What good is freedom without virtue, joint economists, religious leaders, writers, news makers and thinkers every Wednesday, four conversations, a bridge, the gap between good intentions and sound economics on active line, the flagship podcast from the act, an institute for the study of religion and liberty by demonstrate the compatibility of faith, liberty and free markets. Conversations on active line reveal how economic freedom is essential to create an environment in which religious freedom can flourish and that the market can function only when people behave. Morally faith in freedom must go hand in hand to subscribe to act in line visit, acted dot, Org clash in our research act in line on Apple podcast, Google, podcast, Spotify sticker wherever fine.

I'd, castor, available that act and dot org flash and are too subscribe, active dot, org slash and are welcome to the Mccarthy Report Podcast, where I rich Lara, discuss Bandy Mccarthy, the latest legal and NASH. security issues this week, what else the latest on Derek Chopin and Rudy Juilliard here listening to review Podcast Joseph Podcast, National Podcast National Utica delighted to have you better, be easier for you and better for us to be made as part of your feed the strain resources out there for Spotify to Itunes. Please give this part Gaston, Annie, Mccarthy, the glowing indeed gushing fight our views. They deserve on Itunes and now

without further Ado. I welcome to this very part gas through the miracle of zeal, none other than any Mccarthy enrich our area. got any area, I'm good back to show them. So you're, not you not arrange your stand, but if you follow the or a capital stand, but if he, if you follow the New ha ha, over how this Sir Tom Wilson isn't it was was handled and the ensuing YAP fowl, They were all so. Yes, and I'm not I'm not a rangers then. But I was a kid. I was a bit I understand, for whatever reason I just never like the Rangers, and when the islanders started, they were awful, but I started with them, so when one Finally, one after only winning a games that first season, I actually felt like. I deserved a team that was that was that good. But

interesting way, but the thing that dumb, the islanders always remember, which started that after each award winning those cops was when Numb Clark Gillies beat up day She also is the young D flyers, were known as the broad street boys re back then, and shalt was that they were nasty. Team and shells was the was the browser and The message there, which bark messier has been talking about here and now in the new your papers, in addition to other people who, by commenting on us all this, is that the Rangers in their rebuild, which was in it resting rebuild because they told everyone three years ago that they basically after being a very good team for a decade. They were going to tear the whole thing down and try to build from scratch, because they didn't think they could win the cup with what they had an.

It's not usual for that too, for people in New York to buy into that, but they boarded the range of fans bought into it, but the way that Davidson, Davidson's, when the most popular and best players, the Rangers ever had who's been running the rangers. The way they did it was there. assembled a team with a lot of skill players: and not a lotta half. What do you know they? They talk about not having the kind of guys who like do the dirty work in the corridors that you need to do. And they get pushed around the lot and it really came to a head with, though the capitals thing which cause, which is what caused. I think the debacle in the next came with the big have like a hundred and fifty at all. The ministers are so like something out of slap sure they started fighting a sense of purpose drop.

Yeah, but the Rangers at the Rangers when they got good in the seventies they brought in a guy named Mick Mick for to you who didn't have a lot of talent, but he protected there really good players and I always thought his main job was to try to try to bring beat up Gretzky in his later port of his career, but the boy was he could never catch observer thing about dial up were or getting the maid have adhered to. Think about Wilson is easily actually really good player. That also says goodish big guy who, through like scarce people, centre so direction, and we have just before we start recording here on Friday afternoon, had the word that there's now several diamond. What's goin on here what which I you know, I hate to be knee: jerk critical of everything, Abiden Justice Department, but this really deserves criticism, I mean we can't. I knew this was coming. There's been comments about it this way

Some reporting that Chauvelin had please Yoshi months ago and actually willing to plead to one of the murder charge is not just a manslaughter charge, but his condition was that he didn't want eight one of the federal government to take any charges off the table and the reporting was that attorney general bar wouldn't do that and the deal collapsed. So it it's It's been obvious for a long time that the Justice Department investigating this be Biden. Justice, support, has been very loud about investigating it. So it's not all that surprising that the feds have an indictment, but the timing of it is just awful. I mean chauvinist supposed to be sentenced in about a month, I think June,

sixteen, so this is going to be seen as ratcheting pressure on the sentencing judge and, more importantly, the other three former cops are I to go to trial in Minnesota on August twenty third. Now, We already have a record here where you ve had a lie: federal, interference in medicine This obligation to give these guys a fair trial to the point that when Maxine Waters did her antics that we talked about a couple of weeks ago and basically said something that the essence of which was if there were acquittals in this case, that there was gonna, be violence in over stepped up violence, in straight when that happened: Judge Kayo, Peter Cable, who's. The judge in the shovel case basically said to Chauvelin. You don't look, you might have gotten a gift because

