uh-huh I'm sure he's had faced much tougher than me is really fun. Thank God and we now have with us. David Rifkin renowned Washington appellate lawyer frequent commentator and op ED contributor to the Wall Street Journal David. Welcome to skulduggery could to beaulieu great title. Well we've we've gotten a little traction on it but let's talk about impeachment which you have been writing about commenting about I have a couple couple of your recent op. Ed Pieces in the Wall Street Journal. The this impeachment subverts. The constitution is one shifts quote obstruction. Theory is another. You heard the testimony this week. From the constitutional law experts arguing why this is a compelling case for impeaching. A president is an tell us why you disagree. I disagree for two fundamental reasons. I will be easiest one obstruction but notion that the president who is willing to test the vigor. He's got Social Ragas namely so-called immediate advisor privilege in national security privilege which guard guard against forces closer to Congress that the fact that he's mocking was privileges and having them tested in the court of law can be considered obstruction as frankly absurd. The impeachment process is not vitiate separation of powers the president of a said that he would not comply with a definitive adjudication of issue. Just to have a test give me more American than that so the notion that this is obstruction. These this is silly opening. Uh spend time on it if the Supreme Court if it got to the the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court ordered the president to turn over documents or to allow witnesses to testify and he didn't then it's obstruction but not until then of course but the very fact that the president why should say people like Kupperman like Mulvaney like Bolton. I actually the ones where the moving party not to get technical. The plaintiffs tips suggest that they're willing to have been waiting for the house. And try to enforce those most subpoenas and yes it would take time. I know that a lot of folks in the media were saying delays delays delays delays. But that's called the rule of law so that let's take that off the table all right. Let's talk about the president's core conduct here. Starting with the transcript itself do do you really think it was okay. For the president to ask the president of Ukraine to announce investigations of Joe Biden and his son hunter her Biden. That was in your view acceptable from the president of the United States. Mike respect the question is not whether it's acceptable the question Over and not. It's a high crime and misdemeanor short. We ask here. Was it okay for the president to make that request quest of a foreign leader I would not have phrased this same syntax so it was not okay. Well but LEMme Lemme on packet packet. There's nothing wrong with asking a foreign country to investigate past corruptive episodes of corruption. We do over all the time doesn't get done on the level of the president and I can tell you of course my legal career including now represent. Several people cannot travel at the United States because because the being investigated both here and in various foreign countries and there's lively exchange between Dj and the Jay which is conducts criminal investigations that are printing. We'll intelligence investigations. But we'll let let me ask you this are you David. Are you aware era of any examples of president trump asking the president of Ukraine to conduct investigations. That would not redound to president trump's political benefit if it are there any examples of that actually. I appreciate the question because to me. That's a wrong question. Let me tell you why as long as what the president is asking in the four corners of varieties as long. He's asking is whatever you think about. Its merits its wisdom but constitutionally speaking's within the four corners of his executive power the fact that it may rebellious political advantage are say irrelevant. Repeat utterly irrelevant okay as the Constitution. I'll tell you why because in a democracy no politician in either Congress or the executive branch if it does anything that hugh she he does not believe remind stability. Let me give you a federal. If there is a conversation between trump and MR g the head Chinese guy and trumpeter say you know what I really want a good deal on trade really would be really important to me because it would help me get elected. Would that be a wrong thing. Wouldn't tell Kim table but it's a eight good trade deal. Renounce to the benefit of the American public has specific investigation into Joe Biden. Had only one real purpose on its face which was to knock down a potential political rivals the president of the United States. He has no other per se. You but another hand to extend the corruption Ukraine is a real concern. Did he raise general questions about the multiple Examples of corruption in Ukraine there lots of oligarchs in Ukraine who have been accused of legislation. There's lots of Ukrainian. Public officials say was used most of Ukraine of all the corrupt ex in Ukraine. This was hardly at todd of the. US government's list of matters to be concerned. So before before. You just let me add wanted then into this. which is it turns out? He wasn't actually really asking for an investigation nations into and Biden or the server the Ukrainian the server the DNC server. That's that he believes ended up in Ukraine. He was asking for a public announcement of those investigates. This that's a factually. I understand that there was a suggestion that he was asking a symbolic announcement. Um and not thrill investigate was the testimony of Gordon silent but I mean the notion of Ceylon really knew if