Who hello and welcome to the five thirty eight politics podcast, I'm Galen droop, and this is Mahler talks. It's a slightly more I'd version of our series, known as Mahler Talk, Mahler talks, of course, because formal Council, Robert Mahler, actually spent the day doing. He mostly spoke. In short, several word answers, so you know he wasn't all that time. If, by rare points, he did go into some detail and share some of his own assessments and of I am referring to mothers congressional testimony. After months of back and forth, he answered questions from lawmakers, house, judiciary and intelligence committees on his report about russian interference in the two thousand sixteen election and any attempt by the president to obstruct that investing you shouldn't here with me to discuss the main. Take away from the hearings are politics. Adversary Rasmussen has accounts, are taking on good. We just

hours and hours and already in the news room watching the hearing riveting stuff, also here is seen a writer Amelia Thompson devour you Amelia, I am great, was the here just as exciting from Chicago as it was from New York. I I can only imagine more exciting because it started our earlier, I was on seven thirty in the morning. All right, and also before we begin. I want to remind listeners that next week about a week for When you are hearing this, we have a live show in Detroit, that's August. First, so get your tickets at five, thirty, eight dot com- slash alive we're gonna, be talking about the debates in Detroit were also going to be talking about the role that Michigan will play in the twenty twenty election and a lot of fun to be somewhat of a coming home for our editor in chief needs over who is from Michigan, in any case, to see you there. Five thirty dot com, slash life. Let's get into it

There are, let's start with you: what are your top line? Take away from the hearings to today it was supposed to be an opportunity for Americans to hear and Robert Mueller's own words what his report was about. That didn't really happened, If anything, the report was red, mostly by those questioning him, whether that was Democrats Republicans and then in terms of the state Today, Democrats needed to have it shed new light. Be theatrical. Show that look. You know Mahler one. To have obstruction of justice charges against Trump, but couldn't do that because you president there was a moment. We thought that was true. That wasn't true. There was no further clarity there, your target about you know at one point representative had lived said to Robert Mahler, if not for these well see guidelines that prevent indicting a sitting president. Would you have brought charges and he said

and I have not read or write that you just made news, but then what happened so. Then he actually followed up almost immediately thereafter with less scope two said have to look more closely at it began, the second hearing in Friendly Intelligence committee to say no, that's not what I meant just to dispel any confusion there so of takeovers than an Amelia can speak to this more, I thought we got insight on the fact that you don't want to talk. Trumps specifically, but yes, russian Interference in the election. It happened and it's a big problem and we should expect it not necessarily to then again and twenty twenty, I dont want to be overly dramatic or ominous here, but just why does on our ability. Other countries are also trying to beef up there. Election hacking abilities, and it is something that we are not dealing with as a country and not to me was where the hearing went today. Won't there was a moment where he said during the hearings

That not only should we expect this to happen in the future, interference in american elections, but that is actually happening as we sit here right now. That seem like a topic that he was or willing to kind of harp on. I've on then obstruction of justice, or you know what happened during the two thousand sixteen election between the trunk him in and Russia are Amelia. What are your top? I take away with them you going into this, that it was going to be really hard to get mother. To talk about anything I wasn't in the report, and so we just heard that over and over and over again today, mother saying now have to refer the report. If that's it and if that's what's in the report than that's what I said in response to all manner of questions, but I'm serious absolutely right that the police's Aristotle Mahler was more responsive, engaged more with the Democrats in particular, and even added realized. Just a tiny bit were around election interference.

Particular. He had a moment that stood out where he was asked about. President trumps, praise of Wikileaks and he said that it was problematic and- and that was an understatement, which you know after hearing Mahler sort of talk and very muted tones from still the hearings. Unicef is, but there were very harsh words in the context and arm. He also warned in a back and forth about whether campaigns were going to be accepting help from foreign governments that he expected to see more of that. So It seems pretty clear that the second hearing, the intelligence committee hearing about election interference what Mahler was more concerned with and in a way

it's funny, because I was expecting that to be the harder hearing for the Democrats, because the report said pretty clearly that they hadn't found sufficient evidence that the Trump campaign had criminally concern. With Russia to interfere in the election, so it makes sense that finding was better for Trump. Then the more ambiguous obstruction of justice conclusion, but I think in a way that kind of freed the Democrats to create a more coherent narrative and the narrative that came out of that hearing was really you know. It set aside the question of whether the Trump Command campaign committed a crime. Here they were willing to accept help from afar adversary. They did not go to the officials when they were approached with that assistance and that's a threat that was sort of the Democrats. Big take away