of appeals. Looking at this eventually may throw this whole thing out because of all the prejudicial pretrial proper prejudicial pretrial during the trial. Publicity wonders did what she did right as the jury was about to. Get the case to deliberate and then when they started deliberating Biden waitin to say you know he was When that there would be a conviction of praying for. However, he, however, restated, You already have a record here, that's very troublesome in terms, and we see we talk, there's a lot more to it than that, but it's not just a question of whether Shovin, whether his due process rights were adequately respected by the state, a Minnesota defensible

the interfered in his trial, and now you have a situation where the Justice Department just to be clear on what they could have done here and, what's usually don't hear, the Justice Department had every right to get an indictment here. I think it's it's it's up. It's an uphill case and I wouldn T have done it, but they certainly had a right to do it and, if you're going to bring the indictment. I also agree- and I've been through this myself as a prosecutor. I also agree with the premise of getting the indictment before the state proceedings have run their course, because you don't want to look like it, but under the dual sovereignty doctrine the feds are allowed to prosecute even on the same facts as the state as prosecuted. There's no jeopardy protection from a subsequent federal prosecution by getting convicted

acquitted in a prior stay trial, so the feds are definitely allowed to do their seated on the Justice Department frowns on it, and you know this procedures. You have to go through to do a case on dual sovereignty brands, but what the feds usually do here is they get the indictment, but they seal it. and the reason you get the indictment, is you don't want to look like you're, penalizing a defendant, forgetting acquitted, like you know, he gets acquitted in the state and then in a vengeful way. You run into the federal grand jury and get an indictment, so usually what the fuck want to do, is they'll, get the indictment and then seal it and then wait until the federal D stay proceedings have run their course

and then they cannot see light at the end and particularly at somebody's acquitted or if the state proceedings are somehow flawed or it looks like for whatever reason in an important federal interest, isn't going to be vindicated than your unseen building indictment. Yet you bring the guy's any Buffle or new tried my second time, but what you do is what you always want to do is make sure you're, not interfering with the States administration adjust and their effort to give due process to the accused and what the feds have done here is they have unsealed this indictment on the circumstances where they didn't have to do it now, shortly before chauvinist supposed to get sentence and before the other trial,

and what's gonna happen now is the lawyers for the other three defendants are gonna, run into judge, K Hill and complain that the feds are poisoning the jury pool that they ve gratuitously filed this indictment that they could awaited until next year. It's a five year statute of limitations that there's no time pressure on the fence. They could have waited until the straw was over. Instead, they decide to drop this bomb now under circumstances where there already arguing that they can't get a fair trial in Hennepin County and there are already pushing the judge to move the case, Atta Hennepin County. So if you really care about the federal law enforcement interest. By doing this, they have run the risk that what Calles gotta do is say. We have to adjourn the second trial to let the publicity disk a name. Maybe we need to move the case IDA Hennepin County to so you wrote, you may have delayed the ultimate federal prosecution,

and then the other thing here is how much blood you gonna get from a stone here. She Van is looking at like he's, gonna get over twenty years I'm pretty confident he could get closer to forty been twenty for all. I know, because, there's all these exacerbated sentencing provisions that them the prosecutors in Minnesota have asked him to apply, but even if he just gets twenty That's a significant sentence and it's gonna be the hardest time in the history of time. For a guy like this right, the other cops as we talked about in prior podcast, the testimony of Doktor Tobin. The Pullman knowledge is made the case. I thought much stronger against the other three cops than it was because he focuses on the pressure that was put on the guy's lungs and on his back rather than

Chauvelin on his neck, which is bad news not only for the other two cops who, by their hands on Floyd, that's a lane and young. But it's also bad news for town who was right there he could see, a very closely everything that was going on and who also prevented somebody who was a trained emergency medical technician from rendering assistance, so Tobin testimony makes, to my mind, makes the case much. so the other crops, which is a long winded way of saying they are very likely to get convicted of at least something, and maybe everything and if they get convicted they're going to be looking at curious sentences to maybe not a serious and showman, but pretty serious. So what is the point of bring a federal prosecution here? The young people need to understand is in a civil rights Kay,

the only federal interest if this is not supposed to be like a dual over martyr, try or a check on a murder trial. The federal interest here is the vindication of federal civil rights. Here, the states theory in its prosecution was that, even though Floyd was lawfully arrested, unlawfully detained, the police violated his rights not to be subjected to excessive force and to have the police back to his right to life, which is the federal interest, so the state conviction actually vindicates any federal interest here and the time these guys are gonna get is very hefty. So what's point I made you could see if somebody got acquitted or that if the trial was a travesty, you could see the FED saying