we were in a court of law real war what when presidents mine is is right as well but look I think for purposes where in the middle of impeachment this whole effort discussions about impeachment. I can tell you that. Virtually every foreign in policy action by this presidency of president while we're it's JCP away or Iranian nuclear deal while the nucle- denuclearization do him. North Korea worried something involving China the rebound reprisals political advantage. The celine question is like an elaborate as to why to let me say this. The framers were very suspicious about impeachment power. We debated quite extensively. There's a possibility would not be put in place at all but they debated to him to give it okay. The House came as reluctant last because they wanted to give it to Spain court. They wanted to give it a state legislatures. They will not being for joy precisely because they understood about bought old abuses of impeachment by the British Parliament and one of serve issues of the day was the impeachment by the parliament. Ugly Bogus Wanema fellow by name. Some of hastings who has the Viceroy of India very similar to trump in many respects because he didn't do anything demonstrably criminal but he was trying to take the power away from east India Company Company and corruption in office. Bulla Blah the did it as a necessary evil the rejected abroad formulation of an impeachable offense which was smell administration because my quote this would effectively mean service of a president of pleasure of Congress so misdemeanor Hess to have a definition contact techniques to be a cabinet principle..
Trump's Ukraine Whistle-blower Scandal: What We Know
"Secretary of state Mike Pompeii Attorney General William Barr energy secretary Rick Perry and US ambassador Gordon Sunland all have important roles in the trump administration and all had roles in the Ukraine call that was the key to the house his impeachment inquiry here to tell us more is Tim o'brien executive editor for Bloomberg opinion all the president's men are they following the leaders that what's happening here to certain extent June I mean I think the interesting issue here is you know this is old adage that those fish rots from the head and certainly the president has set a standard around financial conflicts of interest that he doesn't follow himself I think opens the door to unethical behavior or overly aggressive and ambitious behavior by the people around him having said that however all of these men are experienced adults they knew to a certain extent what they were getting into when they joined the White House so the question is why did they joined and I think that usually can be put into categories either folks wanted to get the resume stamped and instead they work at the White House or they had policy or personal goals of their own that they thought the president could serve a tax cut more conservative court deregulation it's usually one of those two baskets the problem is nobody gets off the train train without being a little bit spoiled he tends to throw people into the bus quite easily he in Broyles people in some of his own behaviors and you're seeing a lot of this now come to the fore in the in the Ukraine to buckle speak of throwing someone under the bus let's talk about energy secretary Rick Perry I don't know if Rick Perry's been fully thrown under the bus or if Rick Perry was also driving the bus when it comes to Ukraine always now understood as animating forces around the Ukraine scandal is the first is obviously the president picking up the phone and asking you cranes leader to dig up dirt on political opponents Joe Biden but the other interesting background music and here's the number of people were scrambling to get toe hold in Ukraine's energy market at the same time and they were a lobbying the Lynskey the Ukraine president to sort of play ball with them on this Rick Perry ugh long before trump picked up the phone in July in spring of last year had suggested a roster of possible US consultants who could be advisers to Ukraine on modernizing its energy sector at the same time Rudolph Giuliani when he was over there doing investigative work on the F. the president also had associates who are looking for business deals so this is a merging but you see this interesting mixture now of political skulduggery hardball politics and financial self interest where does Gordan Sunland fit in because he prior to this was a wealthy hotel operator huge trump contributor now he's involved in foreign affairs right so Gordon someone had absolutely no foreign policy experience but he did give a million dollars to president trump's campaign during the twenty sixteen race as is the norm with ambassadorships that large contribution got him the post of ambassador to the E. U. again without any deep experience and in diplomacy or European affairs the Ukraine incident rolls up any essentially it would appear from everything we see in documents is doing the president's bidding he suggesting to a a career military attache and diplomat William Taylor who is essentially the senior US diplomat in Ukraine last summer when all this was going on here's some of the things you need to do to encourage you cranes leader to understand whether that trouble play ball if you crane in Taylor to his credit keep saying is it wise for us to have quid pro quos lake military aid in exchange for digging up dirt on a political opponent and his long gap in the communication and then someone comes back and says just to be clear no is asking for a quid pro quo I think someone was was messing with things he didn't entirely understand he is now as we mentioned earlier if you ride the train train you can you can get dragged into some mock