I thought that was much clearer and more compelling than what we heard in the morning, which was a lot of you know: people francs frankly, pretty unsuccessfully trying to pin Mahler down on whether he would have indicted trap for obstruction just ass if he could have and just to clarify here for a lesson is who may not have been following this throughout the day in the morning, the Judiciary Committee spoke with Robert Mahler about obstruction of justice which has value to in the report, and then in the afternoon the intelligence Committee asked Mahler questions about volume, one which is russian interference in the two thousand. Sixteen election so Those are our top line. Take her. Did we fundamentally learn anything new today? Well final,

at the end of the intelligence committee hearing is someone asked a question that I had been waiting for all day, which was why Donald Trump wasn't subpoenaed by the Mahler team. They had been pursued sit down interview with him for more a year and ended up just accepting written responses that they said in the report? Where were not adequate and Molly was pretty candid. He basically said that they sort of weighed the evidence. You know that they thought they might be able to get from a sit down interview with tromp against the fact that if the president were subpoenaed, there would be a lengthy legal battle. It would take a lot of time and it would really delay their ability to wrap up the investigation and they decided that those time constraints were through more important, and I thought that was fascinating, that he was so open. That- and it really showed you know- this was a very fast

investigation in the scope of other special council investigations and Mahler was clearly sort of aware, for whatever reason that he he wanted to finish this very quickly or as quickly as he could and remind me Amelia did he go on to say why he wanted to wrap it up so quickly, as I know that other special council investigations have spanned years, so is kind of you know what was the urgency and I'm trying to remember how he addressed moat loans question on this, I dont think he really said specifically what the urgency wise and you know I could imagine a couple of different reasons. Past special council investigations did span years. But they were also accused of overreach. Today

wasting resources. We heard a lot today or not a lot but a couple times about how much the Miller Investigation cost I'm. So that's been a frequent criticism of past special council investigations. They ve been criticized for should have expanding beyond their purview. That's one of the reasons that we really haven't had as many of these investigations, because a law that allows them to be more frequent was ended in the late nineteenth. Ideas are two thousand, because people really felt that they were kind of running a mock, and so I think you know had to speculate. I would imagine that he was conscious of not wanting to be perceived as running a mock. The other surfing you have to wonder about is too. He was operating under the constant threat of being fired, and so you know he didn't. He didn't say this explicitly. Obviously we don't know if this was the case, but I think it certainly plausible that that might have been

federation as well, there were a lot of key questions that I asked throughout the day the necessarily reveal new information, but were important moment so the pressing issues that the lawmakers wanted to get to throughout a what we're some of those questions and how did Mala respond so again, addressed this in the report, but it was asked repeatedly if he believed that a president who committed a crime could be charged after leaving office, and he did go on the record to say yes, and so that was again, I think more clarity. It doesn't in Vance Impeachment proceedings. I mean that motion was brought to the fore last week. An guess. Forty percent of House Democrats were in favour of impeachment meetings, but to be clear that mean sixty percent weren't. I dont think that this is going to Rio Ben. That motion. In fact I was

earlier today that our Green, the Texas Congress, man, who brought it to the fore last week, was saying that of what he watching of two to his testimony. He didn't think it was a game changer for Democrats and that's coming from the Democrat who tried to bring impeachment to the floor. So there's still that open that guess once Trump has left office that sure he can be reached with the crime in it can go through the legal processes there, but the take away I got from that. Is won't be happening any time soon, but exists an option if, in theory, Democrats wanted to push it but