This is too important. We need to go forward. The constitution allows us to go forward, we're going forward, but what's the point here? Yes, so what's the standard for whether the federal government sprang such a case that at imagine a lot of police interactions and go wrong that the said could come into if they wanted to reign yeah, but This is the year. What you're hitting on is something that could actually undermine everything. That's gone on up until now the limited federal interest here, I cannot stress this enough. This is not a a martyr trial once it gets too

report by its a violation of civil rights trial. So what the fence have to prove beyond reasonable doubt is that the police will fully denied Floyd his constitutional rights when the fact of the matter is they probably never even thought about his constitutional rights. These are very, very difficult cases because they are not about when the judge instructs the jury. What you find out is that the case really isn't about what you think. It's about. You think it's about the you have done me on the neck, with depressing down on the guys back, but what it turns out to be about is what was going on in the police officers mine, because when you charge This is the reason, by the way that Biden wants to lower the standard for prosecutions of civil rights cases.

wilfully down to a lower standard approve wilfully is the highest. She ain't a requirement that pious mental state requirement in the criminal law It almost defies the old adage that ignorance of the law is no excuse, because when you to act, wilfully you. have to understand that what you are doing is violation of the law and do it with an evil intent, and I think it's gonna be very uphill. under circumstances where again now- I I said this in the last trial, but here where the whole thing is about what was going on in the cops mines, you have a situation where they make a lawful arrest. It's a law full detention and they call an ambulance and while their detaining

the guy. They call the ambulance again and tell him to get here faster. I think it would be very hard to prove beyond reasonable doubt that they wilfully, I don't even think the constitutional rights of George Floyd entered into their minds, but prove beyond reasonable doubt that they went out of their way to violate. Is constitutional rights is not going to be an easy proof now these, if it's not like these cases, are impossible right, he may get convicted, but my point is if he gets quitted in a trial. They don't have to do in a case they don't have to bring. I think it changes the legacy of everything that happened here. and it gives these guys some ammunition. I I don't think there if they get convicted in the state. I dont think those convergence are gonna, be reversed, but if, if they get subsequently prosecuted in by the feds, and if that for any reason knows it,

it'll and again. This is an appeal case that helps them in their subsequent attacks on the state prosecutions so you don't you only supposed to bring these kind of subsequent cases. People look at this dual sovereignty situation and they think it's unfair and you can tell what they think it's unfair? I mean our tradition is that the government should get one shot at convicted somebody, and if you get acquainted, that's that's the end of it. The FED the dual sovereignty situation is a limited. option to that on the theory of federalism that that you dealing with that that each sovereign has it has a shot at you. So the fact that you get acquitted

doesn't it, but in one doesn't mean that you can't be tried in the other, but because people don't like it and because they have an equitable sense that it violates are at least our principal against tool, sovereignty against a double jeopardy prosecutions, if not a letter of the of the constitution, the justice system, been has a set of guidelines where they usually don't. Let federal prosecutors bring a success and federal case. After there's been a stay case, you have two likes jump through a lotta hoops about. Why there's some critical federal interest- that's not being vindicated in the state case before they. Let you go forward on this, and I just think that dumb, if these,

Let's get convicted and the convictions look like you're gonna be upheld by the courts in Minnesota. I just do not, for the life of me see the good reason for doing this, and I think it's a fact so that their doing it now when they didn't have to do this now in its caught gonna cost a lot of problems in the state proceedings, So the the answered why they're doing it would be natural, as was seen to be politics right, desert, CS seriously, that they take this thing and do everything a candid now

to the wall, even though is additionally nail him to the Y know, is already been able to the war correct, yet that I've been much it's that and I think they need to. I think we need to realise, because the Justice Department gotta be used in this fashion, going forward as Rebecca S put it, we ve had other people right. This is well the Biden administration is not gonna be if they are reincarnate. They are not going to get a bunch of the legislation across the finish line, was still there just not, and they have to find ways to satisfy the left flank of their party and I think, a big pull away that they're going to do. That is the Justice Department. They are going to turn the civil rights division, loose you're going to do all of these cases that are of political importance to the left so