and he's now finding himself in the midst of of an impeachment inquiry and and people are trying to get his testimony secretary state Mike Pompeii of course is is one of the people who figures prominently in this whole thing he does and I and I think when you know it's a pretty straightforward series of questions I think that the secretary of state needs to answer we know now that president trump when he called Ukraine's leader July wasn't on the phone alone in fact one of the people on the phone with him was the secretary of state Mike Pompeii out however Pompeii waited about two weeks after all this broken the news before yelled up to the fact that he was on the phone there may have been innocent reasons from to be on the phone but if everyone in the White House felt the call was an above board call in there was nothing problematic with it why didn't pump pale at the public know earlier that he was on the phone but the fact is on the phone what makes me witness so any impeachment quick increased and want to know what he heard on the phone and what he assessed of the conversation when he's on a call but there's also other issues did he help prepare trump for the phone call did he suggest that trump inquire about getting dirt on Joe Biden there's a number of questions that need to be asked and then he's going to ask for things under oath we've talked before about Attorney General William Barr and many analysts say well president trump has found his Roy Cullen do you think it goes that far the Attorney General certainly keeps giving us enough information that we have to doubt his intentions and I think whether or not he's acting as the Attorney General United States or acting more like a personal attorney for the president of the United States you know we know he ran interference for the president around the mall report he had his own interpretation of the report that was at odds with what the report actually said and in this event when a whistle blower who had knowledge of what occurred on the phone call between a trump insulin ski filed a complaint and worried the crimes have been committed the C. I. A. referred this whistleblower complaint to the justice department to be evaluated and William Barr's justice department didn't look it any possible crimes they simply looked at a with another was a campaign finance violation and then they said there wasn't and they put it to rest which meant Congress and have to be notified that there was this complaint and the other issue is the whistle blower also it heard president trump preferred a bar himself as someone who could help the Ukraine's dig up dirt on Biden so you would think at that point by would have recused himself from everything around this but he hasn't it would
Harvey Weinstein Pleads Not Guilty To New Indictment; Trial Pushed To January
"Fascinating you all remember Harvey Weinstein right sure it was the chubby guy who like to take his pants off yeah basically everyone saying never we whatever his name is no divine don't doing winds I'm so basically he pleaded wait for it not guilty bart Simpson I didn't know if you need a new indictment of sexual assault and so his trial is delayed until January so yeah I according to him you know like the old saying it wasn't me he's a three hundred fifty pound sweaty slob worth billions of dollars yeah who can single handedly make a career the reset to a movie star yeah and he had women who wanted to be movie stars war bereits this meet him in the first place the man was a hotel room and after years of getting away with whatever skulduggery one out in this he finally did it to an Italian girl and I have to tell you don't pull that stuff from breaks up over your head yeah and that's what happened she threw some and final not mistaken and blew the lid off effect this is not only how he got his third wife as if that's a shocker did you see her no no stunning so do you like it reminds me of a which is a Steven ocean the guy would drop yeah to see his wife yes we think she looks at it says listen you with that felt there in those drawn out eyebrows and at fifty seven year old body sure I'm thirty two and I'm a super model but I gotta have your baby it's so ridiculous yeah it's it's true love shines true love and where cetera who sexually harassing who were you not you what his poor old rich slob he got him hook line sinker is following you around he's buying it was seventeen hundred dollar shoes yeah perhaps he sexually harass we think it all again well I don't think that's the case you know the fact I remember reading an older report these hi everyone things lawyer your honor look at what's going on here well this one story about him involved like a plant shall we say if you like ferns yeah sure for is also you much better off if you only had sex with how creepy is is garbage just thought it was really interesting that he would I'm torn about Hollywood nonsense I tell you what I mean you know it's all going on because it's fitz's Caligula Hollywood the only difference between Hollywood in Washington is that the slime balls are pretty in Hollywood that's it that same slime ball hold hands the office they're just beautiful that's the only difference except for Harvey Weinstein who will put the all
"skulduggery" Discussed on 1865
"UH. What are you trying to protect me from Lucy? What's he doing here? Don't tell me I just can't tell you that I can't make our lesson plans Ford tonight to another. Don't stay with me. What do you say nothing at all? John Wilkes booth server in in eighteen sixty. Five eighteen sixty five is sponsored sponsored by Madison Reed in eighteen fifty six the young British chemist William Henry Perkin was trying to synthesize a treatment for malaria in his lab..