Mr Jumpin there. There was also an interesting moment where might quickly on the intelligence Committee asked. Basically you know what happens if the statute of limitations on a crime runs out, while a president is in office. Does that sort of remove the ability to prosecute and Mahler really couldn't answer about? So that was sort of a moment where that that was a good question. I thought that quickly asked Anne Mahler seemed to me, you know just kind of not now in terms of also key since the first Few moments of the first hearing was rubber, Jerry Nabob asking whether or not the report exonerated Trump and Molly said pretty bluntly know anybody who, even if you didn't read the report and had just seen you know the most cursory excerpts from it. You knew that, but that was a clip that Democrats wanted to get on the airwaves for primary

news this evening so when it comes to whether or not trump obstructed Justice What was the most that Mahler was willing to say all Matt today. He served basically repeated what was in the report, which is that he concluded early on that because of this LLC opinion he wasn't going to be able to indict the president, while here still in the White House, but he did he still investigated, and that was something that Republicans came back to a lot. They kept saying. You know if you couldn't indict him. Why did you investigate him? You know, isn't that sort of you know you, you were unable to exonerate him, isn't that kind of treating him differently anyone else would be treated in the criminal justice system and Mahler was not that clear about there's a minute. I think it was actually a little bit clearer in the report that his reasoning

for continuing the investigation was basically well. You know other people might have committed crimes, not the president, by a sort of adjacent to this obstruction of justice. Instigation, and also you know, the president could be prosecuted later. He kind of skirted those justifications and didn't turn address them very dry, but that was that was the subject of a lot of back and forth, with Republicans yeah the republican to had to attack, has legitimacy in some ways right, and so I think you saw that through both trying to get at the origins of. Why did the FBI, investigation Start and Mahler wasn't touch that right? But then I do and it was a moment with Europe publication, MIKE Turner from Ohio, where he was grilling mauler on this idea. Will you don't have the attorney general doesn't have the power to exonerate the president? You don't have the are to exonerate the president and the first tearing Ratcliff also arrived

look can drilled into this idea of more It somehow broken protocol, because his report was about decisions that weren't ultimately reached really more. The paradox that you ve written about Amelia, that the special councils hobbled camp cannon data sitting president. But it doesn't mean you can't investigate crimes see if there are people within the administration. That did something I thought publicans actually were fairly if they were deftly more effect in the first hearing on this question, trying to attack some of the legitimacy First hearing in particular, as we mentioned, Mahler did not say a lot. A lot of his answers were single words or just referring lawmakers back to the report. Democrats goal out of this process was to have Americans here the Mulder report from Mahler himself was the fact that he was only willing to give short answers. Prevent Democrats from achieving their goal ultimately mean that simple,

think what sort of have to see I mean. Obviously, most people are not going to be digesting these hearings. The way we did it by watching the entire seven hours and ill. You know, though, just be seeing the clips and an analysis and news the word- and it did seem that mothers sort of not just refusal to read the report himself. But also there were moments when it seemed like the Democrats were currently trying to get him to respond in full sentence Is that that they could use? You know sort if they would ask questions and, and one way to answer it would have been to kind of restate where they had been saying in the question and that would have been more use in a sound bite and they didn't get very many of those. But I you know, I did think there were a few moments where, in the first hearing where they were you're, going back and forth about the question of obstruction of justice that could make for potentially good tv

is, I think it's a little bit early to say for sure is that of whether they were successful in their goal of essential? trying to deliver the Mulder report to the american public in a different form, because it's very long most people haven't read it. It was all is going to be a real challenge, and I don't necessarily think they pulled it off, but you know I am hesitant for safe to say for sure that that it didn't work at this point, it's so hard for right, because it's not the same questioner. It's broken up. The other thing oh that, I'm curious about- and I don't think we'll get an answer, but as if mauler and his team kind of through Democrats curveball at the end and Bc News had broken during the hearing. This idea. That

The surrounding the negotiations, the team- actually declined to have Mahler read from the reports. I wonder when Democrats learned that and if they had a scramble at the last minute to alter their strategy a little the actual we alter it. We couldn't act here, Moraine deliver the report in his own words. It was left to the lawmakers reading it and then him just saying. Ok yeah, like You have acknowledged what is in the report, so red x, question or, I also think there, sir, your point about the format is really important to because it was sort of this bouncing back and forth between Republicans and Democrats, and they had five minutes, but sometimes they would see their time to other people and it just didn't make it sort of a little bit hard to track, and I think it also made it hard for both sides to build momentum and really create a narrative that was adding with each person sort of adding to what the other one Italian of the Democrats were trying to do that by saying-