another big case that you you ve. Really we talked about it last week we really delved into it the last several days and this week is Rudy, so were what workers through what was what was most important to know here my yeah. Well, I don't want to be I. I thought it was important to talk about this again for a couple of reasons I dont want to be how did of course, we covered a lot of this last week, but I did write a big piece about this that this week kind of studying this thing or trying to from from soup tonight, and I think that these two things that need to be said about it at least two were at one of them to correct a misimpression and the other one to underscore something. That's really abusive that that has happened here was so, let's start with correcting the misimpression. The whole thing, the whole Ukraine debacle that Rudy,

himself into, and I want to be clear up front here. I am not excusing what Rudy did here, especially in terms of the people that he was dealing with in Ukraine who, as we pointed out, yet it back. I totally rudely. We have corrupt you that this is a total marked moderator mistake. I meant to ask you The way something has got a lot of attention is this year and the chauffeur trial that a lever- adder short just really quickly, What what's the significance of that could do that? Could that enter meaningfully into an appeal? Richard I feel like I'm going to give you an answer, which is like the same answer that I gave you with respect to lilies things. You asked me about the jury, which is, I think, any one of these things would not be a big deal.

Of itself its accumulation of them when you start to look at how chauvinist jury. came to be. You know how, but what the publicity was before the trial, what Minnesota did during the trial? during the jury selection, making that the settlement of twenty seven million dollars to Floyd's family, the judge, not request bring the jury one that terrible shooting in Brooklyn Centre, happen and sending them home for the weekend to get him worse than all that, and then your Wha, crazy, Maxine and Biden SOAP, We have a situation where it looks like one of the jurors on a trip to Washington attended a black lives matter. Rally now

going to a black lives matter. Rally is not would not have been. An automatic reason to boot. Did George but it certainly would have been a reason to ask a lot of follow up questions that might led to information that would have caused the Jura, too, need to be removed and selfless, I haven't seen anything that indicates that the jury is thought to have lied in connection with any specific question that the Euro was asked, the boy- This is more of a cross border situation. Where did the lawyer? ask the right questions, or did they ask enough questions that the Euro should have volunteered this detail and didn't? I will have to see where that goes, but I think the thing is.

It becomes yet another reason in what's becoming a burgeoning record that by the way, as we just discussed, the Justice Department has now added to by by the timing of this indictment, but it adds towards becoming, I think, a pretty extensive record that I told you there is reason to worry about whether this guy got a fair trial and not like whether you had a jury that with fair and impartial and was sufficiently protected from outside influences that you can have confidence that the verdict was right, for the right reasons, rather than the wrong reasons and every additional that you lay on top of that mountain makes the claim that children's going to be able to make stronger. That said, I'd say the same thing that I said the last time we talked about this, which is the tape. Very damning. You know especially the nine and a half minutes that, though, that the prosecution leaned on doctors

bits testimony was very damning and I don't think that they did much to refute anything that he said and I can easily see them of appeals. Looking at this and saying you know, look a lot of things have and here that shouldn't have happened. But even if this This had been a model of due process. It so highly likely that this guy would have gotten convicted anyhow that they'll overlook some of these problems. But again the more of these problems there are the harder it is for. The court of appeals overlook it. I should have ass yet at the end of a shovel discussion. Obviously demeanor up interrupt you ve already so Rudy. Here's to use the myth rich that the whole thing is built on, and I know this is gonna- be shocking to people. So I hope everybody sitting down, but I mean, can you believe this after fifty years?

Joe Biden said something that wasn't true, that that was designed to make him look like somebody. was an important player in connection with something as to which he was a bit player and that's what this whole force is based on Haydn says in a speech at the council, Afar relations in two thousand eighteen he's telling this typical barred, Biden, yarn right and the thing was that there was this corrupt price Junior and everybody wanted him out. The I M F wandered about the Europeans, one them out the World Bank, one them out, Obama, one them out so Biden, tough guy goes into, poor shall go and he said to him. You got six hours, my plane leaves and said.

Hours, he's either rout or you're, not get your billion dollars and what has been said, son of a bitch, you fired. That did not happen. It's a complete father, it's a complete fiction. It probably true. That Biden like about a hundred other people between the european governments, the I S and the Obama administration, or leaned on poor Genco, who was the who became president of brain after the Euro maiden revolt they? leaned on him about anti corruption, it was a big theme. The administration even help the UK. Stand up and anti corruption. Police force de corruption was something they were hammering on. Poor shall go about. So it's probably true that Biden who spoke

poor shank of a number of times sang. the same him know that everybody else was saying from at the time, but. Biden was in Ukraine meeting with portion at the end of December and the beginning of January, two thousand and fifteen two thousand and sixteen Shokin was never fired. While Biden was in Ukraine, what ended up happening was on February tenth, Christine Lagarde, who was the director of the International international Monetary says publicly, that if poor Shankar doesn't get on the stick about anti corruption, and everybody knows that what this means by this point is that shoguns gotta go regard says that the entirety of you cranes. Forty billion dollar loan aid package from you.