"skulduggery" Discussed on Slate's Political Gabfest
"Because Pete Williams NBC is reporting that Rosenstein has promised to stay after bars confirmed until Muller submits its final report or anything more on this topic before we go one little thing, we should mention which is a mystery, which is that the supreme court did decided not to step in and a dispute between Muller and some foreign owned company that has been trying to resist his efforts to look into their activities, and the supreme court didn't side with the foreign government foreign company. So we don't know what that's about. But it's it's it's caused a lot of skulduggery. And at one point didn't even they shut down the floor on which the legal one of the intermediate legal proceedings was taking place. So nobody from the press could get on it. And it's all very secret. Right. And the presiding judge has. Has found that this company is in contempt of obeying a subpoena and has wanted to impose a fee of fifty thousand dollars a day until the company complied and the supreme court refused to step in and save the company from paying that money. So presumably the clock is ticking. The money is flowing and that should give the company a reason to comply with the subpoena. OTC the FD the obsession with the new member of congress from queens Alexandria. 'cause you're Cortez has reached extraordinary levels, the democratic socialist the youngest woman ever elected to house of Representative has appeared on sixty minutes. She's become the number one. Target of conservatives furious about the move to the left of the Democrats in the house and the move to left of Democrats. Generally, they are fixated on proving that that Okaz you Cortez's not offensive that. She doesn't come from a disadvantaged background. They are upset that her nickname was sandy in high school. They say that she. Shallow because she liked to dance while she was in college. They say that she's got crazy policy ideas that she has no grasp of facts in lies like Trump. They circulated fake nude photos of her for goodness sake. At the same time on the left. There's a huge excitement about what caused you Cortez's bringing a kind of brilliance in media that is that's quite remarkable her grasp and gift in medias is extrordinary. She has successfully I think brought up policy proposals. That have never been talked about in Syria circles for having been talked about in Syria circles on the left for decades because she just brings a kind of vitality and credibility to them. I also learned that she won the second prize in the Intel science competition high school, did you guys know that? And there's in fact, an asteroid named after her because she was second prize in the Intel science competition. Awesome. I love that. Yeah. So why Emily is there such obsession with a Qazi Cortez on left? And right. Let's she is the future. Right. And so you either love it or you fear. It she you're right. I think what is this sort of brilliance in media and social media about it's the she's fearless. Or at least that's how she appears. So like this video of her dancing in college comes out conservatives put it out there supposedly to embarrass her. Lots of people love the exuberance and just like sheer fun of this video. And then she makes this other little snippet video of herself like dancing a tiny bit and her congressional office with this like great smile on her face. I mean, look, I'm totally charmed by her. But if you are someone who thinks like the left should have its articulate smart exciting champion and that it's good. And to expand the window of the kind of policy proposals. We talk about in terms of you know, taxes and also the idea of this green new deal, then you welcome her presence..