highlight what we think are the major episodes of obstruction in the report, and they were very clear about signed hosting that, but when you're back and forth. In that way, I mean it's just really really hard to have any sense of coherence or a narrative thread, and that just seems like, with this format, really really hard to get it. Let's talk a little bit more about that second hearing, but before we do today's package is brought to you by light stream. Are you tired of credit card bills with high interest rates, ready to pay off your credit card balances and start saving money it a credit card consolidation loan from light stream, with rates as low as five point: nine five percent, a pr with ATO pay. That's a lie, more than the average credit card interest rate of over nineteen percent, a pr you'd get alone for five thousand dollars to a hundred thousand dollars with no fee. The rate is fixed I'll, never go up over the lifetime of the loan. Plus you can even get your money in your bank account as soon as the day you apply apply now to get a special interest rate discount. The only way

discount, is to go to a light stream dot com, slash five three: eight: that's l e g hd. As to our e m dot com, slash five, three, eight, the numbers, not the letters, subject to credit approval rating point, five percent, auto paid discount terms and conditions apply and offers are subject to change without notice. This light stream doc. Slash five, three, eight for more information or a word back in the second hearing today, which was about Russia's interference in the two thousand sixteen election, while I was willing to give slightly longer is what as he willing to say what did we? Maybe if we didn't learn much because we have actually read the report, what kind of narrative was established, VI television? If that's the goal of this process, I think we learn that this person

who spent almost two years really steeped in the question of what happened in the twenty sixteen election and its aftermath is really really worried about election interference not just in twenty sixteen, but in an ongoing way and without funding served in the hearing what I Evans. It was a consistent thread, but we did sort of get some kind of future and present this question? So it wasn't just about dissecting what happened in twenty sixteen, but also thinking about the threat that countries like Russia continues to pose for election security and that was clearly what Mahler wanted to be talking about. And so I think in that sense it is much easier to create a coherent narrative, but even if we didn't

you know necessarily learn anything that wasn't in the report. I think we learn very clearly that's her of the priority for a mother and the thing that he wanted to the american people should really be paying attention to right- and I think the tension, though- and all of this was even though he was willing to speak to this idea of election vulnerabilities existing the- U S and that the fact you know it- the illegal for campaigns to accept Intel from a, in countries still wasn't going to then make that connection back to Trump and say that something went wrong there, and maybe that was just the tension and hair it within the hearing. Stay that you know, Democrats wanted to push him on that he wanted to be. It out and then in terms of where that took the narrative you know. It wasn't even in the twenty two midterms honestly that we talked that much about the risk that foreign com is posed an inferior elections, curious. If that really will be at the forefront here and twenty twenty, I mean the Poles

from March. But when you ask people what are some of the most important issues, Russia doesn't come up, I'd be surprised, fears around the election being hacked her at top of people's minds. So it was power. Before and that he pushed the conversation in that direction, but I still don't know if it's going to ultimately like change the narrative here and also when it comes to anything that Mahler size rests on his credibility with the american public. We, tracking a little bit where his credibility stance throughout this entire investigation. Where does it and today and how is that changed over time? So you know other things. I was really start by in the hearings today is that Robert Mahler a Republican, and he was when he was appointed. He was hailed by Republicans and Democrats as being

this sort of very fair and trustworthy person who is going to take on this big task. He was treated by the Republicans in I think not completely uniformly, but by a lot of the much more like an appalling and in the hearings today- and I think you know- That'S- that's reflected somewhat in the public opinion when we look at approval of Robert Mowers, job performance Republicans pretty quickly developed a negative view of Mahler and that persisted pretty through his whole investigation, they actually his neighbor ability ridding among Republicans, went up when bars. Summary was released in March and then, when the full reply was released, tenants gone down a bit since then, and Democrats in general have Nino had much warmer feelings toward Mahler. I do think the Republicans were now very successful today in undermining Molly

credibility. I think, though, that's partially because Mahler has been very careful to stick to his report. He doesn't go out on he doesn't editorial eyes. He hasn't made anything approaching a comment about whether he thinks something like impeachment would be warranted, and I think a sort of the attention you know, obviously there's something of a partisan divide on his credibility, but I think it hasn't been worse because he hasn't sort of come out as this partisan figure. I dont know if that chain after today is he above water with the american public broadly so this is back from February. But time in a Washington Post pole. Fifty one percent of adults approve of the way that Mahler is handling the investigation and again there is. Going to be that partisan split. That Amelia was talking about that. We see in his job approval ratings, but to the point that he has not been a hugely