Upon the United States, the I M F twenty billion and the World Bank twenty billion, that all of that is going to be cut off if they dont show some reason. immediately after regard says, this Shokhin calls I'm sorry Patricia Petros Genco Hiroshima once I'm get like you rich IKEA for NASA I've got to get someone to get a third for further progress just for the soap hedgerow poorest uncle. Who is the president right after the guard? Basically issues that threat says Shokhin whose his pal that's. The reason he has want to get rid of them is their old Europe. It is shit. He's petrochemicals got portion. Coastguard so anyway, immediately after that happens, he says Shokhin needs to resign. but even then joking doesn't show- can gives him a letter of resignation a couple of days later, but then he tries to go back to work.

The guy is an out until at the end of March, parliament votes him out on emotion by Portugal, but Biden had nothing to do with a decent. Like you know, they were phone. Calls between him and in Portugal, but this idea that, like he threaten them with one billion dollars in six hours and then all of a sudden. You because he's a tough guy. The prosecutor has got its nonsense. It didn't happen so frightened It is for the reason Biden always does the sort of thing which is it makes it aggrandizing him. It embellished his role in something that he had only a minor role in and the other thing which I think, pathologically speaking, is that he can't control self, and we saw this- the whole Tommy was in the Senate once he gets rolling. You can't stop him, so I dont think it dawned on him, and this is a very good reason.

This. I don't think it dawned on him that what he was saying of, apart from being you're, not the usual bravado, but stupid was also politically catastrophic, because under the circumstances it could be spun that, he thought he had the guy fired in order to protect Hunter. I daddy was even thinking about Hunter and the reason for that is the rap on Shokin was that he wasn't going after corruption, not that he and one of the things he wasn't going after was bereavement. So what happened with the charisma before Hunter ever gets on board is with our help, the british serious fraud investigators doing invest

negation of bourgeois and freeze twenty three million dollars in accounts that they have in London and ultimately, the case. The Brits end up having to drop the case, mainly because Shoguns office. basically tells charisma lawyers. We have any evidence that would support with the Brits did so they not only don't cooperate with the british investigate. They give the ammunition to tourism and undermine the Brits investigation. So Shokhin is basically your typical corrupt ukrainian official, who is protecting ukrainian oligarchs, like the guy who, who owns charisma and in fact Shokhin himself had ends up having a corruption scandal, because people who are working for him.

or on the tape, and basically they find a big trove of money, diamonds and all kinds of other stuff that has its directly traceable to shoguns. Direct support That's an sum of shoguns identification material is found in them where they find all the money in the diamonds in all so he's got he's got all kinds of corruption problems. But nobody who, who looked at this carefully with them, either that Biden actually had Shokhin fired or that Nobody would have thought that Shokhin was being too aggressive on asthma and that by was necessary too shy to sideline, I'm no one needed to tell joke and not to investigate charisma. it was an investigating charisma, they technically hadn't. Astrogation open. He did know.

by the way his predecessor did and he wasn't moving on it. So the whole thing is built on a farce, but what ends up happening is because what Biden said if you believed Biden was susceptible of being spun as Biden, corruptly, protecting hunter rule? working for the trunk campaign and for Trump and picking up that narrative and running with it, and because these you rainy and officials who have ties with the Russians see see a way to make some mischief here

Oh yeah, yeah yeah. I shall get near he wanted. Does he want to investigate the charisma? But you know Biden, son was there, so they wouldn't. Let him do it. Then Biden fired that they just made they just one for the ride on something that was a was an explosive political narrative. I think everything else we set about this last week remains true, which is that because, the Trump administration, ended up sanctioning the Ukrainians that Rudy was working with for being for peddling russian disinformation Biden should just if he knew how to leave it well enough alone, which, if you know, really well enough alone, but they never would happen in the first place, but

if he knew how to leave well enough alone. It is just this just would never. There would never be a prosecution, because what he would say is at this point he's been vindicated from what Trump accused him off and the U S. Government has found that roadie sources were peddling russian disinformation. He wanting to just declare victory and an it be at an end, and instead they have decided to go forward with a prosecution which brings me to the second thing. The second point that I wanted to add from what we talked about last week, which is not so much that the prosecution is being done pretext joy on the basis of it. fairer. The foreign agents registration at violation which the Justice Department virtually never treats as a criminal case, but what I don't

guide highlighted enough last week is just how outrageous it is that the Justice Department, you who's that, as a reason to do so ouch warrants at the homes of two Lawyers in the offices of one of them, Rudy rubies home in an office Victoria ton Sings office, the just Deportment understands that Sometimes you have to do a search on a lawyer. I have had these kinds of cases, so you don't, I understand what The problem is here: you have a lot of cases that involve serious crime like organised crime, Well, maybe the head of the family. gonna give some serious criminal orders, including maybe orders to murder people and what the mafia likes