Migrant caravan arrives in border town Tijuana
"Is also sanctioning Republican Mark meadows of North Carolina for failing to take decisive action to deal with complaints of a key. Aide. Kellyanne Conway's husband is edit again, Tom Roberts, explains Conway is a senior White House adviser and her husband, George is a veteran Republican who is very critical of President Trump on the who program skulduggery, George Conway mixed in colorful, expletive while calling the Whitehouse dumpster fire. President Trump was recently asked about Conway's criticisms and said reporters should ask Kellyanne Conway. About it. He also referred to George Conway. As Mr. Kellyanne Conway, Tom Roberts, NBC News Radio. A grandma and Maryland is celebrating her. I try to lottery game with a huge jackpot, the seventy seven year old Aberdeen woman. One more than ten thousand dollars after playing the tracks virtual horse racing game for the first time. She said she normally only sticks to scratch offs. But this time she felt the urge to play the horse racing game. The lucky grandma plans to use her winnings to pay off bills and by holiday presents for her family. John Jeffreys NBC News Radio talking locally
"skulduggery" Discussed on Skullduggery
"Yeah exactly by old fashioned tapping foods cell phones in this case leaked it in a very targeted way to weaponize information this is the famous bleep the eu i don't know if this is family podcast fuck the eu comment that she was overheard saying to another american diplomat in the midst of heated negotiations okay that's weaponising information the russians did that in poland by the way it brought down a government we could do and we don't we have a lot of great reporting we knew that happened there are other examples like that and we didn't we didn't put it together it was again i mean it was a failure of magic nation it was there we were fighting the last war and not realizing and by the way the russians had been tampering with elections in western europe and holland and no one seemed right and even through the summer of two thousand sixteen when there was a lot of attention on this issue the the intelligence community seems to have been completely oblivious to the social media component knew nothing about the facebook ads nothing about the twitter bots which was a big component of rubber obama was you know he was playing three dimensional chess with the russians and trying to figure out how they could be helpful on syria of course the end ended up that they were not have not been helpful on syria but they were trying counterterrorism on various other things and you you know.
"skulduggery" Discussed on Skullduggery
"We have another question i want to go back to the cyber warfare question i i i think you're saying there's a cyber war going on but we're not fighting back so how would we fight back i mean how how do you fight back without getting into a situation where you're turning each other lights off right so this is the way intelligence officials frame this is an information war not a cyber war in the sense of destroying things with cyber the russians are barring us with propaganda and we're we're not the us government is not allowed to engage in propaganda but it can't tell the truth it can get on twitter encounter those messages it's not doing that you know famously the state department has global engagement center it was allocated one hundred twenty million dollars to go overseas and fight propaganda it hasn't spent a penny of that money i did a story recently about the broadcasting board of governors voa those cold war era agencies that used to do this stuff they're doing it a little bit but they're so pathetically underfunded and so not nimble compared to rt which is a five hundred million dollar propaganda machine aimed at us i'd like to chime in on on this one because there's a new book out i don't know if you've had a chance to read it russian roulette which deals with how the obama white house was trying to come to terms with how to respond to what the russians had done in the cyber arena and there were people on the white house staff who came up with a whole range of options for cyber attacks on russian news sites shutting down various online russian sites that were children's.
"skulduggery" Discussed on Skullduggery
"Actually has a question for the panel good opportunity the plug his podcast the long game new yahu news podcast which is excellent thank ios and that was coming in yeah no one of the things that senator warner said that i also thought was a little bit of wishful thinking was when he said that impeach talk of appeasement in the midterm elections where the president's allies want to go that's almost verbatim quote you have seen some republicans trying to cast it that way but i think that really minimizes the degree to which there's a lot of energy on the left and among the grassroots for talk of impeachment or at least you know getting the house back to start that process which i think is going to be a huge challenge for democrats you saw rahm emanuel get out there and try to tamp that down so just wanted to get your thoughts on how that's gonna play out i think with the state of our knowledge today i would i think that that dynamic you're talking about is correct in two thousand six if you remember when democrats stood to win control the house which they did there was there was talk among some democrats about impeachment remember the downing street memo's john conyers stood to be the chairman of the house judiciary committee which would originate articles each was talking about a lot nancy pelosi who stood to become speaker began to worry about this and i believe in october that year went on sixty minutes to say impeachment is off the table so my feeling is that with the state of the evidence that we have right now that's probably the smart democratic move on the on the other hand there could be some enormous revelation tomorrow that changes everything.