polarizing figure. I think that's right, you're, Emily use. Other republicans certainly achieve discrediting him or impeaching him as a witness so to speak. There were points during the hearing today, where his in the commission report, was even called on American and he just didn't respond in any way, and it seemed kind of odd that he didn't get to defend his report at all, Do you think that that made him more credible or did those statements from Republicans kind of tear him down a little bit and make the report look worse. Well, I mean in fairness there were a couple moments where he did so to fight back against some of the criticisms that have been pretty commonly levelled against him and made their way into the hearing, like the idea that he hired a lot of people who are demo

rats and were biased against tramp. He did respond to say basically, I dont consider people's political affiliations. I consider whether they can do their job and he seemed pretty annoyed by the idea that you know he was hiring people because they were partisans or that he had a biased team I think he did sort of punch back a little bit. Mahler is such a by the book person. He seems really unwilling to get into the mud and I think it depends the audience you know. I think there are certainly audiences where the fact that he was called on American and he you know he didn't really respond or fight back, might make him look worse. I also think those are probably people who were inclined to not have a very favourable view of him. Anyway, you know more than necessarily making him more or less credible it just here

kind of not of this political moment. You know he he didn't seem to really be engaging with the hearing in the way, for example, that attorney General Bill BAR did a few more to go or the way that James call me his don, and so you know that that was really what struck me. He just seem to not be willing to engage at all with the way that our congressional- Hearing like this unfolds in this hyper partisan moment. I think that's key. The hyper partisan bet, like I leave the universe in which, two weeks from now his job approval rating is worse. Among Republicans, there moment were Debbie. Less go was trying to go through all the different outlets he cited in the report, and I think the tactic there was has to be your only you're, not really uncovering anything new you're also biasing at toward some mainstream outlets. That may be aren't telling the full story, so I do think you can debate the

active nests of actually diminishing his credibility. I think it s a further, though intrenchment, into the different partisan camps here. What you Americans, though, think at this point about the conclusions of the March report right because they could be different, depending on where you get your news. Yes, This is why I have made me skeptical going into the hearing that this was gonna have much of an impact on public opinion, because there has been pulling a bow. What do people think dollars. Report said about obstruction of justice since April, and there is a huge partisan divide, their resent. You got the economists pull it was conducted in late June and eighty three percent of Democrats think Trump tried to obstruct the investigation compared to only sixteen percent of Republicans and that still really

sustained. Since the report came out, there was another pew survey that came out yesterday that I mentioned in the live blog, but it's about views of what Trump is doing prevent future election interference and again you see eighty percent of Republicans who are saying Someone are very confident that Trump Administration is making a serious effort to prevent Russia from influencing future. U S elections compared to about fifteen percent of Democrats, so people's views on these issues are really really walked in, and so I think that is really the challenge in a hearing like the one today, if you go in, strong opinion and you're. Seeing these clips there's plenty of fodder to reinforce whenever view you already had and on the subject of election security so in twenty seventeen politico did this mass survey of fifty different states to see ok what

you doing to get money to improve election security, your state and ten states actually requested funds and of those ten six got them and it just, but to me his mind boggling, because it's just it's not being it can seriously as an issue. Do we subject in any way that that will change after this It sounds like no, but we already know that the the track record is that people take from these experiences. The partisan sound bite but they want, like the other thing to, is Mahler is willing to say that. Yes, this poses a real threat to America, but he wouldn't go on than to say. I think it actually impacted the election. So that's what kind of Bin the problem with this to write as it's a problem. Don't actually know what the consequence of it was, and I think that makes it really hard, then, as a voter urges who's interested in this to Know- and I think you are when someone

it's a kind of unknowable answer even further. Who, if we knew the answer, would be totally willing to say it. I think in general need at least has been sceptical of the role that russian interference played in interchanging the outcome of the election, but of course it was very close in it and it's hard to say he's been wherever a culminate in believing that Commies letter was what swung the twenty six eighteen election as we wrapped up what do we believe, the long term political repercussions to be? And it's ok to say that there are? No. If you believe me, these hearings had no impact boy. Do you guys think? I think sir, is probably right that you know we're not gonna, see a bunch of Democrats suddenly turned around and saying. Oh, I was wrong. We need to actually start impeachment hearings tomorrow. The hearings were probably you no good for the Democrats.