Do we have a lawyer at the table while that's all going on because later they can then say it's all privilege, hidden and not turnover, and try to prevent that information from you approved against them, so gives them a layer of protection? So, as a result of that, you can't make a hard and fast rule that you will never search a lawyers, offices or premises, because if you do, you would just give serious criminals a blueprint for Hatton Defeat, their prosecution, but barring a really serious situation, the Justice Department doesn't let you do: searches on lawyers, offices and homes, because it necessarily ends up violating the constitutional rights of both a goop clients of the lawyer. Particularly the client. You don't have anything to do with the batter, that's under investigation and just so people

a sense of how outrageous. This is what the justice Fort men always ends up saying when they do. One of these, Searches on a lawyer is no. No, no don't worry because we have. We have a protective procedure in place. We have attained team and we have the investigative team that that's doing the case. the investigative team is never going to see the privilege communications, because the taint team is gonna. Look at everything first, as a screen and the We think they're gonna, let through the screen or the communicate since that are admissible. Relevant in the criminal investigation and everything else will never be looked up, except it's obviously being looked at by the tank team who are prosecutors. so suppose you rich go to Victoria chancing to be represented on something that has nothing to do.

With Rudy or Ukraine or or anything else, and you as most lawyer, as was clients, do Share communications with your lawyer that are not intended for anyone else does and I'd done so that you can get good legal advice there, not for the government. How is it any comfort to you to know that when they take them, Tori is computer with all of your communications on it. You don't need to worry about it, because the tank team is gonna, look out at it first and the investigative team will never get it. You are come you vacations are still with the government. They still have them. You're right, you're, sixth, amendment right to council and your attorney client

privilege, have been blown out of the water by this arrangement that you. What do you care that you know? There's a tank team in an investigative team. All you know is that your lawyers places been tossed and the government has your what you fought based on the constitution. Was your confidential privileged information? So that's what they ve done here. By doing this doing this procedure against Rudy and Victoria hunting I would point out that, during the hit the Hillary Clinton emails investigation when Hilary lawyers had the emails that she got from these same department that she hadn't turned over to them. In that case, you would dealing with information that was presumptive league government and files and then

contain classified information if there was ever a reason to have the f b I go in and take the stuff that would be the case and yet because the Justice Department, friends on that, what they did was they aspect. the lawyers what they wanted and they gave the lawyers the opportunity to surrender it rather than getting search warrants and rating the lawyers offices and in home. So I think what they ve done here is really outrages. I still have yet education, This is a fair case. So far as we know with the reporting is that on the search warrant on, but on at least one of the search warrant, and probably both in the search warrant for rubies home and his office far was listed on the warrant you you dont, give when you do with them. Torrent, you dont give the underlying affidavit that lays out the probable cause. You don't have to get back to the person,

They get that discovery later on this ever prosecution, but you do have to leave a copy of the warrant. An have to make an inventory of what you talk on the warrant, the Justice Department always puts the statute that their investigating. So what we are, what the report says is that they wished listed far as the reason that they are conducting investigations. So too does go back to the first tranche to this short Shokhin and whatnot doesn't deserve explode. The antibiotic case that transfers or making that that he he leaned on Ukraine to fire. This prosecutor who's this guy in Burma. Why? I think it does now, let's talk about what it does is doing it doesn't. Do I think, to the extent that the narrative that