"skulduggery" Discussed on Skullduggery
"You know be publicly disclosed the question is is it holding trump accountable other words is he actually is there evidence that he is changing his conduct his behavior at all as a result of the investigations russell of the journalism to challenge that version of what accountability is a little bit ultimately you don't right with the idea that you're aiming at a particular individual you know my guess is that no trump doesn't hold himself accountable to that run of coverage the questions whether the public does whether the institutions of government alternately do now i have a similar concern i wouldn't frame it so narrowly around well we failed somehow if donald trump doesn't change his behavior as a result of all this good reporting after the two thousand sixteen election and at the time i was the editor of politico i supervise our coverage obviously a lot of people looking back and trying to understand how did this the biggest surprise in american political history unfold in what we think of it my view and i i wrote a big essay for brookings about this was boiled down to had we come to a situation of transparency without accountability that we all as journalists have long worshipped at the temple of sunlight is the best disinfectant that basically it's not our job to figure out what to do with the information out there it's our job to pick up the rock and look what under it this is the whole premise of your podcast rate is pick up the rock and there's an awful lot of scandal by the way if you're in washington for more than two seconds you realize that no party has a monopoly on the bad behavior under the rock we're talking about the starr report democrats and republicans do it too but i do think as journalists what what worries me is not that we're not somehow doing our job although we could always do better and i wish we had more on this particular story but but that our system somehow isn't working in the way that we always presumed that it would top of that you have to alternative versions of reality i don't know about you folks but one thing.
"skulduggery" Discussed on Skullduggery
"Report to rod rosenstein the the rigs are silent and with that report is ever made public that committee's main role should be to make sure that as much of that information as possible as declassified and made public again when i'm struck by right is we don't know what we don't know and that is both frustrating but also it's important caveat right to to all the listeners like we can analyze what we see but that really is a fragment both of the information that all these not just the committees but the prosecutor dealing with it's very hard to go into legal analysis mood which happens frankly every day on tv you know how many times have you seen or even participated in well based on what we know now what is the answer is we don't know i do agree that ultimately it's going to be these are parallel investigations and somehow laws of geometry notwithstanding they will intersect at some point in the future whether it's putting out the report or holding subsequent hearings based on what what becomes public as a result of court cases or legal important that it has to become in a big big way i mean there's a clear there many people who hope to use this affair to remove the president from office that's as big as you can get this has got to become public at the end of the lewinsky matter ken starr publish this report and then he dumped everything to congress i read it.
"skulduggery" Discussed on Skullduggery
"Ken are you as frustrated as barn with it is frustrating but it's also completely understandable and i think that comment did underscore the extent to which maybe it's a mistake to to care very much pay very close attention to what the senate intelligence committee is doing because at the end of the day they can't get to the facts that robert muller with his grand jury subpoena power and get to and that's what's going to make or break this case is we have the circumstantial case of collusion byron may disagree but you know we have the trump tower email saying you know we're we're we're willing to accept from the russian government essentially now the question is what can muller prove what actually happened that we're not seeing and that mark warner's not seeing and i think that and we're just not gonna find out until muller's but there is a conundrum here because muller's brief is not to illuminate for the public what the facts are his brief is he's a justice department prosecutor whose only job is to bring criminal cases when he finds evidence of violations of federal statutes that's not going to necessarily answer any of the key questions we all have about this matter so that's why it is so important what the committee does even if they don't get access to all these witnesses who else is going to be able to bring out the fact i think the most important thing the committee could do is at the end of the day require muller i think has to write a.
"skulduggery" Discussed on Skullduggery
"Investment and i don't i still believe in i as recently as last couple of weeks have had all the intelligence community and we are still both trying to reorganize cyber wise and what we're still at the early stages of getting all of the i see to work together on how we're going to deal with the social media companies and the ability to manipulate position there so we've got elections coming up primary voting's already happened happening but in just six months a national election midterm election how prepared are we to fend off these kinds of attacks that we know we're coming one of the biggest fouls this administration traded would if you had a normal administration and you knew that there was this kind of intervention you would create an entity working out of the white house to coordinate department of homeland security state and local election officials a whole things they've done none of that in slow instead the committee is put together bipartisan legislation james langford kamo harris pretty broad croup there we've been able to get three hundred eighty million dollars for security most states are not changing out there building machines to make sure that there isn't auditable paper trail so we're making progress but on the downside we got one hundred and fifty top election officials that need security clearance because a lot of these states weren't even told because the top election of field official didn't have appropriate security clearance only twenty of those people have been cleared we're not fully ready on the election side on the social media side and we're still grappling with twenty sixteen technology fake accounts somebody says there mike but they're actually boris and saint petersburg next generation will be put mike's face on dan's body and god knows what happens and streaming video streaming video so how do you deal with that not just in a political context but in somebody looks like these ceo or she's a ceo putting information we are still not at all prepared to fully deal with how we do with fake information see you combined fake information election meddling cyber hacking where you may have real information.