At the margins. I think keeping the Mulder report in the headlines is probably good for them just because it sort of keeps people from forgetting about this big scandal that you know really loomed over trumps entire president you so far, so that's not bad for them. I think what it when it doesn't do is to make it easier for them to move ahead in their investigations of Trump and his administration, where they ve basic. Just been facing this across the board stonewalling from Tromp and they ve been struggling to respond and they're trying to respond to the courts, but that's extremely slow, and I dont you know not to get started on. Digging necessarily gave any momentum to the impeachment effort, and I dont know how much it's going to sort of strength in their case with the american people that they really need to do these investigate

Jens insofar as this this stays in the headlines for a little while longer. I think that's that's good for them in some ways. I am not sure that it's good for Democrats, because, Robert Mauler. You know he was subpoenaed to be there. He didn't wanna be there. He is the most engaging witness for all of the reasons we have mentioned Trump, has crowing on Twitter, that you know no collusion and I think, cuz. It wasn't a gotcha moment that it can be spun in a way of life. Just please stop the hearing, so I think Amelior right, like the appetite for more investigations among the public, is probably going to be low. I'd be interested some pulling on that there's no one else on the campaign trail who called for impeachment today. So I think at this point, Democrats should move on this has become somewhat of a theme where the party out of power it when they have the ability to do so, investigate the president, that is, of the party? They hold these public hearings, doing

from historical precedent? Whether hearings like this are effective in smearing sitting, president wasn't effective against. President Obama doesn't seem effective against President Trump, so far been effected in asked. There's been research showing that in past administrations more days of congressional hearings, have dragged down approval ratings by you know. A fairly considerable amount It seems, though, in this era, where presidential approval ratings just die, fluctuate very much that there may be less room for something like congressional investigations to have an impact on. Prove all rating I mean you know it's possible that continuing the drumbeat of investigations is keeping trumps approval rating from moving up

The other thing that just been really hard for the Democrats is this was a big deal for them getting Mahler. They have been having a lot of trouble having splash e high profile hearings, because the Trump Administration has just not been cooperating with them in any way, and so you know, I don't think we necessarily had evidence that something like a one off hearing like today, even in era, where there was rooted more room to move the president's approval rating, it would have done It sort of more. This steady drum, be lots of hearings, continued focus, media attention, and so it's just been really challenging for the Democrats to get that, and you know it is also possible that that's why it just doesn't seem like they're getting a lot of results. I think that's Re Jeff Scully had looked at presidential per

we'll ratings earlier this year, all the way back to true men and rate Obama's. You know how very small range and with in which it moved. As does trumps. You know medical scientists to have been studying. This are now less sure that these congressional hearing, will have as much of an effect, because you know that study? I want to see as like what is the fatigue around these? If you're, always as the opposition party, trying to investigate the party in power? Does that really help you or I? Well? I think that's about it from us. Is this view last we will hear from Robert Mahler and therefore the last mile, or talk or Miller talks of all time I mean I hate to say, never Galen, because I have thought in May, episodes of Mahler Talk, that it was the last episode of malware talk, but mother

did seems your pretty excited by the idea that he was no longer a federal employee, and so I think I think there may be our last one. I think so all right and with that we conclude, are Mahler Talk Series. So thank you. Thanks. Galen fed your they scowling and before we go, a plug that I mentioned earlier this week. Five thirty eight now has a store. So if you want t shirts hats bags all kinds of fun- five, thirty swag- you can get it at five. Thirty, eight dot com, slash store go check it out tee shirts, who hoodies five thirty eight dot com, slash, store, my name is Galen droop Tony Chow is in the control. Room are in turn, is Jake Arloeux you can get in touch. My emailing us at pod counts at five, thirty, eight dot com. You can also, of course, treated us, but any questions or comments if you're, a fan of the show

he a rating or review in the Apple podcast cast or tell someone about us thanks for lessening and will cease her