Trump Rudy were pushing. Is that Biden was guilty of criminal corruption for protecting his son? By having this prosecutor fired I think that that has totally been blown up by not only its actually blown up by the Tropic administration by by what they did sanctioning Moody's sources, but that clearly didn't you know what they said happened did happen. Number one Shokhin wasn't really investigating, whereas now and more importantly Biden really didn't have Shokhin five Biden was one of probably a couple of dozen people who were leaning on the Ukrainians to get rid of shock- and so I think it does blow that up, but you don't taking it from the bigger picture number one

the fact that it was in criminal corruption. Does it mean there was no corruption? It was on ethical of hunter to take this job in Ukraine, and it was unethical abiden too. Turn a blind eye to it, because what it did was undermine the Obama administration, Anti corruption agenda and number two Even though Biden will continue to say this that it was all russian disinformation. You'll now say it was all right. and this information as the trumpet administration found. But what the Trump Administration found was rushing just information with a ukrainian sources that Rudy was dealing with. The trump administration- and no one else, has determined that hunters laptops were russian disinformation, so you don't! The China stuff is not russian disinformation. The fact that Hunter,

gets paid off by all these countries. That are that his father is taking the lead role in foreign policy. That's not russian disinformation. The fact that Hunter makes false statement on its federal firearms background check. That's not russian. This information, the blackmail stuff that's on b, uterus. Yet under all the salacious stuff that we read about in the limited number plates but actually reported on this before the campaign will before the election. That's not russian. This information, So why imagine that the Biden campaign with the Biden team will try to conflate the russian disinformation angle with everything that stems from you know the hunter scandal it doesnt cover everything and this is part of the reason why I think that their prosecution, Rodya so foolish Rudy

is not a wallflower if they, if they indict him he's gonna put hunter on trial. And he's going to try to refute the allegations riding well, you'll love it they'll say he was a foreign agent of Ukraine right and he'll say no. I wasn't a foreign Asian of Ukraine I was working for the President and in fact, Farrah by the way, has a an exemption for legal work, which is gonna, be a legal problem for the Justice Department. But what he'll say, as I was working for were afore trump and my job working for tromp was to undermine the Mueller investigation and to work for the Trump campaign to demonstrate that Biden was involved in corruption in Ukraine and here's what I found

and he lay out all this information he doesn't have it. His defence is not required to accept the Trump administration. Interpretation these sources that he had were russian soldiers. He could say think they were credible and heels he'll explain in his defence. I was working for tromp not for Ukraine and, what I discovered and he'll lay it all out like a fairly welsh and even if a judge doesn't let him put all of it in the trial, there's a long time that happens before the trial, stewards and its organs. the public. So rude he's gonna be out there and rubies apologists you'll be out there talking all about Hunter corruption, and you know Biden looking the other way added, even if even if his version of what happened with Shokhin, isn't exactly true. So how that helps Biden I have. I have no idea, so I think you about him has left

any before have to watch a girl. So let's hit that Facebook, we have this big decision from the oversight. Facebook oversight board this week on trumps, indefinite suspension or the Oversight Board basically said, will, while you know Were you bothering us with this? Your your facebook, you make the decision. There are no rules by which you making these decisions by the waves were suggesting some and you ve had a fierce conservative reaction in my take on this, is obsolete. So much of what Trump posted is noxious and in wrong in and desires, but just silencing literally and one incident, the facebook, I think, Laura A or someone posted

interview with with trop whether they silences. What's that now doing there, too, to a former president stated just as you crazy to me, but then eat you, ve had a lark conservatives attacking Facebook over this, but all up, but in the course of doing it suggesting some some really some ideas, it probably don't make any sense terms policy, your eye, pics of richer you, you had a peace on this today, laying all but of that out, and I think that you know the most important part of it. For this part of our conversation is the idea that this whole, you know their advisory board is illusory, but You know one of the things that the that some of our friends on the right are saying is that these kind of advisory board? I guess Trump, thinks this- is a good idea. So, like all these,

companies should be saddled with these advisory board. As you point out, the Advisory board didn't do anything here, so that's you know that's nonsense, but why would you want the government to be able imposed that anyway? Then you have truly wrote about this. You have this situation down in Florida with the where he wants to fine companies that you know d platform. Conservatives figures or were we sensor them, which I think is also a bad idea for a number of reasons, not least of which is. It is not a lot of areas where we want federal regulation, but When it actually is interstate commerce as the internet, is that something that, if you let every state its own set of rules you never gonna, be able to have the internet be the internet, so this is a classic situation where it's gotta be Congress that does

whatever regulating has done. It can't be the individual states, so I think there are parts of the of the conservative partake on that are persuasive, like I think, TED crews and Bill Bore were correct to say that there has been a Baden switch here in the sense that, companies all at the beginning promised that they were going to be pluralistic or listed. Ninety illogical communications boards, and then when they get big. strong and powerful now they want own sense of their enemy, so they, you know they basically went back on what they said. They want to do, and I think Clarence Thomas Justice Thomas, has written about this recently and encourage the court to take a section two thirty case to review it and I think quite right. That section two thirty in the legal architecture that we're dealing with was put in place before