"skulduggery" Discussed on Skullduggery
"And you said these are truly red lines which sounds like you know article one of impeachment proceedings would you if he did that do you think that that would we have we have a strategy that will take place if he takes these actions but to get word into kind of where the president's allies wanna go to turn this election into what would happen if the democrats take over and impeachment that's not where i'm headed at what am i am headed towards is saying and holding somebody pride myself on being pretty darned bipartisan and i've gotten public and private assurances from the vast majority of my republican colleagues that they believe that the line too far as well i think history will judge all of us in the aftermath of this president's interference in an investigation into he and his associates activities potentially with a foreign power if people are not willing to stand up and protect that investigation and protect trying to get the truth when our nation was attacked by another nation and at least someone they feel it's mr trump involved then we're in a very very frightening and i do think constitutional crisis grounds for impeachment i'm not going there okay john brennan the former cia director recently tweeted this about president trump when the full extent of your venality moral turpitude and political corruption becomes known you will take your rightful places the disgraced demagogue in the dustbin of history now some of brennan's allies say such language is justified by the extreme behavior of president trump but others including one we recently had on this program dan hoffman former cia station chief in moscow says that brennan by making comments like that is only playing into putin's hands exacerbating differences in our country and foreign allies and adversaries around the world they don't make the distinction between a currency director and a former cia director where do you come down when you read the comments like.
"skulduggery" Discussed on Skullduggery
"Within a year practically of the watergate break in itself we're two years after the two thousand sixteen elections and more than a year after you began your investigation and those investigations with watergate hearings again probably got more historical knowledge than i but you're talking two years i believe it was the time now i think the country in the world where a new cycle is in twenty four hours but it's two hours or four hours we're all anxious no one is more anxious than i am to get through this process to draw these strings out and then get to a conclusion senator wanted do you are you still concerned that the trump is gonna fire muller i am constantly concerned that trump may try to intervene in the election whether it's firing muller firing rosenstein trying to get rid of sessions and put somebody in wouldn't have to recuse themselves because let me just finish because i think it's important when you one of the most damaging things as president is done is by he and his allies making these broad based i would argue ad hominem attacks against not just the investigation but the whole integrity of the fbi department of justice we've see this another other countries were were lead there's or lease go out and suddenly say the system is rigged and ineffective carte blanche to people to say which laws do you wanna follow it and which ones you don't wanna follow that leads to destruction of a society and my fear is that you have at least some of the trump allies implying that you've got you can question department of justice and others basic integrity that is a scary spot and muller's conclusion is important for the sake of the investigation it's also important for the protection of rule of law you said on in a floor speech i think in december that if he did that it would be a gross abuse of power and a flagrant violation of executive branch responsibilities and thority.
"skulduggery" Discussed on Skullduggery
"I think when we have all the facts if all the fact show that this was all coincidence i'll be the first to acknowledge that if it shows otherwise i believe that the we will get a bipartisan maybe not unanimous by partisan but i believe there will be bipartisan assessment and that's at the end of the day it raises so much importance because we're not only looking backwards looking perspectively and i think at the end of the day the american public deserves these answers and what's so frightening to me is that why you've not had trump try to threaten our effort you clearly have had him threaten muller and anybody affiliated with that and to my mind that are not those are not the actions of somebody who says this is just a witch hunt and there's nothing to hide senator speaking of what the american public deserves in some of the big scandals modern times watergate iran contra the really big moments took place in public hearing rooms you everyone remembers the alexander butterfield junior aid white house aide who shocked the world by revealing the existence of a secret recording system which led to the smoking gun in the downfall before the tv cameras and irancontra ollie north reveal the fact that money from the ron operation was diverted to the to the contras that all happened publicly the american people could see it you've not done that they've not been many public hearings at all and that seems to have been a conscious choice but why shouldn't the american people see don trump junior or jared kushner who attended the the infamous june twenty sixteen meeting with the in trump tower with russian operatives don't doesn't the american people have a right to to see those people come forward and testify when will testify would still well some of those individuals have been in and closed door testimony i still would love to get to the point where we can get that kind of this this is a working relationship.