or the internet as we know it and as it currently exists, came into being so we're trying, to wit, we're trying to sort out. what's a which now around hall, but were both square Peggy into into the round? All this antiquated regulation, cattle that I agree with all that. The problem is that the proposed solutions that have been put out there, I think, are all along the lines of what we as conservatives should be fighting against, which is the idea I'm having the government come in and one way or the other regulate this. Why, as Charlie's pointed out, if you were peeled section two thirty. That would be worse for us not better for us, because it would just be more rampant. The budget more rampant and the other solution. This idea that the government will come in and tell them

what they are allowed to regulate or what they're allowed the centre in what they're, not whether they did it directly or whether they made everybody have one of these first amendment boards of freaks. Should boards, and then they regulated those boards. That would also be the governments regulation of speech should by everybody on First amendment grounds. So my idea for what it's worth is that we to be using incentives rather than regulation here, because I think incentives would work. Fine and I would analogies knowledge- Everybody'S- got their favorite analogy with this right? Some people wanted out there. Common carrier and there like this or that? I think the best analogy here- is the way nonprofit corporations are treated in the tax cuts, which is, if you want the tax treatment, the tax benefits

of being a nonprofit corporation. Then everybody knows you have to refrain from political activity. That doesn't mean you have to refrain from political activity. You couldn't it doesn't we're not looking to crack down on your first amendment rights if you want to engage in political activity, knock yourself out, but then you don't get the legal benefit under the tax code, and what I would say here is What these companies want is to be treated under the law immunized from lawsuits on the theory that they are internet communication services that do not discriminate according to content, even though they they obviously do discriminate going to content, and what I think needs to happen is section to thirty,

We should be amended so that Congress clearly lays out what you have to do in order to qualify for that immunity and the loophole. I think you need to close. Is this idea that each of these companies, in addition to the tree- It should all exemptions from the first amendment that they're allowed to police are also allowed to put in their own terms of service which just keep changing the b, the goalposts, where you know what the lines a regulation or and in some cases

don't even know what their terms of services, so this is kind of like the Black Box that they used to content discriminate. So what I think should happen is Congress should lay out here are the reasons that you can censor if you want this status and it's the normal first of Emmett exemptions, fighting words liable, you know fraud, communications, to promote crime, that sort of thing don't let them have their own their own term. service that muddy the waters. With respect to that, and then you just tell these guys, if you want this immunity, then that's what you have to do. You can't content discriminate if you wanna content discriminate. Fine, we're not against that

If twitter wants to be the New republic, where national review we're not against content discrimination right, but I think, if twitter and Facebook, or going to act like a left wing website, then they ought to bear the burdens that all of us it illogical websites they saw this doesn't doesn't run into first and then the problem is telling them what speech to to run. Run because there's a carrot, yeah they dont have they don't have to offer. All we're saying is: if you want this protection from lawsuits, which is a privilege from the government then, is what you have to do to qualify for it and we're not asking them to do anything other than adhere to the first amendment, which is you have freedom of speech, but the Supreme Court has laid out the clearest places, a case built chip, Linsky Verses, New Hampshire and night Forty two, but the Supreme Court is laid out all these exemptions from the first amendment. What what it covers

and their well known. You know you can't you can't incite violence, you can commit fraud, you can't promote crime, I mean they're there, the well known exemptions from the first a moment, and then I think, if you did, that they'd have nothing to complain about, because their not being told that they can't discriminate according to count they just being told if you want this legal immunity from lawsuits. You'll have to. U have to avoid content discrimination. If you want to do content discrimination, fine, but you're dead you don't get. The immunity, sir, has had some. I talked about this. This idea is: is there any Mccarthy proposal what the top my remember, I'm sure people have to talk

that I wrote about this about a year ago when I, when I first wrote about done about three twenty, I think it's just that. I think it probably the pantheon to thirty that the best thing to say about this- and I think just as Thomas lays this out- is that section two thirty isn't is very misunderstood. A lot of people think that it's a regulatory scheme- it's not it's a legal privilege from from lawsuits. So it is not there's no federal bureau.

proceeded enforces such into thirty its status and all I'm saying is tighten up the status. This is what you have to do to qualify for you shouldn't. You should re up that idea, because, although the airline workpeople hunting Radford, something that makes sense, it doesnt treble the constitution or create greater problems regardless, that's all the time we have this week there pod chasm produced by the incomparable Sarah should he thinks I want for listening and thank you and your Carthage thanks Ridge