"skulduggery" Discussed on Skullduggery
"Because you talk about how important this investigation be bipartisan and that you've done it differently from the house on the question of whether the russians intervened to help trump into hurt hillary clinton is there a consensus forming on your committee bipartisan consensus on that one point believe there is a consensus both because we have interviewed all of the people who were involved in the report but more as important is that the head of the fbi the director of central intelligence the head of the nsa the the odeon i head both under the obama folks and the trump folks one of the first questions we ask is for the trump people you do you agree with the assessment of the ica of january might they believe that two thousand seventeen and part of that assessment was explicitly clear that while they had intervened in the election and tried to hack into both parties at some point during the election season they determined the highest levels of the russian government it was to russia's advantage not because they favor one political party over the other to actually help trump and there was clearly lots of evidence that putin had huge distaste for clinton are you going to be able to produce a bipartisan report i think we will be able to produce many of these sections will be bipartisan the election on the critical question of collusion the one everybody is looking for and you know it senator and the house shantelle committee broke down total partisanship you know dueling reports which has not illuminated for the public at all can you produce one like what i think we will produce will be significant validation of what happened because there's a whole lot of folks now based upon mr trump and some of his allies who make these broad based ad hominem attacks against the whole intelligence community recently one of those dangerous things broadbased attacks against the fbi and the department of justice in effect undermining rule of law we're gonna come back out reaffirming the work of the intelligence community i think we're going to show as well around electoral elections that they intervened and frankly the united st.
"skulduggery" Discussed on Skullduggery
"Literally hundreds of of witnesses mostly all by the staff because we operated differently obviously than the house process tens of thousands of pages of documents we had the that famous komi interview where he laid out the content of the memos and where i think we've put some points on the board is one we've got the whole intelligence community both the obama intelligence community and the trump intelligence community to reconfirm that the russians intervened in the election to help trump to hurt clinton we pointed out and showed that the russians at least monitored or intervened in twenty one of our states electoral systems now in a normal administration after that you would have had a white house convened a working group about election security they've done none of that even though the and others have said this is a problem and they'll be back but we have got now bipartisan legislation to deal with that we got three hundred eighty million dollars to help states upgrade their electoral system we've got paper ballots in many state it's now rebel trailer coming on right we've got a report coming back to the reports we thought we were mostly done but as in so many areas there's more information to come i think maybe the most one of the most valuable things we've done is we have exposed how social media which initially after the election i i started this i said i think social media been used by by the russians and soccer burg and others famously blew us off and said there's no there there there's a lot more they're there and frank they'll be a policy implications for months if not years to come about how we rethink the usage of social media and we will have a a report there we're gonna series of reports on election security on the validity of the intelligence community assessment right or wrong and the obama administration social media and then the ultimate question collusion and on that one which everyone.
"skulduggery" Discussed on Skullduggery
"An so and of course the theory is that that the mocking of of donald trump at that event is what inspired him to run for president and in a way gave birth skulduggery into rental then we can all thank and thank the white house correspondents dinner because it's the white house correspondent's dinner one of the things we're doing on this show was we're having a kind of turning the lens on us on the press and we're gonna have a great panel of journalists to discuss the media and and our coverage of scandal so that should be right right and you want to give us a little we're very cool news to announce very coal news to announce which is that skulduggery is now going to be on sirius xm radio and sirius xm subscribers can now listen to us on the podium channel one twenty four every saturday at one pm eastern time with replays on sundays at two am eastern time and four pm eastern time so check us out all right well without further ado let's get started with our first guest please welcome the democratic senator from virginia and vice chairman of the senate intelligence committee senator mark warner senator looking thanks for being here although i just your earlier comments so we can actually blame the white house correspondent for the rise of donald trump one of one of many fathers to the trump presidency so let's look this is a show that's dedicated intensely and some would say obsessively to the scandals of the trump presidency starting with the russia matter you have called this famously called this when you started your investigation in january of last year that this was going to be the most important work you had done in your public life here we are fifteen months later give us an update on where you are in your investigation we've seen.